Due to scheduling con?icts, the prospective case study of the hydraulic fracturing site near Mans?eld in DeSoto Parish, Louisiana, will be replaced by an alternative site. Sampling to establish baseline conditions for the study could not be completed before drilling was to begin on the site. While it was not a factor in the decision to cancel this case study, the site was also not ideal for collection of certain baseline samples, due in part to the anticipated slow rate of groundwater ?ow. We have been working closely with Chesapeake Energy (our indusz partner on this project) to identify a replacement site that meets the criteria for hydraulic fracturing study. A new site has been selected in Alfalfa County, Oklahoma. Draft Questions and Answers 1. Why was the newly selected prospective case study site not in the Haynesville Shale area? EPA was not able to replace this site with another one in the Haynesville Shale area because there were no available sites that satisfy our criteria while fitting into the schedules of both EPA and Chesapeake Energy. Therefore, we have worked with Chesapeake to evaluate potential replacement sites they have provided in areas where drilling activities remain high. 2. Why was the Alfalfa County site selected? The site in Alfalfa County meets the technical considerations for a site which EPA had outlined as relevant to a prospective case study. This includes factors such as being in an area without signi?cant pre-existing development, and having relatively shallow depths to good quality groundwater. Additionally, the site schedule for development is compatible with the EPA schedule for investigation. 2. Will this delay results for the ?nal Hydraulic Fracturing Report? EPA intends to establish a schedule, in agreement with our industry partner, that would make results available in 2014.