1-1 

1.0 INTRODUCTION 

On December 11, 2006, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) 

received an application from the Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP (Gulf South) pursuant to Section 7(c) 

of the Natural Gas Act and Part 157 of the Commission's regulations for a Certificate of Public 

Convenience and Necessity (Certificate) to construct, operate, and maintain several natural gas facilities. 

As modified by subsequent filings, Gulf South proposes to construct and operate: 

• an approximately 110.8-mile-long, 42-inch-diameter natural gas pipeline extending easterly 

from Simpson County, Mississippi, to Choctaw County, Alabama; 

• three new compressor stations—the Delhi Compressor Station in Richland Parish, Louisiana; 

the Harrisville Compressor Station in Simpson County, Mississippi; and the Destin 

Compressor Station in Clarke County, Mississippi; 

• other ancillary facilities, including five meter and regulation (M/R) facilities, eight mainline 

valves (MLV), one side valve, and two pig launcher and/or receiver facilities. 

The Commission's staff has prepared this Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to analyze 

the environmental impacts that would likely occur as a result of the construction and operation of these 

proposed facilities, collectively referred to as the Southeast Expansion Project (Project). 

1.1 PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED 

Gulf South indicates that the purpose of this proposed Project is to provide producers in 

eastern Texas and northern Louisiana an eastern market outlet for production from CenterPoint Energy 

Gas Transmission Company (CenterPoint) in the Perryville, Louisiana, area. The proposed Project would 

provide access to Florida markets via an interconnect with Destin Pipeline Company, LLC (Destin), and 

to northeast markets via an interconnect at Transcontinental Pipe Line Company (Transco) Station 85. 

Construction and operation of the proposed Project would help meet growing energy demands and would 

enhance reliability by providing increased access to domestic natural gas supplies. 

The Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimates that total energy consumption in the 

United States will increase from 100.2 quadrillion British thermal units (BTU) per year in 2005 to 

131.2 quadrillion BTU per year in 2030 (EIA, 2007). To maintain pace with growing energy demands, 

the EIA anticipates that consumption of natural gas in the United States will grow from 22.0 trillion cubic 

feet (Tcf) per year in 2005 to 26.1 Tcf by 2030. The growth in natural gas demand is being driven 

primarily by increased use of natural gas for electricity generation and industrial applications (EIA, 2007). 

The United States' natural gas supply currently comes from three main sources: domestic 

production, pipeline imports from Canada and Mexico, and import of liquefied natural gas (LNG). Net 

pipeline imports of natural gas from Canada and Mexico are expected to decline in coming years, and 

although LNG represents an increasingly important source of natural gas, LNG imports are only expected 

to account for about 15 percent of the total United States natural gas consumption by 2030. Domestic 

production of natural gas will continue to account for the majority of total United States consumption, 

with onshore production expected to constitute the bulk of that supply, growing to 20.6 Tcf by 2030 (EIA, 

2007). Onshore production of natural gas from unconventional sources (e.g., shale, tight sands, coal bed 

methane) is expected to be a major contributor to that growth. The EIA (2007) projects that 
 1-2 

unconventional natural gas production in the lower 48 states will account for about 50 percent of the total 

domestic production by 2030. 

1.2 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THIS EIS 

The FERC is the primary federal agency responsible for evaluating and authorizing the siting 

and construction of interstate natural gas pipeline facilities. As such, the FERC is the lead federal agency 

responsible for the preparation of this EIS, which is being completed to fulfill the requirements of the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), the Council on Environmental Quality's (CEQ) 

regulations implementing NEPA (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 1500-1508), and the FERC's 

regulations implementing NEPA (18 CFR 380). Consistent with NEPA and their respective 

responsibilities and regulations, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers (COE) are federal cooperating agencies for the development of this EIS. 

Our1

 principal purposes for preparing this EIS are to: 

• identify and assess the potential direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts on the natural and 

human environment that would result from the implementation of the proposed action; 

• describe and evaluate reasonable alternatives to the proposed action that would avoid or 

minimize adverse effects on the natural and human environment; 

• identify and recommend specific mitigation measures, as necessary, to minimize significant 

environmental impacts; 

• facilitate public involvement in identifying the significant environmental impacts. 

This EIS describes the affected environment as it currently exists, and the environmental 

consequences of constructing and operating the proposed Project; it compares the proposed Project's 

potential impacts to those of alternatives; and it presents our conclusions and recommended mitigation 

measures. 

1.3 PERMITS, APPROVALS, AND REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS 

Several federal, state, and local regulatory agencies have permitting or approval authority or 

consultation requirements pertinent to portions of the proposed Project (see Table 1.3-1). Certificates 

issued by the Commission stipulate that applicants should cooperate with state and local agencies. 

However, any state or local permits pertaining to the proposed Project facilities must be consistent with 

the conditions of any Certificate issued by the Commission. The FERC encourages cooperation between 

interstate pipeline companies and local authorities, but state and local authorities may not prohibit or 

unreasonably delay the construction or operation of facilities approved by the FERC through application 

of state and local laws. 

 

1

 The pronouns "we," "us," and "our" refer to the environmental staff of the FERC's Office of Energy Projects 

(OEP), part of the FERC staff. 
 1-3 

TABLE 1.3-1 

Summary of Major Permits, Approvals, and Consultations 

for the Proposed Southeast Expansion Project

Agency Permit/Clearance/Approval Agency Action (Status) 

Federal 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

Certificate of Public Convenience 

and Necessity under Section 7(c) of 

the Natural Gas Act 

Determine whether the construction 

and operation of the proposed 

natural gas pipeline is in the public 

interest. (Application submitted on 

December 11, 2006) 

Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation 

Consultation under Section 106 of 

the National Historic Preservation 

Act (NHPA) 

Has the opportunity to comment on 

the undertaking. (Consultation 

ongoing) 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

(COE) Mobile District 

Permits under Section 404 of the 

Clean Water Act (CWA) and 

Section 10 of the Rivers and 

Harbors Act of 1899 

Consider issuance of Section 404 

permits for the placement of dredge 

or fill material into all waters of the 

United States, including wetlands. 

Consider issuance of Section 10 

permit for work in or affecting 

navigable waters of the United 

States. (Permit application 

submitted May 2007, receipt 

anticipated August 2007) 

COE Vicksburg District Permits under Section 404 of the 

Clean Water Act (CWA) and 

Section 10 of the Rivers and 

Harbors Act of 1899 

Consider issuance of Section 404 

permits for the placement of dredge 

or fill material into all waters of the 

United States, including wetlands. 

Consider issuance of Section 10 

permit for work in or affecting 

navigable waters of the United 

States. (Permit application 

submitted May 2007; receipt 

anticipated August 2007) 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(FWS) 

Louisiana 

Consultation under Section 7 of the 

Endangered Species Act, the 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and the 

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act 

Consult on endangered and 

threatened species and migratory 

birds; general consultation regarding 

conservation of fish and wildlife 

resources. (Consultation initiated 

November 2006; clearance received 

March 27, 2007) 

FWS 

Mississippi 

Consultation under Section 7 of the 

Endangered Species Act, the 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and the 

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act 

Consult on endangered and 

threatened species and migratory 

birds; general consultation regarding 

conservation of fish and wildlife 

resources. (Consultation initiated 

July 2006; clearance anticipated 

September 2007) 

FWS 

Alabama 

Consultation under Section 7 of the 

Endangered Species Act, the 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and the 

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act 

Consult on endangered and 

threatened species and migratory 

birds; general consultation regarding 

conservation of fish and wildlife 

resources. (Consultation initiated 

July 2006; clearance anticipated 

September 2007) 

National Park Service Consultation under the Wild and 

Scenic Rivers Act 

Review for impacts on designated 

Natural Resource Inventory Streams. 

(Consultation initiated May 2007; 

consultation ongoing) 
 1-4 

TABLE 1.3-1 

Summary of Major Permits, Approvals, and Consultations 

for the Proposed Southeast Expansion Project

Agency Permit/Clearance/Approval Agency Action (Status) 

U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) 

Compliance with Sections 401, 402, 

and 404 of the Clean Water Act 

Consider issuance of water use and 

crossing, National Pollutant 

Discharge Elimination System 

(NPDES) discharge, stormwater, and 

wetland dredge-and-fill permits. 

Permitting authority delegated to the 

states. (Consultation is ongoing) 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Federal Highway Administration 

Encroachment permit Consider issuance of permit to work 

within road right-of-way. 

(Consultation is ongoing, permit 

application pending) 

State of Alabama 

Alabama Department of 

Conservation and Natural 

Resources (ADCNR) 

Threatened and Endangered 

Species Consultations 

Review and comment on the impacts 

to state listed species. (Consultation 

initiated July 2006; clearance 

received April 2007) 

ADCNR, Alabama Freshwater and 

Fisheries Division 

Fisheries, Lands, Habitats of 

Concern, Water Resources 

Consultations 

Review and comment on the impacts 

to state-listed species. (Consultation 

initiated July 2006; clearance 

received March 2007) 

Alabama Department of 

Environmental Management 

(ADEM) 

Section 401 Water Quality 

Certification 

Consider issuance of permit for 

stream and wetland crossing in 

conjunction with COE Section 404 

permit. (Permit application submitted 

May 2007; receipt anticipated August 

2007) 

ADEM Groundwater, Sensitive Waterbody 

and Surface Water Resources 

Consultations 

Consult on the impacts to state 

groundwater and waterbodies. 

(Consultation initiated July 2006; 

permit receipt anticipated) 

ADEM NPDES – Hydrostatic Test 

Discharge Permit 

Consider issuance of a Section 402 

permit regulation hydrostatic test 

water discharge, and construction 

dewatering to waters of the state. 

(Consultation ongoing; permit 

application pending) 

ADEM NPDES – Construction Stormwater 

Discharge Permit 

Consider issuance of a Section 402 

permit regulation hydrostatic test 

water discharge, and construction 

dewatering to waters of the state. 

(Consultation ongoing; permit 

application pending) 

Alabama Historic Commission Section 106, National Historic 

Preservation Act 

Review and comment on project 

activities potentially affecting cultural 

resources. (Consultations initiated 

July 2006; clearance anticipated) 

Alabama Department of 

Transportation 

Road Crossing Permits Consider issuance of permits to 

cross and work within the right-ofway of state highways. (Consultation 

is ongoing, permit application 

pending) 
 1-5 

TABLE 1.3-1 

Summary of Major Permits, Approvals, and Consultations 

for the Proposed Southeast Expansion Project

Agency Permit/Clearance/Approval Agency Action (Status) 

State of Mississippi

Mississippi Museum of Natural 

Science (MMNS) 

Threatened and Endangered 

Species Consultations 

Review and comment on the impacts 

to state-listed species. (Consultation 

initiated July 2006; clearance 

received April 2007) 

MMNS, Department of Wildlife, 

Fisheries and Parks 

Fisheries, Land, Habitats of 

Concern, Water Resources 

Consultations 

Review and comment on the impacts 

to state-listed species. (Consultation 

initiated July 2006; clearance 

received April 2007) 

Mississippi Department of 

Environmental Quality (MDEQ) 

Section 401 Water Quality 

Certification 

Consider issuance of a permit for 

stream and wetland crossing in 

conjunction with ACE Section 404 

permit. (Permit application submitted 

May 2007; receipt anticipated August 

2007) 

MDEQ Groundwater, Sensitive Waterbody 

and Surface Water Resources 

Consultations 

Consult on the impacts to state 

groundwater and waterbodies. 

(Consultation initiated July 2006; 

clearance anticipated) 

MDEQ NPDES – Hydrostatic Test 

Discharge Permit 

Consider issuance of a Section 402 

permit regulation hydrostatic test 

water discharge, and construction 

dewatering to waters of the state. 

(Consultation ongoing; permit 

application pending) 

MDEQ Air Quality Permit Consider issuance of a permit to 

construct and operate facilities with 

the potential for air emissions. 

(Permit application submitted 

February 2007; permit receipt 

anticipated August 2007) 

Mississippi Department of 

Transportation 

Road Crossing Permits Consider issuance of permits to 

cross and work within the right-ofway of state highways. (Consultation 

ongoing, permit application pending) 

Mississippi Department of 

Archives and History, Division of 

Historic Preservation 

Section 106, National Historic 

Preservation Act 

Review and comment on project 

activities potentially affecting cultural 

resources. (Consultations initiated 

July 2006; clearance anticipated) 

State of Louisiana 

Louisiana Department of Wildlife 

and Fisheries (LDWF) 

Threatened and Endangered 

Species Consultations 

Review and comment on the impacts 

to state-listed species. (Consultation 

complete) 

Louisiana Department of 

Environmental Quality (LDEQ) 

Air Quality Permit Consider issuance of a permit to 

construct and operate facilities with 

the potential for air emissions. 

(Permit application submitted 

February 2007; permit receipt 

anticipated August 2007) 

LDEQ Hydrostatic Test Water Withdrawal 

Permit 

Consider issuance of a permit for the 

withdrawal of hydrostatic water. 

(Consultation ongoing; permit 

application pending) 
 1-6 

TABLE 1.3-1 

Summary of Major Permits, Approvals, and Consultations 

for the Proposed Southeast Expansion Project

Agency Permit/Clearance/Approval Agency Action (Status) 

LDEQ NPDES – Hydrostatic Test Water 

Discharge Permit 

Consider issuance of a Section 402 

permit regulation hydrostatic test 

water discharge, and construction 

dewatering to waters of the state. 

(Consultation ongoing; permit 

application pending) 

Section 106, National Historic 

Preservation Act 

Louisiana Department of Culture, 

Recreation, and Tourism 

Review and comment on project 

activities potentially affecting cultural 

resources. (Consultations initiated 

November 2006; clearance received 

December 2006) 

As the lead federal agency responsible for the review of the proposed Project, the FERC is 

required to comply with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and Section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). Compliance with the Clean Water Act (CWA), the Rivers and 

Harbors Act of 1899, and the Clean Air Act (CAA) has also 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 a 

federal agency (for example, 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]). The lead 

federal agency for a proposed project is required to consult with the FWS to determine whether any 

species federally listed or proposed for listing as endangered or threatened or their designated critical 

habitat occur in the vicinity of the proposed project. If the lead federal agency determines that these 

species or habitats may be affected by the proposed project, it is required to prepare a biological 

assessment to identify the nature and extent of these effects, and to recommend measures that would 

avoid the habitat and/or species, or would reduce potential impacts to acceptable levels. Our compliance 

with Section 7 of the ESA is provided in Section 3.7 of this EIS. 

Section 106 of the NHPA requires the lead federal agency to take into account the effects of its 

undertakings on properties listed in, or eligible for listing in, 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 Gulf South, as a 

non-federal party, assist in meeting the FERC's obligations under Section 106 by preparing the necessary 

information and analyses as required by the ACHP procedures in 36 CFR 800. Additional information on 

Section 106 consultation is provided in Section 3.10 of this EIS. 

Gulf South is required to comply with Sections 401, 402, and 404 of the CWA. The EPA has 

delegated water quality certification (Section 401) to the jurisdiction of individual state agencies, but the 

EPA may assume this authority if no state program exists, if the state program is not functioning 

adequately, or at the request of a state. Water used for hydrostatic testing of pipelines that is point-source 

discharged into waterbodies requires a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit 

(Section 402) issued by the state with EPA oversight. 

The COE has responsibility for determining compliance with the regulatory requirements of 

Section 404 of the CWA. The EPA also independently reviews Section 404 wetland dredge-and-fill 
 1-7 

applications for the COE and has Section 404(c) veto power for wetland permits issued by the COE. The 

Section 404 permitting process regulates the discharge of dredge or fill material associated with the 

construction of pipelines across streams and in wetlands. Before an individual Section 404 permit can be 

issued, the CWA requires completion of a Section 404(b)(1) guidelines analysis. The FERC, in the 

NEPA review required to prepare this EIS, has analyzed the technical issues required for the Section 

404(b)(1) guidelines analysis, including analysis of natural resources and cultural resources that would be 

affected by the proposed Project, as well as analyses of alternatives and route variations that would 

eliminate or minimize the discharge of fill material into waters of the United States. The COE, as a 

federal cooperating agency, may use the EIS to support its decision on the Section 404 permit for the 

proposed Project. Water resources and wetlands are discussed in Section 3.3 and Section 3.4, 

respectively. 

In addition to its CWA responsibilities, the COE has jurisdiction over Section 10 permits. 

Section 10 permits would be required for all construction activities in navigable waterways under the 

Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. 

Ambient air quality is protected by federal regulations under the CAA. These regulations 

include compliance under the new source performance standards (NSPS) and the requirements for the 

prevention of significant deterioration (PSD). The federal permitting process for the CAA has been 

delegated to individual state agencies. Although applications are reviewed by both the states and the 

EPA, the states would determine the need for NSPS or PSD permits. Air quality and applicable 

regulations are discussed further in Section 3.11.1 of this EIS. 

1.4 PUBLIC REVIEW AND COMMENT 

On June 20, 2006, Gulf South filed a request with the FERC to implement the Commission's 

Pre-filing Review Process for the Southeast Expansion Project. We granted Gulf South's request to use 

the Pre-filing Review Process on June 28, 2006, and established a Pre-filing docket number 

(PF06-31-000) to place information related to the proposed Project into the public record. The Pre-filing 

Review Process was established to encourage the early involvement of interested stakeholders, facilitate 

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

As part of their outreach efforts, Gulf South mailed notification letters to landowners and to 

government and agency officials, and notified the general public of the proposed Project, inviting them to 

attend open houses held on September 6, 7, and 14, 2006, to learn about the proposed Project and to ask 

questions and express their concerns. Notifications of the open houses also were published in local 

newspapers. The open houses were held in Mendenhall and Heidelberg, Mississippi, and in Butler, 

Alabama, on September 6, 7, and 14, 2006, respectively. The FERC staff attended the open houses to 

explain the environmental review process to interested stakeholders and accept comments about the 

proposed Project. The questions and concerns raised by the public at the open houses are addressed in 

this EIS. 

As part of the Pre-filing Review Process, on September 5, 2006, we issued a Notice of Intent 

to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Southeast Expansion Project, Request 

for Comments on Environmental Issues, and Notice of Public Scoping Meetings (NOI). The NOI was 

sent to affected landowners; federal, state, and local government agencies; elected officials; 

environmental and public interest groups; Native American tribes; local libraries and newspapers; and 

other interested parties. The NOI, which was published in the Federal Register, provided a summary of 

the proposed Project, outlined our NEPA-required environmental review process, provided a list of the 

then currently identified environmental issues, and requested comments on the scope of the analysis for 

the Draft EIS. The NOI also listed the locations, dates, and times of three public scoping meetings that 
 1-8 

were sponsored by the FERC to give the general public an opportunity to learn more about the proposed 

Project and to comment on environmental issues to be addressed in the Draft EIS. These meetings were 

held in Mendenhall and Heidelberg, Mississippi, and in Butler, Alabama, on September 19, 20, and 21, 

2006, respectively. 

As a result of engineering changes and customer requests made between the September 2006 

FERC scoping meetings and the development of the Draft EIS, Gulf South added two additional 

compressor stations (Delhi and Destin compressor stations) to the proposed Project. To ensure that the 

public surrounding these additional compressor stations had adequate knowledge of the compressor 

station additions and an adequate avenue through which to comment, the FERC issued a letter on 

November 28, 2006, to those landowners (a total of 33) within a 0.5-mile radius of each of these 

additional compressor stations. 

The transcripts of all scoping meetings, as well as all written comments received before and 

after the scoping meetings, are part of the public record for the proposed Project and are available for 

viewing on the FERC Internet website (www.ferc.gov). During the Pre-filing and scoping periods for the 

proposed Projects, we received a total of 25 verbal and written comment letters from members of the 

general public and federal and state resource agencies. The issues and concerns identified by commentors 

during the public scoping process for the proposed Project are summarized in Table 1.4-1, which also 

identifies the EIS section in which these issues are addressed. 

In addition to the public notice and scoping process discussed above, the FERC conducted 

agency consultations and participated in interagency meetings to identify issues that should be addressed 

in the EIS. These activities included participation in interagency meetings on December 5, 2006, with the 

FWS, Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks (MDWFP) and the Mississippi Natural 

Heritage Program (MNHP); on December 6, 2006, with the Mississippi Secretary of State Lead Council; 

on December 6, 2006, with the MDWFP and COE; on December 8, 2006, with the Alabama Department 

of Environmental Management (ADEM); and on December 8, 2006, with the Alabama Department of 

Conservation and Natural Resources (ADCNR). 

TABLE 1.4-1 

Issues Identified and Comments Received During the 

Public Scoping Process for the Proposed Southeast Expansion Project 

Issue/Specific Comments 

EIS Section 

Addressing 

Comment 

General 

Project purpose and need 1.1 

Public notification requirements 1.3, 1.4 

Describe construction methods and land requirements 2.2, 2.3, 3.8 

Maintenance procedures to be implemented during operation, including vegetation management 

and inspections 

2.5, 2.6, 3.5, 

3.12 

Potential damage to existing utilities, including water lines and irrigation systems 2.3 
 1-9 

TABLE 1.4-1 

Issues Identified and Comments Received During the 

Public Scoping Process for the Proposed Southeast Expansion Project 

Issue/Specific Comments 

EIS Section 

Addressing 

Comment 

Geology and Soils 

Impacts to soils, including compaction, drainage, and erosion potential following construction, and 

associated mitigation 

3.2 

Water Resources 

Construction-related impacts to irrigation wells; potential for contamination; and monitoring 

requirements 

3.3.1 

Impacts to springs 3.3 

Hydrostatic water withdrawals and the impact to streams 2.3, 3.3.2 

Vegetation and Wetlands 

Avoidance and minimization of impacts to sensitive habitats, including wetlands, bottomland 

hardwoods, riparian habitats, and native prairies and rangelands during construction and 

maintenance activities; mitigation for Project-related effects 

3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 

3.6 

Use of native vegetation and seed mixes to restore disturbed areas 3.2, 3.4, 3.5 

Fish and Wildlife Resources 

Impacts to fish and wildlife habitat 3.4, 3.5, 3.6 

Collocation with other existing rights-of-way to minimize habitat fragmentation 3.4, 3.5, 3.6 

Threatened, Endangered, and Special Status Species 

Potential impacts to state and federally protected species or their habitat 3.7 

Land Use, Recreation and Special Interest Areas, and Visual Resources 

Impacts to affected property, including agriculture, silviculture activities, and property access 

during operation 

2.3, 3.5, 3.8 

Proximity of pipeline to occupied structures 3.8 

Reduced property access during construction activities in regard to livestock 2.3, 3.8 

Allowable uses/restrictions on future development along the permanent right-of-way 3.8 

Impacts of multiple pipeline and utility rights-of-way 3.8, 4.4 

Air Quality and Noise 

Potential air emission impacts from compressor stations during operation 3.11.1 

Potential impacts from construction-related noise 3.11.2 

Potential noise impacts from compressor stations during operations 3.11.2 

Cultural Resources 

Identification, evaluation, and protection of potentially affected cultural resources 3.10 
 1-10 

TABLE 1.4-1 

Issues Identified and Comments Received During the 

Public Scoping Process for the Proposed Southeast Expansion Project 

Issue/Specific Comments 

EIS Section 

Addressing 

Comment 

Native American notification and consultation 3.10 

Socioeconomics 

Potential effect on property values 3.9 

Loss of timber production values for affected silviculture operations 3.8, 3.9 

General economic effects to agricultural operations 3.9 

Potential for landowner liability associated with accidental pipeline damage; associated insurance 

premium effects 

3.9 

Economic impact on the local economy 3.9 

Responsibility for payment of property taxes along pipeline right-of-way 3.9 

Reliability and Safety 

Public safety; risk of leak, explosion, or catastrophic accident 3.12 

Stability and integrity of pipeline; potential for damage from outside forces, such as agricultural 

operations and equipment 

2.6, 3.12 

Cumulative Impacts 

Cumulative impacts of similar proposed pipeline projects 3.13 

Alternatives 

Analysis of alternative pipeline routes and aboveground facility locations, including alternative 

compressor station sites 

4.3, 4.4, 4.5 

Use of alternative fuels to reduce need for the proposed Project 4.1 

The FERC prepared a Draft EIS for the Southeast Expansion Project and issued a Notice of 

Availability (NOA) for the Draft EIS on April 13, 2007. The Draft EIS was also filed with the EPA and a 

formal notice was published in the Federal Register (FR) on April 20, 2007, indicating that the Draft EIS 

was available and had been mailed to individuals and organizations on the distribution list prepared for 

the proposed Project (see Appendix A). In accordance with the CEQ regulations, the NOA and FR notice 

established a 45-day comment period ending on May 29, 2007; described procedures for filing comments 

on the Draft EIS; and announced the time, dates, and locations of public comment meetings held to 

receive comments on the Draft EIS. These announcements also described how additional Project 

information could be obtained from the Commission's Office of External Affairs and on the FERC's 

Internet website. 

During the Draft EIS comment period, the FERC conducted public comment meetings in 

Mendenhall and Heidelberg, Mississippi, and Butler, Alabama, on May 8, 9, and 10, 2007, respectively. 

The meetings provided interested groups and individuals the opportunity to present oral comments on the 

FERC staff's analysis of the environmental impacts of the proposed Project as described in the Draft EIS. 

Eight individuals provided oral comments at the public meetings. In addition, we received written 
 1-11 

comments on the Draft EIS from two federal agencies, the DOI and EPA. The public comment meeting 

transcripts and all written comments received on the Draft EIS are part of the public record for the 

Project. Comments received on the Draft EIS and the FERC staff's responses to those comments are 

provided in Appendix L of this EIS. Changes were also made in the text of the Final EIS in response to 

comments on the Draft EIS and as a result of updated information that became available following 

issuance of the Draft EIS. 

The Final EIS was mailed to the agencies, individuals, and organizations on the mailing list 

and submitted to the EPA for issuance of a formal public notice of availability. In accordance with CEQ's 

regulations implementing NEPA, no agency decision on a proposed action may be made until 30 days 

after the EPA publishes a notice of availability of a Final EIS. However, the CEQ regulations provide an 

exception to this rule when an agency decision is subject to a formal internal process that allows other 

agencies or the public to make their views known. In such cases, the agency decision may be made at the 

same time the notice of the Final EIS is published, allowing both periods to run concurrently. Should the 

FERC issue Gulf South authorizations for the proposed Project, it would be subject to a 30-day rehearing 

period. Therefore, the Commission could issue its decision concurrently with the EPA's notice of 

availability. 

1.5 NON-JURISDICTIONAL FACILITIES 

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

certificate jurisdictional facilities, all facilities including non-jurisdictional facilities that are directly 

related to the proposed Project where there is sufficient federal control and responsibility to warrant 

environmental analysis as part of this proceeding. The jurisdictional facilities for the proposed Project are 

described in detail in Section 2.1 and are addressed throughout this EIS. Non-jurisdictional facilities are 

those facilities that would be constructed upstream or downstream of the jurisdictional facilities for the 

purpose of delivering, receiving, or using the proposed gas volumes. Non-jurisdictional facilities 

typically include major power facilities, such as cogeneration plants, as well as less significant facilities, 

such as lateral pipeline connections. 

Electrical power lines would be constructed to provide electrical service to the three new 

compressor stations. These facilities would be constructed and operated by Entergy, Southern Pine EPA, 

and East Mississippi Power to provide power to the Delhi, Harrisville, and Destin compressor stations, 

respectively. These electrical power lines have been identified as non-jurisdictional facilities. 

We use a "four-factor test" 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 non-jurisdictional 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 Commission's jurisdiction; and 

• the extent of cumulative federal control and responsibility. 
 1-12 

With regard to the first factor, the jurisdictional facilities, the proposed Project is clearly a link 

in a natural gas project. The proposed Project would serve as a new pipeline transportation system 

between the producers and consumers of natural gas. As a common carrier, Gulf South serves only to 

transport natural gas for its customers and does not sell gas to consumers. Therefore, this factor supports 

examining the non-jurisdictional facilities. 

With regard to the second factor, the proposed Project would receive electricity from nonjurisdictional facilities, but the design and route of the proposed Project has not been uniquely influenced 

by the location or configuration of the non-jurisdictional facilities. The locations of the non-jurisdictional 

facilities have not been established, thus these facilities have had no effect on the location of the Project 

facility configuration. Therefore, this factor does not support extending the scope of the environmental 

review. 

The third factor weighs the extent to which the entire Project would be within the FERC's 

jurisdiction. Electrical facilities are regulated by state and local permitting agencies. The FERC has no 

authority over the permitting, licensing, funding, construction, or operation of these non-jurisdictional 

facilities. Therefore, this factor weighs against extending the scope of the environmental review. 

Finally, the fourth factor weighs the extent of cumulative federal control and responsibility 

over the non-jurisdictional facilities. Federal control is determined by the amount of federal financing, 

assistance, direction, regulation, or approval inherent in a project. The non-jurisdictional facilities are 

private construction projects under state and local jurisdiction. The federal government has no financial 

involvement, and no federal lands are involved. Based on the available information, federal agencies are 

expected to have either very limited or no involvement in the approval of the non-jurisdictional facilities. 

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

environmental review. 

We have applied the four-factor test to the proposed Southeast Expansion Project and have 

determined that only one factor favors examining the identified non-jurisdictional facilities. Therefore, 

insufficient justification exists to warrant extension of the FERC's environmental review to include the 

proposed electrical power lines.