4-1 

4.0 ALTERNATIVES 

As required by the NEPA, we have evaluated several alternatives to the proposed Southeast 

Expansion Project to determine whether they would be technically and economically feasible and 

environmentally preferable to the proposed action. Our alternatives analysis includes alternatives 

proposed by the general public as well as other federal and state resource agencies, and considers the 

environmental differences resulting from each alternative as well as the alternative's ability to meet the 

proposed Project's objectives. 

We considered the No-Action or Postponed Action alternative, alternative energy sources, the 

effects of energy conservation, system alternatives, route alternatives, route variations, and aboveground 

facility site alternatives. We also considered the potential impacts to environmental resources and land 

uses in our alternatives analysis and evaluated alternatives that would avoid or minimize impacts to 

environmental resources such as wetlands and waterbodies, land uses such as timber production, and 

federally and state managed lands. 

The following evaluation criteria were used to determine whether or not alternatives would be 

environmentally preferable: 

• Significant environmental advantage over the proposed Project; 

• Ability to meet the proposed Project objectives; and 

• Technical and economic feasibility and practicability. 

4.1 NO-ACTION OR POSTPONED-ACTION ALTERNATIVES 

The Commission has three alternative courses of action in processing an application for a 

Certificate: (1) grant the certificate with or without conditions; (2) deny the Certificate; or (3) postpone 

action pending further study. 

Implementation of the No-Action alternative would require the Commission to deny Gulf 

South a Certificate to construct, own, operate, and maintain the proposed Project. Without the issuance of 

a Certificate, Gulf South would not be able to construct the proposed Project, and therefore the 

environmental impacts identified in this EIS would be eliminated; however, the objectives of the 

proposed Project would not be met, and it is likely that customers would seek alternative projects and/or 

sources of energy that may result in greater impacts than those described in this EIS. As discussed in 

Section 1.1, nationwide consumption of natural gas is projected to increase by more than 20 percent by 

2030, and natural gas derived from domestic sources will account for the majority of the total U.S. 

consumption (EIA, 2007). By 2025, natural gas demand in the Northeast and Midwest regions is 

projected to increase by 13 and 25 percent, respectively (EIA, 2006b). Onshore production of natural gas 

from unconventional sources (e.g., shale, tight sands, and coal bed methane) is expected to be a major 

contributor to future domestic natural gas supplies (EIA, 2007). The proposed Project would supply up to 

1.272 Bcf/d of natural gas from unconventional sources (i.e., Bossier Sand and Barnett Shale fields). 

Since the objectives of the proposed project would not be met by implementing the No-Action alternative 

and the effects of other customer driven projects are unknown, we believe that this alternative is not 

preferable to the proposed action. 

Implementation of the Postponed-Action alternative would require the Commission to delay 

its determination on whether or not to grant Gulf South a Certificate. Postponing the Commission's action 

on this application could allow for further study of the environmental impacts resulting from construction 

and operation of the proposed Project; however, postponement would at the minimum delay and could 
 4-2 

also change the environmental impacts described in this EIS. Based on the information provided in Gulf 

South's application, its subsequent filings and responses to environmental information requests, our 

analysis of this information, and consultations with other responsible state and federal resource agencies; 

we believe that use of the Postponed-Action alternative to allow for further study of the proposed Project 

is not necessary at this time and that delaying the effects described in this EIS would not significantly 

change these effects; therefore, we believe that this alternative is not preferable to the proposed action. 

Alternative Energy Sources 

Several alternative energy sources to natural gas currently exist, including petroleum and coal 

based energy, nuclear power, hydropower, and other energy sources that include renewable energy 

technologies. Petroleum and coal-based energy are commonly used and found throughout the U.S.; 

however, relative to natural gas, the use of petroleum or coal-based energy would result in greatly 

increased emissions of pollutants, such as NOx, SO2, and CO2. The increased emission of pollutants 

would result in reductions to air quality. In addition, the use of petroleum and coal-based energy would 

result in numerous secondary impacts associated with their mining, extraction, transportation, and 

refinement. The use of this alternative would not meet the proposed Project's objectives and would not 

likely result in a significant reduction of environmental impacts; therefore, we believe use of this energy 

source is not preferable to the proposed action. 

Although there has recently been renewed interest in nuclear power production, growth in 

nuclear generating capacity will account for only about 10 percent of total U.S. generating capacity by 

2019, and it is expected to remain at that level through 2030 (EIA, 2006a). Additionally, regulatory 

requirements, cost considerations, and public concerns make it unlikely that new nuclear power plants 

would be sited and developed to serve the markets targeted by the proposed Project within a timeframe 

that would meet the objectives of the proposed Project; therefore, we believe use of this energy source is 

not preferable to the proposed action. 

Though efficiency upgrades at existing hydropower facilities are expected to produce 

incremental additions of power production in the coming years, it is unlikely that new and/or significant 

sources of hydropower would be permitted and brought on-line as reliable energy source alternatives to 

the proposed Project. Federal, state, and local initiatives will likely contribute to an increase in the 

availability and cost effectiveness of non-hydropower renewable energy sources, such as wind, solar, 

tidal, geothermal, and biomass. For example, state and local initiatives have increased the availability of 

wind power-derived energy to local consumers in Texas (Texas Renewable Energy Industries Association 

2006), and renewable energy is playing a larger role in the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast regions of the 

United States (CSC, 2004; New York State Energy Research and Development Authority, 1999). Still, 

the percentage of electricity generated from non-hydropower renewable energy sources at the national 

level is projected to increase to only 3.2 percent by 2025 (EIA, 2006a), which would offset only a small 

part of the projected national energy demands; therefore, we believe that these other energy sources 

would not be able to meet the overall objectives of the proposed Project and as a result are not preferable 

to the proposed action. 

Energy Conservation Alternatives 

An increase in the scope of energy conservation measures employed throughout the market 

area served by the proposed Project could also potentially decrease or slow the amount of increase in the 

nation's energy demand. However, as noted in Section 1.1, energy demand in the United States has been 

increasing steadily, with total energy consumption in the United States estimated to increase from 

100.2 quadrillion BTU per year in 2005 to 131.2 quadrillion BTU per year in 2030 (EIA, 2007). Natural 

gas usage will represent about 22 percent of all energy consumption in the United States by 2025. To 
 4-3 

maintain pace with growing energy demands, the EIA anticipates that consumption of natural gas in the 

United States will grow from 22.4 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. Given the anticipated increases of energy consumption over the next 20 years, it is unlikely 

that voluntary energy conservation measures would be sufficient to offset increasing demand in general or 

affect the need for the proposed Project in particular. 

4.2 SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES 

System alternatives are alternatives to the proposed action that would make use of existing, 

modified, or proposed pipeline systems to meet the stated objectives of the proposed Project. 

Implementation of a system alternative would make it unnecessary to construct the proposed Project, 

although some modifications or additions to existing or proposed pipeline systems may be required to 

meet the objectives of the proposed Project. Modifications or additions to existing or proposed pipeline 

systems would result in environmental impacts that may be less than, similar to, or greater than those 

associated with construction and operation of the proposed Project. The purpose of identifying and 

evaluating system alternatives is to determine whether or not the environmental impacts associated with 

the construction and operation of the proposed Project would be avoided or reduced by using existing, 

modified, or proposed pipeline systems. 

Our analysis of system alternatives includes an examination of existing and proposed natural 

gas systems that currently or would eventually serve the markets targeted by the proposed Project, and 

considers whether those systems would meet the proposed Project's objectives while offering an 

environmental advantage over the proposed Project. 

Gulf South, because of its extensively interconnected system, would appear to have the sole 

potential existing pipeline system that could be used for a system alternative meeting the purposes or a 

portion of the purposes of the Southeast Expansion Project. However, use of Gulf South's system as a 

system alternative to the Southeast Expansion Project is very limited. Gulf South's existing pipeline 

system in the central Mississippi area is mostly low-pressure or medium-pressure pipeline and is mostly 

dedicated to a type of service that requires unpredictable contractual commitments. In addition, Gulf 

South has no available high-pressure take-away capacity from the central Mississippi area. Gulf South's 

high-pressure north-south Index 130 pipeline, which extends from Bayou Sale, Louisiana, to Kosciusko, 

Mississippi, is sold out of capacity at its MAOP. Because of these existing pipeline capacity constraints, 

the use of Gulf South's existing facilities to make the level of deliveries requested by the market are not a 

viable alternative. New pipeline and compression, such as that proposed for the Southeast Expansion 

Project, would have to be constructed to alleviate the new capacity constraints developing in the 

Perryville-Harrisville area and to provide additional outlets for new supplies. 

Our engineering staff evaluated other potential system alternatives to Gulf South's expansion, 

using proposed pipeline systems such as Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, and planned or 

proposed projects such as the Southeast Supply Header Project, the East Texas to Mississippi Expansion 

Project, and the currently-constructed Carthage to Perryville Expansion Project. Staff found that no other 

interstate pipeline systems in the region could serve Gulf South's customers without having to construct 

additional facilities that would result in environmental impacts similar to or greater than Gulf South's 

proposed Project. 

4.3 ROUTE ALTERNATIVES 

Route alternatives represent potential routes that the proposed Project could follow that vary 

significantly from the proposed route. A route alternative would deviate from the proposed route for its 
 4-4 

entire length or at least a large portion of its total length. Based on input provided to us by the general 

public, as well as federal and state resource agencies, and our review of the proposed Project, we 

identified and evaluated one major route alternative to the proposed Project route: Major Route 

Alternative A (Alternative A). Both Alternative A and the proposed Project are summarized in Table 

4.3-1 and discussed further below. 

It should be noted that Alternative A and the proposed Project only differ in the westernmost 

sections of their respective routes (i.e., from MP 0 to approximate MP 38.3 on the preferred route). For 

the last approximately 72 miles, both routes are the same, collocating with the same existing rights-ofway to the terminus at Transco Station 85. Both routes begin at the proposed Harrisville Compressor 

Station and end at the existing Transco Station 85. Furthermore, the same aboveground facilities, 

including compressor stations, mainline valves, and interconnects, would be necessary for both 

Alternative A and the proposed Project. Thus, aboveground facilities are not discussed further in the 

consideration of route alternatives. However, alternative compressor station sites are discussed later in 

this section. 

TABLE 4.3-1 

Comparison of Route Alternatives to the Proposed Southeast Expansion Project 

Comparative Category Unit Proposed Projecta,b Major Route 

Alternative A 

Facility Requirements 

Pipeline length Miles 110.8 116.0 

Compressor station 

requirements 

Hp/Number of engines 8,290/3 (new 

compressor station) 

18,940/4(new 

compressor station) 

7,100/2 (new 

compressor station) 

8,290/3 (new 

compressor station) 

18,940/4 (new 

compressor station) 

7,100/2 (new 

compressor station)) 

Land Requirementsb

Construction right-of-way Acres 1,240.3 1,337.9 

Permanent right-of-way Acres 731.4 779.0 

Environmental Considerationsc

Land use, upland forest Acres 

(Temporary/Permanent) 

492.9/301.2 572.0/343.7 

Land use, pasture Acres 

(Temporary/Permanent) 

51.5/31.0 124.5/74.7 

Waterbody crossingsc Number 101 125 

Wetlands crossed Acres 

(Temporary/Permanent) 

28.37/8.33 51.20/5.10 

_______________ 

Notes: 

a Values reported are based on actual data but may differ from other values reported elsewhere in this document so 

that the proposed Project can be compared to Alternative A. 

b Land requirements reported assume a 100-foot-wide construction right-of-way and a 60-foot-wide permanent right-ofway. Wetland acreages for the Proposed Project were based on a 75-foot temporary construction right-of-way and a 

30-foot-wide permanent right-of-way. 

c Based on actual data for the proposed Project and U.S. Geological Survey topographic maps for Alternative A. For 

wetlands and waterbodies, actual numbers were used for the proposed Project, whereas acreage for Alternative A 

was determined from aerial photography. Numbers may differ from other portions of the EIS because the numbers in 

this table reflect only the portion of the proposed Project from MP 0.0 to 38.3. 
 4-5 

Alternative A would traverse north from the proposed Harrisville Compressor Station and 

parallel Gulf South's Index 130 pipeline for approximately 0.7 mile before turning east and traversing 

"greenfield" (i.e., not parallel to other pipeline or utility corridors) for approximately 2 miles. The 

pipeline route would then turn to the northeast and parallel the corridor of a CO2 (carbon dioxide) 

pipeline owned by Denbury for approximately 3.3 miles. The pipeline route would then traverse more 

greenfield for 2 miles and intersect a 12-inch pipeline owned by Crosstex in Rankin County, Mississippi. 

The pipeline route would parallel the Crosstex pipeline, trending east-southeast for approximately 

31.3 miles until joining the proposed route. 

This alternative route would be approximately 5 miles longer than the proposed route, and 

based on a review of topographic maps would affect a similar amount of resources, including 

waterbodies, wetlands, vegetation, and wildlife, as the proposed route. Environmentally, this route 

alternative would result in some impacts slightly greater than those of the proposed route by impacting 

97.6 additional acres of land, 79.1 acres more upland forest, 22.83 acres more wetlands, and crossing 24 

more streams. However, this alternative would pass within 50 feet of 12 residences (versus 13 for the 

proposed route) and run parallel to existing pipelines for 112.0 miles of its 116.0-mile (97 percent) route, 

as compared to 72.7 of 110.8 miles (66 percent) for the proposed route. The collocation along the 

relatively unknown location of the older Crosstex pipeline would be difficult to achieve without a 

sufficiently safe offset. 

Because Alternative A would result overall in greater environmental impacts, would require 

more pipeline length, and would be collocated with approximately the same amount of usable existing 

utility rights-of-way, we believe that the advantages of the proposed Project route would outweigh the 

disadvantages, and we do not recommend the use of Alternative A. 

4.4 ROUTE VARIATIONS 

Route variations differ from system or major route alternatives in that they are identified to 

resolve or reduce construction impacts to localized, specific resources, such as cultural resource sites, 

wetlands, recreational lands, residences, terrain conditions, and to accommodate landowner requests. 

Because route variations are identified in response to specific local concerns, they are usually the result of 

landowner comments. While route variations may be a few miles in length, most are relatively short and 

in general proximity to the proposed Project. We have considered a variety of factors in identifying and 

evaluating route variations, including length, land requirements, the number of landowners affected, and 

potential for reducing or minimizing impacts to natural or cultural resources. During the pre-filing 

process, Gulf South refined its proposed route based on discussions with landowners, resource stewards, 

project engineers, and our input to avoid or minimize impacts to natural or cultural resources, reduce or 

eliminate engineering and constructability concerns, and/or avoid or minimize conflicts with existing land 

uses. 

As part of its Project development and route selection process, Gulf South identified a total of 

16 minor route variations to the originally filed route that have been incorporated into the proposed 

Project route and which are incorporated into this EIS. These minor variations were developed based on 

discussions with landowners and resource stewards to avoid or minimize impacts to natural or cultural 

resources, and minimize conflicts with existing or proposed residential and agricultural land uses, as well 

as with project engineers, to reduce or eliminate engineering and constructability concerns. Each of these 

minor route variations is summarized in Table 4.4-1 and depicted in Figures H-1 through H-16 of 

Appendix H of this EIS. We have evaluated each of these minor route variations and considered their 

associated environmental consequence as part of our environmental analysis of the proposed Project 

provided in Section 3.0. 
 4-6 

TABLE 4.4-1 

Route Variations Adopted for the Proposed Southeast Expansion Project 

Mileposts 

Begin End County, State 

Length 

(miles) Land Use Reason for Adoption 

1.29 1.69 Simpson, MS 0.40 Forest, planted pine, 

and forested wetland 

Avoids a residential property and an 

environmentally sensitive feature. 

5.24 5.72 Simpson, MS 0.48 Forest and 

commercial/industrial 

Avoids an environmentally sensitive 

feature. 

10.65 11.39 Simpson, MS 0.74 Industrial/commercial, 

forest, and open land 

Slight shift in the route to avoid a 

landowner who denied permission to 

survey. 

14.28 14.69 Simpson, MS 0.41 Forest Avoids an environmentally sensitive 

feature. 

15.04 16.15 Simpson, MS 1.11 Forest, pine 

plantation, and 

forested wetland 

Straightens route to avoid false right-ofway for pullback string associated with 

Campbell’s Creek HDD. 

24.92 25.58 Simpson, MS 0.66 Forest and open land Avoids impacts to a residential area. 

38.74 39.12 Smith, MS 0.38 Forest Shifts line to the north to lessen impact to 

a pond and an environmentally sensitive 

feature. 

39.47 40.55 Smith, MS 1.08 Forest, pine 

plantation, and 

forested wetland 

Line shift to avoid parallel creeks and an 

environmentally sensitive feature. 

43.92 45.17 Smith, MS 1.25 Forest, pine 

plantation, and open 

land 

Accommodates the straight crossing of 

Leaf River to avoid false right-of-way for 

pullback string. 

45.46 46.87 Smith, MS 1.41 Forest, open land, 

commercial/industrial, 

and forested wetland 

Avoids an environmentally sensitive 

feature. 

54.24 54.97 Jasper, MS 0.73 Forest Avoids an environmentally sensitive 

feature. 

55.57 56.87 Jasper, MS 1.30 Forest and pine 

plantation 

Accommodates a straight section for the 

HDD crossing Tallahoma Creek to avoid 

false right-of-way for pullback string. 

74.69 74.93 Jasper, MS 0.24 Forest Crossover of existing parallel pipeline was 

relocated to avoid difficult construction 

conditions. 

82.06 83.20 Clarke, MS 1.14 Forest, wetland 

(forested, emergent, 

and scrub-shrub) 

Crossover of existing parallel pipeline was 

relocated to accommodate new location 

for Destin Compressor Station and M&R 

Station, which were relocated to avoid 

wetland impacts on the previous site. 

87.56 89.57 Clarke, MS 2.01 Forest, open land, 

pasture, and forested 

wetland 

Avoids wetlands, an active horse farm, 

and an environmentally sensitive feature. 

94.67 95.17 Clarke, MS 0.50 Planted pine and 

residential 

Avoids a residential property and an 

environmentally sensitive feature. 

Gulf South has indicated that other minor route variations may be necessary as they continue 

to negotiate with landowners. 
 4-7 

Based on our review of the proposed Project route, Gulf South's proposed measures, and our 

recommendations, we believe that the proposed route's impacts to sensitive environmental resources and 

special land uses would be adequately avoided or minimized. 

4.5 ABOVEGROUND FACILITY ALTERNATIVES 

We evaluated the proposed locations of the aboveground facilities for the Southeast Expansion 

Project to determine whether environmental impacts would be reduced or mitigated by use of alternate 

facility sites. Our evaluation involved inspection of aerial photographs and maps, as well as site visits 

along the proposed Project corridor. The aboveground facilities for the proposed Project include three 

new compressor stations and five M/R stations with associated piping (see Section 2.1). Eight mainline 

valves and two pig launcher/receiver stations would also be constructed in association with the proposed 

Project. Because two of the mainline valves and both of the pig launcher/receiver facilities would be 

located within the confines of a proposed compressor station and/or M/R station site, we did not consider 

alternatives for those facilities. 

Because the location of the M/R stations would be linked to the location of the associated 

natural gas receipt and interconnect points, the search for alternatives was constrained to sites located 

adjacent to the intersection of the proposed Project route and the planned and existing pipeline facility 

locations. Similarly, the locations of mainline valves would also be linked to the location of the proposed 

Project route. Furthermore, the proposed locations of mainline valves along the proposed Project route 

were largely determined based on DOT safety regulations that specify the maximum distance between 

sectionalizing block valves and also require that these facilities be located in readily accessible areas. We 

did not identify any alternative sites for the proposed M/R, mainline valve facilities, or the pig launcher/

receiver facilities that would offer a significant environmental advantage to the proposed sites. 

As with the other proposed aboveground facilities, the compressor station locations would be 

constrained to sites near the proposed Project route. Specifically, the proposed compressor station sites 

along the proposed Project route were largely dictated based on engineering and economic design 

standards. The Harrisville Compressor Station would be located at MP 0.0 in Simpson County, 

Mississippi; the Destin Compressor Station would be located at MP 83.0 in Clarke County, Mississippi; 

and the Delhi Compressor Station would be built approximately 89 miles to the northwest of the Project 

in Richland Parish, Louisiana. As described in Section 3.8, construction and operation of the Delhi, 

Harrisville, and Destin Compressor Stations would result in a permanent conversion of approximately 

69.5 acres of agriculture, 26.9 acres of upland forest, and 11.7 acres of pine plantation, respectively. A 

total of four waterbodies would be affected at these proposed compressor station locations. We have 

determined that operation of these facilities would not result in significant air quality degradation or noise 

impacts to any nearby residents given measures proposed by Gulf South and our recommendations (see 

Section 3.11). 

4.5.1 Delhi Compressor Station Site Alternatives 

In order to meet the project's stated goals and objectives, the Delhi Compressor Station must 

be located in the proximity of the new receipt point associated with CenterPoint's Carthage to Perryville 

Project in Richland Parish, Louisiana. Two locations were evaluated for the Delhi Compressor Station: 

(1) a location in an active agricultural field to the south of the CGT facility, and (2) a location 

immediately to the north of that agricultural field, between that location and CGT's facility (see Figure 

4.5-1). No significant environmental constraints appear to be present at either location. CenterPoint 

Energy and DEGT are purchasing the site to the north of the agricultural field for facilities associated 

with their SESH Project. Therefore, the only alternative location remaining is in the agricultural field, 

where Gulf South proposes to construct the Delhi Compressor Station. One stream feature exists across 
 4-8 

the proposed alternative site, which will be rerouted around the proposed facility to maintain its flow 

regime across the property. 

As can be seen in Figure 4.5-1, alternative sites for the Delhi Compressor Station are limited 

by existing land use. The Delhi Municipal Airport lies to the west of the proposed Delhi Compressor 

Station site. The airport and the flight paths associated with the airport make the eastern half of the Dunn 

and Delhi, Louisiana, USGS 7.5 minute quadrangle map, Section 36, undesirable. Similarly, only the 

western half of the Dunn and Delhi, Louisiana, USGS 7.5 minute quadrangle map, Section 31, is 

available, as Bayou Macon forms the eastern boundary of the parish. Gulf South's project requires setting 

the compressor station in the proximity of the CenterPoint Carthage to Perryville Project terminus – at the 

CGT Compressor Station shown as a pumping station on Figure 4.5-1. Eliminating as much distance as 

possible from this location would shorten the flow lines between the two stations and lessen 

environmental impacts and landowner inconvenience. Only two parcels of land are available as discussed 

above. Gulf South has proposed to place its Delhi Compressor Station boundary at the northern property 

boundary to lessen the length of the flow lines. In addition, Gulf South is proposing to locate the station 

directly south of the CGT station, again to shorten the length of the flow lines and provide greater 

flexibility in locating the lines in conjunction with the proposed CenterPoint/DEGT SESH Compressor 

Station. 

With implementation of our recommendations as identified in Section 3.0 of this EIS, we 

identified no other sites preferable to that of Gulf South's proposed Delhi Compressor Station site. 

4.5.2 Harrisville Compressor Station Site Alternatives 

From a system design perspective, the Harrisville Compressor Station must be located at the 

intersection of Gulf South's existing Index 130 pipeline and the new 42-inch pipeline being proposed. 

Two locations were evaluated for the Harrisville Compressor Station: (1) an alternate location 

immediately adjacent to Gulf South's existing Index 130 pipeline, and (2) the proposed location 500 feet 

to the east of the Index 130 pipeline (see Figure 4.5-2). Both locations are within managed pine forest, 

but the location 500 feet to the east of the Index 130 pipeline offers better access to an existing access 

road and has much less variation in topography. One stream appears on this property. While both 

locations are approximately 2,500-2,600 feet from the nearest NSAs associated with the First Presbyterian 

Twin Lakes Camping Area located to the north, the proposed location is slightly more removed from the 

camping area. Therefore, in the absence of additional environmental constraints, Gulf South has chosen 

to construct the Harrisville Compressor Station at the location 500 feet to the east of the Index 130 

pipeline. 

Our environmental review did not identify any significant environmental advantage of the 

alternate site. Therefore, we believe that adoption of the alternative site for the Harrisville Compressor 

Station is not recommended. 

4.5.3 Destin Compressor Station Site Alternatives 

The purpose of the Destin Compressor Station is to increase the pressure of the gas in the 

Southeast Expansion Project pipeline to meet the operating pressure of the Destin pipeline. The Destin 

Compressor Station would be located at approximately MP 82.9 in Clarke County, Mississippi, and in the 

proximity of the Destin pipeline system. Two locations were evaluated for the Destin Compressor 

Station: at the northeastern and southeastern quadrants of the intersection of the Southeast Expansion 

Project pipeline with Destin's pipeline (see Figure 4.5-3). Both locations have similar land use, managed 

timber, and appear to have equivalent access to the Destin facilities, and are near the same residences. 
 4-9 

However, impacts to wetlands are greater on the northeastern site. Therefore, we believe that adoption of 

the alternative site for the Destin Compressor Station is environmentally preferable. 
Non-Internet Public 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE 

PROPOSED SOUTHEAST EXPANSIONPROJECT 

Docket No. CP07-032-000 

Page 4-10 

Figure 4.5-1 

Alternatives for the Delhi Compressor Station

Public access for this Non-Internet Public information is 

available only through the Public Reference Room, or by email at public.referenceroom@ferc.gov. 
Non-Internet Public 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE 

PROPOSED SOUTHEAST EXPANSIONPROJECT 

Docket No. CP07-032-000 

Page 4-11 

Figure 4.5-2 

Alternatives for the Harrisville Compressor Station

Public access for this Non-Internet Public information is 

available only through the Public Reference Room, or by email at public.referenceroom@ferc.gov. 
Non-Internet Public 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE 

PROPOSED SOUTHEAST EXPANSIONPROJECT 

Docket No. CP07-032-000 

Page 4-12 

Figure 4.5-3 

Alternatives for the Destin Compressor Station

Public access for this Non-Internet Public information is 

available only through the Public Reference Room, or by email at public.referenceroom@ferc.gov.