{"operation":"document","citation":"09000064818c98a6","title":"U.S. DOT/PHMSA - Draft Environmental Assessment for Columbia Gulf Transmission, Mainline 100, 200 and 300 pipelines located in Williamson and Davidson","source_type":"rulemaking","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"current","official":true,"published_on":null,"effective_on":null,"summary":"DRAFT PHMSA Special Permit Application Environmental Information Submittal Environmental Assessment Special Permit 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...","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/regulations-gov-attachment-09000064818c98a6.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/regulations-gov-attachment-09000064818c98a6.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/regulations-gov-attachment-09000064818c98a6","source_url":"https://downloads.regulations.gov/PHMSA-2008-0330-0008/attachment_1.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nDRAFT\nPHMSA Special Permit Application\nEnvironmental Information Submittal\nEnvironmental Assessment\nSpecial Permit Nos. PHMSA-2008-0066\nand PHMSA-2008-0330\nAugust 2014\nColumbia Gulf Transmission Company\n1700 MacCorkle Ave SE\nCharleston, West Virginia 25325-1273\nArea - 4\nWilson\nCounty\nDavidson\nCounty\nArea - 3\nArea - 2\nWilliamson\nCounty\nRutherford\nCounty\nPrepared by\nArea - 1\necology and environment, inc.\nGlobal Environmental Specialists\n02:1004044.0005.02/Columbia *EA Cover3.ai-8/22/14-GRA\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nDRAFT PHMSA Special Permit Application\nEnvironmental Information Submittal\nEnvironmental Assessment\nSpecial Permit Nos. PHMSA-2008-0066\nand PHMSA-2008-0330\nAugust 2014\nPrepared for:\nCOLUMBIA GULF TRANSMISSION COMPANY\n1700 MacCorkle Ave SE\nPO Box 1273\nCharleston, West Virginia 25325-1273\nPrepared by:\nECOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT, INC.\n368 Pleasant View Drive\nLancaster, New York 14086\n©2014 Ecology and Environment, Inc.\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\nHampshire to Hartsville PHMSA-2008-0066 and PHMSA-2008-0330 DRAFT Environmental Assessment\nAugust 2014\nTable of Contents\nSection Page\nList of Tables………………………………………………………………………………………………………….……………….iii\nList of Figures………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………...iii\nAcronyms and Abbreviations………………………………………………………………………………………….………iv\n1.0 Background ................................................................................................................. 1\n2.0 Site Description ........................................................................................................... 2\n3.0 4.0 Purpose and Need ....................................................................................................... 4\nAffected Resources and Environmental Consequences ................................................. 5\n4.1 Aesthetics ................................................................................................................... 5\n4.2 Agricultural Resources ............................................................................................... 6\n4.3 Air Quality .................................................................................................................. 7\n4.4 Biological Resources .................................................................................................. 8\n4.4.1 Land Cover/Vegetation ............................................................................................. 8\n4.4.2 Wildlife ...................................................................................................................... 8\n4.4.3 Federal and State Protected Species ........................................................................ 9\n4.5 Climate Change ........................................................................................................ 10\n4.6 Cultural Resources ................................................................................................... 10\n4.7 Environmental Justice .............................................................................................. 11\n4.8 Geology, Soils, and Mineral Resources .................................................................... 11\n4.9 Hazardous Materials ................................................................................................ 15\n4.10 Indian Trust Assets ................................................................................................... 16\n4.11 Land Use ................................................................................................................... 16\n4.12 Noise ........................................................................................................................ 17\n4.13 Recreation ................................................................................................................ 17\n4.14 Safety ....................................................................................................................... 18\n4.15 Socioeconomics ....................................................................................................... 19\n4.16 Topography .............................................................................................................. 20\n4.17 Transportation ......................................................................................................... 20\n4.18 Floodplains ............................................................................................................... 21\n4.19 Water Resources ...................................................................................................... 21\n5.0 Alternatives Considered and Environmental Impacts of Each Alternative ................... 22\n5.1 5.2 5.3 Alternative 1: Grant the Request with Conditions .................................................. 22\nAlternative 2: Deny the Request Resulting in the MAOP Reduction ....................... 23\nAlternative 3: Deny the Request Resulting in Pipe Replacement ............................ 24\n6.0 References ................................................................................................................ 24\nii\n\n<<<PAGE 4>>>\n\nHampshire to Hartsville PHMSA-2008-0066 and PHMSA-2008-0330 DRAFT Environmental Assessment\nAugust 2014\nAppendices\nA Figures\nB Site Reconnaissance Report\nC Federally Protected Species\nList of Tables\nTable Page\n1. Special Permit Segment Areas………………………………………………………………………….………………………2\nNearest Existing Access Roads for Each Area…………………………………………….………………………..….20\n2. List of Figures (Appendix A)\nFigure\n1. Project Location\n2a. Area 1 Aerial Imagery\n2b. Area 2 Aerial Imagery\n2c. Area 3 Aerial Imagery\n2d. Area 4 Aerial Imagery\n3. Land Use/Land Cover\n4. Geology\n5. Recreational Opportunities\n6. SSURGO Soils\n7. Water Resources\n8. Cultural Resources\n9. Ecoregions\n10. Seismic Hazard\n11. Mineral Resources\niii\n\n<<<PAGE 5>>>\n\nHampshire to Hartsville PHMSA‐2008‐0066 and PHMSA‐2008‐0330 DRAFT Environmental Assessment\nAugust 2014\nAcronyms and Abbreviations\nCFR Code of Federal Regulations\nColumbia Gulf Columbia Gulf Transmission Company\nDOT Department of Transportation\nEA Environmental Assessment\nEO Executive Order\nESA Endangered Species Act\nFEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency\nFERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission\nMAOP Maximum Allowable Operating Pressure\nML Mainline\nNEPA National Environmental Policy Act\nNGVD National Geodetic Vertical Datum\nNRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service\nNRHP National Register of Historic Places\nNWI National Wetlands Inventory\nPHMSA Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\nPIR Potential Impact Radius\nROW Right‐Of‐Way\nSHPO State Historic Preservation Office\nSSA Sole Source Aquifer\nTDEC‐DNH Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, Division of Natural Heritage\nTHC Tennessee Historical Commission\nTWRA Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency\nU.S.C. Unites States Code\nUSACE United States Army Corps of Engineers\nUSCB United States Census Bureau\nUSDA United States Department of Agriculture\nUSEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency\nUSFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service\nUSGS United States Geological Survey\niv\n\n<<<PAGE 6>>>\n\nHampshire to Hartsville PHMSA-2008-0066 and PHMSA-2008-0330 DRAFT Environmental Assessment\nAugust 2014\n1.0 Background\nOn March 2, 2010, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) granted\nColumbia Gulf Transmission Company (Columbia Gulf) a special permit (PHMSA-2008-0066) to operate\nspecial permit segments of the Mainline (ML) 100, 200, and 300 natural gas transmission pipelines at the\ncurrent maximum allowable operating pressure (MAOP), where a change in class locations occurred\nfrom Class 1 to Class 3. Furthermore, on April 13, 2010, PHMSA granted Columbia Gulf a special permit\n(PHMSA-2008-0330) at two additional special permit segments of ML 200 and 300 natural gas\ntransmission pipelines at the current MAOP, where a change in class locations occurred from Class 1 to\nClass 3. These special permits allow Columbia Gulf to continue to operate these 11 pipeline segments at\ntheir existing MAOP without replacement subject to several stringent conditions. Special Permit PHMSA-\n2008-0066 applies to nine natural gas pipeline segments on the 30-inch ML 100, 30-inch ML 200 and 36-\nin ML 300 pipelines operated by Columbia Gulf located in Williamson and Davidson Counties,\nTennessee. Special Permit PHMSA-2008-0330 applies to two natural gas pipeline segments on the 30-\ninch ML 200 and 36-inch ML 300 pipelines operated by Columbia Gulf located in Wilson County,\nTennessee.\nThis Environmental Assessment (EA) was prepared by Columbia Gulf to assist PHMSA in preparation of\ntheir EA in accordance with Department of Transportation (DOT) Order 5610.1C, the National\nEnvironmental Policy Act (NEPA) 42 United States Code (U.S.C.) §§ 4321 – 4375, and the Council on\nEnvironmental Quality regulations 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) §§ 1500-1508. NEPA requires\nthat federal agencies analyze a proposed federal action to determine whether the action will have a\nsignificant impact on the human environment.\nColumbia Gulf understands that PHMSA analyzes special permit requests for potential risks to public\nsafety and the environment that could result from their decision to grant or deny the request. As part of\nthis analysis, PHMSA evaluates whether a special permit would impact the likelihood and consequences\nof a pipeline failure as compared to the status quo in the absence of the special permit. PHMSA may\ngrant the special permit request, grant the request with additional conditions, or deny the request.\nColumbia Gulf developed this EA to assist PHMSA in determining the effects of the permit decision, if\nany, on the environment.\nPursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60118(c) and 49 CFR § 190.341, Columbia Gulf understands that PHMSA may\nonly grant special permit requests that are consistent with pipeline safety. PHMSA will impose\nconditions in the special permit if PHMSA concludes they are necessary for safety, environmental\nprotection, or are otherwise in the public interest. If PHMSA determines that a special permit would be\ninconsistent with pipeline safety or is not justified, the application will be denied.\nProvided here is a summary of the three alternatives assessed in this EA. Section 5 provides detailed\ndescriptions of these alternatives and the results of implementation of each.\n1\n\n<<<PAGE 7>>>\n\nHampshire to Hartsville PHMSA-2008-0066 and PHMSA-2008-0330 DRAFT Environmental Assessment\nAugust 2014\n• Alternative 1: Grant the Request with Conditions (Preferred Alternative). This alternative\nwould allow Columbia Gulf to continue to operate the 11 pipeline segments at their current\nMAOP with conditions for increased inspection and monitoring of the segments. This option,\nwith the potential conditions, will provide the least impact to environment, residents,\nsurrounding land uses, operating requirements, and Columbia Gulf’s existing customers.\n• Alternative 2: Deny the Request Resulting in the MAOP Reductions. This alternative would\nforce Columbia Gulf to reduce its MAOP through the pipeline segments and therefore not allow\nColumbia Gulf to meet its contractual obligations with its current customers. This alternative is\nthought to be non-viable and is therefore not considered.\n• Alternative 3: Deny the Request Resulting in Pipe Replacement. If the special permits are\ndenied, Columbia Gulf would have to replace these 11 segments of the pipeline so that the\ncurrent MAOP could be maintained and Columbia Gulf could keep its contractual obligations.\nUnlike the other alternatives, implementing Alternative 3 would impact the environment,\nresidential landowners, scenic views, and county infrastructure. The replacements required in\nthis alternative would require additional financial costs that would increase fees for Columbia\nGulf’s existing customers.\n2.0 Site Description\nThe ML 100, ML 200, and ML 300 natural gas transmission pipeline system originates near Rayne,\nLouisiana, and crosses Mississippi, Tennessee, and Kentucky before terminating near Kenova, West\nVirginia. These special permit requests involve four areas along the pipeline in Williamson, Davidson,\nand Wilson Counties, Tennessee. Table 1 details the locations of each, along with the applicable permit\nnumber. Figure 1 (all figures are provided in Appendix A) shows the area locations, and Figures 2a\nthrough 2d provide aerial imagery of each area.\nTable 1. Special Permit Segment Areas\nPipeline\nPipeline\nDiameter Description\nCounty,\nState\nLength\n(feet)\nBegin\nStation\nEnd\nStation MAOP\nArea 1 (PHMSA-2008-0066)\nML 100 30-inch MP 30 - Tennessee State Hwy\n431\nWilliamson,\nTennessee 690 1584+69 1591+59 935\nML 200 30-inch MP 30 - Tennessee State Hwy\n431\nWilliamson,\nTennessee 1,081 1584+58 1595+39 1008\nML 300 36-inch MP 30 - Tennessee State Hwy\n431\nWilliamson,\nTennessee 534 1584+74 1590+08 1008\nArea 2 (PHMSA-2008-0066)\nML 100 30-inch MP 33.8 - McKays Mill Williamson,\nTennessee 10,797 1783+03 1891+00 935\nML 200 30-inch MP 33.8 - McKays Mill Williamson,\nTennessee 10,525 1785+75 1891+00 1008\nML 300 36-inch MP 33.8 - McKays Mill Williamson,\nTennessee 9,816 1792+84 1891+00 1008\n2\n\n<<<PAGE 8>>>\n\nHampshire to Hartsville PHMSA-2008-0066 and PHMSA-2008-0330 DRAFT Environmental Assessment\nAugust 2014\nTable 1. Special Permit Segment Areas\nPipeline\nPipeline\nDiameter Description\nCounty,\nState\nLength\n(feet)\nBegin\nStation\nEnd\nStation MAOP\nArea 3 (PHMSA-2008-0066)\nML 100 30-inch MP 41.9 - Sugar Valley Davidson,\nTennessee 5,567 2210+36 2266+03 935\nML 200 30-inch MP 41.9 - Sugar Valley Davidson,\nTennessee 5,487 2212+41 2267+28 1008\nML 300 36-inch MP 41.9 - Sugar Valley Davidson,\nTennessee 603 2208+45 2214+48 1008\nArea 4 (PHMSA-2008-0330)\nML 200 30-inch MP 57.4 - Mt Juliet Road Wilson,\nTennessee 1,600 3030+43 3046+43 935\nML 300 36-inch MP 57.4 - Mt Juliet Road Wilson,\nTennessee 1,600 3025+55 3041+55 1008\nArea 1 (Special Permit No. PHMSA-2008-0066) includes three segments of pipeline, a 690-foot section of\nML 100, a 1,081-foot section of ML 200, and a 534-foot section of ML 300. In total, Area 1 is\napproximately 1,081 feet in length. This area is located within the municipal limits of Franklin,\nTennessee, and on the southwestern side of the Forrest Crossing Golf Club. Area 1 is a maintained\nherbaceous right-of-way (ROW) within a landscape consisting of a mixture of forested areas, open fields,\nand residential areas. The topography at Area 1 slopes gently to the northeast, with elevations ranging\nfrom 690 to 716 feet above National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD) for mean sea level. Appendix B\nincludes copies of site photographs that show various features associated with Area 1.\nArea 2 (Special Permit No. PHMSA-2008-0066) includes three segments of pipeline: a 10,797-foot\nsection of ML 100, a 10,525-foot section of ML 200, and a 9,816-foot section of ML 300. In total, Area 2\nis approximately 10,900 feet in length. This area is located within the municipal limits of Franklin,\nTennessee, and crosses McKay’s Mill Subdivision. Area 2 is a maintained herbaceous ROW within a\nlandscape consisting of a mixture of forested areas, open fields, and residential areas. The topography at\nArea 2 is gently rolling with a steep slope on the northeast end of the ROW. Elevations range from 740\nto 1,030 feet above NGVD for mean sea level. Appendix B includes copies of site photographs that show\nvarious features associated with Area 2.\nArea 3 (Special Permit No. PHMSA-2008-0066) includes three segments of pipeline, a 5,567-foot section\nof ML 100, a 5,487-foot section of ML 200, and a 603-foot section of ML 300. In total, Area 3 is\napproximately 5,700 feet in length. This area is located within the municipal limits of Nashville,\nTennessee, and is adjacent to the Sugar Valley Subdivision. The area is a maintained herbaceous ROW\nwithin a landscape consisting of a mixture of forested areas, open fields, and residential areas. The\ntopography in Area 3 is relatively flat and slopes upward to the northeast with elevations ranging from\n542 to 579 feet above NGVD for mean sea level. Appendix B includes copies of site photographs that\nshow various features associated with Area 3.\nArea 4 (Special Permit No. PHMSA-2008-0330) includes two segments of pipeline, a 1,600-foot section\nof 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\n3\n\n<<<PAGE 9>>>\n\nHampshire to Hartsville PHMSA-2008-0066 and PHMSA-2008-0330 DRAFT Environmental Assessment\nAugust 2014\nlocated adjacent and south of Mt. Juliet, Tennessee, and is adjacent to Providence Marketplace, a\ncommercial development. The area is a maintained herbaceous ROW within a landscape consisting of a\nmixture of forested areas and commercial development. The topography is relatively flat, with\nelevations ranging from 580 to 620 feet above the NGVD for mean sea level. Appendix B includes copies\nof site photographs that show various features associated with Area 4.\nOn August 14 and 15, 2014, a field team consisting of two qualified biologists visited these areas to\ndocument environmental resources on or immediately adjacent to the areas. Appendix B contains the\nsite reconnaissance report from this event. There are no schools, libraries, playgrounds, parks, theatres,\nor hospitals on, or immediately adjacent to, any of the areas. Based on U.S. Census data (USCB 2010),\nthe population of Williamson County was 183,182 in 2010 and the median household income was\n$91,146. The population of Davidson County was 626,681 in 2010, with a median household income of\n$46,676. Finally, the population of Wilson County was 113,993 in 2010, with a median household\nincome of $61,353.\n3.0 Purpose and Need\nThe purpose of this EA is to identify resources associated with the natural and human environment as\nthey relate to Areas 1 through 4. This EA has been prepared to accompany special permit petitions to\nPHMSA for relief from the requirements of 49 CFR 192.611(a) for Areas 1 through 4, which experienced\nclass location changes from Class 1 to Class 3.\nCoverage of the identified areas under each special permit will allow the continued operation of the\nidentified segments of the pipeline at the existing MAOP without pipeline replacement and its\nassociated cost and impacts. The existing Special Permit No. PHMSA-2008-0066 and Special Permit No.\nPHMSA-2008-0330 contain numerous conditions to ensure and manage the operation, maintenance,\ndesign, and integrity threats for the covered pipelines. These special permits impose stringent\nconditions over not only the special permit segments (the areas identified in each permit where the\nclass changes have occurred), but also an area corresponding to 25 miles on each side of the special\npermit segments or the closest upstream or downstream pig launcher/receiver. The aggressive\nassessment, review, and management of the length of pipeline covered under each special permit far\noutweighs the public safety benefit that would be obtained through the replacement of the relatively\nsmall areas of identified Class 3 pipeline. The actions specified in these special permits will help ensure\npipeline and public safety to a much larger area than would be gained through pipe replacement.\nIn addition, replacement of the pipeline areas would involve the ground disturbance during excavation\nfor the installation of the new pipe and removal of the old pipe within the vicinity of the identified areas\nwith associated environmental and other impacts. Avoiding outages associated with Class 3 upgrades\nensures reliable gas transportation and delivery for customers and avoids the need for gas blow downs\nto the atmosphere.\n4\n\n<<<PAGE 10>>>\n\nHampshire to Hartsville PHMSA-2008-0066 and PHMSA-2008-0330 DRAFT Environmental Assessment\nAugust 2014\n4.0 Affected Resources and Environmental Consequences\nThe following sections provide the potential affected resources and environmental consequences for\neach area in accordance with PHMSA’s Guidance for Special Permit Applications on Providing\nEnvironmental Information (PHMSA n.d.). These are as follows:\n• Aesthetics\n• Agricultural Resources\n• Air Quality\n• Biological Resources\n• Climate Change\n• Cultural Resources\n• Environmental Justice\n• Geology, Soils, and Mineral Resources\n• Hazardous Materials\n• Land Use\n• Noise\n• Recreation\n• Safety\n• Socioeconomics\n• Topography\n• Transportation\n• Floodplains\n• Water Resources\n• Indian Trust Assets\n4.1 Aesthetics\nThe land cover/land use within and surrounding the areas was examined to determine aesthetics or\nvisual character within the vicinity of the areas in questions. The following subsections provide\nsummaries for each of the areas. Figures 3a through 3c show land use/land cover data within the vicinity\nof the four areas (USDA 2011). There are no scenic highways or trails in the vicinity of the areas, as\nshown in Figure 4.\nArea 1. Area 1 traverses maintained herbaceous ROW and is surrounded by hay/pasture and a small\narea of scrub/shrub at the northeastern end. The northeastern end of Area 1 ends at the Harpeth River\nwith a golf course intermixed with houses on the opposite side of the Harpeth River (USDA 2011).\nArea 2. Area 2 traverses maintained herbaceous ROW within a landscape dominated by hay/pasture on\nthe southwestern end and developed, open space; mixed forest; and deciduous forest on the northern\nend. The central portion of Area 2 traverses McKay’s Mill Subdivision, a residential development (USDA\n2011).\nArea 3. Area 3 traverses maintained herbaceous ROW within a landscape that is dominated by\ncultivated crops, developed areas of low intensity, deciduous forest, and hay/pasture. The northern\nportion of Area 3 abuts Sugar Valley Subdivision, a residential development (USDA 2011).\nArea 4. Area 4 traverses maintained herbaceous ROW. The southern half of the ROW traverses\nlandscape dominated by shrub/scrub, herbaceous, deciduous forest, and mixed forest. The northern half\nof the ROW abuts commercial development (USDA 2011).\nThe preferred alternative would involve no ground disturbance and no change in existing conditions; as\nsuch, there would be no impact to aesthetics. Existing conditions would remain undisturbed.\n5\n\n<<<PAGE 11>>>\n\nHampshire to Hartsville PHMSA-2008-0066 and PHMSA-2008-0330 DRAFT Environmental Assessment\nAugust 2014\nAlternative 3 would result in a temporary, localized impact during the construction of the pipeline\nreplacement. This would be from the construction activities occurring within the areas and any potential\naccess roads or staging areas that would be needed as part of the replacement project. Once\nconstruction and restoration is complete, these areas would return to their previous visual character for\noperation of the pipeline.\n4.2 Agricultural Resources\nPrime farmland and farmland of statewide importance have been identified by the United States\nDepartment of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) as areas of major\nimportance in meeting the nation’s short- and long-range needs for food and fiber. Prime farmland, as\ndefined by the NRCS, is land that has the best combination of physical and chemical characteristics for\nproducing food, feed, forage, fiber, and oilseed crops. Prime farmland soils have properties that are\nfavorable for the economy and produce the highest crop yields with minimal inputs of energy and other\neconomic resources. Farmland of statewide importance, as defined by the NRCS, is land, in addition to\nprime and unique farmland, that is of statewide importance for the production of food, feed, fiber,\nforage, and oil seed crops. Generally, additional farmlands of statewide importance include those that\nare nearly prime farmland and that economically produce high yields of crops when treated and\nmanaged according to acceptable farming methods. Some may produce as high a yield as prime\nfarmlands if conditions are favorable. In some states, additional farmlands of statewide importance may\ninclude tracts of land that have been designated for agriculture by state law.\nArea 1. According to the NRCS Web Soil Survey (NRCS 2014), 1,246 feet of Area 1 is underlain by prime\nfarmland soils. This includes the Maury silt loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes, eroded. There are no farmlands\nof statewide importance underlain or in the vicinity of Area 1. Figure 5a details the soils and prime\nfarmland within the vicinity of Area 1 as mapped by the NRCS. The existing ROW within Area 1 is not\ncurrently utilized for agriculture, but adjacent areas are utilized for row crops.\nArea 2. According to the NRCS Web Soil Survey (NRCS 2014), 9,787 feet of Area 2 is underlain by prime\nfarmland soils. This includes the following soils:\n• Armour silt loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes;\n• Armour silt loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes, eroded;\n• Egam silt loam, phosphatic;\n• Huntington silt loam, phosphatic; and\n• Lindside silt loam, phosphatic.\nThere are no farmlands of statewide importance underlain or in the vicinity of Area 2. Figure 5b details\nthe soils and prime farmland within the vicinity of Area 2 as mapped by the NRCS. The existing ROW\nwithin Area 2 is not currently utilized for agriculture, but adjacent areas are utilized for row crops.\n6\n\n<<<PAGE 12>>>\n\nHampshire to Hartsville PHMSA-2008-0066 and PHMSA-2008-0330 DRAFT Environmental Assessment\nAugust 2014\nArea 3. According to the NRCS Web Soil Survey (NRCS 2014), 4,753 feet of Area 3 is underlain by prime\nfarmland soils. This includes the following soils:\n• Armour silt loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes;\n• Arrington silt loam;\n• Egam silt loam, phosphatic; and\n• Lindside silt loam.\nThere are no farmlands of statewide importance underlain or in the vicinity of Area 3. Figure 5c details\nthe soils and prime farmland within the vicinity of Area 3 as mapped by the NRCS. The existing ROW\nwithin Area 3 is not currently utilized for agriculture, but adjacent areas are utilized for row crops.\nArea 4. According to the NRCS Web Soil Survey (NRCS 2014), Area 4 is not underlain by prime farmland\nsoils or soils of statewide importance. Figure 5d details the soils within the vicinity of Area 4 as mapped\nby the NRCS. Additionally, neither the existing ROW nor the adjacent areas are currently utilized for\nagricultural purposes.\nThe preferred alternative would involve no ground disturbance and no change in existing conditions; as\nsuch, there would be no impact to agricultural resources. Existing conditions would remain undisturbed.\nAlternative 3 would not result in impacts to agricultural as none of the areas traverse lands with\nagricultural operations. Upon completion of construction, Columbia Gulf would restore the ROW and\nthe soils so that the ROW could be utilized for agricultural operations in the future.\n4.3 Air Quality\nNeither Williamson, Davidson, nor Wilson Counties, Tennessee, are in nonattainment areas as\ndesignated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA; USEPA 2014). Williamson\nCounty is designated as being in maintenance status for ozone and lead, and both Davidson and Wilson\nCounties are designated as being in maintenance status for ozone. For Alternative 3, there would be\ntemporary air impacts due to the use of construction equipment and vehicles. No aboveground facilities\nsuch as compressor stations or meter stations would be required for a pipeline replacement; therefore,\nno operational impacts are anticipated for air quality.\nThe preferred alternative would involve no ground disturbance and no change in existing conditions; as\nsuch, there would be no impact to air quality. Existing conditions would remain undisturbed. For\nAlternative 3, there would be temporary air impacts due to the use of construction equipment and\nvehicles. No aboveground facilities such as compressor stations or meter stations would be required for\na pipeline replacement; therefore, no operational impacts are anticipated for air quality.\n7\n\n<<<PAGE 13>>>\n\nHampshire to Hartsville PHMSA-2008-0066 and PHMSA-2008-0330 DRAFT Environmental Assessment\nAugust 2014\n4.4 Biological Resources\nThe following subsections detail the biological resources associated with the Project. They are as\nfollows:\n• Land Cover/Vegetation;\n• Wildlife; and\n• Federal and State Protected Species.\n4.4.1 Land Cover/Vegetation\nBased on the site visit, ROW vegetation at Areas 1, 2, and 3 are a maintained herbaceous ROW within a\nlandscape consisting of a mixture of forested areas, open fields, and residential areas. No water\nresources were traversed by Area 1. Three streams and one small emergent wetland are traversed by\nArea 2. Two steams and one emergent wetland are traversed by Area 3. Area 4 is a maintained\nherbaceous ROW within a landscape consisting of a mixture of forested areas and commercial\ndevelopment. Three emergent wetlands were found to be traversed by Area 4.\nHerbaceous species that were typically found in the maintained herbaceous ROW include yellow foxtail\n(Setaria pumila), switchgrass (Panicum virgatum), red clover (Trifolium pratense), Indian goosegrass\n(Eleusine indica), purple passionflower (Passiflora incarnata), ribwort plantain (Plantago lanceolata), and\ngrasses (Paspalum spp.).\nSpecies typically found in the deciduous forests include dogwood (Cornus florida), hackberry (Celtis\noccidentalis), American elm (Ulmus americana), eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana), red maple\n(Acer rubrum), red oak (Quercus rubra), eastern black walnut (Juglans nigra), black locust (Robinia\npseudoacacia), and black cherry (Prunus serotina).\nSpecies typically found in the emergent wetlands include late goldenrod (Solidago altissima), cattail\n(Typha latifolia), sedges (Carex spp., Cyperus spp., and Eleocharis spp.) and, Canada rush (Juncus\ncanadensis).\n4.4.2 Wildlife\nTypical wildlife species in Williamson, Davidson, and Wilson Counties include white-tailed deer\n(Odocoileus virginianus), eastern wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo silvestris), mourning dove (Zenaida\nmacroura), American woodcock (Scolopax minor), bobcat (Lynx rufus), coyote (Canis latrins), red fox\n(Vulpes vulpes), gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus), ruffed grouse (Bonasa umbellus), northern\nbobwhite quail (Colinus virginianus), eastern cottontail rabbit (Sylvilagus floridanus), raccoon (Procyon\nlotor), striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), eastern gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), and the eastern fox\nsquirrel (Sciurus niger). All species may be found along all segments of pipeline.\nTypical fisheries species found in the Mill Creek watershed, which traverses Davidson County, include\nlargemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieu), rock bass\n(Ambloplites rupestris), channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus), brown trout (Salmo trutta), rainbow trout\n8\n\n<<<PAGE 14>>>\n\nHampshire to Hartsville PHMSA‐2008‐0066 and PHMSA‐2008‐0330 DRAFT Environmental Assessment\nAugust 2014\n(Oncorhynchus mykiss), common bream (Abramis brama), blue gill (Lepomis macrochirus), and yellow\nperch (Perca flavescens).\n4.4.3 Federal and State Protected Species\nA review of United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) designated critical habitat data, USFWS\nEndangered Species County Lists, and state natural heritage inventories to determine the federally and\nstate protected species that could potentially occur along the project facilities. No USFWS‐designated\ncritical habitat is crossed by the areas.\nThe Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531, et seq.), was designed to\nprevent the extinction of native and foreign species of wild flora and fauna. The ESA defines an\nendangered species as any animal or plant in danger of extinction and a threatened species as any plant\nor animal likely to become extinct within the foreseeable future. This act makes it illegal to harass, harm,\nor kill listed species and to possess, transport, buy, or sell the species or parts thereof in the course of an\ninterstate or foreign commercial activity. A permit authorizing any prohibited activity may be issued\nfollowing a formal consultation with the USFWS.\nThe Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, Division of Natural Heritage (TDEC‐DNH)\noversees the plant program and coordinates activities with other state agencies, while the Tennessee\nWildlife Resources Agency (TWRA) oversees protection of animal species. TDEC‐DNH also administers\nUSFWS‐funded projects designed to conserve and protect animal species of federal concern.\nTable C‐1 in Appendix C provides a summary of the federally listed species that could occur within the\nareas.\nThe preferred alternative would involve no ground disturbance and no change in existing conditions. As\nsuch, there would be no impact to biological resources as a result of this project. Under Alternative 3,\nthe pipeline replacement would temporary impacts on vegetation and land use in the area of the\nreplacement and any associated access roads or staging areas that could be required. In addition, under\nAlternative 3 there is the potential to impact the federally listed endangered Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis)\nand the northern long‐eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis) which is currently a candidate species for\nfederal listing. Indiana bats and northern long‐eared bats utilize forested cover types in the summer for\nroosting habitat. If any trees greater than 3‐inch diameter breast height (dbh) would need to be\nremoved, the USFWS would likely require bat surveys to determine if any trees to be removed are\nroosting trees for the Indiana bat or Northern long‐eared bat. Although the USFWS considers trees\ngreater than 5‐inch dbh potential roosting trees for the Indiana bat, smaller trees down to 3‐inch dbh\ncan be potential roosting trees for the northern long‐eared bat. The construction of this pipeline\nreplacement would likely be subject to seasonal restrictions in order to minimize impacts to these\nspecies. If this alternative was selected, further consultation with the USFWS would be required.\n9\n\n<<<PAGE 15>>>\n\nHampshire to Hartsville PHMSA-2008-0066 and PHMSA-2008-0330 DRAFT Environmental Assessment\nAugust 2014\n4.5 Climate Change\nThe preferred alternative would involve no ground disturbance and no change in existing conditions; as\nsuch, there would be no impact to climate change. Existing conditions would remain undisturbed. For\nAlternative 3, no aboveground facilities such as compressor stations or meter stations would be\nrequired for a pipeline replacement and, therefore, the project would not likely result in impacts to\nclimate change.\n4.6 Cultural Resources\nA preliminary assessment of structures listed by the National Park Service’s National Register of Historic\nPlaces (NRHP) (NRHP 2014a, 2014b, 2014c) within one mile of Areas 1 through 4 was conducted. No\nlisted structures are present at or near Areas 3 and 4. The following private historic homes are listed on\nthe NRHP and located within one mile of Areas 1 and 2 (Figure 6).\nThe following NRHP sites are within one mile of Area 1:\n• Douglass-Reams House was added to the NRHP in 1988 and is currently vacant/not in use (NRHP\n2014a).\n• McGavock-Gaines House was added to the NRHP in 1988 and is currently vacant/not in use\n(NRHP 2014a).\n• Robert Hodge House was also known as the Sullivan Farm House. This private historic home was\nadded to the NRHP in 2005 (NRHP 2014b).\nThe following NRHP sites are within one mile of Area 2:\n• John Herbert House was added to the NRHP in 1988 (NRHP 2014b).\n• Ravenswood was added to the NRHP in 1983 (NRHP 2014c).\n• John Seward House is also known as Seward Hall. This private historic home was added to the\nNRHP in 1988 (NRHP 2014c).\n• Joseph Wilson House was added to the NRHP in 1988 (NRHP 2014c).\nColumbia Gulf maintains an annual categorical exclusion agreement with the Tennessee Historical\nCommission (THC). This agreement allows Columbia Gulf to conduct minor activities in the existing and\npreviously disturbed pipeline ROW without further consultation with THC regarding cultural,\narchaeological, or paleontological resources.\nThe preferred alternative would involve no ground disturbance and no change in existing conditions. As\nsuch, there would be no impact to cultural resources. Existing conditions would remain undisturbed. For\nAlternative 3, Columbia Gulf would need to consult with the THC to determine if any potential work\nspaces for the pipeline replacement would be sited in areas not previously disturbed by the construction\nof the original pipeline. If so, cultural resource surveys would likely be required to determine if there are\nany resources present and avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures would be likely if they are\npresent.\n10\n\n<<<PAGE 16>>>\n\nHampshire to Hartsville PHMSA-2008-0066 and PHMSA-2008-0330 DRAFT Environmental Assessment\nAugust 2014\n4.7 Environmental Justice\nArea 1 is in U.S. Census Track 509.08, Block 2008. Area 2 is in U.S. Census Track 510.01, Blocks 2002,\n2015, 2066, 2069, 3005, 3006, 3007, and 3010, and Group Block 2. Area 3 is in U.S. Census Track 191.14,\nGroup Block 1 and Track 191.15, Group Block 1. Area 4 is in U.S. Census Track 309.01, Block 1004 and\n1013. The percent minority population near Areas 1 and 2 is 10.6 percent. The percent minority\npopulation near Area 3 is 10.6 percent, while the percent minority population near Area 4 is 11.1\npercent. The population of Williamson County was 183,182 in 2010 and the median household income\nwas $91,146. The population of Davidson County was 626,681 in 2010 with a median household income\nof $46,676. Also taken from U.S. Census data, the population of Wilson County was 113,993 in 2010 with\na median household income of $61,353.\nThe preferred alternative would involve no ground disturbance and no change in existing conditions; as\nsuch, there would be no impact to the adjacent communities. Existing conditions would remain\nundisturbed. For Alternative 3, the construction of the pipeline replacement would be a short-term\nevent and would not be expected to impact adjacent communities.\n4.8 Geology, Soils, and Mineral Resources\nAccording to the USEPA (USEPA 2012), Areas 1, 2 and 4 are in the Outer Nashville Basin (71h) and Area 3\nis in the Inner Nashville Basin (71i) of the Interior Plateau (Ecoregion 71). The Interior Plateau extends\nfrom southern Indiana and Ohio to northern Alabama. This diverse ecoregion is made up of:\n• Rock types that are distinctly different from the coastal plain sands of western Tennessee\necoregions;\n• Landscapes of open hills, irregular plains, and prairies;\n• Mississippian to Ordovician-age limestone, chert, sandstone, siltstone, and shale; and\n• Oak-hickory forest, with some areas of bluestem prairie and cedar glades. (Arnwine et al. 2000)\nThe Outer Nashville Basin is made up of rolling hills and slightly higher elevations than the Inner\nNashville Basin. Limestone rock and soils within the region are high in phosphorus. Commercial\nphosphorus is mined. The dominant land cover is deciduous forest, pasture, and cropland. The region\nhas areas of urban development, including Nashville, which is located in the northwest portion of the\nregion. Streams are low to moderate gradient, with occasionally high densities of fish (Arnwine et al.\n2000).\nThe Inner Nashville Basin is less hilly and lower in elevation than the Outer Nashville Basin. Shallow soils\nare redder and lower in phosphorous than those of the Outer Basin. Streams are also lower gradient and\nflow over large expanses of limestone bedrock. Hardwoods are mostly maple, oak, hickory, and ash.\nUrban, suburban, and industrial land use is increasing from the Outer Nashville Basin (Arnwine et al.\n2000). Figure 7 depicts these ecoregions.\n11\n\n<<<PAGE 17>>>\n\nHampshire to Hartsville PHMSA-2008-0066 and PHMSA-2008-0330 DRAFT Environmental Assessment\nAugust 2014\nAccording to the United States Geological Survey (USGS) Seismic Map (USGS 2008), there is a 2 percent\nprobability in a 50-year period that an earthquake would occur near Areas 1 through 4 at an intensity\nthat exceeds VI on the Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale (USGS 2013). ","truncated":true,"body_characters":125047}