5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

5.1 SUMMARY OF THE STAFF’S ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 

We have determined that construction and operation of the KMLP Project would result in limited 

adverse environmental impacts. If the Project is constructed and operated in accordance with 

recommended mitigation measures, it would be an environmentally acceptable action. Our conclusion is 

based on information provided by KMLP and data developed from data requests; field investigations by 

Commission staff; literature research; alternatives analysis; comment from federal, state, and local 

agencies; and input from the public. 

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

reasonably avoid, minimize, or mitigate environmental impacts resulting from construction and operation 

of the Project. We are, therefore, recommending that our mitigation measures be attached as conditions 

to any authorization issued by the Commission. 

5.1.1 Geology 

Construction and operation of the Project would have minimal impact on geological resources. 

No bedrock blasting is anticipated for the Project. The Project would be located in a region with a low 

risk of seismic activity, soil liquefaction, landslide susceptibility, and subsidence. Oil and natural gas 

extraction is common in the project area, but construction and operation of the Project is not expected to 

have an impact on exploitable oil or natural gas resources. The Project pipeline would HDD under a 

current sand and gravel pit. KMLP reports that the owner of this pit intends to begin filling the pit and 

there would not be any further excavation. We are recommending that KMLP file documentation of its 

consultation with the owner of the borrow pit prior to the close of the comment period on the draft EIS. 

KMLP proposed an alternative measure to item V.A.5 of our Plan, which requires land surfaces 

to be restored to pre-construction contours, unless such contours threaten the integrity of the pipeline. We 

are not approving this proposal because KMLP did not provide sufficient site-specific justification. 

However, if KMLP identifies a location where it cannot comply with item V.A.5, we are recommending 

that KMLP file with the Secretary any alternative measures that it would use to ensure pre-construction 

contours are restored without compromising pipeline integrity. 

5.1.2 Soils 

The Project would traverse a variety of soil types and conditions, and approximately 79 percent of 

the soils that would be affected by the proposed pipeline are classified as prime farmland. Construction 

activities associated with the Project, such as clearing, grading, trenching, and backfilling, would 

adversely affect soil resources by resulting in erosion, compaction, and the loss of soil productivity and 

fertility by mixing of topsoil and subsoil horizons and changing drainage patterns. KMLP would 

implement the mitigation measures contained in our Plan to control erosion, ensure successful 

revegetation, and minimize any potential adverse impacts to soil resources. In addition, potential soil 

impacts to rice fields and crawfish ponds would be mitigated by attempting to schedule construction 

during dry periods, re-installing and testing the underlying low-permeability layer needed to hold water, 

and other measures. 

There are no known contaminated soils in the project area. In case contaminated soils are 

encountered, we are recommending that KMLP file a Plan for the Discovery and Management of 

Contaminated Soils and Groundwater. To further reduce the potential for contamination from an 

 5-1 Conclusions and Recommendations 
accidental release of petroleum hydrocarbons or other hazardous materials, we are recommending that 

KMLP develop and file a project-specific SWPPP and SPRP. 

5.1.3 Water Resources 

Groundwater 

Construction and operation of the Project would not have a significant impact on groundwater 

resources in the project area, including the Chicot Aquifer. Based on current information, 28 wells would 

be located within 150 feet of the construction right-of-way, including eight domestic supply wells (two of 

which are either abandoned or plugged), two industrial wells, nine irrigation wells, four monitoring wells 

(all four are plugged), and five rig supply wells (three of which are plugged). Landowners in the general 

vicinity of the construction right-of-way would be notified about their ability to request well testing and 

monitoring. In case water quality or well yield is affected, we are recommending KMLP file a statement 

agreeing to provide a temporary water supply and well re-testing, and replacement of the potable water 

supply system if water capacity and quality cannot be restored. 

The greatest potential for impact on groundwater would be from spills, leaks, or other releases of 

hazardous substances during project construction or operation. We are recommending KMLP develop 

and implement a project-specific SWPPP and SPRP that would conform to the guidelines in our 

Procedures to prevent and minimize accidental or inadvertent chemical spills. Based on land use 

activities in the project area, the potential exists for contaminated groundwater to occur in the area. We 

are recommending KMLP develop a Plan for the Discovery of Contaminated Soil and Groundwater that 

would specify measures for protecting the environment in the event an unanticipated encounters with 

contaminated groundwater. With the implementation of the proposed construction measures, our Plan 

and Procedures, and our recommendations, we believe that there would be no impacts on groundwater 

resources as a result of construction and operation of the Project. 

Surface Water 

The Project would cross a total of 310 waterbodies. To minimize impacts on these water bodies, 

KMLP would implement our Procedures, its project-specific SPRP and SWPPP, site-specific waterbody 

crossing plans (appendix G), and an HDD Contingency Plan (appendix I), as well as requirements in the 

permits issued by other federal and state agencies. 

KMLP proposes to use the HDD crossing method in 18 locations to avoid impacts to 24 

waterbodies (some HDDs would cross more than one waterbody). The use of the HDD method would 

avoid or minimize in-stream disturbance and impacts on aquatic resources. We are recommending that 

KMLP file a site-specific construction plan for each of these HDD crossings. In response to comments 

from FWS, COE, and LDWF, we are also recommending KMLP evaluate the feasibility of using the 

HDD method to cross the Tiger Point Gulley (MP 113.3) and Bayou Barwick (MP 109.2) along Leg 1, 

and Bayou des Cannes (MP 1.57) along the FGT Lateral to avoid impacts to adjacent riparian and wetland 

areas. 

KMLP proposes to cross Sabine Lake by HDD at the lake’s southern and northern shorelines and 

it would use the open-cut construction method with spud barges across the lake’s open water. KMLP 

would use the open-cut construction method from MP 4.8 to MP 17.9 of Leg 1. The use of HDD would 

resume at MP 17.9 within Sabine Lake, exiting on land at MP 18.6, to avoid shoreline erosion. By 

implementing the HDD crossing method at the northern and southern banks of Sabine Lake, it would 

avoid impacts to the shoreline, oyster reefs, EFH wetlands, and aquatic resources. Open-cut construction 

would affect water quality during construction, causing sediment resuspension and related impacts in the 

 5-2 Conclusions and Recommendations 
water column. To minimize impacts, KMLP would utilize BMPs as part of the SWPPP to address 

hazardous materials handling and storage, as well as spill prevention and response. 

KMLP would install the pipeline across Calcasieu River between MP 49.6 and MP 51.1 with a 

series of HDDs. One of the HDD pull strings would lie across a COE dredge spoil area. We are 

recommending KMLP complete consultation with COE regarding the related impacts and file 

documentation of its consultations with the Secretary prior to construction. Crossing the Calcasieu River 

by HDD would minimize impacts to the river and associated riparian vegetation. 

KMLP proposed to construct/modify Access Roads 15, 19, and FGT-2 across drainage ditches, 

which according to the COE, qualify as flowing waters that must be protected. Therefore, we are 

recommending that KMLP evaluate the feasibility of rerouting these access roads to minimize impacts to 

the drainage ditches. 

5.1.4 Wetlands 

The Project would be constructed in areas of extensive estuarine and palustrine wetlands, 

affecting a total of 352 wetlands covering approximately 504.2 acres. Temporary impacts resulting from 

installation of the Project would include approximately 28.3 acres of forested wetlands and 475.9 acres of 

non-forested wetlands. These temporary impacts include 99.5 acres of EFH wetlands and 179.4 acres of 

two CWPPRA projects crossed by the pipeline. Operation of the pipeline facilities would result in the 

permanent conversion of 14.9 acres of forested wetlands to emergent or scrub-shrub wetlands. The COE 

has not yet verified the KMLP wetland delineation for the Project; therefore, the acreage of wetlands 

affected by the Project may change. 

KMLP has requested the use of a 125-foot-wide construction right-of-way in wetlands where the 

crossing length is greater than 100 feet. KMLP has also requested that various access roads, extra work 

spaces, and interconnect sites be constructed within wetlands. We are approving the requested alternative 

measures based on soil stability issues, necessary access to HDD work spaces, and lack of practicable 

alternatives. 

To minimize impacts to wetlands, KMLP would implement our Procedures, with accepted 

alternative measures, which include measures to minimize sediment runoff into wetlands and minimize 

impacts from construction equipment. Use of HDD construction methods along the pipeline route would 

avoid the need to clear or otherwise disturb 7.0 acres of forested wetlands and 100.8 acres of non-forested 

wetlands. We are also recommending that KMLP evaluate alternative routes for Access Road 4-5 to 

avoid impacts to wetlands. 

KMLP would also implement its Aquatic Resources Mitigation Plan (see appendix J) to ensure 

no net loss of wetland functions and values. KMLP is still developing its draft Aquatic Resources 

Mitigation Plan in consultation with COE, FWS, NOAA Fisheries Service, and LDWF and we are 

recommending that the final Aquatic Resources Mitigation Plan be filed with the Secretary prior to 

construction. 

5.1.5 Vegetation 

Construction of the pipeline, aboveground facilities, access roads, pipe storage and contractor 

yards, and extra workspaces would require the clearing of 1,843.3 acres of upland vegetative lands, 

including 115.4 acres of upland forest. Upon completion of construction approximately 43.8 acres of 

upland forest would be converted to a permanent pipeline right-of-way and maintained in an herbaceous 

 5-3 Conclusions and Recommendations 
state. Additionally, 16.5 acres of upland vegetation would be permanently converted to aboveground 

facilities or permanent access roads. 

KMLP has requested a construction right-of-way width for Leg 1 through upland habitats that 

would range from 125 feet to 165 feet, depending on construction methods; a construction right-of-way 

for the FGT Lateral through upland habitats that would range from 100 feet to 130 feet wide, depending 

on construction methods; and maintenance across the entire 50-foot-wide permanent right-of-way on an 

annual basis. We are only approving the use of a 125-foot-wide construction right-of-way for Leg 1 in 

uplands and a 100-foot-wide construction right-of-way for the FGT Lateral in uplands due to the large 

diameter of the pipe and local soil conditions, and to accommodate right-of-way topsoil segregation. We 

are denying the requested annual maintenance of the permanent right-of-way to avoid excessive and 

continuous disruption of upland habitats. Construction and operation of the Project would not 

significantly affect vegetation. 

5.1.6 Wildlife and Aquatic Resources 

Wildlife 

The impact of construction and operation of the Project on wildlife would be the temporary 

alteration of wildlife habitat. Initial clearing and construction activities would result in the disruption of 

wildlife habitat. Once construction is completed, wildlife would re-occupy the temporarily disturbed 

habitat along the Project corridor. The areas disturbed by construction, excluding areas occupied by 

aboveground facilities, would be revegetated after construction has been completed. Although temporary 

and permanent impacts on food, cover, and water sources may occur, none of the species identified within 

the project area are specialized in such a way that construction of a pipeline would inhibit the overall 

fitness or reproductive viability of the populations as a whole. Many of the mammal, bird, reptile, and 

amphibian species are adaptive to changing habitat conditions and have the capability of temporarily 

expanding or shifting their home ranges to find alternative sources of food, water, and shelter until the 

right-of-way habitats become re-established. The impact on wildlife would be temporary and short-term. 

We believe, with the implementation of our Plan and Procedures and recommended measures, impact on 

wildlife would be minimal. 

Approximately the first 50 miles of the Project consists of emergent marsh and coastal 

prairie/grassland that provide habitat for wintering waterfowl and rookeries. Given the abundant adjacent 

areas that can provide alternative habitat, we conclude that there would be no significant impact on 

migratory waterfowl. The Project route could include suitable nesting habitat for various species of 

colonial wading birds, including the roseate spoonbill. To avoid impacts to these species, KMLP has 

stated that they would employ a qualified biologist to survey the proposed work area during the 2007 

nesting season, and again immediately prior to construction scheduled during the nesting season to 

determine the presence of colonial waterbird rookeries. KMLP would further consult with FWS and the 

NHP of LDWF in order to determine mitigation measures to minimize potential impacts to these nesting 

areas, should they be found. 

Aquatic Resources 

The pipeline would cross 310 waterbodies, including Sabine Lake, the GIWW, and Calcasieu 

River. Potential impacts on aquatic resources from project construction and operation include those 

associated with pipeline construction across waterbodies and through wetlands. 

Impacts on fisheries resources resulting from pipeline construction activities at waterbody 

crossings may include sedimentation and turbidity, alteration or removal of instream and stream bank fish 

 5-4 Conclusions and Recommendations 
cover, introduction of water pollutants, or entrainment of small organisms during hydrostatic testing. 

Studies generally have indicated that pipeline construction through waterbodies results in temporary 

impacts on streams and rivers, and that there are no long-term effects on water temperature, pH, dissolved 

oxygen, benthic invertebrate populations, or fish populations. KMLP would implement the measures in 

our Procedures, which include the use of screening on intake hoses, to minimize entrainment or 

impingement of fish when withdrawing water for hydrostatic testing. 

The primary impacts on aquatic resources would be associated with open-cut construction in 

Sabine Lake. This would include entrainment of organisms by construction machinery and increased 

turbidity due to the re-suspension of bottom sediments. Incidental take of benthic organisms due to 

entrainment during the offshore construction process would not be extensive enough to have a significant 

impact on the fishery resources of the area. The LDWF is mandated under Louisiana law to protect 

oyster resources. Sabine Lake contains a public tonging area for oysters, and was surveyed to determine 

the extent of oyster resources in the project area. Although no oyster reefs would be directly impacted by 

the construction of the Project, suitable substrate would be within the construction right-of-way and 

potentially lost. KMLP has stated that it would compensate LDWF for each bottom substrate directly 

impacted by pipeline construction and also for oysters lost due to sedimentation on the reefs within 1,500 

feet of the HDD exit pit at MP 4.82. 

Direct spills of petroleum or other toxic products into waterbodies during construction could be 

harmful to aquatic organisms, depending on the type, quantity, and concentration of the spill. To reduce 

the potential for direct surface water contamination, KMLP would develop and implement the procedures 

in a project-specific SWPPP and SPRP. KMLP requested an alternative measure to items IV.A.1.d and e 

of our Procedures to allow refueling and storage of hazardous materials near a waterbody. We are 

approving this measure only for construction in Sabine Lake and the Sabine River, where there is no 

practicable alternative to refueling from barges. 

Post-construction or operational impacts of the pipeline would be minimal. Restoration of the 

vegetation along the pipeline construction work areas would minimize erosion potential relative to 

waterbodies. Minimal impact on fisheries is expected from maintenance mowing or manual removal of 

woody vegetation in the vicinity of the pipeline right-of-way as maintenance would be in accordance with 

our Plan and Procedures. 

Essential Fish Habitat 

Construction of the Project is not expected to have a significant impact on EFH. Impacts on EFH 

from the construction of the Project are associated with loss or alteration of habitat. These impacts can be 

further divided into those that result in temporary or permanent effects on EFH and species. The primary 

impact of construction and operation of the Project would be the alteration and, to a lesser extent, direct 

loss of habitat types that could function as EFH for the various species. 

NOAA Fisheries Service identified aquatic and tidally influenced wetland habitats in the project 

area as designated EFH for postlarval, juvenile, and subadult life stages of two species of shellfish (brown 

and white shrimp); postlarval, juvenile, and subadult life stages of red drum; and the late juvenile, 

subadult, and adult life stages of bonnethead shark. Construction through the first 50 miles of the 

proposed pipeline route would impact approximately 99.5 acres of EFH wetlands along the northern and 

southern banks of Sabine Lake, Shell Island, the Sabine and Calcasieu Rivers, and the GIWW. 

Construction through Sabine Lake would result in a temporary loss of soft bottom habitat due to 

the excavation of the floatation channel and pipe trench, as well as the placement of the spoil piles, which 

would cover the habitat at that location. These activities would also cause an increase in turbidity and 

 5-5 Conclusions and Recommendations 
sedimentation. Managed mobile species utilizing soft bottoms or the water column would be temporarily 

displaced; however, less mobile stages of managed species that utilize soft bottom habitat could be 

smothered and experience mortality through placement of the spoil pile. Oyster reefs do not occur within 

the construction right-of-way for the pipeline in Sabine Lake. Impacts to these oyster reefs would be 

limited to increased turbidity and sedimentation. 

Operation of the pipeline facilities would have minimal impacts on EFH since the pipeline would 

be buried and the existing EFH would become reestablished in the construction corridor. KMLP 

proposes to monitor the created or restored tidal wetlands annually for at least 3 years and to consult with 

appropriate agencies if monitoring indicates poor plant survival or insufficient coverage. Monitoring 

protocols were developed in consultation with NOAA Fisheries Service and are included in the draft 

Aquatic Resources Mitigation Plan (appendix J). 

5.1.7 Threatened and Endangered Species 

Agency consultations resulted in the identification of 12 federally listed threatened or endangered 

species that potentially occur in the project area. These include: five sea turtles (the green, leatherback, 

loggerhead, Kemp’s ridley, and hawksbill sea turtles); one marine mammal (the West Indian manatee); 

four bird species (the bald eagle, brown pelican, RCW, and piping plover), and two fish species (the Gulf 

sturgeon and smalltooth sawfish). 

The FWS stated that the Project would not affect the West Indian manatee, four bird species, the 

two fish species, and four of the five sea turtle species. NOAA Fisheries Service has joint jurisdiction 

over the Gulf sturgeon, smalltooth sawfish, and the five species of sea turtle. NOAA Fisheries Service 

agreed that the project would not affect the Gulf sturgeon or smalltooth sawfish, and requested that 

Project impacts be assessed for the five species of sea turtles. 

The construction impacts to sea turtles would include noise disturbance, alteration or loss of 

habitat, effects on prey species, and changes in water quality. These impacts are expected to be 

temporary, localized, and minor. KMLP would implement NOAA Fisheries Service’s “Sea Turtle and 

Smalltooth Sawfish Construction Conditions” and “Vessel Strike Avoidance Measures and Injured or 

Dead Species Reporting” guidelines (see appendix K). 

KMLP has not completed surveys for RCW due to lack of access to certain private properties. 

Therefore, we are recommending that KMLP consult further with the FWS to identify the need for 

additional RCW field surveys and file documentation of its consultation, including any survey reports and 

FWS comments on the surveys, as soon as they become available. 

NHP of LDWF has identified 10 state-listed species of concern that may occur in the project area. 

Seven species of plants were eliminated from concern because none of them are located within 0.5 miles 

of the Project. However, the Roseate Spoonbill (colonial waterbirds), Crested Caracara, and Old Prairie 

Crawfish, may be located in the project area. KMLP has committed to engaging a qualified biologist to 

perform surveys during the 2007 nesting season and immediately prior to construction to determine the 

presence or absence of colonial waterbird nesting areas. If any nesting areas are found, KMLP would 

consult further with FWS and the NHP of LDWF to determine mitigation measures and BMPs to 

minimize potential impacts to the Roseate Spoonbill and Crested Caracara. KMLP also would implement 

our Plan and Procedures, which include measures to minimize impacts to the general habitats used by 

these species. These measures would reduce the loss of vegetated habitats, minimize impacts to water 

quality, and result in restoration of areas temporarily disturbed during construction. In its letter, LDWF 

requested that measures be taken to protect Old Prairie Crawfish habitat, including roadside ditches. We 

 5-6 Conclusions and Recommendations 
are recommending KMLP file documentation of consultations with LDWF to develop mitigation 

measures for the crossing of roadside ditches. 

We have not completed consultation with the FWS and NOAA Fisheries Service. Therefore, we 

are recommending that KMLP not begin construction activities until we complete any necessary 

consultations with the FWS and NOAA Fisheries Service, and KMLP receives written notification from 

the Director of OEP that construction and/or implementation of conservation measures may begin. 

5.1.8 Land Use, Recreation, and Visual Resources 

Construction of the Project would affect approximately 3,030.7 acres of land, including 2,274.1 

acres for the pipeline construction right-of-way; 12.3 acres for the aboveground facilities; and 744.4 acres 

for extra workspaces, pipe storage and contractor yards, and access roads. Agricultural land comprises 

about 49 percent of the project area and about 19 percent is open water. Beaches, forestland, developed 

land, open land, and other land (including strip mines, quarries, and gravel pits) account for the remaining 

32 percent of this acreage. Following construction, all affected areas outside the permanent pipeline 

right-of-way and aboveground facility sites would be restored and allowed to revert to preconstruction 

conditions and uses. During operation of the Project, the permanent pipeline right-of-way would consist 

of approximately 822 acres, and the aboveground facility sites and permanent access roads would 

permanently convert about 19 acres to developed land. 

KMLP identified 14 structures within 50 feet of the construction right-of-way. None of these 

structures were identified as residences. However, 9 of the 14 structures have been generically identified 

as “buildings.” We are recommending that KMLP revise table 4.8.3.6-1 in this draft EIS to explicitly 

identify all structures within 50 feet of the construction work area and file this information with the 

Secretary prior to the end of this draft EIS comment period. 

The Project would potentially affect several recreational and special interest areas, including CRP 

lands administered by the NRCS and FSA; FWS-administered conservation easement areas; two wetland 

and hydrologic restoration projects, the Black Bayou Hydrologic Restoration Project sponsored by 

NOAA Fisheries Service and the LDNR and the Perry Ridge Shore Protection Project sponsored by 

NRCS and the LDNR; and one scenic by-way, the Creole Nature Trail. According to local FSA offices, 

the Project would not cross any CRP lands with the possible exception of such lands in Jefferson Davis 

Parish, where consultations are still ongoing. Therefore, we are recommending that KMLP continue 

consultations with FSA and NRCS to identify the extent and location of any CRP lands within Jefferson 

Davis Parish that would be affected by the project. We are also recommending that KMLP consult with 

FWS to determine if FWS conservation easement properties are crossed by the Project. In addition, we 

are recommending that KMLP consult with LDNR, NOAA Fisheries Service, and FWS, and develop sitespecific construction and restoration plans for crossing the Black Bayou Hydrologic Restoration Project 

and the Perry Ridge Shore Protection Project. 

Commercial and recreational activities, such as boating, fishing, and oyster harvesting would 

potentially be impacted by pipeline installation through Sabine Lake. KMLP would utilize special 

construction methods and sequencing to help mitigate such impacts, as well as provide project-specific 

details to the U.S. Coast Guard. 

No known hazardous waste sites occur within 0.25 miles of the Project right-of-way. We are 

including a recommendation for KMLP to develop a Plan for the Discovery and Management of 

Contaminated Soils and Groundwater that identifies the procedures that would be implemented during 

construction to identify, test, treat, and dispose of such materials, if found, in accordance with the 

appropriate state and federal regulations. 

 5-7 Conclusions and Recommendations 
The Project would cross numerous foreign pipelines. The KMLP pipeline would be installed by 

horizontal bore under most single pipelines, but in areas where foreign pipelines are highly congested or 

near waterbodies or wetlands, HDD would be used. To ensure KMLP’s plans for HDDs under foreign 

pipelines are complete, we are recommending that KMLP file a site-specific construction plan for the 

crossing of foreign pipeline corridors between MP 25.3 and MP 26.8. 

Visual resources along the Project route would not be adversely affected. There are several 

existing pipelines in the vicinity of the Project, and the KMLP pipeline would parallel some of these 

existing rights-of-way. Many areas along the Project are either inaccessible or do not provide long-range 

unobstructed views, but public viewpoints are present along some of the roadways in the area. The 

Transco interconnect site would be within 0.5 mile of several residences that would likely have a direct 

view. Therefore, we are recommending that KMLP develop and file a site-screening plan for this facility 

prior to construction. 

Portions of the Project lie within Louisiana’s coastal zone that is managed by the CMD of the 

LDNR. KMLP has consulted with the CMD and is in the process of preparing and filing a Coastal Use 

Permit application as part of the Joint Permit Application with the COE. Upon receipt and review of that 

document, CMD will determine if the Project is consistent with Louisiana’s Coastal Zone Management 

Program. We are recommending that KMLP file a copy of the CZMP consistency determination issued 

by the LDNR before construction begins. 

5.1.9 Socioeconomics 

Construction of the Project would not have a significant impact on local populations, housing, 

employment, or the provision of community services. Construction of the Project would temporarily 

increase the demand for public services such as emergency response, medical, and traffic control but 

these effects would be offset by increases in local government revenues. Operation of the project would 

have stimulatory effects on local spending, employment, and government revenues but such effects would 

be minor. 

5.1.10 Cultural Resources 

KMLP consulted with the Louisiana SHPO and performed cultural resource investigations for the 

APE for the proposed pipeline corridor and ancillary facilities. A total of 15 cultural resources were 

discovered within the terrestrial portion of the pipeline route and five additional cultural resource 

locations were identified at ancillary sites. None of the properties identified to date have been determined 

eligible for the NHRP, though KMLP proposed to use HDDs to avoid four previously recorded sites 

along the pipeline corridor. 

Underwater surveying of Sabine Lake revealed 15 targets along the proposed pipeline corridor. 

However, only one of these identified targets was designated as a potential submerged cultural resource 

after consultation with archaeologists. KMLP would either avoid this site or complete further 

investigation in consultation with regulatory authorities. Gaps in data are present along the proposed 

submerged route due to difficulty in obtaining sensory data in shallow waters, but significant underwater 

cultural resources are not anticipated in these shallow waters. 

Present evidence suggests that no historic properties eligible for the NRHP would be affected by 

the construction of the project. However, surveys have not been conducted for about 9.9 miles of the 

proposed pipeline route and a few ancillary facilities where permission from landowners is pending, and 

the Louisiana SHPO’s comments are awaited. 

 5-8 Conclusions and Recommendations 
In order to assure that the ACHP would have the opportunity to comment on any historic 

properties that might be identified by these studies, we are recommending that KMLP not be allowed to 

construct any facilities, use any staging, storage, or temporary work areas, or use any access roads, until it 

files the survey reports, required treatment plans, and the SHPO comments with the Commission, and is 

given written authorization to proceed by the Director of the OEP. 

5.1.11 Cumulative Impacts 

We identified three types of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects that would 

potentially result in a cumulative impact when considered with the proposed Project. These include other 

natural gas transmission pipelines in the area, nonjurisdictional facilities associated with the Project, and 

transportation and other infrastructure projects in the vicinity of the proposed pipeline route. The 

potential impacts associated with these projects that are most likely to be cumulatively significant are 

related to wetlands and waterbodies, vegetation and wildlife, federally and state-listed endangered and 

threatened species, land use, air quality, and noise. We believe that, overall, impacts associated with the 

Project would be relatively minor, and we included recommendations in this draft EIS to further reduce 

the environmental impacts associated with the Project. Similarly, each of the projects considered in our 

analysis has been or would be designed to avoid or minimize impacts to sensitive environmental 

resources. Additionally, it is anticipated that any significant unavoidable impacts to sensitive resources 

resulting from these projects would be mitigated. Consequently, only a small cumulative effect is 

anticipated when the impacts of the KMLP Project are added to past, present, or reasonably foreseeable 

future projects in the area. 

5.1.12 Air Quality and Noise 

Construction of the Project is expected to have short-term minor impacts on air quality from 

fugitive dust and emissions from construction equipment. Operation of the Project is expected to have 

long-term minor impacts on air quality from emissions from heaters installed at interconnect locations. 

Construction activities are expected to have a short-term minor impact on the noise environment 

provided that mitigation measures are employed during HDD operations. Recommended mitigation 

measures include the development of a noise mitigation and compliance plan that would address potential 

mitigation measures such as sound barriers or temporary housing to ensure the NSAs at MPs 44.5, 49.6, 

and 99.8 are not exposed to noise greater than 55 dBA. Operation of the project is not expected to have 

an impact on the noise environment. 

5.1.13 Reliability and Safety 

The proposed Project would be designed, constructed, operated, and maintained to meet or 

exceed all DOT safety standards for natural gas pipelines. Following construction, KMLP would also 

initiate a pipeline integrity management plan to ensure public safety during operation. The Project would 

result in only a slight increase in risk to the nearby public. 

5.1.14 Alternatives 

We evaluated the no action or postponed action alternatives, which would involve not building or 

deferring construction of the proposed Project facilities. While the no action or postponed action 

alternative would eliminate the short- and long-term environmental impacts identified in this draft EIS, 

the objectives of the Project would not be met, and KMLP would not be able to deliver re-gasified LNG 

to markets in Louisiana and the rest of the United States as proposed. 

 5-9 Conclusions and Recommendations 
We evaluated system alternatives, including alternatives involving the approved Sabine Pass 

Pipeline, to examine whether other existing or proposed natural gas pipeline systems would meet the 

proposed Project objectives while offering an environmental advantage over the Project. Currently, there 

is no existing pipeline system that could be used to move vaporized LNG from the Sabine Pass LNG 

Terminal location to the existing interstate and intrastate natural gas pipeline systems. Within 3 miles of 

the LNG Terminal in the Sabine Pass area, there are two 30-inch-diameter NGPL pipelines and two 24- 

and one 16-inch-diameter Transco pipelines. The combined capacity of these existing pipeline systems 

are inadequate to meet the objectives of the KMLP Project. We identified two proposed pipeline systems 

that, with significant additional construction and adaptation, could potentially meet the KMLP Project’s 

objectives in terms of take-away capacity from the Sabine Pass LNG Terminal and downstream 

interconnecting capacity to other pipelines that serve the same markets proposed to be served by KMLP’s 

shippers. Based on our analysis, however, we do not believe that the system alternatives offer substantial 

environmental benefits relative to the proposed action. 

We also evaluated four major route alternatives to the Project route. However, none of these 

would offer significant environmental advantages over the proposed route, and we eliminated them from 

further consideration. Lastly, we considered route variations to resolve or reduce construction impacts to 

localized, specific resources. We evaluated a total of 15 route variations and considered their associated 

environmental consequences as part of our environmental analysis of the Project. Variations that lessened 

environmental impacts were adopted by KMLP as part of the proposed Project route. 

In summary, with KMLP’s proposed mitigation and our recommendations, the proposed route is 

environmentally least damaging and we are recommending use of the proposed route as the preferred 

alternative. 

5.2 FERC STAFF’S RECOMMENDED MITIGATION 

If the Commission issues a Certificate for the proposed Project, we recommend that the 

Commission’s Order include the following specific conditions. We believe that these measures would 

further mitigate the environmental impacts associated with the construction and operation of the Project: 

1. KMLP shall follow the construction procedures and mitigation measures described in its 

application, supplemental filings (including responses to staff information requests), and as 

identified in the EIS, unless modified by the Order. KMLP must: 

a. request any modification to these procedures, measures, or conditions in a filing with the 

Secretary; 

b. justify each modification relative to site-specific conditions; 

c. explain how that modification provides an equal or greater level of environmental 

protection than the original measure; and 

d. receive approval in writing from the Director of OEP before using that modification. 

2. The Director of OEP has delegated authority to take whatever steps are necessary to ensure 

the protection of life, health, property, and the environment during construction and operation 

of the project. This authority shall allow: 

a. the modification of conditions of the Order; and 

b. design and implementation of any additional measures deemed necessary (including stop 

work authority) to assure continued compliance with the intent of the environmental 

 5-10 Conclusions and Recommendations 
conditions as well as the avoidance or mitigation of adverse environmental impact 

resulting from project construction and operation. 

3. Prior to any construction, KMLP shall file an affirmative statement with the Secretary, 

certified by a senior company official, that all company personnel, environmental inspectors 

(EIs), and contractor personnel will be informed of the EIs’ authority and have been or will 

be trained on the implementation of the environmental mitigation measures appropriate to 

their jobs before becoming involved with construction and restoration activities. 

4. The authorized facility locations shall be as shown in the EIS, as supplemented by filed 

alignment sheets, and shall include all of the staff's recommended facility locations. As soon 

as they are available, and before the start of construction, KMLP shall file with the 

Secretary any revised detailed survey alignment maps/sheets at a scale not smaller than 

1:6,000 with station positions for all facilities approved by the Order. All requests for 

modifications of environmental conditions of the Order or site-specific clearances must be 

written and must reference locations designated on these alignment maps/sheets. 

KMLP’s exercise of eminent domain authority granted under Natural Gas Act (NGA) section 

7(h) in any condemnation proceedings related to the Order must be consistent with these 

authorized facilities and locations. KMLP’s right of eminent domain granted under NGA 

section 7(h) does not authorize it to increase the size of its natural gas pipeline to 

accommodate future needs or to acquire a right-of-way for a pipeline to transport a 

commodity other than natural gas. 

5. KMLP shall file with the Secretary detailed alignment maps/sheets and aerial photographs at 

a scale not smaller than 1:6,000 identifying all route realignments or facility relocations, and 

staging areas, pipe storage yards, new access roads, and other areas that would be used or 

disturbed and have not been previously identified in filings with the Secretary. Approval for 

each of these areas must be explicitly requested in writing. For each area, the request must 

include a description of the existing land use/cover type, and documentation of landowner 

approval, whether any cultural resources or federally listed threatened or endangered species 

would be affected, and whether any other environmentally sensitive areas are within or 

abutting the area. All areas shall be clearly identified on the maps/sheets/aerial photographs. 

Each area must be approved in writing by the Director of OEP before construction in or near 

that area.

This requirement does not apply to extra workspace allowed by the Upland Erosion Control, 

Revegetation, and Maintenance Plan, minor field realignments per landowner needs and 

requirements which do not affect other landowners or sensitive environmental areas such as 

wetlands. 

Examples of alterations requiring approval include all route realignments and facility location 

changes resulting from: 

a. implementation of cultural resources mitigation measures; 

b. implementation of endangered, threatened, or special concern species mitigation 

measures; 

c. recommendations by state regulatory authorities; and 

d. agreements with individual landowners that affect other landowners or could affect 

sensitive environmental areas.

 5-11 Conclusions and Recommendations 
6. Within 60 days of the acceptance of this certificate and prior to construction, KMLP 

shall file an initial Implementation Plan with the Secretary for review and written approval by 

the Director of OEP describing how KMLP would implement the mitigation measures 

required by the Order. KMLP must file revisions to the plan as schedules change. The plan 

shall identify: 

a. how KMLP will incorporate these requirements into the contract bid documents, 

construction contracts (especially penalty clauses and specifications), and construction 

drawings so that the mitigation required at each site is clear to onsite construction and 

inspection personnel; 

b. the number of EIs assigned per spread, and how the company will ensure that sufficient 

personnel are available to implement the environmental mitigation; 

c. company personnel, including EIs and contractors, who will receive copies of the 

appropriate material; 

d. the training and instructions KMLP will give to all personnel involved with construction 

and restoration (initial and refresher training as the project progresses and personnel 

change), with the opportunity for OEP staff to participate in the training session; 

e. the company personnel (if known) and specific portion of KMLP's organization having 

responsibility for compliance; 

f. the procedures (including use of contract penalties) KMLP will follow if noncompliance 

occurs; and 

g. for each discrete facility, a Gantt or PERT chart (or similar project scheduling diagram), 

and dates for: 

(1) the completion of all required surveys and reports; 

(2) the mitigation training of onsite personnel; 

(3) the start of construction; and 

(4) the start and completion of restoration.

7. KMLP shall develop and implement an environmental complaint resolution procedure. The 

procedure shall provide landowners with clear and simple directions for identifying and 

resolving their environmental mitigation problems/concerns during construction of the 

Project and restoration of the right-of-way. Prior to construction, KMLP shall mail the 

complaint procedures to each landowner whose property would be crossed by the Project. 

a. In its letter to affected landowners, KMLP shall: 

(1) provide a local contact that the landowners should call first with their concerns; the 

letter should indicate how soon a landowner should expect a response; 

(2) instruct the landowners that, if they are not satisfied with the response, they should 

call KMLP’s Hotline; the letter should indicate how soon to expect a response; and 

(3) instruct the landowners that, if they are still not satisfied with the response from 

KMLP’s Hotline, they should contact the Commission's Enforcement Hotline at 

(888) 889-8030. 

b. In addition, KMLP shall include in its weekly status report a copy of a table that contains 

the following information for each problem/concern: 

(1) the date of the call; 

(2) the identification number from the certificated alignment sheets of the affected 

property; 

(3) the description of the problem/concern; and 

(4) an explanation of how and when the problem was resolved, will be resolved, or 

why it has not been resolved. 

 5-12 Conclusions and Recommendations 
8. KMLP shall employ a team of EIs (at least two per construction spread). The EIs shall be: 

a. responsible for monitoring and ensuring compliance with all mitigation measures 

required by the Order and other grants, permits, certificates, or other authorizing 

documents; 

b. responsible for evaluating the construction contractor's implementation of the 

environmental mitigation measures required in the contract (see condition 6 above) and 

any other authorizing document; 

c. empowered to order correction of acts that violate the environmental conditions of the 

Order, and any other authorizing document; 

d. a full-time position, separate from all other activity inspectors; 

e. responsible for documenting compliance with the environmental conditions of the Order, 

as well as any environmental conditions/permit requirements imposed by other federal, 

state, or local agencies; and 

f. responsible for maintaining status reports. 

9. KMLP shall file updated status reports prepared by the EI with the Secretary on a weekly 

basis until all construction and restoration activities are complete. On request, these 

status reports will also be provided to other federal and state agencies with permitting 

responsibilities. Status reports shall include: 

a. the current construction status of the Project, work planned for the following reporting 

period, and any schedule changes for stream crossings or work in other environmentally 

sensitive areas; 

b. a listing of all problems encountered and each instance of noncompliance observed by the 

EIs during the reporting period (both for the conditions imposed by the Commission and 

any environmental conditions/permit requirements imposed by other federal, state, or 

local agencies); 

c. corrective actions implemented in response to all instances of noncompliance, and their 

cost; 

d. the effectiveness of all corrective actions implemented; 

e. a description of any landowner/resident complaints which may relate to compliance with 

the requirements of the Order, and the measures taken to satisfy their concerns; and 

f. copies of any correspondence received by KMLP from other federal, state or local 

permitting agencies concerning instances of noncompliance, and KMLP’s response.

10. KMLP must receive written authorization from the Director of OEP before commencing 

service of the Project. Such authorization will only be granted following a determination 

that rehabilitation and restoration of the right-of-way and other areas affected by the Project 

are proceeding satisfactorily. 

11. Within 30 days of placing the certificated facilities in service, KMLP shall file an 

affirmative statement with the Secretary, certified by a senior company official: 

a. that the facilities have been constructed in compliance with all applicable conditions, and 

that continuing activities will be consistent with all applicable conditions; or 

b. identifying which of the certificate conditions KMLP has complied with or will comply 

with. This statement shall also identify any areas affected by the Project where 

compliance measures were not properly implemented, if not previously identified in filed 

status reports, and the reason for noncompliance.

 5-13 Conclusions and Recommendations 
12. KMLP shall limit its nominal construction right-of-way width for Leg 1 and the FGT Lateral 

in upland areas to 125 feet and 100 feet, respectively. If additional right-of-way width is 

necessary, KMLP shall file with the Secretary a site-specific construction plan and written 

justification for any additional right-of-way width for review and written approval by the 

Director of OEP prior to construction. (page 2-9) 

13. KMLP shall file its project-specific SWPPP, including an ES&C Plan and SPRP, with the 

Secretary for review and written approval by the Director of OEP prior to construction. 

(page 2-10) 

14. KMLP shall file with the Secretary a site-specific construction plan for the crossing of 

foreign pipeline corridors between MP 25.3 and MP 26.8. These site-specific plans shall 

include scaled drawings identifying all areas that would be disturbed by construction. KMLP 

shall file these plans for review and written approval by the Director of OEP prior to 

construction. (page 2-40) 

15. Prior to the close of comment period on the draft EIS, KMLP shall file with the Secretary 

a letter from the owner of the borrow pit at MP 52.7 addressing the existing and future use of 

this resource. (page 4-6) 

16. KMLP shall restore the contours in accordance with the requirements of item V.A.5 of our 

Plan. If KMLP identifies a location(s) where it can not implement item V.A.5 of our Plan, 

KMLP shall file with the Secretary for review and written approval by the Director of OEP, 

any alternative measures that it would use to ensure preconstruction contours are restored 

without compromising pipeline integrity. (page 4-8) 

17. Prior to construction, KMLP shall file with the Secretary for review and written approval by 

the Director of OEP, a Plan for the Discovery and Management of Contaminated Soils and 

Groundwater. (page 4-14) 

18. Prior to construction, KMLP shall file with the Secretary a statement that if water quality or 

yield were found to be impaired due to the Project, KMLP would provide a temporary water 

supply and re-test the well within 30 days. In addition, KMLP shall replace any potable 

water supply system that it damages during construction and cannot repair to its former 

capacity and quality. KMLP shall identify in its report to the Secretary all potable water 

supply systems damaged by construction and how they were repaired. (page 4-19) 

19. KMLP shall file with the Secretary a site-specific construction plan for the crossing of each 

waterbody proposed as a HDD crossing. These site-specific plans shall include scaled 

drawings identifying all areas that would be disturbed by construction. KMLP shall file these 

plans for review and written approval by the Director of the OEP along with the COE permit 

prior to construction across those waterbodies. (page 4-22) 

20. KMLP shall evaluate the feasibility of using the HDD method to cross Tiger Point Gulley at 

MP 113.3 and Bayou Barwick at MP 109.2 along Leg 1 and Bayou des Cannes along the 

FGT Lateral at MP 1.57, and develop a site-specific construction plan for each of these 

crossings in coordination with FWS and LDWF that clearly identifies all construction work 

areas including the laydown area for the pipe string if the HDD method is determined to be 

feasible. KMLP shall file the results of its evaluation, the site-specific construction plans, 

and any agreed-upon mitigation measures to minimize impacts on riparian areas and the 

 5-14 Conclusions and Recommendations 
associated forested wetlands with the Secretary for review and written approval by the 

Director of OEP prior to the close of the comment period on the draft EIS. (page 4-22) 

21. Prior to construction of Access Roads 15, 19, and FGT-2, KMLP shall evaluate the 

feasibility to reroute these access roads to avoid crossing drainage ditches at MPs 52.3 and 

61.4 of Leg 1, and avoid crossing Bayou des Cannes Tributary at MP 2.3 of the FGT Lateral. 

KMLP shall file with the Secretary the reroutes for these access roads, copies of the revised 

alignment sheets, and necessary environmental information for review and written approval 

by the Director of OEP. 

If any of these access roads can not be rerouted, KMLP shall provide: 

a. justification why rerouting is infeasible; 

b. documentation of consultation with COE, including proposed mitigation measures; 

c. construction plans for these access roads; 

d. copies of necessary permits/approvals; and 

e. landowner concurrences. 

KMLP shall not use/construct these access roads until the Director or OEP notifies KMLP in 

writing that it may proceed. (page 4-23) 

22. Prior to construction, KMLP shall file the following environmental information with the 

Secretary for review and written approval by the Director of OEP: 

a. site-specific construction plan for the HDD crossing of the Calcasieu River and marina 

between MP 49.6 and MP 51.1 along Leg 1; and 

b. documentation of consultation with COE for the HDD crossing of the Calcasieu River 

and the use of COE dredge spoil area located at MP 50.0. (page 4-28) 

23. KMLP shall use hand clearing methods for clearing vegetation in the path of HDDs in 

wetland areas. (page 4-32) 

24. KMLP shall evaluate alternative routes for Access Road 4-5 or provide justification for the 

wetland impacts associated with its construction in wetlands. Any revision to the route of 

Access Road 4-5 shall be shown on revised alignment sheets. KMLP shall file with the 

Secretary results of its evaluation and copies of the revised alignment sheets for review and 

written approval by the Director of OEP prior to construction. (page 4-35) 

25. KMLP shall consult with LDNR, NOAA Fisheries Service, and FWS, and develop sitespecific construction and restoration plans for crossing the Black Bayou Hydrologic 

Restoration Project and Perry Ridge Shore Protection Project. KMLP shall file with the 

Secretary copies of its consultation, along with construction and restoration plans, for review 

and written approval by the Director of OEP prior to the completion of the final EIS. (page 

4-37) 

26. KMLP shall continue consultations with the FSA and NRCS to identify the extent and 

location of all CRP lands within Jefferson Davis Parish that would be affected by 

construction and operation of the Project. In addition, KMLP shall file with the Secretary 

prior to construction, copies of its consultation and documentation of any stipulations or 

recommendations to avoid and minimize impacts to any CRP lands that would be affected. 

(page 4-38) 

 5-15 Conclusions and Recommendations 
27. Prior to construction, KMLP shall file with the Secretary a copy of the finalized Aquatic 

Resources Mitigation Plan developed in consultation with COE, NOAA Fisheries Service, 

FWS, LDNR, and LDWF. (page 4-41) 

28. KMLP shall consult with the FWS to determine the need for and methodology of additional 

surveys for RCW along the pipeline route or provide concurrence from the FWS that the 

Project is not likely to adversely affect the RCW. The results of consultation with the FWS, 

any additional survey reports, and FWS comments on the survey shall be filed with the 

Secretary as soon as they become available before close of the comment period on the 

draft EIS. Survey reports shall include the following information: 

a. name(s) and qualifications of the person(s) conducting the survey; 

b. method(s) used to conduct the survey; 

c. date(s) of the survey; 

d. area surveyed (include the mileposts surveyed); and 

e. proposed mitigation that would substantially minimize or avoid the potential impacts. 

(page 4-70) 

29. KMLP shall consult with the NHP of LDWF and develop mitigation measures to protect the 

old prairie crawfish during construction through roadside ditches. KMLP shall file with the 

Secretary copies of its consultation prior to construction. (page 4-72) 

30. KMLP shall not begin construction activities until: 

a. the FERC completes any necessary consultations with the FWS and NOAA Fisheries 

Service; and 

b. KMLP receives written notification from the Director of OEP that construction and/or 

implementation of conservation measures may begin. (page 4-73) 

31. KMLP shall revise table 4.8.3.6-1 of the draft EIS and explicitly identify all structures and 

residences within 50 feet of the construction work areas. KMLP shall file the revised table 

with the Secretary prior to the close of the comment period on the draft EIS. (page 4-80) 

32. KMLP shall consult with the FWS to determine if FWS conservation easement properties are 

crossed by the Project. KMLP shall file with the Secretary documentation of its consultation 

with FWS, including any recommended mitigation measures, for review and written approval 

by the Director of OEP prior to construction. (page 4-83) 

33. KMLP shall develop a site-screening plan for the Transco Interconnect site (MP 122.1) and 

file that plan with the Secretary for review and written approval by the Director of OEP prior 

to the close of the comment period on the draft EIS. (page 4-85)

34. KMLP shall not begin construction on any facilities associated with the KMLP Project until

it files with the Secretary a copy of the CZM Program consistency determination issued by 

the LDNR. (page 4-85) 

35. KMLP shall defer construction and use of facilities and staging, storage, and temporary work 

areas and new or to be improved access until it files with the Secretary cultural resource 

reports, as appropriate, and the SHPO's comments; and the Director of OEP reviews and 

approves all reports and notifies KMLP in writing that it may proceed. 

 5-16 Conclusions and Recommendations 
All material filed with the Commission containing location, character, and ownership

information about cultural resources must have the cover and any relevant pages therein 

clearly labeled in bold lettering: “CONTAINS PRIVILEGED INFORMATION—DO 

NOT RELEASE.” (page 4-96) 

36. Prior to construction, KMLP shall file with the Secretary for review and written approval by 

the Director of OEP a noise mitigation and compliance plan for HDD operations at MP 44.5, 

MP 49.6, and MP 99.8. This plan shall identify mitigation measures such as noise barriers, 

temporary housing, etc. to be implemented prior to the start of drilling operations to reduce 

noise from HDD activities to below 55 dBA at NSAs. (page 4-115) 

 5-17 Conclusions and Recommendations 
[This page intentionally left blank.]