EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

INTRODUCTION 

This draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Kinder Morgan Louisiana Pipeline 

Project (Project) has been prepared by the staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or 

Commission) to fulfill the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The purpose 

of this document is to inform the public, the Commission, and federal and state agencies about the 

potential adverse and beneficial environmental impacts of the Project and its alternatives, and to 

recommend mitigation measures that would avoid or reduce any significant adverse impacts to the 

maximum extent possible. This document has been prepared in coordination with our1

 federal 

cooperating agencies for the Project, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) and the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (FWS). 

This draft EIS was filed with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and a formal notice of 

availability was published in the Federal Register. In accordance with the Council on Environmental 

Quality regulations implementing NEPA, the public has the opportunity to comment on this draft EIS in 

the form of written comments or during public meetings to be held in the project area (to be announced in 

a separate notice). We would review and use the comments to prepare the final EIS for the Project. All 

timely and substantive comments received on the draft EIS would be addressed in the final EIS. 

PROJECT BACKGROUND 

Kinder Morgan Louisiana Pipeline LLC (KMLP) filed a request to implement the Commission’s 

Pre-filing Process on January 31, 2006. We approved this request on February 17, 2006 and a pre-filing 

docket number (PF06-16-000) was established to file related documents into the public record. 

On September 8, 2006, KMLP filed an application with the Commission, pursuant to section 7(c) 

of the Natural Gas Act, as amended, and Parts 157 and 284 of the Commission’s regulations. Under 

Docket No. CP06-449-000, KMLP seeks a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (Certificate) 

to construct, own, operate, and maintain the natural gas pipelines and associated infrastructure to deliver 

regasified liquefied natural gas (LNG) from the Sabine Pass LNG Terminal into the national pipeline and 

underground gas storage grid. 

PROPOSED ACTION 

The Project would deliver gas to 10 existing interstate pipelines and one existing intrastate 

pipeline via 14 interconnect installations 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. 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. Specifically, the Project facilities would 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 interstate pipeline in Evangeline Parish, Louisiana. 

 

1

 “Our,” “we,” and “us” refer to the environmental staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s Office of 

Energy Projects. 

 ES-1 Executive Summary
• 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 pipeline just south of State Highway 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 No. 7 near the town of Williams in 

Acadia Parish, Louisiana. 

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

KMLP proposes to commence construction on Leg 1 and Leg 2 in November 2007 and on the 

FGT Lateral in October 2008. Leg 2 and interconnects would be completed by April 2008 and brought 

into service by October 1, 2008. Leg 1, the FGT Lateral, and their respective interconnects would be 

completed by November 2008 and brought into service by April 1, 2009. 

PUBLIC OUTREACH AND COMMENTS 

As part of the pre-filing process, we issued a Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental 

Impact Statement for the Proposed Kinder Morgan Louisiana Pipeline Project Request for Comments on 

Environmental Issues, and Notice of Public Scoping Meetings (NOI) on March 24, 2006. We sent the 

NOI 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. 

We received comment letters in response to our NOI from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries Service), FWS, and Louisiana 

Department of Wildlife and Fisheries (LDWF). We received no comment letters from landowners or 

other stakeholders. 

On April 26, 2006, we issued a Notice of Site Visit and Public Meetings to provide notice to the 

public of our site visit and three scheduled public scoping meetings, which were held on May 8, 9, and 

11, 2006, in Ville Platte, Sulphur, and Iowa, Louisiana, respectively. At each of the meetings, we heard 

comments from two individuals. Transcripts of these comments are part of the public record for the 

KMLP Project. On May 10, 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 ground-based site visit of the entire route, which was open to the public. 

We also conducted agency consultations and participated in interagency meetings 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 both meetings included 

representatives from the COE, FWS, NOAA Fisheries Service, and LDWF. We used the scoping 

comments to help focus the analysis in the draft EIS on potentially significant environmental issues 

related to the proposed action. 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 

Construction and operation of the Project would result in numerous impacts to the environment. 

We evaluated the impacts to geology, soils, water resources, wetlands, vegetation, wildlife and aquatic 

resources, threatened and endangered species, land use, socioeconomics, cultural resources, air quality, 

noise, and safety. We also considered the cumulative impacts of this Project with current and foreseeable 

projects in the area. The primary issues with the Project were related to impacts to wetlands and 

waterbodies. Major findings and conclusions are summarized below. 

ES-2 Executive Summary
Most of the land affected by the Project is agricultural land, open land (consisting of rangeland, 

non-forested wetlands, transitional areas, and sandy areas), and open water. Construction would affect a 

total of 3,030.7 acres. Operation of the Project would affect 840.9 acres, including 821.7 acres of the 

permanent right-of-way, 12.3 acres of aboveground facilities, and 6.9 acres of the permanent access 

roads. All construction would follow our Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation and Maintenance Plan

(Plan) and Wetland and Waterbody Construction and Mitigation Procedures (Procedures), with a few 

minor alternative measures that we have specifically reviewed and found acceptable. 

The Project would be constructed across 310 waterbodies, including Sabine Lake, the Gulf 

Intracoastal Waterway (GIWW), and Calcasieu River. To minimize impacts, KMLP proposed to conduct 

18 horizontal directional drill (HDD) operations to install the pipeline under 24 waterbodies (some of the 

HDDs would encompass more than one waterbody). In addition, 147 waterbodies would be crossed by 

bore and two would be crossed using a flume. Based on the characteristics of the identified waterbodies, 

KMLP’s proposed construction methods and operations procedures, its implementation of waterbodyrelated measures described in our Procedures, and our recommended measures, we believe that effects to 

surface waters resulting from construction and operation of the Project would be temporary and localized. 

Sabine Lake is a large waterbody with important aquatic resources such as essential fish habitat 

(EFH) and oyster resources. KMLP proposes to cross Sabine Lake by HDD at the lake’s southern and 

northern shorelines and via open-cut construction methods requiring the use of spud barges across the 

lake’s open water. The use of HDD crossing methods at the northern and southern banks of Sabine Lake 

would avoid impacts to shoreline erosion, oyster reefs, and EFH wetlands. Open-cut construction across 

approximately 13 miles of Sabine Lake would affect water quality during construction, temporarily 

causing sediment re-suspension and related impacts in the water column. The Project would not directly 

affect known oyster reefs, but oysters inhabiting the area could be affected by increased turbidity or by 

deposition of sediments suspended by construction activities. KMLP would compensate LDWF for each 

bottom substrate directly impacted by pipeline construction and also for oysters lost due to sedimentation 

on the reefs. 

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

construction right-of-way would affect 352 wetlands covering approximately 504.2 acres of wetlands. Of 

this total, about 99.5 acres are considered EFH wetlands. Most of the wetlands affected by pipeline 

construction would be restored, reseeded, and allowed to naturally revegetate and return to 

preconstruction conditions. Forested wetlands within the permanent right-of-way would be converted and 

maintained as an emergent or scrub-shrub wetland. Operation of the pipeline facilities would result in the 

permanent conversion of 14.9 acres of forested 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. 

To minimize temporary construction impacts on wetlands, KMLP would implement protective measures 

in our Procedures, the recommendations made in this draft EIS, and the mitigation measures described in 

an Aquatic Resources Management Plan. Additionally, KMLP would cross several wetlands along the 

Project using the HDD method, which would avoid impacts on these wetlands. 

Based on consultations and comments received from FWS and NOAA Fisheries Service, we 

evaluated the impacts of the Project on the bald eagle, brown pelican, red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW), 

and five species of sea turtles. We have determined that there would be no adverse effects for the bald 

eagle or brown pelican. With the protective measures recommended by NOAA Fisheries Service, the 

impacts on sea turtles are expected to be temporary, localized, and minor; therefore, the Project would not 

adversely affect these species. With regard to the RCW, we are recommending that KMLP file 

documentation of further consultation with FWS along with survey reports and FWS comments on all 

necessary RCW surveys. We are also recommending that KMLP not begin construction until we 

complete our consultation with FWS and NOAA Fisheries Service, and KMLP receives written 

 ES-3 Executive Summary
notification from the Director of Office of Energy Projects (OEP) that construction and/or implementation 

of conservation measures may begin. 

Detailed descriptions of all impacts, proposed mitigation measures to minimize these impacts, 

and our recommendations to further avoid, minimize, and mitigate these impacts are described in section 

4.0 of this draft EIS. 

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 

We evaluated the no action or postponed action alternatives, which would eliminate the shortand long-term environmental impacts identified in this draft EIS. However, the objectives of the Project 

would not be met, and KMLP would not be able to deliver regasified LNG to markets in Louisiana and 

the rest of the United States as proposed. We evaluated system alternatives to examine whether other 

existing or proposed natural gas pipeline systems would meet the Project objectives while offering an 

environmental advantage over the Project. Currently, there is no existing pipeline system that could be 

used to meet the Project objectives and we determined that two system alternatives involving proposed 

pipeline systems, including the approved Sabine Pass Pipeline, do not offer significant environmental 

benefits relative to the proposed action. We also evaluated four major route alternatives to the Project 

route. However, none of these major route alternatives would offer significant environmental advantages 

over the proposed route, and we eliminated them from further consideration. Lastly, we evaluated 15 

route variations to avoid or reduce construction impacts to localized, specific resources. 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. 

CONCLUSIONS 

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

adverse environmental impacts based on information provided by KMLP and data developed from 

information requests; field investigations; literature research; alternatives analysis; comments from 

federal, state, and local agencies; and public input. These limited impacts would be most significant 

during the construction period. 

As part of our review, we developed specific mitigation measures that we believe would 

appropriately and reasonably reduce the environmental impacts resulting from construction and operation 

of the Project. We believe that environmental impacts would be minimized if the Project is constructed 

and operated in accordance with applicable laws and regulations, KMLP’s proposed mitigation, and our 

additional mitigation measures. The primary reasons for our conclusion are: 

• About 54 percent of the proposed route would collocate with or parallel existing rights-of-way; 

• KMLP would use HDD across most sensitive areas, including major waterbodies, oyster reefs, 

several wetlands, congested pipeline corridors, and select roads and developed areas; 

• KMLP would consult with resource agencies to further avoid and minimize impacts to 

wetlands, EFH, and threatened and endangered species; and 

• Construction would be done in accordance with our Plan and Procedures and all applicable 

permits and authorizations, and an environmental inspection and monitoring program would 

ensure compliance with all mitigation measures that become conditions of any Commission 

authorization. 

ES-4 Executive Summary