1.0 INTRODUCTION 

On September 8, 2006, Kinder Morgan Louisiana Pipeline LLC (KMLP) filed an application with 

the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) under section 7(c) of the Natural Gas 

Act (NGA). As filed in Docket No. CP06-449-000, KMLP seeks a Certificate of Public Convenience and 

Necessity (Certificate) to construct, operate, and maintain a natural gas pipeline in southwest Louisiana. 

For the purposes of this draft environmental impact statement (EIS), the project is referred to as the 

“Project” or “KMLP Project.” 

The Project has been designed to deliver a peak day capacity of not less than 3,395,000 

decatherms (Dth) of regasified natural gas from the Sabine Pass Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Terminal 

to various intrastate and interstate natural gas pipeline systems. The Sabine Pass LNG Terminal is under 

construction, and will be owned and operated by Sabine Pass LNG, L.P., on an 853-acre tract of land 

along the eastern bank of Sabine Pass, south of Louisiana State Highway (SH) 82 in southwestern 

Louisiana. The FERC issued an Order on December 21, 2004, granting approval under Section 3(a) of 

the NGA for Sabine Pass LNG, L.P.’s proposal (FERC Docket No. CP04-47-000) to construct and 

operate Phase I facilities at the LNG import terminal and granting approval under Section 7(c) of the 

NGA for 16 miles of 42-inch-diameter pipeline and associated facilities (called the Sabine Pass Pipeline). 

This order was based on, among other analyses, the Final Environmental Impact Statement, Sabine Pass 

LNG and Pipeline Project (Phase I Project FEIS) published in November 2004 (FERC 2004). Sabine 

Pass LNG, L.P. has subsequently applied for, and the FERC issued an Environmental Assessment in May 

2006 on, proposed expanded – or Phase II – facilities at the terminal (FERC 2006a). These activities and 

facilities at the Sabine Pass LNG Terminal are not within the scope of the Project. 

Pipelines and associated facilities proposed by KMLP for the Project include: 

• Leg 1 – 132 miles of 42-inch-diameter pipeline beginning within the Sabine Pass LNG 

Terminal in Cameron Parish and extending northward and easterly through Calcasieu, 

Jefferson Davis, and Acadia Parishes until it connects with an existing Columbia Gulf 

Transmission (CGT) interstate pipeline in Evangeline Parish, Louisiana. 

• Leg 2 – 1.22 miles of 36-inch-diameter pipeline beginning within the Sabine Pass LNG 

Terminal and extending to a point of interconnection with the existing Natural Gas Pipeline 

Company of America (NGPL) pipeline just south of SH 82 in Cameron Parish, Louisiana. 

• The Florida Gas Transmission (FGT) Lateral – 2.3 miles of 24-inch-diameter pipeline 

extending eastwardly from Leg 1 at approximately milepost (MP) 110.60 until it connects 

with the existing FGT Company's Compressor Station #7 near the town of Williams in 

Acadia Parish, Louisiana. 

• Associated mainline block valves (MLVs), metering, tie-in, and pigging facilities. 

To the extent feasible, KMLP Project rights-of-way would parallel and overlap existing pipeline 

and utility rights-of-way, while providing a safe separation distance between the KMLP Project and any 

existing pipelines and utility lines. The width of the necessary construction rights-of-way for the various 

KMLP pipeline segments would differ according to the type of terrain encountered and the corresponding 

pipeline construction method that would be used, as further discussed in section 2 of this draft EIS. 

Approximately 3,031 acres of land would be temporarily affected by construction of the pipeline, storage 

yards, access roads, and aboveground facilities. Approximately 841 acres of land would be permanently 

affected by operation of the Project. 

 1-1 Introduction 
We1

 prepared this draft EIS to assess the environmental impact associated with construction, 

operation, and maintenance of the KMLP Project in Cameron, Calcasieu, Jefferson Davis, Acadia, and 

Evangeline Parishes, Louisiana as summarized above and more fully described in section 2 of this draft 

EIS. 

1.1 PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED 

The KMLP Project would site, construct, operate, and maintain the natural gas pipelines and 

associated infrastructure to deliver regasified LNG from the Sabine Pass LNG Terminal into the national 

pipeline and underground gas storage grid. The two capacity holders at the Sabine Pass LNG Terminal 

(Total Gas & Power North America and Chevron U.S.A.) are the shippers on the KMLP Project. The 

Project would provide access to an additional 11 inter-and intra-state natural gas pipelines at 14 

interconnect points with a total take-away capacity of about 4.0 billion cubic feet per day (Bcf/d) and a 

total downstream interconnecting capacity of about 11.4 Bcf/d. These pipelines serve markets throughout 

much of the eastern half of the United States. Having such broad access to markets in the Gulf Coast, 

Northeast, Mid-Atlantic, South, Midwest, and Southeast, through multiple pipeline connections, would 

allow shippers to redirect supplies as pipeline capacity is available and in response to market dynamics. 

The pipeline system would provide natural gas delivery flexibility in addition to widespread market 

access. 

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Energy Information Administration (EIA) forecasts 

increasing demand for natural gas and a need for additional supplies of natural gas. In its Annual Energy 

Outlook 2006, the EIA projects that natural gas demand in the United States will grow from 22.4 trillion 

cubic feet (Tcf) in 2004 to almost 26.9 Tcf in 2030 (DOE 2006). About 60 percent of the demand growth 

is projected by EIA to occur east of the Mississippi River, which is the area served by the pipelines that 

would be connected to the KMLP Project. With an expected decline in imports from Canada, and modest 

increases from domestic production, LNG is expected to be a major supplier of this need. LNG imports 

in the EIA reference case reach 12 Bcf/d by 2030, or 16 percent of total demand. The importance of LNG 

to natural gas markets lies in providing additional supplies that help to moderate prices and in giving 

North American markets access to broader world-wide natural gas resources. 

1.2 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THIS STATEMENT 

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

natural gas pipeline facilities. The FERC is the lead federal agency for the preparation of this draft EIS in 

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

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

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

the results of the draft EIS as an element in its review of KMLP’s application to determine whether to 

authorize the project. The FERC will consider the environmental issues, including our recommended 

mitigation measures, as well as non-environmental issues in making its decision. Final authorization 

would be granted only if the FERC finds that the Project is in the public interest. The environmental 

impact assessment and mitigation development described herein are important factors in this final 

determination. 

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

cooperating agencies for the preparation of this draft EIS. A cooperating federal agency has jurisdiction 

 

1

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

 1-2 Introduction 
by law or special expertise with respect to environmental impacts involved with the proposal and is 

involved in the NEPA analysis. The Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries (LDWF) and the 

U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), National 

Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries Service) also assisted us in the preparation of this draft EIS. 

Our principal purposes in preparing this draft EIS are to: 

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

Project; 

• Describe and assess reasonable alternatives to the Project that would avoid or minimize 

adverse effects on the human environment; 

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

and 

• Facilitate public involvement in identifying the significant environmental impacts. 

Our analysis in this draft EIS focuses on the facilities that would be under the FERC’s 

jurisdiction. The FERC jurisdictional facilities included in the Project would consist of three segments of 

pipelines as described above, including aboveground sites providing delivery interconnections, MLVs, 

pigging facilities, control systems, and other facilities, as further described in section 2 of this draft EIS. 

No compressor stations are proposed as part of the Project. 

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

wetlands; upland vegetation; wildlife; aquatic resources; essential fish habitat (EFH); threatened, 

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

cultural resources; air quality and noise; reliability and safety; cumulative effects; and alternatives. This 

draft EIS describes the affected environment as it currently exists, discusses the environmental 

consequences of the Project, and compares the Project’s potential impact to that of alternatives. This draft 

EIS also presents our conclusions and recommended mitigation measures. 

1.3 PERMITS, APPROVALS, AND REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS 

As the lead federal agency for the KMLP Project, the FERC is required to comply with section 7 

of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act 

(MSA), section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), and section 307 of the Coastal 

Zone Management Act of 1972 (CZMA). Each of these statutes has been taken into account in the 

preparation of this document. 

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

federal agency (e.g., the FERC) should not “...jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered 

species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of habitat of such species 

which is determined...to be critical...” (16 United States Code (USC) § 1536(a)(2)(1988)). The FERC, or 

the applicant as a non-federal party, is required to consult with the FWS and NOAA Fisheries Service to 

determine whether any federally listed or proposed threatened or endangered species or their designated 

critical habitat occur in the vicinity of the Project. If, upon review of existing data or data provided by the 

applicant, the FERC determines that these species or habitats may be affected by the Project, the FERC is 

required to prepare a biological assessment to identify the nature and extent of adverse impact, and to 

recommend measures that would avoid the habitat and/or species, or would reduce potential impact to 

 1-3 Introduction 
acceptable levels. If, however, the FERC determines that no federally listed or proposed threatened or 

endangered species or their designated critical habitat would be affected by the Project, no further action 

is necessary under the ESA. See section 4.7 of this draft EIS for the status of this review. 

The MSA, as amended by the Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-267), 

established procedures designed to identify, conserve, and enhance EFH for those species regulated under 

a federal fisheries management plan. The MSA requires federal agencies to consult with NOAA Fisheries 

Service on all actions or proposed actions authorized, funded, or undertaken by the agency that may 

adversely affect EFH (MSA §305(b)(2)). Although absolute criteria have not been established for 

conducting EFH consultations, NOAA Fisheries Service recommends consolidated EFH consultations 

with interagency coordination procedures required by other statutes, such as NEPA, the Fish and Wildlife 

Coordination Act, or the ESA in order to reduce duplication and improve efficiency (50 CFR 600.920(f)). 

As part of the consultation process, the FERC has prepared an EFH Assessment included in section 4.6.3 

of this draft EIS. 

Section 106 of the NHPA requires the FERC to take into account the effects of its undertakings 

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

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

religious or cultural importance, and to afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) an 

opportunity to comment on the undertaking. The FERC has requested that KMLP, as a non-federal party, 

assist in meeting the FERC’s obligation under section 106 by preparing the necessary information and 

analyses as required by the ACHP procedures in 36 CFR 800. See section 4.10 of this draft EIS for the 

status of this review. 

The CZMA calls for the “effective management, beneficial use, protection, and development” of 

the nation’s coastal zone and promotes active state involvement in achieving those goals. As a means to 

reach those goals, the CZMA requires participating states to develop management programs that 

demonstrate how these states will meet their obligations and responsibilities in managing their coastal 

areas. In the state of Louisiana, the Department of Natural Resources (LDNR) is the agency responsible 

for administering the Coastal Zone Management Program (CZMP). Because section 307 of the CZMA 

requires federal agency activities to be consistent to the maximum extent practicable within the 

enforceable policies of a management program, the FERC has requested that KMLP seek a determination 

of consistency with Louisiana’s CZMP. See section 4.8.5 of this draft EIS for additional discussion of 

Louisiana’s CZMP. 

In addition to the preceding authorities, the COE has the authority to issue permits for work or 

structures in navigable waters under section 10 of the River and Harbors Act and the discharge of dredged 

or fill material into waters of the United States under section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). The 

COE would regulate the filling and grading activities in wetlands and waterbodies crossed by the Project. 

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has the authority to review and veto COE decisions on 

section 404 permits. 

Major permits, approvals, and consultations required at the federal, state, and local levels for the 

Project are identified in table 1.3-1. At the federal level, required permits and approval authority outside 

of the FERC’s jurisdiction include compliance with the CWA and the Rivers and Harbors Act. The 

FERC encourages cooperation between applicants and state and local authorities, but this does not mean 

that state and local agencies, through application of state and local laws, may prohibit or unreasonably 

delay the construction or operation of facilities approved by the FERC. Any state or local permits issued 

 1-4 Introduction 
TABLE 1.3-1 

Major Permits, Approvals, and Consultations for the KMLP Project 

Agency Permit/Approval/Consultation 

FEDERAL AGENCIES 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission NGA Section 7(c), Certificate of Public Convenience and 

Necessity 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 Permit 

Rivers and Harbors Act Section 10 Individual Permit 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (U.S. Department 

of the Interior) 

Section 7, Endangered Species Act (ESA) Consultation, 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act Consultation 

National Marine Fisheries Service (U.S. Section 7, ESA Consultation 

Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration) Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management 

Act, Essential Fish Habitat Consultation 

Natural Resources Conservation Service (U.S. 

Department of Agriculture) 

Prime Farmland, Hydric Soil/Soil Erosion and Sedimentation, 

Seed Mixture, and Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) 

Lands Consultation 

STATE AGENCIES 

Louisiana Department of Natural Resources, Coastal Use Permit (CUP) 

Coastal Management Division Coastal Zone Management Plan Consistency Determination 

Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries State-listed Threatened and Endangered Species Consultation 

Consultations Regarding Activities in Sabine Lake and 

Protection of Oyster Resources 

Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality CWA, Section 401, Water Quality Certification 

Louisiana Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (LAPDES): 

Construction Stormwater General Permit and Hydrostatic Test 

Water General Permit 

Louisiana Department of Culture, Recreation, 

and Tourism, Office of Cultural Development, 

Division of Archaeology 

National Historic Preservation Act, Section 106 Consultation 

Louisiana Department of Transportation Road Crossing Permits 

LOCAL AGENCIES 

Parish Police Juries Building and Road Crossing Permits, Floodplain Development 

Permit 

Irrigation Districts Canal Crossing Approval 

Levee Districts Letter of No Objection 

Local entities (e.g., County Roads, Economic 

Development, etc.) 

Planning and Development Consultation 

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

FERC may issue.2

 

2

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

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

61,091 (1990) and 59 FERC ¶ 61,094 (1992). 

 1-5 Introduction 
1.4 PUBLIC REVIEW AND COMMENT 

On January 31, 2006, KMLP filed a request with the FERC to implement the Commission's PreFiling Process for the Project. Also on February 17, 2006, the FERC granted KMLP’s request and 

established a pre-filing docket number (PF06-16-000) to place information filed by KMLP and related 

documents issued by the FERC into the public record. The purpose of the Pre-Filing Process is to 

encourage the early involvement of interested stakeholders, facilitate interagency cooperation, and 

identify and resolve issues before an application is filed with the FERC. 

The application for the Project requires the submittal of an Environmental Report to the FERC, 

consisting of 12 Resource Reports as specified in 18 CFR 157.14(a)(6-a), § 380.3, and § 380.12. Each 

Resource Report evaluated existing conditions and potential effects on a particular aspect of the 

environment. KMLP submitted a Preliminary Draft Resource Report 1 and Alternatives Analysis 

Summary (to be included in Resource Report 10) on March 17, 2006, followed by Draft Resource 

Reports 1 through 12 on June 2, 2006, and Revised Draft Resource Reports 1 through 12 on July 14, 

2006. A list of environmental information requests based on a review of each round of the draft Resource 

Reports was prepared by the FERC and submitted to KMLP on July 3, 2006 and August 7, 2006. 

Revised Resource Reports were subsequently prepared by KMLP and submitted to the FERC along with 

its application filed on September 8, 2006. After accepting this filing, the FERC established a traditional 

docket number (CP06-449-000) to place related information submitted or developed subsequently into the 

public record. 

KMLP has conducted public outreach activities to inform the public, resource agencies, industry, 

local government, and other interested parties about the Project and to identify public concerns. 

Company-sponsored outreach activities included meetings with regulatory agencies and meetings with 

special interest and stakeholder groups. KMLP held meetings with regulatory agencies on May 12, 2005, 

July 21, 2005, December 7, 2005, and July 23, 2006. KMLP held public open houses in Hackberry, 

Iowa, Iota, and Ville Platte, Louisiana during March, 2006. KMLP considered public views and concerns 

identified during its outreach activities in the preparation of its Environmental Report. On March 6, 7, 9 

and 13, 2006, FERC staff toured the pipeline routes and attended the applicant-sponsored open houses to 

answer questions about the Pre-Filing Review process. 

On March 24, 2006, the FERC issued a Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact 

Statement for the Proposed Kinder Morgan Pipeline Project and Request for Comments on Environmental 

Issues (NOI). The NOI was sent to 1,642 interested parties including federal, state, and local officials; 

agency representatives; conservation organizations; local libraries and newspapers; and property owners 

along the pipeline routes. Issuance of the NOI opened the time period for receiving written comments 

and established a closing date of April 24, 2006 for receiving comments. However, we kept the comment 

period open beyond that date and informed interested parties that we would continue to take comments 

throughout our review of the Project. We received letters with comments in response to our NOI from 

NOAA Fisheries Service, FWS, and LDWF. 

On April 26, 2006, the FERC issued a Notice of Site Visit and Public Meetings, which provided 

notice to the public that the FERC staff was conducting a site visit and holding three scoping meetings for 

the KMLP Project on May 8, 9, and 11, 2006. The April 26 notice included the specific times and 

locations (Ville Platte, Sulphur, and Iowa, Louisiana) for the scoping meetings. The scoping meetings 

provided an opportunity for the general public to learn more about the Project and to participate in our 

analysis by commenting on issues to be included in the EIS. Two persons commented at the Ville Platte 

meeting, two persons commented at the Sulphur meeting, and two persons commented at the Iowa 

meeting. Transcripts of these comments are part of the public record for the KMLP Project. On May 10, 

 1-6 Introduction 
2006, we conducted an aerial review of the Project by helicopter and we took a boat tour of the pipeline 

route in the northern end of Sabine Lake and vicinity. On May 9 and 11, 2006, we conducted a groundbased site visit of the entire route, which was open to the public. 

In addition to the public notice process discussed above, we conducted additional agency 

consultations to identify issues that should be addressed in this draft EIS. These consultations included 

interagency meetings on May 11 and October 5, 2006, both in Lake Charles, Louisiana. Participants at 

one or both meetings included representation from the COE, NOAA Fisheries Service, FWS, and LDWF. 

Issues discussed during these meetings included routing alternatives to avoid impacts to wetlands, 

potentially affected EFH and oyster beds, construction methods at wetland and waterbody crossings, and 

potential effects to the Perry Ridge Shore Protection Project and the Black Bayou Hydrologic Restoration 

Project. 

Issues identified in scoping comments and through input from resource agencies are summarized 

in table 1.4-1. We used the scoping comments to help focus the analysis in the draft EIS on potentially 

significant environmental issues related to the proposed action. 

TABLE 1.4-1 

Issues Identified in the Public and Agency Scoping Process for the KMLP Project 

Issue Specific Topics Raised in Comments 

EIS Section Where 

Comments are 

Addressed 

Proposed Action Purpose of the project; construction methods; depth of pipeline; 

right-of-way widths. 

1.1, 2.2, 2.3 

Alternatives Possibility of using existing pipelines instead of building a new 

one; routing alternatives to avoid impacts to wetlands, oyster 

beds, or lands suitable for new housing. 

3.0 

Geology and Soils Soil compaction after laying pipe across crawfish ponds and rice 

fields. 

4.2.2.1 

Water Use and Quality Potential impacts on water quality; potential impacts to 

underground irrigation systems. 

4.3 

Wetlands Potential impacts on wetlands; potential impacts on hydrologic 

restoration projects. 

4.4, 4.4.2.5 

Vegetation Potential impacts on riparian habitat; clearing of forested areas 

for drill sites. 

4.3.2.2, 4.4.2, 4.5.2, 

4.6.1.2 

Wildlife and Aquatic 

Resources 

Potential impacts on fisheries, marine fishery resources, EFH, 

and nesting habitat for colonial wading birds. 

4.6 

Threatened and 

Endangered Species 

Potential impacts on federally and state listed threatened, 

endangered, and special status species. 

4.7 

Land Use Potential impacts to the existing dredge material placement area 

on the northern bank of the Calcasieu River. 

4.8 

Socioeconomics Potential secondary impacts. 4.9 

Reliability and Safety Conformance with safety standards; responsibilities of 

construction contractors. 

4.13 

Mitigation Measures to avoid, minimize, and offset impacts to wetlands. All sections and 5.2 

This draft EIS was filed with the EPA. A formal notice indicating the availability of the draft EIS 

was published in the Federal Register, and the document has been mailed to individuals and organizations 

 1-7 Introduction 
on the mailing list prepared for the project (see appendix A). In accordance with the CEQ regulations 

implementing NEPA, the public has the opportunity to comment on the draft EIS in the form of written 

comments. We would review and use the comments to prepare the final EIS for the KMLP Project. All 

timely comment letters received on the draft EIS would be addressed in the final EIS. In addition, the 

FERC will hold public meetings in the project area to obtain comments on the draft EIS. We will issue a 

separate notice announcing the times and locations of those meetings. 

1.5 NONJURISDICTIONAL FACILITIES 

Under section 7 of the NGA, the FERC is required to consider, as part of a decision to certificate 

jurisdictional facilities, all factors bearing on the public convenience and necessity. Toward this end, the 

FERC may need to consider the environmental impact of related “nonjurisdictional” facilities that would 

be constructed upstream or downstream of the jurisdictional facilities for the purpose of delivering, 

receiving, or using the proposed gas volumes. Nonjurisdictional facilities are those facilities related to the 

Project that would be constructed, owned, and operated by others not subject to FERC jurisdiction. 

The jurisdictional facilities for the Project are described in detail in section 2.1 of this draft EIS. 

The only nonjurisdictional facility would consist of a pipeline to connect the KMLP Project to the 

existing Bridgeline intrastate pipeline. The Bridgeline interconnect site would be located at the end of the 

Enbridge Offshore Pipeline (UTOS) near Johnsons Bayou, on the north side of SH 82, approximately 16 

miles east of the Sabine Pass LNG Terminal. The connecting pipeline would be approximately 500 feet 

long (its diameter is still being determined) and would require about 1.15 acres of land, all contained 

within an existing natural gas facility. The pipeline would be constructed by its owner/operator, 

Bridgeline Holdings, L.P., at a time that is expected to coincide with the construction timeframe for the 

KMLP Project in order to be available when the KMLP Project is placed in service by April 1, 2009. 

Organizations responsible for approving the connecting pipeline would include the Coastal Management 

Division of LDNR (for a CUP), the COE (for review of jurisdictional wetland issues, if any), and other 

resource agencies (e.g., for threatened and endangered species and cultural resources). 

We use four factors to determine whether there is sufficient federal control and responsibility 

over a project as a whole to warrant environmental analysis of Project-related nonjurisdictional facilities. 

These factors are: 

• Whether the regulated activity comprises “merely a link” in a corridor type project (e.g., a 

transportation or utility transmission project); 

• Whether there are aspects of the nonjurisdictional facility in the immediate vicinity of the 

regulated activity that affect the location and configuration of the regulated activity; 

• The extent to which the entire Project would be within the FERC’s jurisdiction; and 

• The extent of cumulative federal control and responsibility. 

With regard to the first factor, the jurisdictional facilities (i.e., the KMLP Project) are a link in a 

natural gas transportation project. The KMLP Project would connect the Sabine Pass LNG Terminal with 

other interstate and intrastate pipelines that ultimately deliver natural gas downstream to consumers. 

Therefore, this factor favors the FERC’s review of the proposed nonjurisdictional facility. 

With regard to the second factor, the Project would transport natural gas received from the Sabine 

Pass LNG Terminal to the nonjurisdictional Bridgeline connecting pipeline, but the design and route of 

 1-8 Introduction 
the KMLP Project has not been uniquely influenced by the location or configuration of the 

nonjurisdictional facility. The KMLP Project would interconnect with one other pipeline in the Johnsons 

Bayou area in addition to the Bridgeline pipeline (at the Southwest Loop Johnson’s Bayou Delivery 

Point). In addition, Kinder Morgan states that the proximity of the NGPL pipeline to the Sabine Pass 

LNG Terminal, the availability of lease capacity on the existing NGPL and UTOS pipelines, and the 

multiple pipelines potentially available at the end of the UTOS pipeline were the factors that influenced 

the decision to transport gas to the Johnsons Bayou area. Therefore, this factor does not favor the FERC’s 

review of the proposed nonjurisdictional facility. 

With regard to the third factor, intrastate pipeline facilities are regulated by state and local 

permitting agencies. The FERC has no authority over the permitting, licensing, funding, construction, or 

operation of the nonjurisdictional Bridgeline connecting pipeline. Therefore, this factor also weighs 

against extending the scope of the environmental review. 

With regard to the fourth factor, federal control is determined by the amount of federal financing, 

assistance, direction, regulation, or approval inherent in a project. The nonjurisdictional Bridgeline 

connecting pipeline would be a private construction project under state and local jurisdiction. The federal 

government has no financial involvement, and no federal funds are involved. As noted above, the 

Bridgeline connecting pipeline would be located within the fenced area of an existing natural gas facility 

that has been previously disturbed. Although no wetlands appear within the footprint of the interconnect 

site, construction of the connecting pipeline could impact wetlands (e.g., from runoff and erosion) that are 

part of the nearby coastal marsh. It is anticipated that such impacts, if any, would be minor and 

temporary and would be authorized under a COE nationwide permit. Other federal agencies are expected 

to have either very limited or no involvement in the approval of the nonjurisdictional Bridgeline pipeline. 

Therefore, cumulative federal control is minimal, and this factor does not warrant extending the FERC’s 

environmental review. 

Based on the results of this four factor test applied to the KMLP Project, we have determined that 

only one factor favors examining the nonjurisdictional facility. Therefore, insufficient justification exists 

to warrant extension of the FERC’s environmental review to include the nonjurisdictional facility. 

 1-9 Introduction 
[This page intentionally left blank]