Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
In Reply Refer To: 

OEP/DG2E/Gas Branch 2 

Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP 

Docket No. CP07-032-000, et al. 

TO THE PARTY ADDRESSED: 

The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) has prepared 

this Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the natural gas pipeline facilities proposed by Gulf 

South Pipeline Company, LP (Gulf South) under the above-referenced docket. Gulf South's Southeast 

Expansion Project (Project) would be located in various counties and parishes in eastern Louisiana, 

Mississippi, and western Alabama. 

The Final EIS was prepared to satisfy the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act. 

 The FERC staff concludes that the proposed Project, with the appropriate mitigation measures as 

recommended, would have limited adverse environmental impact. 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and 

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) are federal cooperating agencies for the development of this 

EIS. A federal cooperating agency has jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to any 

environmental impact involved with the proposal and is involved in the NEPA analysis. 

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

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

Gas Transmission Company in the Perryville, Louisiana, area. 

The Final EIS addresses the potential environmental impacts resulting from the construction and 

operation of the following facilities: 

• Approximately 111 miles of 42-inch-diameter natural gas transmission pipeline extending 

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

• three new compressor stations, the Delhi, Harrisville, and Destin Compressor Stations, 

located in Richland County, Louisiana; Simpson County, Mississippi; and Choctaw County, 

Alabama, respectively; and 

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

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

Dependent upon Commission approval, Gulf South proposes to complete construction and begin 

operating the proposed Project in January 2008. 

The Final EIS has been placed in the public files of the FERC and is available for public 

inspection at: 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
Docket No. CP07-032-000, et al. - 2 -

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

Public Reference Room 

888 First Street N.E., Room 2A 

Washington, DC 20426 

(202) 502-8371 

A limited number of copies of the Final EIS are available from the Public Reference Room 

identified above. In addition, CD copies of the Final EIS have been mailed to affected landowners; 

various federal, state, and local government agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest 

groups; Native American tribes; local libraries and newspapers; intervenors; and other individuals that 

expressed an interest in the proposed Project. Hard-copies of the Final EIS have also been mailed to 

those who requested that format during the scoping and comment periods for the proposed Project. 

In accordance with the Council on Environmental Quality's (CEQ) regulations implementing 

NEPA, no agency decision on a proposed action may be made until 30 days after the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (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. 

Additional information about the proposed Project is available from the Commission's Office of 

External Affairs, at 1-866-208-FERC or on the FERC Internet website (www.ferc.gov). To access 

information via the FERC website, click on the "eLibrary" link, then click on "General Search" and enter 

the docket number (CP07-032), excluding the last three digits, in the Docket Number field. Be sure you 

have selected an appropriate date range. The "eLibrary" link provides access to the texts of formal 

documents issued by the Commission, such as orders, notices, and rulemakings. For assistance with 

"eLibrary," please contact FERC Online Support at FercOnlineSupport@ferc.gov or toll-free at 

1-866-208-3676, or for TTY, contact (202) 502-8659. 

In addition, the Commission now offers a free service called eSubscription that allows you to 

keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time 

you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, 

document summaries, and direct links to these documents. To learn more about eSubscription and to 

sign-up for this service, please go to www.ferc.gov/esubscribenow.htm. 

Kimberly D. Bose, 

Secretary 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Southeast Expansion Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement

TABLE OF CONTENTS............................................................................................................................. i 

LIST OF APPENDICES............................................................................................................................. v 

LIST OF TABLES...................................................................................................................................... vi 

LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................................................viii 

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS................................................................................................... ix 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY................................................................................................................... ES-1 

 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... ES-1 

 PROJECT BACKGROUND ..................................................................................................... ES-1 

 PROPOSED ACTION ............................................................................................................... ES-1 

 PUBLIC OUTREACH AND COMMENTS.............................................................................. ES-2 

 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION.............................................................. ES-2 

 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED ............................................................................................ ES-4 

 CONCLUSION.......................................................................................................................... ES-4 

1.0 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................1-1 

 1.1 PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED ....................................................................................1-1 

 1.2 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THIS EIS .............................................................................1-2 

 1.3 PERMITS, APPROVALS, AND REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS..............................1-2 

 1.4 PUBLIC REVIEW AND COMMENT ...............................................................................1-7 

 1.5 NON-JURISDICTIONAL FACILITIES...........................................................................1-11 

2.0 PROPOSED ACTION................................................................................................................2-1 

 2.1 PROPOSED FACILITIES ..................................................................................................2-1 

 2.2 LAND REQUIREMENTS..................................................................................................2-4 

 2.2.1 Pipeline Facilities.....................................................................................................2-6 

 2.2.2 Aboveground Facilities..........................................................................................2-11 

 2.2.3 Other Work Areas ..................................................................................................2-11 

 2.2.3.1 Additional Temporary Work Space.........................................................2-11 

 2.2.3.2 Pipe Storage and Contractor Yards..........................................................2-11 

 2.2.3.3 Access Roads ..........................................................................................2-12 

 2.3 CONSTRUCTION PROCEDURES.................................................................................2-12 

 2.3.1 General Pipeline Construction Procedures ............................................................2-13 

 2.3.2 Specialized Pipeline Construction Procedures ......................................................2-18 

 2.3.2.1 Waterbody Crossings ..............................................................................2-18 

 2.3.2.2 Wetland Crossings...................................................................................2-22 

 2.3.2.3 Road, Highway, and Railroad Crossings.................................................2-23 

 2.3.2.4 Agricultural Areas...................................................................................2-23 

 2.3.2.5 Rugged Topography................................................................................2-24 

 2.3.2.6 Residential Areas.....................................................................................2-27 

 2.3.2.7 Utility Crossings .....................................................................................2-27 

 2.3.3 Aboveground Facilities Construction Procedures .................................................2-28 

 2.4 CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE ......................................................................................2-29 

 i 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 2.5 ENVIRONMENTAL TRAINING AND MONITORING ................................................2-29 

 2.6 OPERATION, MAINTENANCE, AND SAFETY CONTROLS.....................................2-29 

 2.7 FUTURE PLANS AND ABANDONMENT ....................................................................2-31 

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS ..............................................................................................3-1 

 3.1 GEOLOGY .........................................................................................................................3-1 

 3.1.1 Geological Setting ...................................................................................................3-1 

 3.1.2 Mineral Resources ...................................................................................................3-4

 3.1.3 Paleontological Resources .......................................................................................3-7 

 3.1.4 Geologic Hazards.....................................................................................................3-7 

 3.1.4.1 Seismicity and Faults ................................................................................3-8 

 3.1.4.2 Soil Liquefaction.......................................................................................3-8 

 3.1.4.3 Slope Failures/Landslides .........................................................................3-8 

 3.1.4.4 Ground Subsidence ...................................................................................3-9 

 3.1.5 Conclusions Regarding Impacts to Geologic Resources .......................................3-10 

 3.2 SOILS................................................................................................................................3-10 

 3.2.1 Existing Soils.........................................................................................................3-10 

 3.2.2 Major Soil Characteristics .....................................................................................3-10 

 3.2.2.1 Erosion Potential.....................................................................................3-11 

 3.2.2.2 Drainage Class ........................................................................................3-11 

 3.2.2.3 Presence of Hydric Soils.........................................................................3-11 

 3.2.2.4 Compaction Potential..............................................................................3-11 

 3.2.2.5 Revegetation Potential ............................................................................3-12 

 3.2.2.6 Prime Farmland Designation ..................................................................3-12 

 3.2.3 General Impacts and Mitigation ............................................................................3-12 

 3.2.3.1 Erosion ....................................................................................................3-13 

 3.2.3.2 Compaction Potential..............................................................................3-14 

 3.2.3.3 Revegetation Potential ............................................................................3-14 

 3.2.3.4 Mixing of Topsoil and Subsoil................................................................3-15 

 3.2.3.5 Rocks.......................................................................................................3-15 

 3.2.3.6 Drainage Systems and Drainage Patterns ...............................................3-15 

 3.2.3.7 Prime Farmland.......................................................................................3-15 

 3.2.4 Conclusion .............................................................................................................3-16 

 3.3 WATER RESOURCES AND FISHERIES .......................................................................3-16 

 3.3.1 Groundwater ..........................................................................................................3-16 

 3.3.1.1 Existing Groundwater Resources............................................................3-16 

 3.3.1.2 General Impacts and Mitigation..............................................................3-19 

 3.3.1.3 Site-Specific Impacts and Mitigation......................................................3-21 

 3.3.1.4 Conclusion Regarding Groundwater Resources .....................................3-21 

 3.3.2 Surface Water Resources .......................................................................................3-22 

 3.3.2.1 Existing Surface Water Resources ..........................................................3-22 

 3.3.2.2 General Impacts and Mitigation..............................................................3-24 

 3.3.2.3 Site-Specific Impacts and Mitigation......................................................3-29 

 3.3.3 Conclusion Regarding Surface Water Resources...................................................3-32 

 3.4 WETLANDS.....................................................................................................................3-32 

 3.4.1 Existing Wetland Resources ..................................................................................3-33 

 ii 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 3.4.2 General Wetland Impacts.......................................................................................3-35 

 3.4.2.1 General Wetland Construction and Mitigation Procedures.....................3-36 

 3.4.2.2 Alternative Measures to Our Procedures ................................................3-37 

 3.4.3 Site-Specific Impacts and Mitigation ....................................................................3-39 

 3.4.3.1 High-Quality, Sensitive, or Special-Status Wetlands ..............................3-39 

 3.4.4 Wetland Restoration and Compensatory Mitigation..............................................3-39 

 3.4.5 Conclusion Regarding Impacts to Wetlands ..........................................................3-40 

 3.5 VEGETATION..................................................................................................................3-40 

 3.5.1 Existing Vegetation Resources...............................................................................3-40 

 3.5.1.1 Vegetative Communities of Special Concern or Value ...........................3-42 

 3.5.1.2 Extensive Forested Tracts .......................................................................3-43 

 3.5.2 General Impacts and Mitigation ............................................................................3-43 

 3.5.3 Impacts and Mitigation to Vegetation Communities of Special Concern or 

Value ......................................................................................................................3-45

 3.5.4 Exotic or Invasive Plant Communities ..................................................................3-46 

 3.5.5 Conclusion Regarding Impacts to Vegetation........................................................3-46 

 3.6 WILDLIFE AND AQUATIC RESOURCES ....................................................................3-47 

 3.6.1 Wildlife ..................................................................................................................3-47 

 3.6.1.1 Existing Wildlife Resources....................................................................3-47 

 3.6.1.2 General Impacts and Mitigation..............................................................3-50 

 3.6.1.3 Conclusion Regarding Impacts to Wildlife Habitats and Species...........3-52 

 3.6.2 Aquatic Resources .................................................................................................3-52 

 3.6.2.1 Existing Aquatic Resources ....................................................................3-52 

 3.6.2.2 General Impacts and Mitigation..............................................................3-53 

 3.6.2.3 Conclusion Regarding Impacts to Aquatic Habitats and Species ...........3-55 

 3.7 THREATENED, ENDANGERED, AND SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES ........................3-55 

 3.7.1 Federally Listed Threatened and Endangered Species ..........................................3-55 

 3.7.1.1 Gopher Tortoise.......................................................................................3-57 

 3.7.1.2 Eastern Indigo Snake ..............................................................................3-60 

 3.7.1.3 Yellow-Blotched Map Turtle...................................................................3-61 

 3.7.1.4 Ringed Map Turtle ..................................................................................3-61 

 3.7.1.5 Louisiana Black Bear ..............................................................................3-62 

 3.7.1.6 Gulf Sturgeon..........................................................................................3-62 

 3.7.1.7 Bald Eagle...............................................................................................3-63 

 3.7.1.8 Wood Stork..............................................................................................3-63 

 3.7.1.9 Red-Cockaded Woodpecker....................................................................3-64 

 3.7.1.10 Inflated Heelsplitter ................................................................................3-64 

 3.7.2 Special Status Species............................................................................................3-65 

 3.8 LAND USE, RECREATION AND SPECIAL INTEREST AREAS, AND VISUAL 

RESOURCES....................................................................................................................3-68 

 3.8.1 General Land Use Types........................................................................................3-68 

 3.8.2 Land Ownership and Easement Requirements ......................................................3-73 

 3.8.3 General Impacts and Mitigation ............................................................................3-74 

 3.8.3.1 Land Use Type, Specific Impacts, and Mitigation ..................................3-74 

 3.8.4 Special Interest Areas Impacts and Mitigation ......................................................3-78 

 3.8.5 Transportation........................................................................................................3-83 

 iii 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 3.8.6 Visual Resources....................................................................................................3-83 

 3.8.6.1 Current Viewshed....................................................................................3-83 

 3.8.6.2 General Impacts and Mitigation..............................................................3-84 

 3.8.7 Conclusion Regarding Impacts to Land Use, Recreation and Special Interest 

Areas, and Visual Resources..................................................................................3-86 

 3.9 SOCIOECONOMICS .......................................................................................................3-86 

 3.9.1 Region of Influence ...............................................................................................3-86 

 3.9.2 Population..............................................................................................................3-87 

 3.9.3 Economy and Employment....................................................................................3-88 

 3.9.4 Housing..................................................................................................................3-88 

 3.9.5 Property Values......................................................................................................3-89 

 3.9.6 Government Revenue ............................................................................................3-90 

 3.9.7 Public Services ......................................................................................................3-91 

 3.9.8 Impacts on Specific Economic Sectors..................................................................3-92 

 3.10 CULTURAL RESOURCES..............................................................................................3-93 

 3.10.1 Results of the Cultural Resources Survey..............................................................3-93 

 3.10.1.1 Louisiana.................................................................................................3-93 

 3.10.1.2 Mississippi ..............................................................................................3-93 

 3.10.1.3 Alabama ..................................................................................................3-94 

 3.10.2 Unanticipated Discoveries Plan.............................................................................3-94 

 3.10.3 Native American Consultation...............................................................................3-94 

 3.10.4 General Impacts and Mitigation ............................................................................3-94 

 3.11 AIR QUALITY AND NOISE ...........................................................................................3-95 

 3.11.1 Air Quality.............................................................................................................3-95 

 3.11.1.1 Existing Air Quality ................................................................................3-95 

 3.11.1.2 Regulatory Requirements........................................................................3-97 

 3.11.1.3 General Impacts and Mitigation............................................................3-101 

 3.11.2 Noise Quality.......................................................................................................3-103 

 3.11.2.1 Regulatory Requirements......................................................................3-103 

 3.11.2.2 Existing Noise Levels ...........................................................................3-104 

 3.11.2.3 General Impacts and Mitigation............................................................3-105 

 3.12 RELIABILITY AND SAFETY ......................................................................................3-109 

 3.12.1 Safety Standards ..................................................................................................3-110 

 3.12.2 Pipeline Accident Data ........................................................................................3-113 

 3.12.3 Impacts on Public Safety .....................................................................................3-116 

 3.12.4 Additional Security and Safety Issues .................................................................3-117 

 3.13 CUMULATIVE IMPACT ...............................................................................................3-117 

 3.13.1 Other Natural Gas Pipeline Projects ....................................................................3-118 

 3.13.2 Unrelated Projects................................................................................................3-124 

 3.13.3 Potential Cumulative Impacts of the Proposed Action ........................................3-124 

 3.13.3.1 Wetlands and Waterbodies ....................................................................3-125 

 3.13.3.2 Vegetation and Wildlife.........................................................................3-126 

 3.13.3.3 Land Use ...............................................................................................3-126 

 3.13.3.4 Air Quality ............................................................................................3-127 

 3.13.3.5 Noise .....................................................................................................3-127 

 3.13.4 Conclusions .........................................................................................................3-128 

 iv 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
4.0 ALTERNATIVES........................................................................................................................4-1 

 4.1 NO-ACTION OR POSTPONED-ACTION ALTERNATIVES..........................................4-1 

 4.2 SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES ...............................................................................................4-3 

 4.3 ROUTE ALTERNATIVES .................................................................................................4-3 

 4.4 ROUTE VARIATIONS .......................................................................................................4-5

 4.5 ABOVEGROUND FACILITY ALTERNATIVES .............................................................4-7 

 4.5.1 Delhi Compressor Station Site Alternatives ............................................................4-7 

 4.5.2 Harrisville Compressor Station Site Alternatives ....................................................4-8 

 4.5.3 Destin Compressor Station Site Alternatives...........................................................4-8 

5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................................5-1 

 5.1 SUMMARY OF THE STAFF'S ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS OF THE 

PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES .................................................................5-1 

 5.1.1 Geology ...................................................................................................................5-1 

 5.1.2 Soils .........................................................................................................................5-1 

 5.1.3 Water Resources ......................................................................................................5-2 

 5.1.4 Wetlands ..................................................................................................................5-3 

 5.1.5 Vegetation ................................................................................................................5-3 

 5.1.6 Wildlife and Aquatic Resources...............................................................................5-4 

 5.1.7 Threatened, Endangered, and Special Status Species..............................................5-4 

 5.1.8 Land Use, Recreation and Special Interest Areas, and Visual Resources................5-5 

 5.1.9 Socioeconomics .......................................................................................................5-6 

 5.1.10 Cultural Resources...................................................................................................5-6 

 5.1.11 Air Quality and Noise..............................................................................................5-7

 5.1.12 Reliability and Safety ..............................................................................................5-7 

 5.1.13 Cumulative Impacts.................................................................................................5-7

 5.1.14 Alternatives..............................................................................................................5-8 

 5.2 STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS.....................................................................................5-9 

LIST OF APPENDICES 

Appendix A Distribution List 

Appendix B Facility Location Maps 

Appendix C Soils 

Appendix D Waterbody Crossings 

Appendix E Wetland Crossings 

Appendix F Extensive Forested Tracts Along the Proposed Southeast Expansion Project 

Appendix G Extra Workspaces, Access Roads, Existing Road Crossings, and Pipe Storage 

and Contractor Yards for the Proposed Southeast Expansion Project 

Appendix H Minor Route Variation Maps 

Appendix I Literature Cited 

Appendix J List of Preparers 

Appendix K Conservation Strategy for the Gopher Tortoise and Eastern Indigo Snake 

Appendix L Response to Comments 

 v 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
Appendix M Subject Index 

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1.3-1 Summary of Major Permits, Approvals, and Consultations for the Proposed 

Southeast Expansion Project .....................................................................................1-3 

Table 1.4-1 Issues Identified and Comments Received During the Public Scoping Process 

for the Proposed Southeast Expansion Project..........................................................1-8 

Table 2.1-1 Pipeline Facilities for the Proposed Southeast Expansion Project ............................2-1 

Table 2.1-2 Aboveground Facilities for the Proposed Southeast Expansion Project ...................2-3 

Table 2.2-1 Land Requirements by County for the Proposed Southeast Expansion Project........2-5 

Table 2.2.1-2 Existing Rights-of-Way that are Parallel to the Proposed Southeast 

Expansion Project......................................................................................................2-7 

Table 2.3.2.1-1 Proposed Horizontal Directional Drill Locations for the Proposed Southeast 

Expansion Project....................................................................................................2-22 

Table 2.3.2.5-1 Areas That Would Be Affected by Two-Tone Construction Techniques for 

the Proposed Southeast Expansion Project..............................................................2-25 

Table 2.3.2.7-1 Foreign Pipeline Crossings for the Proposed Southeast Expansion Project............2-28 

Table 3.1.1-1 Geologic Formations Underlying the Proposed Southeast Expansion Project..........3-3 

Table 3.1.2-1 Active Mineral Resources Within 0.25 Mile of the Proposed Southeast 

Expansion Pipeline....................................................................................................3-6 

Table 3.3.1.1-1 Wells Located Within 150 Feet of the Proposed Southeast Expansion Project ......3-18 

Table 3.3.1.1-2 Potential Contaminated Groundwater Sites Within 1 Mile of the Proposed 

Southeast Expansion Project ...................................................................................3-19 

Table 3.3.2.1-1 Major and Navigable Waterbodies That Would Be Crossed by the Proposed 

Southeast Expansion Project ...................................................................................3-23 

Table 3.3.2.1-2 Impaired Waterbodies Crossed by the Proposed Southeast Expansion Project ......3-24 

Table 3.3.2.2-1 Waterbodies Crossed Using the HDD Construction Method Along the 

Proposed Southeast Expansion Project ...................................................................3-25 

Table 3.3.2.3-1 Hydrostatic Test Water Requirements for the Proposed Southeast Expansion 

Project......................................................................................................................3-30 

Table 3.4.1-1 Summary of Wetlands Affected by the Proposed Southeast Expansion 

Project......................................................................................................................3-34 

Table 3.4.2.2-1 Proposed Site-Specific Alternative Measures to FERC's Procedures for the 

Proposed Southeast Expansion Project ...................................................................3-37 

Table 3.4.3.1-1 Forested Riparian Zones along the Proposed Southeast Expansion Project............3-39 

Table 3.5.1-1 Upland Vegetation Communities Occurring Along the Proposed Southeast 

Expansion Project....................................................................................................3-40 

Table 3.5.1-2 Vegetative Communities Affected by the Proposed Southeast Expansion 

Project......................................................................................................................3-42 

Table 3.6.1.1-1 Representative Wildlife Species that Occur Along the Proposed Southeast 

Expansion Project Area...........................................................................................3-48 

Table 3.6.2.1-1 Fish and Mussel Species Occurring in the Proposed Southeast Expansion 

Project Area.............................................................................................................3-52 

 vi 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
Table 3.7.1-1 Federally Listed Species Potentially Occurring Along the Proposed Southeast 

Expansion Project....................................................................................................3-56 

Table 3.7.2-1 State Listed and Rare Species Potentially Occurring in the Proposed 

Southeast Expansion Project Area ..........................................................................3-66 

Table 3.8.1-1 Acres Potentially Impacted by the Proposed Southeast Expansion Project ............3-70 

Table 3.8.3.1-1 Residences Within 50 Feet of Construction Work Area and Proposed 

Mitigation................................................................................................................3-76 

Table 3.8.4-1 Sixteenth Section Lands Crossed by the Proposed Southeast Expansion 

Project......................................................................................................................3-81 

Table 3.9.2-1 Existing Population and Demographic Conditions in the Region of Influence 

for the Proposed Southeast Expansion Project........................................................3-87 

Table 3.9.3-1 Existing Income and Employment Conditions Within the Region of Influence 

for the Proposed Southeast Expansion Project........................................................3-89 

Table 3.9.4-1 Housing Statistics Within the Region of Influence for the Proposed Southeast 

Expansion Project....................................................................................................3-90 

Table 3.9.6-1 Estimated Annual Taxes for the Proposed Southeast Expansion Project................3-91 

Table 3.9.7-1 Emergency Staff and Facilities in the Parish and Counties Affected by the 

Proposed Southeast Expansion Project ...................................................................3-92 

Table 3.11.1.1-1 National Ambient Air Quality Standards ................................................................3-96 

Table 3.11.1.2-1 Proposed Emissions for the Delhi Compressor Station...........................................3-98 

Table 3.11.1.2-2 Proposed Emissions for the Harrisville Compressor Station...................................3-99 

Table 3.11.1.2-3 Proposed Emissions for the Destin Compressor Station .........................................3-99 

Table 3.11.2.2-1 Existing Noise Levels at Nearest Noise-Sensitive Areas from the Proposed 

Southeast Expansion Project Compressor Stations ...............................................3-105 

Table 3.11.2.3-1 Summary of the Estimated A-Weighted Level and Calculated Ldn at the 

Closest NSA for Each HDD Site That Could Exceed the Benchmark Sound 

Criterion, Assuming That a Temporary Barrier is Not Employed ........................3-106 

Table 3.11.2.3-2 Predicted Noise Contribution of the Delhi Compressor Station NSAs .................3-108 

Table 3.11.2.3-3 Predicted Noise Contribution of the Harrisville Compressor Station NSAs.........3-108 

Table 3.11.2.3-4 Predicted Noise Contribution of the Destin Compressor Station NSAs ...............3-109 

Table 3.12.2-1 Natural Gas Service Incidents by Cause ...............................................................3-114 

Table 3.12.2-2 Outside Forces Incidents by Cause (1970 through 1984)......................................3-114 

Table 3.12.2-3 External Corrosion by Level of Control (1970 through June 1984)......................3-115 

Table 3.12.3-1 Annual Average Fatalities Natural Gas Transmission and Gathering System......3-116 

Table 3.12.3-2 Nationwide Accidental Deaths..............................................................................3-117 

Table 3.13.1-1 Existing or Proposed Natural Gas Projects That Would Cumulatively Impact 

Resources in the Southeast Expansion Project Area .............................................3-119 

Table 3.13.1-2 Environmental Resources That Would Be Cumulatively Affected During 

Construction and Operation of Projects in the Vicinity of the Proposed 

Southeast Expansion Project .................................................................................3-123 

Table 4.3-1 Comparison of Route Alternatives to the Proposed Southeast Expansion 

Project........................................................................................................................4-4 

Table 4.4-1 Route Variations Adopted for the Proposed Southeast Expansion Project ...............4-6 

 vii 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1-1 General Location Map...............................................................................................2-2 

Figure 2.2.1-1 Typical Right-of-Way in Uplands.............................................................................2-9 

Figure 2.2.1-2 Typical Right-of-Way in Wetlands .........................................................................2-10 

Figure 2.3.1-1 Typical Pipeline Construction Sequence.................................................................2-14 

Figure 2.3.1-2 Typical Right-of-Way in Agriculture......................................................................2-15 

Figure 2.3.2-1 Typical HDD Installation Process...........................................................................2-20 

Figure 2.3.2.5-1 Typical Side Slope Workspace Construction Area .................................................2-26 

Figure 3.13-1 Approximate Location of Natural Gas Pipeline Projects Near the Proposed 

Southeast Expansion Project .................................................................................3-120 

Figure 4.5-1 Delhi Compressor Station Locations.......................................................................4-10 

Figure 4.5-2 Harrisville Compressor Station Locations...............................................................4-11 

Figure 4.5-3 Destin Compressor Station Locations .....................................................................4-12 

 viii 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 

ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

ADCR Alabama Department of Conservation and Recreation 

ADCNR Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources 

ADEM Alabama Department of Environmental Management 

AICPA American Institute of Certified Public Accountants 

AQCR Air Quality Control Regions 

ASOGB Alabama State Oil and Gas Board 

ATWS additional temporary work space 

BA Biological Assessment 

BACT best available control technology 

Bcf/d billion cubic feet per day 

BGEPA Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act 

BO Biological Opinion 

BOD Biological oxygen demand 

BTU British thermal units 

CAA Clean Air Act 

CAAA Clean Air Act Amendments 

CEGT CenterPoint Energy Transmission 

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality 

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 

Liability Act 

Certificate Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CGT Columbia Gulf Transmission Corp. 

cm centimeter(s) 

CO carbon monoxide 

CO2 carbon dioxide 

COE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

Columbia Columbia Gas Transmission 

Commission Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

Crosstex Crosstex Mississippi Pipeline, LP 

CRP Conservation Reserve Program 

CTP Project Carthage to Perryville Project 

CWA Clean Water Act 

dBA A-weighted decibels 

dbh diameter at breast height 

Denbury Denbury Resources 

Destin Destin Pipeline Company, LLC 

DO dissolved oxygen 

DOT U.S. Department of Transportation 

EFH essential fish habitat 

EI environmental inspector 

EIA Energy Information Administration 

EIS environmental impact statement 

 ix 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

ESA Endangered Species Act 

ESD emergency shut down 

ETM East Texas to Mississippi Expansion 

F Fahrenheit 

FAA Federal Aviation Administration 

FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

FSA Farm Service Agency 

FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

GSA Geologic Survey of Alabama 

Gulf South Gulf South Pipeline Company, L.P. 

HAP hazardous air pollutant 

HCA high consequence areas 

HDD horizontal directional drill 

HDD Plan Horizontal Directional Drill Plan 

Hp horsepower 

kPa kilopascals 

LAC Louisiana Administrative Code 

LDEQ Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality 

Ldn day-night sound level 

LDNR Louisiana Department of Natural Resources 

LDTD Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development 

LDWF Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries 

LGS Louisiana Geological Survey 

LNG liquefied natural gas 

m3 cubic meters 

MACT Maximum Achievable Control Technology 

MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act 

MAOP maximum allowable operating pressure 

MCEQ Mississippi Commission on Environmental Quality 

MDEQ Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality 

MDWFP Mississippi Natural Heritage Program 

Memorandum Memorandum of Understanding on Natural Gas Transportation 

Facilities 

mgd million gallons per day 

MLRA Major Land Resource Area 

MLV mainline block valves 

MMNS Mississippi Museum of Natural Science 

MMRI Mississippi Mineral Resources Institute

MNHP Mississippi Natural Heritage Program 

MP milepost 

M/R meter and regulation 

msl mean sea level 

NAPPO North American Plant Protection Organization 

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

 x 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
NESHAP National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

NGA Natural Gas Act 

NGPSA Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act 

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act 

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service 

NMHC non-methane hydrocarbons 

NNSR Nonattainment New Source Review 

NOI Notice of Intent 

NO2 nitrogen dioxide 

NOx nitrogen oxides 

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

NPS National Park Service 

NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service 

NRHP National Register of Historic Places 

NRI Nationwide Rivers Inventory 

NSA nearest noise sensitive area 

NSPS new source performance standards 

NSR New Source Review 

O3 ozone 

OD outside diameter 

OEP Office of Energy Projects 

OPS Office of Pipeline Safety 

PEM palustrine emergent 

Petal Gas Petal Gas Storage, LLC 

PFO palustrine forested 

PHMSA Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 

Plan Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation, and Maintenance Plan 

PM particulate matter 

Procedures Wetland and Waterbody Construction and Mitigation 

Procedures 

PSD prevention of significant deterioration 

psig pounds per square inch gauge 

PSS palustrine scrub-shrub 

RCW red-cockaded woodpecker 

Secretary Secretary of the Commission 

SESH Southeast Supply Header 

SHPO State Historic Preservation Office 

SI spark ignition 

SO2 sulfur oxides, measured as sulfur dioxide 

SONRIS Strategic Natural Resources Information System 

Southern Natural Southern Natural Gas Company 

SPCC Spill Prevention, Containment, and Control 

SEGT Spectra Energy Gas Transmission 

SSURGO Soil Survey Geographic 

SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan 

Tcf trillion cubic feet 

 xi 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
Tennessee Gas Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company 

tpy tons per year 

Transco Transcontinental Pipe Line Company 

USC United States Code 

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture 

USDI United States Department of the Interior 

USGS U.S. Geological Survey 

UST underground storage tank 

VOC volatile organic compounds 

WRP Wetland Reserve Program 

 xii 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

INTRODUCTION 

The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) has prepared 

this Final environmental impact statement (EIS) to fulfill requirements of the National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA). The purpose of this document is to make public our analysis of the environmental 

impacts that would likely result from the construction and operation of the proposed Southeast Expansion 

Project (Project). 

This EIS has been prepared in cooperation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE), and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 

PROJECT BACKGROUND 

On June 28, 2006, we1 approved the Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP's (Gulf South) request to 

use the Commission's Pre-filing Review Process for the proposed Southeast Expansion Project. The 

purpose of our pre-filing review is to work in partnership with the project sponsor, other federal and state 

agencies, as well as concerned citizens and non-governmental organizations, to identify and address 

project-related issues prior to the filing of an application with the Commission for a Certificate of Public 

Convenience and Necessity (Certificate). 

On December 11, 2006, Gulf South filed an application with the Commission pursuant to Section 

7(c) of the Natural Gas Act and Part 157 of the Commission's regulation for a Certificate of Public 

Convenience and Necessity (Certificate) to construct, operate, and maintain an interstate natural gas 

pipeline and associated ancillary and aboveground facilities, collectively known as the Project. We have 

prepared our analysis based on this application and subsequent filings by Gulf South. 

On April 13, 2007, we issued the Draft EIS for the proposed Project. 

PROPOSED ACTION 

In order to transport natural gas from producers in eastern Texas and northern Louisiana, Gulf 

South proposes to construct and operate approximately 110.8 miles of natural gas pipeline and associated 

ancillary facilities capable of transporting up to approximately 1.272 billion cubic feet per day of natural 

gas. Specifically, Gulf South proposes to construct and operate: 

• Approximately 110.8 miles of 42-inch-diameter natural gas pipeline in Simpson, Smith, Jasper, 

and Clarke Counties, Mississippi; and Choctaw County, Alabama; 

• Three new compressor stations: the Delhi Compressor Station located in Richland Parish, 

Louisiana, and the Harrisville and Destin Compressor Stations located in Simpson and Clarke 

Counties, Mississippi, respectively; 

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

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

 

1 "We," "us," and "our" refer to the environmental staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's Office of Energy 

Projects.

 ES-1 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
Dependent upon Commission approval, Gulf South proposes to complete construction and begin 

operating the proposed Project in January 2008. 

PUBLIC OUTREACH AND COMMENTS 

As part of our pre-filing review, we issued a Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact 

Statement, Request for Comments on Environmental Issues, and Notice of Public Scoping Meetings for 

the Southeast Expansion Project on September 5, 2006. This notice was published in the Federal Register 

(FR) and sent to: affected landowners; federal, state, and local government agencies; elected officials; 

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

interested parties. In response to our notices, and at several public meetings held along the proposed 

pipeline route, we received numerous comments from landowners, concerned citizens, public officials, 

and government agencies regarding the proposed Project. These comments expressed concerns with the 

location of the proposed pipeline and the effects of the proposed Project on numerous resources and land 

uses, including soils, waterbodies, wetlands, wildlife, vegetation, threatened and endangered species, 

safety and reliability, timber production, and state- and federally-managed lands. 

We prepared a Draft EIS and issued a Notice of Availability (NOA) that was published in the 

Federal Register (FR) on April 20, 2007, establishing a 45-day comment period ending on May 29, 2007. 

During this period, we conducted public comment meetings in Mendenhall and Heidelberg, Mississippi, 

and Butler, Alabama, on May 8, 9, and 10, 2007, respectively. During this period and at the public 

comment meetings, we received comments regarding the location of the proposed pipeline and effects on 

land use, safety, and reliability. We received written comments on the Draft EIS from two federal 

agencies, the DOI and EPA, and four potentially affected property owners. Comments received during 

this period were considered and addressed in this Final EIS. Submitted comments and our responses to 

those comments are provided in Appendix L of this document. 

This Final EIS has been mailed to the agencies, individuals, and organizations on the mailing list 

found in Appendix A and has been filed with the EPA for formal notice of availability. 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION 

Construction and operation of the proposed Project would result in impacts to soils, groundwater, 

surface water, wetlands, vegetation, wildlife, fisheries, threatened and endangered species, cultural 

resources, land use, and air and noise quality. 

Construction of the proposed pipeline would cross 309 surface waterbodies. Conventional opencut construction techniques would be used to cross all but 29 of these waterbodies, which would instead 

be crossed using horizontal directional drills (HDD). Proposed HDDs would include four major and/or 

navigable streams, two Nationwide Rivers Inventory (NRI)-listed streams (the Strong and the 

Chickasawhay Rivers), the rivers most likely to contain habitat for federally listed fish species (Dabbs 

Creek, West Tallahalla Creek, the Bucatunna River, and the Leaf River), and the three impaired 

waterbodies that occur along the proposed Project route. 

Construction of the proposed Project would affect 145 wetlands, disturbing approximately 

75.76 acres. The most significant impacts to wetlands resulting from construction and operation of the 

proposed Project would be the long-term impacts to forested wetlands. Specifically, 42.67 acres would be 

cleared during construction, converted to emergent and scrub-shrub wetlands, and maintained in those 

states within the permanent right-of-way during operation. 

 ES-2 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
In consultation with the FWS, we identified 10 federally listed threatened and endangered species 

that could be affected by the proposed Project. Based on our review of these species, we have determined 

that construction and operation of the proposed Project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect 

nine federally listed threatened and endangered species. The FWS concurred that the proposed Project is 

not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the gopher tortoise and is not likely to adversely 

modify its designated critical habitat. 

With the exception of recently proposed route modifications, aboveground facilities, and 

additional temporary work spaces, which are still under review by the respective state historical 

preservation offices, construction and operation of the proposed Project would not affect cultural 

resources. 

Construction and operation of the proposed Project would temporarily and permanently affect 

several land uses, resulting in short- and long-term impacts to forests, timber production, and special 

interest areas. The proposed Project would cross the NRI-listed Strong and Chickasawhay Rivers, 

potentially affecting boating activities for short periods during hydrostatic test water withdrawal. 

To minimize and mitigate the environmental impacts of constructing and operating the proposed 

Project, Gulf South has developed and would implement several proposed measures and plans, including 

but not limited to the following: 

• Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation, and Maintenance Plan (Plan); 

• Wetland and Waterbody Construction and Mitigation Procedures (Procedures); 

• Plan for the Unanticipated Discovery of Contaminated Media; 

• Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasures Plan; 

• Plan for the Containment of Inadvertent Release of Drilling Mud During Horizontal Directional 

Drilled Wetland and Waterbody Crossings; and 

• Plan for the Unanticipated Discovery of Historic Properties, Human Remains, or Potential 

Paleontological Evidence During Construction. 

Based on our review of the measures described in Gulf South's proposed plans and Procedures, 

we have determined that they are acceptable and consistent with our guidance documents regarding 

erosion control and mitigation of impacts to wetlands and waterbodies. In addition to the implementation 

of these measures and plans, Gulf South would be required to obtain other federal, state, and local 

permits, and authorizations that would contain measures to further minimize and mitigate environmental 

impacts resulting from construction and operation of the proposed Project. 

To ensure that Gulf South's proposed minimization and mitigation measures would result in the 

proposed Project having limited adverse environmental impacts, we recommended Gulf South address the 

following outstanding resource issues: NRI-listed streams; siltation of adjacent and downstream ponds; 

waterbodies potentially affected by aboveground facilities; provisional open-cut crossing plans for 

streams Gulf South plans to drill; wetland areas containing mature cypress/tupelo trees; coordination with 

resource agencies for revegetation, exotic weed control, and mitigation of impacted CRP lands; reducing 

permanent right-of-way width and overlap of adjacent paralleled right-of-ways; reducing visual impacts 

of aboveground facilities; and potential impacts to airport operations; and conducting noise surveys for 

compressor stations. We further recommended that Gulf South not begin construction until it has 

 ES-3 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
completed consultation under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act concerning the Project's impacts 

with the FWS regarding threatened and endangered species and with the respective State Historic 

Preservation Officers regarding cultural resource sites under Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act. 

Detailed descriptions of environmental impacts, including a description of cumulative impacts, 

Gulf South's proposed impact avoidance and mitigation measures, and our recommendations to further 

minimize and mitigate impacts, are included in Sections 3.0 and 4.0 of this document. 

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 

We have evaluated the No Action Alternative, the Postponed Action Alternative, alternative 

energy sources, the potential effects of energy conservation, system alternatives, route variations, and 

aboveground facility site alternatives to determine whether they would be technically and economically 

feasible and environmentally preferable to the proposed action. In this analysis, we considered the 

potential impacts to environmental resources and land uses. We evaluated route variations that would 

avoid or minimize impacts to environmental resources such as wetlands and waterbodies, and land uses 

such as orchards, timber production, cultural resource sites, and residences. None of the alternatives 

evaluated offered significant environmental benefits when compared to the proposed Project with our 

recommended mitigation measures. As such, we did not recommend the adoption of any of the 

alternatives evaluated. 

CONCLUSION 

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

reasonably avoid, minimize, or mitigate environmental impacts associated with construction and 

operation of the proposed Project. We recommend that these measures be attached as conditions to any 

authorization issued by the Commission. We conclude that if the proposed Project is found to be in the 

public interest and is constructed and operated in accordance with Gulf South's proposed minimization 

and mitigation measures and our recommended mitigation measures, the proposed facilities would result 

in limited adverse environmental impacts. In support of this conclusion, we offer the following: 

• The proposed pipeline route would be collocated with or parallel to existing rights-of-way for 

approximately 73 miles, or about 66 percent of the proposed Project; 

• Gulf South would implement its Plan and Procedures, which would minimize and mitigate 

impacts to natural resources during construction and operation of the proposed Project; 

• We are recommending that Gulf South limit the width of its permanent right-of-way to 50 feet; 

use portions of existing natural gas pipeline permanent rights-of-way during construction, if 

feasible; and limit the width of its construction right-of-way in areas requiring two-tone 

construction techniques to further reduce impacts; 

• Gulf South has developed site-specific crossing plans for significant wetland areas containing 

mature tupelo trees and would compensate for all unavoidable wetland impacts; and 

• Gulf South would implement an environmental inspection and monitoring program that would 

ensure compliance with all proposed and recommended mitigation measures. 

 ES-4 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 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 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 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. 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 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) 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 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) 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 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) 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 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 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 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 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 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 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 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 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 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 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 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. 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 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. 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 2-1 

2.0 PROPOSED ACTION 

Gulf South proposes to construct, own, operate, and maintain interstate natural gas pipeline 

and associated ancillary facilities in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama as described below and depicted 

in Figure 2.1-1. 

2.1 PROPOSED FACILITIES 

Gulf South proposes to construct and operate a 42-inch-diameter natural gas pipeline that 

would extend from existing Gulf South pipeline facilities in Simpson County, Mississippi, approximately 

111 miles east to Transco's existing pipeline facilities in Choctaw County, Alabama. This 42-inchdiameter natural gas pipeline would interconnect with natural gas pipelines operated or under construction 

by CenterPoint, Southern Natural Gas Company (Southern Natural), Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company 

(Tennessee Gas), Destin, and Transco. This proposed pipeline would have a maximum allowable 

operating pressure (MAOP) of 1,480 pounds per square inch gauge (psig) and would be capable of 

receiving, transporting, and delivering up to 1.272 billion cubic feet per day (Bcf/d) of natural gas. 

Throughout this EIS, the locations of specific features along the proposed pipeline, such as 

project facilities and environmental resources, are identified by milepost (MP). Table 2.1-1 provides the 

location, MP, and length of pipeline facilities associated with the proposed Project. The general location 

of the proposed Project facilities is shown in Figure 2.1-1, and Appendix B and H of this EIS provides 

more detailed facility location maps. 

TABLE 2.1-1 

Pipeline Facilities for the Proposed Southeast Expansion Project 

Milepost 

County Begin End 

Length 

(miles) 

Mississippi 

Simpson County 0.0 29.3 29.3 

Smith County 29.3 49.5 20.2 

Jasper County 49.5 75.5 26.0 

Clarke County 75.5 104.4 28.9 

Alabama 

Choctaw County 104.4 110.8 6.4 

Total 110.8 

In addition to the proposed pipeline, Gulf South would also construct and operate three 

compressor stations, five M/R stations, eight MLV, one side valve, and two pig1

 launcher/receiver 

facilities. Table 2.1-2 identifies and describes the aboveground facilities associated with the proposed 

Project and provides location and MP information for these facilities. 

 1

 A pig is a mechanical tool used to clean and inspect the interior of a pipeline. 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
Southeast Expansion Project

General Location Map

DATE: Jan 2007 Figure 2.1-1

north

1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000

LEGEND

Proposed Project Route

Proposed Compressor Station

Proposed M&R Station 

Harrisville

Compressor

Station

Delhi

Compressor

Station

CenterPoint Energy

M&R Station

Southern

Natural Gas

M&R Station

Tennessee Gas

Pipeline M&R

Station

Destin Compressor

Station/ Destin

Transmission

M&R Station

Transco

M&R Station

Public

2-2

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 2-3 

TABLE 2.1-2 

Aboveground Facilities for the Proposed Southeast Expansion Project 

Project Component County/Parish Milepost Description 

Compressor Stations 

Delhi Compressor Station Richland, LA N/A Install 18,940 hp of compression. 89.5 miles 

northwest of MP 0.0. 

Harrisville Compressor Station Simpson, MS 0.2 Install 18,940 hp of compression 

Destin Compressor Station Clarke, MS 82.9 Install 7,100 hp of compression 

Meter and Regulation (M/R) Stations 

CenterPoint M/R Station Richland, LA N/A Install M/R facilities and tie-in to CenterPoint 

Southern Natural M/R Station Smith, MS 45.7 Install M/R facilities and tie-in to Southern 

Natural 

Tennessee Gas M/R Station Jasper, MS 72.5 Install M/R facilities and tie-in to Tennessee Gas 

Destin M/R Station Clarke, MS 82.9 Install M/R facilities and tie-in to Destin 

Transco M/R Station Choctaw, AL 110.8 Install M/R facilities and tie-in to Transco 

Mainline Valves (MLV) and Other Facilities 

MLV No.1 w/Pig Launcher Simpson, MS 0.2 Install mainline valve with launcher assembly 

within permanent right-of-way 

MLV No.2 Simpson, MS 14.9 Install mainline valve within permanent right-ofway 

MLV No.3 Smith, MS 30.3 Install mainline valve within permanent right-ofway 

MLV No.4 Smith, MS 45.7 Install mainline valve within permanent right-ofway 

MLV No.5 Jasper, MS 60.0 Install mainline valve within permanent right-ofway 

Side Valve Jasper, MS 72.4 Install side valve within permanent right-of-way 

for potential future connection with Petal Gas 

MLV No.6 Jasper, MS 75.4 Install mainline valve within permanent right-ofway 

MLV No.7 Clarke, MS 91.3 Install mainline valve within permanent right-ofway 

MLV No.8 w/Pig Receiver Choctaw, AL 110.8 Install mainline valve with receiver assembly 

within permanent right-of-way _______________ 

Notes: 

N/A – Not Applicable. This facility is located approximately 89.5 miles to the west of the proposed Project along the Gulf South proposed East Texas 

to Mississippi Expansion Project. 

AL = Alabama 

LA = Louisiana 

MS = Mississippi 

Specifically, Gulf South proposes to construct the mainline 18,940-horsepower (Hp) 

Harrisville Compressor Station in Simpson County, Mississippi, at MP 0.0, and two interconnect pressure 

management compressor stations: the 18,940-Hp Delhi Compressor Station in Richland Parish, 

Louisiana, at 89.5 miles west of MP 0.0, and the 7,100-Hp Destin Compressor Station in Clarke County, 

Mississippi, at MP 82.9. The Harrisville Compressor Station would be comprised of four Caterpillar 

3616 reciprocating engines and be built 800 feet east of MP 0.0 at the point where the proposed Project 

starts at Gulf South's existing 30-inch-diameter Index 130 Pipeline. The Delhi Compressor Station would 

be comprised of four Caterpillar 3616 reciprocating engines and be built along pipeline facilities 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 2-4 

associated with Gulf South's proposed East Texas to Mississippi Expansion Project. The Delhi 

Compressor Station would increase the pressure of the natural gas delivered from CenterPoint's Carthage 

to Perryville Pipeline up to the pressure of Gulf South's pipeline associated with its proposed East Texas 

to Mississippi Expansion Project. The Destin Compressor Station would be comprised of two Caterpillar 

3616 reciprocating engines. This station would serve as a redundant station to maintain the pressure of 

the natural gas delivered from the proposed Project up to Destin's anticipated operating pressure of 

approximately 1,100 psig in the event of a loss of compression at the Harrisville Compressor Station. 

At each compressor station site, the new compressor units and associated equipment would be 

housed in new buildings. Each new compressor station would also include an emergency generator to 

provide back-up electrical power. Gulf South would also construct an office/control building at each site. 

Additional facilities at sites would include filter-separators installed on the suction-side of the station to 

clean gas prior to compression, a fuel gas heater, and two station blowdown silencers. Other 

aboveground facilities would include pig launchers/receivers, MLV sites, and side valves. Most natural 

gas piping at the facilities would be installed below grade, and the perimeter of the compressor stations 

would be fenced. Portions of these sites may be paved, covered with gravel, or landscaped, depending on 

facility operations and maintenance requirements. 

Metering and flow control for natural gas delivered to the proposed Project would be 

accomplished via M/R facilities as noted in Table 2.1-2. Similarly, facilities at the proposed M/R stations 

located at interconnects with CenterPoint, Southern Natural, Tennessee, Destin, and Transco pipelines 

would be used to meter the flow and adjust the pressure of natural gas delivered to those systems. Each 

M/R station would include a separate building for M/R equipment, flow/pressure control, and a customer 

facility housed within a fenced perimeter. 

Gulf South would construct and operate the proposed eight MLVs below ground using 

12-inch valve operation risers extending aboveground (for blowdowns and bypass) and connected on each 

side of the 42-inch valve with a crossover. These valves would enable portions of the pipeline to be shut 

down or isolated, if necessary. The MLVs would be installed in areas that are easily accessible to 

operating personnel and at intervals specified in U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) safety 

standards for natural gas pipelines. These sites would typically be enclosed with security fencing and a 

lockable gate around the aboveground piping and valves. 

One new side valve is proposed for construction at MP 72.4, near the intersection of the 

proposed 42-inch outside diameter (OD) pipeline and the existing Petal Gas Storage, LLC (Petal Gas) 

pipeline for a potential future connection with Petal Gas. A pig launcher is proposed at MP 0.2, and a pig 

receiver is proposed at MP 110.8. 

Gulf South filed a supplement on March 5, 2007, to use internally-coated pipeline segments to 

accommodate potential capacity increases in the future, and this would not affect Gulf South's requested 

MAOP of 1,480 psig. 

2.2 LAND REQUIREMENTS 

The amount of land required for construction and operation of the proposed Project, including 

the proposed pipeline and associated facilities, the proposed aboveground facilities, and the requested 

extra work areas, are summarized in Table 2.2-1. Approximately 1,726.5 acres of land would be required 

for use during construction of the proposed Project. Approximately 857.6 acres of land would be required 

for use during operation of the proposed Project. Following construction, approximately 868.9 acres of 

land would be restored to its preconstruction condition or allowed to revert to its former use. 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 2-5 

TABLE 2.2-1 

Land Requirements by County 

for the Proposed Southeast Expansion Project 

Facility 

Location 

County or Parish, State 

Land Affected 

during 

Construction 

(acres) 

Land Affected 

during 

Operation 

(acres) 

Simpson County, MS 330.2 193.0 

Smith County, MS 227.4 137.0 

Jasper County, MS 289.9 171.2 

Clarke County, MS 319.7 187.5 

Choctaw County, AL 73.1 42.7 

Pipeline Facilities (42-inch 

diameter)a

Subtotal 1,240.3 731.4 

Aboveground Facilities 

 

Delhi Compressor Station Richland Parish, LA 69.5 69.5 

Harrisville Compressor Station Simpson County, MS 16.2 16.2 

Destin Compressor Station Clarke County, MS 34.4 23.3 

 

CenterPoint M/R Station Richland Parish, LA 0 0 

Southern Natural M/R Station Smith County, MS 3.5 0.9 

Tennessee M/R Station Jasper County, MS 3.2 0.8 

Destin M/R Station Clarke County, MS 0 0 

Transco M/R Station Choctaw County, AL 13.9 8.0 

Mainline Valves Various 5.5 0.5 

Subtotal 146.2 119. 2 

Other Work Areas 

Extra Workspaces Various 240.7 0 

Pipe Storage Yards and 

Contractor Yards 

Various 41.0 0 

Access Roads Various 58.3 7.0 

 Subtotal 340.0 7.0 

 Total 1,726.5 857.6 

_______________ 

Notes: 

AL = Alabama 

LA = Louisiana 

MS = Mississippi 

a Construction impacts are based on a 100-foot right-of-way in uplands and a 75-foot right-of-way in 

wetlands. Operation impacts are based on a 60-foot right-of-way. However, we are 

recommending that Gulf South's permanent right-of-way be limited to a width of 50 feet and that it 

overlap its construction right-of-way onto existing parallel pipeline rights-of-way. 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 2-6 

2.2.1 Pipeline Facilities 

Gulf South proposes to use a nominal 100-foot-wide construction right-of-way in upland areas 

to install the proposed pipeline. In wetland areas, Gulf South proposes to use a 75-foot-wide construction 

right-of-way to install the proposed pipeline. These construction right-of-way widths would consist of a 

60-foot-wide permanent right-of-way and an additional 40- and 15-foot-wide temporary construction 

work area in upland and wetland work areas, respectively. The construction right-of-way may also be 

expanded by an additional 50 to 100 feet to account for site-specific conditions and alternative 

construction methods. The typical proposed pipeline construction right-of-way requirements in upland 

and wetland areas are illustrated in Figures 2.2.1-1 (typical right-of-way parallel to existing pipelines) and 

2.2.1-2 (typical right-of-way in wetlands). Construction of the proposed pipeline through uplands and 

wetlands would require the temporary use of approximately 1,240.3 acres (see Table 2.2-1). 

Following installation of the proposed pipeline and restoration of the construction right-of-way, 

Gulf South would permanently maintain a 60-foot-wide right-of-way located above the installed pipeline. 

Maintenance of this permanent right-of-way would require the use of approximately 731.4 acres. 

Right-of-Way Considerations 

We have received comments from ADEM, ADCNR, COE, FWS, MDWFP, MNHP, and the 

Mississippi Secretary of State expressing concern over multiple rights-of-way being added to greenfield 

existing rights-of-way, leading to accumulation of land impacts. Gulf South proposing a permanent rightof-way width of 60 feet. Additionally, we received comments from property owners concerning the need 

to minimize permanent right-of-way, particularly when multiple rights-of-way may occur within a 

common corridor. Based on our experience and review of similar projects, our understanding of pipeline 

operations, maintenance procedures, and equipment requirements, we believe that maintenance of a 

60-foot-wide permanent right-of-way is not necessary for operation of the proposed pipeline. Therefore, 

in order to minimize permanent impacts associated with the operation of the proposed pipeline, we 

recommend that: 

• Gulf South should not exercise eminent domain authority granted under Section 7(h) of 

the NGA to acquire a permanent right-of-way greater than 50 feet in width. 

Limiting the permanent right-of-way to 50 feet in width would allow Gulf South to acquire 

through the condemnation process, if necessary, sufficient land to operate its proposed pipeline, and 

would minimize permanent impacts to adjacent resources and land uses. Although Gulf South's use of 

federal authority to condemn lands, should the proposed Project be certificated, would be limited to a 

permanent right-of-way 50 feet in width, Gulf South would be able to negotiate with a willing landowner 

for the use of additional lands for operation of the proposed Project. 

In general, the installation of new pipeline on lands adjacent to existing, cleared rights-of-way 

(e.g., pipeline, power line, road, or railroad) is more environmentally preferable than on lands without 

adjacent existing cleared rights-of-way. Gulf South routed its pipeline to parallel a significant portion of 

its construction right-of-way with existing utility rights-of-way. Figures 2.2.1-1 and 2.2.1-2 indicate that 

Gulf South's construction right-of-way would abut the permanent right-of-way of Denbury Resources' 

pipeline for approximately 0.2 mile, the Crosstex Mississippi (Crosstex) pipeline for approximately 

39.4 miles, and the Transco natural gas pipeline right-of-way for about 33.1 miles. In total, 

approximately 72.7 miles (i.e., approximately 65 percent) of the proposed pipeline would be collocated 

with existing utility corridors. Existing utility corridors that Gulf South's pipeline would parallel are 

listed in Table 2.2.1-2. 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 2-7 

TABLE 2.2.1-2 

Existing Rights-of-Way that are Parallel to the 

Proposed Southeast Expansion Project

MP Begin MP End Type of Right-of-Way Easement Owner 

Width of Existing 

Right-of-Way 

(feet) 

30.3 30.5 Pipeline Denbury 50 

38.3 77.7 Pipeline Crosstex 50 

77.7 110.8 Pipeline Transco 125 

In the Draft EIS, we recommended that Gulf South use part of the Denbury, Crosstex and 

Transco pipelines' existing rights-of-way to maximize use of adjacent rights-of-way in Mississippi and 

Alabama. In its May 25, 2007, response, Gulf South indicated that, for safety and logistical reasons, it 

hesitates to overlap an existing pipeline's permanent right-of-way with its proposed construction right-ofway because the locations of Crosstex and Transco's pipelines within their rights-of-way are not 

consistent, and the distances from the pipelines to the edges of the permanent rights-of-way are not 

documented. Gulf South stated in response to the Draft EIS that it considers a 20-foot separation between 

existing pipelines to be a minimal safe distance. 

Gulf South provided additional comments and clarification on July 6, 2007, regarding 

different issues pertinent to the Crosstex and Transco parallel rights-of-way. It indicated that Crosstex's 

permanent right-of-way is defined as 33 feet in width, with vegetation clearing occurring for 30 to 35 feet. 

Gulf South understands the location of this pipeline can vary from 15 to 5 feet to the edge of Crosstex's 

permanent right-of-way. Additionally, Gulf South indicated that it designed workspace to abut Crosstex's 

pipeline right-of-way knowing that recorded easement instruments specify Crosstex's centerline as being 

10 feet from the edge of Crosstex's permanent right-of-way. In addition to being reluctant to encroach to 

within 10 feet of Crosstex's pipeline, Gulf South cited other uncertainties pertaining to safety, such as 

unknown depth of cover, unknown record of maintenance or pipeline integrity, and unknown and 

uncontrolled operating pressures. Finally, Gulf South expressed concern over already negotiated 

easements. 

Regarding Transco's pipeline locations, Gulf South stated it designed its construction right-ofway to be 25 feet from Transco's closest pipeline and repeated its desire to avoid overlap. Gulf South 

stated it would continue working with Transco. 

Transco stated in the Draft EIS scoping meeting held in Butler, Alabama, on May 10, 2007, 

that it had 144 easements in the area where Gulf South's proposed pipeline would parallel Transco, and 

that 89 of these were open and undefined easements. In its July 6 letter, Gulf South indicated that it 

would be able to overlap its right-of-way easements on any undefined easements according to the location 

specified in the FERC's certificate, if approved. 

While Gulf South's concern over a critical separation of construction workspace and the 

Crosstex pipeline as it applies in locations where that separation may be 10 feet or less may be valid, we 

believe that there is no essential conflict with storing spoil over or adjacent to Crosstex's or Transco's 

existing pipelines wherever its separation is greater than 10 feet. Given that procedures are available to 

Gulf South to locate existing pipelines, such as contacting the appropriate state One-Call system, we 

believe Gulf South would be able to safely install the proposed pipeline if a minimum verifiable distance 

is maintained. 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 2-8 

In addition to being feasible, efficient use of existing available workspace would reduce 

environmental impacts. This recommendation is consistent with the Commission's obligation to consult 

with other agencies and landowners to reduce overall environmental impacts. While we understand that 

Gulf South has negotiated easements early, they have done so at their own risk. 

Gulf South has not yet provided site-specific information for its construction rights-of-way 

that clearly demonstrates where along Crosstex's and Transco's rights-of-way it believes our 

recommended 10-foot-overlap would pose problems, as described in its May 25 and July 6 filings. 

Therefore, we recommend that: 

• Prior to construction, Gulf South file with the Secretary for review and written approval by 

the Director of OEP: 

a. revised alignment sheets and cross-section diagrams showing the use of at least 10 feet 

of Transco's and Crosstex's maintained permanent rights-of-way, for at least spoil 

storage, as part of its 100-foot-wide construction right-of-way; and 

b. site-specific justification by milepost for areas where Gulf South believes use of the 

existing maintained permanent right-of-way to be infeasible for spoil storage. 

Some segments of the proposed pipeline (major waterbody, road, and/or railway crossings) 

would be installed using horizontal directional drill (HDD) or bored crossings (see Section 2.3.2). 

Generally, these segments would only require the use of the permanent 60-foot-wide right-of-way; 

however, additional temporary workspaces (ATWS) would most likely be required because of the need 

for additional space to accommodate these construction techniques. 

In the Draft EIS, we recommended that Gulf South should file with the Secretary additional 

site-specific justification for the size of its proposed ATWS needed for two-tone construction. In its 

comments on the Draft EIS, Gulf South stated that they have revised the sizes of its proposed ATWS 

needed for two-tone construction to reflect widths of 50 feet instead of the previously indicated widths of 

70 feet. Gulf South believes that a 50-foot width is the minimum needed to provide for safe cut spoil 

storage in areas with steep side slopes and is consistent with the general side slope workspace 

requirements on Gulf South's other projects. We concur with this evaluation. See revised 

Figure 2.3.2.5-1 showing Gulf South's revised side slope construction limits. 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
Non-Internet Public 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE 

PROPOSED SOUTHEAST EXPANSIONPROJECT 

Docket No. CP07-032-000 

Page 2-9 

Figure 2.2.1-1 

Typical Right-of-Way in Uplands 

Public access for this Non-Internet Public information is 

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

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
Non-Internet Public 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE 

PROPOSED SOUTHEAST EXPANSIONPROJECT 

Docket No. CP07-032-000 

Page 2-10 

Figure 2.2.1-2 

Typical Right-of-Way in Wetlands 

Public access for this Non-Internet Public information is 

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

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 2-11 

2.2.2 Aboveground Facilities 

In addition to land already required for use during construction of the proposed pipeline, 

construction of the proposed aboveground facilities would require the use of 146.2 acres for construction 

and 119.2 acres for operation, respectively (Table 2.2-1). The proposed aboveground facilities include 

three compressor stations, five M/R stations, eight mainline valves, one side valve, and two pig launcher/

receiver facilities (each of which are associated with MLVs). 

Construction of the Delhi, Harrisville, and Destin Compressor Stations would encumber 69.5, 

16.2, and 34.4 acres of land, respectively. Operation of the Delhi, Harrisville, and Destin Compressor 

Stations would encumber 69.5, 16.2, and 23.3 acres of land, respectively. The land within the fenced 

perimeter of the compressor station facilities would be occupied by buildings, piping, and other 

equipment. Portions of these sites may be paved, covered with gravel, or landscaped, depending on 

facility operations and maintenance requirements. Construction and operation land requirements of the 

CenterPoint, Southern Natural, Tennessee, Destin, and Transco M/R stations would be 0, 3.5, 3.2, 0, and 

13.9 acres, respectively. Operations will require 0, 0.9, 0.8, 0, and 8 acres, respectively. At the 

CenterPoint and Destin M/R stations, no additional land requirements are needed because construction 

and operation of both stations will be within the Delhi and Destin Compressor stations, respectively, and 

their land use impacts are included in the compressor stations' land values. 

The MLV sites would typically consist of a 50-foot by 50-foot fenced area installed within the 

confines of the permanent pipeline right-of-way. Construction and operation of all but two of the MLVs 

would not result in land requirements beyond those already noted for the permanent pipeline right-ofway. MLVs 1 and 8 would require additional permanent land requirements beyond those noted for the 

facility for operation. 

2.2.3 Other Work Areas 

In addition to the proposed land requirements associated with the aforementioned pipeline and 

aboveground facilities, land would also be required during construction and operation of the proposed 

Project for ATWSs, pipe storage and contractor yards, and access roads. These requirements are 

described below. Should these requirements change prior to or during construction, Gulf South would be 

required to file a variance request with the Secretary for review and approval prior to using or impacting 

new areas. 

2.2.3.1 Additional Temporary Work Space 

ATWSs would be required for construction at road crossings, railroad crossings, crossings of 

existing pipelines and utilities, stringing truck turnaround areas, wetland crossings, HDD entrance and 

exit pits, and open-cut waterbody crossings. These ATWSs would be located adjacent to the pipeline 

construction right-of-way and could be used for such things as spoil storage, staging, equipment 

movement, material stockpiles, and pull string assembly associated with HDD installation. Construction 

of the proposed Project would require 756 ATWSs, totaling 240.7 acres ranging in size from less than 

0.1 acre to 6.0 acres. ATWSs would be returned to their preconstruction condition and former usage 

following completion of construction activities. Additional information on ATWS areas is provided in 

Section 3.8. 

2.2.3.2 Pipe Storage and Contractor Yards 

Gulf South has proposed the use of three off-site pipe storage and contractor yards, each 

serving one of the three construction spreads (see Section 2.3.1). These facilities would consist of 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 2-12 

warehouses or open lots located in areas of existing commercial or industrial use. The pipe storage and 

contractor yard serving spread one occupies approximately 15 acres and is located 1.5 miles southwest of 

the Community of Terry in Hinds County, Mississippi. The pipe storage and contractor yard serving 

spread two occupies approximately 20 acres and is located west of the Community of Laurel within the 

Hesler-Nobel Airport complex in Jones County, Mississippi. The pipe storage and contractor yard 

serving spread three occupies approximately 6 acres and is located 0.3 mile southwest of the intersection 

of Interstate Highway 20 and State Highway 19 in Lauderdale County, Mississippi. Total land 

requirements for these facilities would be approximately 41.0 acres. The locations of the proposed pipe 

storage and contractor yards are identified on the facility location maps included as Appendix B-2 of this 

Final EIS. Gulf South proposed the use of the three new pipe pipe storage and contractor yards in their 

May 29, 2007, filing. The seven pipe storage and contractor yards mentioned in the Draft EIS would not 

be utilized. All pipe storage and contractor yards would be leased from willing landowners, and upon 

completion of construction activities would be returned to their preconstruction condition and former 

usage. 

2.2.3.3 Access Roads 

Gulf South would use existing public and private roads to the extent possible to facilitate 

equipment and material access along the proposed Project route. Gulf South has indicated that 

construction of the proposed pipeline and aboveground facilities would require the temporary use of 138 

existing access roads of varying lengths and construction. Gulf South reports that 47 of the 138 access 

roads would require upgrades to support construction-related traffic. Upgrades that could be required 

include grading, placement of gravel for stability, replacing or installing culverts, and clearing of 

overhead vegetation. Minor widening could also be required at sharp turns to facilitate passage by pipe 

trucks. Gulf South has not completed the detailed design plans for these access roads, but reports that 

improvement of existing access roads could require widening to as much as 15 feet in some locations. 

Gulf South estimated that construction of new access roads and modification of existing 

access roads would affect approximately 58.3 acres. Following construction, three access roads would be 

maintained and used to provide long-term access to aboveground facilities, affecting approximately 

7.0 acres. The remainder of the lands affected by disturbance at new or upgraded access roads would 

revert to preconstruction uses following construction. 

All new access roads would be routed through previously cleared or disturbed areas to the 

extent practicable. Additional information on access roads is provided in Section 3.8. 

2.3 CONSTRUCTION PROCEDURES 

The proposed pipeline facilities would be designed, constructed, operated, and maintained in 

accordance with the DOT regulations under 49 CFR Part 192, Transportation of Natural and Other Gas 

by Pipeline: Minimum Federal Safety Standards; and other applicable federal and state regulations. 

Among other design standards, these regulations specify pipeline material selection; minimum design 

requirements; protection from internal, external, and atmospheric corrosion; and qualification procedures 

for welders and operations personnel. More detailed safety information is provided in Section 3.12. In 

addition, Gulf South would comply with the siting and maintenance requirements in 18 CFR 380.15 and 

other applicable federal and state regulations. 

Upland construction of the proposed pipeline would be conducted using conventional open-cut 

methods as described below. The construction of the proposed pipeline through waterbodies and 

wetlands, as well as other specialized construction procedures, is described in Section 2.3.2. 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 2-13 

2.3.1 General Pipeline Construction Procedures 

Conventional open-cut pipeline construction has been characterized as a moving assembly line 

with a construction spread (crew and equipment) proceeding along the construction right-of-way in a 

continuous operation, as depicted in Figure 2.3.1-1. Gulf South proposes to use three individual 

construction spreads to complete installation of the proposed pipeline. 

Right-of-Way Survey and Fence Crossings 

After right-of-way easements have been obtained, the pipeline centerline, construction 

right-of-way, and ATWSs would be surveyed and staked. Gulf South would contact the appropriate state 

One-Call system so that existing underground utilities could be located, identified, and flagged to prevent 

accidental damage during pipeline construction. Other sensitive resources, such as wetland boundaries, 

cultural resources, and any areas of protected species habitat, would also be marked. 

Where fences are encountered along the construction right-of-way, a fence crew would install 

temporary fences to confine livestock to existing areas off the right-of-way and to prohibit or otherwise 

control public access across the right-of-way. This work would include installing new posts to brace the 

areas on either side of the proposed cut to avoid damage to the existing fence or wall. Temporary gates 

would be installed as necessary. 

Clearing and Grading 

The construction right-of-way and ATWSs would be cleared and graded, where necessary, to 

provide a relatively level surface for trench-excavating equipment and the movement of other 

construction equipment. Brush, trees, roots, and other obstructions, such as large rocks, would be cleared 

from all construction work areas. Where appropriate, stumps would be cut flush with the ground and left 

in place. Gulf South indicates that marketable timber could be cut and stacked at the edge of the right-ofway for landowner use or recovery of timber value. Tree stumps would be removed from within the 

permanent right-of-way. Cleared woody debris would be burned (in accordance with state and local 

burning requirements), chipped (except in wetlands), or distributed over the disturbed area as mulch or 

transported off-site to an appropriate disposal facility. As necessary, topsoil would be stripped and 

segregated in residential areas, actively cultivated or rotated croplands, pastures, hayfields, and other 

areas where requested by a land management agency or landowner as depicted in Figure 2.3.1-2. Topsoil 

would be removed to its actual depth, up to a maximum depth of 12 inches, and stockpiled separately 

from the subsoil excavated from the pipeline trench. Typically, topsoil would be stripped from directly 

over the pipeline ditch and the adjacent subsoil spoil storage area (i.e., ditch plus spoil method), but 

landowners would be provided with the option of topsoil segregation across the full construction work 

area. Additional information on topsoil segregation is provided in Section 3.2. 

To contain disturbed soils during clearing and grading in upland areas and to minimize erosion 

and sedimentation of wetlands and waterbodies, temporary erosion controls would be installed 

immediately after initial disturbance of soils and would be maintained throughout construction. 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
Non-Internet Public 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE 

PROPOSED SOUTHEAST EXPANSIONPROJECT 

Docket No. CP07-032-000 

Page 2-14 

Figure 2.3.1-1 

Typical Pipeline Construction Sequence 

Public access for this Non-Internet Public information is 

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

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
Non-Internet Public 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE 

PROPOSED SOUTHEAST EXPANSIONPROJECT 

Docket No. CP07-032-000 

Page 2-15 

Figure 2.3.1-2 

Typical Right-Of-Way in Agriculture 

Public access for this Non-Internet Public information is 

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

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 2-16 

Trenching 

Before beginning excavation, Gulf South would contact the appropriate state One-Call system 

so that existing underground utilities could be located, identified, and flagged. A trench then would be 

excavated using a trenching machine or backhoe-type equipment. Excavated materials would typically be 

stored on the non-working side of the trench (Figure 2.2.1-1). 

Temporary trench plugs (or barriers) would be used to create segments within the open trench 

to reduce erosion and allow access across the trench. Trench plugs typically would consist of either 

compacted subsoil or sandbags placed across the ditch (soft plugs) or short, unexcavated portions of 

trench (hard plugs). Trench dewatering also may be required along portions of the route. 

The trench would be excavated to a depth that would allow space for the pipeline, pipeline 

bedding, and the minimum amount of top cover required by DOT specifications. The trench typically 

would be excavated to a depth of 7 feet to enable the proposed pipeline to be installed at a minimum 

depth of 3 feet (measured from the top of the pipeline) below the ground surface. The depth of the 

pipeline would vary and would range from these minimum depth requirements to that depth required for 

safe crossing of a feature such as a road, highway, railroad, or waterbody. At crossings of utilities or 

foreign pipelines, the proposed pipeline would also generally be installed at a greater depth to provide for 

a minimum clearance of 12 inches, or the depth that may be required by state or local regulations, 

whichever provides greater protection. 

Areas of bedrock that might be encountered along the proposed Project route should be easily 

workable with standard construction equipment and techniques, and Gulf South does not anticipate the 

need for blasting associated with trench excavation 

Pipe Stringing, Bending, and Welding 

Sections of pipe up to 80 feet long would be delivered to the job site and temporarily placed or 

"strung" along the excavated pipeline trench where they would be bent as necessary to follow the natural 

grade and direction changes of the right-of-way. Following stringing and bending, the ends of the 

pipeline would be carefully aligned and welded together. The welds would be visually and 

radiographically (i.e., x-ray) inspected to ensure structural integrity. Those welds that do not meet 

established specifications would be repaired or replaced. 

An external coating would cover and protect the delivered pipeline sections. Following 

welding, the previously uncoated ends of the pipe at all joints would be coated with material compatible 

with a factory-applied coating, as applicable, in preparation for installation. The coating on the remainder 

of the completed pipe section would be inspected for defects, and repairs would be made to any damaged 

areas prior to lowering the pipe into the trench. At some locations, it may be necessary to provide 

negative buoyancy in the form of concrete weights, a concrete coating, pipe sacks, and/or soil anchors. In 

addition, Gulf South has indicated that the pipeline would be internally coated. 

Lowering-in and Backfilling 

Prior to lowering the pipeline, the trench would be cleaned of debris and foreign material and 

would be dewatered as necessary. Trench dewatering, which would entail pumping accumulated 

groundwater or rainwater from the trench to stable upland areas, would be performed in accordance with 

applicable local, state, and federal permitting requirements. In areas of rock, the bottom of the trench 

may be padded with sand, gravel, screened soils, sandbags, or support pillows to protect the pipe coating. 

However, topsoil would not be used as padding material. The pipeline then would be lowered into the 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 2-17 

trench by appropriately spaced sideboom tractors working in unison to avoid buckling of the pipe. 

Trench breakers would be installed at regular intervals where appropriate to prevent subsurface erosion 

and flow of water between the trench and crossed waterbodies, wetlands, and near-surface groundwater. 

After the pipeline is lowered into the trench and adequately protected, previously excavated 

materials would be used to backfill the trench. Any excess excavated materials or materials deemed 

unsuitable for backfill would be evenly spread over the right-of-way or disposed of in accordance with 

applicable regulations and landowner requirements. Backfilling over the trenchline would occur to 

approximately 6 inches above the original elevation to accommodate future soil settlement. 

Hydrostatic Testing 

Once installation and backfilling are completed and before the proposed Project begins 

operation, the pipeline would be hydrostatically pressure-tested in accordance with DOT safety standards 

(49 CFR Part 192) to verify its integrity and to ensure its ability to withstand the MAOP. Hydrostatic 

testing consists of installing a hydrostatic test cap and manifold, filling the pipeline with water, 

pressurizing the pipeline to its MAOP, and maintaining that test pressure for a specified period of time. 

Any leaks detected during the test would be repaired and the pipeline would be re-tested. 

Water used for hydrostatic testing would be obtained from surface water sources and 

municipal supplies, and no biocides or other hydrostatic test water additives would be added to the test 

water. After hydrostatic testing is completed, the test water either would be pumped to the next segment 

of pipeline to be tested or would be discharged. Additional information on hydrostatic testing is provided 

in Section 3.3. 

Once a segment of pipe has been successfully tested, it would be cleaned and dried using 

mechanical tools (pigs) moved through the pipeline with pressurized, dry air. The hydrostatic test cap and 

manifold then would be removed and the pipe would be connected to the remainder of the pipeline using 

the welding and inspection procedures describe above. 

Cleanup and Restoration 

Within 20 days (or as soon as possible) of completing the backfilling of the trench, all 

remaining trash, debris, surplus materials, and temporary structures would be removed from the right-ofway and disposed of in accordance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations. All disturbed 

areas would be finish-graded and restored as closely as possible to preconstruction contours. Permanent 

erosion control measures also would be installed. Topsoil previously segregated from the subsoil material 

in all agricultural and residential areas would be spread uniformly across the construction right-of-way, 

and the topsoil and subsoil in these areas would be tested for compaction along the disturbed corridor. 

Vegetation restoration would begin within six days of final grading. After the soil is readied 

for planting or seeding in areas where Gulf South and landowners have negotiated agreements, Gulf 

South would reseed or replant according to those agreements. To provide permanent erosion control 

along the right-of-way, all other upland areas disturbed by construction would be fertilized, limed, and 

seeded in accordance with the prescribed dates and seed mixes specified by the local soil conservation 

authorities or land management agencies. Wetland areas would not be fertilized, limed, or mulched 

unless Gulf South is directed to do so by state or local regulatory agencies. 

Disturbed pavement and other road surfaces along access roads would be restored to 

preconstruction or better conditions, unless otherwise specified by the property owner and approved by 

applicable regulatory agencies. Likewise, any private or public property damaged during construction, 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 2-18 

such as fences, gates, and driveways, would also be restored to original or better condition consistent with 

individual landowner agreements. 

Pipeline markers and/or warning signs would be installed along the pipeline centerline at 

specified intervals to identify the pipeline location, specify Gulf South as the operator of the pipeline, and 

provide telephone numbers for emergencies and inquiries. 

Minimization Measures 

To minimize construction-related effects, Gulf South proposes to implement its Upland 

Erosion Control, Revegetation, and Maintenance Plan (Plan) and its Wetland and Waterbody 

Construction and Mitigation Procedures (Procedures) as described in Section 3.4. With the exception of 

a few alternative measures listed in Table 3.4.2.2-1, Gulf South's proposed Plan and Procedures are 

consistent with our guidance documents of the same name. The FERC Plan and Procedures are available 

for review on the FERC Internet website at www.ferc.gov/industries/gas/enviro/guidelines. The intent of 

Gulf South's Plan is to outline baseline mitigation measures that minimize erosion and enhance 

revegetation in upland areas. The major components of this Plan are described in Section 3.2. The intent 

of Gulf South's Procedures is to outline baseline mitigation measures that minimize the extent and 

duration of construction-related disturbances to wetlands and waterbodies. The major components of 

these Procedures are described in Sections 3.3 and 3.4. 

Gulf South has also developed several Project-specific plans to avoid or minimize 

environmental impacts during construction. Gulf South has prepared a general Spill Prevention, 

Containment, and Control (SPCC) plan, which describes the management of hazardous materials, such as 

fuels, lubricants, and coolants that would be used during construction. Site-specific plans would be 

developed for each construction spread once the construction contractors have been selected. Gulf South 

developed a Plan for the Unanticipated Discovery of Contaminated Environmental Media that would be 

used in the event contaminated soils are identified during construction activities. Gulf South has also 

developed a Plan for the Containment of Inadvertent Release of Drilling Mud During Horizontal 

Directional Drilled Wetland and Waterbody Crossings (HDD plan) that describes the procedures that 

would be implemented to monitor for, contain, and clean up any inadvertent releases of drilling fluid 

during HDD operations. The HDD plan also includes the directional drilling contingency plan (DDC 

plan). Additionally, Gulf South has developed a Plan for the Unanticipated Discovery of Historic 

Properties, Human Remains or Potential Paleontological Evidence During Construction that would 

guide the treatment of any unanticipated discoveries of cultural resources or human remains during 

construction (see Section 3.10). Gulf South is also developing a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan 

(SWPPP), but this plan is not yet complete. These plans can be viewed on the internet using our 

eLibrary, which is found at www.ferc.gov. 

2.3.2 Specialized Pipeline Construction Procedures 

2.3.2.1 Waterbody Crossings 

A total of 308 waterbodies would be crossed by the proposed Project. Gulf South proposes to 

use either open-cut or HDD techniques for all of these crossings as described below. Construction of the 

proposed pipeline across these waterbodies would be accomplished in accordance with Gulf South's 

Procedures and all applicable permits. 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 2-19 

Open-cut Crossing 

An open-cut waterbody crossing would be conducted using methods similar to conventional 

open-cut trenching. The open-cut construction method would involve excavation of the pipeline trench 

across the waterbody, installation of a prefabricated segment of pipeline, and backfilling of the trench 

with native material. Excavation and backfilling of the trench would be accomplished using backhoes or 

other excavation equipment operating from one or both banks of the waterbody. The use of equipment 

operating in the waterbody would be limited to that needed for construction of the crossing. All other 

construction equipment would cross the waterbody using equipment bridges. 

During construction, Gulf South would implement mitigation measures to minimize impacts 

to the aquatic environment, as described in its Procedures. Construction would be scheduled so that the 

trench would be excavated immediately prior to pipelaying activities. The duration of construction across 

minor waterbodies would be limited to 24 hours for minor waterbodies (10 feet wide or less) and 48 hours 

for intermediate waterbodies (greater than 10 feet wide but less than or equal to 100 feet in width). In 

accordance with its Procedures, excavated spoil would be stockpiled in the construction right-of-way at 

least 10 feet from the stream bank or in approved additional work areas, and would be surrounded by 

sediment control devices to prevent sediment from returning to the waterbody. The waterbody banks 

would be returned to as near preconstruction conditions as possible within 24 hours of completing all 

open-cut crossings. 

Horizontal Directional Drill 

The HDD method is a trenchless crossing method that may be used to avoid direct impacts to 

sensitive resources such as waterbodies, wetlands, and infrastructure (e.g., roads, railways, etc.) by 

directionally drilling beneath them. HDD installation on the proposed Project would result in a pipeline 

that is installed beneath the ground surface by pulling the pipeline through a pre-drilled bore hole. HDD 

installation is typically carried out in three stages: (1) directional drilling of a small-diameter pilot hole; 

(2) enlarging the pilot hole to a sufficient diameter to accommodate the pipeline; and (3) pulling the 

prefabricated pipeline, or pull string, into the enlarged bore hole. Figure 2.3.2-1 illustrates a typical HDD 

installation process. 

The pilot hole (i.e., approximately 12 inches in diameter depending on drill head and soil 

characteristics) would be drilled along a predetermined HDD bore. The drill head for the pilot hole would 

have a down-hole, hydraulic, motor-powered drill bit attached to the drill string (pipe connecting the drill 

rig to the drill head). The hydraulic motor would convert hydraulic energy from drilling fluid, or drilling 

mud, pumped from the surface to mechanical energy at the drill head, allowing for bit rotation without 

drill string rotation. Drill string would be added as the pilot hole progressed. 

Gulf South proposes to use hand-laid electric-grid guide wires to assist guidance of the drill 

bit along the proposed route. A small pathway approximately 2 to 3 feet wide may be cut using hand 

tools in heavily vegetated areas such as wetlands in order to position these guide wires, resulting in 

minimal ground disturbance. No large trees would be cut as part of this process. The path of the drill 

head would be controlled using an electromagnetic steering tool positioned on the tip of the drill bit and 

would follow the electromagnetic field created by the guide wires. Additionally, drill bit positioning 

sensors may help guide the path of the drill. 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
Non-Internet Public 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE 

PROPOSED SOUTHEAST EXPANSIONPROJECT 

Docket No. CP07-032-000 

Page 2-20 

Figure 2.3.2-1 

Typical HDD Installation Process 

Public access for this Non-Internet Public information is 

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

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 2-21 

After completion of the pilot hole, the HDD bore would be progressively reamed to a diameter 

about 12 inches larger than the pipeline diameter. Drilling fluid would be pumped through the reaming 

tools to aid in cutting, support the bore hole, transport spoil back to the surface, and lubricate the trailing 

pipe. Upon completion of drilling and reaming, the drill string would extend from the entrance pit to the 

exit pit. Concurrent with reaming the bore, the pull string to be inserted in the HDD bore would be 

fabricated and laid out within the construction right-of-way or ATWS extending from the HDD exit pit. 

The pull string would be connected to the drill string and pulled back through the bore. The pipeline 

would be neutrally buoyant in the drilling fluid, allowing it to be pulled through the HDD bore hole. 

Drilling fluid circulated through the bore during the pilot hole drilling and reaming process 

would be collected at the surface and processed to remove spoils, allowing the fluid to be reused. Excess 

spoils and drilling fluid would be treated for disposal and disposed of at an approved location in 

accordance with regulatory requirements, agreements, and permit conditions. The proposed HDD drilling 

fluid would consist of water and bentonite. Bentonite is a mixture of non-toxic clays and rock particles 

consisting of about 85 percent montmorillonite clay, 10 percent quartz and feldspars, and 5 percent 

accessory materials, such as calcite and gypsum. 

A successful HDD would result in little or no impact to the waterbody being crossed. The 

HDD method is not without risk, however, as inadvertent drilling fluid releases could result if the fluid 

escapes containment at pits that would be excavated at the HDD entrance and exit points or if a "frac-out" 

occurs. A frac-out occurs when drilling fluids escape the drill bore hole and are forced through the 

subsurface substrate to the ground surface. Frac-outs occur most often in highly permeable soils during 

the entrance and exit phases of the pilot hole drill, as this is when the greatest pressures are exerted on the 

bore walls in shallow soils. Drilling fluid pressures in the bore hole and drilling fluid pumping and return 

flow rates would be monitored to detect the potential occurrence of a frac-out. If survey and monitoring 

procedures indicate that a frac-out may have occurred, Gulf South would implement the corrective 

measures identified in its HDD Plan. If a frac-out does occur, Gulf South would immediately notify 

public agencies specified in its HDD Plan to determine a course of action, whether it be modification of 

drilling fluid parameters or complete suspension of drilling operations. These corrective measures would 

be affected to minimize or prevent further releases. Any surfaced (land) drilling fluids would be 

contained, clean-up procedures would commence, and the appropriate agencies would be notified. A 

discussion of the potential impacts of HDD on waterbodies and wetlands is provided in Sections 3.3 and 

3.4. 

In the event that Gulf South's attempted HDD fails, Gulf South would use its contingency 

procedures outlined in its HDD Plan for filling abandoned holes, relocating a new drill hole, reattempting 

the new HDD, or adopting an alternative crossing method. Gulf South would consult with appropriate 

regulatory agencies and submit the selection of any alternative crossing method to the FERC. 

Gulf South proposes to use 14 separate HDD crossings to accomplish pipeline installation 

across 29 waterbodies, including five major waterbodies (greater than 100 feet in width), and two 

Nationwide Rivers Inventory (NRI) listed streams, the Strong River and the Chickasawhay River (Table 

2.3.2.1-1). Section 3.3 and Appendix D identify and describe the waterbodies that would be crossed 

using HDD techniques. In addition to waterbodies, Gulf South proposes to cross 16 wetlands and five 

roadways via HDD methods. 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 2-22 

TABLE 2.3.2.1-1 

Proposed Horizontal Directional Drill Locations for the 

Proposed Southeast Expansion Project

Milepost 

Drill Location Begin End 

Length 

(feet) 

U.S. Hwy. 49 and Dabbs Creek 12.3 12.8 2,400 

Campbell's Creek/Campbell's Road 15.9 16.2 1,600 

Strong River and Highway 13 17.9 18.4 2,525 

Oakohay Creek/Beaver Creek 34.1 34.7 3,500 

Leaf River 44.0 44.3 1,600 

West Tallahala River 45.2 45.5 1,600 

Tallahoma Creek 55.8 56.2 2,200 

Tallahala Creek 62.4 62.7 1,600 

Interstate 59 and County Road 8 69.3 69.7 1,800 

Shubuta Creek 82.5 82.8 1,600 

Chickasawhay River 89.0 89.5 2,300 

County Road 613 94.7 95.1 2,100 

Bucatunna Creek 100.3 100.6 1,600 

Okatuppa Creek 107.2 107.5 1,600 

2.3.2.2 Wetland Crossings 

Construction of the proposed Project pipeline across wetlands would be conducted in 

accordance with applicable permits and Gulf South's Procedures. Overall, the wetland crossing methods 

and mitigation measures identified in its Procedures are designed to minimize the extent and duration of 

construction-related disturbance within wetlands. Construction methods in wetlands would consist of the 

conventional lay method, push-float method, or HDD. Other than planned HDDs, the site-specific 

crossing procedures used to install the pipeline across wetlands would be determined based on conditions 

at the time of construction and would vary dependent on the level of soil stability and saturation 

encountered during construction. 

The construction right-of-way width through wetland areas would be reduced to 75 feet. 

Within the right-of-way, woody vegetation would be removed or cut off at ground level and would be 

removed from the wetlands, leaving the root systems intact. Pulling of tree stumps and grading activities 

would be limited to that area directly over the trenchline, unless it was determined that safety-related 

construction constraints required grading or removal of tree stumps from under the working side of the 

construction right-of-way. Temporary erosion control devices would be installed as necessary 

immediately after initial disturbance of wetlands or adjacent upland areas to prevent sediment flow into 

wetlands, and would be maintained until revegetation is complete. Trench plugs would be installed as 

necessary to maintain wetland hydrology. 

The construction equipment operating in wetland areas would be limited to that needed to 

clear the construction right-of-way, dig the trench, fabricate and install the pipeline, backfill the trench, 

and restore the construction right-of-way. If standing water or saturated soil conditions were present, or if 

construction equipment caused ruts or mixing of the topsoil and subsoil, construction equipment 

operating in wetland areas would be further limited to the use of low-ground-pressure equipment or 

normal equipment operating from timber riprap or prefabricated equipment mats. 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 2-23 

Topsoil would be stripped from the area directly over the trench line to a maximum depth of 

12 inches in unsaturated soils and would be stockpiled separately from the subsoil where practicable. The 

segregated topsoil would be restored to its original location immediately following installation of the pipe 

and backfill of the trench. Materials such as timber mats placed in wetlands during construction would be 

removed during final cleanup, and the preconstruction contours of the wetland would be restored. Any 

required permanent erosion control measures would then be installed, and disturbed areas within the 

wetland would be temporarily stabilized with appropriate vegetation to protect the wetland soils from 

erosion. 

The wetlands that would be affected by construction of the proposed Project are described in 

Section 3.4. That section also provides further discussion of the wetland restoration and mitigation 

procedures that would be implemented by Gulf South. 

2.3.2.3 Road, Highway, and Railroad Crossings 

The proposed pipeline would cross numerous paved and unpaved roads, highways, and 

railroads along the proposed Project route. Construction across these features would be accomplished in 

accordance with Gulf South's Plan and the requirements of all applicable crossing permits and approvals. 

During roadway construction, Gulf South would incorporate any safety precautions required by state and 

local transportation agencies. 

All railroads and approximately 91 major highways and paved roads would be crossed using 

HDD or subsurface boring techniques. The HDD crossing method, as described in detail in Section 

2.3.2.1, would be used at Interstates 49 and 59, Mississippi Highway 13, and County Roads 8 and 613. 

Bores beneath roads and railways would entail excavating pits on both sides of the feature and boring a 

horizontal hole equal to the diameter of the pipe (or casing, if required) at the depth of the pipeline 

installation. The pipeline section and/or casing then would be pushed through the bore. If additional 

pipeline sections were required, they would be welded to the first section of the pipeline in the bore pit 

before being pushed through the bore. There would likely be little disruption of traffic on roads and 

railways that are bored. Section 3.8 provides additional information on the proposed major road crossing 

locations. 

Pipeline crossings of lightly traveled and unimproved rural dirt roads typically would be 

crossed via open-cut installation. Such crossings would require the temporary closure of these roads and 

implementation of detours where feasible. In the absence of a reasonable detour, construction across the 

roadway would be staged to allow at least one lane of traffic to remain open except for the limited periods 

required for installing the pipeline. Efforts would be made to schedule lane closures outside of peak 

traffic periods. Attempts would also be made to avoid peak-traffic periods on all road construction. All 

construction operations at these crossings, including repair and surface restoration, would typically be 

completed within one day. 

2.3.2.4 Agricultural Areas 

Agricultural areas along the proposed Project route include pasture areas used for livestock 

grazing, hayfields, fallow fields, and rotated croplands such as cotton and corn. In these areas, Gulf South 

would implement special procedures to minimize impacts on current agricultural uses. Unless the 

landowner or land management agency specifically approves otherwise, topsoil would be removed to its 

actual depth, up to a maximum of 12 inches, and would be stockpiled separately from the subsoil 

excavated from the pipeline trench. Typically, topsoil would be stripped from directly over the pipeline 

ditch and the adjacent subsoil spoil storage area, but landowners would be provided with the option of 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 2-24 

topsoil segregation across the full width of the construction work area. During construction, the natural 

flow patterns of all fields would be maintained by providing breaks in topsoil and subsoil stockpiles. 

During cleanup and restoration, all disturbed areas would be finish-graded and restored as 

closely as possible to preconstruction contours. Topsoil previously segregated from the trench material in 

all agricultural areas would be spread uniformly across the construction right-of-way, and any stones or 

excess rock would be removed from at least the top 12 inches of soil. The topsoil and subsoil in all 

agricultural and residential areas also would be tested for compaction at regular intervals using 

penetrometers or other appropriate devices to conduct tests. Any severely compacted areas would be 

plowed with a paraplow or other deep tillage device. In areas where the topsoil was segregated, the 

subsoil also would be plowed before replacing the segregated topsoil. 

Gulf South stated that the proposed Project would not cross any known drainage structures or 

irrigation facilities. Gulf South's plans require working with property owners to identify locations of 

existing drainage structures and irrigation facilities that could be damaged during construction. Should 

any damage occur to these facilities, Gulf South would repair these systems with the input of the property 

owners. Gulf South also would work with landowners during easement negotiations to establish 

compensation agreements for crop damages and for loss of growing time, as applicable. Additional 

information on special procedures used in agricultural areas is presented in Sections 3.2 and 3.8. 

2.3.2.5 Rugged Topography 

The proposed Project would not involve construction in areas of excessively rugged 

topography, such as mountains or canyons. However, some portions of the proposed Project route would 

traverse areas of side slopes and rolling terrain that could require specialized "two-tone" construction 

techniques to provide for safe working conditions. Under the two-tone construction technique, the uphill 

side of the construction right-of-way would be cut during grading. The material removed from the cut 

would be used to fill the downhill side of the construction right-of-way to provide a safe and level surface 

from which to operate heavy equipment. The pipeline trench would then be excavated along the newly 

graded right-of-way. Figure 2.3.2.5-1 provides a typical cross-section of the two-tone construction 

technique. The areas along the proposed Project that likely would be affected by two-tone construction 

techniques are listed in Table 2.3.2.5-1. 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 2-25 

TABLE 2.3.2.5-1 

Areas That Would Be Affected by Two-Tone Construction Techniques 

for the Proposed Southeast Expansion Project 

Milepost 

Length Affected 

(feet) 

Additional Workspace 

Requirement 

0.0-0.9 1,565 45 to 50-foot-wide ATWS 

3.2-3.5 2,730 50-foot wide ATWS 

3.9-4.6 3,370 45-foot-wide ATWS 

6.2-6.8 2,583 45-foot-wide ATWS 

8.7-8.9 1,470 50-foot-wide ATWS 

20.3-22.9 6,685 45 to 50-foot-wide ATWS 

29.5-29.7 1,010 50-foot-wide ATWS 

75.5 970 50-foot-wide ATWS 

77.1-78.5 4,180 50-foot-wide ATWS 

90.9-93.8 6,645 50-foot wide ATWS 

95.7-96.9 4,540 50-foot wide ATWS 

98.1-99.8 4,360 50-foot wide ATWS 

100.9 420 50-foot wide ATWS 

102.2-102.6 2,085 50-foot wide ATWS 

103.4-107.1 11,380 50-foot wide ATWS 

108.2-110.6 6,995 50-foot wide ATWS 

Total 60,988 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
Non-Internet Public 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE 

PROPOSED SOUTHEAST EXPANSIONPROJECT 

Docket No. CP07-032-000 

Page 2-26 

Figure 2.3.2.5-1 

Typical Side Slope Workspace Construction Area 

Public access for this Non-Internet Public information is 

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

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 2-27 

The two-tone construction technique would likely require ATWSs to accommodate the 

additional volumes of fill material generated by this technique (see Section 3.8). Following our 

recommendation in the Draft FEIS for Gulf South to reduce the sizes of ATWSs originally proposed for 

two-tone construction, Gulf South filed information to our staff that it would limit the size of ATWSs to 

50 feet, where they originally proposed 70 feet. Following pipeline installation and backfill of the trench, 

excavated material would be placed back in the cut and compacted to restore the approximate original 

contours. All disturbed areas would then be stabilized in accordance with Gulf South's Plan. 

2.3.2.6 Residential Areas 

Gulf South proposes to complete construction activities near residences as quickly as possible 

to minimize construction-related disturbances. Open access to residences would be maintained to the 

extent possible, and coordination with landowners would be conducted to minimize inconvenience 

regarding possible temporary loss of utility service or to address special landscaping issues. Safety 

fencing would also be used to prevent pedestrian access to the construction site. Gulf South has 

developed construction measures for all residences within 50 feet of the construction ROW, and sitespecific construction plans for residences located within 25 feet of the construction right-of-way. 

Additionally, a site-specific plan for construction in the vicinity of the daycare facility has 

been provided to the Commission. The daycare facility at MP 70.7 is located greater than 200 feet 

northwest of the nearest point (adjacent to the east side of County Road 8) of the construction work area. 

At that location, a tree line exists between the daycare facility and the construction work area and the tree 

line extends from County Road 8 to Gulf South's construction right-of-way. This tree line creates a 

natural barrier between construction activities and the daycare facility. In addition, Gulf South would 

install and maintain safety fencing on both sides of the active construction right-of-way extending 

200 feet on each side of both County Road 8 and County Road 828. Safety fencing would be installed for 

a length of approximately 450 feet along the north side of Gulf South's right-of-way between County 

Road 8 and County Road 828 as an added measure of protection for the daycare facility. 

Section 3.11 provides additional information on noise abatement and emission control 

technology. As necessary, disturbed or interrupted electrical, domestic water and septic, and 

communications utilities would be installed. 

2.3.2.7 Utility Crossings 

The proposed Project would cross Transco and Crosstex pipelines at 12 locations. Table 

2.3.2.7-1 lists the approximate milepost and pipeline owner at each location. 

Foreign pipelines will be crossed using subsurface boring techniques that would allow for a 

minimum clearance of 12 inches or the depth that may be required by state or local regulations, whichever 

provides greater protection. Bores beneath foreign pipelines would entail excavating pits on both sides of 

the feature and boring a horizontal hole equal to the diameter of the pipe (or casing, if required) at the 

depth of the pipeline installation. The pipeline section and/or casing then would be pushed through the 

bore. If additional pipeline sections were required, they would be welded to the first section of the 

pipeline in the bore pit before being pushed through the bore. 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 2-28 

TABLE 2.3.2.7-1 

Foreign Pipeline Crossings for the Proposed 

Southeast Expansion Project 

MP Pipeline Owner 

49.38 Crosstex 

49.56 Crosstex 

51.29 Crosstex 

51.58 Crosstex 

66.21 Crosstex 

74.69 Crosstex 

75.18 Crosstex 

76.15 Crosstex 

77.34 Crosstex 

82.06 Transco 

87.56 Transco 

89.67 Transco 

2.3.3 Aboveground Facilities Construction Procedures 

The aboveground facilities would be constructed concurrent with pipeline installation, but 

construction would be conducted by special fabrication crews generally working separately from the 

pipeline construction spreads. 

Construction of the compressor stations would involve clearing, grading, and compacting the 

sites to the surveyed elevations, where necessary, for placement of concrete foundations for buildings and 

to support skid-mounted equipment. Prefabricated segments of pipe, valves, fittings, and flanges would 

be shop- or site-welded and assembled at the compressor station site. The compressor units and other 

large equipment would be mounted on their respective foundations, and the compressor enclosures would 

be erected around them. Noise abatement equipment (including sound-attenuating enclosures around the 

turbines, exhaust stack silencers, and air inlet silencers) and emission control technology would be 

installed as needed to meet applicable federal, state, and/or local standards. Section 3.11 provides 

additional information on noise abatement and emission control technology. As necessary, electrical, 

domestic water and septic, and communications utilities would be installed. 

Facility piping, both above and below ground, would be installed and hydrostatically tested 

before being placed in service. Controls and safety devices, such as the emergency shutdown system, 

relief valves, gas and fire detection facilities, and other protection and safety devices, would also be 

checked and tested. Upon completion of construction, all disturbed areas associated with the 

aboveground facilities would be finish-graded and seeded or covered with gravel, as appropriate. All 

roads and parking areas would be graveled. Additionally, the compressor station sites would be fenced 

for security and protection. 

Construction of M/R stations, mainline valves, and pig launcher/receiver facilities not 

collocated with the compressor stations would generally be similar to that described above for compressor 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 2-29 

station sites, and would entail site clearing and grading, installation and erection of facilities, hydrostatic 

pressure testing, cleanup and stabilization, and installation of security fencing around the facilities. 

2.4 CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE 

Gulf South proposes to commence construction of the Southeast Expansion Project on 

September 1, 2007, assuming that the FERC has granted approval by July of 2007. The facilities, 

including installation of the proposed pipeline, compressor stations, and associated ancillary facilities, 

then would be completed in approximately four months and would be in service by December 31, 2007. 

The actual start date of construction, if the proposed Project is certificated, would depend on the 

Commission's environmental review process. 

2.5 ENVIRONMENTAL TRAINING AND MONITORING 

Gulf South has indicated that it would conduct environmental training for all company and 

construction contractor personnel prior to and during construction activities. Such training would focus 

on implementation of Gulf South's Plan and Procedures, but would also address Project-specific permit 

requirements, company policy and commitments, any protection procedures and restrictions associated 

with cultural resources or sensitive species/habitats, and any other pertinent job-related information.

During Project construction, environmental inspectors (EIs) would be responsible for 

monitoring and ensuring compliance with all environmental mitigation measures required by the FERC 

Certificate, if granted, and Gulf South's plans and Procedures as modified in this EIS (see Section 3.4). 

The EIs would have the authority to stop activities that violate the environmental conditions of these 

authorizations, state and federal environmental permit conditions, or landowner requirements, and order 

appropriate corrective actions if needed. Gulf South has indicated that it would be represented by at least 

one EI per construction spread, consistent with FERC's Plan. However, Gulf South's plans also indicate 

that the number and experience of EIs assigned to each construction spread should be appropriate for the 

length of the construction spread and the number/significance of resources affected. If the proposed 

Project were authorized, Gulf South would be required to develop and submit an Implementation Plan for 

our approval prior to construction. During our review of the Implementation Plan, we would consider the 

absolute number and qualifications of the EI personnel proposed by Gulf South. 

Gulf South has indicated that it is willing to use a third-party monitoring program, consistent 

with other approved programs previously used by the Commission to ensure adequate oversight during 

construction. 

Gulf South established an Internet website (http://www.gulfsouthpl.com/sefactsheet.asp), tollfree telephone number (1-877-972-8533), and e-mail address (southeastexpansionproject@

gulfsouthpl.com) to provide potentially affected landowners and stakeholders with a venue for providing 

comments or requesting additional information about the proposed Project. 

2.6 OPERATION, MAINTENANCE, AND SAFETY CONTROLS 

As described previously, the proposed pipeline and aboveground facilities would be designed, 

constructed, operated, and maintained to meet or exceed all safety standards as set forth in the DOT's 

Transportation of Natural and Other Gas By Pipeline: Minimum Federal Safety Standards (49 CFR 

Part 192). 

The pipeline would be constructed of welded carbon steel that meets or exceeds industry 

standards and would be covered with a protective coating to minimize rust and corrosion. To protect 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 2-30 

against damage from external forces, the proposed pipeline would be buried at a minimum depth of 3 feet 

below ground. All welds joining each section of pipe would be visually inspected and x-rayed to ensure 

the integrity of the welds. Prior to being placed in service, the pipeline would be hydrostatically tested to 

verify its integrity and to ensure its ability to withstand the designed MAOP. A cathodic protection 

system would be installed to protect all underground pipeline facilities constructed of metallic materials 

from external, internal, and atmospheric corrosion. Additional information regarding safety standards is 

described further in Section 3.12. 

During operations, Gulf South would conduct regular patrols of the pipeline right-of-way in 

accordance with the requirements of 49 CFR Part 192. The patrol program would include periodic aerial, 

vehicle, and/or pedestrian patrols of the pipeline facilities. These patrols would be conducted to survey 

surface conditions on and adjacent to the pipeline right-of-way for evidence of leaks, unauthorized 

excavation activities, erosion and wash-out areas, areas of sparse vegetation, damage to permanent 

erosion control devices, exposed pipe, and other conditions that might affect the safety or operation of the 

pipeline. The cathodic protection system would also be inspected periodically to ensure that it is 

functioning properly. In addition, intelligent pigs would regularly be sent through the pipeline to check 

for corrosion and irregularities in the pipe. Gulf South would keep detailed records of all inspections and 

supplement the corrosion protection system as necessary to meet the requirements of 49 CFR Part 192. 

Routine operation and maintenance would also be performed at all aboveground facilities by 

qualified personnel. Safety equipment, such as pressure relief devices, fire detection and suppression 

systems, and gas detection systems would be maintained throughout the life of each facility. Mainline 

valves also would be inspected, serviced, and tested to ensure proper functioning. 

Gulf South would establish and maintain a liaison with the appropriate fire, police, and public 

officials. This program would identify the available resources and responsibilities of each organization 

that may respond to a natural gas pipeline emergency and assist in developing coordination 

responsibilities. 

Pipeline markers would be placed and maintained along the right-of-way at roadway 

crossings, railroad crossings, and other highly visible places to alert those contemplating working in the 

vicinity of the location of the buried pipeline. The markers would identify Gulf South as the operator and 

display telephone numbers to call if any abnormal conditions are detected. 

Gulf South would also participate in the One-Call program. This program provides telephone 

numbers for excavation contractors to call prior to commencing any excavation activities. The One-Call 

operator would notify Gulf South of any planned excavation in the vicinity of the pipeline so that Gulf 

South could flag the location of the pipeline and assign staff to monitor activities if required. 

Vegetation management procedures during operation would be performed in accordance with 

Gulf South's proposed Plan and Procedures and would include regular mowing, cutting, and trimming 

along most of the proposed 60-foot-wide permanent pipeline right-of-way. Routine vegetative 

maintenance clearing would not be performed more frequently than every three years unless requested or 

approved by appropriate state and local agencies. However, a corridor not exceeding 10 feet in width 

centered on the pipeline could be maintained annually in an herbaceous state, as required to facilitate 

periodic corrosion and leak detection surveys. Vegetation management is discussed further in Section 

3.5. 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 2-31 

2.7 FUTURE PLANS AND ABANDONMENT 

Gulf South currently has no plans for future expansion of the facilities proposed. If additional 

demand for natural gas supplies requires future expansion, Gulf South would seek the appropriate 

authorizations from the FERC. When and if an application is filed, the environmental impact of the new 

proposal would be examined at that time. 

Abandonment of the pipeline facilities would be subject to the approval of the FERC under 

Section 7(b) of the NGA and would comply with DOT regulations and specific agreements or stipulations 

made for the pipeline rights-of-way. An environmental review of any proposed abandonment would be 

conducted when the application is filed with the FERC. 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 3-1 

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 

The environmental consequences of constructing and operating the proposed Project would 

vary in duration and significance. Four levels of impact duration were considered: temporary, shortterm, long-term, and permanent. Temporary impacts generally occur during construction, with the 

resources returning to pre-construction conditions almost immediately afterward. Short-term impacts 

would continue for approximately three years following construction. Impacts were considered long-term 

if the resources would require more than three years to recover. Permanent impacts would occur as a 

result of activities that modify resources to the extent that they would not return to pre-construction 

conditions during the life of the proposed Project, such as with construction of a compressor station. We 

considered an impact to be significant if it would result in a substantial adverse change in the physical 

environment. 

In this section we discuss the affected environment, construction and operational impacts, and 

propose mitigation measures for each resource. We evaluated these measures as well as proposed 

mitigation measures to determine whether or not additional steps would be necessary to further reduce 

impacts. Additional measures that we have identified appear as bulleted, boldface paragraphs in the text 

of the EIS. We are recommending that these measures be included as specific conditions to the 

Certificate that may be issued to Gulf South for the proposed Project. 

Conclusions in this EIS are based on our analysis of environmental impacts and the following 

assumptions: 

• Gulf South would comply with all applicable laws and regulations. 

• The proposed facilities would be constructed as described in Section 2.0 of this EIS. 

• Gulf South would implement the mitigation measures identified in its application and 

supplemental filings to the FERC. 

3.1 GEOLOGY 

3.1.1 Geological Setting 

All proposed Project facilities, with the exception of the Delhi Compressor Station and the 

CenterPoint M/R Station, are located in the East Gulf Coastal Plain. The East Gulf Coastal Plain consists 

of flat to rolling topography broken by streams and river bottoms. The Delhi Compressor Station and 

CenterPoint M/R Station are located in the West Gulf Coastal Plain. The West Gulf Coastal Plain 

consists of low, rolling, slightly hilly terrain. The specific geologic formations traversed by the proposed 

Project are presented in Table 3.1.1-1. 

The surface of Louisiana on which the Delhi Compressor Station and CenterPoint M/R Station 

are located is underlain by geologically young sedimentary deposits in or near rivers and deltas, including 

Holocene sediment deposited by the Red and Mississippi Rivers, which is present at the compressor 

station and meter station sites. Most surface exposures in Louisiana consist of Quaternary sediment. 

Holocene sediment deposited by the Mississippi, Ouachita, and Red Rivers, as well as other rivers and 

coastal marsh deposits, make up approximately 55 percent of the surface of Louisiana. The proposed 

pipeline would cross approximately 10.3 miles of Pliocene fluvial channel and marine deposits consisting 

of sands, clays, and silt loams; 70.8 miles of Miocene alluvial channel and alluvial plain deposits 

consisting of sandy silt, silt, clay, limestone, and dolomitic limestone; and 29.7 miles of Eocene marine 

and deltaic deposits consisting of clay, sand, sandstone, and shale (Table 3.1.1-1). 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 3-2 

Within Mississippi, the proposed Project would lie within two sections of the East Gulf 

Coastal Plain Physiographic province: the Central Blacklands and Pine Hills Physiographic Districts. 

The Citronelle, Catahoula, Vicksburg Group-Forest Hill, Jackson, and Claiborne Formations (Mississippi 

Mineral Resources Institute [MMRI], 1976) underlie this area. Some rolling hills and other areas of 

ridges and valleys characterize the Central Blacklands Physiographic District with surface sediments 

consisting of sandy and silty loams. The Pine Hills District is characterized by rolling hills and steepsided ridges and valleys with surface sediments consisting of clays and sands (Stewart, 2003). 

Within Alabama, the proposed Project is located in the East Gulf Coastal Plain, south of the 

Fall Line that curves from the northwestern corner of Alabama to the Georgia border in east-central 

Alabama. The Fall Line is an important physical feature and separates the Coastal Plain from other 

regions to the north. Streams north of the Fall Line are generally swift with rocky bottoms, while streams 

south of this feature tend to be sluggish with muddy or sandy bottoms. The proposed Project extends into 

Alabama from Mississippi at the physiographic division known as the Timber Belt, which extends from 

the Gulf of Mexico northward for approximately 150 miles and is on the outer belt of the Coastal Plain. 

The area of Alabama where the proposed Project would cross, beginning at MP 104.4 and ending at 

MP 110.8, is underlain by the Gosport Sand and Lisbon Formation, Tallahatta Formation, Hatchetigbee 

Formation, alluvial, coastal, and low terrace deposits, and Tuscahoma sands geologic formations as 

shown on the Geologic Map of Alabama (Geological Survey of Alabama [GSA], 2006). 

The elevation along the proposed Project undulates throughout the proposed Project area from 

eastern Simpson County, Mississippi, to Choctaw County, Alabama. The topography consists of rolling 

hills with slight to moderate slopes to the west, level to nearly level floodplains, level to gently sloping 

stream terraces, and gently sloping to steep uplands on the eastern portion of the proposed Project. 

However, slopes along the proposed Project range from 1 percent to as much as 30 percent. The 

topography along the proposed Project is mainly rolling hills with an area from approximately MP 85.0 to 

MP 90.0 exhibiting the most level terrain. The elevations along the proposed Project in Mississippi and 

Alabama range from approximately 200 to 400 feet above mean sea level (msl), whereas the elevation 

throughout Richland Parish, Louisiana, where the proposed Delhi Compressor Station and CenterPoint 

M/R Station would be located, ranges from 60 to 70 feet msl. 

Some areas of moderately rugged topography would be encountered along the proposed 

Project route. As described in Section 2.3.2.5, Gulf South would use special two-tone construction 

techniques in these areas as listed in Table 2.3.2.5-1 to effectively work along these steeper slopes and all 

areas disturbed during pipeline construction would be finish-graded and restored as closely as possible to 

pre-construction contours during cleanup and restoration. 

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Service 

(NRCS) defines shallow bedrock as bedrock occurring in the upper 60 inches of the soil profile. A 

review of soil survey databases for the Project area indicate that shallow bedrock would not likely be 

encountered along the proposed pipeline route. Additionally, Gulf South indicated that based on review 

of topographic maps, soil conditions, and geologic formations crossed, it would be unlikely that bedrock 

would be encountered within 5 to 7 feet below ground surface. Since no shallow bedrock has been 

identified and the shallow bedrock that could be encountered would most likely consist of loosely 

consolidated, weathered sandstone and shale that should be easily workable with standard construction 

equipment and techniques, it is unlikely that bedrock blasting would be needed for the proposed Project. 

Should blasting become necessary, Gulf South would notify the FERC before blasting and would conduct 

all blasting and disposal of bedrock material in accordance with Gulf South's plans and Procedures and in 

compliance with applicable federal, state, and local laws, permits, and authorizations. 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 3-3 

TABLE 3.1.1-1 

Geologic Formations Underlying the Proposed Southeast Expansion Project 

Cumulative 

Length 

Crossed 

(miles) Geologic Formation Description 

53.8 Catahoula-Alluvial Channel Sandy silt, silt, and clay, interbedded with fine-grained sandstone layers, mica, and smectite

and clay commonly display blocky to conchoidal rock fracture. 

0.7 Citronelle-Fluvial Channel Yellow and red sands and clays, locally gray weathering, with much gravel near landward m

17.0 

Vicksburg/ Chickasawhay-Alluvial Plain 

Highly porous limestone and dolomitic limestone, interbedded with porous to compact dolomlimestone. 

9.6 

Forest Hill/Red Bluff Clay Shallow Marine/Marine 

Soils are mainly deep, highly weathered silt loams with clays at varying depth. Broad ridges a loess cap, with occasional fragipans, sandstones, and dolomites occupying most ridges an

side slopes, while lower side slopes, especially near major streams, are in upper Gasconade 

materials. 

7.9 Jackson Group-Marine Composed of calcitic clay and less prominent sand and marl beds, divided into Yazoo clay m

and Moodys calcitic marl member below. 

10.5 Cockfield-Deltaic Massively bedded, very coarse to very fine grained, moderately sorted quartz sand. Colors 

moderate reddish-brown to white. 

4.4 Cook Mountain-Marine 

Clay and sandstone; slightly silty and lignitic, minor glauconite, brown to brownish-gray, weabrownish-gray to yellowish-gray; very fine grained, calcareous, glauconitic, gray to yellowishmarine fossils. 

0.5 Kosciusko-Marine Heterogeneous highly lenticular non-marine sections of sand and shale are dominant facies

cross-bedded sands colored red, brown, yellow, purple, pink, violet, gray, and white. 

6.4 

Kosciusko Cuestas-Marine 

Heterogeneous highly lenticular non-marine sections of sand and shale are dominant faciescross-bedded sands colored red, brown, yellow, purple, pink, violet, gray, and white. 

** Alluvium-Alluvial Plain Gray to brownish silt, silty clay, some very fine sand, reddish-brown along the Red River. S

on past and present course of major streams. 

_______________ ** Geologic Formation at the Delhi Compressor Station Source: United States Geological Survey (USGS), 2006c 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 3-4 

Gulf South would use the minimum charge explosives necessary to excavate the trench and place mats 

over the blast area to keep rock from becoming airborne. Additionally, Gulf South would implement all 

appropriate safety precautions to prevent injury to workers, livestock, and property, including safeguards 

such as flags, barricades, and warning signals. 

The primary effect of pipeline construction on geological resources would consist of 

disturbances to topographical features found along the construction right-of-way. These disturbances to 

topography would be most apparent in relatively steep areas, such as the areas discussed above in areas 

where Gulf South plans to use two-tone construction. However, since all topographic features disturbed 

by pipeline construction would be finish-graded and restored as closely as possible to pre-construction 

contours during cleanup and restoration, and aboveground facilities have been sited in areas without any 

significant topographic relief, we believe that construction and operation of the proposed Project would 

not result in significant alterations or negative impacts to the topography or overall geologic setting 

occurring within the proposed Project area. 

3.1.2 Mineral Resources 

Subsurface mineral resources in the proposed Project area include oil, gas, coal, clay, lime, 

sand, and gravel. These resources are discussed below. 

In Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama, petroleum and natural gas deposits are the main 

mineral resources. Petroleum resources are most common in the southern halves of Mississippi and 

Alabama. Louisiana ranks as one of the top energy producers in the nation. Gulf South consulted the 

Louisiana Department of Natural Resources (LDNR) Strategic Natural Resources Information System 

(SONRIS) (LDNR, 2006) database to identify active oil and gas areas along the proposed pipeline route. 

The proposed Delhi Compressor Station and CenterPoint M/R Station in Richland Parish are located near 

existing oil and gas fields; however, the wells within these fields are greater than 0.25 mile from these 

proposed facilities. 

Gulf South used the Mississippi Automated Resource Information System Technical Center 

database to identify oil and gas resources in the Project area. Gulf South determined that none of the 

proposed Project's aboveground facilities are located within 0.25 mile of active, producing gas/condensate 

wells or producing oil wells in Mississippi. However, Gulf South did determine that the pipeline occurs 

within 0.25 mile of active producing gas/condensate wells and producing oil wells in Mississippi. Gulf 

South determined that the proposed pipeline crosses within 0.25 mile of three active producing natural gas 

wells, 14 producing oil wells, seven enhanced oil recovery injection wells, four saltwater disposal wells, 

and one sand and gravel mining operation (see Table 3.1.2-1). Of the active wells in Mississippi, six 

occur at least 1,000 feet from the proposed pipeline centerline, six occur 1,000 to 750 feet from the 

proposed pipeline centerline, six occur 750 to 500 feet from the proposed pipeline centerline, seven are 

500 to 250 feet from the proposed pipeline centerline, two are 250 to 100 feet from the proposed pipeline 

centerline, and one is within 100 feet of the proposed pipeline centerline. The sand and gravel operation 

occurs approximately 240 feet from the proposed pipeline centerline. The one producing oil well that is 

within 100 feet would actually be 80 feet from the proposed Project near MP 69.6. Gulf South has 

indicated that they would work with the owner of this well to avoid disturbance to well operations. 

Gulf South found no sources of information to show any active, producing gas/condensate 

wells or producing oil wells within the area of the Project in Alabama. In addition, no areas with active 

wells were observed in Alabama during field surveys conducted by Gulf South. 

Because there would be little to no overlap regarding the depth of oil and gas operations and 

construction activity, affected oil and gas well operators would be compensated, if necessary, by new 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 3-5 

drilling operations that would be conducted outside of the permanent right-of-way, and Gulf South would 

prohibit future oil and gas exploration within the permanent right-of-way; we believe that construction 

and operation of the proposed Project would not impact existing and/or future mineral sites and oil and 

gas field development. 

Louisiana's leading non-petroleum minerals are salt and sulfur, lime, gypsum, crushed stone, 

and construction sand (Louisiana Geological Survey [LGS], 2006); however, Richland Parish where the 

proposed Delhi Compressor Station and CenterPoint M/R Station are located does not significantly 

contribute to these resources. The principal mineral resources for Mississippi include clay, lime, sand, 

gravel, and lignite. Lignite deposits occur at depths greater than 250 feet and are not economically 

recoverable at the present time in the area of the proposed Project. Currently, there are no underground or 

lignite surface mines in the area of the aboveground facilities and pipeline for the proposed Project 

(USGS, 1998). 

In Mississippi, agricultural lime, bentonite, common clay, and crushed stone are surface mined 

in Smith County; crushed stone, common clay, and construction sand and gravel are mined in Jasper 

County; and sulfur (a by-product of natural gas production) and construction sand and gravel are mined in 

Clarke County. Eleven mineral fields with multiple active leases were identified within 0.25 mile of the 

proposed Project in Mississippi. However, surface mining operations within the state are generally on a 

small scale (USGS, 2004). 

Gulf South has determined that five surface mining operations are located within 0.25 mile of 

the proposed Project's centerline of the pipeline. Of the five, one is not active based on aerial 

photography in September 2006. Active mineral leases were identified by reviewing Oil and Gas 

Production maps of Mississippi and Alabama State Oil and Gas Board (ASOGB) maps, and by 

performing field survey observations (MMRI, 2005; ASOGB, 2005). 

The four remaining mining operations are owned and operated by the same company and are 

noted to be extensions of one original sand and gravel pit. The northernmost extent of that surface mine 

occurs over 200 feet south of the centerline of the pipeline, approximately 165 feet south of the 

construction right-of-way at MP 75.4. This mining operation is not anticipated to be impacted by the 

proposed Project due to the distance that the mine occurs from the temporary construction right-of-way. 

Gulf South is currently corresponding with the surface mine operators concerning potential expansion of 

mining operations; however, with the noted southern expansion of the surface mine, it is unlikely that the 

mine would extend in a northerly direction. 

In Alabama, limestone, dolomite, marble, granite, sandstone, and quartzite are components of 

an important industry. However, no current data for active mineral field locations was available for 

Alabama. During field surveys conducted by Gulf South, no surface mines were identified within 

0.25 mile of the proposed Project in Alabama. Given that there are few mineral resources located in the 

immediate vicinity of the proposed Project, and that known sites are inactive or would be avoided, we 

believe that no significant impacts to mineral resources would occur. 

Table 3.1.2-1 presents the active mineral resources located within 0.25 mile of the proposed 

Project. 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 3-6 

TABLE 3.1.2-1 

Active Mineral Resources Within 0.25 Mile of the Proposed Southeast Expansion Pipeline 

Milepost 

(MP) County, State Mineral Resource 

Distance 

from the 

Proposed 

Centerline 

(feet) 

Direction 

from the 

Proposed 

Centerline 

Evaluation of 

Impacts from 

Construction and 

Operation 

22.6 Simpson, MS Oil – Production 259 South None 

22.7 Simpson, MS Saltwater Disposal – 

Injection 

417 South None 

22.7 Simpson, MS Enhanced Oil Recovery 

Injection (on standby) 

962 South None 

22.8 Simpson, MS Oil – Production 1,206 North None 

22.9 Simpson, MS Oil – Production 540 North None 

23.1 Simpson, MS Enhanced Oil Recovery 

Injection (on standby) 

1,277 South None 

23.4 Simpson, MS Oil – Production 491 South None 

23.4 Simpson, MS Enhanced Oil Recovery – 

Injection 

911 North None 

58.1 Jasper, MS Enhanced Oil Recovery – 

Injection 

660 North None 

58.4 Jasper, MS Oil – Production 247 North None 

58.8 Jasper, MS Oil – Production 469 South None 

59.2 Jasper, MS Oil – Production 503 South None 

69.4 Jasper, MS Saltwater Disposal – 

Injection 

1,181 North None 

69.5 Jasper, MS Enhanced Oil Recovery – 

Injection 

1,130 North None 

69.6 Jasper, MS Oil – Production 80 South Area would be flagged 

and barricaded. 

Necessary precautions 

would be taken to 

minimize impacts. 

69.7 Jasper, MS Oil – Production 502 South None 

69.7 Jasper, MS Oil – Production 174 North None 

69.8 Jasper, MS Enhanced Oil Recovery – 

Injection 

885 South None 

69.8 Jasper, MS Natural Gas – Production 841 North None 

69.9 Jasper, MS Oil – Production 393 South None 

70.0 Jasper, MS Oil – Production 1,044 South None 

70.0 Jasper, MS Enhanced Oil Recovery – 

Injection 

445 South None 

70.0 Jasper, MS Natural Gas – Production 885 South None 

70.0 Jasper, MS Natural Gas – Production 560 South None 

70.1 Jasper, MS Oil – Production 591 South None 

75.4* Jasper, MS Sand and Gravel 240 South None 

84.0 Clarke, MS Saltwater Disposal – 

Injection 

774 North None 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 3-7 

TABLE 3.1.2-1 

Active Mineral Resources Within 0.25 Mile of the Proposed Southeast Expansion Pipeline 

Milepost 

(MP) County, State Mineral Resource 

Distance 

from the 

Proposed 

Centerline 

(feet) 

Direction 

from the 

Proposed 

Centerline 

Evaluation of 

Impacts from 

Construction and 

Operation 

96.3 Clarke, MS Saltwater Disposal – 

Injection 

448 North None 

96.5 Clarke, MS Oil – Production 1,244 South None 

_______________ 

* Five surface mining operations owned by one entity, one is not active and the four remaining mining operations are noted to 

be extensions of one original sand and gravel pit. 

Source: MMRI, 2005; ASOGB, 2005.

3.1.3 Paleontological Resources 

Paleontological resources are the fossilized remains of prehistoric plants and animals, as well 

as the impressions left in rock or other materials as indirect evidence of the forms and activities of such 

organisms. 

The proposed Delhi Compressor Station and CenterPoint M/R station site in Richland Parish, 

Louisiana, is located on Holocene age alluvial deposits. Though the possibility of encountering fossilized 

remains exists, no paleontological resources have been identified within the proposed Project area. 

From a geological context, surface exposures in Mississippi and Alabama are very young, 

which affects the number and diversity of fossils. The oldest surface sediments are Cenozoic in age. The 

majority of sediments are Tertiary and Quaternary in age, which is older, lesser-used nomenclature for 

periods within the Cenozoic age; in addition, many sediments are less than 10,000 years old. Large 

portions of surface sediments were formed as parts of rivers, deltas, or swamps. These environments are 

less conducive to the preservation of fossils than marine environments. Thus, marine fossils are relatively 

uncommon in surface exposures. 

No paleontological resources have been identified within the proposed Project area. Because 

of the limited exposure of fossil-bearing rock units crossed by the proposed Project, possible fossilbearing formations within the proposed Project area are not likely to occur. However, if paleontological 

resources are discovered during the course of pipeline construction, Gulf South would follow its Plan for 

the Unanticipated Discoveries of Historic Properties, Human Remains, or Potential Paleontological 

Evidence During Construction. Based on the low probability of encountering these resources and Gulf 

South's adherence to its plans as necessary, we believe that construction and operation of the proposed 

Project would not significantly affect paleontological resources. 

3.1.4 Geologic Hazards 

Geologic hazards are defined by the American Geological Institute (Bates and Jackson, 1984) 

as "geologic conditions or phenomena that present a risk or are a potential danger to life and property, 

either naturally occurring or man-made." Geologic hazards potentially occurring in the vicinity of the 

proposed Project area include seismicity and faulting, soil liquefaction, slope failures/landslides, and 

ground subsidence, which are discussed below. Hazards such as volcanism are not relevant to the 

proposed Project area and are excluded from consideration here. 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 3-8 

3.1.4.1 Seismicity and Faults 

The USGS defines seismicity as "the geographic and historical distribution of earthquakes" 

(USGS 2006a). Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama lie within the geologic tectonic province known as 

the Gulf Coast Basin where thick sedimentary rocks overlie basement rock structures. Typical geologic 

structures of this province are generally characterized by southerly dipping and thickening sedimentary 

strata disrupted by salt domes and regional systems of relatively shallow, listric growth faults. These 

fault systems trend for considerable distances roughly paralleling the Gulf Coast. The growth faults are 

thought to have formed during periods of accelerated basin subsidence. Active movement is thought to 

have occurred during periods of rapid localized sediment deposition (Miocene and Oligocene epochs). 

Five earthquake epicenters have been recorded in Mississippi (USGS, 2006a) and 215 epicenters have 

been recorded in Alabama (GSA, 2006). The epicenters of these earthquakes occurred more frequently in 

the northern parts of Mississippi and Alabama and none were located 15 miles or less from the proposed 

Project area (NA.gov, 2006). Although it is difficult to quantify the probability of ground failure, it 

appears to be low in the proposed Project area. 

Hazards associated with seismicity and faulting include ground shaking, surface rupture of 

faults, and offset along normal, reverse, or strike-slip faults. Earthquakes are caused by active faults. 

Gulf South indicates that there are no active faults in the proposed Project area. 

Faulting can be especially hazardous to linear, rigid structures, such as pipelines, in which the 

ground is not moving the same distance or in the same direction. However, well-maintained pipelines 

constructed using modern arc-welding techniques have performed well in seismically active areas of the 

United States. Only large, abrupt ground displacements have caused serious impacts to those facilities. 

Based on the historical record and absence of active faults in areas near the proposed Project's corridor, 

we believe that the potential for seismicity and faulting does not represent a significant risk to the stability 

or safety of the proposed Project. 

3.1.4.2 Soil Liquefaction 

Soil liquefaction is a condition that occurs when loose, cohesionless, saturated soil (usually 

well-sorted sand) is subjected to vibration or shock waves. During liquefaction, pore water inhibits grainto-grain contact, and the strength of the soil is greatly reduced such that the soil may act like a viscous 

liquid with the ability to flow. Soil liquefaction can lead to landslides and earthflows, movement or 

failure of foundations and footings, and mobility of buried objects. 

Few soils along the proposed pipeline route are well-drained to poorly-drained, as discussed in 

Section 3.2. Thus, there is little added risk for soil liquefaction from saturated soil conditions. Because 

soil liquefaction risk is closely related to seismic risk, which was previously described as low within the 

proposed Project area, the potential for soil liquefaction is similarly low. Furthermore, the pipeline and 

associated facilities would be designed and constructed in accordance with the standards specified in 

49 CFR Part 192, Minimum Federal Safety Standards for the Transportation of Natural and Other Gas by 

Pipeline, which should adequately address the low potential for soil liquefaction. Given the low seismic 

risk in the area and the methods that would be used to construct the proposed pipeline and associated 

facilities, we believe that soil liquefaction does not represent a significant risk to the stability or safety of 

the proposed Project. 

3.1.4.3 Slope Failures/Landslides 

Several factors contribute to slope failures and subsequent landslides, including the degree of 

slope or tilt of geologic materials, the composition of the materials, the amount of man-made disturbance 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 3-9 

of the materials, proximity to seismic activity, and the amount of rainfall exposure. Generally flat areas 

were selected for the location of the proposed compressor and M/R sites; therefore, slope failure is not 

expected at aboveground facility locations. However, slope failures and landslides represent a potential 

hazard along portions of the proposed Project route that would traverse areas of side slopes and rolling 

terrain. Factors that would increase the potential for slope failures along slopes and rolling terrain include 

cutting along slopes, the weight of construction equipment, and unusually high precipitation. 

The proposed Project is located in recorded areas of moderate susceptibility/low landslide 

incidence in Simpson, Smith, and Jasper Counties, Mississippi. Portions of the pipeline would encounter 

recorded areas of high susceptibility/moderate incidence in Smith (from approximately MP 36.0 to 

MP 42.4), Jasper (from approximately MP 53.7 to MP 73.5), and Clarke Counties (from approximately 

MP 75.7 to MP 84.8), in Mississippi. Choctaw County, Alabama is reportedly in a low incidence area. 

Construction of the pipeline would be accomplished in accordance with Gulf South's plans, 

which includes measures to control runoff and erosion that would minimize the potential for slope failures 

(see Section 2.3). In addition, pre- and post-construction inspections would identify areas of risk, and 

continued monitoring along slopes would likely identify any significant landslide hazards before they 

develop. Gulf South would also implement specialized two-tone construction techniques to provide for 

safe working conditions in areas potentially susceptible to slope failures (see Section 2.3.2.5). Based on 

the characteristics of the proposed Project area and Gulf South's adherence to its identified construction 

and monitoring measures, we believe that potential impacts from slope failures and landslides would be 

prevented or effectively minimized. 

3.1.4.4 Ground Subsidence 

Ground subsidence is a lowering of the land-surface elevation that results from changes that 

take place underground. Common causes of land subsidence include dissolution of limestone in areas of 

karst terrain; collapse of underground mines; and pumping of water, oil, and gas from underground 

reservoirs. 

Three areas of karst topography were identified along the proposed Project in Smith, Jasper, 

and Clarke Counties, Mississippi. These flat-lying carbonate rock areas may produce solution sinkholes, 

collapse sinkholes, and cover-collapse sinkholes (NA.gov, 2006). These areas, which occur from 

MPs 36.0 to 42.4, MPs 53.7 to 73.5, and MPs 75.7 to 84.8, are further classified as fissures, tubes, and 

caves that are generally less than 1,000 feet long and 50 feet or less in vertical extent, and occur in gently 

dipping to flat-lying beds of carbonate rock beneath an overburden of non-carbonate material about 

10 feet to 200 feet in thickness. However, review of USGS topographic quadrangle maps in this area did 

not identify any active karst features such as sinkholes or springs at the land surface. Karst topography 

along the proposed Project was not present in Louisiana, Alabama, or Simpson County, Mississippi. 

As described in Section 3.1.2, the proposed Project would traverse areas in Louisiana, 

Mississippi, and Alabama where oil and natural gas extraction is common. Extraction of oil and gas from 

sources underlying the proposed Project facilities has the potential to cause ground subsidence (USGS 

2006b, USGS 2006c). 

Ground subsidence can affect pipelines and aboveground facilities by causing a loss of support 

that would result in bending or rupture of pipelines and weaken the foundations of aboveground facilities. 

However, the proposed Project facilities would be designed and constructed to meet or exceed the federal 

safety standards set forth in 49 CFR Part 192, Minimum Federal Safety Standards for the Transportation 

of Natural and Other Gas by Pipeline, which should ensure integrity of the Project facilities and minimize 

the potential for any pipe failures due to ground subsidence. Additionally, Gulf South would conduct 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 3-10 

regular patrols of the pipeline right-of-way during operations to identify conditions, including any areas 

of ground subsidence that might affect the safety or operation of the pipeline. Adherence to these 

standards and procedures would minimize the potential for any risk to the proposed Project posed by 

ground subsidence. 

3.1.5 Conclusions Regarding Impacts to Geologic Resources 

The proposed Project is unlikely to affect paleontological resources, and is also unlikely to 

encounter bedrock along the pipeline route. However, Gulf South has plans in place to address these 

issues should the need arise. Potential impacts to mineral sites and oil and gas producing areas would be 

largely avoided due to routing and through negotiations with affected parties, as applicable. The largest 

potential for effects would be related to alteration of topography, especially in steep or moderately rugged 

terrain. These potential effects would be effectively mitigated through use of special construction 

techniques and restoration of contours. Geologic hazards, such as seismic activity and liquefaction would 

not likely cause a significant threat to construction or operation of the proposed facilities. The potential 

for other hazards, such as slope failure and subsidence, would be minimized through the use of special 

construction techniques, restoration, and post-construction monitoring. Given the resources, level of 

impacts, and impact avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures described above, we believe that 

the proposed Project would not have a significant impact on geological resources nor would there be more 

than a negligible risk to the proposed pipeline from geologic hazards. 

3.2 SOILS 

3.2.1 Existing Soils 

We analyzed data for soils traversed by the proposed Project using the USDA NRCS 

(formerly the Soil Conservation Service) Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) (NRCS, 2006a) databases 

for Richland Parish, Louisiana, Simpson, Smith, Jasper, and Clarke Counties, Mississippi, and Choctaw 

County, Alabama. These soil associations, along with a description of their major characteristics, are 

listed in Appendix C (Table C-1). Soils found at the location of the proposed aboveground facilities and 

their descriptions are listed in Appendix C (Table C-2). 

The proposed Project would be located in four Major Land Resource Areas (MLRA), 

including the Southern Mississippi River Alluvium (MLRA 131), the Southern Mississippi Valley Loess 

(MLRA 134), the Southern Coastal Plain (MLRA 133), and the Alabama and Mississippi Blackland 

Prairie (MLRA 135) (NRCS, 2006b). The Southern Mississippi River Alluvium MLRA is dominated by 

Alfisol, Vertisol, Inceptisol, and Entisol soils characterized as very deep, dominantly poorly-drained and 

somewhat poorly-drained, and dominantly loamy or clayey. The Southern Mississippi Valley Loess 

MLRA is dominated by Alfisol, Entisol, Inceptisol, and Ultisol soils characterized as very deep or deep, 

medium textured, having a thermic soil temperature regime, having an udic soil moisture regime, and 

having mixed mineralogy. The Southern Coastal Plain MLRA is dominated by Ultisol, Entisol, and 

Inceptisol soils characterized as very deep, somewhat excessively-drained to poorly-drained, and loamy. 

The Alabama and Mississippi Blackland Prairie MLRA is dominated by Inceptisol and Veritsol soils 

characterized as shallow to very deep, generally well-drained to somewhat poorly-drained, and loamy or 

clayey. 

3.2.2 Major Soil Characteristics 

Several soil characteristics have the potential to affect, or be affected by, construction and 

operation of the proposed Project, including the following: erosion hazard, drainage class, presence of 

hydric soils, compaction potential, presence of shallow bedrock, revegetation potential, and prime 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 3-11 

farmland designation. The characteristics of the various soil units crossed by the proposed pipeline are 

compiled in Appendix C (Table C-1), and discussed further below. 

3.2.2.1 Erosion Potential 

Erosion is defined as the wearing away of the land surface by water, wind, ice, or other 

geologic events (NRCS, 2006a). Erosion potential is defined based on land capability subclass as severe, 

moderate, and low. The potential for soil erosion varies along the proposed pipeline route, with about 

26 percent of the soils classified as having a low erosion potential, 31 percent as having a moderate 

erosion potential, and about 43 percent of the soils as having a severe erosion potential. Of the soils 

affected by the proposed aboveground facilities, approximately 1 percent have a low erosion potential, 

33 percent have a moderate erosion potential, and 66 percent have a severe erosion potential (see 

Appendix C). Severe erosion potential soils would generally be confined to areas of side slope and 

rolling terrain. 

3.2.2.2 Drainage Class 

The drainage class of a soil is the range of its relative wetness under natural conditions. Soils 

with good drainage lose water and have low wetness, while soils with poor drainage retain water and have 

high wetness. Differences in drainage properties are typically attributed to grain size and sorting. Wellsorted or coarse-grained soils have more pore space and thus are better drained. Poorly-sorted or finegrained soils have less pore space and water drains poorly. The NRCS recognizes seven natural soil 

drainage classes: excessively-drained, somewhat excessively-drained, well-drained, moderately welldrained, somewhat poorly-drained, poorly-drained, and very poorly-drained (NRCS, 2006a). 

There are very few, very poorly-drained soils (0.08 mile) crossed by the proposed pipeline. 

There are approximately 6.68 miles of poorly-drained soils that exist between MP 15.4 to MP 103.0. 

Approximately 13.75 miles of somewhat poorly-drained soils exist between MP 1.6 to MP 95.9. The 

Southern Natural M/R Station and MLV No. 4 are located in areas of somewhat poorly-drained soils 

(Appendix C). 

3.2.2.3 Presence of Hydric Soils 

Hydric soil is defined by the USDA as soil that formed under conditions of saturation, 

flooding, or ponding long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper 

part. These soils, under natural conditions, are either saturated or inundated long enough during the 

growing season to support the growth and reproduction of hydrophytic vegetation (NRCS, 2006c). Soils 

that formed under hydric conditions in their unaltered state are still considered hydric when artificially 

drained or altered for such purposes as agricultural use. Hydric soils are typically poorly-drained, and the 

presence of hydric soils is one of the criteria used for defining wetlands (NRCS, 2006c). Hydric soils 

may be prone to compaction and rutting. Approximately 88 percent of the soils that would be crossed by 

the proposed pipeline and 72 percent of the soils that would be affected by the aboveground facilities are 

classified as hydric (see Appendix C). Given that most of the soils along the Project would be in 

managed timber plantations, most hydric soils are likely to be relatively undisturbed. 

3.2.2.4 Compaction Potential 

Soil structure, including strength and drainage abilities, is altered when soils are compacted. 

The compaction of soils results from the decreasing of pore space and water-retention capacity. 

Susceptibility of soils to compaction varies based on moisture content, composition, grain size, and 

density of the soil. Poorly-drained and fine-grained silt and clay soils are the most likely soils to 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 3-12 

experience compaction. Consequently, soil compaction is of particular concern in agricultural areas 

where crop yields could be adversely affected. However, given that most soils crossed would be in 

uplands with topography unsuitable for the development of fine-grained silt and clay soils, no soils 

crossed by the proposed Project are listed as having severe compaction issues. 

3.2.2.5 Revegetation Potential 

Revegetation potential is the rating of the ability of a soil to support vegetation efforts 

following construction-related disturbance. Gulf South evaluated the potential for revegetation of each 

soil type that would be affected by construction of the proposed pipeline by assessing such factors as soil 

texture, drainage properties, wetness, and slope. Taking these factors into account, three general classes 

were defined for revegetation potential including good, fair, and poor (Appendix C). Gulf South 

determined that the soils crossed by the pipeline are rated as having good (47.6 miles) and fair 

(63.2 miles) revegetation potential. Of the soils that would be affected by the proposed aboveground 

facilities, 56 percent have good revegetation potential and 44 percent have fair revegetation potential. 

None of the soils that would be traversed have a poor revegetation potential. 

3.2.2.6 Prime Farmland Designation 

Prime farmland soils are defined by the USDA as those that are best suited for food, feed, 

forage, fiber, and oilseed crops. These soils have properties that favor the economic production of 

sustained high yields of crops (NRCS, 2006d). Prime farmland is represented by many soil associations 

and series and does not need to be actively cultivated to be classified as prime farmland. Any 

undeveloped land with high crop production potential can be included in this classification. Prime 

farmland is an important resource because it provides the highest crop yield per unit of energy expended. 

Approximately 58 percent of the soils that would be affected by the proposed pipeline, and 58 percent of 

the soils that would be affected by the proposed aboveground facilities, are classified as prime farmland 

(Appendix C). 

3.2.3 General Impacts and Mitigation 

Construction activities associated with the proposed Project, such as clearing, grading, 

trenching, backfilling, and restoration could temporarily and/or permanently affect one or several soil 

characteristics. Generally, the most significant effects to soils resulting from construction activities 

include increased erosion and compaction potential, reduced soil productivity and revegetation potential, 

and altered drainage abilities. 

With appropriate stabilization and revegetation, long-term or permanent impacts to soils 

would not occur during operation of the proposed Project except for loss of function under constructed 

impermeable structures such as buildings associated with compressor stations and M/R stations. 

To minimize and mitigate impacts to soils as well as other resources, Gulf South developed its 

plans, which include the following soils-related measures: 

• The deployment of at least one EI for each construction spread. The EI would have peer status 

with the other inspectors and would have the authority to stop activities that violate the 

environmental conditions of the FERC Certificate or other authorizations and order corrective 

action(s). 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 3-13 

• Limiting Project-related ground disturbance to the construction right-of-way, ATWSs, pipe 

storage and contractor yards, borrow and disposal areas, access roads, and other areas approved in 

the Certificate. 

• Minimizing the mixing of topsoil with subsoil by stripping topsoil from either the full work area 

or from the trench and subsoil storage area in actively cultivated or rotated croplands and 

pastures, residential areas, hayfields, wetlands and other areas at the landowner's or land 

managing agency's request. 

• Installing temporary erosion controls immediately after the initial disturbance of soil. Erosion 

controls would be properly maintained throughout construction and repaired within 24 hours, if 

found ineffective. Mulch, which can consist of straw, hay, or erosion control fabric, would be 

used to stabilize the soil surface. 

• Installing sediment barriers (such as silt fences and/or staked hay or straw bales, or sand bags) at 

the base of slopes adjacent to road crossings, to prevent siltation into waterbodies or wetlands 

crossed by or near the construction work area. These barriers would remain in place until 

revegetation is successful. 

• Testing topsoil and subsoil for compaction at regular intervals in areas disturbed by construction 

activities. If either the subsoil or topsoil is severely compacted, a paraplow or other deep tillage 

device would be used to break up the soils. In areas where the topsoil was segregated, the subsoil 

also would be plowed before replacing the segregated topsoil. 

• Revegetating or stabilizing areas disturbed by Project-related activities in accordance with written 

recommendations from local soil conservation authorities or the request of the landowner or land 

management agency. All turf, ornamental shrubs, and specialized landscaping would be restored 

in accordance with the landowner's request or the landowner would be compensated. 

• Confirming revegetation efforts through post-construction monitoring of all disturbed areas. 

3.2.3.1 Erosion 

Soil susceptibility to erosion varies along the proposed pipeline route and is a function of 

variables such as soil type, topography, vegetation, and climate. The majority of soils that would be 

crossed by the proposed pipeline and affected by the proposed aboveground facilities have severe erosion 

potential. Soil erosion could occur during construction. Vegetation clearing, grading, topsoil segregation, 

open trenching, and backfilling destabilize the soil material and make it susceptible to water and wind 

erosion. In general, the potential for soil erosion along the construction right-of-way would be more 

pronounced in areas of side slopes and rolling terrain. Soils are most susceptible to erosion after 

vegetation is removed and before reestablishment of a vegetative cover after the pipeline is installed. Soil 

erosion also would result from off-road vehicle traffic on the right-of-way following construction. Soil 

erosion would impact a soils ability to maintain its structure and support vegetation which would affect 

several other resources including wildlife and land use. 

To minimize the impacts of soil erosion, Gulf South would implement several erosion control 

measures (e.g., slope breakers, silt fencing, and mulch) described in its plans, which would control runoff 

and reduce the duration of soil disturbance. In addition to adhering to its plans, Gulf South would also 

develop and implement its SWPPP. The SWPPP would incorporate the requirements for minimizing and 

mitigating upland erosion and revegetation described in its plans, and would further detail the erosion 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 3-14 

control structural best management practices, inspection procedures, and reporting protocols to be 

implemented during construction of the proposed Project. 

3.2.3.2 Compaction Potential 

Compaction damages the structure of a soil and restricts the transport of air and water to plant 

roots. As a result, soil productivity and plant growth rates may be reduced. None of the soils that would 

be crossed by the proposed pipeline or affected by the aboveground facilities are considered prone to 

compaction due to the lack of hydric soils or poor drainage. Use of the construction right-of-way, 

ATWSs, and access roads by heavy construction equipment would result in soil compaction. The degree 

of compaction would depend on the composition, grain size, density, and moisture content of the soils at 

the time of construction. 

As described in Gulf South's plans and Procedures, measures such as restricting vehicular 

traffic, reducing loads, employing lower ground-pressure equipment, protecting topsoil in spoil piles 

separate from subsoil spoil piles, and rescheduling certain activities may be used when soil moisture is 

high to avoid and minimize compaction and rutting. 

3.2.3.3 Revegetation Potential 

Because all of the soils that would be disturbed during construction have fair to good 

revegetation potential, restoring vegetation in accordance with Gulf South's plans should not be of 

significant concern across most of the proposed pipeline route. Revegetation is necessary for stabilization 

and restoration of the soils in the construction right-of-way, ATWSs, and areas adjacent to access roads. 

Revegetation potential may be inhibited by soil erosion, loss of soil productivity through soil compaction, 

damage to soil structure, loss of soil fertility, damage to drainage systems, and unsuitable seed selection, 

methods, or planting conditions. 

To avoid or minimize these conditions, and as described above and in Section 2.3, Gulf South 

would return the construction right-of-way, ATWSs, and pipe storage and contractor yards to preconstruction contours to the extent feasible; control erosion by implementing the procedures in its plans; 

segregate and de-compact soils and spread topsoil on the right-of-way during final cleanup; repair any 

damaged drainage systems; place soil nutrients and lime in upland areas; and seed all disturbed areas. 

Furthermore, Gulf South would consult with the local soil conservation authorities to determine the 

appropriate seed mixtures for stabilization and permanent erosion control. We are recommending in 

Section 3.5 that Gulf South consult with the LDWF, the ADCNR, and the MNHP regarding seeding 

mixtures and revegetation. 

Gulf South would be responsible for successful revegetation of all disturbed areas, and it 

would follow its plans to ensure that all mitigation is sufficient. Gulf South would conduct at least two 

years of post-construction monitoring of all work areas to verify successful revegetation or determine the 

need for additional restoration. In accordance with its plans, revegetation would be considered successful 

if the density and cover of non-nuisance vegetation were similar in density and cover to adjacent 

undisturbed lands. If vegetation cover and density were not similar or if there were excessive noxious 

weeds after two full growing seasons, a professional agronomist would determine the need for additional 

restoration measures. In agricultural areas, revegetation would be considered successful if crop yields in 

areas affected by construction were similar to those in adjacent, undisturbed areas. 

Gulf South would take measures to control unauthorized vehicle access to the proposed 

pipeline right-of-way during operation. In forested lands, these measures may include signs, fences with 

locking gates, slash and timber barriers, or planting appropriate trees or shrubs to block access to the 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 3-15 

right-of-way. Gulf South would coordinate with affected landowners regarding the installation of access 

barriers on their property. 

3.2.3.4 Mixing of Topsoil and Subsoil 

Unless the landowner or a land management agency approves otherwise, Gulf South would 

prevent the mixing of topsoil with subsoil by stripping topsoil from either the full work area or the trench. 

This segregation of topsoil would occur in active croplands and pastures, residential areas, hayfields, and 

other areas as requested by landowners or land management agencies. A maximum of 12 inches of 

topsoil would be stripped, if available, and the entire topsoil layer would be segregated in areas with less 

than 12 inches of topsoil available. Topsoil would not be used to pad the proposed pipeline. 

3.2.3.5 Rocks 

Introduction of rock to surface soil layers would not be of concern across the proposed 

pipeline route as it is unlikely that shallow bedrock would be crossed by the proposed pipeline route. 

However, if shallow bedrock is encountered, trenching and mixing of the excavated materials in these 

areas could bring large rocks to the surface, which would adversely impact soil productivity and 

agricultural practices. In accordance with its plans, Gulf South would remove excess rock from at least 

the top 12 inches of soil in all rotated and permanent cropland, hayfields, pastures, residential areas, and 

other areas at the landowner's request. Following construction and restoration, the size, density, and 

distribution of rock in all construction work areas would be similar to that in adjacent areas not affected 

by construction. Thus, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of pipeline construction through 

areas of shallow bedrock. 

3.2.3.6 Drainage Systems and Drainage Patterns 

Heavy equipment traffic and trenching along the construction right-of-way could damage 

existing drainage systems or affect existing drainage patterns, thereby affecting farm management by 

causing wet, unworkable soil conditions. Future crop production would likely be lowered if such 

damages were not corrected. Gulf South would be responsible for ensuring that all areas affected by 

construction activities were finish-graded and restored as closely as possible to pre-construction contours. 

Gulf South indicated that no known drainage structures would be crossed by the proposed Project. 

However, Gulf South would continue to work with property owners to identify locations of existing 

drainage structures that could be damaged during construction. If active drainage tiles, culverts, or other 

drainage facilities were damaged during construction, Gulf South would replace or repair them to a 

condition that is equal to or better than their pre-construction condition. Although damage to drainage 

structures and patterns would result in short-term impacts, the corrective procedures to be implemented 

by Gulf South would avoid or minimize any long-term impacts. 

3.2.3.7 Prime Farmland 

The NRCS defines prime farmland as "land that has the best combination of physical and 

chemical characteristics for producing food, feed, forage, fiber, and oilseed crops and that is available for 

these uses" (NRCS, 2006d). Soils classified as prime farmland have few or no rocks, a dependable water 

supply, a favorable growing season, are not saturated for long periods of time, typically do not flood 

during the growing season, and are permeable to air and water. Prime farmland is an important resource 

because it provides the highest crop yield per unit of energy expended. The NRCS determines the prime 

farmland status of all soil associations that have been surveyed, and therefore this information is available 

directly from the soil survey databases. Approximately 58 percent of the soils that would be affected by 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 3-16 

the proposed pipeline are classified as prime farmland; however, most of this is currently classified as 

either upland forest or pine plantation. 

Gulf South would implement the measures included in its plans to minimize and mitigate any 

impacts to prime farmland soils. Virtually all impacts to prime farmland soils resulting from construction 

and operation of the proposed pipeline would be temporary because the proposed pipeline would be 

buried, and disturbed areas within the construction and permanent rights-of-way would largely revert to 

their preconstruction uses following restoration. However, the footprint of aboveground facilities would 

permanently affect some prime farmlands. Operation of the Delhi Compressor Station would affect about 

69.5 acres of prime farmland. In addition, designated prime farmland located at the CenterPoint and 

Southern Natural M/R Stations, as well as at various valves and other minor facilities, would be lost as 

these areas would be converted to an industrial/commercial land use. 

Farmland Conversion Impact Rating documentation would not be required for the proposed 

Project since it would not be completed by or with assistance from a federal agency, as specified by the 

Farmland Protection Policy Act. Given the prevalence of prime farmland soils within the affected 

counties and parishes, the permanent impacts to prime farmland soils associated with construction and 

operation of the proposed Project aboveground facilities would be less than significant. 

3.2.4 Conclusion 

Construction of the proposed Project would result in several affects to soils. However, Gulf 

South would be required to control erosion, test and mitigate for compacted soils, protect topsoil, repair 

any damaged drainage systems, and revegetate disturbed areas. Furthermore, Gulf South would 

implement its SPCC Plan and manage contaminated soils should they be encountered. Although a small 

amount of prime farmland would be permanently affected at the proposed aboveground facilities, these 

impacts would be minor overall and potential impacts to prime farmland along the proposed pipeline 

route would be minor and temporary. Given the impact minimization and mitigation measures described 

above, we believe that soils would not be significantly affected by construction and operation of the 

proposed Project. 

3.3 WATER RESOURCES AND FISHERIES 

3.3.1 Groundwater 

3.3.1.1 Existing Groundwater Resources 

Along the proposed Project route, groundwater is a significant source of drinking water in 

selected areas. Groundwater is also used for agricultural, industrial, and municipal uses. Although depth 

to groundwater is variable along the proposed pipeline route, groundwater is often found near the ground 

surface, and the proposed Project is likely to encounter groundwater during construction activities. 

Major aquifers underlying the proposed Project include the Mississippi River Alluvial Aquifer 

System, the Coastal Lowlands Aquifer System, and the Mississippi Embayment Aquifer System (United 

States Department of the Interior [USDI], 2006). Although all of the listed aquifers are used, aquifers 

contributing major drinking water supplies underlain by the proposed Project include the Coastal 

Lowlands Aquifer, and to a much smaller extent, the Mississippi Embayment Aquifer. Additional 

information on the aquifers that occur along the proposed Project route, as well as sole-source aquifers, 

wellhead protection areas, wells, springs, and contaminated groundwater, is presented below. 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 3-17 

Mississippi River Alluvial Aquifer 

The proposed Delhi Compressor Station would be underlain by the Mississippi River Alluvial 

Aquifer in Richland Parish, Louisiana. The Mississippi River Alluvial Aquifer is hydraulically connected 

with the Mississippi River and its major tributaries and is recharged by direct infiltration of rainfall 

through the overlying silt and clay layers. Groundwater is typically encountered within 30 to 40 feet of 

the ground surface. Approximately 353.6 million gallons per day (mgd) are withdrawn from this aquifer 

for irrigation and industrial uses (LDEQ, 2003). The quality of water from this aquifer is considered 

relatively poor due to the presence of arsenic and poor taste and odor qualities. 

Coastal Lowlands Aquifer 

In Simpson, Smith, and Jasper Counties, Mississippi, proposed pipeline facilities would be 

underlain by the Coastal Lowlands Aquifer. Primary recharge of this aquifer occurs from direct 

infiltration of rainfall in the stream and upland outcrop areas. Water also moves between overlying 

alluvial and terrace aquifers according to hydraulic head differences. Groundwater in this aquifer occurs 

at maximum depths ranging from 200 feet above msl to 2,000 feet below msl. Approximately 1 billion 

gallons per day of water are withdrawn from this aquifer for agricultural, industrial, and municipal uses 

(USGS, 2005). 

Mississippi Embayment Aquifer 

In Jasper and Clarke Counties, Mississippi, and Choctaw County, Alabama, proposed pipeline 

facilities would be underlain by the Mississippi Embayment Aquifer. This aquifer is recharged by 

infiltration of rainfall in river valleys, lateral and upward movement of water from adjacent and 

underlying aquifers, and overbank stream flooding. The amount of recharge from rainfall depends on the 

thickness and permeability of the silt and clay layers. Approximately 433 mgd are withdrawn from this 

aquifer for agricultural, industrial, and municipal uses (USGS, 2005). 

Sole-Source Aquifers 

Sole-source or principal-source aquifers are defined by the EPA as those that supply a 

minimum of 50 percent of the drinking water used in the area overlying the aquifer. The areas served by 

these aquifers may not have readily available alternate water sources. No sole-source aquifers would be 

crossed or otherwise impacted by the proposed Project (USEPA, 2006). 

Wellhead Protection Areas 

Wellhead protection areas have been established by the LDEQ, MDEQ, and ADEM to protect 

public drinking water supplies. Based on a search of LDEQ, MDEQ, and ADEM databases, no 

designated wellhead protection areas would be crossed or are located in the vicinity of the proposed 

Project. 

Wells and Springs 

Based on consultation with the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development 

(LDTD), Public Works and Water Resources Division's Water Well Registration File (LDTD, 2007), 

MDEQ, ADEM, database searches, and field observations, two private wells have been identified on the 

Delhi Compressor Station land parcel in Louisiana and five private wells and four public wells have been 

identified within 150 feet of the construction right-of-way in Mississippi. No wells were located within 

150 feet of the construction right-of-way in Alabama. These wells and their locations relative to the 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 3-18 

proposed Project are listed in Table 3.3.1.1-1. Because the locations of wells listed in agency databases 

are not exact, prior to construction Gulf South would confirm that no wells are located within the 

construction right-of-way. Based on agency consultations and field surveys, no springs have been 

identified within 150 feet of the proposed construction right-of-way and aboveground facility boundaries. 

TABLE 3.3.1.1-1 

Wells Located Within 150 Feet of the Proposed Southeast Expansion Project 

Well Type 

County1

/

Parish2

Approximate 

MP3

/Associated 

Facility 

Approximate 

Well Depth 

(feet) 

Approximate 

Distance from 

Pipeline 

Centerline 

(feet) 

Distance from 

Construction 

Right-of-Way 

(feet) 

42-inch Mainline Pipeline 

Private Simpson, MS 14.0 247 166.4 126.4 

Public Simpson, MS 16.1 290 68.4 48.4 

Public Smith, MS 39.0 69 90.6 30.6 

Public Smith, MS 44.6 251 235.5 105.5 

Public Smith, MS 44.8 714 232.0 101.8 

Private Jasper, MS 52.9 65 202.7 47.7 

Private Jasper, MS 65.9 430 229.0 128.9 

Private Jasper, MS 68.9 416 52.7 6.7 

Private Clarke, MS 91.2 416 137.7 7.5 

Aboveground Facilities 

Private Richland, LA 

Delhi 

Compressor 

Station 

100 Within facility 

boundaries 

Within facility 

boundaries 

Private Richland, LA 

Delhi 

Compressor 

Station 

101 Within facility 

boundaries 

Within facility 

boundaries 

_______________ 

1 MS = Mississippi 

2 LA = Louisiana 

3 MP = Milepost 

Contaminated Groundwater 

Based on agency consultations with the MDEQ, a review of public databases maintained by 

the LDEQ, MDEQ, and ADEM, and a review of a private database (Banks Information Solutions, Inc., 

2006a and 2006b), which maintains state and federal records, Gulf South has identified 15 sites 

containing potentially contaminated groundwater within a 1-mile radius of the proposed Project facilities. 

These sites are described in Table 3.3.1.1-2. 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 3-19 

TABLE 3.3.1.1-2 

Potential Contaminated Groundwater Sites Within 1 Mile of the 

Proposed Southeast Expansion Project Centerline 

MP1 Parish/

County/State2 Name Type3 Distance/Direction Physical Location 

45.1 Smith, MS Shell Tallahala Creek 

Field 

UST 0.68 mile south of the 

centerline (3,585 feet) 

RT 2 Box 72-C 

Bay Springs, MS 39422 

49.5 Jasper, MS Mississippi Highway 

Department 

UST 0.16 mile north of the 

centerline (847 feet) 

RT 4 Box 338 

Carthage, MS 

51.1 Jasper, MS MDOT Meridian 

Area Headquarters 

UST 0.99 mile north of the 

centerline (5,241 feet) 

5409 1st Street 

Meridian, MS 

51.1 Jasper, MS MDOT Maintenance 

Area Headquarters 

UST 0.90 mile north of the 

centerline (4,772 feet) 

U.S. Highway 11 

Purvis, MS 

52.0 Jasper, MS Georgia Pacific Chip 

N Saw 

CERCLA 0.39 mile north of the 

centerline (2,033 feet) 

Data not listed 

57.24 Jefferson, MS MDOT UST 0.94 mile south of the 

centerline (4,959 feet) 

Highway 28 East 

Fayette, MS 

66.9 Jasper, MS Dixon S. Service 

Center 

UST 0.14 mile north of the 

centerline (727 feet) 

Highway 528 

Heidelberg, MS 39439 

68.94 Holmes, MS MDOT Durant 

Headquarters 

UST 0.22 mile south of the 

centerline (1,144 feet) 

Highway 51 South 

West, MS 

68.94 Hinds, MS MDOT Jackson 

Project 

Headquarters 

UST 0.60 mile south of the 

centerline (3,163 feet) 

2802 Kingswood Ave. 

Jackson, MS 

69.0 Jasper, MS Country Cash UST 0.62 mile south of the 

centerline (3,276 feet) 

Highway 528 

Heidelberg, MS 39439 

69.0 Jasper, MS Heidelberg Exxon UST 0.42 mile south of the 

centerline (2,206 feet) 

2507 North Pine Ave. 

Heidelberg, MS 39439 

69.0 Jasper. MS Heidelberg 

Warehouse 

UST 0.53 mile north of the 

centerline (2,815 feet) 

Highway 528 

Heidelberg, MS 39439 

69.5 Jasper, MS Reagan Equipment 

Co. 

UST 0.81 mile south of the 

centerline (4,268 feet) 

P.O. Box 285 

Heidelberg, MS 39439 

70.8 Jasper, MS MDOT Holly Springs 

Headquarters 

UST 0.86 mile north of the 

centerline (4551 feet) 

State Highway 7 

Holly Springs, MS 

95.34 Jackson, MS UHAUL 17868 UST 0.03 mile north of the 

centerline (156 feet) 

2903 Shortcut Road 

Pascagoula, MS 

_______________ 

Notes: 

1 MP = Milepost

2 MS = Mississippi 

3 CERCLA = Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act 

 UST = Underground Storage Tanks, Leaking Underground Storage Tanks

4 Site listed as being within 1 mile of pipeline based on inaccurate data from the MDEQ Mississippi Automated Resource 

Information System. Per conversation with the MDEQ, Gulf South determined the site is not within 1 mile of the Project area; 

the true site location is listed in the "Physical Location" column.

3.3.1.2 General Impacts and Mitigation 

In general, the potential for temporary and permanent impacts to groundwater resulting from 

construction and operation of the proposed Project would depend primarily on any localized changes to 

existing groundwater flow paths. The proposed Project would not affect changes in the overall quantity 

of groundwater, which is determined by the quantity of recharge to the aquifer, except to the minimal 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 3-20 

extent resulting from impervious surfaces at the proposed aboveground facility sites and to the extent that 

clearing of vegetation reduces evapotranspiration. Increased surface runoff resulting from clearing of the 

construction right-of-way and reduced evapotranspiration would result in increased recharge to 

groundwater, thus increasing groundwater storage. 

Excavation and subsequent backfilling of the pipeline trench could also alter the quantity and 

quality of groundwater and groundwater flow paths. Additionally, if soils along the proposed Project 

route became compacted due to construction and operation of heavy machinery, infiltration and recharge 

of aquifers along the trench or right-of-way could also be adversely impacted. Altered groundwater flow 

paths in turn could result in changes to the quality of groundwater at specific locations, such as the 

shallow Mississippi River Alluvial Aquifer. However, most wells located along the pipeline receive 

water from deeper formations whose flow paths would not be affected by the trench. 

Excavation of the pipeline trench may expose relatively shallow aquifers, such as the 

Mississippi Alluvial Aquifer, but only to a depth of 6 to 8 feet in most upland and wetland areas. 

Dewatering of the pipeline trench during construction would be necessary where shallow groundwater is 

encountered. Dewatering would temporarily depress groundwater levels in the immediate vicinity of the 

trench. However, because trenching typically proceeds at a relatively rapid rate, the depression of the 

water table around the trench is expected to recover rapidly once the trench is backfilled. Therefore, 

dewatering would temporarily affect flow patterns in nearby springs and shallow wells if present, but such 

impacts would likely be minor and of a brief duration. 

Accidental spills and leaks of hazardous materials could impact groundwater resources 

through the introduction of contaminants, especially in highly permeable areas near water withdrawal 

wells. Gulf South's Procedures include spill prevention and control measures. Additionally, Gulf South 

has developed a SPCC Plan, which describes management of the hazardous materials, such as fuels, 

lubricants, and coolants, that would be used during construction. Given the measures described in Gulf 

South's Procedures and its implementation of an SPCC Plan, we believe the risk of accidental spills or 

other introductions of hazardous materials to groundwater would be effectively minimized. 

Gulf South indicated that it did not anticipate encountering any contaminated groundwater 

plumes during construction or operation of the proposed Project. In the event that hazardous materials 

were discovered during construction of the proposed Project, Gulf South would stop work, notify the 

appropriate state and federal agencies, and proceed in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations. 

Additionally, Gulf South would follow the procedures outlined in its Plan for the Unanticipated 

Discovery of Contaminated Environmental Media to ensure that any hazardous materials encountered 

during construction are properly identified, tested, and disposed of in accordance with the appropriate 

state and federal regulations. 

In order to minimize potential impacts to groundwater, Gulf South would implement the 

measures identified in its plans, which include: 

• Testing and, as applicable, mitigating for compacted soils (see Section 3.2 for additional 

discussion). 

• Installing trench breakers at specified intervals to reduce the potential for the trench to act as a 

preferential groundwater flow path. Trench breakers would reduce the ability of the trench to 

convey groundwater. No long-term impacts to the water table or groundwater migration patterns 

would be anticipated as a result of the proposed Project. 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 3-21 

• Implementing measures to reduce impacts resulting from trench dewatering, including 

discharging the pumped water to well vegetated areas or properly constructed temporary retention 

structures that would promote infiltration and minimize or eliminate runoff. 

• Installing trench plugs to prevent parallel flow in the trenches. 

Based on the anticipated impacts to groundwater, Gulf South's stated construction methods, 

and the measures described in its plans, we believe that construction and operation of the proposed 

Project would not change regional flow paths, discharge conditions, or groundwater quality because these 

are determined by larger-scale geologic features that form the hydrogeologic setting, and that aquifers 

such as the Coastal Lowlands Aquifer and the Mississippi Embayment Aquifer that are typically deeper 

or that are overlain by other aquifers with separating layers would not be directly affected because their 

upper margin would be located well below the depth of the pipeline trench. 

In order to protect and mitigate potential effects to water withdrawal wells, Gulf South would 

test the wells of landowners listed in Table 3.3.1.1-1 at the request of the landowner. The scope of any 

requested pre- or post-construction testing or monitoring would be negotiated on an individual basis with 

the landowners. However, we recommend that Gulf South offer, and conduct with permission from 

landowners, individual well testing that evaluates basic parameters such as well yield and water quality. 

To ensure that water withdrawal well testing and monitoring is performed in a manner that would 

adequately protect private and public water well resources, we recommend that:

• Gulf South should conduct, with the well-owner's permission, pre- and post-construction 

well monitoring of well yield and water quality for wells identified in Table 3.3.1.1-1. Prior 

to construction, Gulf South should file with the Secretary, for review and written approval 

by the Director of OEP, a well monitoring and mitigation plan that describes standard 

testing procedures, and the measures that would be taken should a well be impacted such 

that it is no longer operable or that it becomes impaired. Gulf South should offer this plan 

to the landowners before construction. Gulf South should also file a report with the 

Secretary, within 30 days of placing its pipeline facilities in service, identifying all private or 

domestic water wells or systems damaged by construction and describing how they were 

repaired. The report should include a discussion of any complaints concerning well yield or 

quality and how each problem was resolved. 

3.3.1.3 Site-Specific Impacts and Mitigation 

Sole-source and principal-source aquifers do not occur in the vicinity of the proposed Project 

and would therefore not be affected by the proposed construction and operational activities. Additionally, 

no springs or public wells were identified along the proposed Project route through resource agency 

consultations or environmental field surveys conducted by Gulf South. 

No wellhead protection areas were identified along the proposed pipeline route. Blasting is 

not anticipated in association with construction of the proposed Project; therefore, impacts to wells and 

other sensitive resources from blasting are not anticipated. Should the need for blasting arise, Gulf South 

would follow local and/or state requirements and use accepted safe construction blasting techniques and 

safeguards. 

3.3.1.4 Conclusion Regarding Groundwater Resources 

Aquifers typically would not be impacted by the proposed Project given their depth and the 

relatively shallow nature of construction activity. Impacts to more shallow aquifers and groundwater 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 3-22 

resources would be adequately avoided or minimized through Gulf South's implementation of its plans 

and Procedures, project-specific plans, and our recommendation. Given these measures, we believe that 

construction and operation of the proposed Project would not significantly affect groundwater resources. 

3.3.2 Surface Water Resources 

3.3.2.1 Existing Surface Water Resources 

Waterbody Crossings 

The proposed Project would traverse 308 waterbodies during construction and operation. 

Specifically, the proposed Project would cross 103 perennial streams, 196 intermittent streams, and 

9 ponds. In Mississippi, 292 waterbodies would be crossed, all of which have designated uses of fish and 

wildlife and recreation. In Alabama, 16 waterbodies would be crossed, all of which have been designated 

for fish and wildlife use. A table identifying these waterbodies, as well as their widths, locations along 

the proposed Project route, state waterbody classifications, and proposed crossing methods, is included as 

Appendix D of this EIS. 

As identified in Appendix D, each affected surface waterbody has been assigned a designated 

use by the respective state management agency responsible for its management which characterizes the 

best intended uses of that waterbody. Designated uses for waterbodies in Mississippi include fish and 

wildlife, and recreation (MDEQ, 2004a). Designated waterbody uses in Alabama include outstanding 

Alabama water, swimming, and fish and wildlife (ADEM, 2006). Designated waterbody uses in 

Louisiana include fish and wildlife propagation, primary contact recreation, and secondary contact 

recreation (EPS, 2007). 

In Mississippi, 292 waterbodies would be crossed, all of which have designated uses of fish 

and wildlife and recreation. In Alabama, 16 waterbodies would be crossed, all of which have been 

designated for fish and wildlife use. In Louisiana, one waterbody, designated for fish and wildlife, as 

well as primary and secondary contact recreation, may be potentially impacted 

Construction and operation of the Delhi, Harrisville, and Destin Compressor Stations may 

affect four waterbodies (see Appendix D). Since Gulf South has not indicated what measures would be 

taken to avoid impacts to these waterbodies; we recommend that: 

• Prior to construction, Gulf South should file along with its site-specific construction plans 

for the Delhi, Harrisville, and Destin Compressor Stations a description of the measures 

that it would take to avoid impacts to waterbodies affected by these facilities. 

Major and Navigable Waters 

The major waterbodies (greater than 100 feet wide) and navigable waterbodies, as defined by 

33 CFR Part 329, that would be crossed by the proposed Project are listed in Table 3.3.2.1-1. 

Sensitive Waterbodies 

Sensitive waterbodies include those designated as one or more of the following: having 

special status by federal or state resource agencies, providing habitats for threatened and endangered 

species, having potable water intakes within 3 miles downstream of the proposed pipeline crossing, or not 

attaining specified water quality uses. No streams within the proposed Project are designated as National 

Wild or Scenic Rivers (NPS, 2004). Based on consultations with the LDEQ, MDEQ, and the ADEM, no 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 3-23 

potable surface water intakes are located within 3 miles downstream of any proposed waterbody crossings 

in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama. 

TABLE 3.3.2.1-1 

Major and Navigable Waterbodies That Would Be Crossed 

by the Proposed Southeast Expansion Project 

Waterbody 

County, 

State1 Begin 

MP2 End MP 

Major 

Waterbody 

Navigable 

Waterbody 

Proposed 

Crossing 

Method 

Pond Simpson, 

MS 1.3 1.4 X In work space only 

Leaf River Smith, MS 44.1 44.2 X X HDD 

West Tallahala 

River Smith, MS 45.3 45.3 X HDD 

Pond Clarke, MS 87.7 87.8 X HDD 

Chickasawhay 

River Clarke, MS 89.3 89.4 X X HDD 

Bucatunna 

Creek Clarke, MS 100.4 100.5 X HDD 

Okatuppa 

Creek 

Choctaw, 

AL 107.3 107.4 X HDD 

_______________ 

1 MS = Mississippi 

 AL = Alabama 

2 MP = Milepost 

N/A = Not Applicable 

The Strong River (MP 18.0) and the Chickasawhay River (MP 89.4) are designated by the 

National Park Service (NPS) as being listed on the NRI. Waterbodies included in the NRI are considered 

to possess "outstandingly remarkable natural or cultural values judged to be of more than local or regional 

significance" (NPS, 2006). Gulf South proposes to cross these rivers using HDD to avoid/minimize 

impacts. In response to our recommendation in the Draft EIS, Gulf South initiated consultation with the 

NPS (April 30, 2007) regarding impacts and mitigation measures for use of the HDD method, and with 

the MDWFP (May 22, 2007) regarding its plans/mitigation for withdrawing water from these waterbodies 

for hydrostatic testing purposes. Gulf South also submitted detailed crossing plans, construction 

measures, and hydrostatic test water withdrawal plans to the NPS and the MDWFP. 

Information for use of the HDD method included a description of the streamside vegetation 

impacts necessary for laying of the HDD guide wires and the drilling operations and use of bentonite as a 

drilling mud. In the event of a frac-out, Gulf South would implement its HDD Contingency Plan to avoid 

or minimize impacts. The proposed HDD entry and exit points for the Strong River would be located 

approximately 2,150 feet and 750 feet away from the stream edge, respectively. The proposed HDD 

entry and exit points at the Chickasawhay River crossing location would be located approximately 

480 feet and 2,150 feet from the stream edge, respectively. Given the distance between the proposed 

HDD work areas and both streams' edges, impacts to riparian areas and visual resources would be 

minimized. Information for withdrawing hydrostatic test water included the quantity of and manner in 

which hydrostatic test water would be withdrawn and discharged and is discussed in Section 3.3.2.3. 

The NPS indicated in a July 2, 2007, conversation with FERC staff that the HDD method 

being proposed would be acceptable and that these rivers were listed for their values for scenery, 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 3-24 

recreation, and fish and wildlife. Furthermore, the NPS considers Gulf South's Procedures sufficient to 

minimize and mitigate vegetation disturbance along these streams. However, because Gulf South has not 

yet completed consultations with the NPS regarding potential Project-related effects to designated NRIlisted streams, we recommend that: 

• Prior to construction, Gulf South should complete consultation with the NPS regarding 

its proposed HDD crossings of, and hydrostatic test water withdrawals from, the NRIlisted Strong and Chickasawhay Rivers, and file copies of those consultations with the 

Secretary. If applicable, Gulf South should also file plans to address any additional 

mitigation measures recommended by the NPS. 

The proposed Project would cross seven waterbodies that contain threatened or endangered 

species or critical habitat. Dabbs Creek, Leaf River, West Tallahala River, Chickasawhay River, 

Bucatunna Creek, and Strong River are designated as critical habitat for the Gulf sturgeon (Acipenser 

oxyrinchus desotoi). These rivers would be crossed using HDD methods to avoid/minimize potential 

impacts to the Gulf Sturgeon. The Little Creek is designated as critical habitat for the Natchez Stonefly 

(Alloperla natchez), which would be crossed using the open-cut method. Gulf South consulted with the 

Mississippi Museum of Natural Science (MMNS) and determined that habitat for this non-listed 

imperiled species is not likely to be present at this crossing. Additional discussion of endangered, 

threatened, and special status species and their habitats is provided in Section 3.7. 

Waterbodies that do not meet state water quality standards or do not support their designated 

uses are classified as impaired. Three impaired streams would be crossed by the proposed Project in 

Mississippi (Table 3.3.2.1-2) (MDEQ, 2004b). These include Tallahala Creek, Campbell Creek, and 

Dabbs Creek. The proposed Project would not cross any impaired waterbodies in Louisiana or Alabama 

(LDEQ, 2002; ADEM, 2006). Contaminated sediments are not known to occur along the proposed 

Project route. 

TABLE 3.3.2.1-2 

Impaired Waterbodies Crossed by the Proposed Southeast Expansion Project 

Waterbody 

County, 

State1 Impaired Use 

Scenic 

River Pollutant Cause 

Proposed Crossing 

Method 

Dabbs Creek Simpson, 

MS 

Aquatic Life 

Support 

No Biological Impairment HDD 

Campbell 

Creek 

Simpson, 

MS 

Aquatic Life 

Support 

No Biological Impairment HDD 

Tallahala Creek Jasper, MS Aquatic Life 

Support 

No Biological Impairment HDD 

_______________ 

Sources: ADEM, 2006; LDEQ, 2002; MDEQ, 2004b 

1 MS = Mississippi

3.3.2.2 General Impacts and Mitigation 

Waterbody crossings would be conducted using either open-cut or HDD methods, as described 

below and in Section 2.3.2. 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 3-25 

As proposed, 224 minor and intermediate waterbody crossings would be conducted using 

open-cut methods. Twenty-three minor and intermediate waterbody crossings would be conducted using 

HDDs in tandem with the crossing of larger waterbodies and other significant features. The remaining 

minor and intermediate waterbodies exist within the culverted waterbody crossings where no proposed 

changes or impacts to these features are anticipated. 

In addition to the 23 minor and intermediate waterbodies, Gulf South proposes to cross all 

major and navigable waterbody crossings via HDDs, as indicated in Table 3.3.2.1-1. 

TABLE 3.3.2.2-1 

Waterbodies Crossed Using the HDD Construction Method Along 

the Proposed Southeast Expansion Project 

Waterbody County, State1 Begin MP2 End MP 

Dabbs Creek Simpson, MS 12.4 12.4 

Unnamed Simpson, MS 12.6 12.6 

Campbell Creek Simpson, MS 16.1 16.2 

Strong River Simpson, MS 18.0 18.0 

Oakohay Creek Smith, MS 34.1 34.1 

Beaver Creek Smith, MS 34.6 34.6 

Leaf River Smith, MS 44.1 44.2 

Unnamed Smith, MS 44.2 44.3 

Tributary to West 

Tallahala River Smith, MS 45.3 45.3 

West Tallahala River Smith, MS 45.3 45.3 

Tallahoma Creek Smith, MS 55.8 55.9 

Tallahoma Creek Jasper, MS 55.9 55.9 

Tallahala Creek Jasper, MS 62.5 62.6 

Unnamed Jasper, MS 69.3 69.3 

Unnamed Jasper, MS 69.4 69.4 

Unnamed Jasper, MS 69.6 69.6 

Unnamed Pond Clarke, MS 82.6 82.6 

Unnamed Pond Clarke, MS 82.6 82.7 

Shubuta Creek Clarke, MS 82.7 82.7 

Unnamed Pond Clarke, MS 87.8 87.8 

Unnamed Clarke, MS 87.8 87.8 

Unnamed Clarke, MS 87.9 87.9 

Unnamed Clarke, MS 87.9 87.9 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 3-26 

TABLE 3.3.2.2-1 

Waterbodies Crossed Using the HDD Construction Method Along 

the Proposed Southeast Expansion Project 

Waterbody County, State1 Begin MP2 End MP 

Unnamed Clarke, MS 87.9 87.9 

Chickasawhay River Clarke, MS 89.3 89.4 

Unnamed Clarke, MS 94.9 94.9 

Unnamed Clarke, MS 100.4 100.4 

Buctunna Creek Clarke, MS 100.4 100.5 

Okatuppa Creek Choctaw, AL 107.3 107.4 

Gulf South has developed Procedures which are designed to minimize impacts associated with 

waterbody crossings. These measures include, but are not limited to: 

• The requirement to obtain all necessary permits from the COE and state agencies prior to 

construction and notify applicable state agencies at least 48 hours before commencing instream 

trenching. 

• Using EIs during construction. 

• Routing the proposed pipeline as close to perpendicular to the axis of the waterbody as 

practicable and minimize the number of individual crossings where waterbodies meander or have 

multiple channels. 

• Limiting the use of equipment within the waterbody to that necessary to construct the crossing 

and using equipment bridges for passage of other construction equipment. 

• Placing spoil at least 10 feet from the water's edge, with installation of sediment barriers to 

prevent the flow of spoil or silt-laden water to the waterbody. 

• Completing all instream construction activity, including stabilization and recontouring of banks, 

within 24 hours for minor waterbody crossings and 48 hours for intermediate waterbody 

crossings. 

• Using temporary erosion and sediment control measures such as sediment barriers and trench 

plugs. 

• Restoring activities, including restoration of pre-construction bank contours, installation of slope 

breakers, and revegetation of disturbed riparian areas. 

Gulf South indicated that it would construct the proposed Project during the period of 

September 1 through December 31, 2007, pending the Commission's approval of the proposed Project. In 

the Draft EIS, we recommended that Gulf South should file with the Secretary copies of approvals or 

concurrences from the MDWFP and the ADCNR indicating that instream construction between 

December 1 and May 31 is acceptable. On May 30, 2007, Gulf South received approval from the 

MDWFP to construct the proposed pipeline through waterbodies at any time of the year provided such 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 3-27 

activities are performed as outlined in project construction documents. To date, approval from the 

ADCNR regarding instream construction between December 1 and May 31 is pending, therefore, we 

recommend that:

• Prior to construction, Gulf South should file with the Secretary copies of approvals or 

concurrences from the ADCNR indicating that instream construction between December 1 

and May 31 is acceptable. 

General impacts to waterbodies, including sensitive waterbodies, potentially resulting from 

pipeline construction, accidental spills, and construction of aboveground facilities are discussed in more 

detail below. 

Pipeline Construction 

Construction of the proposed pipeline through waterbodies using open-cut methods would 

result in several temporary effects to water quality and instream habitat. The clearing and grading of 

stream banks, instream trenching, trench dewatering, and backfilling of the instream trench would affect 

water quality and instream habitat by increasing turbidity, sedimentation, water temperature, modifying 

aquatic habitat and decreasing dissolved oxygen (DO) levels. The use of heavy equipment or other 

vehicles in and near surface waterbodies could also introduce chemical contaminants, such as fuels and 

lubricants, into surface waters or could result in accidental spills during construction. 

The extent of the potential impacts resulting from increased sedimentation and turbidity would 

depend on the amount of material disturbed, the sediment grain size, stream velocity, and channel 

stability. These factors would determine the amount of suspended sediment and the downstream distance 

that the suspended sediment is transported. In general, where the streambed consists of fine materials 

such as sand and silt, as is likely along the proposed Project route, the increase in turbidity and suspended 

sediments would be relatively greater when compared to locations where the streambed consists of 

coarser materials such as gravel and cobble. However, stream gradients tend to be relatively low in the 

area of the proposed Project; thus, stream velocities also would tend to be low, indicating that suspended 

sediments within these streams would be transported only over short distances. 

Increased turbidity can reduce light penetration into the water and thereby reduce 

photosynthetic activity and levels of DO in the water column. Organic materials suspended in the water 

can further reduce DO by increasing the biochemical oxygen demand (BOD). Resuspension of sediments 

also can introduce contaminants, metals, and nutrients bound to the sediments into the water column. 

However, because there are no known contaminated sediments located along the proposed Project route, 

adverse effects resulting from resuspension of contaminants would be unlikely. 

If contaminated soils were encountered during construction, Gulf South would implement 

procedures to identify and properly manage the contamination as described in its Plan for the 

Unanticipated Discovery of Contaminated Media. 

The removal of vegetation from riparian areas would result in an increase in surface runoff 

and erosion from the pipeline corridor. However, as specified by its Procedures, the use of temporary and 

permanent sediment controls (e.g., silt fence and slope breakers) would minimize this impact by directing 

surface runoff to well-vegetated areas along the sides of the construction right-of-way. Removal of 

riparian vegetation and the loss of associated shading at waterbody crossings would result in elevated 

water temperatures. However, potential impacts on water temperature are not expected to be significant 

in most cases because of the limited amount of streambank canopy that would be cleared relative to the 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 3-28 

existing riparian vegetation. Following construction, trees and shrubs would also be allowed to 

reestablish themselves on waterbody banks, except for a 10-foot-wide corridor centered over the pipeline. 

We have identified numerous ponds located adjacent to or immediately downstream of the 

proposed pipeline construction right-of-way that would be susceptible to siltation if special attention is 

not given to the use of erosion and sedimentation controls during pipeline construction and restoration of 

the right-of-way. Therefore, we recommend that:

• Gulf South should prevent sediment and heavily silt-laden water from entering ponds 

adjacent to areas disturbed by construction activities. Gulf South should conduct the opencut crossing of the waterbodies feeding these ponds (at the following mileposts: 6.8, 12.5, 

15.0, 25.0, 40.9, 41.6, 51.2, 53.4, 59.5, 60.0, 63.5, 65.1, 75.1, 77.1, 86.9, 87.1, 98.6, and 110.0) 

in a manner that prevents sediment and heavily silt-laden water from entering the ponds. 

Construction Spills 

Gulf South has developed several measures regarding spill prevention, containment, and 

impact minimization in and near waterbodies. These measures include, but are not limited to: 

• Structuring overall operations to reduce the risk of accidental spills or exposure of fuels or other 

hazardous materials into the environment. 

• Properly training employees on handling fuels and other hazardous materials, including: 

o Regular inspection of all equipment to ensure it is in good operating order. 

o Storage of hazardous materials and refueling of equipment at least 100 feet from any 

waterbody or in an upland area at least 100 feet from any wetland. 

o General prohibition of concrete coating activities within 100 feet of a waterbody or wetland. 

o Provisions to have the necessary tools, equipment, and supplies on hand to contain and 

recover spilled materials at the job site. 

o Prompt reporting of any spills to the appropriate agencies. 

In those instances where refueling must be conducted within 100 feet of a waterbody, fueling 

locations must be preapproved by the EI. Gulf South would store adequate amounts of absorbent pads 

and keep containment barriers with each construction crew. These measures were identified as part of 

Gulf South's SPCC Plan, which describes the management of hazardous materials, such as fuels, 

lubricants, and coolants that would be used during construction. 

Aboveground Facilities 

Construction of the proposed aboveground facilities would affect one intermittent waterbody 

and would potentially affect two perennial and two intermittent waterbodies. An intermittent stream 

located on the Delhi Compressor Station site would be rerouted, therefore directly affected. An 

intermittent stream on the Harrisville Compressor Station site and another on the Southern Natural M&R 

Station site would not be crossed. Likewise, two perennial streams on the Destin Compressor Station site 

would not be crossed. To minimize potential indirect effect to waterbodies at these sites, Gulf South 

would implement the erosion control measures described in its plans. These measures include using 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 3-29 

erosion controls (e.g., slope breakers, silt fencing, and mulch) during construction to control runoff, 

reducing the time of soil disturbance, and reestablishing contours and vegetative cover as soon as 

practicable (see Section 3.2.3).

3.3.2.3 Site-Specific Impacts and Mitigation 

Sensitive Waterbodies 

Gulf South proposes to cross the three impaired waterbodies identified in Table 3.3.2.1-2 

using HDD methods. Use of the HDD method to cross these waterbodies would significantly minimize 

potential impacts to these resources; however, should the HDD method fail or a frac-out occur, Gulf 

South would implement its HDD Plan as discussed below. 

Gulf South indicated that there are no state or locally designated surface water protection areas 

within Alabama. Additionally, there are no surface water intakes located within 3 miles downstream of 

the proposed Project waterbody crossings, and no effects to these areas are anticipated. There are no 

known contaminated sediments in waterbodies that would be crossed by the proposed Project. Therefore, 

no impacts to such specially-designated areas are anticipated. There are no designated National Wild and 

Scenic Rivers crossed by the proposed Project. Potential impacts to the Strong River and Chickasawhay 

River, NRI-listed streams, would be avoided through the use of the HDD method and any additional 

measures noted in consultation with the NPS. 

Horizontal Directional Drill Crossings 

Gulf South proposes to use HDDs to install the proposed pipeline across 29 waterbodies, 

including the major waterbodies and all navigable streams, two NRI-designated streams, and streams 

containing potential habitat for listed threatened or endangered species (with the exception of Little 

Creek) as detailed in Appendix D. As described in Section 2.3, HDD is a trenchless crossing method that 

may be used to avoid direct impacts to sensitive resources, such as waterbodies, by directionally drilling 

beneath them. A successful HDD would result in little or no impact to the waterbody being crossed. 

The feasibility of each proposed HDD would be evaluated based on site-specific geotechnical 

data collected at each of the proposed HDD sites. The results of these geotechnical analyses would be 

provided to us for our review prior to construction. In the event of HDD failure, Gulf South could, 

following its HDD Plan, attempt to re-drill the crossing using a different location or profile, change the 

drilling procedures, or employ alternate crossing methods such as open-cut. We do not believe that the 

HDD methods are likely to fail; however, to account for the potential that the planned geotechnical 

analyses could indicate that an HDD crossing is not feasible or if HDD methods fail, we recommend 

that: 

• Gulf South should not begin an open-cut crossing of any of the waterbodies proposed to be 

crossed using HDD until it files an amended crossing plan with the Secretary for review and 

written approval by the Director of OEP. The amended crossing plan should include sitespecific drawings identifying all areas that would be disturbed using the proposed alternate 

crossing method. Gulf South should file the amended crossing plan concurrent with the 

appropriate state and federal applications required for implementation of the plan. 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 3-30 

Hydrostatic Testing 

The withdrawal of large amounts of water for hydrostatic testing of pipeline segments could 

result in several effects to waterbodies. Specifically, water supply, recreation, and aquatic habitat could 

be affected by hydrostatic test water withdrawals. 

The discharge of hydrostatic test water would contribute to a change in water quality of 

receiving waters if the source water quality is different than the receiving water, especially during lowflow or drought conditions when there is less water available in the receiving stream for dilution. Refer to 

Table 3.3.2.3-1 for a summary of hydrostatic test water requirements for the proposed Project. 

TABLE 3.3.2.3-1 

Hydrostatic Test Water Requirements for the Proposed Southeast Expansion Project 

Project Component Water Source 

Withdrawal 

Location 

(MP)5

Approximate 

Volume 

(gallons) 

Discharge 

Location 

(MP) 

Discharge 

Rate 

(gal/min)6

Pipeline 

 Dabbs Creek1,2 12.6 450,000 12.6 1,500 

 Campbell Creek1 16.1 300,000 16.1 1,500 

 Strong River2,3 18.0 6,795,000 18.0 3,000 

 Oakohay Creek 34.1 300,000 34.1 1,500 

 Leaf River 2,4 44.2 9,857,000 44.2 3,000 

West Tallahala 

River2 N/A 

(Trucked in) 

132,000 45.3 1,500 

Tallahoma Creek 55.9 7,200,000 55.9 3,000 

Tallahala Creek1

 62.6 110,000 62.6 1,500 

I-59/CR8 N/A 

(Trucked in) 

150,000 69.6 1,500 

Shubuta Creek 82.7 132,000 82.7 1,500 

Chickasawhay 

River1,2,3,4

89.3 15,605,000 89.3 3,000 

 Bucatunna River2,4 100.4 7,803,000 100.4 3,000 

 Okatuppa Creek4 107.3 300,000 107.4 1,500 

Aboveground Facilities 

Harrisville Compressor 

Station 

Trucked In N/A 50,000 0.0 1,500 

Destin Compressor 

Station 

Trucked In N/A 50,000 82.9 1,500 

Southern Natural M/R 

Station 

Trucked In N/A 10,000 45.7 1,500 

Tennessee Gas M/R 

Station 

Trucked In N/A 10,000 72.5 1,500 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 3-31 

TABLE 3.3.2.3-1 

Hydrostatic Test Water Requirements for the Proposed Southeast Expansion Project 

Project Component Water Source 

Withdrawal 

Location 

(MP)5

Approximate 

Volume 

(gallons) 

Discharge 

Location 

(MP) 

Discharge 

Rate 

(gal/min)6

Destin M/R Station Trucked In N/A 10,000 82.9 1,500 

Transco M/R Station Trucked In N/A 10,000 110.8 1,500 

_______________ 

* The discharge location would be located at the site of the proposed Delhi Compressor Station, which is 89.5 miles northwest 

of MP 0.0 

1 Impaired (biological) waterbody 

2 May contain habitat for threatened and endangered species 

3 Listed in National Rivers Inventory 

4 COE navigable waterbody 

5 MP = Milepost 

6 gal/min = gallons/minute 

7 N/A = Not Applicable

Gulf South would avoid or adequately minimize potential effects to waterbodies resulting 

from hydrostatic testing by implementing its Procedures, which include but are not limited to the 

following measures: 

• Obtaining and complying with all applicable water withdrawal permits and special-status stream 

permits. 

• Addressing the operation and fueling of any pumps located within 100 feet of waterbodies or 

wetlands in the SPCC Plan. 

• Maintaining adequate flow rates in all source waterbodies to protect aquatic life and to provide 

for all downstream uses. 

• Screening all hydrostatic test water withdrawal intakes to prevent entrainment of fish and aquatic 

organisms. 

• Regulating the discharge of hydrostatic test waters by using energy dissipation devices to prevent 

erosion, scour, turbidity, or excessive streamflow. 

Additionally, Gulf South indicates that biocides, chemical dewatering agents, and other 

potentially toxic hydrostatic test water additives would not be used during hydrostatic testing. Gulf South 

would obtain appropriate NPDES discharge permits prior to conducting hydrostatic testing, would sample 

all test water according to the permit to determine its suitability, and would implement treatment 

measures, if needed, prior to discharge. The MDWFP further requested in its May 30, 2007 approval that 

Gulf South notify prior to withdrawals from streams exhibiting a 7Q10 flow rate for an extended period to 

protect aquatic resources. 

Six waterbodies (Dabbs Creek, Leaf River, West Tallahala River, Chickasawhay River, 

Bucatunna Creek, and Strong River) are sensitive waterbodies that contain threatened or endangered 

species or critical habitat, including habitat for Gulf Sturgeon. Site access to these waterbodies for setting 

up and operating hydrostatic test water withdrawals may require disturbance to their associated riparian 

and wetland areas. In response to our recommendation in the Draft EIS, Gulf South initiated consultation 

with the MDWFP (May 22, 2007) regarding its plans/mitigation for withdrawing water from these 

waterbodies for hydrostatic testing purposes. Gulf South submitted detailed crossing plans, construction 

measures, and hydrostatic test water withdrawal plans to the MDWFP. Plans submitted included siteDocument Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 3-32 

specific drawings, descriptions of how these waterbodies would be accessed, alternative hydrostatic test 

water sources, and measures that would be employed to minimize impacts to these waterbodies and 

adjacent riparian and/or wetland resources. 

Gulf South states that access to each of these waterbodies would be obtained by using existing 

pipeline or road rights-of-way to avoid any additional clearing. Gulf South would withdraw and 

discharge to and from these sensitive waterbodies in compliance with its Procedures as well as other state 

and local agency requirements, and would include screened intakes to avoid entrainment of fish and 

energy dissipation devices to reduce erosion and sedimentation. In addition, Gulf South would locate 

hydrostatic testing equipment outside wetlands and riparian zones wherever possible. Site-specific 

drawings of the areas to be disturbed by each hydrostatic test water withdrawal were also submitted to the 

FERC in Gulf South's May 25, 2007, filing. In response to our recommendation in the Draft FEIS, Gulf 

South has provided site-specific plans for the withdrawal of hydrostatic test water from sensitive 

waterbodies. Gulf South's use of these plans should help to ensure that potential impacts to these streams 

and the habitats for rare species they support are adequately minimized. Based on Gulf South's proposed 

measures, compliance with its Procedures, and our requirement to address any additional mitigation 

measures that may result from continuing agency consultations, we believe that impacts to waterbodies 

resulting from hydrostatic testing would be adequately minimized. 

Given compliance with its Procedures, Gulf South's proposed measures and Procedures, and 

our requirement to address any additional mitigation measures that may result from continuing agency 

consultations, we believe that impacts to waterbodies resulting from hydrostatic testing would be 

adequately minimized. 

3.3.3 Conclusion Regarding Surface Water Resources 

The proposed Project would cross numerous waterbodies, but potential impacts to these 

waterbodies would be minimized or mitigated through the implementation of Gulf South's Procedures. 

Most minor and intermediate streams would be crossed using the open-cut method, but they would be 

crossed in less than 48 hours and restored and stabilized rapidly. Major or sensitive waterbodies and all 

designated NRI and navigable waterbodies, would be crossed by HDD and impacts to them would be 

avoided. In the event of HDD frac-out, Gulf South would implement its HDD Plan. Given the measures 

described above and our recommendations, we believe that construction and operation of the proposed 

Project would not significantly affect surface water resources.

3.4 WETLANDS 

Wetlands are areas that are inundated or saturated with surface water or groundwater at a 

frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a 

prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally 

include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas (Environmental Laboratory, 1987). Wetlands perform 

a number of valuable functions, including flood flow attenuation, surface water management, filtration of 

non-point source pollutants and compounds, sediment and nutrient retention, and providing wildlife 

habitat, groundwater recharge and discharge, recreation, and erosion control. 

Section 404 of the CWA of 1972 established standards to minimize impacts to wetlands under 

the regulatory jurisdiction of the COE. These standards require avoidance of wetlands where possible, 

and minimization and compensation for disturbance where impacts are unavoidable, to the degree 

practical. 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 3-33 

3.4.1 Existing Wetland Resources 

Gulf South conducted field investigations to identify, characterize, and survey the boundaries 

of wetland resources along the pipeline construction right-of-way and the areas identified for ancillary 

facilities. 

Using the Cowardin, et al. (1979) wetland classification system, Gulf South identified four 

wetland types within the proposed Project area: 

• Palustrine forested (PFO) 

• Palustrine scrub-shrub (PSS) 

• Palustrine emergent (PEM) 

• Palustrine Open Water (POW) 

Palustrine Forested Wetlands 

PFO wetlands are dominated by woody vegetation, including bottomland hardwoods, that is at 

least 20 feet tall (Cowardin, et al., 1979). These wetlands provide a diverse assemblage of vegetation and 

an abundance of food and cover for wildlife. A significant portion of the PFO wetlands found along the 

proposed route consist of regrowth hardwoods of various ages. Some PFO wetlands also contain mature 

bald cypress (Taxodium distichum) or water tupelo (Nyssa aquatica). Common vegetative species 

typically found in PFO wetlands observed within the proposed Project construction right-of-way include 

water oak (Quercus nigra), swamp chestnut oak (Quercus michauxii), willow oak (Quercus phellos), 

black willow (Salix nigra), water tupelo, bald cypress, American sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), green 

ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), red maple (Acer rubrum), tulip tree 

(Liriodendron tulipifera), river birch (Betula nigra), sweetbay magnolia (Magnolia virginiana), 

persimmon (Diospyros virginiana), poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), and buttonbush (Cephalanthus 

occidentalis). 

Palustrine Scrub-Shrub Wetlands 

PSS wetlands include all wetlands dominated by woody vegetation less than 20 feet tall 

(Cowardin, et al., 1979). PSS wetlands are typically not as structurally diverse as forested wetlands due 

to the lack of trees comprising the canopy. As with PFO wetlands, PSS wetlands supply an abundance of 

food and cover for wildlife. Common vegetative species found in the PSS wetlands observed within the 

proposed Project construction right-of-way include various bulrushes (Scirpus spp.), wool-grass (Scirpus 

cyperinus), buttonbush, wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera), baccharis (Baccharis halimifolia), swamp cyrilla 

(Cyrilla racemiflora), and sweet leaf (Symplocos tinctoria). 

Palustrine Emergent Wetlands 

PEM wetlands are characterized by erect, rooted, herbaceous hydrophytes, excluding mosses 

and lichens (Cowardin, et al., 1979). Wildlife typically use these areas for nesting and feeding during 

migratory periods. Common vegetative species found in the PEM wetlands traversed by the proposed 

Project construction right-of-way include needlerush (Juncus roemerianus), lizard's-tail (Saururus 

cernuus), narrow-leaved cattail (Typha angustifolia), and southern wild rice (Zizaniopsis miliacea). 

Persistent species found in palustrine systems include cattails (Typha spp.), bulrushes, beakrushes 

(Rhynchospora spp.), saw grass (Cladium jamaicense), sedges (Carex spp.), common reed (Phragmites 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 3-34 

australis), and goldenrod (Solidago spp.). There are also a variety of broad-leaved persistent emergent 

species, such as dock (Rumex mexicanus), waterwouldow (Decodon verticillatus), and smartweeds 

(Polygonum spp.). Non-persistent species found in emergent wetlands include sensitive fern (Onoclea 

sensibilis), cinnamon fern (Osmunda cinnamomea), arrow arum (Peltandra virginica), pickerelweed 

(Pontederia cordata), and arrowheads (Sagittaria spp.). 

Palustrine Open Water Wetlands 

POW wetlands are characterized by areas of open water less than 6.6 feet deep. There are 

often submerged or floating-leaved plants in the shallower portions along the edges of the waterbody 

(abbreviated OW). Common vegetative species found in the POW wetlands traversed by the proposed 

Project construction right-of-way include sedge (Carex sp.), goldenrod (Solidago sp.), giant reed grass 

(Phragmites australis), and soft rush (Juncus effusus). 

The location, wetland classification, crossing length, and affected acreage for each wetland 

that would be affected by construction and operation of the proposed Project is listed in Appendix E. A 

summary of the wetlands affected by the proposed Project is provided in Table 3.4.1-1. 

High-Quality, Sensitive, or Special-Status Wetlands 

PFO wetlands containing significant tupelo and bald cypress trees occur along the proposed route 

and may be considered a component of a relatively higher-quality forested wetland system, especially 

when the specimens are mature and large. Gulf South did not identify lands in the NRCS Wetland 

Reserve Program (WRP) or the associated Prior Converted Wetlands Program along the proposed route. 

TABLE 3.4.1-1 

Summary of Wetlands Affected by the Proposed Southeast Expansion Project 

Location1 Wetland 

Type2

Number of 

Wetland 

Crossings 

Permanent 

Operation 

Impacts 

(acres)3,4,5

Temporary 

Construction 

Impacts 

(acres)5

Estimated 

Crossing Length 

(miles) 

Pipeline

Simpson County, MS 

PEM 9 0 0.28 0.11 

PFO 24 4.43 10.75 1.55 

PSS 8 0 7.75 0.92 

PFO/PEM/PSS 1 0.12 0.24 0.19 

Smith County, MS 

PEM 2 0 0.94 0.21 

PFO 12 4.41 10.03 1.29 

PSS 8 0 0.71 0.27 

PEM/PFO 1 0.07 0.18 0.03 

Jasper County, MS 

PEM 5 0 2.07 0.30 

PFO 14 4.87 11.25 1.59 

PSS 3 0 5.99 0.69 

Clarke County, MS 

PEM 15 0 1.20 0.29 

PFO 16 2.41 5.93 1.84 

PSS 10 0 7.16 0.92 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 3-35 

TABLE 3.4.1-1 

Summary of Wetlands Affected by the Proposed Southeast Expansion Project 

Location1 Wetland 

Type2

Number of 

Wetland 

Crossings 

Permanent 

Operation 

Impacts 

(acres)3,4,5

Temporary 

Construction 

Impacts 

(acres)5

Estimated 

Crossing Length 

(miles) 

PEM/PFO 2 0.52 1.27 0.20 

PEM/POW 1 0 0.15 0.01 

Choctaw County, AL 

PEM 4 0 0.56 0.15 

PFO 1 0.26 0.67 0.03 

PSS 5 0 1.04 0.29 

PEM/PSS 1 0 0.22 0.03 

PEM/PFO 3 0.23 0.55 0.17 

Subtotal Impacts: 145 17.32 68.94 11.08 

Aboveground Facilities 

PEM 0 0 0 N/A 

PFO 0 0 0 N/A 

PSS 0 0 0 N/A 

Subtotal Impacts: 0 0 0 N/A 

Access Roads and ATWSs 

PEM N/A 0 0 N/A 

PFO N/A 0 0 N/A 

PSS N/A 0 0 N/A 

PEM/PFO N/A 0 0 N/A 

Subtotal Impacts: N/A 0 0 N/A 

Total Impacts: 145 17.32 68.94 11.08 

____________ 

1 MS = Mississippi 

 AL = Alabama

2 Wetland Type 

 PEM = Palustrine emergent 

 PFO = Palustrine forested 

 PSS = Palustrine scrub-shrub 

 POW = Palustrine open water 

3 Impact calculations are based on an operationally maintained 30-foot-wide corridor through wetlands. 

4 Permanently maintained forested wetland impacts would result only in a conversion to either PSS or PEM wetlands. PEM and 

PSS wetlands would be allowed to completely revegetate to pre-construction conditions and would result in no conversion or loss

of function. 

5 Permanent maintenance impacts and temporary construction impacts are avoided in wetlands crossed by HDD construction 

methods. Temporary construction impacts are based on a 75-foot-wide corridor through wetlands.

3.4.2 General Wetland Impacts 

The Louisiana portion of the Project does not impact any wetlands. The majority of the 145 

wetlands that would be affected by the proposed Project are located in Mississippi (approximately 

90 percent of the total number), with the remainder occurring in Alabama. As shown in Table 3.4.1-1, 

construction of the proposed Project would result in a total of approximately 68.94 acres of wetland 

disturbance during construction. These impacts would include approximately 38.01 acres of PFO 

wetlands, 2.91 acres of mixed-type wetlands that include a PFO component, and an additional 28.02 acres 

of PSS, PEM, and POW wetlands. The majority of the acreage of forested wetlands affected by this 

Project is associated with riparian zones. 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 3-36 

Construction and operation of the proposed pipeline would result in both short- and long-term 

effects to wetlands. In the short-term, construction activities, including clearing, trenching, spoil 

placement, vehicle traffic, and related construction disturbances, would diminish the recreational and 

aesthetic value of wetlands. Wetland functions, such as erosion control, buffering and flood flow 

attenuation, sediment retention, and nutrient retention, would also be affected by construction activities. 

Construction activities would also result in both short- and long-term loss of wildlife habitat and the 

reduction of habitat quality. 

Effects to wetlands would vary depending on wetland type. Due to the relatively long period 

required for PFO wetlands to regenerate—up to 30 years or more—impacts to these wetland types would 

be long-term. Impacts to PSS wetlands would be mostly short-term, as regeneration would likely occur 

within two to four years. PEM and POW wetlands, which can regenerate more rapidly, would be 

typically affected only temporarily as they may become reestablished in one or two growing seasons. 

During operation of the proposed Project, Gulf South's Procedures allow for annual 

maintenance of a 10-foot-wide strip centered over the pipeline. Additionally, trees that are within 15 feet 

of the pipeline and greater than 15 feet in height may be cut and removed. These activities would not 

affect PEM or POW wetlands as these herbaceous areas would not typically be maintained or mowed. 

However, mowing, clearing, and tree removal would affect PSS and PFO wetlands along the permanent 

right-of-way. Functions associated with these wetland types would be altered as PFO or PSS wetlands 

within the maintained portion of the permanent pipeline right-of-way would be permanently converted to 

an herbaceous state. However, the overall acreage of wetlands would not be significantly reduced. 

3.4.2.1 General Wetland Construction and Mitigation Procedures 

Wetlands affected by the proposed Project are identified in a table in Appendix E. Location 

by milepost, classification, crossing widths, acres of temporary and permanent impacts, and crossing 

methods are included in the table. 

Section 2.3.2 describes the specialized pipeline construction procedures that Gulf South would 

implement to minimize impacts to wetlands. Within the construction right-of-way, Gulf South would 

leave existing root systems intact where possible, would install erosion control devices to minimize 

sediment flow into the wetland, and would use special seed mixes during restoration. Gulf South 

proposes to maintain annually a 30-foot-wide herbaceous right-of-way in wetlands. 

Gulf South would use the minimum construction equipment necessary within wetlands for 

clearing, trench excavation, pipe fabrication and installation, trench backfilling, and restoration activities. 

If standing water or saturated soil conditions were present or if construction equipment caused ruts or 

mixing of the topsoil and subsoil, construction equipment operating in wetland areas would be further 

limited to the use of low ground pressure equipment or normal equipment operating from timber riprap or 

prefabricated equipment mats. Gulf South would also minimize impacts to wetlands by implementing the 

measures identified in its Procedures. These measures include, but are not limited to: 

• Clear marking of wetland boundaries and buffers in the field until construction is complete. 

• Limitation of tree stump removal and grading to the area directly over the pipeline, unless it is 

determined that safety-related construction constraints required grading or removal of tree stumps 

from under the working side of the construction right-of-way. 

• Stripping of topsoil from the area directly over the trench line to a maximum depth of 12 inches 

in unsaturated soils. 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 3-37 

• Minimization of the amount of time that topsoil is segregated and the trench is open. 

• Use of sediment barriers to prevent sediment flow into a wetland. 

• Dewatering of trenches in a way that does not cause sedimentation in a wetland. 

• Use of trench breakers to ensure maintenance of the original wetland hydrology. 

• Prohibition of the storage of hazardous materials and refueling within 100 feet of a wetland. 

• Restoration of pre-construction contours, vegetative restoration, and monitoring. 

In addition to these measures, the COE requires that all appropriate and practicable actions be 

taken to avoid or minimize those impacts, pursuant to its Section 404(b)(1) guidelines, which restrict 

discharges of dredged or fill material where a less environmentally damaging and practicable alternative 

exists. All proposed wetland crossings would be subject to review by the COE to ensure that wetland 

impacts are fully identified and that appropriate wetland restoration and mitigation measures are 

implemented. Gulf South would also comply with all conditions of the Section 404 authorizations that 

may be issued by the COE. See Section 3.4.4 for additional discussion of compensatory mitigation 

requirements. 

3.4.2.2 Alternative Measures to Our Procedures 

Gulf South has proposed as part of its Procedures, 50 site-specific alternative measures from 

Section V.B.2 (location of ATWSs near waterbodies) and VI.B.1 (location of ATWSs in wetlands) of our 

Procedures. Section V.B.2 of our Procedures states that all ATWSs, such as those used for staging and 

storing additional spoil, should be located at least 50 feet from the water's edge, except where the adjacent 

upland consists of actual cultivated or rotated cropland or other disturbed land. Section VI.B.1 of our 

Procedures states that access roads and ATWSs, such as those used for staging or storing additional spoil, 

should be located at least 50 feet outside of identified wetland boundaries, except where the adjacent 

upland consists of actively cultivated or rotated cropland or other disturbed land. Table 3.4.2.2-1 lists the 

locations and justifications associated with these proposed alternative measures to our Procedures. 

TABLE 3.4.2.2-1 

Proposed Site-Specific Alternative Measures to FERC's Procedures for the 

Proposed Southeast Expansion Project 

Milepost 

Affected 

Wetland 

Area 

(acres) 

Applicable 

FERC 

Procedures 

Section 

Justification 

for 

Alternative Measure 

1.7 0.0b VI.B.1.a ATWS needed for wetland and stream excavation 

5.5 0.0a V.B.2.a ATWS needed for stream bank excavation 

6.8 0.0a VI.B.1.a ATWS needed for side hill slope 

10.2 0.23 VI.B.1.a ATWS needed for road bore 

10.2 0.23 VI.B.1.a ATWS needed for road bore 

10.3 0.23 VI.B.1.a Stream in wetland & ATWS needed for bank excavation 

10.3 0.0a V.B.2.a ATWS needed for stream bank excavation 

12.8 0.0b VI.B.1.a HDD entry/exit next to wetland & ATWS needed for HDD 

13.0 0.32 VI.B.1.a Foreign Pipeline in wetland & ATWS needed for excavation 

14.6 0.0a V.B.2.a ATWS needed for stream bank excavation 

15.6 0.0b VI.B.1.a ATWS needed near wetland for excavation 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 3-38 

TABLE 3.4.2.2-1 

Proposed Site-Specific Alternative Measures to FERC's Procedures for the 

Proposed Southeast Expansion Project 

Milepost 

Affected 

Wetland 

Area 

(acres) 

Applicable 

FERC 

Procedures 

Section 

Justification 

for 

Alternative Measure 

15.8 0.55 VI.B.1.a HDD entry/exit in wetland & ATWS needed for HDD 

17.5 0.0b VI.B.1.a ATWS needed for road bore 

18.3 0.0b VI.B.1.a HDD entry/exit next to wetland & ATWS needed for HDD 

19.5 0.0b VI.B.1.a Foreign Pipeline in wetland & ATWS needed for excavation 

23.6 0.0a V.B.2.a ATWS needed for road bore 

25.8 0.0a V.B.2.a ATWS needed for stream bank excavation 

34.7 0.8 VI.B.1.a HDD entry/exit in wetland & ATWS needed for HDD 

39.8 0.0a V.B.2.a ATWS needed for stream bank excavation 

45.2 0.0b VI.B.1.a HDD entry/exit in wetland & ATWS needed for HDD 

51.8 0.0a V.B.2.a ATWS needed for stream bank excavation and railroad bore 

51.9 0.25 VI.B.1.a ATWS needed for railroad bore 

55.9 0.35 VI.B.1.a HDD entry/exit in wetland & ATWS needed for HDD 

56.2 0.58 VI.B.1.a HDD entry/exit in wetland & ATWS needed for HDD 

59.8 0.02 VI.B.1.a ATWS needed for road bore 

60.6 0.22 VI.B.1.a Stream in wetland & ATWS needed for bank excavation 

65.9 0.46 VI.B.1.a Ditch in wetland & ATWS needed for bank excavation 

66.4 0.6 VI.B.1.a Road in wetland & ATWS needed for road bore 

66.9 0.46 VI.B.1.a Stream in wetland & ATWS needed for bank excavation 

68.7 0.0a V.B.2.a ATWS needed for road bore 

69.6 0.0a V.B.2.a HDD entry/exit near stream & ATWS needed for HDD 

70.5 0.14 VI.B.1.a ATWS needed for road bore 

70.6 0.21 VI.B.1.a ATWS needed for road bore 

78.3 0.0c V.B.2.a ATWS needed for foreign pipeline crossing and side hill slope 

80.3 0.0a V.B.2.a ATWS needed for road bore 

82.2 0.01 VI.B.1.a ATWS needed for foreign pipeline crossing and side hill slope 

82.4 0.0c V.B.2.a HDD entry/exit near stream & ATWS needed for HDD 

83.0 1.19 VI.B.1.a ATWS needed for meter and compressor station construction 

83.3 0.01 VI.B.1.a ATWS needed for road bore 

89.0 0.28 VI.B.1.a HDD entry/exit in wetland & ATWS needed for HDD 

93.4 0.0b VI.B.1.a ATWS needed for road bore 

95.1 0.0c V.B.2.a HDD entry/exit near stream & ATWS needed for HDD 

99.9 0.24 VI.B.1.a Road in wetland & ATWS needed for road bore 

100.2 0.54 VI.B.1.a HDD entry/exit near stream & ATWS needed for HDD 

101.2 0.0a V.B.2.a ATWS needed for stream bank excavation 

102.9 0.14 VI.B.1.a Road next to wetland & ATWS needed for road bore 

104.8 0.0b VI.B.1.a ATWS needed for side hill slope 

104.9 0.0b VI.B.1.a ATWS needed for side hill slope 

106.6 0.0b VI.B.1.a ATWS needed for side hill slope 

110.8 0.77 VI.B.1.a ATWS needed for meter and compressor station construction 

Notes: 

a - No ATWS within stream but is less than 50’ from stream 

b – No ATWS within wetland but is less than 50’ from wetland 

c – Small intermittent stream within ATWS

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 3-39 

Based on our review, we have determined that the proposed alternative measures as described 

in Table 3.4.2.2-1 appear reasonable and are adequately justified. Gulf South has provided preliminary 

site-specific drawings for the proposed ATWSs in wetlands. In accordance with its Procedures, Gulf 

South would be required to file these site-specific construction plans prior to the start of construction. 

3.4.3 Site-Specific Impacts and Mitigation 

3.4.3.1 High-Quality, Sensitive, or Special-Status Wetlands 

Gulf South indicates that old-growth tupelo trees occur within the proposed Project right-ofway at or adjacent to three wetland locations as listed in Table 3.4.3.1-1: Wetlands W1CSI004 at MP 

12.7-12.8; W1BJS004 at MP 62.1-62.2; and W9DCK001 at MP 101.1-101.2. No wetlands were 

identified as containing mature cypress trees. To minimize impacts to tupelo and/or cypress trees, Gulf 

South would avoid clearing mature tupelo and/or cypress trees that are greater than or equal to 24 inches 

in diameter at breast height (dbh) within buffer zones comprised of the outermost 10 feet of the spoil side 

of the Project's construction ROW. Mature trees in this buffer zone would not be cut, rather they would 

be avoided and spoil would be placed around them where feasible and where its usage would not 

negatively impact safe construction and operation.

As recommended in the Draft EIS, Gulf South re-surveyed these areas for trees larger than 24 

inches dbh and developed site-specific crossing plans including measures to minimize impacts to these 

mature trees. Approximately 27 mature trees were found to be outside the proposed construction right-ofway limits by 9 to 200 feet, one was found to be within five feet of these limits, and two were found to be 

within 10 feet of the centerline. Gulf South indicated that it could not avoid these two trees for safety 

reasons. Given that most identifiable mature trees are outside of Gulf South's construction work limits, 

and its proposed use of a buffer zone to protect a portion of the mature trees located within or adjacent to 

these wetlands, we believe that with the implementation of Gulf South’s proposed mitigation plan, 

impacts to mature tupelo and cypress trees would be minimized. 

TABLE 3.4.3.1-1 

Forested Riparian Zones along the Proposed 

Southeast Expansion Project 

Milepost 

Approximate 

Distance Crossed 

(feet) 

12.7 to 12.8 1,003 

62.1 to 62.2 211 

101.1 to 101.2 1,478 

3.4.4 Wetland Restoration and Compensatory Mitigation 

The requirements for wetland restoration measures identified in Gulf South's Procedures 

include: 

• Consultation with appropriate land management or state agencies to develop a Project-specific 

restoration plan that includes measures for reestablishing herbaceous and woody species. 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 3-40 

• Prohibition on the use of herbicides or pesticides within 100 feet of a wetland, except as allowed 

by the appropriate agencies. 

• Monitoring of the success of wetland revegetation annually for the first three years after 

construction or until wetland revegetation is considered successful. 

As noted above, Gulf South would complete wetland permitting, including development of 

measures for compensatory mitigation for all wetland impacts in consultation with the COE Mobile 

District. Based on the results of the consultations completed to date, Gulf South proposes to compensate 

for wetland impacts through purchase of wetland mitigation bank credits. Mitigation banking is an 

approved alternative to on-site mitigation and often provides for greater likelihood of success in 

replacement of wetland function and long-term management of restored wetland areas. 

3.4.5 Conclusion Regarding Impacts to Wetlands 

The proposed Project would impact a number of wetlands resulting in short- and long-term 

impacts to wetlands. However, wetland impacts would be minimized by the collocation of the proposed 

pipeline with existing rights-of-way, the use of HDDs, and the implementation of Gulf South's 

Procedures. Given the measures identified in Gulf South's Procedures and its adherence to COE 

permitting requirements, we believe that impacts to wetlands would be adequately minimized and 

mitigated. 

3.5 VEGETATION 

3.5.1 Existing Vegetation Resources 

Construction and operation of the proposed Project would affect five general upland 

vegetative communities: upland forest, pine plantation, open land (scrub-shrub), agriculture, and pasture. 

In addition to the upland vegetation types, the proposed Project would cross PFO wetlands, PSS wetlands, 

PEM wetlands, and POW wetlands, which are discussed in detail in Section 3.4. 

The upland vegetative communities and representative species crossed by the proposed Project 

are described in Table 3.5.1-1. 

TABLE 3.5.1-1 

Upland Vegetation Communities Occurring Along the Proposed Southeast Expansion Project 

Vegetation 

Community General Description Common Species 

Upland Forest Includes slope hardwood and mixed 

hardwood-loblolly pine. In mixed 

hardwood-loblolly pine (Pinus 

taeda) forests, loblolly pine 

comprises at least 20 percent of the 

overstory. These forests trend 

toward hardwood dominance when 

fire is suppressed. 

Drier locations – loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), shortleaf 

pine (Pinus echinata), southern red oak (Quercus 

falcata), red maple (Acer rubrum), cherrybark oak 

(Quercus pagoda), mockernut hickory (Carya 

tormentosa), winged elm (Ulmus alata), black gum 

(Nyssa sylvatica), white oak (Quercus alba). 

Wetter locations – laurel oak (Quercus laurifolia), 

southern magnolia (Magnolia grandiflora), water oak 

(Quercus nigra), blue beech (Carpinus caroliniana), 

eastern hop hornbeam (Ostrya virginiana), sweetgum 

(Liquidambar styraciflua). 

Understory in fire-suppressed areas – sassafras 

(Sassafras albidum), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 3-41 

TABLE 3.5.1-1 

Upland Vegetation Communities Occurring Along the Proposed Southeast Expansion Project 

Vegetation 

Community General Description Common Species 

japonica), Sebastian bush (Sebastiania fruticosa), 

gallberry (Ilex glabra), hawthorn (Crataegus spp.), 

sweet leaf (Symplocos tinctoria), swamp cyrilla (Cyrilla 

racemiflora), yaupon (Ilex vomitoria), American holly 

(Ilex opaca), flowering dogwood (Cornus florida), wax 

myrtle (Myrica cerifera), poison ivy (Toxicodendron 

radicans), green briar (Smilax spp.), blackberry (Rubus

spp.), Carolina jasmine (Gelsemium sempervirens). 

Understory in fire-maintained areas – panicum 

(Panicum spp.), broomsedge (Andropogon spp.), 

three-awn (Aristida spp.). 

Pine Plantation Pine plantations are primarily 

managed for pulp and poles, with 

an average rotation time of 20 to 30 

years. 

Loblolly pine. Associated sedges (Carex spp.), 

blackberry, yaupon, greenbriar, and Carolina jasmine. 

Open Land 

(scrub/shrub) 

Includes clear-cut areas that have 

not been replanted and are 

overgrown, and maintained rightsof-way. 

Sapling stage of woody vegetation in upland forest, 

greenbriar, blackberry, peppervine (Ampelopsis 

arborea), holly (Ilex spp.). 

Agriculture Areas under active farming, 

including field crops. 

Wheat (Triticum aestivum) and hay. 

Pasture Improved or unimproved areas 

dominated by grasses and used by 

livestock for grazing. 

Bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon), crabgrass 

(Digitaria spp.), broomsedge, bluegrass (Poa spp.), 

Bahia grass (Paspalum notatum). 

Pipeline Facilities 

Relatively large areas of upland forest, pine plantation, and open land vegetation, and to a 

lesser extent, agriculture and pasture vegetation, would be affected by construction of the proposed 

pipeline and associated ATWSs. Approximately 591.8 of the 1,580.3 acres (37 percent) that would be 

contained within the pipeline construction right-of-way and ATWSs consist of upland forest. Pine 

plantation (560.6 acres, 35 percent), open land (170.3 acres, 11 percent), pasture (56.3 acres, 4 percent), 

and agriculture (10.4 acres, 1 percent) account for most of the remaining areas that would be crossed (see 

Table 3.5.1-2) by the proposed Project. 

Aboveground Facilities 

The proposed aboveground facilities include three new compressor stations, five M/R stations, 

one side valve, and eight MLVs. Agriculture, upland forest, and pine plantation are the existing 

vegetation cover types at the proposed Delhi, Harrisville, and Destin Compressor Station sites, 

respectively (see Table 3.5.1-2). The CenterPoint M/R Station would be located within the Delhi 

Compressor Station site, and the Destin M/R Station would be located within the Destin Compressor 

Station site. The remaining proposed M/R station sites occur within the upland forest and open land 

vegetation types. MLV sites would impact an additional 0.5 acre of land currently classified as upland 

forest and open land. The remaining acreages impacted by MLV sites would all be located within the 

boundaries of the permanent right-of-way for the proposed pipeline facilities. 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 3-42 

Access Roads 

Gulf South proposes to use 138 access roads, 47 of which would be new and/or upgraded 

roads and 91 would be existing roads to be used without modification. Approximately 98 percent of the 

58.3 acres encompassing new or modified access roads would be within the other/roads category areas 

where vegetation is lacking. The remainder of the vegetation types affected by access roads would be 

comprised of upland forest and open land (see Table 3.5.1-2). 

Pipe Storage and Contractor Yards 

Gulf South indicated that the pipe storage and contractor yards would be located in existing 

commercial and industrial areas, thereby avoiding impacts to vegetation associated with those 

construction-related activities. 

3.5.1.1 Vegetative Communities of Special Concern or Value 

Based on a review of maps, field surveys, available information, and consultations with the 

resource agencies, only Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) lands were identified as lands containing 

vegetative communities of special concern or value. As described further in Section 3.8, the Farm 

Service Agency (FSA) administers the CRP, which is a voluntary program that allows owners of 

agricultural tracts to conserve environmentally sensitive lands with financial assistance from the federal 

government (USDA, 2006). Through the planting of native grasses, trees, and other cover, these 

easements are designed to reduce soil erosion, reduce sedimentation, improve water quality, and establish 

and improve aquatic and wildlife habitat. Vegetation found in these easements performs a critical role in 

providing these ecological values. 

TABLE 3.5.1-2 

Vegetative Communities Affected by the Proposed Southeast Expansion Project 

Pipeline Facilitiesa Aboveground Facilities Access Roads 

Vegetation 

Cover Type 

Temporary 

Construction 

Impact 

(acres) 

Permanent 

Operations 

Impact 

(acres) 

Temporary 

Construction 

Impact 

(acres) 

Permanent 

Operations 

Impact 

(acres) 

Temporary 

Construction 

Impact 

(acres) 

Permanent 

Operations 

Impact 

(acres) 

Upland Forest 591.8 301.2 54.4 34.9 0.4 -- 

Pine Plantationb 560.6 271.7 18.2 11.7 -- -- 

Open Landc 

(scrub-shrub) 

170.3 95.4 3.9 3.2 0.8 -- 

Agriculture 10.4 5.7 69.5 69.5 -- -- 

Pasture 56.3 31 -- -- -- -- 

Total 1,389.4 705 146 119.3 1.2 0.0 

_______________ 

Notes: 

a Acreages based on pipeline, pipe storage and contractor yards, and ATWSs. Acreages reflect a nominal 100-foot-wide 

construction right-of-way. Permanent impacts are based on Gulf South's 60-foot wide permanent right-of-way; however, 

we are recommending that Gulf South's permanent right-of-way be limited to a width of 50 feet. 

b Includes actively planted and harvested pine plantation forests. 

c Includes areas that have been clear-cut without replanting and maintained rights-of-way.

The MNHP identified the wooded seep, spring seep, and wet terrace habitat types as 

potentially occurring within the Project area. However, none of these habitat types were observed during 

field surveys conducted by Gulf South. 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 3-43 

3.5.1.2 Extensive Forested Tracts 

Based on a review of maps, aerial photographs, and field surveys, several areas of large, 

relatively non-fragmented forested tracts would be crossed by the proposed pipeline. Although these 

areas are relatively non-fragmented, Gulf South indicated that many of these tracts are subject to periodic 

harvest and/or thinning. The location of these tracts and the length of the associated crossings are 

identified in Appendix F. 

3.5.2 General Impacts and Mitigation 

The primary impacts of the proposed Project on the identified vegetative communities would 

arise from the removal of vegetation along the proposed pipeline route and at aboveground facility sites 

during construction and routine maintenance. Cutting or removal of vegetation for Project construction 

could lead to increased soil erosion, associated sedimentation and turbidity in streams and wetlands, an 

increase in invasive or exotic plant species, and a reduction in wildlife habitat. Clearing and construction 

activities along the proposed pipeline right-of-way and associated facilities could also result in soil 

compaction. Additionally, heavy machinery could damage riparian vegetation associated with 

waterbodies, whether the equipment is moving or parked for extended periods, thereby potentially 

reducing water quality in adjacent streams. All areas disturbed during construction, but not needed 

permanently as part of the pipeline or aboveground facilities or permanent access roads, would be allowed 

to revert to pre-construction vegetative conditions. 

In those areas where an HDD would be used to cross special features such as waterbodies, 

wetlands, and roads, Gulf South proposes to use hand-laid electric-grid guide wires to assist guidance of 

the drill bit along the proposed route. A small pathway approximately 2- to 3-feet-wide may be cut, using 

hand tools in heavily vegetated areas, in order to position these guide wires. This activity would result in 

minimal disturbance to vegetation along the path of the HDD, and no large trees would be cut as part of 

this process. 

The proposed 60-foot wide permanent right-of-way would be mowed or otherwise maintained 

every three years and a 10-foot-wide corridor over the pipeline centerline would be maintained annually 

in an herbaceous state; however, we are recommending in Section 2.0 that Gulf South should limit the 

width of its right-of-way to 50 feet. 

Periodic maintenance of the permanent pipeline right-of-way would prevent the regrowth of 

forested vegetative communities and would result in regular disturbance of vegetation. Construction of 

the aboveground facility sites would result in permanent conversion of some vegetated areas to a 

non-vegetated industrial/commercial use, either as standing structures or associated facilities such as 

parking and storage areas. 

The severity of the impacts described above would depend on the type of vegetation impacted, 

the size of the area cleared, and the time required for vegetation to become re-established. General 

impacts to vegetation communities are described in further detail below. 

The cutting or removal of vegetation could increase soil erosion potential, increase 

sedimentation and turbidity in streams and wetlands, increase invasive or exotic plant species, and reduce 

wildlife habitat. Additionally, heavy machinery could damage vegetation associated with waterbodies, 

whether the equipment is moving or parked for extended periods. Impacts to forested areas, including 

pine plantations, mixed hardwood-loblolly pine forests, and sloped hardwood forests, resulting from 

construction and operation of the proposed Project, would include a change in vegetative strata, a change 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 3-44 

in appearance, conversion of community type, and loss of habitat. Several of these impacts would be 

long-term as regrowth to pre-construction condition would take 30 years or more. 

Periodic maintenance of the 60-foot-wide, permanent pipeline right-of-way would prevent 

restoration of forested habitat as the area would be mowed or otherwise maintained every three years, and 

a 10-foot corridor over the pipeline centerline would be maintained annually in an herbaceous state. 

Clearing and construction activities along the pipeline right-of-way would also result in soil compaction 

and damage to the trunks, branches, or roots of adjacent trees left standing, thereby reducing their overall 

health and long-term survival. However, Gulf South has committed to implementing the measures 

identified in its plans, which include measures for testing and mitigating soil compaction. 

Permanent impacts would also occur at the proposed aboveground facility sites. Notably, 

permanent impacts to forested areas and/or pine plantations would occur at two of the three proposed 

compressor station sites and at three of the five proposed M/R stations. Permanent impacts to agricultural 

land and open land would also occur in association with construction of the Delhi and Harrisville 

Compressor Stations, and the CenterPoint and Transco M/R Stations. 

To minimize Project-related effects on vegetative communities, Gulf South would implement 

its plans, which identify baseline mitigation measures for minimizing erosion and enhancing revegetation 

in upland areas. Implementation of Gulf South's plans would aid vegetative restoration and prevent or 

minimize sedimentation and turbidity in streams and wetlands. Restoration and best management 

practices identified in Gulf South's plans include the following: 

• Use of at least one EI per construction spread, who would ensure compliance with the plans, 

Procedures, and other required conditions. 

• Segregation of topsoil. 

• Installation of temporary erosion control measures such as slope breakers, sediment barriers, and 

mulch. 

• Commencement of cleanup immediately after backfilling, and completion of restoration within 20 

days. 

• Installation of permanent erosion control devices, such as trench breakers and slope breakers. 

• Testing and mitigation for soil compaction. 

• Revegetation in accordance with the recommendations of the local soil conservation authority, 

other land management agencies, or the affected landowner. 

• Provision of barriers to control off-road vehicle activities. 

• Post-construction monitoring and maintenance of revegetated areas. 

Furthermore, Gulf South's Plan requires that all upland areas disturbed by construction be 

fertilized, limed, and seeded in accordance with the prescribed schedule and seed mixes specified by local 

soil conservation authorities or land management agencies. Gulf South indicates that it has begun 

discussions with state and federal agencies regarding seeding mixtures, but that these consultations are 

not yet complete. To ensure that appropriate vegetative restoration practices would be implemented, we 

recommend that: 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 3-45 

• Prior to construction, Gulf South should consult further with the MDWFP, the LDWF, the 

ADCNR, the NRCS, and other appropriate agencies regarding seeding and vegetation 

restoration practices for the proposed Project. Gulf South should file a report with the 

Secretary for review and written approval by the Director of OEP that describes the 

outcome of these consultations and identifies the agency-recommended seeding and 

vegetation restoration practices that Gulf South plans to implement. 

Project impacts to vegetative communities would vary depending upon disturbance duration, 

magnitude, and vegetation cover type. As described above, approximately 72 percent of the disturbed 

vegetation would be forested. Due to the nature of forest regrowth, the clearing of these areas may result 

in long-term to permanent effects in these areas. These long-term and permanent impacts to forested 

areas would be minimized by the measures described above. Additionally, Gulf South avoids forested 

areas to the extent possible through selective routing, and minimizes impacts to vegetation through 

extensive collocation with existing rights-of-way. Impacts to agricultural, open-land, or pasture lands 

would be minimal and limited primarily to the construction phase. Based on Gulf South's proposed 

measures to avoid and minimize impacts to forested areas, the relatively minor impacts to agricultural 

areas, pastures, and open lands, and the implementation of Gulf South's plans, we believe that impacts to 

general vegetative communities would be minimized.

3.5.3 Impacts and Mitigation to Vegetation Communities of Special Concern or Value 

Conservation Reserve Program Lands 

Most of the general construction impacts described above are applicable to specially 

designated vegetation types or conservation programs depending on the vegetation present. These 

specially designated areas include CRP lands, which may be grassland or forest. 

CRP lands occurring at MP 17.1 in Simpson County Mississippi, MP 37.5 and MPs 41.6 to 

42.4 in Smith County, Mississippi, and an undetermined amount in Clarke County, Mississippi would be 

released from the CRP. Impacts and mitigation for vegetation in CRP lands would be similar to those 

described above, depending on whether each site was forested or not. Impacts to CRP lands are discussed 

in more detail in Section 3.8. 

Extensive Forested Tracts 

The proposed Project may affect extensive forested tracts. The large forested tracts would be 

affected by clearing of the 100-foot-wide construction right-of-way and routine mowing, cutting, and 

trimming along the proposed 60-foot-wide permanent pipeline right-of-way. Cleared forested areas 

located outside of the permanent right-of-way would be allowed to revegetate, but effects to those areas 

would be long-term as vegetative strata would be altered for up to 30 years or more, until mature trees 

replace early herbaceous, shrub, and sapling strata. Forested areas within the 60-foot-wide permanent 

pipeline right-of-way would be permanently affected and replaced by herbaceous and shrubby areas. 

Gulf South attempted to minimize impacts to large, contiguous forested tracts by routing the proposed 

Project along existing rights-of-way to the extent possible (approximately 66 percent of the proposed 

route) and through other previously disturbed areas, such as agricultural and open lands, as well as other 

previously disturbed, fragmented, and/or managed forested areas. We have included a condition 

regarding minimization of impacts to individual trees within certain wetlands previously in Section 

3.4.3.1 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 3-46 

3.5.4 Exotic or Invasive Plant Communities 

Invasive species can out-compete and displace native plant species, thereby negatively altering 

the appearance, composition, and habitat value of affected areas. Chinese tallow tree (Sapium sebiferum) 

was observed at two locations along the route of the proposed pipeline, between MPs 50.74 to 50.84 and 

at MP 52.65. Chinese tallow tree is a deciduous tree reaching up to 60 feet in height that is fast growing, 

can thrive in both wet and dry sites, can displace native vegetation, and is able to successfully invade 

undisturbed forests (Invasive Species, 2006). 

The MNHP identified cogon grass (Imperata cylindrica) and itchgrass (Rottboellia 

cochinchinensis) as potentially occurring within the proposed Project area. Cogon grass is a perennial 

grass that spreads through wind-blown seeds and forms dense infestations by branching underground 

rhizomes, a thick system of mat-forming roots that sprout. Cogon grass competes with hardwood species 

for light, water, and nutrients and can grow so extensively that it decreases growth and increases mortality 

of young trees (Matlack, 2002). Itchgrass is an aggressive weed that is spread by water, animals, 

contaminated crop seed, and harvesting equipment. Needlelike hairs on its leaf sheath break off in the 

skin, which may cause painful infections to people coming into contact with itchgrass. 

In order to minimize the impacts of exotic and invasive species, Gulf South would implement 

its plans, which include measures to reduce erosion such as topsoil stripping and specific vegetation 

restoration measures. Furthermore, as described above, locally prescribed seed mixes and postconstruction monitoring measures would be implemented to further minimize the spread of exotics to and 

within the Project area. 

Gulf South indicates that it would continue to coordinate with federal and state resource 

agencies to identify appropriate control measures for invasive and exotic plant species. Because those 

consultations are not yet complete, we recommend that: 

• Prior to construction, Gulf South should file with the Secretary for review and written 

approval by the Director of OEP, an Exotic and Invasive Species Control Plan developed in 

consultation with the FWS, the LDWF, the MDWFP, the ADCNR, and the NRCS. This 

plan should identify the specific measures that Gulf South would implement during 

construction and operation to control exotic and invasive plant species. 

The temporary removal of vegetation may result in increased opportunities for invasive and 

exotic species to establish themselves in Project rights-of-way and ATWSs. Adherence to its plans in 

conjunction with consultations with local and state agencies would minimize the potential for the 

introduction or establishment of nuisance and exotic species within the proposed Project area. 

3.5.5 Conclusion Regarding Impacts to Vegetation 

The proposed Project would impact five upland vegetation communities (see Table 3.5.1-1) that 

would include CRP lands and extensive forested tracts. Long-term and permanent effects would occur 

within the permanent right-of-way within forested areas. However, vegetation impacts would be 

minimized by the collocation of the proposed pipeline with existing rights-of-way and the implementation 

of Gulf South's Procedures. Based on Gulf South's proposed measures to avoid and minimize impacts to 

forested areas, the relatively minor impacts to agricultural areas, pastures, and open lands, and the 

implementation of Gulf South's plans, we believe that impacts to general vegetative communities would 

be minimized.

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 3-47 

3.6 WILDLIFE AND AQUATIC RESOURCES 

3.6.1 Wildlife 

3.6.1.1 Existing Wildlife Resources 

A variety of wildlife species and habitat types would be crossed by the proposed Project. 

Representative wildlife species commonly found with the proposed Project area are listed in 

Table 3.6.1.1-1. Upland forest, pine plantation, open land, PFO, PSS, PEM, and POW habitats would all 

be affected by construction and operation of the proposed Project. Threatened and endangered species 

and state-listed species are discussed in Section 3.7, and colonial nesting birds and migratory birds are 

discussed below. 

Wildlife Species 

Migratory Birds

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act regulates the taking of, or impacts to, migratory birds, 

including their nests. Gulf South identified 170 migratory bird species that could potentially occur along 

the proposed Project. Migratory birds would be expected to occur at least as transients in the proposed 

Project throughout most of the year. Although construction and maintenance of the pipeline right-of-way 

would benefit some species through the creation and maintenance of edge habitats, other species would be 

adversely affected, especially if nesting activities were disturbed by vegetative clearing activities 

associated with construction and maintenance of the proposed Project. 

The Project would be constructed between September and December, as proposed, thereby 

avoiding the major migratory bird spring nesting season. Additionally, Gulf South would not conduct 

routine vegetative maintenance of the full pipeline right-of-way more frequently than once every three 

years, except along a corridor not exceeding 10 feet in width, centered on the pipeline, which would be 

maintained annually in an herbaceous state to facilitate periodic corrosion and leak detection surveys. 

Furthermore, Gulf South indicates that routine vegetative maintenance clearing would not occur between 

April 15 and August 1 of any year to minimize the potential for Project-related disturbance of migratory 

bird nesting periods. The potential exists for Project-related construction activities to occur during the 

migratory bird nesting season if construction were delayed, but population-level impacts would not be 

expected if impacts did occur. 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 3-48 

TABLE 3.6.1.1-1 

Representative Wildlife Species That Occur Along the Proposed Southeast Expansion Projec

Upland Forest Wetlands 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Mixed 

Loblolly/

Hardwood 

Forests 

Slope 

Hardwood 

Forest 

Pine 

Plantation 

Forested 

(PFO) and 

ScrubShrub 

Wetlands 

Emergent 

Wetlands 

(PEM) 

Pine warbler Dendroica pinus X X X Brown-headed nuthatch Sitta pusilla X X X Red-headed woodpecker Melanerpes erythrocephalus X X Wild turkey Meleagris gallopavo X X X Mourning dove Zenaida macroura X X Northern bobwhite Colinus virginianus X X Wood duck Aix sponsa X X Louisiana waterthrush Seiurus motacilla X Green heron Butorides virescens X X Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis X X X Mississippi kite Ictinia mississippiensis X X X X Red-winged blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus X X White-tailed deer Odocoileus virginianus X X X X X Cottontail rabbit Sylvilagus spp. X X White-footed mouse Peromyscus leucopus X X X Hispid cotton rat Sigmodon hispidus X X X Opossum Didelphidae X X X Raccoon Procyon spp. X X X X X Gray squirrel Sciurus carolinensis X X Nine-banded armadillo Dasypus novemcinctus X X X River otter Lutra canadensis X X Nutria Myocastor coypus X X Three-toed box turtle Terrapene carolina triunguis X X Western cottonmouth Agkistrodon piscivorus 

leucostoma 

 X X 

Bullfrog Rana catesbeiana X X Southern leopard frog Rana sphenocephala X X Green tree frog Hyla cinerea X X 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 3-49 

Colonial Nesting Waterbirds

"Colonial nesting waterbirds" is a collective term used to refer to a variety of bird species that 

obtain all or most of their food from aquatic and wetland environments and gather in large colonies, or 

rookeries, during their respective nesting seasons (FWS, 2002). Colonial nesting waterbirds concentrate 

in these rookeries on sandbars and islands within or along riparian zones or major waterways. According 

to consultations with FWS, no colonial nesting birds are anticipated to occur within the Project area. 

Additionally, no colonial nesting water birds were noted in the survey corridor. However, Gulf South 

would include training material for construction workers to familiarize them with the identification of 

waterbird colonies, and all EIs would be trained to notify Gulf South immediately upon the unanticipated 

discovery of a waterbird colony in the proximity of the right-of-way. In the unlikely event that a 

waterbird colony is encountered, Gulf South would implement appropriate measures to meet site-specific 

needs and would coordinate with the FWS and applicable state agencies as necessary. 

Habitat Types 

Upland Forest

Approximately one-half of the proposed Project would cross upland forest habitat which 

consists of loblolly pine-hardwood/pine forests and slope hardwood forest. Although pine/hardwood 

forests can have an understory of small shrub species and herbaceous growth, the understory would 

naturally trend toward hardwood dominance without periodic fire suppression. This habitat type provides 

necessary food, cover, and young-rearing habitat for a wide variety of wildlife species. 

Pine Plantation

Pine plantations provide various elements necessary to support wildlife populations. Early 

and intermediate successional stages are typically the stages that are most highly used by wildlife. 

However, even after the canopy has closed, openings, edge habitat, and areas periodically subjected to 

prescribed fire can provide relatively good habitat and forage capable of sustaining a diverse wildlife 

assemblage. Many of the species that inhabit the mixed and slope forests use adjacent pine plantations at 

different times. The numbers and types of wildlife are usually greater along the edges. 

Open Land

Open lands include maintained utility rights-of-way, upland scrub-shrub areas, and other nonagricultural herbaceous areas. Plant species in these areas include saplings of many of the tree species 

listed above, along with smilax (Smilax spp.), dewberries (Rubus spp.), peppervine (Ampelopsis arborea), 

holly species (Ilex spp.), and various grasses. Open lands generally provide poor to moderate quality 

wildlife foraging habitat and moderate to good cover habitat; however, the open land cover type is 

important to many of the same species found in the forested habitats because it provides "edge" habitat 

that is important for feeding and raising young. Edge habitats are transition zone areas where two 

different habitat types meet, such as forested and open land or agriculture fields. These transition zones 

provide distinct changes in available food types, unique nesting or breeding habitats, and travel corridors. 

Typical edge species that are somewhat dependent on this type of land cover are the white-tailed deer 

(Odocoileus virginianus), red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensus), eastern meadowlark (Sturnella magna), 

cotton mouse (Peromyscus gossypinus), raccoon (Procyon lotor), opossum (Didelphis virginianus), 

striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), and various migratory birds. 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 3-50 

Wetlands

Wetland types crossed by the proposed Project include PFO, PSS, PEM, and POW 

communities. For a more detailed description of each of these wetland types, refer to Section 3.4. 

Although a number of the wildlife species noted above may occupy these wetland areas from time to time 

and depend on them for a portion of their normal habitat, several species are typically found only in these 

land cover types. Among the animals that are normally found only in wetland ecosystems are the wood 

duck (Aix sponsa), American wigeon (Anas americana), cottonmouth (Agkistrodon piscivorus), diamondbacked water snake (Nerodia rhombifer), southern leopard frog (Rana sphenocephalus), bullfrog (Rana 

catesbiana), beaver (Castor canadensis), green heron (Butorides striatus), various other reptiles and 

amphibians, and numerous neotropical migratory songbirds. During periods of flooding, these areas also 

provide important wintering habitat for migratory waterfowl such as mallard ducks (Anas platyrhynchos). 

3.6.1.2 General Impacts and Mitigation 

The extent and duration of impacts to wildlife and their habitats resulting from construction 

and operation of the proposed Project would depend on the species present in each habitat type and their 

individual life history requirements. 

Pipeline Facilities 

Construction of the proposed pipeline would require the clearing of vegetation within the 

construction right-of-way, which would temporarily remove and reduce the quality of cover, nesting, and 

foraging habitat for wildlife. The loss and reduction in quality of wildlife habitat would result in the 

temporary displacement and avoidance of wildlife, which would increase stress, injury, and the potential 

for mortality. Less mobile species may be affected by construction activities due to direct mortality or 

permanent displacement, potentially affecting reproduction, recruitment, and survival. 

Similar effects, although much less extensive, would result from routine maintenance of 

vegetation along the permanent right-of-way. Approximately 60 percent of the total upland forested area 

(including pine plantation) affected during construction, and approximately 42 percent of the affected 

PFO wetlands, would be permanently affected by maintenance of the pipeline right-of-way during 

operations. Areas within the permanent right-of-way would be permanently converted and maintained as 

PEM or PSS wetlands. 

Non-forested habitats that would be affected by construction and operation of the proposed 

Project include agricultural areas, pastures, open lands, PSS, and PEM wetlands. Refer to Section 3.8 for 

a summary of the acreage impacts to each of these habitats. The impact on these habitats and associated 

wildlife species would be relatively minor and either temporary or short-term. Temporary impacts to 

wildlife along the pipeline corridor and associated workspaces would be limited to the time of 

construction activities. However, these impacts would be of relatively short duration and species and 

their habitats should recover quickly. Due to the rapid pace of pipeline installation and the vegetation 

restoration measures included in Gulf South's plans and Procedures, the areas would generally be restored 

within one growing season or within three years after construction for scrub-shrub habitats. Following 

construction, all extra work areas outside the permanent right-of-way, including ATWSs, would be 

allowed to revert to pre-construction conditions. In wetlands, all workspace outside the 30-foot-wide 

permanently maintained right-of-way would likewise be allowed to revert to natural conditions. Gulf 

South's Procedures allow for periodic selective thinning of trees within 15 feet of the pipeline that grow 

taller than 15 feet in wetlands, and this selective thinning is anticipated to have minimal impact on 

wildlife. 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 3-51 

Effects to wildlife using forest habitats would be more severe than that to wildlife inhabiting 

other habitat types, as vegetative strata in those areas would undergo a more marked change. These 

changes include the conversion of forested habitat to non-forested habitat within the permanent right-ofway and competition with other species for food and foraging areas. Potential impacts to wildlife would 

include not only the broader loss of habitat in general, but also potential losses of den or nesting sites. 

The area of upland forest, pine plantation, and PFO habitats that would be affected by construction of the 

proposed Project would be considerable locally. With the exception of the 15-foot selective tree thinning 

mentioned above, disturbed areas located outside the permanent right-of-way would be allowed to revert 

to their pre-construction cover type, but this process would take 30 years or more in some forested 

habitats, representing a long-term impact. Construction would affect a relatively small percentage of the 

forested habitats in the general vicinity of the proposed Project, and routine maintenance activities during 

operations would be relatively infrequent and performed in accordance with Gulf South's Plan and 

Procedures. 

Gulf South would minimize impacts to wildlife species and habitats resulting from 

construction and operation of the proposed Project through the implementation of its plans and 

Procedures. Gulf South would also mitigate impacts to wildlife species and habitats through avoidance 

and minimization. Specifically, the proposed route would be collocated with or parallel existing utility 

rights-of-way where possible, thereby minimizing impacts to previously undisturbed wildlife habitats. 

The collocation and overlapping of rights-of-way would substantially reduce the amount of wildlife 

habitat clearing required as compared to construction in greenfield or other areas where overlapping was 

not possible. 

Aboveground Facilities, Pipe Storage and Contractor Yards, and Access Roads 

Construction of the aboveground facilities would permanently affect several wildlife habitats; 

however, these areas represent a small percentage of the land area and wildlife habitats affected by the 

proposed Project. Generally, wildlife occurring in these areas would be permanently displaced, which 

would result in increased stress, injury, and/or mortality. 

Construction of the proposed Delhi, Harrisville, and Destin Compressor Stations, M/R 

stations, ancillary valves, pig launchers, and receivers would permanently impact approximately 

46.6 acres of upland forested habitat (including pine plantation). Additionally, approximately 69.5 acres 

of agriculture and 3.2 acres of open lands would be permanently affected by operation of aboveground 

facilities. Areas temporarily disturbed during construction of the aboveground facilities would be allowed 

to revert to their pre-construction conditions. All disturbed areas associated with the aboveground 

facilities that would not contain infrastructure, such as buildings and other enclosures, would be finishgraded and seeded or covered with gravel, as appropriate. All roads and parking areas would be graveled. 

Thus, construction of the aboveground facility sites would result in the loss and permanent conversion of 

some existing wildlife habitat into potentially non-vegetated industrial/commercial uses. No wetlands or 

waterbodies would be affected by maintenance of these aboveground facilities. 

Three pipe storage and contractor yards would be used for storage and construction of pipeline 

materials and facilities and would affect approximately 41.0 acres of previously classified commercial/

industrial use. This acreage would only be temporarily impacted by construction. 

Gulf South stated that it would access the proposed pipelines and facilities using public and 

private roads to the extent practical. In addition, improvement or addition of access roads would cause 

temporary impacts to approximately 0.4 acre of upland forested areas and 0.8 acre of open land. There 

are also no anticipated construction impacts to agricultural or pasture habitats. Section 3.8 provides 

additional information on access roads planned in association with the proposed Project. 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 3-52 

3.6.1.3 Conclusion Regarding Impacts to Wildlife Habitats and Species 

The proposed Project would affect wildlife and wildlife habitats along the proposed route. 

Impacts would be temporary, long-term and permanent. Specifically, wildlife would be displaced, 

injured, or killed by construction activities, but these impacts would be minor on a population level. 

Based on the characteristics of identified wildlife and wildlife habitats, anticipated impacts to them, and 

measures proposed by Gulf South to avoid or minimize these impacts, we believe that construction and 

operation of the proposed Project would not significantly impact wildlife and wildlife habitats. 

3.6.2 Aquatic Resources 

3.6.2.1 Existing Aquatic Resources 

As described in Section 3.3.2, the proposed Project would cross a total of 308 waterbodies: 

103 perennial streams, 196 intermittent streams, and 9 ponds. Fishery classifications, timing restrictions, 

and other general information regarding the surface waterbodies crossed by the pipeline route were 

obtained from FWS, LDWF, MDWFP, MNHP, ADCNR, and ADEM. These waterbodies are classified 

as warmwater and support numerous aquatic species, including fish and mussels. Table 3.6.2.1-1 lists 

warmwater fish and mussel species commonly found in waterbodies affected by the proposed Project. 

Refer to Section 3.7.1 for more detailed information regarding potential impacts to threatened and 

endangered species potentially existing in waterbodies traversed by the proposed Project. 

No essential fish habitat (EFH), as managed by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) 

is located within the proposed Project area. 

TABLE 3.6.2.1-1 

Fish and Mussel Species Occurring in the Proposed 

Southeast Expansion Project Area 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Fish 

Alligator gar Atractosteus spatula 

Bigmouth buffalo Ictiobus cyprinellus 

Black crappie Poxomis nigromaculatus 

Bluegill sunfish Lepomis macrochirus 

Channel catfish Ictalurus punctatus 

Largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides 

Long-eared sunfish Lepomis megalotis 

Longnose gar Lepisosteus osseus 

Red-eared sunfish Lepomis microlophus 

Spotted gar Lepisosteus oculatus 

White crappie Poxomis annularis 

Mussels

Round pearlshell Glebula rotundata 

Bankclimber Plectomerus dombeyanus 

Bleufer Potamilus pupuratus 

Mapleleaf Quadrula quadrula 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 3-53 

TABLE 3.6.2.1-1 

Fish and Mussel Species Occurring in the Proposed 

Southeast Expansion Project Area 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Southern mapleleaf Quadrula apiculata 

Tapered pondhorn Uniomerus declivus 

Three ridge Amlema plicata 

Wabash pigtoe Fusconaia flava 

Washboard Megalonaias nervosa 

Threehorn Obliquaria reflexa 

Pondmussel Ligumia subrostrata 

Pistolgrip Tritogonia verrucosa 

Paper pondshell Utterbackia imbecillis 

Fisheries of Special Concern 

Fisheries of special concern include areas containing exceptional recreational or commercial 

fisheries, specially designated streams or rivers, and waterbodies supporting rare or endangered aquatic 

species. 

As described previously, the proposed Project would cross seven waterbodies that may contain 

threatened or endangered species or critical habitat; Little Creek (MP 7.1), Strong River (MP 18.0), 

Dabbs Creek (MP 12.4), Leaf River (MP 44.2), West Tallahala River (MP 45.3), Chickasawhay River 

(MP 89.3), and Bucatunna Creek (MP 100.5). Dabbs Creek, Leaf River, West Tallahala River, 

Chickasawhay River, Bucatunna Creek, and the Strong River are designated as critical habitat for the 

Gulf sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi), and the Strong River is critical habitat for the Ringed Map 

Turtle (Graptemys oculifera). The Chickasawhay, Leaf, and Strong Rivers could provide suitable habitat 

for the threatened yellow-blotched map turtle (Graptemys flavimaculata). Little Creek is designated as 

critical habitat for the Natchez stonefly (Alloperla natchez). Each of these species is discussed in more 

detail in Section 3.7. 

3.6.2.2 General Impacts and Mitigation 

Gulf South's proposed waterbody crossing methods are listed in Appendix D of this EIS. 

Depending on the construction method used, direct impacts to aquatic habitats and species would either 

be avoided (e.g., through HDD) or would occur in localized areas. Waterbody crossings would be 

accomplished using open-cut or HDD methods, as described in detail in Section 2.3. The use of the opencut crossing method would result in several temporary effects to aquatic resources, including plankton, 

aquatic vegetation, amphibians, fish, and aquatic invertebrates including mussels. Impacts to water 

quality and associated aquatic habitats would include sedimentation, turbidity, altered water temperatures 

and dissolved oxygen levels, and introduction of contaminants, all of which can affect the ability of 

aquatic life to survive and reproduce. Impacts would also include the physical disturbance or destruction 

of in-stream habitat due to trenching and removal of riparian vegetation. Construction activities would 

also result in blockage of fish migrations, interruptions of spawning activities, as well as entrainment of 

fish or reduced stream flows during withdrawals for hydrostatic testing. These potential impacts are 

discussed below in more detail. 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 3-54 

Pipeline construction using open-cut methods would result in sedimentation and turbidity in 

surface waters and aquatic habitats. Sedimentation and turbidity-related impacts were previously 

described in Section 3.3.2.2. Resulting disruptions of aquatic life-support processes could include 

physical disturbance, interruptions to fish passage, altered water temperatures and dissolved oxygen 

levels, and the introduction of contaminants. Benthic macroinvertebrates, which typically provide a key 

food source for fish, may be buried under accumulated sediments along with fish nesting sites containing 

eggs or larvae. However, stream gradients tend to be relatively low in the area of the proposed Project; 

thus, stream velocities would also tend to be low, indicating that suspended sediments within these 

streams would only be transported over short distances. As described in Section 3.3.2.2, some of these 

impacts would be lessened or avoided by Gulf South's use of sediment and erosion controls during 

construction, hydrostatic test water discharge measures, the relative lack of riparian vegetation to be 

cleared along waterbody banks, and measures to revegetate riparian and wetland areas. Overall, the 

impact to aquatic species resulting from construction of the proposed Project would be minor, localized, 

and short-term, as most waterbody habitats would remain undisturbed. Additionally, many of the 

warmwater species that occur in the waterbodies crossed by the proposed Project route are accustomed to 

occasionally turbid conditions and are therefore resilient to such periodic impacts. 

Gulf South indicated that it would construct the proposed Project during the period of 

September 1 through December 31, 2007, pending the Commission's approval of the Project. The 

proposed schedule for construction is partially outside the standard period for construction in waterbodies 

containing warmwater fisheries (i.e., June 1 through November 30). In order to ensure that the proposed 

Project does not significantly affect fisheries resources we recommend in Section 3.3 that Gulf South 

consult with the FWS, MDWFP, and ADCNR regarding the timing of construction in waterbodies and 

file approvals with the Commission. As described above and in accordance with Gulf South's 

Procedures, erosion and sediment control best management practices would be implemented at all 

waterbody crossings during construction to reduce impacts to affected waterbodies. 

As described in Section 2.3, HDD is considered a preferred method for crossing sensitive 

habitats because stream bottom disruption and subsequent impacts to aquatic habitats along that portion 

of the pipeline route would be eliminated or minimized. HDD construction methods are discussed in 

Section 3.3.2.2. Gulf South has developed a HDD Plan that describes the procedures that would be 

implemented to monitor for, contain, and clean up any potential releases of drilling fluid during HDD 

operations. Given these protective measures, we believe the risk to aquatic habitats and species from a 

frac-out would be low. 

Overhanging vegetation in riparian and adjacent wetland areas, undercut banks, logs, and 

other streamside features provide cover for fish. These types of cover and instream habitats would be 

disturbed by clearing and open-cut trenching during construction, resulting in decreased shading, 

increased water temperatures, and displacement of fish from disturbed areas. However, streamside 

clearing would be localized and would occur immediately adjacent to the construction right-of-way. 

Overall, these impacts would be relatively minor, as they would affect a relatively small length of a much 

longer, linear, stream feature. 

Introduction of pollutants into waterbodies and aquatic habitats would occur through 

disturbance of contaminated soils or sediments, accidental spills, and inadvertent releases of drilling 

fluids during HDD operations. Pollutants would affect fish and other aquatic life through acute or chronic 

toxicity, and sub-lethal effects would affect reproduction, growth, and recruitment. Additionally, 

pollutants can be introduced during discharge of hydrostatic test waters. However, Gulf South has stated 

that biocides and other potentially toxic hydrostatic test water additives would not be used during 

hydrostatic testing for the proposed Project. The disturbance and resuspension of contaminated soils and 

sediments would result in adverse impacts to water quality and in-stream habitat. However, there are no 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 3-55 

known contaminated sediments along the proposed Project route, and adverse effects resulting from resuspension of contaminants is therefore unlikely. Given these conditions and protective measures, the 

risk to water quality and aquatic species from contaminated soils and sediments is low. 

Construction of the proposed Project would also affect fish by blocking migration pathways 

and interrupting spawning activities. Although construction disturbances would temporarily displace fish 

or hinder migrations in streams, we anticipate that these effects would be localized, temporary, and 

generally minor. We also anticipate that Gulf South's proposal to complete construction activities in fall 

and early winter would further limit or prevent impacts to most species of spawning fish. 

Entrainment of fish and other aquatic organisms could occur during withdrawals of 

hydrostatic test water from the source waterbodies listed in Table 3.3.2.3-1. Gulf South would prevent or 

adequately limit impacts from hydrostatic testing by implementing measures in its Procedures. These 

measures include screening to limit entrainment of fish and maintenance of adequate flow rates to protect 

aquatic life during withdrawals for hydrostatic testing. Although it is possible that fish eggs and larvae 

would be entrained through the screens, such impacts would most likely be minor during the proposed 

winter construction period. 

3.6.2.3 Conclusion Regarding Impacts to Aquatic Habitats and Species 

The proposed Project would result in minor, largely temporary impacts to aquatic habitats and 

species; however, the measures proposed by Gulf South, including the use of HDDs to cross many 

streams, would significantly limit impacts to aquatic species and habitat. Given these measures and the 

temporary and localized nature of impacts, we believe that the proposed Project would result in only 

minor impacts to aquatic habitat and species. 

3.7 THREATENED, ENDANGERED, AND SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES 

3.7.1 Federally Listed Threatened and Endangered Species 

Section 7 of the ESA requires federal agencies to ensure that any action authorized, funded, or 

carried out by the agency does not jeopardize the continued existence of federally listed endangered or 

threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat for any 

federally listed species. The FERC, as lead agency in the review of the proposed Project, is required to 

consult with the FWS to determine whether federally listed or proposed species or their designated critical 

habitat may occur in the proposed Project area, and to determine the proposed action's potential effects on 

these species and critical habitats. For actions involving major construction activities with the potential to 

affect listed species or designated critical habitats, the FERC must report its findings to FWS in a 

Biological Assessment (BA). 

Based on consultation with the FWS and a review of existing records, we have identified 10 

federally listed threatened or endangered species potentially occurring in the vicinity of the proposed 

Project (Table 3.7.1-1). A description of these species, their preferred habitats, and potential for 

occurrence, as well as our assessment of potential effects to them resulting from construction and 

operation of the proposed Project, is provided below. 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 3-56 

TABLE 3.7.1-1 

Federally Listed Species Potentially Occurring Along the 

Proposed Southeast Expansion Project 

Common Name/Scientific 

Name 

Federal 

Statusa Alabama Statusb Mississippi Statusc Louisiana Statusd

County/Parish (Portion 

of Potential Range 

Crossed by the 

Proposed Project)e

Gopher tortoiseg (Gopherus 

polyphemus)

T T E T Clarke, MS; Choctaw, AL 

Eastern indigo snakeh

(Drymarchon corais)

T T E -- Clarke, MS; Choctaw, AL 

Yellow-blotched map turtleh

(Graptemys flavimaculata)

T -- E -- Clarke, MS 

Ringed map turtleh

(Graptemys oculifera)

T -- E T Simpson, MS 

Louisiana black bearh

(Ursus americanus 

luteolus)

T -- E T Simpson, Smith, Jasper 

and Clarke, MS; Richland, 

LA 

Gulf sturgeonh

(Acipenser oxyrinchus 

desotoi)

T T E T Clarke and Simpson, MS; 

Choctaw, AL 

Bald eaglef, h

(Haliaeetus leucocephalus)

T T E E Statewide in Mississippi; 

Richland, LA; 

Choctaw, AL 

Wood storkh

(Mycteria americana)

E E E -- Choctaw, AL 

Red-cockaded woodpeckeri

(Picoides borealis)

E -- E E Jasper and Smith, MS 

Inflated heelsplitter musseli

(Potamilus inflatus)

T T E T Choctaw, AL 

_______________ 

Notes: 

a http://www.fws.gov/endangered/ 

b Letter dated August 17, 2006, from Penny Ragland (ADCNR) 

c http://www.mdwfp.com/museum/downloads/animal_tracking.pdf 

d http://www.wlf.louisiana.gov/experience/threatened/threatenedandendangeredtable/

 E = Endangered 

 T = Threatened 

e AL = Alabama 

 LA = Louisiana 

 MS = Mississippi 

f Delisted effective August 8, 2007 

g Determination of Effect – may affect 

h Determination of Effect – not likely to adversely affect 

i Determination of Effect – no effect 

Based on our review of these species, we have determined that construction and operation of 

the proposed project would result in no effect to the red-cockaded woodpecker and the inflated 

heelsplitter; is not likely to adversely affect the Louisiana black bear, eastern indigo snake, yellowblotched map turtle, ringed map turtle, Gulf sturgeon (including its critical habitat), bald eagle, and the 

wood stork; and may affect the gopher tortoise. 

With the issuance of the DEIS on April 13, 2007, we requested that the FWS accept the DEIS 

as our BA and requested the initiation of formal consultation as required by Section 7 of the ESA. In a 

letter dated April 23, 2007 to the Commission, the FWS Jackson Field Office acknowledged the receipt of 

the DEIS and accepted our request for initiation of formal consultation. Based on its review of the 

proposed Project and the BA provided by Staff, the FWS issued a Biological Opinion (BO) on July 6, 

2007. In its BO the FWS concurred with our determinations of "not likely to adversely affect" and 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 3-57 

determined that the proposed Project is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the gopher 

tortoise, is not likely to adversely modify designated critical habitat and issued an incidental take 

statement. The FWS also identified several non-discretionary terms and conditions applicable to the 

gopher tortoise which must be adhered to in order to be exempt from prohibitions of section 9 of the ESA. 

Additionally, three discretionary conservation recommendations were made by the FWS to further protect 

the gopher tortoise and its habitat. These non-discretionary terms and conditions and conservation 

recommendations have been incorporated into the gopher tortoise species description below. 

Since the issuance of the BO, Gulf South has modified its proposed route and identified new 

access roads and additional temporary workspaces. Gulf South has compiled additional information on 

species occurrence and habitat that has not been reviewed by the FWS; therefore, to ensure that these 

areas are properly reviewed for the presence or absence of federally listed species and their habitats, and 

that any mitigation or construction related to these areas is in accordance with applicable FWS 

requirements, we recommend that: 

• Gulf South should not begin construction activities on modified work areas until: 

a. the staff completes Section 7 consultations with the FWS; and 

b. Gulf South has received written notification from the Director of OEP that 

construction or use of mitigation may begin. 

3.7.1.1 Gopher Tortoise 

The gopher tortoise is a medium-sized turtle with a dark brown to grayish-black colored 

carapace ranging in size from 9 to 11 inches in length, 6 to 10 inches in width, and 8 to 10 pounds in 

weight. Typical gopher tortoise habitat consists of well-drained sandy soils that provide abundant 

herbaceous vegetation for food, and plentiful sunlit areas for nesting and foraging. Gopher tortoises 

excavate burrows in open landscapes such as roadsides, fence-rows, old fields, and the edges of 

overgrown uplands. The size of a gopher tortoise burrow varies depending on the size of the turtle; 

however, burrows are generally about 15 feet long and 6 feet deep with the entrance shaped in the form of 

a half moon. Gopher tortoises are territorial with well-defined home ranges that increase in size with age. 

Gopher tortoises also occur in colonies of two or more active burrows that are typically located within 

600 feet of each other. Gopher tortoises mate between May and July, with nesting taking place from midApril through mid-July (Nature Serve, 2006). 

Using approved FWS survey guidelines and methodologies as described in Appendix K, 21 

gopher tortoise burrows were identified within or adjacent to the proposed Project corridor. 

Construction of the proposed Project, including clearing and trenching, would adversely affect 

gopher tortoises and gopher tortoise habitat found within the temporary construction right-of-way. 

Specifically, as described in Appendix K, Gulf South would relocate gopher tortoises found within the 

proposed temporary construction right-of-way. Gulf South's relocation efforts would result in stress to 

gopher tortoises and could lead to injury and/or mortality. Following the relocation of found gopher 

tortoises, Gulf South would construct the proposed pipeline which would result in the permanent removal 

of existing gopher tortoise burrows and would temporarily affect gopher tortoise habitat by removing 

vegetation and disturbing soils. 

Operation of the proposed Project, including inspection and maintenance (i.e., mowing) 

activities that would require the use of light and heavy equipment, could adversely affect gopher tortoises. 

The general use of equipment could result in stress to gopher tortoises or modification of their habitat. 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 3-58 

Conversely, construction and operation of the proposed Project could also beneficially affect 

gopher tortoises by creating and maintaining habitat that gopher tortoises find favorable. 

In order to minimize potential adverse impacts to gopher tortoises during construction and 

operation of the proposed Project, Gulf South has developed a conservation strategy based on information 

provided by the FWS. Gulf South's conservation strategy is described in detail in Appendix K and 

includes measures to: educate construction personnel; survey for gopher tortoises prior to, during, and 

following construction; collect and relocate gopher tortoises; protect gopher tortoises adjacent to proposed 

construction areas; and monitor and report on these efforts. 

Based on known gopher tortoise characteristics, habitat requirements, proposed construction 

and operation measures and procedures, and Gulf South's conservation strategy, we determined that the 

proposed Project may affect this species, and as required by Section 7 of the ESA we initiated formal 

consultation with the FWS regarding this species. As described above, the FWS determined in its BO 

that the proposed Project is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the gopher tortoise, is not 

likely to adversely modify designated critical habitat, and issued an incidental take statement. 

Additionally, the FWS also provided the following non-discretionary terms and conditions regarding 

tortoise relocation efforts: 

a. All tortoise burrows found within the construction ROW, regardless of activity status 

(active, inactive, or abandoned), will be scoped first, then excavated using the backhoe 

method described in the BA to definitively determine that the burrow is unoccupied. 

b. Tortoises that cannot be relocated into an unoccupied burrow will be penned for a 

minimum of two weeks, at which time pens will be removed. 

c. Once released into an unoccupied burrow, or after the two-week penning period, tortoises 

will be monitored using radio-telemetry. The location of each tortoise will be determined 

once each day during the first two weeks, once each week until September 1, and then 

once each month (including dormant season) for one year (September 1 of the following 

year). 

d. If a tortoise moves outside of its original colony range within the first two weeks after its 

release into an unoccupied burrow (or after the two-week penning period), that tortoise 

will be recaptured and temporary-penned for two weeks. 

e. Tortoises collected between October 1 and October 15 will require these additional 

procedures: 

i. Tortoises will be relocated into suitable inactive or abandoned burrows unoccupied 

by another tortoise and enclosed by a suitable pen for the duration of the dormant 

season, until April 1. 

ii. Tortoises will be monitored late in the afternoon when the predicted nighttime low 

temperature will be below 60 degrees. Monitoring will be conducted for each of 

the first five nights when such low temperatures are predicted. Monitoring will 

identify any tortoise located aboveground outside the burrow. The air temperature 

at ground level will be recorded at the time any aboveground tortoise is observed. 

Also, the behavior of any aboveground tortoises will be recorded, noting whether 

animals are moving within the enclosure, digging at the enclosure walls, or whether 

they are stationary at the mouth of the burrow. 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 3-59 

iii. Monitoring will continue after sundown to determine if any aboveground tortoises 

observed during late afternoon have taken shelter in their burrow, or if they remain 

aboveground, or if they periodically emerge aboveground after sundown. If any 

tortoise is found aboveground, its behavior will be observed and recorded with the 

measured air temperature at ground level. If any tortoise is observed aboveground 

at or after sundown, the animal will be pushed into the burrow and the burrow will 

be staked to prevent the tortoise from emerging. Stakes will be removed the 

following morning by 10:00 AM. Monitors will observe special precautions to 

approach the burrows and enclosures quietly so as not to disturb tortoises or alter 

their behavior due to the monitors' presence. 

iv. Whenever a tortoise has been observed aboveground after sundown during such 

monitoring, the MS Field Office will be contacted the next day to report and 

evaluate the observed incident. One of three options will be implemented with 

concurrence of the MS Field Office. 

1. The first option will be a continuation of monitoring, as previously described. 

2. The second option will be to stake the entrance of the burrow closed with 

survey stakes during the late afternoon to prevent the tortoise from leaving the 

burrow at night, regardless of whether the animal is within the burrow when 

the opening is staked. Stakes will be removed during the day, from 10 AM to 

4 PM, to allow for normal basking behavior. On any day following a night 

when the burrow was staked closed, the behavior of the tortoise will be 

monitored and the air ground temperature recorded. If the tortoise remains 

aboveground the following night when temperatures are below 60 degrees, the 

tortoise will be placed in the burrow and the opening staked closed again. The 

MS Field Office must be contacted the next day to determine which of these 

options to continue. 

3. The third option will be a continuation of monitoring, but if the tortoise is 

observed aboveground again, it will be hand-captured from within the 

enclosure and removed to temporary captivity in a climate controlled indoor 

facility. Tortoises must be transported in a suitable container (not a wire cage) 

within the vehicle to the facility. The Service must approve the facility and the 

procedures for captive care for the duration of the dormant season. After 

March 31, any captive tortoises will be transported and released at the site as 

described by the BA. 

f. Following the relocation of tortoises, a report documenting the capture and displacement 

of gopher tortoises will include the following information: (1) names and qualifications 

of the investigators; (2) survey dates; (3) area surveyed; (4) specific burrow locations, 

including UTMs or lat/longs; (5) burrow size, condition, and activity level; (6) the 

individual marking used to identify each relocated tortoise and their associated original 

and relocated burrow sites; (7) date of relocation; and (8) monitoring results. The survey 

report will be sent to the MS Field Office. 

g. The Service will be notified if construction is completed without the capture (trapping or 

excavation) and relocation of gopher tortoises from construction workspaces. 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 3-60 

The FWS has also provided the following discretionary conservation recommendations to 

minimize or avoid adverse effects of the proposed action on listed species and critical habitats, and to help 

carry out recovery plans or to develop additional species information. 

1. Avoid identifying gopher tortoise burrow locations to the public. Undue public attention 

to gopher tortoise colonies may increase the risk of human harassment, injury, and/or 

capture. 

2. Develop a management plan for controlling cogongrass along the new ROW. The plan 

should include the following: 

(a) Gulf South maintenance personnel will be trained to identify cogongrass 

(b) Mowing equipment will be cleaned after mowing cogongrass infected areas 

(c) Cogongrass areas will be treated using appropriate herbicide treatments 

3. Conduct a gopher tortoise burrow inventory of all Gulf South ROWs within the range of 

the federally protected gopher tortoise. This inventory should be completed on a 3-5 year 

rotation, and the results should be sent to the FWS and the Mississippi Museum of 

Natural Science for inclusion into the state's tracking database. 

In order to ensure that the gopher tortoise is protected and to ensure compliance with FWS 

terms and conditions, we recommend that: 

• Gulf South should file a revised Conservation Strategy for the Gopher Tortoise and Eastern 

Indigo Snake that incorporates all non-discretionary terms and conditions of the FWS's BO 

for this Project, as well as conservation recommendations 1 and 2. 

Gulf South proposes to monitor the pipeline ROW for three years following the initial 

relocations of gopher tortoises. Since Gulf South proposes post construction monitoring that we believe 

is sufficient to assess project-related impacts of gopher tortoise relocations, we are not recommending the 

discretionary conservation recommendation 3. 

3.7.1.2 Eastern Indigo Snake 

In the vicinity of the proposed Project, the eastern indigo snake is typically associated with 

inactive gopher tortoise burrows. The eastern indigo snake is generally believed to be extirpated from the 

proposed Project area. However, since gopher tortoise burrows have been identified within and near the 

proposed Project, Gulf South would, based on its consultations with the FWS and to minimize potential 

affects to this species, adhere to Eastern Indigo Snake Protection Measures. These measures are: 

• If an eastern indigo snake is sighted during construction, the contractor would be required to 

cease all operation(s) that might cause harm to the snake. 

• If the snake does not move away from the construction area, a state or federal biologist would be 

contacted to capture and relocate the snake to suitable habitat either adjacent to the Project area or 

off-site to an acceptable donor site. 

• If an eastern indigo snake is killed or found dead within the construction area, the snake should be 

frozen and the FWS Jackson Field Office notified immediately. 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 3-61 

Based on the believed scarcity of the eastern indigo snake and Gulf South's adherence to its 

identified protection measures, we have determined that construction and operation of the proposed 

Project is not likely to adversely affect this species. 

3.7.1.3 Yellow-Blotched Map Turtle 

The yellow-blotched map turtle is a medium sized turtle reaching a maximum of 7 inches 

long. It is only known to exist in the Pascagoula River and its tributaries in Mississippi. The areas along 

the pipeline route that would be expected to contain this species include the Leaf and Chickasawhay 

Rivers (MNHP, 2006). 

The yellow-blotched map turtle's habitat requirements include strong currents and large 

sandbars. This turtle spends several hours each day basking on tree limbs, requiring abundant snags or 

downed trees in rivers wide enough for sunlight penetration. The species is threatened by the recreational 

use of nesting areas such as sand bars and beaches by humans, the colonization of nesting areas by nonnative vegetation, water pollution, and a relatively low reproductive frequency (Nature Serve, 2006). 

Gulf South proposes to cross the Leaf and Chickasawhay Rivers via HDD. In the event of a 

frac-out, Gulf South's HDD Plan would be implemented to minimize any impact to the species. 

Additionally, the drilling fluid that would be used by Gulf South would be non-toxic. Given the proposed 

crossing methods of these rivers and the HDD Plan, we determine that the proposed Project is not likely 

to adversely affect the yellow blotched map turtle. 

3.7.1.4 Ringed Map Turtle 

The ringed map turtle is a medium-sized turtle reaching a maximum of 8 inches in females, 

with a dark, olive green carapace and distinctive black spine-like projections along the middle ridge of the 

carapace. Within the Project area, the ringed map turtle is known to inhabit the Strong River in Simpson 

County, Mississippi (MNHP, 2006). 

Typical ringed map turtle habitat consists of medium- to large-sized rivers with strong currents 

and large, open sandbars suitable for nesting. Like the yellow-blotched map turtle, the ringed map turtle 

spends much of its time basking and requires abundant snags or downed trees in rivers that are wide 

enough to allow for ample sunlight penetration (Nature Serve, 2006). Nesting typically occurs in June 

with the female laying a clutch of three to four eggs. In some cases, nesting may take place twice a year 

(Nature Serve, 2006). The species is threatened by the recreational use of nesting areas such as sand bars 

and beaches by humans, the colonization of nesting areas by non-native vegetation, and water pollution 

(Nature Serve, 2006). 

Gulf South proposes to cross the Strong River via HDD. In the event of a frac-out, Gulf 

South's HDD Plan would be implemented to minimize any impact to the species. Additionally, the 

drilling fluid that would be used by Gulf South would be non-toxic. Given the proposed crossing method 

for the Strong River and the HDD Plan, we have determined that the proposed Project is not likely to 

adversely affect the ringed map turtle. 

3.7.1.5 Louisiana Black Bear 

The Louisiana black bear is closely related to other subspecies of black bear but has a longer, 

narrower skull and larger molars. The Louisiana black bear is primarily associated with forested 

wetlands; however, it may use a variety of habitat types, including marsh, spoil banks, and upland forests. 

Within forested wetlands, black bear habitat requirements include soft and hard mast for food, thick 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 3-62 

vegetation for escape cover, vegetated corridors for dispersal, large trees for den sites, and isolated areas 

for refuge from human disturbance (FWS, 2006b). 

The primary threats to this species are continued loss of bottomland hardwoods and 

fragmentation of remaining forested tracts. In addition to habitat loss, human-bear conflicts are a major 

threat to the conservation and protection of the Louisiana black bear. Losses of bears result from 

collisions with automobiles, intentional/illegal killing, and removal from the wild, which is often 

necessary when bears become habituated to humans (FWS, 2006b). 

Louisiana black bears, particularly pregnant females, normally den from December through 

April. Preferred den sites include bald cypress and water-tupelo trees with visible cavities that have a dbh 

of 36 inches or greater in or along rivers, lakes, streams, bayous, sloughs, and other waterbodies. In areas 

where suitable den trees are uncommon, Louisiana black bears often den in shallow burrows or 

depressions within areas of dense cover. To further protect denning bears, the FWS has extended legal 

protection to actual or candidate den trees. As the terms imply, "actual den tree" refers to any tree used 

by a denning bear during the winter and early spring seasons, and "candidate" den trees are defined in the 

final rule as bald cypress and tupelo gum with visible cavities having a dbh of 36 inches or greater in or 

along rivers, lakes, streams, bayous, sloughs, or other waterbodies. Results of recent research involving 

Louisiana black bears indicate that they use virtually any species of tree for a den site, if it is large enough 

and has a cavity as described above (FWS, 2006b). 

No Louisiana black bear were observed during the field surveys, and no candidate or actual 

denning trees were identified along the proposed Project route. Furthermore, Gulf South would 

implement any agency-recommended measures to mitigate potential impacts to Louisiana black bears 

should they be encountered during construction. Therefore, we have determined that the proposed Project 

is not likely to adversely affect the Louisiana black bear. 

3.7.1.6 Gulf Sturgeon 

The Gulf sturgeon is a large fish known to reach lengths in excess of 8 feet and weights over 

200 pounds. Historically, this species occurred from the Mississippi River to the Suwannee River in 

Florida. In Mississippi, it was found in the Pearl, Bogue Chitto, and Pascagoula River drainages and 

could occur in any of the larger tributaries (MNHP, 2006). 

The Gulf sturgeon is anadromous, spending much of its time in saltwater, but returning to 

freshwater to spawn. Mature adults enter freshwater in the spring to spawn and remain until autumn. 

They have not been recorded feeding while in freshwater and thus only grow in the marine environment. 

Spawning of Gulf sturgeon is not well documented, but the presence of larvae in April and May indicate a 

spring spawning cycle. Ultrasonically tagged females apparently choose stream areas with a rocky 

substrate in the immediate vicinity of springs for spawning. 

Based on consultations with and recommendations from the FWS, the Chickasawhay, Leaf, 

and Strong Rivers are believed to potentially support the Gulf sturgeon. Furthermore, the proposed 

Project traverses the Chickasawhay River within the officially-designated Gulf sturgeon critical habitat. 

Gulf South has indicated that the Chickasawhay, Leaf, and Strong Rivers would be traversed using HDD 

technologies. In the event of a frac-out, Gulf South's HDD Plan would be implemented to minimize any 

impact to the species. Additionally, the drilling fluid that would be used by Gulf South would be nontoxic. Given the proposed crossing methods of the Chickasawhay, Leaf, and Strong Rivers, and the HDD 

Plan, we have determined that construction and operation of the proposed Project is not likely to 

adversely affect the Gulf sturgeon. 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 3-63 

3.7.1.7 Bald Eagle 

The bald eagle is listed as a federally threatened species. However, effective 8 August 2007, 

the bald eagle will no longer be federally listed as threatened in the lower 48 states. However, protection 

provided to the bald eagle under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA) and the Migratory 

Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) will continue to remain in place after the species is delisted. The BGEPA and 

MBTA, known collectively as the Eagle Act prohibit disturbance of eagles, their nests, or their eggs. 

The bald eagle is a large carnivorous bird whose range covers virtually all of North America. 

Bald eagles are large and distinctive birds, with wingspans of close to 7 feet and a body length of 

approximately 35 inches. Adult bald eagles have white heads and tails, yellow bills, feet, and legs, and 

dark brown bodies. Immature birds are brown and lack the white head and tail of the adults. Bald eagles 

are opportunistic foragers, and their diet varies based on prey species available. They prefer fish but 

would eat a great variety of mammals, amphibians, crustaceans, and birds, including many species of 

waterfowl. They frequently scavenge and are often seen with vultures feeding on carcasses. 

Bald eagles are relatively uncommon nesters in the area traversed by the proposed Project. 

They generally construct extremely large nests of sticks in the tops of tall trees, often selecting the tallest 

tree in a given area as a preferred site. Typically, the nest trees selected are in a riparian area, along a 

major river or near a lake. The nests are very conspicuous and are often reused for years and in some 

cases for generations. The southern bald eagle is a winter nester, with most nesting and rearing in the 

Project vicinity occurring from October to May. 

No individual bald eagles or bald eagle nests have been identified within the proposed Project 

area. Based on bald eagle habitat requirements, surveys conducted by Gulf South, the location of the 

proposed facilities, the absence of bald eagle sightings, the lack of suitable habitat, and our consultations 

with the FWS, we have determined that construction and operation of the proposed Project is not likely to 

adversely affect the bald eagle. 

3.7.1.8 Wood Stork 

The wood stork is a large, tall bird with a wingspan of up to 61 inches and a long, downcurved beak that averages 40 inches long. The wood stork has a very large range spanning from the 

southeastern U.S. to South America. 

The wood stork is a non-migratory species that is chiefly found in areas containing freshwater 

marshes, swamps, lagoons, ponds, and flooded fields capable of supporting various fish species and other 

small animals commonly associated with aquatic habitats. The wood stork typically nests in the tops of 

large cypress, mangrove, or dead hardwood trees. Nesting is directly tied to abundant food sources, 

regardless of season (Nature Serve, 2006). 

In Choctaw County, Alabama, it is believed that the wood stork occurs primarily in the eastern 

portion of the county and is unlikely to be found in the proposed Project area (Felder, 2006). 

Based on wood stork habitat requirements, surveys conducted by Gulf South, the location of 

the proposed facilities, the absence of wood stork sightings, the lack of suitable habitat, and our 

consultations with the FWS, we have determined that construction and operation of the proposed Project 

is not likely to adversely affect the wood stork. 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 3-64 

3.7.1.9 Red-Cockaded Woodpecker 

The red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) requires open pine woodlands and savannahs with 

large, old pines for "cluster" nesting and roosting habitat. RCWs are generally found in colonies that 

consist of a breeding pair and one or more helpers. The helpers are generally young from previous broods 

that assist the breeding adults in feeding the young and in defending the territory against encroachment by 

other woodpeckers. 

Large, old pines are preferred by the RCW as cavity trees and must be in open stands with 

little or no hardwood midstory and few or no overstory hardwoods. As a general rule, the preferred trees 

are quite old, often in excess of 100 years old. They have significant crown volume and a dbh of 

15 inches or greater, although smaller and younger trees are occasionally used. Due to their longevity and 

tendency to develop red heart rot as they age, RCWs prefer longleaf pines (Pinus palustris) as cavity 

trees. They also use short-leaf and slash pines (Pinus elliotii) with some frequency. Loblolly pines are 

used less often due to their relatively short lifespan. 

RCWs also require abundant foraging habitat consisting of mature pines with an open canopy, 

low densities of small pines, little or no hardwood or pine midstory, few or no overstory hardwoods, and 

abundant native bunchgrass and groundcover. Fire suppression (resulting in hardwood encroachment) 

and lack of cavity trees are the foremost factors limiting suitable nesting habitat. Forest fragmentation is 

another primary factor directly limiting potential breeding groups because of the resultant isolation of 

those groups, disrupted dispersal of their helpers, and failure to replace breeders; consequently, areas of 

contiguous habitat represent preferred foraging habitat. 

Consultations with the FWS have indicated that RCW habitat within Jasper and Smith 

Counties, Mississippi, is limited to lands contained within national forests, and that no known suitable 

habitat exists within the proposed Project area (Felder, 2006). Observations made during Gulf South field 

surveys confirmed that forested habitats traversed by the proposed Project contain large percentages of 

hardwood species, or contain a dense understory layer, thus being unsuitable for RCW habitat. 

No RCWs were observed during field surveys along the proposed Project route, and most 

habitat in the proposed Project area is characterized as unsuitable for nesting/roosting and foraging. The 

majority of the pine plantations that would be crossed by the proposed Project consists of young, dense 

pine or older stands of pine in fire-suppressed forests, both of which contain too much midstory 

vegetation to be considered suitable for RCWs. Based on the lack of suitable RCW habitat and our 

consultation with the FWS, we have determined that construction and operation of the proposed Project 

would not affect RCWs. 

3.7.1.10 Inflated Heelsplitter 

The inflated heelsplitter is a small oval mollusk that may reach up to 5.5 inches as an adult. 

The shell is brown to black, and the inside of the shell is pink to purple. The inflated heelsplitter is 

known to occupy soft, stable substrata with slow to moderate current. It occurs in sand, mud, silt, and 

sandy gravel. 

The inflated heelsplitter is historically found in the Amite and Tangipahoa Rivers, Louisiana; 

the Pearl River, Mississippi; and the Tombigbee, Black Warrior, Alabama, and Coosa Rivers, Alabama. 

The current distribution in Alabama is limited to the Tombigbee and Black Warrior Rivers (Nature Serve, 

2006). 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 3-65 

Because the current range of the inflated heelsplitter is outside of the proposed Project area, 

we have determined that construction and operation of the proposed Project would result in no affect to 

this species. 

3.7.2 Special Status Species 

In addition to federally listed species, other special status species may also occur within the 

vicinity of the proposed Project facilities. Special status species include state-listed endangered, 

threatened, imperiled, or rare species, as well as other species of concern identified through consultation 

with MNHP, MDWF, LDWF, and ADCNR. 

State-Listed and Rare Species 

The MNHP, MDWFP, LDWF, and ADCNR have identified 46 species listed as either 

endangered or threatened that potentially occur within the proposed Project area. These species are listed 

in Table 3.7.2-1. No state-listed species were identified during field surveys conducted by Gulf South; 

however, suitable habitat for many of these species was observed within affected work areas. Of these 46 

species, 10 (bald eagle, wood stork, Gulf sturgeon, inflated heelsplitter, Louisiana black bear, gopher 

tortoise, yellow blotched map turtle, eastern indigo snake, RCW, and ringed map turtle) are discussed 

above and are not discussed in this section. As discussed in Section 3.7.1, the ADCNR was not able to 

make a determination as to which threatened or endangered species may potentially occur within the 

proposed Project area; however, a list of threatened or endangered species for Choctaw County, Alabama 

was provided. 

In general terms, impacts to state listed species would be similar to those described above for 

federally listed species. Birds could be affected by the loss of nesting or foraging habitat during clearing 

for the proposed Project, and they could also be disturbed by human activity. Fish and aquatic 

invertebrates could be affected by open-cut construction methods through the alteration of stream habitats 

along with associated increases of turbidity and sediment load. Although larger streams and rivers would 

typically be crossed by HDD methods that would avoid the impacts associated with open-cut crossings, 

frac-outs could occur resulting in turbidity and the deposition of drilling mud. Terrestrial wildlife, such as 

mammals and reptiles, could be subject to mortality or displacement during clearing and could lose 

habitat along the right-of-way. 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 3-66 

TABLE 3.7.2-1 

State Listed and Rare Species Potentially Occurring in the Proposed Southeast Expansion Project Areaa

Species 

Alabama 

Status/Rankb Mississippi Status/Rankb Louisiana Status/Rankb Habitat 

Amphibians 

Red salamander 

(Pseudotriton rubber)

-- S3 -- Cold, clear, rocky streams and springs in wooded or open 

areas. Adults occur in or near water in leaf litter and under 

rocks and in crevices and burrows near water. Adults 

sometimes disperse into woods. Eggs are attached to 

underside of rocks in water. Larvae occur in still pools. 

Bay Springs salamander 

(Plethodon ainsworthi) 

-- SH -- Prefers hardwood forests with fallen logs or debris. May 

occur in springhead litter. 

Birds 

Bachman's sparrow 

(Aimophila aestivalis)

S3 -- S3 Habitats include dry, open pine (southern states) or oak 

woods (e.g., western portion of range) with an undercover 

of grasses and shrubs, hillsides with patchy brushy areas, 

overgrown fields with thickets and brambles, grassy 

orchards, and large clear-cuts (usually at least 

20 hectares). In the southeastern U.S., Coastal Plain 

breeding habitat usually is open pine woods with thick 

cover of grasses or saw palmetto. 

Bewick's wren 

(Thryomanes bewickii) 

SH S2/E -- Brushy areas, thickets and scrub in open country, open 

and riparian woodland, and chaparral. More commonly in 

arid regions but locally also in humid areas (subtropical 

and temperate zones), including country towns and farms. 

Black-crowned night-heron 

(Nyycticorax nyycticorax) 

-- S3? -- Marshes, swamps, wooded streams, mangroves, shores of 

lakes, ponds, lagoons; saltwater, brackish, and freshwater 

situations. Roosts by day in mangroves or swampy 

woodlands. 

Cerulean warbler 

(Dendroica cerulean) 

S1 -- S1 Habitat is frequently described as mature deciduous forest, 

particularly in floodplains or other mesic conditions. 

Henslow's sparrow 

(Ammodramus henslowii) 

S2 -- -- Open fields and meadows with grass interspersed with 

weeds or shrubby vegetation, especially in damp or lowlying areas, adjacent to salt marsh in some areas. Uses 

unmowed hayfields (abandoned if cut). Found in a variety 

of habitats that contain tall, dense grass and herbaceous 

vegetation. 

White ibis 

(Eudocimus albus) 

S3 S3 -- Various saltwater and freshwater habitats: marshes, 

mangroves, lagoons, lakes, marsh prairie, pasture, coastal 

swamps. 

Fish 

Alabama shad 

(Alosa alabamae) 

S2 S1 -- Anadromous; adults live in saltwater and migrate into 

medium to large coastal rivers to spawn. 

Crystal darter 

(Crystallaria asprella) 

S3 S1/E S2S3 Small to medium rivers with expanses of clean sand and 

gravel. Usually in water more than 60 centimeters (cm) 

deep with strong current. 

Frecklebelly madtom 

(Noturus munitus) 

S2 S2/E -- Chiefly in rocky riffles, rapids, and runs of medium to large 

rivers. This small fish's movements are impeded by dams 

and impoundments. 

Pearl darter 

(Percina aurora) 

-- S1/E -- Pearl darters have been collected from gravel riffles and 

rock outcrops; deep runs over gravel and sand pools below 

shallow riffles; swift (90 cm/second), shallow water over 

firm gravel and cobble in mid-river channels; and swift 

water near brush piles. 

Invertebrates 

Natchez stonefly 

(Alloperla natchez) 

-- S2 -- Members of this genus and family are found in cold lotic 

habitats and are very sensitive to eutrophication. 

Prairie mole cricket 

(Gryllotalpa major) 

-- SH -- Inhabitant of prairie soil ranging from mesic to dry-mesic; 

southern tallgrass prairie of the United States. Not found 

in pastures. Some individuals are found in mixed grass 

prairie, although these sites may not be optimal habitat as 

much as habitat that is both acceptable and available. 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 3-67 

TABLE 3.7.2-1 

State Listed and Rare Species Potentially Occurring in the Proposed Southeast Expansion Project Areaa

Species 

Alabama 

Status/Rankb Mississippi Status/Rankb Louisiana Status/Rankb Habitat 

Mussels 

Alabama hickorynut 

(Obovaria unicolor) 

S1 S3 -- Sand/gravel substrates in moderately flowing water. 

Black sandshell 

(Ligumia recta) 

S1 S2 S1 Occur chiefly in flow refuges, or relatively stable areas that 

displayed little movement of particles during flood events. 

Spike 

(Elliptio dilatata) 

-- S1/E S2S3 Large rivers or creeks, medium rivers, and springs/spring 

brooks. 

Delicate spike 

(Elliptio arctata) 

S2 S1/E -- Large rivers and creeks of low gradient. Medium rivers 

with moderate gradient and riffle. 

Mississippi pigtoe 

(Pleurobema beadleianum) 

-- S3? -- Freshwater. 

Pyramid pigtoe 

(Pleurobema rubrum) 

-- S1/E S2 Inhabits large rivers but may occur in medium-sized lotic 

environments. It tends to occupy riffles or shoals in 

relatively shallow water and coarse-particle substrates, 

along sand bars, or in deep water (>4 meters) with mud 

and sand bottoms. 

Ebonyshell 

(Fusconaia ebena) 

-- -- S3 Freshwater. 

Snails 

Silty hornsnail 

(Pleurocera canaliculata) 

-- -- S2 Freshwater. 

Mammals 

Oldfield mouse 

(Peromyscus polionotus) 

-- S2 -- Favors dry, sandy fields and beaches with grass/shrub 

cover. 

Plants 

American Bladdernut 

(Staphylea trifolia) 

-- S3 -- Grows in average, dry to medium wet, well-drained soils in 

part shade to full shade. Tolerates wide variety of soils. 

Prefers moist soils. 

Black-stem spleenwort 

(Asplenium resiliens) 

-- S1 -- In semi-shade or full sun in well-drained calcareous 

substrates; often in cedar glades or on limestone cliffs. 

Canada wild-ginger 

(Asarum canadense) 

-- S2S3 -- Found in upland rich woods, typically higher pH soils and 

associated with calcareous rock outcrops or rich soils; it is 

also found in high nutrient-rich coves in mountains. This 

species is occasionally found in regenerating deciduous 

woodlands. 

Common hoptree 

(Ptelea trifoliate) 

-- S3S4 -- Prefers well-drained soil, full sun or shade, and moist soil. 

Crested coral-root 

(Hexalectris spicata) 

-- S2 -- Calcareous sandy or organic soils in oak, hickory, or 

conifer woods. 

Crested fringed orchid 

(Platanthera cristata) 

-- S3 -- Terrestrial in moist, open, acidic bogs, prairies, pine 

woods, and roadsides. 

Needle palm 

(Rhapidophyllum hystrix) 

-- S3 -- Prefers fairly moist, well-drained soils with abundant 

organic matter but is very adaptable to less than ideal 

conditions. 

Smoother sweet-cicely 

(Osmorhiza longistylis) 

-- S3 -- Rich, often alluvial woods and thickets. Woods often along 

the sides of streams. 

Purple coneflower 

(Echinacea purpurea) 

-- S3, S4 S2 Medium wet, well-drained soil in full sun. 

Yellow water-crowfoot 

(Ranunculus flabellaris) 

-- -- S1 Occurs mainly in wetlands. 

Yellowleaf tinker's-weed 

(Triosteum angustifolium) 

-- -- S2 Open prairies and near the edge of forests. 

Reptiles 

American alligator 

(Alligator mississippiensis) 

-- S4 -- Fresh and brackish marshes, ponds, lakes, rivers, 

swamps, bayous, large spring runs. 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 3-68 

TABLE 3.7.2-1 

State Listed and Rare Species Potentially Occurring in the Proposed Southeast Expansion Project Areaa

Species 

Alabama 

Status/Rankb Mississippi Status/Rankb Louisiana Status/Rankb Habitat 

Southern hognose snake 

(Heterodon simus) 

SH SH/E -- Inhabits open, xeric habitats with well-drained, sandy or 

sandy-loam soils such as sand ridges, stabilized coastal 

sand dunes, pine flatwoods, mixed oak-pine woodlands 

and forests, scrub oak woods, and oak hammocks; also 

old fields and river floodplains. This snake spends 

considerable time burrowed in the soil. 

_______________ 

a In Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana, the respective Natural Heritage Commissions have ranked species according to their imperiled status. 

b Rank S1 – Critically imperiled in the state because of extreme rarity (5 or fewer occurrences or very few remaining individuals or acres). 

 Rank S2 – Imperiled in the state because of rarity (6 to 20 occurrences or few remaining individuals or acres) or because of some factor(s) making it 

vulnerable to extirpation. 

 Rank S3 – Rare or uncommon in the state (21 to 100 known populations). 

 Rank S4 – Apparently secure in the state (101 to 1,000 known populations). 

 Rank SH – Historical occurrence; possibly extinct. 

 Rank E – A species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. 

 "?" indicates status uncertain. 

Source: LDWF, 2006; MDWFP, 2006; MNHP, 2002; ADCNR, 2006; Nature Serve, 2006 

Gulf South has indicated that it would continue to consult with the LDWF, MDWFP, and the 

ADCNR to determine whether additional field surveys are warranted for any of the species listed in Table 

3.7.2-1 and, if required, develop mitigation measures to avoid or minimize potential impacts to theose 

species. Because thoese consultations have not yet been completed, we recommend that: 

• Gulf South should continue to consult with the LDWF, the MDWFP, and the ADCNR to 

determine the need for surveys or mitigation that would substantially minimize or avoid 

potential impacts to state-listed species. Gulf South should file copies of the results of these 

consultations, as well as any associated survey reports and mitigation plans, with the 

Secretary prior to construction. 

3.8 LAND USE, RECREATION AND SPECIAL INTEREST AREAS, AND VISUAL 

RESOURCES 

3.8.1 General Land Use Types 

In this section, we further quantify the land requirements for construction and operation of the 

proposed Project, describe current land use types, and evaluate the significance of Project-related impacts 

to those lands, as well as to specially designated areas, transportation corridors, visually sensitive areas, 

and hazardous waste sites. 

There are 10 land use types crossed by the proposed pipeline and affected by the proposed 

aboveground facility sites: agricultural, pine plantation, upland forest, pasture, open land, open water, 

residential land, industrial/commercial land, wetlands, and other roads. Table 3.8.1-1 identifies the 

amount of acreage by land use type that would be affected by construction and operation of the proposed 

Project. 

Construction of the proposed Project would affect approximately 1,726.5 acres (Table 

3.8.1-1). Approximately 1,240.3 acres (72 percent) of that acreage would be contained within the 

pipeline construction right-of-way. Construction of aboveground facilities would affect approximately 

146.2 acres (8 percent), and the remaining 340.0 acres (20 percent) would be affected by the use of 

ATWSs, access roads, pipe storage, and contractor yards. Approximately 646.6 acres (37 percent) of the 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 3-69 

land that would be affected during construction is currently characterized as upland forest, 578.8 acres 

(34 percent) would be pine plantation, and 175.0 acres (10 percent) would be open land. The remaining 

cover types reported in Table 3.8.1-1 collectively represent less than 20 percent of the proposed 

construction acreage. Following construction, lands temporarily used for construction (pipe storage and 

contractor yards, access roads, and ATWSs) would be able to revert to their original use type. 

As described in Section 2.0, the proposed Project would be collocated with existing pipeline 

rights-of-way for approximately 72.7 miles (approximately 66 percent) of its length. Gulf South proposes 

to parallel existing pipeline or utility corridors to the extent practical. This collocation would be adjacent 

to and abut a Denbury Resources (Denbury) pipeline for 0.2 mile (MP 30.3 to MP 30.5), a Crosstex 

Mississippi (Crosstex) pipeline for approximately 39.4 miles (MP 38.3 to MP 77.7), and a Transco 

pipeline for approximately 33.1 miles (MP 77.7 to MP 110.8). For the portion of the project paralleling 

existing foreign pipelines, Gulf South's new permanent right-of-way would be 60 feet wide, abutting the 

adjacent existing right-of-way. The additional 60 feet (40 feet in wetlands) of temporary construction 

right-of-way would be located on the opposite side of the new permanent right-of-way from the existing 

utility corridor. 

During operation of the proposed Project, the permanent pipeline right-of-way, aboveground 

facilities and permanent access roads would affect approximately 857.6 acres. About 39 percent of the 

land that would be affected during operation is currently classified as upland forest, 33 percent is pine 

plantation, and 11 percent is open land. The remaining land use types collectively represent less than 

20 percent of the acreage required during operation. 

Pipeline Facilities 

Approximately 1,240.3 acres of land would be impacted by construction of the proposed 

pipeline. Approximately 77 percent of this acreage would consist of pine plantation and upland forest. 

Open land, wetlands, pasture, industrial/commercial, residential, other/roads, agricultural, and open water 

accounts for the additional 23 percent of this acreage. 

Operation of the proposed pipeline would permanently affect approximately 731.4 acres of 

land. Similar to the construction right-of-way requirements, approximately 78 percent of the land that 

would be affected during operation is currently classified as upland forest and pine plantation, while open 

land, wetlands, industrial/commercial, residential, agricultural, and open water make up the remaining 

22 percent. 

Aboveground Facilities 

In addition to lands affected by construction of the proposed pipeline, construction of the 

proposed aboveground facilities would affect approximately 146.2 acres of land while operation would 

affect approximately 119.2 acres. Table 3.8.1-1 provides data regarding the land cover types that would 

be affected by construction and operation of the proposed aboveground facilities. Of the 119.2 acres 

required for operation of the aboveground facilities, approximately 29 percent would be upland forest, 

while 58 percent would be agricultural land and 10 percent would be pine plantation. Construction and 

operation of the proposed aboveground facilities would result in a conversion of those lands to a 

commercial/industrial cover type for the life of the proposed Project. 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 3-70 

TABLE 3.8.1-1 

Acres Potentially Impacted by the Proposed Southeast Expansion Project 

 Affected Land Use/Land Cover (acres)a

Agricultural Pine Plantation Upland Forest Pasture 

County/Parish Const Oper Const Oper Const Oper Const Oper 

Pipeline Facilitiesb 

 Simpson, MS 1.0 0.6 87.1 52.3 165.3 100.5 14.5 8.6 

 Smith, MS 3.9 2.4 80.0 48.3 94.6 59.0 11.3 7.0 

 Jasper, MS 0.8 0.5 66.2 40.2 142.8 88.7 19.5 11.6 

 Clarke, MS 2.8 2.2 178.0 105.6 90.2 53.0 6.2 3.8 

 Choctaw, AL 0.0 0.0 47.8 25.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Pipeline Facilities Subtotal 8.5 5.7 459.1 271.7 492.9 301.2 51.5 31.0 

Aboveground Facilitiesc 

Delhi Compressor Station Richland, LA 69.5 69.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Harrisville Compressor Station Simpson, MS 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.3 15.3 0.0 0.0 

Destin Compressor Station Clarke, MS 0.0 0.0 17.2 11.7 17.2 11.6 0.0 0.0 

CenterPoint Energy M/R Station Richland, LA 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Southern Natural M/R Station Smith, MS 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.5 0.9 0.0 0.0 

Tennessee Gas M/R Station Jasper, MS 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.2 0.8 0.0 0.0 

Destin M/R Station Clarke, MS 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Transco M/R Station Choctaw, AL 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.9 6.0 0.0 0.0 

Valves and Other Facilities Various 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 3.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 

Aboveground Facilities Subtotal 69.5 69.5 18.2 11.7 54.4 34.9 0.0 0.0 

Extra Work Areasb 

Pipe Storage and Contractor Yards Various 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Access Roadsd Various 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 

ATWSs Various 1.9 0.0 101.5 0.0 98.9 0.0 4.8 0.0 

Extra Work Areas Subtotal 1.9 0.0 101.5 0.0 99.3 0.0 4.8 0.0 

Total 79.9 75.2 578.8 283.4 646.6 336.1 56.3 31.0 

_______________ 

Notes: 

Const = Construction Impacts 

Oper = Operation Impacts. Permanent impacts are based on Gulf South's proposed 60-foot wide permanent right-of-way; however, we are 

recommending that Gulf South's permanent right-of-way be limited to a width of 50 feet. 

a Agricultural Land – Active cropland, pasture, and/or hayfields 

 Residential Land – Yards, subdivisions, mobile home parks, and planned developments 

 Commercial/Industrial Land – Power or utility stations, manufacturing or industrial plants, commercial or retail facilities, and roads 

b Construction acreage requirements for pipeline facilities includes ATWSs. Table G-1 of Appendix G provides a complete, itemized list of extra 

work areas and associated impacts. 

c Minor land requirements associated with mainline valves would be contained within the compressor station sites and the construction and 

permanent pipeline rights-of-way and are thus already included in the acreage estimates for those facilities. 

d Existing access roads that would be upgraded or otherwise modified in association with construction of the proposed Project traverse a variety of 

land uses and cover types. Land requirements of new and improved access roads based on a typical construction width of 40 feet. Table G-2 of 

Appendix G provides a complete, itemized list of construction access roads.

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 3-71 

TABLE 3.8.1-1 (continued) 

Acres Potentially Impacted by the Proposed Southeast Expansion Project 

 Affected Land Use/Land Cover (acres)a

Open Land Open Water Residential 

Industrial/

Commercial 

County/Parish Const Oper Const Oper Const Oper Const Oper 

Pipeline Facilitiesb 

 Simpson, MS 38.7 23.3 0.0 0.0 2.5 1.3 2.1 1.8 

 Smith, MS 24.4 14.9 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.1 1.0 0.8 

 Jasper, MS 36.9 22.3 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.5 3.5 2.5 

 Clarke, MS 24.1 18.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 1.0 1.1 1.0 

 Choctaw, AL 22.3 16.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Pipeline Facilities Subtotal 146.4 95.4 0.0 0.0 5.3 2.9 7.7 6.1 

Aboveground Facilitiesc 

Delhi Compressor Station Richland, LA 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Harrisville Compressor Station Simpson, MS 0.9 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Destin Compressor Station Clarke, MS 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

CenterPoint Energy M/R Station Richland, LA 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Southern Natural M/R Station Smith, MS 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Tennessee Gas M/R Station Jasper, MS 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Destin M/R Station Clarke, MS 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Transco M/R Station Choctaw, AL 2.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Valves and Other Facilities Various 1.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 

Aboveground Facilities Subtotal 3.9 3.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 

Extra Work Areasb 

Pipe Storage and Contractor Yards Various 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 41.0 0.0 

Access Roadsd Various 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

ATWSs Various 23.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 0.0 1.3 0.0 

Extra Work Areas Subtotal 24.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 0.0 42.3 0.0 

Total 175.0 98.6 0.0 0.0 6.9 2.9 50.3 6.1 

_______________ 

Notes: 

Const = Construction Impacts 

Oper = Operation Impacts. Permanent impacts are based on Gulf South's proposed 60-foot wide permanent right-of-way; however, we are 

recommending that Gulf South's permanent right-of-way be limited to a width of 50 feet. 

a Open Land – Non-forested lands, maintained utility rights-of-way, and shrub-scrub wetland 

 Forest – Tracts of upland or wetland forest 

 Pine Plantation – Planted/harvested pine plantation forest 

b Construction acreage requirements for pipeline facilities includes temporary ATWSs. Appendix G provides a complete, itemized list of extra work 

areas and associated impacts. 

c Minor land requirements associated with mainline valves would be contained within the compressor station sites and the construction and permanent 

pipeline rights-of-way and are thus already included in the acreage estimates for those facilities. 

d Existing access roads that would be upgraded or otherwise modified in association with construction of the proposed Project traverse a variety of 

land uses and cover types. Land requirements of new and improved access roads based on a typical construction width of 40 feet. Appendix G 

provides a complete, itemized list of construction access roads. 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 3-72 

TABLE 3.8.1-1 (continued) 

Acres Potentially Impacted by the Proposed Southeast Expansion Project 

Affected Land Use/Land Cover (acres)a

 Wetlands Other/Roads Total 

County/Parish Const Opere Const Oper Const Oper 

Pipeline Facilitiesb 

 Simpson, MS 19.0 4.6 0.0 0.0 330.2 193.0 

 Smith, MS 11.9 4.5 0.0 0.0 227.4 137.0 

 Jasper, MS 19.3 4.9 0.0 0.0 289.9 171.2 

 Clarke, MS 15.7 2.9 0.0 0.0 319.7 187.5 

 Choctaw, AL 3.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 73.1 42.7 

Pipeline Facilities Subtotal 68.9 17.4 0.0 0.0 1240.3 731.4 

Aboveground Facilitiesc 

Delhi Compressor Station Richland, LA 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 69.5 69.5 

Harrisville Compressor Station Simpson, MS 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.2 16.2 

Destin Compressor Station Clarke, MS 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 34.4 23.3 

CenterPoint Energy M/R Station Richland, LA 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Southern Natural M/R Station Smith, MS 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.5 0.9 

Tennessee Gas M/R Station Jasper, MS 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.2 0.8 

Destin M/R Station Clarke, MS 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Transco M/R Station Choctaw, AL 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.9 8.0 

Valves and Other Facilities Various 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.5 0.5 

Aboveground Facilities Subtotal 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 146.2 119.2 

Extra Work Areasb 

Pipe Storage and Contractor Yards Various 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 41.0 0.0 

Access Roadsd Various 0.0 0.0 57.1 7.0 58.3 7.0 

ATWSs Various 6.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 240.7 0.0 

Extra Work Areas Subtotal 6.8 0.0 57.1 7.0 340.0 7.0 

Total 75.7 17.4 57.1 7.0 1726.5 857.6 

______________ 

Notes: 

Const = Construction Impacts 

Oper = Operation Impacts. Permanent impacts are based on Gulf South's proposed 60-foot wide permanent right-of-way; 

however, we are recommending that Gulf South's permanent right-of-way be limited to a width of 50 feet. 

a Open Land – Non-forested lands, maintained utility rights-of-way, and shrub-scrub wetland 

 Forest – Tracts of upland or wetland forest 

 Pine Plantation – Planted/harvested pine plantation forest 

b Construction acreage requirements for pipeline facilities includes temporary ATWSs. Appendix G provides a complete, 

itemized list of extra work areas and associated impacts. 

c Minor land requirements associated with mainline valves would be contained within the compressor station sites and the 

construction and permanent pipeline rights-of-way and are thus already included in the acreage estimates for those facilities. 

d Existing access roads that would be upgraded or otherwise modified in association with construction of the proposed Project 

traverse a variety of land uses and cover types. Land requirements of new and improved access roads based on a typical 

construction width of 40 feet. Appendix G provides a complete, itemized list of construction access roads. 

e Operational wetland impacts only include impacts to PFO wetlands, as PEM and PSS wetlands would be allowed to return to 

pre-construction conditions.

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 3-73 

Access Roads 

As described in Section 2.2.3.3, construction of the proposed pipeline right-of-way would 

require use of existing public and private roadways to gain access during construction and operation of 

the proposed Project. Where feasible, Gulf South would use existing public roadways, existing private 

roadways and the pipeline right-of-way itself to gain access during construction and operation of the 

proposed Project. Gulf South indicates that only three newly constructed or upgraded access roads would 

be permanently maintained during operations. The remaining access roads would be allowed to revert to 

their preconstruction uses. Gulf South has indicated that construction of the proposed pipeline would 

require the use of 138 access roads of varying lengths and construction. Of the 138 access roads, 91 

would be unmodified existing roads, and 47 (comprising approximately 34.8 miles of road) would be new 

or upgraded roads, of which 44 roads would be for temporary use, while three roads would be for 

permanent use (see Appendix G). Gulf South would upgrade access roads by placing gravel for stability, 

grading, replacing or installing culverts, clearing overhead vegetation, or by making minor widenings at 

sharp turns to facilitate passage by pipe trucks. 

Pipe Storage and Contractor Yards 

Gulf South proposes to use three pipe storage and contractor yards during construction, 

temporarily affecting approximately 41.0 acres of land (Table 3.8.1-1). Each of the identified pipe 

storage and contractor yards would consist of warehouses or open lots located in previously disturbed 

areas. 

3.8.2 Land Ownership and Easement Requirements 

Prior to initiating construction, Gulf South would secure an easement to convey both 

temporary (for construction) and permanent (for operation) rights-of-way. The easement acquisition 

process is designed to provide fair compensation to the landowners for the right to use the property for 

pipeline construction and operation. During the easement acquisition process, Gulf South would 

compensate landowners for loss of value to specific parcels. The easement agreement between the 

company and landowner typically specifies compensation for loss of use during construction, loss of 

nonrenewable or other resources, damage to property during construction, and allowable uses of the 

permanent right-of-way after construction. During negotiations, Gulf South and affected landowners 

would address the following: 

• Allowable uses within the right-of-way. 

• Mechanisms required to allow the pipeline to be traversed by heavy equipment such as log 

skidders. 

• Minor route adjustments to accommodate landowner needs (provided that the route adjustments 

do not affect environmentally sensitive areas or other non-consenting landowners). 

If an easement cannot be negotiated with a landowner and the proposed Project has been 

certificated by the FERC, Gulf South could use the right of eminent domain granted to it under 

Section 7(h) of the NGA and the procedure set forth under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 

(Rule 71A) to obtain the right-of-way and extra work areas. Although Gulf South would compensate the 

landowner for the right-of-way and for any damages incurred during construction, a court would 

determine the level of compensation if a Certificate were issued. In either case, the landowner would be 

compensated for the use of the land. Eminent domain would not apply to lands under federal ownership. 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 3-74 

3.8.3 General Impacts and Mitigation 

The general impacts to land use associated with construction of the proposed Project would be 

a function of the construction methods employed, the restoration actions implemented once construction 

has been completed, the nature of the land cover type affected before construction, and the allowable use 

of the land following construction. Section 2.3 provides a detailed discussion of the proposed 

construction methods and post-construction restoration actions for the proposed Project. 

Construction 

Following construction, areas outside the permanent pipeline right-of-way and other 

temporary work areas would be graded, seeded, or otherwise restored and would be allowed to revert to 

existing conditions, except where individual landowner agreements negotiated during the easement 

acquisition process dictate other acceptable restoration measures. As a result, land use impacts to these 

areas would be temporary. Because non-woody vegetation would be expected to return to preconstruction conditions within two growing seasons, impacts to lands currently classified as agricultural, 

pasture, open land, residential, or industrial/commercial and located outside the permanent pipeline rightof-way would be short-term and minor. 

Trees cleared within the temporary construction rights-of-way would be allowed to revert to 

pre-construction conditions and in some cases may be replanted. This process would take many years, 

with the duration of recovery dependent on the types and ages of trees removed. As a result, impacts to 

areas classified as PFO, forest, and pine plantation lands that are located outside the permanent right-ofway would be long-term. Additional discussion of general impacts and mitigation measures that would 

be implemented to minimize impacts to forested areas is provided in Sections 3.4 and 3.5. 

Operation 

Permanent land use changes would occur to those lands contained within the permanent 

pipeline right-of-way where reversion to the pre-construction cover type would not be compatible with 

operation of the proposed Project facilities. Activities typically not allowed in the permanent pipeline 

right-of-way would include aboveground construction, below ground construction, and the growth, 

planting, or cultivation of trees. Upland forest and pine plantation land covers and uses therefore would 

be precluded from the permanent pipeline right-of-way. Allowable land uses generally permitted within 

the permanent right-of-way would include use of farming equipment, cultivation of row crops, and 

utilization as pastureland. Permanent changes also would be associated with the proposed aboveground 

facilities and those access roads maintained during operations, as acreage required for these facilities 

would be converted to a commercial/industrial cover type for the life of the Project. Gulf South indicates 

that only three newly constructed or upgraded access roads associated with the aboveground facilities 

described above would be permanently maintained during operations. 

Permanent maintenance of rights-of-way relative to converted land uses and aboveground 

facilities would have a permanent, lasting affect for at least the life of the proposed Project. Overall, 

despite the permanent conversion of some land use types in the permanent rights-of-way and at 

aboveground facilities, we believe the overall Project impact would not be significant given the limited 

acreage involved. 

3.8.3.1 Land Use Type, Specific Impacts, and Mitigation 

Land use types including open land, open water, industrial/commercial lands, and other lands 

would not be converted by construction or operation of the proposed Project. Wetlands would be affected 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 3-75 

by the proposed Project, and these impacts are discussed in detail in Section 3.4. Other land use types, 

including agriculture, forested areas, pastures, and residential lands would be subject to impacts or 

conversion of land use and are discussed in more detail below. 

Agriculture, Timber, and Pasture Lands 

Construction could affect the productivity of agricultural, timber (upland forest and pine 

plantation), and pasture lands within the construction and permanent pipeline rights-of-way. During the 

Pre-filing and scoping periods, we received comments expressing concern for potential proposed Projectrelated effects to farming, as well as pasture and timber lands. Gulf South has proposed to accomplish 

pipeline construction between September and December 2007, which encompasses typical growing 

seasons. Thus, Project-related crop losses could occur. As applicable, Gulf South would work with 

landowners prior to construction to establish compensation agreements for crop damages and for loss of 

growing time. In accordance with its plans, Gulf South would implement construction procedures in 

agricultural areas to minimize potential impacts and restore the right-of-way to approximate preconstruction conditions (see Sections 2.3 and 3.2). Gulf South's plans require them to conduct follow-up 

inspections of the disturbed areas after the first and second growing seasons to determine if revegetation 

was successful. In agricultural areas, revegetation would be considered successful if crop yields are 

similar to adjacent undisturbed portions of the same field (see Section 3.2). 

Gulf South would implement special construction and monitoring procedures through 

agricultural lands, including pasture, to minimize adverse effects and ensure proper restoration. However, 

construction through pasture could temporarily affect some livestock operations, and some landowners 

could incur additional costs for supplemental livestock feed. Compensation for such losses would be 

accomplished through the easement negotiation process. To ensure the safety of livestock during 

construction, Gulf South would either construct temporary fencing to keep livestock away from 

construction areas or develop a grazing deferment plan to minimize impacts to pastureland during 

construction and restoration activities in accordance with its Plan. 

As discussed in Section 3.8.1, impacts to pine plantation and upland forests would range from 

long-term in areas outside the permanent right-of-way to permanent for areas within the permanent rightof-way. As such, timber production within the construction and permanent rights-of-way would be 

temporarily reduced or permanently precluded, respectively. As described in Section 3.8.2, Gulf South 

would negotiate with affected landowners to obtain an easement agreement that would effectively 

eliminate timber production within the permanent pipeline right-of-way. However, after Gulf South has 

completed restoration of the right-of-way, timber harvesting equipment would be able to move freely 

across the pipeline to access adjacent forested areas with no expected effect on pipeline safety or 

operations. Compensation for any losses or limitations on future timber production values within the 

construction and permanent pipeline rights-of-way would be addressed during easement negotiations. 

Prescribed burns are often used in the vicinity of the proposed Project to manage planted pines, and 

pipeline rights-of-way may in some cases serve as fire breaks. Gulf South has committed to coordinating 

with landowners to mitigate any potential impact to prescribed burning activity caused by the proposed 

Project. 

Appropriate landowner settlements, special construction measures, restoration, and postconstruction monitoring would ensure that landowners are able to resume pre-Project activities in 

construction easements or that such impacts would be mitigated. Furthermore, settlement negotiations 

would ensure that property owners are fairly compensated for any loss of revenue associated with the 

construction or operation of the Project. 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 3-76 

Existing Residences and Planned Developments 

The proposed pipeline would traverse primarily rural, unincorporated areas. Table 3.8.3.1-1 

identifies the residences within 50 feet of the construction work area. The pipeline route has otherwise 

been adjusted so that no displacements of residences would occur. Only three residences are located 

within 25 feet of the construction workspace, one of which may be abandoned. Approximately 6.9 acres 

of land classified as residential would be contained within the construction right-of-way or ATWSs, and 

2.9 of those acres would be retained for the permanent right-of-way. During the planning stages for the 

proposed Project, Gulf South consulted with county and parish planning agencies and reviewed 

development plans to identify currently filed proposals for residential or commercial developments within 

0.25 mile of the proposed construction right-of-way or associated aboveground facilities. From MP 10.6 

to MP 11.2, the Braxton Estates development, owned by Equity Development Group, Inc., is located 

adjacent to the north side of Gulf South’s proposed construction right-of-way. 

TABLE 3.8.3.1-1 

Residences Within 50 Feet of Construction Work Area and Proposed Mitigation 

MP1 County, State2 Number of 

Residences 

Distance from 

Construction 

Work Area 

(feet) 

Distance from 

Pipeline 

Centerline 

Direction 

from the 

Right-ofWay Proposed 

Mitigation 

 

 3.6 Simpson County, MS 1 27 116 South None 

 11.1 Simpson County, MS 1 15 55 North Yes* 

 11.6 Simpson County, MS 1 27 130 South None 

 14.1 Simpson County, MS 1 27 145 South None 

 14.9 Simpson County, MS 1 27 112 South None 

 30.3 Simpson County, MS 1 47 173 South None 

 36.4 Smith County, MS 1 36 116 South None 

 41.7 Smith County, MS 1 29 85 South None 

 52.9 Jasper County, MS 1 34 89 South None 

 53.0 Jasper County, MS 1 37 187 South None 

 94.8** Clarke County, MS 1 40 165 South None 

 98.9 Clarke County, MS 1 11 52 South Yes*** 

 99.1  Clarke County, MS 1 11 85 South Yes** * 

_______________ 

Mitigation Notes: 

* Immediately restore all lawn areas after backfilling the trench, fence the construction work throughout the open trench phase of 

construction, and use water trucks to minimize fugitive dust. 

** This residence would not be impacted by Gulf South’s proposed HDD of State Hwy. 511. 

*** Reduce the construction work area to maintain 25 feet between the residence and the construction work area. 

**** Residence appears to be abandoned. Gulf South would continue evaluation/monitoring of this property. 

1 MP = Milepost 

2 MS = Mississippi

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 3-77 

General Construction and Operational Impacts to Residences 

The general impacts of construction and operation of the proposed Project on residences 

would result from construction-related disturbances, limitation of land use type within the permanent 

pipeline right-of-way, and alteration of future development patterns. Specifically, potential constructionrelated disturbances include inconvenience caused by increased noise and dust generated by construction; 

locally increased traffic; effects on landscaping (including alteration and loss of plantings), wells, and 

septic systems; and removal of objects such as sheds and trailers from the construction right-of-way. 

Uses and structures that would be precluded from the permanent pipeline right-of-way include 

construction of aboveground structures not associated with the proposed Project, construction of septic 

system leach fields, and planting or cultivation of trees or orchards. 

To minimize disruptions to residential areas near construction work areas, Gulf South would 

attempt to coordinate construction work schedules with affected landowners prior to starting construction. 

To further minimize impacts to residential areas within the vicinity of construction work areas, Gulf 

South would implement the following measures on an as-needed basis: 

• Maintain access to all residences except for brief periods essential to pipe-laying activities. 

• Where necessary, install temporary safety fencing to control access and minimize the hazards 

associated with an open trench. 

• Notify affected landowners in advance of any scheduled disruption of household utilities and 

limit the duration of any interruption to the smallest time possible. 

• Repair any damages to residential property that result from construction activities or provide 

compensation at fair market value. 

• Restore all areas disturbed by construction work areas to "as before or better" conditions. 

Additionally, for all residence located within 50 feet of the construction work area Gulf South 

would: 

• Leave mature trees and landscaping up to the edge of the construction work area, unless 

necessary for safe operation of the construction equipment. 

• Restore all lawn areas and landscaping within the construction work area consistent with the 

requirements of its plans immediately after backfilling the trench. 

• Fence the edge of the construction work area adjacent to the residence for a distance of 100 feet 

on either side of the residence. 

• Try to maintain a minimum distance of 25 feet between the residence and the edge of the 

construction work area. 

Gulf South prepared site-specific residential construction plans, detailing the location of the 

proposed pipeline alignment, construction limits, and residential access for the three residences that 

would be located within 25 feet of the construction right-of-way. 

In the Draft EIS, we recommended that Gulf South provide an assessment of how the 

proposed Project's construction would affect or be affected by the Braxton Estates development between 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 3-78 

MPs 10.6 and 11.2. Gulf South has met with Equity Development Group, Inc., and has executed an 

easement agreement with the developer. As a result, Gulf South would install the pipeline farther away 

from Braxton Estates adjacent to the existing railroad right-of-way, along the southern boundary of the 

tract, to minimize impacts to potential future development. Currently, there is only one residence in the 

proximity of the construction corridor (15 feet outside of the workspace boundary). Gulf South has 

prepared a site-specific residential detail drawing for this residence that details the construction mitigation 

measures, which we have reviewed and find acceptable. Gulf South states that it has no indication from 

the developer that additional construction is planned prior to construction of the proposed pipeline. If 

additional residences are constructed within 25 feet of the construction corridor prior to or during the 

installation of the pipeline, Gulf South would provide a similar site-specific construction mitigation plan 

for review and approval by the Director of OEP. 

In general, Gulf South sought to avoid residences because construction activities could 

inconvenience residents, remove or damage shade trees, disrupt landscaping and gardens, and potentially 

damage structures. For example, operation of large construction equipment in the immediate vicinity of 

homes can create dust, noise, and/or muddy conditions. Precautions must also be taken to protect pets 

and small children. As described in Section 2.5, EIs would be responsible for monitoring and ensuring 

compliance with all environmental mitigation measures required by the Certificate, if granted, including 

those residential mitigation measures identified above. Additionally, the FERC staff is interested in 

ensuring that landowner issues are resolved in an effective and timely manner. Therefore, Gulf South 

would be required to develop and implement an environmental complaint resolution procedure that 

provides landowners with clear and simple directions for identifying and resolving their environmental 

mitigation problems/concerns during construction of the proposed Project and restoration of the right-ofway (see Section 5.2). 

We received comments during the Pre-filing and scoping periods indicating that the proposed 

Project route could interfere with plans for construction of homes or other structures. In Section 4.4, we 

list several route variations that Gulf South incorporated into the proposed Project route during the Prefiling phase in response to specific landowner requests. Additional minor reroutes to the proposed 

Project's pipeline alignment could be made during the easement negotiation process in accordance with 

landowner needs and requirements if they do not impact significant environmental resources or other 

landowners. Prior to construction, Gulf South would consult with the owners of all structures located 

within the construction work area, as part of the easement negotiation process, to develop a route or 

mitigation plan that would minimize impacts to those structures. If a minor reroute could not fully avoid 

the structures, Gulf South would relocate or replace the structures, or otherwise compensate the affected 

landowner per the terms of the agreement negotiated during the easement acquisition process. 

3.8.4 Special Interest Areas Impacts and Mitigation 

Delhi Municipal Airport 

The proposed Delhi Compressor Station is approximately 3,000 feet east of the Delhi 

Municipal Airport in Richland Parish, Louisiana. The airport has plans for a 2,000-foot runway 

expansion in the future. As described in the Final EIS that was issued for Gulf South's East Texas to 

Mississippi Expansion Project (CP06-446-000), the pipeline proposed in that project would be located 

about 1,070 feet north of the Delhi Municipal Airport runway at MP 148.2 in Richland Parish, Louisiana. 

In that proceeding we found out that the airport has plans for a 2,000-foot runway expansion in the future. 

Gulf South indicated that it was consulting with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the airport, 

and the City of Delhi to determine whether the project would interfere with aircraft operations. We 

recommend that: 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 3-79 

• Prior to construction, Gulf South should consult with the Delhi Municipal Airport officials 

and the FAA regarding impacts of the proposed Project, specifically the proposed Delhi 

Compressor Station, on airport operations, and file a site-specific construction plan that 

addresses any concerns identified by those authorities with the Secretary. 

Gulf South now plans to locate and build the Delhi Compressor Station as described in this 

proceeding. The compressor station would be located almost 3,000 feet east of the north-south oriented 

runway, and also in proximity to the airport's planned expansion. We believe the consultation and 

construction plans as required by the above recommendation stated would prevent adverse impacts to the 

Delhi Municipal Airport.

Thigpen Field Airport 

The proposed pipeline route would be located approximately 500 feet south from current 

construction activities extending the north-south runway of Thigpen Field Airport at MP 55.1 near Bay 

Springs in Jasper County, Mississippi. The runway runs perpendicular to the proposed pipeline, which 

would be placed parallel to and on the south side of the Crosstex Pipeline's existing natural gas pipeline 

right-of-way. The runway's vegetative clear zone extends southward across the Crosstex Pipeline rightof-way for another approximately 1,300 feet. Gulf South has not indicated the results of any 

consultations it has had with the FAA, the airport, or the Town of Bay Springs to determine if the 

proposed Project would interfere with aircraft operations, the runway safety area, or the runway objectfree area. Gulf South has not indicated whether it is aware of applicable safety regulations it would abide 

by, or of any special construction procedures, such as deep pipeline installation, that might be required in 

the vicinity of the Thigpen Field Airport. Therefore, we recommend that:

• Prior to construction, Gulf South should consult with the Thigpen Field Airport officials 

and the FAA regarding impacts of the proposed Project on airport operations, and file a 

site-specific construction plan that addresses any concerns identified by those authorities 

with the Secretary. 

We believe the consultation and construction plans as required by the above recommendation 

stated would prevent adverse impacts to the Thigpen Field Airport. 

Hazardous Waste Sites 

Gulf South used Environmental Data Resources database reviews to identify any known 

hazardous waste sites within 1 mile of the proposed Project right-of-way and identified 10 sites. Three of 

these sites are located within 0.25 mile of the proposed route. Nine sites were underground storage tanks 

(UST), and one site is a Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act 

(CERCLA) site. 

In the event that a hazardous waste site is discovered during construction of the proposed 

Project, Gulf South indicates that it would stop work, notify the appropriate state and federal agencies, 

and proceed in accordance with local, state, and federal regulations. Gulf South has developed a Plan for 

the Unanticipated Discovery of Contaminated Environmental Media that identifies the procedures that 

would be implemented during construction to identify, test, treat, and dispose of such materials in 

accordance with the appropriate state and federal regulations. 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 3-80 

Recreational Areas 

Recreation and special interest areas are defined to include lands administered by federal, 

state, county, or local agencies. Recreational areas along the proposed Project route consist of natural 

areas used for hunting, fishing, wildlife viewing, hiking, boating and canoeing, and other outdoor 

activities. No lands managed by The Nature Conservancy are located within the project area. These 

areas also include NRI streams and are discussed in detail below. 

Specially Managed Lands Impacts and Mitigation 

Specially managed lands are areas administered by federal, state, county, or local agencies; 

lands of historic or cultural significance; designated environmentally sensitive areas; national or state 

scenic rivers; and designated scenic areas or roads. This section quantifies potential land use type 

conversions and recreational impacts at the special interest areas that would be traversed by the proposed 

Project route. 

Sixteenth Section Lands 

The Mississippi Secretary of State informed the FERC about the proposed Project's potential 

effects on Sixteenth Section Lands in Mississippi. Title for Sixteenth Section lands is held by the State of 

Mississippi in trust to support public education (Mississippi Secretary of State, 2006). Sixteenth Section 

lands provide income to local school districts through the use or lease of lands for silviculture, agriculture, 

residential use, and/or hunting activities. By mandate, any revenues not used by local school districts can 

only be invested in federally secured investments. 

The Mississippi Secretary of State's Office, as the designated supervisory trustee for these 

areas, indicated a desire to minimize pipeline crossings of Sixteenth Section Lands to the extent practical. 

Impacts to these properties from pipeline crossings would result in a loss of land use flexibility, 

preventing certain future property uses within permanent easements. Unlike properties held by private 

individuals or companies, any settlement received through easement settlements for Sixteenth Section 

Lands would be required to be invested in federally secured investments, thereby potentially limiting or 

decreasing future revenue generation from these lands. The State requested that if it were deemed that 

these properties could not be avoided, that crossings occur near parcel boundaries to prevent land use 

fragmentation on these lands. 

The proposed Project would cross six Sixteenth Section Lands in Simpson, Jasper, and Clarke 

Counties, Mississippi (Table 3.8.4-1). Due to these tracts' extensive size and the Project's collocation 

with existing pipeline crossings at three of the six properties, avoidance of Sixteenth Section Lands would 

not be feasible. Deviation from the proposed Project alignment through these parcels would result in the 

clearing of new corridors, resulting in increased wildlife habitat and vegetation fragmentation. Given 

Gulf South's agreements with landowners, our examination of route alternatives, and attempts to 

minimize impacts through use of HDDs, we believe that impacts to Sixteenth Section Lands have been 

adequately minimized. 

Nationwide Rivers Inventory 

Streams included in the NRI are considered to possess "outstandingly remarkable natural or 

cultural values judged to be of more than local or regional significance" (NPS, 2006). The proposed 

Project would cross two NRI waterbodies: the Strong River at MP 18.0 in Simpson County, Mississippi; 

and the Chickasawhay River at MP 89.3 in Clarke County, Mississippi. The NRI reach of the Strong 

River extends from its confluence with the Pearl River upstream approximately 72 miles, to 1 mile below 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 3-81 

the Interstate 20 bridge. The Strong River is an unspoiled stream with riffles and rapids in overhanging 

vegetation, and the entire reach is floatable. The NRI-listed reach of the Chickasawhay River extends 

from its confluence with the Pascagoula River upstream approximately 145 miles. The Chickasawhay 

River is a quiet, remote stream distinctive for its clay and limestone bluffs (NPS, 2004). 

As described in Sections 2.3.2.1 and 3.3, Gulf South would use HDD installation techniques, 

in accordance with our Procedures, to avoid and minimize impacts to the waterbodies and adjacent 

riparian areas. As proposed, ATWSs associated with the Chickasawhay River HDD would result in some 

impacts to forested areas near this river. However, we believe these impacts would be relatively minor as 

the ATWSs would be located at least 1,650 feet from the edge of this stream. We have included a 

recommendation in Section 3.3.2.1 for Gulf South to complete consultations with the NPS regarding these 

crossings and withdrawal of hydrostatic test waters, and to file plans for additional mitigation measures, if 

needed. Gulf South's Procedures also include measures to prevent or minimize impacts resulting from the 

withdrawal or discharge of hydrostatic test waters. 

TABLE 3.8.4-1 

Sixteenth Section Lands Crossed by the Proposed Southeast Expansion Project 

Mileposts 

Begin End Landowner Routing and Crossing Information 

8.8 9.4 Simpson County School District Gulf South's proposed pipeline is not collocated with an 

adjacent right-of-way through this area. Any alternative 

route would also not be collocated. The only alternatives 

to the proposed crossing would involve non-collocated 

routes that would create a new cleared corridor to the 

north of the property. 

20.8 21.8 Simpson County School District Gulf South's proposed pipeline is not collocated with an 

adjacent right-of-way through this area. Any alternative 

route would also not be collocated. The only alternatives 

to the proposed crossing would involve non-collocated 

routes. In addition, there are environmental constraints to 

the west of this property that would be impacted should an 

alternative to the west be identified. 

26.8 26.9 Simpson County School District Gulf South's proposed pipeline is not collocated with an 

adjacent right-of-way through this area. However, the 

proposed pipeline is just traversing the southwest corner 

of the section. 

64.8 65.5 Jasper County School District Gulf South's proposed pipeline would be adjacent to the 

CrossTex pipeline easement through this property. Any 

alternative route would not be collocated. The only 

alternatives to the proposed crossing would involve noncollocated routes that would create a new cleared corridor 

through the property. 

84.5 85.5 Clarke County School District Gulf South's proposed pipeline would be adjacent to the 

Transco pipeline easement through this property. Any 

alternative route would not be collocated. The only 

alternatives to the proposed crossing would involve noncollocated routes that would create a new cleared corridor 

through the property. 

103.7 104.4 Clarke County School District Gulf South's proposed pipeline would be adjacent to the 

Transco pipeline easement through this property. Any 

alternative route would not be collocated. The only 

alternatives to the proposed crossing would involve noncollocated routes that would create a new cleared corridor 

through the property. 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 3-82 

Given the avoidance and minimization measures that would be implemented by Gulf South, as 

well as the recommended consultation with the NPS, we believe that construction of the proposed Project 

would not result in a significant impact to the NRI-listed Strong or Chickasawhay Rivers. 

Farm Service Agency Managed Lands 

The CRP program is a voluntary program administered by the FSA. The CRP allows owners 

of agricultural land to conserve those lands through planting of native grasses, trees, and other cover, with 

financial assistance from the federal government (USDA, 2006). Typically, these easements retire 

croplands with erodable soils or otherwise sensitive croplands from production for a period of 10 to 15 

years. Gulf South indicates that at least three CRP lands would be crossed by the proposed pipeline route 

as listed in Section 3.5.3. 

The proposed pipeline route is collocated with other existing rights-of-way in many places 

where FSA managed lands would be crossed. Collocation tends to reduce environmental impacts overall, 

by reducing the need for clearing of entirely new corridors in greenfield areas. We are recommending in 

Section 2.0 that Gulf South accept a 50-foot-wide permanent right-of-way. 

As a result of the disturbance caused by the construction of the proposed Project, as well as 

operations, landowners may no longer be eligible to participate in the CRP or to receive the payments that 

they currently obtain from the FSA due to modified land use or modified vegetation type or strata. Since 

lands included in the construction or permanent pipeline rights-of-way would potentially be no longer 

eligible for inclusion in the CRP program, affected landowners could experience an associated financial 

loss. As part of the right-of-way procurement process, Gulf South would negotiate with the affected 

landowners to obtain an easement agreement for the construction and permanent pipeline rights-of-way. 

Compensation for any losses or limitations associated with CRP lands would be addressed during those 

easement negotiations. 

Gulf South continues to consult with FSA regarding the crossing of FSA managed lands, as 

well as considerations for routing, construction methods, revegetation, and other impact minimization 

measures. Based on our consultations with FSA, we believe a series of impact minimization or mitigation 

measures may be appropriate in easements managed by FSA including reduced right-of-way widths and 

implementation of the elements of Gulf South's Procedures as appropriate, regardless of whether the sites 

meet COE wetland delineation requirements. Gulf South would be required to obtain Subordinate-Use 

Permits authorizing the crossing of any lands managed by FSA. Since consultations with the FSA are not 

complete, we recommend that: 

• Gulf South should consult with the FSA to determine appropriate seed mixes and/or 

revegetation efforts that should be implemented on CRP lands to minimize and mitigate 

construction and operations impacts. Gulf South should also retain and have available for 

inspection any records of consultation(s) with the FSA indicating specific measures agreed 

upon by Gulf South and the FSA that would be implemented on CRP lands. 

Based on the characteristics of FSA managed lands, Gulf South's proposed construction 

measures, and our above recommendation, we believe that impacts to FSA managed lands would be 

adequately minimized. 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 3-83 

3.8.5 Transportation 

Construction of the proposed Project would result in temporary and minor traffic delays 

related to road closures and lane blockages. The proposed Project area is predominantly comprised of 

low-density rural areas. As such, existing transportation infrastructure in the area traversed by the 

proposed Project route includes mostly rural roads and highways. As such, congestion-related delays 

would not be anticipated in association with construction of the proposed Project. 

The proposed pipeline route would cross approximately 15 major U.S. or state highways, 

including Interstate 59, as well as numerous railroads and lightly-traveled paved and unimproved, 

unpaved rural roads. As described in Section 2.3, all railroads, major highways, and interstates would be 

crossed using subsurface boring techniques to avoid road and lane closures. Most major road crossings 

would be bored; however, crossings at US 49 (MP 12.6), Campbell Creek Road (MP 16.0), State 

Highway 13 (MP 18.2), and Interstate 59 (MP 69.4) would be accomplished via HDD associated with the 

crossing of adjacent waterbody features, which would also avoid closure of those roadways. Pipeline 

crossings of more lightly-traveled paved and unimproved, unpaved rural roads typically would be 

accomplished via open-cut installation, which could require temporary lane blockages and closures and 

implementation of detours, where feasible. In the absence of a reasonable detour, construction across the 

roadway would be staged to allow at least one lane of traffic to remain open except for the limited periods 

required for installing the pipeline. Efforts would also be made to schedule lane closures outside of peak 

traffic periods. 

Construction across all roadways would be accomplished in accordance with Gulf South's 

Plan and the requirements of all applicable crossing permits and approvals. Therefore, any effects to local 

transportation patterns or infrastructure would be temporary and minor. As periodic maintenance and 

inspection activities along the proposed pipeline route would involve only infrequent light vehicle 

movement, no impacts to transportation would be expected during operation of the proposed Project. 

3.8.6 Visual Resources 

Visual resources refer to the composite of basic terrain, geologic features, hydrologic features, 

vegetative patterns, and anthropogenic features that influence the visual appeal of an area for residents or 

visitors. The proposed Project could alter existing visual resources in three ways: (1) construction 

activity and equipment may temporarily alter viewscapes, (2) construction and right-of-way maintenance 

would alter existing vegetation patterns, and (3) aboveground facilities would represent permanent 

alterations to the viewscape. The significance of these visual impacts would primarily depend on the 

quality of the current viewshed, the degree of alteration of that view, the number of potential viewers, and 

the perspective of the viewer. 

3.8.6.1 Current Viewshed 

Most of the proposed Project would extend primarily through rural areas that consist of pine 

plantation, forested lands, pastures, and agricultural lands with scattered residences. Most areas along the 

route do not provide long-range, unobstructed views, in part because of the topography and in part 

because much of the land adjacent to the proposed route is forested. However, public viewing points are 

present along some of the roadways in the Project area. 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 3-84 

3.8.6.2 General Impacts and Mitigation 

Pipeline Facilities 

During construction, there would be temporary impacts to visual quality for viewers in the 

vicinity of the construction right-of-way due to the presence of construction equipment, work crews, and 

construction activities. Pipeline construction would represent a short-term, localized alteration to visual 

resources of the Project area. 

After completion of construction, the temporary right-of-way would be restored to 

approximate pre-construction contours and would be allowed to revert to pre-construction uses and cover 

type. About 18 percent of the proposed pipeline route would traverse agricultural, pasture, open lands, 

residential, and industrial/commercial land use types. Pipeline installation in these areas would not result 

in a significant change to visual resources, as existing vegetative patterns would not be affected during 

operation of the proposed Project. However, affected forested areas outside the permanent pipeline rightof-way could take many years to recover, and forested land within the permanent right-of-way would be 

maintained in a condition free of woody vegetation for the life of the proposed Project. To reduce visual 

impacts related to the permanent pipeline corridor, Gulf South's proposed route would be collocated with 

or parallel existing utility rights-of-way where possible, thereby minimizing impacts to previously 

undisturbed vegetation. In these areas where the proposed pipeline would be collocated with existing 

rights-of-way, the visual impacts of the proposed Project would be minor because widening of the 

existing corridor would not significantly alter existing visual resources. The long-term visual impacts 

resulting from views of the corridor in existing forested areas where the proposed route would not be 

collocated with existing rights-of-way generally would be limited to a relatively small number of 

individuals, or brief observations afforded in areas where the corridor intersects roadways. As a result, 

we believe the visual impact of the permanent pipeline corridor would be minor. 

Gulf South has avoided crossing state and federally managed lands and has also avoided most 

scenic vistas. As described in Section 3.8.4, however, the proposed Project route would cross two NRIlisted rivers, which have been noted for their visual character. The crossing of these resources would be 

accomplished via HDD; therefore, construction and operation of the proposed Project would not result in 

creation or expansion of an existing corridor, and long-term visual impacts to these features should be 

minimal. Furthermore, we have included recommendations in Section 3.3 for Gulf South to complete 

consultations with NPS and identify any plans to address additional mitigation measures that may be 

recommended by those agencies. 

Aboveground Facilities 

The proposed Project would include installation of three compressor stations, five meter and 

regulator facilities, one side valve and eight mainline valves. Most of the aboveground facilities would 

either be constructed in areas where existing viewsheds contain similar features or where views would be 

occluded by existing vegetation or topography. Given the limited visibility of these sites, screening 

provided by existing vegetation or landscaping, and frequent collocation with existing utility rights-ofway or industrial facilities, the aboveground facilities as a group would represent a minor visual alteration 

that would persist for the life of the Project. The potential site-specific visual impacts of each 

aboveground facility are described below. 

Compressor Stations 

The proposed compressor station sites would typically contain several buildings, including 

those housing compressor units and other associated equipment. Aboveground features outside the 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 3-85 

buildings themselves would include piping and pig launcher/receiver facilities. Portions of these sites 

may be paved, covered with gravel, or landscaped, depending on facility operations and maintenance 

requirements. A chain-link fence would surround the perimeter of each compressor station site.

In the Draft EIS, we recommended that Gulf South file a description of the surrounding 

landscape, potential for visual impacts to nearby residents from, and the need for visual screening for, the 

proposed Delhi Compressor Station and the associated CenterPoint M/R Station. The proposed Delhi 

Compressor Station would be located in an area of active row-cropping. Gulf South would purchase and 

permanently maintain approximately 69.5 acres of land in this area. The landscape surrounding the 

proposed Delhi Compressor Station is currently comprised of agricultural fields, pastures, thin strips and 

patches of forested land, several residences, and a small cemetery. Some residences to the southwest of 

the site would have minimal sight barriers in the form of scattered strips of trees along State Highway 17 

and the fence along the proposed compressor station boundary. We believe that the direct line of sight to 

residences along Highway 17 poses a long-term significant adverse visual effect that could be addressed 

with minimal vegetation measures to reduce visual impacts to nearby residents on the part of Gulf South. 

Therefore, we recommend that: 

• Prior to construction, Gulf South should file with the Secretary for review and written 

approval by the Director of OEP a visual screening plan to reduce the long-term 

adverse effects on the visual quality of residences located along Highway 17 that would 

result from installation of the Delhi Compressor Station. 

The proposed Harrisville Compressor Station would be located in an area dominated by 

upland forest. Gulf South would purchase and permanently maintain approximately 16.2 acres in this 

area. The proposed site is completely surrounded by upland forest that would visually screen the 

compressor station. No residences or businesses are within view of the Harrisville Compressor Station. 

The proposed Destin Compressor Station and Destin M/R Station would be located in an area 

dominated by pine plantation and upland forest. Gulf South would purchase and temporarily disturb 

approximately 20 acres in this area, and would permanently maintain only about 23.3 acres. The 

remaining 11.1 acres would be allowed to revert to natural conditions. The proposed site is completely 

surrounded by planted pine trees, which would visually screen the compressor station. No residences or 

businesses are within view of the Destin Compressor Station. 

Overall, we believe the change in visual quality in the vicinity of the compressor stations 

would affect few viewers and would result in a minor, long-term impact. 

MLV and M/R Stations 

MLV sites would consist of an area surrounded by a chain link fence within the confines of 

the permanent pipeline right-of-way. Approximately 0.5 acre of land currently designated upland forest 

and open land would be permanently impacted outside of the permanent pipeline right-of-way. 

Aboveground elements of each MLV site would include 12-inch piping with valving extending 

aboveground and connected on each side of the 42-inch valve with a crossover. 

Based on review of aerial alignment sheets and information provided by Gulf South, it is 

likely that components of the proposed Project would be visible from nearby residences in two locations 

(MP 30.3 and MP 110.8). The MLV at MP 30.3 would be located adjacent to County Road 503. This 

facility would be visible to residences located approximately 300 feet to the southwest, 375 feet south, 

and 525 feet northwest of this proposed facility. The MLV located at MP 110.8 would be located in an 

open area, adjacent to the proposed Transco M/R Station and the existing Transco right-of-way. The 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 3-86 

facilities at MP 110.8 would be visible to a residence located approximately 350 feet to the northeast. To 

reduce the potential for visual impacts to residences, Gulf South proposes to add vegetative buffers 

wherever they may be viewed by nearby residences. 

M/R stations would be constructed adjacent to the cleared pipeline right-of-way at each of the 

proposed Project receipt and interconnect points to meter the flow and adjust the pressure of natural gas 

received from or delivered to those systems. Each M/R station would include meter and regulator 

equipment, flow pressure control equipment, and a customer facility housed within a fenced perimeter. 

The Transco M/R Station (MP 110.8) would also include a pig receiver. Sizes of the proposed Southern 

Natural and Tennessee Gas M/R stations would each be approximately 1 acre, and the Transco M/R 

station would be approximately 8 acres. 

The Southern Natural (MP 45.7) and Tennessee Gas (MP 72.5) M/R Stations would be 

constructed in areas lacking nearby residences. Additionally, these stations would be constructed wholly 

or partially within, and largely screened by, forested land, further limiting the visual impact of these 

facilities. 

With the recommendations discussed above, combined with the lack of proximate residences 

to other above ground facilities, we believe the proposed Project would not result in any significant 

impact on local viewsheds. 

3.8.7 Conclusion Regarding Impacts to Land Use, Recreation and Special Interest Areas, and 

Visual Resources 

The proposed Project would affect multiple land use types, with long-term or permanent 

impacts to forested areas. However, these impacts would not be significant overall given the amount of 

forested lands in the vicinity of the proposed Project. Additionally, most of the impacts to other land use 

types would not result in a permanent conversion of use. Several special interest areas and specially 

managed lands would also be affected by the proposed Project, but based on Gulf South's proposed 

measures and plans, ongoing consultations with managing authorities, and our recommendations, we 

believe that potential impacts would be adequately minimized. Visual resources would generally not be 

affected by the proposed Project, and we have included a recommendation that would minimize impacts 

at the Delhi Compressor Station. 

3.9 SOCIOECONOMICS 

3.9.1 Region of Influence 

The proposed Project would consist of an approximately 110.8-mile-long, 42-inch-diameter, 

interstate natural gas pipeline, three new compressor stations, and associated ancillary facilities, as 

described in Section 2.1. The proposed pipeline would traverse four counties in Mississippi (Simpson, 

Smith, Jasper, and Clarke), and one county in Alabama (Choctaw). Additionally, a proposed compressor 

station is located in Richland Parish, Louisiana. For the purposes of our socioeconomic analysis, we 

define these counties and parishes as the region of influence for the proposed Project. 

If the proposed Project were constructed, several potential socioeconomic effects could 

manifest themselves within the region of influence. Construction-related effects could include alteration 

of population levels or local demographics, increased demand for housing or public services, and 

increased employment opportunities. In addition, construction would result in increased government 

revenue associated with sales and payroll taxes. Potential socioeconomic impacts associated with 

operation of the proposed Project would include employment opportunities, ongoing local expenditures 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 3-87 

by the operating company, an increased tax base, and an increase in the demand for provision of public 

services. 

3.9.2 Population 

Table 3.9.2-1 reports populations and selected demographic characteristics in the states, 

counties, and parish that would be traversed by the proposed Project. Based on census data for the year 

2000 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000), the total population in these counties and parish is 116,828. 

Populations in Louisiana experienced a growth between 1990 and 2000, with a 5.9 percent increase in 

population over the 10-year period. Richland Parish was relatively stable during this time period with a 

0.5 percent decrease in population. Mississippi experienced considerable growth in the 10-year period, 

with increases between 2.1 and 16.7 percent occurring in the counties affected by the proposed Project. 

Although Alabama in general experienced growth over the 10-year period, the county affected by the 

proposed Project experienced a 7.6 percent decrease from 1990 to 2000. 

TABLE 3.9.2-1 

Existing Population and Demographic Conditions in the 

Region of Influence for the Proposed Southeast Expansion Project 

Parish/County, 

State 

2000 

Population 

Population 

Change 

Since 

1990 (%) 

Population 

Density 

per 

Square 

Mile 

White, 

NonHispanic 

(%) 

Black or 

AfricanAmerican 

(%) 

Hispanic 

(%) 

Asian 

(%) 

Native 

American 

(%) 

Louisiana 4,468,976 5.9 102.6 2,794,391 

(63) 

1,443,390 

(32) 

107,738 

(2) 

54,256 

(1) 

24,129 

(<1) 

 Richland, LA 20,981 -0.5 37.6 12,667 

(60) 

7,927 

(38) 

227 

(1) 

36 

(<1) 

26 

(<1) 

Mississippi 2,844,658 10.5 60.6 1,727,908 

(61) 

1,028,473 

(36) 

39,569 

(1) 

18,349 

(<1) 

11,224 

(<1) 

 Simpson, MS 27,639 16.7 46.9 17,686 

(64) 

9,432 

(34) 

318 

(1) 

35 

(<1) 

32 

(<1) 

 Jasper, MS 18,149 6.1 26.8 8,378 

(46) 

9,561 

(53) 

117 

(<1) 

12 

(<1) 

11 

(<1) 

 Smith, MS 16,182 8.5 25.4 12,268 

(76) 

3,728 

(23) 

96 

(<1) 

15 

(<1) 

1 

(<1) 

 Clarke, MS 17,955 2.1 26.0 11,518 

(64) 

6,220 

(35) 

120 

(<1) 

19 

(<1) 

17 

(<1) 

Alabama 4,447,100 72.8 87.6 3,125,819 

(70) 

1,150,076 

(26) 

75,830 

(2) 

30,989 

(<1) 

1,059 

(<1) 

 Choctaw, AL 15,922 -7.6 17.4 8,724 

(55) 

6,985 

(44) 

107 

(<1) 

6 

(<1) 

24 

(<1) 

_______________ 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 

Population densities in the region of influence range from a low of 17.4 persons per square 

mile in Choctaw County, Alabama, to a high of 46.9 persons per square mile in Simpson County, 

Mississippi. These densities are relatively low compared to urban area densities that typically range from 

3,000 to 6,000 persons per square mile (FERC, 2006), but are consistent with an area that is 

predominantly rural and agricultural. 

The number of residents within the region of influence would increase temporarily during 

construction, which would occur for approximately four months between September 2007 and December 

2007, as proposed. The peak construction workforce would be 1,400 workers, of which about 98 percent 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 3-88 

(1,372) would be non-local. Assuming 0.8 family members (FERC, 2006) would accompany each nonlocal worker, total construction-related immigration would be approximately 2,470 persons. Gulf South 

indicates that construction of the pipeline would entail the simultaneous activity of three individual 

construction spreads over the proposed Project route. Additional work crews would also be employed at 

each of the proposed aboveground facilities. As such, these workers would be distributed along the 

length of proposed Project route and throughout the region of influence, thereby minimizing the potential 

population level and demographic effects to any individual county or parish. 

As described above, construction-related immigration would be spread across the length of the 

proposed pipeline. Based on the miles of pipeline in each county, population impacts associated with 

non-local workers and their families are expected to range from, 2.1 to 0.1 percent, on average. This 

would represent a minor, temporary population increase confined to the period of proposed Project 

construction. The FERC does not believe the work force would have a significantly different 

demographic profile than that observed within the region of influence. As such, changes to local 

demographics would not be anticipated. 

During operation, Gulf South estimates that the proposed Project would employ 

approximately three full-time workers. This would represent only a negligible, long-term population and 

demographic alteration. 

3.9.3 Economy and Employment 

The civilian labor force within the region of influence includes about 47,000 individuals 

whose major employment sector is education, health, social services, retail trade, and manufacturing. 

With the exception of Smith County, Mississippi, some of the counties and the parish within the region of 

influence report that the average unemployment is slightly higher and the average per capita income is 

slightly lower than the state-level values reported. In Smith County, Mississippi, the per capita income is 

considerably higher and unemployment is considerably lower than the state values (Table 3.9.3-1). 

Construction of the proposed Project would result in the hiring of approximately 28 local 

workers. Additional jobs would also be created as a result of secondary activity associated with 

construction of the proposed Project, as purchases made by non-local workers of food, clothing, lodging, 

gasoline, and entertainment would have a temporary, stimulatory effect on the local economy. These jobs 

would represent a temporary, moderate increase in employment opportunities within the region of 

influence. 

During operation, the proposed Project would create three full-time positions. This would 

represent a minor, permanent increase in the number of employment opportunities within the region of 

influence. 

3.9.4 Housing 

Table 3.9.4-1 reports selected housing statistics for the region of influence. Within this region 

there are approximately 2,148 rental units and units used for seasonal, recreational, or occasional use. 

Approximately 16,635 hotel or motel rooms supplement this potential housing stock, but most are located 

in the areas presented in Table 3.9.4-1. 

At its peak, construction of the proposed Project would require about 1,372 non-local workers, 

as described in Section 3.9.2. If each worker required his or her own housing unit, the non-local work 

force would occupy about 8.2 percent of the temporary housing within the region of influence. Thus, the 

temporary housing available within the region of influence would be capable of meeting the temporary 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 3-89 

and moderate increased demand for housing resulting from construction of the proposed Project. Housing 

demand for the three permanent positions generated by operation of the proposed Project would represent 

a negligible increase in housing demand. 

3.9.5 Property Values 

The FERC frequently receives comments regarding Project impacts on property values. These 

concerns generally center on four topics: devaluation of property if encumbered by a pipeline easement; 

identification of the party responsible for property taxes within a pipeline easement; the potential for 

Project effects on landowner insurance premiums; and the potential for reduced property values 

associated with lost timber and agricultural production. 

TABLE 3.9.3-1 

Existing Income and Employment Conditions Within the 

Region of Influence for the Proposed Southeast Expansion Project 

County/Parish 

Per Capita 

Income 

($) 

1999 

Population 

Below Poverty 

Level 

(%) 

Civilian Labor 

Force 

Unemployment 

Rate 

(%) Major Industry 

Louisiana $16,912 19.6 3,381,306 7.3 

Richland Parish $12,479 23.4 8,249 6.9 Education, health, and social 

services 

Mississippi $15,853 19.9 2,165,089 7.4 

Simpson County $13,344 19.7 11,389 6.3 Retail trade 

Smith County $25,137 16.4 6,996 6.6 Manufacturing 

Jasper County $12,889 20.8 7,228 8.3 Retail trade 

Clarke County $14,288 18.9 7,312 8.5 Manufacturing 

Alabama $18,189 16.1 3,479,035 6.2 

Choctaw County $14,635 23.4 6,019 8.8 Retail trade 

_______________ 

Notes: 

U.S. Census Bureau, 2000

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 3-90 

TABLE 3.9.4-1 

Housing Statistics Within the Region of Influence 

for the Proposed Southeast Expansion Project 

City, County, State 

Number Hotel/Motel 

Rooms 

Jackson, Hinds County, Mississippi 5,643 

Hattiesburg, Forrest County, 

Mississippi 

 2,122 

Meridian, Lauderdale County, 

Mississippi 

 1,312 

Laurel, Jones County, Mississippi 952 

Richland Parish, Louisiana 665 

_______________ 

Notes: 

Hattiesburg Convention and Visitors Bureau, 2006 

Meridian Chamber of Commerce, 2006 

Jones County Economic Development Authority, 2006

The impact that a natural gas project may have on the value of any land parcel depends on 

many factors. These include the size of the parcel, the parcel's current value and land use, and the value 

of other nearby properties. However, subjective valuation is generally not considered in appraisals. This 

is not to say that the proposed Project would not affect resale values. Potential purchasers may make a 

decision based on intended future use and, if the presence of the proposed Project would make that use 

infeasible, it is possible that that potential purchaser may not acquire the parcel. However, each potential 

purchaser has differing criteria and means. 

Landowners are responsible for all property taxes levied against parcels, and this 

responsibility would be independent of the existence of any Project-related pipeline easement. However, 

if a landowner felt that the proposed Project, should it be constructed, reduced the value of their property, 

he or she would appeal the assessment and subsequent property taxation to the local property taxation 

agency. If the parcel were reappraised, the landowner would then be responsible for property taxes based 

upon an appraisal that directly incorporated the easement. 

As described in Section 3.8, construction and operation of the proposed Project would result in 

a temporary loss of timber and agricultural productivity and a permanent conversion of some lands 

currently used for forestry operations to a maintained utility right-of-way. During easement negotiations, 

compensation for any loss of current or future agricultural and timber production would be considered. 

3.9.6 Government Revenue 

A portion of the estimated $60.5 million Project construction payroll would be spent locally 

for the purchase of housing, food, gasoline, and entertainment during construction. The exact amount 

would be dependent upon the proportion of the workforce that was local, the behavior of individual 

workers, and the duration of their stay. The majority of construction-related expenditures would be 

subject to either Louisiana's state sales tax of 4 percent, Mississippi's state sales tax of 7 percent, or 

Alabama's state sales tax of 4 percent (American Institute of Certified Public Accountants [AICPA], 

2006). This increase in sales tax would represent a minor short-term increase in government revenues. 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 3-91 

Table 3.9.6-1 contains Gulf South's estimate of the annual taxes that would be payable to each 

county and parish traversed by the proposed Project. Operation of the proposed Project would provide a 

permanent, minor increase in government revenues. 

TABLE 3.9.6-1 

Estimated Annual Taxes for the Proposed 

Southeast Expansion Project 

County/Parish Estimated Annual Taxes 

Louisiana 

Richland Parish $501,105 

Mississippi 

Simpson County $1,871,749 

Smith County $1,013,896 

Jasper County $1,316,551 

Clarke County $1,708,542 

Alabama 

Choctaw County $118,875 

Total $6,530,718 

3.9.7 Public Services 

Table 3.9.7-1 summarizes the number of full-time equivalent medical, police, and fire 

protection employees in the parish and counties affected by the proposed Project. These employees serve 

a population of approximately 116,828. 

Construction of the proposed Project would temporarily increase demand for medical, police, 

and fire protection services. Gulf South has consulted with the counties and parish in the region of 

influence and believes that sufficient public services exist to meet Project-related needs. Furthermore, 

Gulf South would work with local law enforcement and emergency response agencies to coordinate 

effective emergency response for the proposed Project during construction and operation (see 

Section 3.12.1). 

We note that construction of the proposed Project would occur during the school year, and a 

significant influx of students would place a considerable strain on the region's educational workers. 

However, due to the nature of the proposed construction and its relatively short duration (four months), 

non-local workers are not expected to be accompanied by substantive numbers of children. Thus, any 

impact would be minor and temporary. 

During operation of the proposed Project, workers filling the three permanent positions and 

their associated family members would represent a minor permanent increase in the demand for the 

provision of public services. However, this increased demand would be offset by the Project-related 

increase in government revenues associated with operation. 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 3-92 

TABLE 3.9.7-1 

Emergency Staff and Facilities in the Parish and Counties Affected 

by the Proposed Southeast Expansion Project 

County/Parish Police Protection Fire Protection Health and Hospitals 

Total Full-time 

Equivalent 

Louisiana 

Richland Parish Parish Sheriff's 

office and each 

municipality have 

their own law 

enforcement 

offices. 

Six fire departments 

within the county. 

One hospital with 

emergency 

capabilities. 

911 service is available 

as well as medical air 

transport. 

Mississippi

Simpson County Seven fire stations; 

five have medical 

capabilities. All 

stations are 

manned by 

volunteers. 

Two hospitals with 

emergency 

capabilities. 

Police department is 

responsible for four 

cities. Sheriff's 

department covers the 

entire county. 

911 and ambulance 

service throughout the 

county. Air service is 

available from Jackson, 

requiring about 

5 minutes' air time. 

Agreements in place 

with neighboring 

counties for HazMat 

personnel. 

Smith County One volunteer fire 

department in 

Taylorsville, 

Mississippi. 

One hospital with 

emergency 

capabilities. 

Two city police 

departments and one 

Sheriff's office within 

the county. 

911 service is available 

throughout the county. 

Jasper County Eight volunteer fire 

departments within 

the county. 

Jasper County 

Hospital is available 

with 66 beds and a 

trauma center. 

Sheriff and city police 

departments are 

located in Bay 

Springs, Mississippi. 

Jasper County First 

Responders 

601-764-2820 (EMS). 

Clarke County Fifteen volunteer 

fire departments. 

H. C. Watkins 

Memorial Hospital has 

50 beds and 

emergency 

capabilities. 

County Sheriff's office 

and each municipality 

have their own law 

enforcement offices. 

Ambulance service and 

paramedics available 

throughout the county. 

Alabama

Choctaw County Six fire 

departments within 

the county. 

One hospital with 

emergency 

capabilities. 

County Sheriff's office 

and two cities have 

their own law 

enforcement offices. 

911 service throughout 

the county. 

3.9.8 Impacts on Specific Economic Sectors 

To date, Gulf South has not received any comments from landowners or other interested 

parties requesting information regarding specific economic sectors. 

Below, we consider the potential for the proposed Project to result in significant effects to the 

agriculture and forestry economic sectors. These sectors are defined to include activities associated with 

harvested crops, timber production, livestock pasturing, and dairy production. This analysis focuses on 

the effects of potential land use changes (i.e., incorporation of agricultural lands into the construction or 

permanent rights-of-way) on regional economic sectors. Additional discussion of the potential for siteDocument Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 3-93 

specific effects to agricultural or forestry lands that would be crossed by the proposed pipeline route is in 

Sections 3.2 and 3.8. 

As described in Section 3.8, construction and operation of the proposed Project would 

permanently affect approximately 75.2 acres of agricultural land and 283.4 acres of lands currently used 

for commercial forestry practices (pine plantation), as these areas would be contained within the 

permanent pipeline right-of-way. As discussed throughout this EIS, agricultural operations within the 

vast majority of permanent pipeline right-of-way would not be precluded during operations. As affected 

agricultural lands would largely return to their preconstruction condition and use, no significant effect to 

that economic sector would be anticipated in association with construction and operation of the proposed 

Project. Commercial forestry practices would be permanently precluded within the permanent pipeline 

right-of-way. However, given the magnitude of the land potentially affected relative to the total amount 

of land dedicated to sector production, no quantifiable impacts to the forestry economic sector would be 

expected. 

3.10 CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Section 106 of the NHPA, as amended, requires the FERC to take into account the effect of its 

undertakings (including the issuance of Certificates) on any properties listed in, or eligible for listing in, 

the NRHP and to provide the ACHP an opportunity to comment on the undertaking. Gulf South, as a 

non-federal party, is assisting the FERC in meeting its obligations under Section 106 of the NHPA and 

the ACHP's regulations set forth at 36 CFR 800. 

3.10.1 Results of the Cultural Resources Survey 

3.10.1.1 Louisiana 

Information about the Delhi Compressor Station (the only portion of the project in Louisiana) 

was provided to the Louisiana State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) in November 2006. The 

Louisiana SHPO advised on December 4, 2006 that no survey was needed for the Delhi Compressor 

Station site. No significant cultural resources or historic properties would be affected by project 

construction in Louisiana. 

3.10.1.2 Mississippi 

Gulf South conducted an initial cultural resource survey between August and November 2006, 

and January and March 2007, for the proposed pipeline, compressor station sites, associated aboveground 

ancillary facilities, and extra work areas (ATWSs, access roads, and pipe storage and contractor yards) 

within the Mississippi portion of the proposed Project. Additional surveys performed for three new 

contractor/storage yards identified by Gulf South in its May 29, 2007, response to the May 7, 2007, Data 

Request have yet to be filed. 

The Mississippi survey identified 43 prehistoric sites. Nine of those sites are considered 

potentially eligible for listing in the NRHP. The remaining 34 prehistoric sites are not considered eligible 

for listing in the NRHP, and no further work was recommended. A total of 21 historic sites, four of 

which are standing structures, were identified in the Mississippi portion of the proposed Project. Of those 

historic resources, one historic standing structure is considered potentially eligible for listing in the 

NRHP. Finally, three sites were identified as multi-component sites and two are considered eligible for 

listing in the NRHP. Gulf South has adopted route variations that avoid impacts to all cultural resource 

sites identified as potentially eligible for listing in the NRHP. 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 3-94 

The Mississippi Cultural Resource survey results are currently in review by the SHPO. Gulf 

South would need to develop plans for additional investigations at potentially significant sites to 

determine if they could be adversely affected by project construction. In the event that significant 

archaeological deposits or structures could not be avoided, treatment plans for data recovery and 

recording would need to be developed in consultation with the SHPO. 

3.10.1.3 Alabama 

Gulf South surveyed the 6.4-mile Alabama portion of the proposed pipeline, identifying no 

historic or prehistoric cultural resources. Gulf South has submitted a cultural resources survey report to 

the Alabama SHPO. To date, the Alabama SHPO has not submitted a response. 

3.10.2 Unanticipated Discoveries Plan 

Gulf South has filed an acceptable Unanticipated Discoveries Plan with the FERC that 

outlines the procedures that would be followed in the event that unanticipated cultural resources or human 

remains are encountered during construction of the proposed Project. 

3.10.3 Native American Consultation 

Gulf South contacted two Native American groups regarding the proposed Project. Those 

groups contacted include the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians and the Poarch Band of Creek Indians 

of Alabama. Letters were sent to representatives of each of these tribes on August 21, 2006, requesting 

comments on the proposed Project and the identification of any cultural or religious sites significant to the 

tribe. As of May 2007, no replies have been received from these tribes. 

3.10.4 General Impacts and Mitigation 

Gulf South has completed most of the necessary cultural resources surveys and submitted the 

required cultural resource survey reports to the Mississippi and Alabama SHPOs. Cultural resource 

surveys performed for modified work areas are still under review by the Mississippi and Alabama 

SHPOs. No response from either agency has been received to date. To ensure that required cultural 

resource studies and consultations are completed for all proposed Project components and that the FERC's 

responsibilities under Section 106 of the NHPA are met, we recommend that: 

• Gulf South should defer implementation of any treatment plans/measures (including 

archaeological data recovery), construction of facilities, and use of all staging, storage, or 

temporary work areas and new or to-be-improved access roads until: 

a. Gulf South files with the Secretary cultural resources survey and evaluation reports, 

any necessary treatment plans, and the Mississippi and Alabama SHPO comments 

on the reports and plans; and 

b. The Director of OEP reviews and approves all cultural resources survey reports and 

plans and notifies Gulf South in writing that treatment plans/procedures may be 

implemented and/or construction may proceed. 

 All material filed with the Secretary 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." 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 3-95 

3.11 AIR QUALITY AND NOISE 

3.11.1 Air Quality 

Air quality would be affected by construction and operation of the proposed Project. Though 

air emissions would be generated by operation of equipment during construction of the pipeline and 

aboveground facilities proposed by Gulf South, most air emissions associated with the proposed Project 

would result from the long-term operation of the proposed and modified compressor stations. 

Gulf South proposes to construct the Delhi Compressor Station near Delhi in Richland Parish, 

Louisiana; to construct the Harrisville Compressor Station near Harrisville in Simpson County, 

Mississippi; and to construct the Destin Gas Transmission pipeline interconnect near Shubuta in Clark 

County, Mississippi. 

At the Delhi Compressor Station, Gulf South proposes to install four Caterpillar 3616TALE 

engines equipped with oxidation catalyst, with a planned compression capacity of 18,940 Hp, one gasfired 1,155-Hp Waukesha VGF standby generator engine limited to 500 hours/year, one 0.75 MMBtu/hr 

fuel gas heater, a condensate tank, condensate truck loading point, and an ESD blowdown stack. 

At the Harrisville Compressor Station, Gulf South proposes to install four Caterpillar 

3616TALE engines equipped with oxidation catalysts, with a planned compression capacity of 18,940 

Hp, one gas-fired 470-Hp Waukesha VGF 24GL standby generator engine limited to 500 hours/year, a 

condensate tank, condensate truck loading point, and an ESD blowdown stack. 

At the Destin Compressor Station, Gulf South proposes to install two Caterpillar 3612 engines 

equipped with oxidation catalysts with a planned compression capacity of 7,100 Hp, one gas-fired 425-Hp 

Waukesha VGF 18GL standby generator engine limited to 500 hours/year, one 0.75-MMBtu/hour fuel 

gas heater, one condensate storage tank, condensate truck loading point, and an ESD blowdown stack. 

3.11.1.1 Existing Air Quality 

The proposed Project would be constructed in portions of Richland Parish in Louisiana; 

Simpson, Smith, Jasper, and Clarke Counties in Mississippi; and Choctaw County in Alabama. These 

counties and parishes are characterized by a temperate climate. Rainfall at Jackson, Mississippi, located 

near the center of the proposed pipeline route, averages 55.95 inches annually (Weather.com). April is 

the wettest month in Jackson, averaging 5.98 inches of precipitation; and September is the driest month, 

averaging 3.23 inches. The warmest month is July, with an average high temperature of 91o Fahrenheit 

(F) and an average low temperature of 71o F. January is the coldest month, with an average high 

temperature of 55o F and an average low temperature of 35o F. 

The CAA designates six pollutants as criteria pollutants for which the National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS) are promulgated. The NAAQS for sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen dioxide 

(NO2), particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than 10 microns (PM10), particulate matter 

with an aerodynamic diameter less than 2.5 microns (PM2.5), carbon monoxide (CO), ozone (O3), and lead 

were set to protect human health (primary standards) and human welfare (secondary standards). State air 

quality standards cannot be less stringent than the NAAQS. Both Louisiana, and Mississippi have 

adopted the NAAQS, as defined in 40 CFR 50; these standards are summarized in Table 3.11.1.1-1. 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 3-96 

Air Quality Control Regions and Attainment Status 

Air quality control regions (AQCR) are areas established for air quality planning purposes in 

which implementation plans describe how ambient air quality standards will be achieved and maintained. 

AQCRs were established by the EPA and local agencies, in accordance with Section 107 of the CAA, as a 

means to implement the CAA and comply with the NAAQS through state implementation plans. The 

AQCRs are intra- and interstate regions such as large metropolitan areas where improvement of the air 

quality in one portion of the AQCR requires emission reductions throughout the AQCR. Each AQCR, or 

portion thereof, is designated based on compliance with the NAAQS. AQCR designations fall under 

three categories as follows: "attainment" (areas in compliance with the NAAQS); "nonattainment" (areas 

not in compliance with the NAAQS); or "unclassifiable", which refers to areas with insufficient data to 

make a determination. The counties and parishes in which the proposed Project would be located are 

designated as "attainment" or "unclassifiable" for all criteria pollutants. 

TABLE 3.11.1.1-1 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

Pollutant Timeframe Primary Secondary 

 Particulate matter less than 

10 microns in diameter 24-houra 150 μg/m3

 150 μg/m3

Annualb 15 μg/m3 15 μg/m3

Particulate matter less than 

2.5 microns in diameter 24-hourc 35 μg/m3 35 μg/m3

Annual 0.030 ppm (80 μg/m3) N/A 

24-houra 0.014 ppm (365 μg/m3 Sulfur dioxide ) N/A 

3-houra N/A 0.5 ppm (1,300 μg/m3

) 

8-houra 9 ppm (10,000 μg/m3) None 

Carbon monoxide 

1-houra 35 ppm (40,000 μg/m3

) None 

Nitrogen dioxide Annual 0.053 ppm (100 μg/m3) 0.053 ppm 

Ozone 8-hourd 0.08 ppm (157 μg/m3) 0.08 ppm 

Lead Quarterly 1.5 μg/m3 1.5 μg/m3

____________ 

Notes: 

μg = Microgram(s) 

m3

 = Cubic meter(s) 

N/A = Not applicable 

ppm = Part(s) per million 

a Not to be exceeded more than once per year. 

b To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the weighted annual mean particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter 

concentrations from single or multiple community-oriented monitors must not exceed 15.0 μg/m3. 

c To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour concentrations at each population-oriented monitor 

within an area must not exceed 65 μg/m3. 

d To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentrations, 

measured at each monitor within an area over each year, must not exceed 0.08 ppm. 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 3-97 

3.11.1.2 Regulatory Requirements 

Federal Regulations 

The CAA, 42 USC 7401 et seq. amended in 1977 and 1990, and 40 CFR Parts 50 through 99 

are the basic federal statutes governing air pollution. The provisions of the CAA that are potentially 

relevant to the proposed Project include the following: 

• New Source Review (NSR)/Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) 

• New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) 

• National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) 

• Title V operating permits 

• General Conformity 

New Source Review/Prevention of Significant Deterioration

New Source Review refers to the preconstruction permitting programs under Parts C and D of 

the CAA that must be satisfied before construction can begin on new major sources or major 

modifications to existing major sources located in attainment or unclassified areas. This review may 

include a PSD review. This review process is intended to keep new air emission sources from causing 

existing air quality to deteriorate beyond acceptable levels codified in the federal regulations. For sources 

located in non-attainment areas, the Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR) program is implemented 

for the pollutants for which the area is classified as nonattainment. The proposed Project would be 

located in attainment areas. Consequently, NNSR is not applicable to the proposed Project. 

The PSD review regulations apply to proposed new major sources or major modifications to 

existing major sources located in an attainment area. The PSD regulations (40 CFR 52.21) define a 

"major source" as any source type belonging to a list of named source categories that emit or have the 

potential to emit 100 tons per year (tpy) or more of any regulated pollutant. A major source under PSD 

also can be defined as any source not on the list of named source categories with the potential to emit 

such pollutants in amounts equal to or greater than 250 tpy. Modifications to existing major sources have 

lower emission thresholds, called "significant emission increases"; amounts over these thresholds trigger 

PSD review. The proposed Project would not include facilities or operations included on the list of 

named source categories to which the 100 tpy trigger applies. Also, the proposed Project does not include 

any existing major sources under the PSD program; therefore the proposed Delhi, Harrisville, and Destin 

Compressor Stations are all subject to the 250 tpy threshold. 

The PSD review evaluates existing ambient air quality and the potential impacts of the 

proposed source on ambient air quality (noting in particular whether the source would contribute to any 

violation of the NAAQS), and reviews the best available control technology (BACT) in order to minimize 

emissions. The PSD regulations contain restrictions on the degree of ambient air quality deterioration that 

would be allowed. These increments for criteria pollutants are based on the PSD review classification of 

the area. 

None of the new facilities or additions to existing facilities would exceed emissions of 250 tpy 

of any criteria pollutant (see Tables 3.11.1.2-1 through 3.11.1.2-3 and the discussion under "Operations 

Emissions"). Therefore, PSD permitting is not applicable to the proposed Project. 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 3-98 

Air Quality Control Regions and PSD

AQCRs are categorized as Class I, Class II, or Class III. Class I areas are designated 

specifically as pristine natural areas or areas of natural significance and have the lowest increment of 

permissible deterioration, which essentially precludes development near these areas. Class III 

designations, intended for heavily industrialized zones, can be made only on request and must meet all 

requirements outlined in 40 CFR 51.166. The remainder of the United States is classified as Class II. 

Class II areas are designed to allow moderate, controlled growth. The proposed Project would be located 

in a Class II area. The nearest Class I areas are the Caney Creek Wilderness, located south of Mena, 

Arkansas, and the Breton Sound Wilderness Area, located southeast of New Orleans. The proposed Delhi 

Compressor Station is approximately 215 miles south of the Caney Creek Wilderness Area. The 

proposed Harrisville and Destin Compressor Stations are approximately 170 miles north of the Breton 

Sound Wilderness Area. 

TABLE 3.11.1.2-1 

Proposed Emissionsa

 for the Delhi Compressor Station 

Emissions Source 

NOx 

(TPY) 

CO 

(TPY) 

VOC 

(TPY) 

PM10

(TPY) 

PM2.5 

(TPY) 

SO2

(TPY) 

HAPs 

(TPY) 

Compressor Engine #1 32.01 8.00 22.40 1.41 1.41 0.08 3.70 

Compressor Engine #2 32.01 8.00 22.40 1.41 1.41 0.08 3.70 

Compressor Engine #3 32.01 8.00 22.40 1.41 1.41 0.08 3.70 

Compressor Engine #4 32.01 8.00 22.40 1.41 1.41 0.08 3.70 

Emergency Backup Generator 1.66 1.11 0.48 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.18 

Condensate Storage Tankb -- -- 6.61 -- -- -- 0.49 

Truck Loading of Condensateb -- -- 1.14 -- -- -- 0.17 

Fuel Gas Heater 0.33 0.28 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.01 

Piping Components (Fugitives) -- -- 3.27 -- -- -- 0.01 

Unpaved Roads (Fugitives) -- -- -- 0.43 0.06 -- -- 

Engine Blowdown Stack -- -- 6.29 -- -- -- 0.32 

Area Releases -- -- 5.33 -- -- -- 0.27 

Total 130.03 33.39 112.74 6.11 5.74 0.32 16.25 

_______________ 

Notes: 

a Based on full load and continuous operation. Emergency generator based on 500 hours/year. 

b Estimated using GRI-GlyCalc3.01. 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 3-99 

TABLE 3.11.1.2-2 

Proposed Emissionsa

 for the Harrisville Compressor Station 

Emissions Source 

NOx 

(TPY) 

CO 

(TPY) 

VOC 

(TPY) 

PM10

(TPY) 

PM2.5 

(TPY) 

SO2

(TPY) 

HAPs 

(TPY) 

Compressor Engine #1 32.01 8.00 22.40 1.41 1.41 0.08 3.70 

Compressor Engine #2 32.01 8.00 22.40 1.41 1.41 0.08 3.70 

Compressor Engine #3 32.01 8.00 22.40 1.41 1.41 0.08 3.70 

Compressor Engine #4 32.01 8.00 22.40 1.41 1.41 0.08 3.70 

Emergency Backup Generator 1.66 1.11 0.48 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.18 

Condensate Storage Tankb -- -- 6.61 -- -- -- 0.49 

Truck Loading of Condensateb -- -- 1.14 -- -- -- 0.17 

Fuel Gas Heater 0.33 0.28 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.01 

Piping Components (Fugitives) -- -- 3.27 -- -- -- 0.01 

Unpaved Roads (Fugitives) -- -- -- 0.43 0.06 -- -- 

Engine Blowdown Stack -- -- 6.29 -- -- -- 0.32 

Area Releases -- -- 5.33 -- -- -- 0.27 

Total 130.03 33.39 112.74 6.09 5.74 0.32 16.25 

_______________ 

Notes: 

a Based on full load and continuous operation. Emergency generator based on 500 hours/year. 

b Estimated using GRI-GlyCalc3.01. 

TABLE 3.11.1.2-3 

Proposed Emissionsa

 for the Destin Compressor Station 

Emissions Source 

NOx 

(TPY) 

CO 

(TPY) 

VOC 

(TPY) 

PM10

(TPY) 

PM2.5 

(TPY) 

SO2

(TPY) 

HAPs 

(TPY) 

Compressor Engine #1 24.00 6.00 16.80 1.06 1.06 0.06 2.78 

Compressor Engine #2 24.00 6.00 16.80 1.06 1.06 0.06 2.78 

Emergency Backup Generator 0.61 0.41 0.18 0.01 0.01 0.001 0.07 

Condensate Storage Tankb -- -- 6.61 -- -- -- 0.49 

Truck Loading of Condensateb -- -- 1.14 -- -- -- 0.17 

Fuel Gas Heater 0.33 0.28 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.002 0.01 

Piping Components (Fugitives) -- -- 3.27 -- -- -- 0.01 

Unpaved Roads (Fugitives) -- -- -- 0.43 0.06 -- -- 

Engine Blowdown Stackc -- -- 6.29 -- -- -- 0.32 

Area Releases -- -- 5.33 -- -- -- 0.27 

Total 48.94 12.69 56.44 2.58 2.21 0.12 6.90 

_______________ 

Notes: 

a Based on full load and continuous operation. Emergency generator based on 500 hours/year. 

b Estimated using GRI-GlyCalc3.01. 

c The engine blowdown stack is for venting of natural gas from the compressor during maintenance activities. 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 3-100 

New Source Performance Standards

The NSPS, codified in 40 CFR 60 and incorporated by reference in Louisiana Administrative 

Code (LAC) 33.III.3303, and the Mississippi Commission on Environmental Quality (MCEQ) regulations 

APC-S-1 Section 6.3, establish requirements for new, modified, or reconstructed units in specific source 

categories. NSPS requirements include emission limits, monitoring, reporting, and record keeping. The 

following NSPS requirements were identified as potentially applicable to the specified sources at the 

compressor stations. 

Subpart Kb of 40 CFR 60, Standards of Performance for Volatile Organic Liquid Storage 

Vessels, lists affected emission sources as storage vessels containing volatile organic liquids. Regulatory 

applicability is dependent on the construction date, size, and vapor pressure of the storage vessel and its 

contents. Subpart Kb applies to new tanks, unless otherwise exempted, that have a storage capacity 

between 75 square meters (m3

) (19,813 gallons) and 151 m3 (39,890 gallons) and contain volatile organic 

compounds (VOCs) with a maximum true vapor pressure greater than or equal to 15.0 kilopascals (kPa). 

Subpart Kb also applies to tanks that have a storage capacity greater than or equal to 151 m3

 and contain 

VOCs with a maximum true vapor pressure greater than or equal to 3.5 kPa. Each proposed compressor 

station would be equipped with a condensate tank, which is below the regulated capacity. Therefore, the 

proposed Project would not be subject to NSPS Subpart Kb standards. 

On June 12, 2006, EPA proposed a new NSPS (40 CFR 60 Subpart JJJJ) for stationary spark 

ignition (SI) internal combustion engines. The proposed compressor stations each contain natural gasfired compressor engines and emergency generators that may be potentially subject to 40 CFR 60 Subpart 

JJJJ. The proposed standard for stationary SI engines applies to all new, modified, and reconstructed 

stationary SI engines regardless of size. The pollutants to be regulated by the proposed NSPS for 

stationary SI engines are nitrogen oxides (NOx), CO, and non-methane hydrocarbons (NMHC). Gulf 

South would comply with any applicable standards of EPA's proposed rule once it is finalized. 

No other NSPSs are applicable to the proposed Project. 

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

The NESHAP, codified in 40 CFR Parts 61 and 63, regulates hazardous air pollutant (HAP) 

emissions. Part 61 was promulgated prior to the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) and regulates 

only eight types of hazardous substances (asbestos, benzene, beryllium, coke oven emissions, inorganic 

arsenic, mercury, radionuclides, and vinyl chloride). 

The 1990 CAAA established a list of 189 HAPs, resulting in the promulgation of Part 63. 

Part 63, also known as the Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standards, regulates HAP 

emissions from major sources of HAP emissions and specific source categories that emit HAPs. Part 63 

defines a major source of HAPs as any source that has the potential to emit 10 tpy of any single HAP or 

25 tpy of HAPs in aggregate. MACT standards are intended to reduce emissions of air toxics or HAPs 

through installation of control equipment rather than enforcement of risk-based emission limits. The 

proposed Delhi, Harrisville, and Destin Compressor Stations each would emit less than 25 tpy of total 

HAPs, as shown in Tables 3.11.1.2-1, 3.11.1.2-2, and 3.11.1.2-3, and no more than 10 tpy of any single 

HAP as reflected in Gulf South's emission estimates. Potential HAP emissions resulting from the 

proposed Project would be well below the 10/25 tpy thresholds at each station; therefore, MACT is not 

applicable. 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 3-101 

Title V Permitting

The Title V permit program, as described in 40 CFR 70, requires sources of air emissions with criteria 

pollutant emissions that reach or exceed major source levels to obtain federal operating permits. These 

permits list all applicable air regulations and include a compliance demonstration for each applicable 

requirement. The major source threshold level in attainment areas is 100 tpy of NOx, SO2, CO, PM10, 

PM2.5, and VOC. Emissions of NOx and VOC at the Delhi and Harrisville Compressor Stations would 

exceed the 100 tpy criteria pollutant threshold, as shown in Tables 3.11.1.2-1 and 3.11.1.2-2. Therefore, 

the Delhi and Harrisville Compressor Stations would require a Title V permit. None of the criteria 

pollutants would be emitted at the 100 tpy level at the Destin Compressor Station; therefore, a Title V 

permit would not be required for this facility. 

General Conformity

40 CFR parts 51 and 93 define the requirements for determining conformity for federal actions 

to state or federal implementation plans. A conformity analysis is required for each criteria pollutant 

where the total of direct and indirect emissions in a nonattainment or maintenance area caused by a 

federal action would equal or exceed any of the rates specified in the applicable implementation plan. 

The proposed Project would not be located in a nonattainment area and therefore, the general conformity 

requirements do not apply to the proposed Project. 

State Regulations 

In addition to the federal regulations described above, both Louisiana and Mississippi have 

state air quality regulations. The LDEQ manages air quality issues in Louisiana and the MDEQ manages 

air quality issues in Mississippi. Subject to EPA approval, these agencies manage the statewide air 

permitting, compliance, and enforcement programs. The Delhi Compressor Station would be authorized 

under the LDEQ Part 70 program, and the Harrisville and Destin Compressor Stations would be 

authorized under the MDEQ construction permit program. The Harrisville Compressor Station would file 

for a Title V permit with the MDEQ within a year after construction is completed. 

3.11.1.3 General Impacts and Mitigation 

Construction Emissions 

Construction of the pipeline and access roads would generate air emissions during grading, 

trenching, backfilling, and during operation of construction vehicles along unpaved areas. The proposed 

Project would use existing roads to the extent possible. Some roads used for access would be improved 

during construction by widening or adding drain pipes, gravel, or grading; and some new roads and road 

extensions would be constructed. The roads would remain after construction to provide access to the 

pipeline for maintenance purposes. These activities could generate dust and particulate emissions from 

earth-moving activities and construction equipment engine exhaust. 

Construction of the compressor stations would be performed with mobile equipment similar to 

that typically used for pipeline and road construction. In addition to the compressor stations, Gulf South 

would construct other aboveground facilities consisting of metering and regulation stations. 

Construction would be expected to cause a minor and temporary impact to local ambient air 

quality as a result of fugitive dust and combustion emissions generated by construction equipment. 

Criteria pollutant emissions during operation of the fossil-fueled construction equipment would occur 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 3-102 

from combustion products resulting from the use of gasoline and diesel fuels, primarily NO2, CO, VOCs, 

PM10, small amounts of SO2, and small amounts of HAPs (e.g., formaldehyde, benzene, toluene, and 

xylene) produced by the construction equipment engines. Impacts from construction equipment would be 

temporary and would be expected to result in an insignificant impact on air quality. 

LDEQ regulates the emissions of particulate matter arising from unpaved streets, access roads, 

construction activities through LAC33.III.1305, which requires application of water or dust-retardant 

chemicals, or paving of roadways. MDEQ does not have a specific regulation for fugitive dust from 

roadways. Gulf South indicates that if fugitive dust becomes a problem it would use proven construction 

practices such as water sprays to control fugitive dust. Water sprays have provided sufficient control to 

ensure protection of air quality during construction of projects similar to the proposed Project. 

Operations Emissions 

Emissions from the engines at all locations would be minimized through the use of Clean 

Burn technology, oxidation catalysts, and the use of clean burning natural gas fuels. As described in 

Section 3.11.1.2, the compressor stations would be operated in compliance with federal and state air 

quality regulations driven by the CAA. As stated previously, the proposed project would not be subject to 

PSD. 

Each compressor station would include an emergency shut down (ESD) system, pursuant to 

DOT requirements. Activation of the ESD system would vent the piping (expel the natural gas) to the 

atmosphere in case of an emergency. The ESD would be used only in the event of an emergency. 

Compressor unit blowdowns would occur as needed to relieve pressure when a unit is taken off line. 

Natural gas blowdowns are not part of routine operation. 

Tables 3.11.1.2-1 through 3.11.1.2-3 list the anticipated emissions of criteria pollutants and 

HAPs from the operation of each compressor station. Gulf South is completing air permit applications for 

the Delhi, Harrisville, and Destin Compressor Stations. Gulf South will provide the FERC copies of these 

applications upon submittal to the state permitting authorities. 

Following the Draft EIS, Gulf South filed a revised screening analysis (using SCREEN3) for 

NOx emissions for the Harrisville and Destin Compressor Stations. Emissions from the Delhi 

Compressor Station were not modeled. SCREEN3 is a conservative model used to determine if refined 

modeling is needed. It does not take into account specific local terrain or meteorological data. Since the 

equipment and emissions from the Delhi Compressor Station would be the same as the equipment and 

emissions from the Harrisville Compressor Station, NO2 concentrations would be expected to be similar 

to the SCREEN3 modeled results for the Harrisville Compressor Station. 

Gulf South used typical conversion factors in calculating the various concentrations for 

different averaging times as recommended in EPA's "Screening Procedures for Estimating the Air Quality 

Impact of Stationary Sources, Revised" (EPA-454/R-92-019, October 1992), a document for applying 

screening techniques to estimate the air quality impact of stationary sources. 

The Destin analysis included the NOx emissions from the two new gas compressor engines 

and the emergency generator engine. Emissions from the small heater were not considered in this 

analysis since the potential to emit is less than 1/2 tpy. The worst-case hourly impact for the two engines 

and the emergency generator was estimated to be 200.04 μg/m3. The estimated annual NOx impact is 

16.0 μg/m3. Background NO2 concentrations at this location were not available; however, background 

concentrations of NO2 were available for Jackson County, Mississippi, averaging 13.16 μg/m3 over the 

past three years. Assuming this is a worst-case background concentration, when added to station impacts 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 3-103 

this results in a total off-site NOx concentration of 29.16 μg/m3

. This is well below the NAAQS of 

100 μg/m3 for NO2. In addition, this finding is conservative since it does not include an NO2/NOx 

reduction ratio. Based on these results, refined modeling is not needed. 

The Harrisville analysis included the NOx emissions from the four new gas compressor 

engines and the emergency generator engine. Emissions from the small heater were not considered in this 

analysis since the potential to emit is less than 1/2 tpy. The worst-case hourly impact for the four engines 

and the emergency generator was estimated to be 275.66 μg/m3. The estimated annual impact is 

22.05 μg/m3. Background NO2 concentrations at this location were not available; however, background 

concentrations of NO2 were available for Jackson County, Mississippi, averaging 13,16 μg/m3over the 

past three years. Assuming this is a worst-case background concentration, when added to station impacts, 

this results in a total off-site NOx concentration of 35.21 μg/m3. This is well below the NAAQS of 

100 μg/m3 for NO2. In addition, this finding is conservative since it does not include an NO2/NOx 

reduction ratio. Based on these results, refined modeling is not needed. 

Operation of the aboveground meter stations and block valves would not result in substantial 

air emissions under normal operating conditions. Typically, only minor emissions of natural gas, called 

"fugitive emissions," occur from small connections at meter station and valve sites; and because such 

emissions are very small, they are not regulated by permit or source-specific requirements. 

Use of the access roads for maintenance would generate occasional, minor, and short-term 

increases in dust similar to that generated on other unpaved roads in the area. Use of these roads by 

maintenance and operation personnel would have a negligible effect on air quality. 

Construction of the proposed Project would be expected to result in temporary minor impacts 

to air quality. Operation of the proposed Project would be expected to result in long-term minor impacts 

to air quality. 

3.11.2 Noise Quality 

Noise quality can be affected both during construction and operation of pipeline projects. The 

magnitude and frequency of environmental noise may vary considerably over the course of the day and 

throughout the week, in part due to changing weather conditions and the effects of seasonal vegetative 

cover. Two measures used by federal agencies to relate the time varying quality of environmental noise 

to its known effect on people are the 24-hour equivalent sound level (Leq) and day-night sound level (Ldn). 

The Leq is the level of steady sound with the same total (equivalent) energy as the time-varying sound of 

interest, averaged over a 24-hour period. The Ldn is the Leq with 10 decibels on the A-weighted scale 

(dBA) added to nighttime sound levels between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. to account for people's 

greater sensitivity to sound during nighttime hours. The A-weighted scale is used because human hearing 

is less sensitive to low and high frequencies than mid-range frequencies. The human ear's threshold of 

perception for noise change is considered to be 3 dBA. 

3.11.2.1 Regulatory Requirements 

In 1974, the EPA published its Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to 

Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety. This document provides 

information for state and local governments to use in developing their own ambient noise standards. EPA 

has determined that an Ldn of 55 dBA protects the public from indoor and outdoor activity interference. 

We have adopted this criterion and use it to evaluate the potential noise impact from operation of the 

compressor facilities. 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 3-104 

Mississippi and Louisiana do not regulate noise at the state level. Similarly, no noise 

regulations or ordinances that govern noise pollution from construction or industrial activities have been 

identified for any of the counties or local municipalities to be traversed by the proposed Project. 

3.11.2.2 Existing Noise Levels 

Impacts are determined at receptors known as noise sensitive areas (NSAs). NSAs include 

residences, schools and daycare facilities, hospitals, long-term care facilities, places of worship, libraries, 

and parks and recreational areas specifically known for their solitude and tranquility, such as wilderness 

areas. The following NSAs and background noise levels have been evaluated at each compressor station. 

The Delhi Compressor Station would be located in Richland Parish, Louisiana, on the south 

side of Delhi, Louisiana. The land surrounding the site consists of pasture and active agriculture. There 

are currently no existing facilities at the site although there is a natural gas compressor station (i.e., 

Columbia Gulf Transmission Corporation's (CGTs) Delhi Compressor Station) near the site of the 

proposed Delhi Compressor Station. The closest NSA (NSA #1) consists of homes located approximately 

1,100 feet west of the anticipated location of the compressor building (i.e., site center), and the next 

closest NSA (NSA #2) consists of two homes located approximately 1,500 feet northwest of the site 

center. NSA #3, while located only 900 feet northwest of the site, is not expected to be present after 

installation of the compressor station, and is therefore not evaluated as the nearest NSA. On 

September 26, 2006, Gulf South conducted an ambient sound-level survey at NSA #1. Noise sources 

during the sound-level survey included traffic on local roads, insects, birds, and wind. Measured noise at 

NSA #1 ranged from 45.0 to 53.6 dBA, with a calculated Ldn of 54.2 dBA (Table 3.11.2.2-1). Measured 

noise at NSA #2 ranged from 45.0 to 60.9 dBA, with a calculated Ldn of 59.5 dBA. Measured noise at 

NSA #3 ranged from 40.0 to 40.2 dBA, with a calculated Ldn of 46.4 dBA. 

The Harrisville Compressor Station would be located in Simpson County, Mississippi, 

approximately 9 miles south of Florence, Mississippi. The land surrounding the site consists primarily of 

forest. The nearest NSAs are residences 4,200 feet east (NSA #1), 5,600 feet south-southeast (NSA #2), 

and 4,800 feet northwest (NSA #3) of the proposed station. On September 20, 2006, Gulf South 

conducted an ambient sound-level survey at the NSAs. Noise sources during the sound-level survey 

included traffic on local roads, insects, birds, and wind. Measured noise at NSA #1 was determined to be 

37.1 dBA, with a calculated Ldn of 43.5 dBA. At NSA #2, measured noise was determined to be 

42.1 dBA, with a calculated Ldn of 48.5 dBA. At NSA #3, measured noise was determined to be 

38.2 dBA, with a calculated Ldn of 44.6 dBA. On June 15, 2007, Gulf South submitted a revised 

acoustical analysis for the Harrisville Compressor Station. The revised analysis was required since the 

potential noise impact of the Station on the Twin Lakes Camping Area (owned by the First Presbyterian 

Church of Jackson, Mississippi) was not addressed in the initial acoustical analysis (September 20, 2006) 

for the station. The three NSAs at the Twin Lakes Camping Area include NSA #4 (Wilderness Camp 

Area, 2,600 feet northwest), NSA #5 (Area of Restrooms/Cabins, 3,700 feet north-northwest,) and NSA 

#6 (Ropes Course, 4,000 feet north-northwest). At NSAs #4, #5, and #6, measured noise was determined 

to be 38.2 dBA at each location, with a calculated Ldn of 44.6 at each location (Table 3.11.2.2-1). 

The Destin Compressor Station would be located in Clarke County, Mississippi, 

approximately 8 miles northwest of Shubuta, Mississippi. The land surrounding the site consists 

primarily of forest. The nearest NSA is a residence located approximately 1,400 feet east-northeast of the 

anticipated location of the compressor station. On September 22, 2006, Gulf South conducted an ambient 

sound-level survey at the NSA. Noise sources during the sound-level survey included traffic on local 

roads, insects, birds, and wind. Measured noise at NSA #1 was determined to be 41.9 dBA, with a 

calculated Ldn of 48.3 dBA (Table 3.11.2.2-1). 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 3-105 

3.11.2.3 General Impacts and Mitigation 

Construction Noise 

Construction of the proposed Project is expected to be typical of other pipeline projects in 

terms of schedule, equipment used, and types of activities. Construction would increase sound levels in 

the vicinity of proposed Project activities, and the sound levels would vary during the construction period, 

depending on the construction phase. Pipeline construction generally would proceed at rates ranging 

from several hundred feet to 1 mile per day. However, due to the assembly-line method of construction, 

construction activities in any one area could last from several weeks to several months on an intermittent 

basis. Construction and modifications at the compressor stations would be concentrated in the vicinity of 

the construction activity. Construction equipment would be operated on an as-needed basis during those 

periods and would be maintained to manufacturers' specifications to minimize noise impacts. 

TABLE 3.11.2.2-1 

Existing Noise Levels at Nearest Noise-Sensitive Areas 

from the Proposed Southeast Expansion Project Compressor Stations 

Noise Sensitive 

Area (NSA) 

Distance/Direction of 

NSA to Compressor 

Station Site 

(feet) 

Measured Ld

(dBA) 

Estimated Ln

(dBA) 

Calculated Ldn

(dBA) 

Delhi Compressor Station 

NSA #1 1,100 – west 53.6 dBA 45.0 dBA 54.2 dBA 

NSA #2 1,500 – northwest 60.9 dBA 45.0 dBA 59.5 dBA 

NSA #3 900 – northeast 40.2 dBA 40.0 dBA 46.4 dBA 

Harrisville Compressor Station 

NSA #1 4,200 – east 37.1 dBA 37.1 dBA 43.5 dBA 

NSA #2 5,600– south southeast 42.1 dBA 42.1 dBA 48.5 dBA 

NSA #3 4,800 – northwest 38.2 dBA 38.2 dBA 44.6 dBA 

NSA #4 2,600 – northwest 38.2 dBA* 38.2 dBA* 44.6 dBA* 

NSA #5 3,700 – north-northwest 38.2 dBA* 38.2 dBA* 44.6 dBA* 

NSA #6 4,000 – north-northwest 38.2 dBA* 38.2 dBA* 44.6 dBA* 

Destin Compressor Station 

NSA #1 1,400 east northeast 41.9 dBA 41.9 dBA 48.3 dBA 

_______________ 

Notes: 

Ld = daytime sound levels 

Ln = nighttime sound levels 

Ldn = day-night equivalent sound level 

dBA = decibels on the A-weighted scale 

* Ambient sound level not measured but should be similar to measured ambient sound level at NSA #3 

Nighttime noise levels would normally be unaffected because most pipeline construction 

would take place only during daylight hours. The possible exceptions would be at the HDD sites (e.g., at 

the crossings of water bodies and highways). At HDD locations, drilling equipment may operate on a 

24-hour-per-day basis. In addition to the EPA's 55 dBA (Ldn) standard, noise level changes are 

categorized as follows: a 3 dBA increase is considered noticeable, a 6 dBA increase is considered clearly 

noticeable, and a 10 dBA increase is considered significantly noticeable. An acoustical assessment was 

prepared for all of the planned HDD sites with NSAs within 1 mile of HDD locations to show existing 

sound levels at each site location and the project levels from HDD activity. Predicted noise impacts on 

NSAs indicate that sound levels could exceed 55 dBA (Ldn) at two of the 24 HDD entry and exit sites due 

to HDD operations. Predicted sound levels ranged from 57.3 to 59.21 dBA (Ldn) at these two sites, as 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 3-106 

shown in Table 3.11.2.3-1. Based on the acoustical assessment, all HDD locations would contribute 

below a 10 dBA noise increase above the ambient sound levels. 

To ensure that NSAs are not exposed to excessive noise during nighttime drilling operations, 

Gulf South developed a plan for HDD operations that have the potential to exceed 55 dBA (Ldn), as listed 

in Table 3.11.2.3-1 below. The plan would install a temporary noise barrier system around the primary 

area of equipment at either the HDD entry side or HDD exit side. The barrier could be installed around 

two or three sides of the HDD equipment area. For example, the barrier could be constructed of 3/4-inchthick plywood panels (e.g., barrier height should be at least 16 feet). If a plywood-type barrier is 

employed, it is also recommended that at least 60 percent of the inside surface of the barrier (i.e., surface 

facing the equipment) should be sound absorptive (e.g., attach 2-inch-thick fiberglass duct board). In 

addition, it is recommended that any diesel engines used to drive generators/pumps associated with HDD 

operations should include an adequate exhaust muffler (e.g., minimum, hospital-grade exhaust silencer). 

It should be noted that reducing the noise of mobile equipment, such as a crane or backhoe, is much more 

difficult than stationary engines and equipment since mobile equipment may have to work outside the 

general HDD equipment area. 

Table 3.11.2.3-1 summarizes the projected Ldn at the closest NSA at each HDD site in which 

the benchmark sound criterion could be exceeded assuming that a temporary noise barrier is not 

employed successfully. For reference, a barrier system, if properly employed, could provide 

approximately 6 to 8 dB reduction of the noise associated with HDD stationary equipment. Based on the 

projected HDD noise levels, distances from HDD activity to the nearest NSAs, and Gulf South's HDD 

plan described above, HDD activity impacts would be minor and temporary at all nearby NSAs. 

TABLE 3.11.2.3-1 

Summary of the Estimated A-Weighted Level and Calculated Ldn at the Closest NSA for 

Each HDD Site That Could Exceed the Benchmark Sound Criterion, Assuming That a 

Temporary Barrier is Not Employed 

HDD 

No. 

Location of HDD in 

Which Benchmark 

Criterion Could Be 

Exceeded 

Entry or 

Exit 

Point 

Distance and 

Direction of 

Closest NSA 

Calculated Ldn

Due to Drilling 

Activity 

Estimated Ldn With a 

Temporary Noise 

Barrier Employed 

01 Dabbs Creek and Hwy. 

49 

Entry 1,200 ft. (west) 57.3 dBA 51.2 dBA 

08 Interstate 59 Entry 1,000 ft. (SW) 59.1 dBA 53.0 dBA 

Operational Noise 

During operation of the proposed Project, potential noise impacts would be limited to the 

vicinity of the new compressor stations. Principal noise sources would include the air inlet, exhaust, and 

casing of the turbines. Secondary noise sources would include yard piping and valves. Noise from the 

relief valves, blowdown stacks, and emergency electrical generation equipment would be infrequent. 

All compressor stations would include design measures to minimize sound generation. 

Silencers or mufflers would be installed on the turbine exhausts, and silencers would be installed on the 

turbine air intakes. The walls and roof of each compressor building would be comprised of acoustical 

panels consisting of a 22-gauge metal outer skin and 4 inches of fiberglass insulation with a perforated 

liner. The building ventilation system vents would be equipped with acoustical louvers or duct silencers. 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 3-107 

The expected Ldn at NSA #1 closest to the Delhi Compressor Station would be 51.0 dBA due 

to sound generated by operation of the new station. When combined with the existing ambient noise 

level, the Ldn would be about 55.9 dBA at NSA #1, as shown in Table 3.11.2.3-2. The expected Ldn at 

NSA #2 is an estimated 47.6 dBA and 59.8 dBA when combined with the existing ambient noise level. 

Expected noise levels for NSA #3 is estimated to be 52.9 dBA and 55.5 dBA when combined with 

existing ambient noise levels. Predicted noise at the NSAs attributable to the Delhi Compressor Station is 

below the FERC specification of 55 dBA (Ldn). It should be noted that although NSA #3 is located 

900 feet from the compressor station, this site is not expected to exist at the time of operation. As a result, 

no significant impact on the noise environment is anticipated as a result of typical operations at the Delhi 

Compressor Station. 

The expected Ldn at NSA #4 closest to the Harrisville Compressor Station would be 42.3 dBA due to 

sound generated by operation of the new station. When combined with the existing ambient noise level, 

the Ldn would be about 44.6 dBA at NSA #4. Table 3.11.2.3-3 provides the ambient sound level at each 

NSA, the estimated contribution of the proposed station operating at full load at each NSA, the calculated 

sum of the two, and the potential noise increase at each NSA due to the station's contribution. The 

predicted noise attributable to the Harrisville Compressor Station at all NSAs is below the FERC 

specification of 55 dBA (Ldn). As a result, no significant impact on the noise environment is anticipated 

as a result of typical operations at the Harrisville Compressor Station. 

The expected Ldn at NSA #1 closest to the Destin Compressor Station would be 49.0 dBA due 

to sound generated by operation of the new station. When combined with the existing ambient noise 

level, the Ldn would be about 51.7 dBA at NSA #1, as shown in Table 3.11.2.3-4. This level is below the 

FERC specification of 55 dBA (Ldn). As a result, no significant impact on the noise environment is 

anticipated as a result of typical operations at the Destin Compressor Station. 

Minor short-term noise impacts are expected during the proposed Project construction, 

provided that equipment is maintained to the manufacturers' specifications to minimize noise. This 

assessment assumes that temporary noise barriers would be installed at the HDD sites listed in Table 

3.11.2.3-1, and that hospital-grade mufflers would be installed on engines that do not move while 

operating at HDD sites listed in Table 3.11.2.3-1. 

Minor long-term noise impacts are expected from compressor station operation during the life 

of the proposed Project and would not result in a significant effect on the noise environment. These 

minor impacts would result from the normal operation of compressor station equipment, as well as from 

blowdown events. 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 3-108 

TABLE 3.11.2.3-2 

Predicted Noise Contribution of the Delhi Compressor Station at NSAs 

Noise-Sensitive 

Area (NSA) 

Distance/Direction of 

NSA to Compressor 

Station Site (feet) 

Existing 

Ambient Ldn

(dBA) 

Estimated 

Project Ldn

(dBA)a 

Total 

Estimated 

Ldn (dBA)b

Predicted 

Noise 

Increase 

(dBA)c

Delhi Compressor Station 

NSA #1 1,100 feet (W) 54.2 dBA 51.0 dBA 55.9 dBA 1.7 dB 

NSA #2 1,500 feet (NW) 59.5 dBA 47.6 dBA 59.8 dBA 0.3 dB 

NSA #3 900 feet (NE) 46.4 dBA 52.9 dBA 55.5 dBA 3.6 dB 

_______________ 

Notes: 

Ldn = day-night equivalent sound level 

dBA = decibels on the A-weighted scale 

a Estimated Ldn sound levels are based on operation of compressor units at compressor station with noise 

control measures installed as proposed. 

b Estimated total Ldn = 10 log (10(Ambient Ldn/10) + 10 (Predicted Ldn/10)). 

c Estimated increase in the ambient Ldn sound levels due to operation of compressor units at compressor 

station. 

TABLE 3.11.2.3-3 

Predicted Noise Contribution of the Harrisville Compressor Station at NSAs 

Noise Sensitive 

Area (NSA) 

Distance/Direction of 

NSA to Compressor 

Station Site (feet) 

Existing 

Ambient Ldn

(dBA) 

Estimated 

Project Ldn

(dBA)a 

Total 

Estimated 

Ldn (dBA)b

Predicted 

Noise 

Increase 

(dBA)c

Harrisville Compressor Station 

NSA #1 4,200 feet (E) 43.5 dBA 36.9 dBA 44.4 dBA 0.9 dB 

NSA #2 5,600 feet (SSE) 48.5 dBA 33.6 dBA 48.6 dBA 0.1 dB 

NSA #3 4,800 feet (NW) 44.6 dBA 35.5 dBA 45.1 dBA 0.5 dB 

NSA #4 2,600 feet (NW) 44.6 dBA 42.3 dBA 44.6 dBA 2.0 dB 

NSA #5 3,700 feet (NNW) 44.6 dBA 38.4 dBA 45.5 dBA 0.9 dB 

NSA #6 4,000 feet (NNW) 44.6 dBA 37.6 dBA 45.4 dBA 0.8 dB 

_______________ 

Notes: 

Ldn = day-night equivalent sound level 

dBA = decibels on the A-weighted scale 

a Estimated Ldn sound levels are based on operation of compressor units at compressor station with noise 

control measures installed as proposed. 

b Estimated total Ldn = 10 log (10(Ambient Ldn/10) + 10 (Predicted Ldn/10)). 

c Estimated increase in the ambient Ldn sound levels due to operation of compressor units at compressor 

station. 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 3-109 

TABLE 3.11.2.3-4 

Predicted Noise Contribution of the Destin Compressor Station at NSAs 

Noise Sensitive 

Area (NSA) 

Distance/Direction of 

NSA to Compressor 

Station Site (feet) 

Existing 

Ambient Ldn

(dBA) 

Estimated 

Project Ldn

(dBA)a 

Total 

Estimated 

Ldn (dBA)b

Predicted 

Noise 

Increase 

(dBA)c

Destin Compressor Station 

NSA #1 1,400 feet (ENE) 48.3 dBA 49.0 dBA 51.7 dBA 3.4 dB 

_______________ 

Notes: 

Ldn = day-night equivalent sound level 

dBA = decibels on the A-weighted scale 

a Estimated Ldn sound levels are based on operation of compressor units at compressor station with noise 

control measures installed as proposed. 

b Estimated total Ldn = 10 log (10(Ambient Ldn/10) + 10 (Predicted Ldn/10)). 

c Estimated increase in the ambient Ldn sound levels due to operation of compressor units at compressor 

station. 

To ensure that noise levels from operation of the Project facilities do not adversely impact 

surrounding areas, we recommend that: 

• Gulf South should file noise surveys with the Secretary no later than 60 days after placing 

each of the Delhi, Harrisville, and Destin Compressor Stations in service. If the noise 

attributable to operation of all of the equipment at any compressor station at full load 

exceeds an Ldn of 55 dBA at any nearby NSA, Gulf South should file a report on what 

changes are needed and should install the additional noise controls to meet the level within 

one year of the in-service date. Gulf South should confirm compliance with the above 

requirement by filing a second noise survey with the Secretary no later than 60 days after it 

installs the additional noise controls. 

If Gulf South provides assurance that any noise impacts have been mitigated, as required by 

the above recommendations, we believe that Project-related operations would not result in a significant 

effect on the noise environment. 

3.12 RELIABILITY AND SAFETY 

The transportation of natural gas by pipeline involves some risk to the public in the event of an 

accident and subsequent release of gas. The greatest hazard is a fire or explosion following a major 

pipeline rupture. 

Methane, the primary component of natural gas, is colorless, odorless, and tasteless. It is not 

toxic but is classified as a simple asphyxiate, possessing a slight inhalation hazard. If breathed in high 

concentration, oxygen deficiency can result in serious injury or death. 

Methane has an ignition temperature of 1,000o F and is flammable at concentrations between 5 

and 15 percent in air. Unconfined mixtures of methane in air are not explosive. However, a flammable 

concentration within an enclosed space in the presence of an ignition source can explode. It is buoyant at 

atmospheric temperatures and disperses rapidly in air. 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 3-110 

3.12.1 Safety Standards 

The DOT is mandated to provide pipeline safety under Title 49, USC, Chapter 601. The 

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration's (PHMSA) Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS) 

administers the national regulatory program to ensure the safe transportation of natural gas and other 

hazardous materials by pipeline. It develops safety regulations and other approaches to risk management 

that ensure safety in the design, construction, testing, operation, maintenance, and emergency response of 

pipeline facilities. Many of the regulations are written as performance standards that set the level of 

safety to be attained and allow the pipeline operator to use various technologies to achieve safety. 

PHMSA ensures that people and the environment are protected from the risk of pipeline incidents. This 

work is shared with state agency partners and others at the federal, state, and local level. Section 5(a) of 

the Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act (NGPSA) provides for a state agency to assume all aspects of the 

safety program for intrastate facilities by adopting and enforcing the federal standards, while Section 5(b) 

permits a state agency that does not qualify under Section 5(a) to perform certain inspection and 

monitoring functions. A state may also act as DOT's agent to inspect interstate facilities within its 

boundaries; however, the DOT is responsible for enforcement action. The majority of the states have 

either 5(a) certifications or 5(b) agreements, while nine states act as interstate agents. 

The DOT pipeline standards are published in Parts 190-199 of Title 49 of the CFR. Part 192 

of 49 CFR specifically addresses natural gas pipeline safety issues. 

Under a Memorandum of Understanding on Natural Gas Transportation Facilities 

(Memorandum) dated January 15, 1993, between DOT and the FERC, the DOT has the exclusive 

authority to promulgate federal safety standards used in the transportation of natural gas. Section 

157.14(a)(9)(vi) of the FERC's regulations require that an Applicant certify that it would design, install, 

inspect, test, construct, operate, replace, and maintain the facility for which a certificate is requested in 

accordance with federal safety standards and plans for maintenance and inspection, or shall certify that it 

has been granted a waiver of the requirements of the safety standards by the DOT in accordance with 

Section 3(e) of the NGPSA. The FERC accepts this certification and does not impose additional safety 

standards other than the DOT standards. If the Commission becomes aware of an existing or potential 

safety problem, there is a provision in the Memorandum to promptly alert DOT. The Memorandum also 

provides for referring complaints and inquiries made by state and local governments and the general 

public involving safety matters related to pipeline under the Commission's jurisdiction. 

The FERC also participates as a member of the DOT's Technical Pipeline Safety Standards 

Committee, which determines whether proposed safety regulations are reasonable, feasible, and 

practicable. 

The pipeline and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed Project must be 

designed, constructed, operated, and maintained in accordance with the DOT Minimum Federal Safety 

Standards in 49 CFR Part 192. The regulations are intended to ensure adequate protection for the public 

and to prevent natural gas facility accidents and failures. Part 192 specifies material selection and 

qualification, minimum design requirements, and protection from internal, external, and atmospheric 

corrosion. 

Part 192 also defines area classifications, based on population density in the vicinity of the 

pipeline, and specifies more rigorous safety requirements for populated areas. The class location unit is 

an area that extends 220 yards on either side of the centerline of any continuous 1-mile length of pipeline. 

The four area classifications are defined as follows: 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 3-111 

Class 1 Location with 10 or fewer buildings intended for human occupancy. 

Class 2 Location with more than 10 but less than 46 buildings intended for human 

occupancy. 

Class 3 Location with 46 or more buildings intended for human occupancy or where the 

pipeline lies within 100 yards of any building, or small well-defined outside area 

occupied by 20 or more people on at least 5 days a week for 10 weeks in any 

12-month period. 

Class 4 Location where buildings with four or more stories above ground are prevalent. 

Class locations representing more populated areas require higher safety factors in pipeline 

design, testing, and operation. Pipelines constructed on land in Class 1 locations must be installed with a 

minimum depth of cover of 30 inches in normal soil and 18 inches in consolidated rock. Class 2, 3, and 4 

locations, as well as drainage ditches of public roads and railroad crossings, require a minimum cover of 

36 inches in normal soil and 24 inches in consolidated rock. All pipelines installed in navigable rivers, 

streams, and harbors must have a minimum cover of 48 inches in soil and 24 inches in consolidated rock. 

Class locations also specify the maximum distance to a sectionalizing block valve (e.g., 

10.0 miles in Class 1, 7.5 miles in Class 2, 4.0 miles in Class 3, and 2.5 miles in Class 4). Pipe wall 

thickness and pipeline design pressures, hydrostatic test pressures, MAOP, inspection and testing of 

welds, and frequency of pipeline patrols and leak surveys must also conform to higher standards in more 

populated areas. Preliminary class locations for the proposed Project have been developed based on the 

relationship of the proposed pipeline centerline to other nearby structures and man-made features. Gulf 

South has reported that the following segments of the proposed pipeline would be designated as Class 2: 

• MP 29.2 to MP 30.4 (6,448 feet)

• MP 36.2 to MP 36.5 (1,745 feet)

• MP 54.2 to MP 55.0 (3,967 feet)

• MP 75.5 to MP 76.3 (3,008 feet)

• MP 87.1 to MP 88.0 (4,545 feet)

• MP 88.1 to MP 88.6 (2,643 feet)

• MP 94.4 to MP 95.4 (5,075 feet)

The remainder of the proposed pipeline would be designated as Class 1. 

If a subsequent increase in population density adjacent to the right-of-way indicates a change 

in class location for the pipeline, Gulf South would reduce the MAOP or replace the segment with pipe of 

sufficient grade and wall thickness, if required to comply with the DOT code of regulations for the new 

class location. 

In 2002, Congress passed an act to strengthen the Nation's pipeline safety laws. The Pipeline 

Safety Improvement Act of 2002 (HR 3609) was passed by Congress on November 15, 2002, and signed 

into law by the President in December 2002. No later than December 17, 2004, gas transmission 

operators must develop and follow a written integrity management program that contains all the elements 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 3-112 

described in §192.911 and addresses the risks on each covered transmission pipeline segment. 

Specifically, the law establishes an integrity management program, which applies to all high consequence 

areas (HCA). The DOT (68 FR 69778, 69 FR 18228, and 69 FR 29903) defines HCAs as they relate to 

the different class zones, potential impact circles, or areas containing an identified site as defined in 

§192.903 of the DOT regulations. 

OPS published a series of rules from August 6, 2002, to May 26, 2004, (69 FR 29903) that 

defines HCAs where a gas pipeline accident would do considerable harm to people and their property and 

requires an integrity management program to minimize the potential for an accident. This definition 

satisfies, in part, the Congressional mandate in 49 USC 60109 for OPS to prescribe standards that 

establish criteria for identifying each gas pipeline facility in a high-density population area. 

The HCAs may be defined in one of two ways. In the first method, an HCA includes: 

• Current Class 3 and 4 locations 

• Any area in Class 1 or 2 where the potential impact radius1

 is greater than 660 feet and 20 or 

more buildings are intended for human occupancy within the potential impact circle2

• Any area in Class 1 or 2 where the potential impact circle includes an identified site3

In the second method, an HCA includes any area within a potential impact circle that contains: 

• 20 or more buildings intended for human occupancy 

• An identified site 

Once a pipeline operator has determined the HCAs on its pipeline, it must apply the elements 

of its integrity management program to those segments of the pipeline within HCAs. The DOT 

regulations specify the requirements for the integrity management plan at § 192.911. The HCAs have 

been determined based on the relationship of the pipeline centerline to other nearby structures and 

identified sites. HCAs along the proposed Project route include the following locations: 

• MP 7.3 to MP 7.8 (2,839 feet) 

• MP 51.3 to MP 52.0 (3,897 feet) 

The pipeline integrity management rule for HCAs requires inspection of the entire pipeline 

HCAs every seven years. 

Part 192 prescribes the minimum standards for operating and maintaining pipeline facilities, 

including the requirement to establish a written plan governing these activities. Under 192.615, each 

 1 The potential impact radius is calculated as the product of 0.69 and the square root of the MAOP of the pipeline in 

psi multiplied by the pipeline diameter in inches. 

2

 The potential impact circle is a circle of radius equal to the potential impact radius. 

3

 An identified site is an outside area or open structure that is occupied by 20 or more persons on at least 50 days in 

any 12-month period; a building that is occupied by 20 or more persons on at least 5 days a week for any 

10 weeks in any 12-month period; or a facility that is occupied by persons who are confined, are of impaired 

mobility, or would be difficult to evacuate. 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 3-113 

pipeline operator must also establish an emergency plan that includes procedures to minimize the hazards 

in a natural gas pipeline emergency. Key elements of the plan include procedures for: 

• Receiving, identifying, and classifying emergency events, gas leakage, fires, explosions, and 

natural disasters 

• Establishing and maintaining communications with local fire, police, and public officials, and 

coordinating emergency response 

• Emergency shutdown of the system and safe restoration of service 

• Making personnel, equipment, tools, and materials available at the scene of an emergency 

• Protecting people first and then property, and making them safe from actual or potential hazards 

Part 192 requires that each operator must establish and maintain a liaison with appropriate fire, 

police, and public officials to learn the resources and responsibilities of each organization that may 

respond to a natural gas pipeline emergency and to coordinate mutual assistance. The operator must also 

establish a continuing education program to enable customers, the public, government officials, and those 

engaged in excavation activities to recognize a gas pipeline emergency and report it to appropriate public 

officials. Gulf South would provide the appropriate training to local emergency service personnel before 

the pipeline is placed in service. No additional specialized local fire protection equipment would be 

required to handle pipeline emergencies. 

3.12.2 Pipeline Accident Data 

Since February 9, 1970, 49 CFR Part 191 has required all operators of transmission and 

gathering systems to notify the DOT of any reportable incident and to submit a report on Form F7100.2 

within 20 days. Reportable incidents are defined as any leaks that: 

• Caused a death or personal injury requiring hospitalization 

• Required taking any segment of transmission line out of service 

• Resulted in gas ignition 

• Caused estimated damage to the property of the operator, or others, or both, of a total of $5,000 or 

more 

• Required immediate repair on a transmission line 

• Occurred while testing with gas or another medium 

• In the judgment of the operator was significant, even though it did not meet the above criteria 

The DOT changed reporting requirements after June 1984 to reduce the amount of data 

collected. Since that date, operators must only report incidents that involve property damage of more than 

$50,000, injury, death, release of gas, or that are otherwise considered significant by the operator. 

Table 3.12.2-1 presents a summary of incident data for the 1970 to 1984 period, as well as more recent 

incident data for 1986 through 2005, recognizing the difference in reporting requirements. The 14.5-year 

period from 1970 through June 1984, which provides a larger universe of data and more basic report 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 3-114 

information than subsequent years, has been subject to detailed analysis, as discussed in the following 

sections.4

TABLE 3.12.2-1 

Natural Gas Service Incidents by Cause 

 Incidents per 1,000 Miles of Pipeline (Percent Distribution) 

Cause 1970 through 1984 1986 through 2005 

Outside forces 0.70 (53.8) 0.10 (38.5) 

Corrosion 0.22 (16.9) 0.06 (23.1) 

Construction or material defect 0.27 (20.8) 0.04 (15.4) 

Other 0.11 ( 8.5) 0.06 (23.1) 

Total 1.30 0.26 

_______________ 

Sources: Jones et al. (1986); USDOT, OPS, http://ops.dot.gov/stats.htm (2006). 

During the 14.5-year period, 5,862 service incidents were reported over the more than 300,000 

total miles of natural gas transmission and gathering systems nationwide. Service incidents, defined as 

failures that occur during pipeline operation, have remained fairly constant over this period, with no clear 

upward or downward trend in annual totals. In addition, 2,013 test failures were reported. Correction of 

test failures removed defects from the pipeline before operation (Jones et al. 1986). 

Additional insight into the nature of service incidents may be found by examining the primary 

factors that caused the failures. Table 3.12.2-2 provides a percentage distribution of the causal factors as 

well as the annual frequency of each factor per 1,000 miles of pipeline in service (Jones et al. 1986). Data 

presented for the period extending from mid 1986 through 2003 were gathered from the DOT's OPS. 

TABLE 3.12.2-2 

Outside Forces Incidents by Cause 

(1970 through 1984) 

Cause Percent 

Equipment operated by outside party 67.1 

Equipment operated by or for operator 7.3 

Earth movement 13.3 

Weather 10.8 

Other 1.5 

_______________ 

Source: Jones, et al. (1986)

 4

 Jones, D. J., G. S. Kramer, D. N. Gideon, and R. J. Eiber, 1986. "An Analysis of Reportable Incidents for Natural 

Gas Transportation and Gathering Lines 1970 through June 1984." NG-18 Report No. 158, Pipeline Research 

Committee of the American Gas Association. 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 3-115 

The dominant incident cause is outside forces, constituting 53.8 percent of all service 

incidents. Outside forces incidents result from the encroachment of mechanical equipment such as 

bulldozers and backhoes; earth movements due to soil settlement, washouts, or geologic hazards; weather 

effects such as winds, storms, and thermal strains; and willful damage. Table 3.12.2-2 shows that human 

error in equipment usage was responsible for approximately 75 percent of outside forces incidents. Since 

April 1982, operators have been required to participate in "One Call" public utility programs in populated 

areas to minimize unauthorized excavation activities in the vicinity of pipelines. The "One Call" program 

is a service used by public utilities and some private sector companies (e.g., oil pipelines and cable 

television) to provide preconstruction information to contractors or other maintenance workers on the 

underground location of pipes, cables, and culverts. The 1986 through 2005 data show that the portion of 

incidents caused by outside forces has decreased to 38.5 percent. 

The pipelines included in the data set in Table 3.12.2-1 vary widely in terms of age, pipe 

diameter, and level of corrosion control. Each variable influences the incident frequency that may be 

expected for a specific segment of pipeline. 

The frequency of service incidents is strongly dependent on pipeline age. While pipelines 

installed since 1950 exhibit a fairly constant level of service incident frequency, pipelines installed before 

that time have a significantly higher rate, partially due to corrosion. Older pipelines have a higher 

frequency of corrosion incidents, since corrosion is a time-dependent process. Furthermore, new pipe 

generally uses more advanced coatings and cathodic protection to reduce corrosion potential. 

Older pipelines have a higher frequency of outside forces incidents partly because their 

location may be less well known and less well marked than newer lines. In addition, the older pipelines 

contain a disproportionate number of smaller-diameter pipelines, which have a greater rate of outside 

forces incidents. Small-diameter pipelines are more easily crushed or broken by mechanical equipment or 

earth movements. 

Table 3.12.2-3 clearly demonstrates the effectiveness of corrosion control in reducing the 

incidence of failures caused by external corrosion. The use of both an external protective coating and a 

cathodic protection system, required on all pipelines installed after July 1971, significantly reduces the 

rate of failure compared to unprotected or partially protected pipe. The data shows that bare, cathodically 

protected pipe actually has a higher corrosion rate than unprotected pipe. This anomaly reflects the 

retrofitting of cathodic protection to actively corroding spots on pipes. 

TABLE 3.12.2-3 

External Corrosion by Level of Control (1970 through June 1984) 

Corrosion Control Incidents per 1,000 Miles per Year 

None – bare pipe 0.42 

Cathodic protection only 0.97 

Coated only 0.40 

Coated and cathodic protection 0.11 

_______________ 

Source: Jones, et al. (1986)

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 3-116 

3.12.3 Impact on Public Safety 

The service incident data summarized in Table 3.12.2-1 include pipeline failures of all 

magnitudes, with widely varying consequences. Approximately two-thirds of the incidents were 

classified as leaks and the remaining third classified as ruptures, implying a more serious failure. 

Table 3.12.3-1 presents the average annual fatalities that occurred on natural gas transmission 

and gathering lines from 1970 to 2005. Fatalities between 1970 and June 1984 have been separated into 

employees and non-employees, to better identify a fatality rate experienced by the general public. Of the 

total 5.0 nationwide average, fatalities among the public averaged 2.6 per year over this period. The 

simplified reporting requirements in effect after June 1984 do not differentiate between employees and 

non-employees. However, the data show that the total annual average for the period 1984 through 2005 

decreased to 3.6 fatalities per year. Subtracting two major offshore incidents in 1989, which do not 

reflect the risk to the onshore public, yields a total annual rate of 2.8 fatalities per year for this period. 

The nationwide totals of accidental fatalities from various manmade and natural hazards are 

listed in Table 3.12.3-2 in order to provide a relative measure of the industry-wide safety of natural gas 

pipelines. Direct comparisons between accident categories should be made cautiously, however, because 

individual exposures to hazards are not uniform among all categories. Nevertheless, the average 

2.6 public fatalities per year is relatively small considering the more than 300,000 miles of transmission 

and gathering lines in service nationwide. Furthermore, the fatality rate is approximately two orders of 

magnitude (100 times) lower than the fatalities from natural hazards such as lightning, tornadoes, floods, 

and earthquakes. 

The available data show that natural gas pipelines continue to be a safe, reliable means of 

energy transportation. Based on approximately 301,000 miles in service, the rate of public fatalities for 

the nationwide mix of transmission and gathering lines in service is 0.01 per year per 1,000 miles of 

pipeline. Using this rate, the proposed Project might result in a public fatality every 901 years. This 

would represent a slight increase in risk to the nearby public. 

TABLE 3.12.3-1 

Annual Average Fatalities 

Natural Gas Transmission and Gathering System 

Year Employees Non-Employees Total 

1970–June 1984 2.4 2.6 5.0 

1984–2005a - - 3.6 

1984–2005a - - 2.8b

_______________ 

Notes: 

a Employee/non-employee breakdown not available after June 1984. 

b Without 18 offshore fatalities occurring in 1989 (11 resulting from a fishing vessel striking an 

offshore pipeline and 7 from an explosion on an offshore production platform). 

Sources: Jones et al. (1986); USDOT, OPS, http://ops.dot.gov/stats.htm (2006).

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 3-117 

TABLE 3.12.3-2 

Nationwide Accidental Deaths 

Type of Accident Fatalities 

All accidents 90,523 

Motor vehicle 43,649 

Falls 14,985 

Drowning 3,488 

Poisoning 9,510 

Fires and burns 3,791 

Suffocation by ingested object 3,206 

Tornado, flood, earthquake, etc. 

(1984 to 1993 average) 181 

All liquid and gas pipelinesa

(1978 to 1987 average) 27 

Gas transmission and gathering linesb

(non-employees only, 1970 to 1984 average) 2.6 

_______________ 

Notes: 

a USDOT, "Annual Report on Pipeline Safety – Calendar Year 1987." 

b Jones et al. (1986). 

Source: All data, unless otherwise noted, reflect 1996 statistics from the U.S. Department of 

Commerce, Bureau of the Census, "Statistical Abstract of the United States, 118th Edition." 

3.12.4 Additional Security and Safety Issues 

During the scoping period, we received comments regarding the susceptibility of the proposed 

Project to terrorist attack. Due to the various motivations and abilities of terrorist organizations in 

conjunction with the extensive natural gas infrastructure within the United States, the likelihood of future 

acts of terrorism occurring at the Project site is unpredictable. The FERC has taken measures to limit the 

distribution of information to the public regarding facility design to minimize the risk of sabotage. 

Facility design and location information is removed from the FERC's website to ensure that sensitive 

information filed under Critical Energy Infrastructure Information is not readily available. Furthermore, 

the Commission, in cooperation with other federal agencies, industry trade groups, and interstate natural 

gas companies, is working to improve pipeline security practices, strengthen communications within the 

industry, and extend public outreach in an ongoing effort to secure pipeline infrastructure. 

Despite the ongoing potential for terrorist acts along any of the nation's natural gas 

infrastructure, the continuing need for the construction of these facilities is not eliminated. Given the 

continued need for natural gas conveyance and the unpredictable nature of terrorist attacks, FERC, DOT, 

and the Office of Homeland Security's efforts to continually improve pipeline safety, would minimize the 

risk of terrorist sabotage of the Project to the maximum extent practical, while still meeting the nation's 

natural gas needs. 

3.13 CUMULATIVE IMPACT 

In accordance with NEPA and the FERC policy, we considered the cumulative impacts of the 

proposed Southeast Expansion Project and other projects in the general Project area. Cumulative impacts 

represent the incremental effects of the proposed action when added to other past, present, or reasonably 

foreseeable future actions, regardless of what agency or person undertakes such other actions. 

Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor, but collectively significant, actions taking place 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 3-118 

over a given period of time. The direct and indirect impacts of the proposed project are discussed in other 

sections of this EIS. 

The purpose of this cumulative impact analysis is to identify and describe cumulative impacts 

that would potentially result from implementation of the proposed Project. This cumulative impact 

analysis generally follows the methodology set forth in relevant guidance (CEQ, 1997; USEPA, 1999). 

Under these guidelines, inclusion of other projects within the analysis is based on identifying 

commonalties of impacts from other projects to potential impacts that would result from the proposed 

Project. An action must meet the following three criteria to be included in the cumulative impacts 

analysis: 

• Impact a resource area potentially affected by the proposed project. 

• Cause this impact within all, or part of, the proposed project area. 

• Cause this impact within all, or part of, the time span for the potential impact from the proposed 

project. 

For the purposes of this cumulative impact analysis, we considered the project area to be the 

counties and parish traversed by the proposed project. Most effects of more distant projects we identified 

are not assessed because their impact would generally be localized and not contribute significantly to 

cumulative impact in the proposed project area. 

The actions considered in the cumulative impact analysis may vary from the proposed project 

in nature, magnitude, and duration. These actions are included based on the likelihood of completion, and 

only projects with either ongoing impacts or that are "reasonably foreseeable" future actions were 

evaluated. Existing or reasonably foreseeable actions that would be expected to affect similar resources 

during similar time periods as the proposed project were considered further. The anticipated cumulative 

impacts of the proposed project and these other actions are discussed below, as well as any pertinent 

mitigation actions. 

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 are: 

(1) other natural gas pipeline projects; (2) facilities that would be associated with construction of the 

proposed Project but that are not under the FERC's jurisdiction; and (3) unrelated projects that are either 

in place, are under construction in the vicinity of the proposed Project, or are proposed (Table 3.13.1-1). 

3.13.1 Other Natural Gas Pipeline Projects 

The FERC has applications for two other proposed natural gas pipeline projects that would 

traverse the same general areas as the proposed Southeast Expansion Project in Louisiana, Mississippi, 

and Alabama. They include (1) CenterPoint Energy and Spectra Energy's Southeast Supply Header 

(SESH) Project, and 2) Gulf South's East Texas to Mississippi Expansion (ETM) Project. In addition, the 

FERC recently issued a Certificate for CenterPoint Energy Gas Transmission Company's (CEGT's) 

Carthage to Perryville Project (CTP Project), which is also located in northern Louisiana. See Figure 

3.13.1 and Tables 3.13.1-1 and 3.13.1-2 for illustration of the locations and comparative impacts of these 

three projects along with the proposed Project. 

We have identified the tentative construction schedules of these projects, as available, but the 

actual construction schedules would depend on factors such as economic conditions, the availability of 

funds, and the issuance of permits. The potential impacts associated with these projects that are most 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 3-119 

likely to be cumulatively significant are related to wetlands and waterbodies, vegetation and wildlife 

(including federally and state-listed endangered and threatened species), land use, air quality, and noise. 

TABLE 3.13.1-1 

Existing or Proposed Natural Gas Projects that Would Cumulatively Impact 

Resources in the Southeast Expansion Project Area 

Project Description 

Anticipated 

Construction 

Date Counties/Parishes within Project Area 

Natural Gas Pipeline Projects 

Carthage to 

Perryville 

Construct and 

operate 172 miles 

of 42-inch-diameter 

natural gas pipeline 

2006-2007 Panola County, Texas 

Caddo, DeSoto, Red River, Bienville, Jackson, 

Ouachita, and Richland Parishes, Louisiana 

East Texas to 

Mississippi 

Expansion 

Project 

Construct and 

operate 242 miles 

of 42-inch-diameter 

natural gas pipeline 

2007 Panola County, Texas 

DeSoto, Red River, Bienville, Jackson, 

Ouachita, and Richland Parishes, Louisiana 

Warren, Hinds, Copiah, Simpson, and Walthall 

Counties, Mississippi 

Southeast 

Supply Header 

Project 

Construct and 

operate 104 miles 

of 42-inch-diameter 

and 165 miles of 

36-inch-diameter 

(269 miles total) 

natural gas pipeline 

2008 Richland and Madison Parish, Louisiana 

Warren, Claiborne, Copiah, Lawrence, 

Jefferson Davis, Covington, Jones, Forrest, 

Perry, Greene, George, and Jackson 

Counties, Louisiana 

Mobile County, Alabama 

Southeast 

Expansion 

Project 

Construct and 

operate 111 miles 

of 42-inch-diameter 

natural gas pipeline 

2007-2008 Simpson, Smith, Jasper, Clarke Counties, 

Mississippi 

Choctaw County, Alabama 

Richland Parish, Louisiana 

Gulf Crossing 

Project 

Construct and 

operate a 351-milelong, 42-inchdiameter natural 

gas pipeline, and 

16 miles of 42-inchdiameter looping 

2008 Grayson, Fannin, Lamar, Delta, Hopkins, 

Franklin, Titus, Morris, and Cass Counties, 

Texas 

Bryon County, Oklahoma 

Caddo, Bossier, Webster, Claiborne, Lincoln, 

Union, Ouachita, Morehouse, Richland and 

Madison Counties, Louisiana 

Looping (Hinds, Copiah, Simpson, Mississippi) 

MidContinent 

Express Project 

Construct and 

operate 262 miles 

of 42-inch-, 

193 miles of 

36-inch-, and 

40 miles of 30-inchdiameter (495 miles 

total) natural gas 

pipeline 

2008 Bryan County, Oklahoma 

Lamar, Red River, Franklin, Titus, Morris, and 

Cass Counties, Texas 

Caddo, Bossier, Webster, Claiborne, Lincoln, 

Union, Ouachita, Morehouse, Richland, and 

Madison Counties, Louisiana 

Warren, Hinds, Rankin, Simpson, Smith, 

Jasper, and Clarke Counties, Mississippi 

Choctaw County, Alabama 

_______________ 

Notes: 

N/A = Not Available 

Associated proposed lateral pipelines not included

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
Non-Internet Public 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE 

PROPOSED SOUTHEAST EXPANSIONPROJECT 

Docket No. CP07-032-000 

Page 3-120 

Figure 3.13-1 

Approximate Location of Natural Gas Pipeline Projects Near the 

Proposed Southeast Expansion Project 

Public access for this Non-Internet Public information is 

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

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 3-121 

While it is not certain if or when these actions will occur, its similarity and proximity to the 

proposed Project merits further consideration. The FERC (1989) considers that the general impacts of 

building multiple pipelines would be primarily additive. Based on the project scope, geographic location, 

and preliminary information, we anticipate that the SESH Expansion, ETM Expansion and CTP Projects 

would result in environmental impacts similar to those of the proposed Project. 

CEGT's Carthage to Perryville Project 

CEGT completed construction of its CTP Project in June 2007, a 42-inch-diameter natural gas 

pipeline system that would extend from Carthage in Panola County, Texas to near Delhi in Richland 

Parish, Louisiana. The project consists of 172 miles of pipeline and two compressor stations that total 

41,240 hp. The pipeline connects multiple receiving points in east Texas with CenterPoint's Perryville 

Hub and four new interstate pipeline interconnections. The FERC issued CEGT its Certificate on October 

2, 2006. 

The CTP Project is considered here with respect to the potential for cumulative impacts to the 

natural and human environments of Texas and Louisiana. Detailed information regarding the 

environmental impacts that would be associated with construction and operation of the CTP Project are 

included in the EIS (FERC 2006) prepared by the FERC and can be viewed on the FERC website under 

Docket No. CP06-85-000. 

East Texas to Mississippi Expansion Project 

The ETM Expansion Project, also proposed by Gulf South, is an approximate 242-mile, 

36-inch and 42-inch OD natural gas pipeline. This project includes the addition of 40,302 Hp of 

additional compression at one existing compressor station, and two new compressor stations with 

30,000 Hp and 40,302 Hp. The ETM Expansion Project runs from Panola County, Texas in an easterly 

direction across Louisiana and ends in Simpson County, Mississippi. The terminus of the pipeline is Gulf 

South's existing Index 130, which is also the beginning of the proposed Southeast Expansion Project. The 

ETM Expansion Project was approved by the Commission on June 18, 2007, and is currently under 

construction. 

The ETM Expansion Project is considered here with respect to the potential for cumulative 

impacts to the natural and human environments in Louisiana (Delhi area) and Mississippi. The proposed 

project has been filed and a Final EIS was issued in May 2007 and is being evaluated by the FERC. 

Detailed information regarding the environmental impacts that would be associated with construction and 

operation of the ETM Expansion Project can be viewed on the FERC website under Docket No. CP06-

446-000. 

Southeast Supply Header Project 

Spectra Energy Gas Transmission (SEGT) and CEGT have proposed construction of a new 

36-inch-diameter natural gas pipeline system that would extend approximately 269 miles southeast from 

Delhi, Louisiana in Richland Parish, Louisiana to near Coden, Alabama, in Mobile County, Alabama. In 

addition to the 270 miles of pipeline construction, the SESH Project would add three new compressor 

stations totaling 51,385 Hp. The pipeline would connect onshore gas supplies from Texas and Louisiana 

to the markets in the southeast, as well as interconnect with interstate systems in Mississippi and 

Alabama. 

The SESH Project is considered here with respect to the potential for cumulative impacts to 

the natural and human environments of Louisiana and Mississippi. The project has been filed and is 

being evaluated by the FERC. The Draft EIS was issued on April 27, 2007. Detailed information 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 3-122 

regarding the environmental impacts that would be associated with construction and operation of the 

SESH Project can be viewed on the FERC website under Docket No. CP07-44-000.

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 3-123 

TABLE 3.13.1-2 

Environmental Resources That Would Be Cumulatively Affected During Construction and Operation o

in the Vicinity of the Proposed Southeast Expansion Project 

Project 

(Anticipated 

Construction 

Date) 

Total Length/

Length of 

Collocation 

(miles) 

Total Land 

Disturbance 

(acres) 

Pipeline 

Diameter 

and 

Proposed 

Perm ROW 

Width 

Open-Cut 

Waterbody 

Crossings 

Wetlands 

Disturbed 

During 

Construction

Forested 

Wetlands 

Disturbed 

Forestland 

Cleared 

Federally 

Listed 

Endangered, 

Threatened, 

or Candidate 

Species 

Carthage to Perryville (2006-2007) 

172 

40 

2,498 

(1,248 

permanently) 

42-inch 

60 feet 

104 perennial 

136 intermittent

127 wetlands 

50 acres 

86 acres 1,316 acres 6 

East Texas to Mississippi Expansion Project (2007) Docket No. CP06-446 

242 185 

4,034 

(1,542 

permanently) 

42-inch 

50 feet 

780 301 wetlands 

115 acres 

81 acres 1,838 acres 10 

Southeast Supply Header Project (2008) Docket No. CP07-44, 45 

269 

0 

3,417 

(1,631 

permanently) 

36-inch for 

165 miles 

42-inch for 

104 miles 

50 feet 

177 perennial 

448 intermittent

246 wetlands 

239 acres 

249 acres 2,171 acres 19 

Southeast Expansion Project (2008) Docket No. CP07-32 

111 

73 

1,727 

(857 

permanently) 

42-inch 

50 feet 

92 perennial 

159 intermittent

129 wetlands 

89 acres 

48 acres 1,329 acres 9 

Gulf Crossing 

Project (2008) 

Docket No. 

CP07-398 

367 212 

5651 

(2698 

permanently) 

42-inch 

60 feet 

245 perennial 

627 intermittent

147 wetlands 

163 acres 

127 acres 2,398 acres 16 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 3-124 

Gulf Crossing Project 

Boardwalk Pipelines has proposed construction of a new 42-inch-diameter natural gas pipeline 

system that would extend approximately 351 miles southeast from Grayson County, Texas, to Madison 

Parish, Louisiana. Additionally, the Gulf Crossing Project would include 4.5 miles of 42-inch-diameter 

pipeline looping in Madison Parish, Louisiana, and 11.2 miles of 42-inch-diameter pipeline looping in 

Hinds, Copiah, and Simpson Counties, Mississippi. The route would be collocated for 289 miles with the 

proposed MidContinent Express Project. 

The Gulf Crossing Project is considered here with respect to the potential for cumulative 

impacts to the natural and human environments of Louisiana. The project was filed with the Commission 

on June 19, 2007, and is being evaluated by the FERC, but has not yet been approved. Detailed 

information regarding the environmental impacts that would be associated with construction and 

operation of the Gulf Crossing Project can be viewed on the FERC website under Docket No. CP07-398.

MidContinent Express Project 

Kinder Morgan has proposed construction of a new 24-inch and 36 -inch-diameter natural gas 

pipeline system that would extend approximately 495 miles southeast from Bryan County, Oklahoma to 

Choctaw County, Alabama. The route would be entirely collocated with the SESH Project, then the ETM 

Expansion Project, and finally with the proposed Project. Landowners along the proposed Project could 

be (or may have already been) approached by Kinder Morgan representatives regarding an additional 

easement on their land. If the MidContinent Express Project is constructed as presently envisioned, this 

would represent a cumulative land use effect along with the proposed Project's right-of-way. 

The MidContinent Express Project is considered here with respect to the potential for 

cumulative impacts to the natural and human environments of Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama. The 

project is in the Pre-filing stage and is being evaluated by the FERC, but has not yet been approved. 

Detailed information regarding the environmental proceedings of the MidContinent Express Project are 

on the FERC website under Docket No. PF07-004-000. 

3.13.2 Unrelated Projects 

Local government planning officials were contacted to determine whether any new 

development is scheduled to occur in the vicinity of the Southeast Expansion Project. One proposal for 

new residential development was found to be pending within 0.25 mile of the construction right-of-way at 

MP 11 (Section 3.8.3). Based on our own research, no road projects are known to be located in the area 

of the proposed Project. The FERC would have no authority over permitting, licensing, funding, 

construction, or operation of highway projects. Federal, state, and local agencies must review highway 

projects for compliance with requirements for construction of facilities at sites or places where a 

governmental license or permit may be required. Expansion or construction of intrastate pipelines and 

highways would require state or federal permits and approvals to ensure compliance with Section 7 of the 

ESA; Sections 401, 402, and 404 of the CWA; and the CAA. Issuance of the necessary permits and 

approvals would reduce or avoid significant impacts from these facilities to wetlands and waterbodies, 

vegetation and wildlife (including threatened and endangered species), land use, and air quality and noise. 

3.13.3 Potential Cumulative Impacts of the Proposed Action 

Impacts to wetlands, waterbodies, vegetation, wildlife (including federally and state-listed 

endangered and threatened species), land use, and air quality and noise could contribute to larger 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 3-125 

cumulative impacts. See Tables 3.13.1-1 and 3.13.1-2 for a comparative summary of the proposed 

construction projects in the vicinity of the proposed Project. 

3.13.3.1 Wetlands and Waterbodies 

Construction and operation of the proposed Project would result in both short-term and longterm impacts to waterbodies and wetlands. The short-term impacts such as soil or sediment disturbance 

would dissipate over a period of weeks, while longer term impacts, such as regrowth of forested wetlands 

within the temporary construction rights-of-way, would persist for months or years. The primary impacts 

to wetlands and waterbodies during operation of the proposed pipeline would be associated with routine 

right-of-way maintenance. All maintenance activities would comply with applicable federal regulations 

and Gulf South's plans (see Section 3.2) and Procedures (see Sections 3.3 and 3.4), but would continue 

throughout the life of the proposed Project. 

If approved and constructed, the proposed Project and other reasonably foreseeable future 

projects would impact wetlands and would include permanent loss or conversion of some existing 

wetlands (see Table 3.4.1-1). Elements of these projects with the potential to affect wetlands and 

waterbodies would be subject to review and approval under Section 404 of the CWA, as administered by 

COE, as well as state and local wetland regulations (see Section 1.3). Any permanent or long-term 

impacts to wetlands and waterbodies would require appropriate mitigation. Construction of the proposed 

Project would affect 145 wetland areas, resulting in a total of approximately 68.94 acres of wetland 

disturbance, including approximately 17.85 acres of PFO wetland impacts. In Section 3.4.3, we are 

recommending the development of site-specific wetland crossing plans in select areas to further minimize 

forested wetland effects. Gulf South indicates that compensatory mitigation for wetland impacts 

associated with the proposed Project would be provided through the purchase of wetland mitigation bank 

credits in the area of the proposed Project. Furthermore, discharges to wetlands and other surface waters 

associated with construction and operation would require review, approval, and mitigation (if necessary) 

under the, LDEQ, MDEQ and ADEM stormwater discharge programs. 

Construction of the proposed Project would result in 308 individual waterbody crossings. 

Gulf South proposes to use 15 HDDs to accomplish pipeline installation, including the following five 

major waterbodies: the Leaf River (MP 44.1), the West Tallahala River (MP 45.3), the Chickasawhay 

River (MP 89.3), and one unnamed pond (MP 87.8). The Chickasawhay River is also one of the NPSdesignated Nationwide Rivers Inventory (NRI) streams that would be crossed. The use of the HDD 

method would avoid direct impacts to waterbodies and minimize impacts to riparian vegetation at those 

crossings. Any inadvertent release of drilling fluids (frac-out) or accidental fuel and chemical spills 

would be greatly reduced by the implementation of Gulf South's HDD Plan and SPCC Plan. 

Because most of the projects listed in Tables 3.13.1-1 and 3.13.1-2 are located within the same 

major watersheds crossed by the proposed Project pipeline, and because some of these projects would 

likely involve direct and indirect waterbody impacts, the proposed Project and other reasonably 

foreseeable future projects would result in some cumulative impacts to waterbodies. These temporary 

impacts would include runoff from construction areas, temporary and localized increases in turbidity and 

sedimentation associated with in-water construction, and withdrawal and discharge of surface waters for 

hydrostatic testing of pipeline segments. As described in Section 3.3, these effects would be relatively 

minor and would be further minimized by implementation of Gulf South's plans and Procedures and our 

recommendations; therefore, we believe that cumulative impacts to wetlands and waterbodies would be 

adequately minimized. 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 3-126 

3.13.3.2 Vegetation and Wildlife 

Construction of the proposed Project and other reasonably foreseeable future projects would 

cause a cumulative impact on native vegetation and associated wildlife. These cumulative impacts would 

be most significant if the projects were constructed at or near the same time and within close proximity of 

one another. Either circumstance would increase the impacts and would lengthen the recovery time for 

affected vegetative communities. The proposed Project, if approved, would impact native vegetative 

communities during construction, including approximately 646.6 acres of upland forest (slope hardwood 

and loblolly pine-hardwood forest) and 578.8 acres of pine plantation. 

Cumulative impacts within a region, such as lost acreage of forestland, are additive. 

Furthermore, many wildlife species depend on mature contiguous tracts of forest to sustain their 

migratory and reproduction cycles. These species include dozens of migratory songbirds and terrestrial 

mammals that are not migratory but that require large tracts of forest to support their home ranges. The 

impacts of fragmentation can be immediate and significant because population levels for many such 

species are currently low and on the decline. 

The extent and duration of cumulative wildlife habitat impacts associated with construction of 

the proposed Project and other future projects would be minimized by using existing, maintained rightsof-way and other disturbed areas as much as possible. Gulf South's proposed route would be collocated 

with or parallel to existing utility rights-of-way such as Crosstex and Transco rights-of-way where 

possible, thereby minimizing impacts to previously undisturbed vegetation. The proposed pipeline route 

would parallel existing utility rights-of-way for approximately 73 miles, or about 66 percent of the 

proposed route. Additionally, approximately 33 percent of the proposed pipeline route would traverse 

agricultural, industrial, open lands, pastures, and other areas that would typically experience rapid 

revegetation. Furthermore, Gulf South would implement the mitigation measures outlined in its plans and 

Procedures to encourage the regrowth of native vegetation and discourage the spread of exotic or noxious 

plant species. 

Forty-six federally-listed endangered or threatened, state-listed endangered or threatened, 

and/or special-status species would be potentially impacted by construction activities associated with the 

proposed Project. As described in Section 3.7, with implementation of our recommendations for 

mitigation to avoid and minimize impacts, we believe that the proposed Project would not significantly 

affect federally listed species. However, if other reasonably foreseeable future projects were to impact 

the same habitats as the proposed Project route, cumulative impacts to these listed species would occur. 

Impacts to such species would likely be reduced or eliminated through conservation and mitigation 

measures identified during the permitting processes because protection of threatened, endangered and 

other special-status species is part of the federal and state permitting processes. Consequently, we believe 

that cumulative impacts to vegetation and wildlife resources would be relatively minor. 

3.13.3.3 Land Use 

Construction of the proposed Project and other reasonably foreseeable future projects would 

result in temporary and permanent changes in land use within the Project area. The proposed Project 

would encumber a total of approximately 1,727 acres of land during construction. Approximately 

71.0 percent of that land would be upland forest or pine plantation, 4.6 percent would be agricultural, 

10.0 percent would be open land, 3.3 percent would be pasture, and 4.4 percent would be wetland. 

Residential land, other/roads, commercial/industrial land, and open water land use types would also be 

affected, accounting for the remaining 6.7 percent. While most of these impacts would be temporary in 

nature, construction of the proposed Project would result in some permanent land use changes, including 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 3-127 

conversion of approximately 283.4 acres of pine plantation, 336.1 acres of forested uplands, and 

17.9 acres of forested wetlands to maintained utility right-of-way. 

Land use impacts associated with the proposed ETM Expansion Project include approximately 

4,034 acres. Land use impacts associated with the existing Denbury, Crosstex, and Transco pipelines 

have already been accounted for during the permitting of the respective lines. Land use impacts 

associated with the pipeline projects would likely cause a cumulative effect when considered in 

conjunction with the proposed Project. Because some or parts of these projects were constructed or are 

proposed to be constructed largely within or adjacent to existing maintained rights-of-way, the impact of 

land use changes would be reduced. Unlike transportation projects which would permanently convert 

thousands of acres of land to paved impervious surface, much of the land affected during construction of 

the proposed Project and the other pipeline projects would be restored and allowed to revert to 

preconstruction uses and conditions once pipeline installation was complete. Because non-woody 

vegetation would be expected to return to preconstruction conditions over the short term, impacts to 

acreage classified as agriculture, pastures, or open land would be short term and minor. Long-term 

impacts to cleared forestland located outside of permanently maintained rights-of-way would take many 

years to return to preconstruction conditions, with recovery time dependent on the types and ages of the 

trees removed. However, given the prevalence of these land uses and cover types within the affected 

counties and parishes, we believe that cumulative impacts to land use would be relatively minor. 

3.13.3.4 Air Quality 

Air quality would be affected by construction and operation of the proposed Project and other 

reasonably foreseeable future projects. Construction of these projects would temporarily impact air 

quality by generating emissions from operation of fossil-fueled construction equipment and fugitive dust 

from land clearing, grading, excavation, concrete work, and vehicle traffic on paved and unpaved roads. 

However, the majority of impacts to air quality would occur during operation of these projects. The 

currently constructed CTP Project, the proposed Project, and the proposed ETM and SESH Projects, all 

would contribute to ongoing air emissions associated with operation of compressor stations. In the Delhi, 

Louisiana area, the proposed Delhi Compressor Station would produce cumulative impacts in association 

with the CEGT's existing Delhi Compressor Station and the proposed SESH Delhi Compressor Station. 

Any proposed or planned roadway improvements in the area of the proposed Project might also contribute 

increased levels of air emissions as a result of increased vehicular traffic. 

Because construction-related air emissions would be temporary and localized in nature, they 

would be unlikely to contribute significantly to cumulative air quality impacts. Air emissions from 

operations of portions the proposed Project and the portions of other projects listed in Table 3.13-2 with 

compressor stations located in the same air quality control region could present a cumulative impact since 

they would be discharged into a shared air basin. The Delhi Compressor Station is the only station that 

would be constructed in the same region as other compressor stations listed in Table 3.13-2. Initial 

screening modeling has been recommended to be performed for the Delhi Compressor Station to identify 

potential impacts and determine whether further cumulative analysis is warranted. The counties and 

parish in which the proposed Project would be constructed are in attainment for all NAAQS criteria 

pollutants. Also, each of the projects listed in Table 3.13-2 would be required to meet all applicable 

federal and state air quality standards. 

3.13.3.5 Noise 

Potential noise impacts associated with the proposed Project and those projects listed in 

Table 3.13-2 would occur during construction and operation. Because of the linear nature of these 

projects, construction-related noise impacts would tend to be of short duration in a given area. 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 3-128 

Furthermore, because most construction activities would be limited to daylight hours, construction-related 

noise impacts would not occur at night for the most part. The proposed Project would cause minor 

temporary impacts at NSAs near HDD sites. Potential noise-related impacts during operation of the 

proposed Project and the other pipeline projects listed in Table 3.13-2 would primarily be limited to the 

vicinity of the associated compressor stations. As described in Section 3.11, the estimated noise that 

would be generated by the proposed Delhi, Destin, and Harrisville Compressor Stations would meet 

acceptable levels at the nearest NSA, but we are recommending monitoring to ensure no impacts occur. 

Noise emissions from compressor station operations may be additive with noise-generating 

elements of other reasonably foreseeable future projects if they are located near a common NSA, for 

example, in the Delhi, Louisiana, area where two new compressor stations are being proposed. However, 

both compressor stations would be required to comply with the FERC standards for noise levels. A 

cumulative noise analysis is currently being performed at the NSAs in common for both compressor 

stations which should identify any potential noise impacts at this location. 

The proposed project would include 18,940 Hp at the Harrisville Compressor Station. The 

Gulf Crossing Project would add an additional 30,000 Hp at this compressor station. At a minimum, both 

projects would be required to comply with the FERC standards for noise levels. With both projects 

complying with the FERC noise level requirements, noise impacts would not be considered significant. 

3.13.4 Conclusions 

If the proposed Project and the SESH Project are certificated, along with the recently 

certificated CTP and ETM Expansion Projects, all construction would be within the same general area, 

and the effects would overlap in time from the years 2006 through 2009. Additionally, the type of 

project, construction methods, and impacts would be similar. Although each of these unrelated projects 

would result in temporary and minor effects during construction, each project would be designed to avoid 

or minimize impacts to wetlands, waterbodies, protected and special-status species, and other sensitive 

resources. Additionally, significant unavoidable impacts to sensitive resources resulting from these 

projects would be mitigated. Mitigation generally leads to avoidance or minimization of cumulative 

impacts. We therefore consider that the potential cumulative impacts of the three proposed pipeline 

projects under our review, the recently certificated CTP Project, Gulf South's proposed project routed 

along the existing Crosstex and Transco pipeline corridors, have been or would be minimized. 

We are recommending additional measures to further reduce the environmental impacts 

associated with the proposed Project, including requiring Gulf South to evaluate whether it can use about 

10 feet of other existing utility rights-of-way to further reduce impacts. The environmental impacts 

associated with the proposed Project would be minimized by careful project routing, utilization of HDD 

techniques to avoid and minimize impacts to some sensitive resources, and implementation of appropriate 

mitigation measures. Consequently, only a small cumulative effect is anticipated when the impacts of the 

proposed Project are added to past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future projects in the area. For any 

project that still requires a FERC certificate, we would evaluate the impact during our NEPA review 

process. 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 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 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 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 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 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 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 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. 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 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. 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 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. 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 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 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 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. 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 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. 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
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. 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
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. 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
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. 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 5-1 

5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

5.1 SUMMARY OF THE STAFF'S ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS OF THE PROPOSED 

ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES 

We conclude that construction and operation of the proposed Project would result in limited 

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

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

federal, state, and local agencies; input from public groups and individual citizens; and the mitigation 

measures recommended below. 

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 proposed Project. We believe that environmental impacts would be minimized if the proposed 

Project is constructed and operated in accordance with applicable laws and regulations, Gulf South's 

proposed mitigation and implementation of a third-party environmental inspection and monitoring 

program, and our additional recommended mitigation measures. We are therefore recommending that our 

mitigation measures be attached as conditions to any authorization issued by the Commission. A 

summary of the anticipated Project impacts and our conclusions are provided below by resource area. 

5.1.1 Geology 

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

resources. The primary effect of Project construction would be temporary disturbances to the existing 

topography along the proposed pipeline construction right-of-way, but all areas disturbed during pipeline 

construction would be finish-graded and restored as closely as possible to preconstruction contours during 

cleanup and restoration. Additionally, no bedrock blasting is anticipated for the proposed Project. The 

proposed Project would be located in a region with a low risk of seismic activity, soil liquefaction, 

landslide susceptibility, and subsidence. No known paleontological resources would be affected by the 

proposed Project, although Gulf South has developed an unanticipated discovery plan in the event that 

paleontological resources are found during construction, which we find acceptable. 

Given the level of impacts and impact avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures 

proposed by Gulf South, we believe that the proposed Project would not have significant impacts on 

geological resources. 

5.1.2 Soils 

The proposed Project would traverse a variety of soil types and conditions, and about 

58 percent of the soils that would be affected by the proposed pipeline are classified as prime farmland; 

however, most of this is currently occupied by either upland forest or pine plantation. Construction 

activities associated with the proposed 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. Such effects 

would be of particular concern in agricultural areas. Gulf South would implement the mitigation 

measures contained in its plans to control erosion, ensure successful revegetation, and minimize any 

potential adverse impacts to soil resources. Specifically, potential soil impacts to agricultural areas would 

be mitigated through measures such as erosion control, topsoil stripping, compaction testing and 

treatment, and monitoring of crop yields to ensure that those yields in areas affected by construction were 

similar to those in adjacent, undisturbed areas. Gulf South would further limit potential impacts to soil 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 5-2 

resources by implementing its project-specific SPCC Plan and its Plan for the Unanticipated Discovery of 

Contaminated Environmental Media, which we find acceptable. 

Given the impact minimization and mitigation measures proposed by Gulf South, we believe 

that construction and operation of the proposed Project would not result in long-term impacts to soils. 

5.1.3 Water Resources 

Construction and operation of the proposed Project would be conducted in accordance with 

Gulf South's Procedures. Gulf South would avoid significant impacts to sole-source aquifers, wellhead 

protection areas, public potable water intakes, drinking water wells, and springs by implementing the 

measures described in its Procedures, SPCC Plan, and our recommendation that Gulf South offer testing 

and, if applicable, mitigation for private or domestic water wells damaged by construction. 

The proposed Project would cross 103 perennial streams, 196 intermittent streams, and 9 

ponds. Most minor and intermediate waterbodies and 7 ponds would be crossed using open-cut methods. 

Potential effects to major and sensitive waterbodies would be largely avoided through implementation of 

HDD installation techniques, which would be used to accomplish pipeline installation across 29 

waterbodies. Waterbodies that would be crossed using HDDs include each of the navigable rivers 

(including the Leaf and Chickasawhay Rivers, and Bucatunna and Okatuppa Creeks), two NRI-listed 

streams (the Chickasawhay and Strong Rivers), the rivers most likely to contain habitat for federallylisted species (including Dabbs Creek, Leaf River, West Tallahala River, Chickasawhay River, Bucatunna 

Creek, and Strong River), and all three of the impaired waterbodies (Tallahala, Campbell, and Dabbs 

Creeks) that occur along the proposed Project route. To ensure that impacts related to the crossing of the 

NRI-listed streams would be sufficiently minimized, we are recommending that Gulf South consult 

further with the NPS and file a report summarizing these consultations and identifying any mitigation 

measures Gulf South would implement. Several ponds are located in the immediate vicinity of the 

proposed pipeline, including some that are fed by waterbodies proposed to be crossed and could be 

adversely affected by construction activities. We are recommending that Gulf South prevent sediment 

and heavily silt-laden water from entering these specifically identified ponds. 

All waterbody crossings would be conducted in accordance with Gulf South's Procedures and 

the terms of any applicable federal or state permits that may be issued. Gulf South's Procedures are 

consistent with our Wetland and Waterbody Construction and Mitigation Procedures with one exception; 

therefore, we are recommending that Gulf South file copies of approvals or concurrences from the State 

of Alabama indicating that construction through waterbodies between December 1 and May 31 is 

acceptable. Gulf South would use numerous access roads during construction, several of which may 

affect surface waterbodies. However, Gulf South has not indicated how these access roads would be 

constructed; therefore, we are recommending that Gulf South file additional information on the impacts of 

the access roads on surface waterbodies. Several waterbodies were identified by Gulf South as being 

potentially affected at the proposed aboveground facilities. We are recommending that Gulf South file 

site-specific construction plans to further identify and describe waterbodies at aboveground facilities and 

the potential impacts and mitigation measures for these waterbodies. 

Gulf South's HDD Plan describes the measures that would be implemented to monitor for, 

contain, and clean up any inadvertent releases of drilling fluids during HDD operations. Gulf South's 

HDD Plan also describes measures that would be followed in the event of an HDD failure. To further 

minimize the impacts of HDD failures, we are recommending that Gulf South prepare site-specific 

construction plans prior to open-cutting any surface waters previously designated as HDD crossings. 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 5-3 

Gulf South has proposed to use surface waters for hydrostatic testing of the proposed pipeline, 

though municipal water supplies may be used as test water sources for some prefabricated aboveground 

facility sites. Gulf South would also avoid or adequately minimize potential effects to waterbodies 

resulting from hydrostatic testing by implementing Gulf South's Procedures and adhering to local, state, 

and federal water withdrawal and discharge permits. 

Given the minimization measures proposed by Gulf South and our recommendations, we 

believe that short-term impacts resulting from construction and operation of the proposed Project would 

not significantly affect groundwater or surface water resources. 

5.1.4 Wetlands 

Construction of the proposed Project pipeline would affect 145 wetland areas, resulting in a 

total of approximately 68.9 acres of wetland disturbance, including approximately 38.6 acres of forested 

wetlands, 2.2 acres of mixed-type wetlands that include a forested wetland component, and an additional 

28.07 acres of shrub-scrub, emergent, and open water wetlands. No wetlands would be affected by the 

construction or operation of the aboveground facilities. During operations, approximately 16.4 acres of 

forested wetlands and 0.9 acre of mixed-type wetlands containing a forested component would be 

contained within the maintained portion of the proposed permanent pipeline right-of-way. 

Construction and operation of the proposed Project would result in short-term and long-term 

impacts to wetlands. Gulf South would minimize effects to wetlands by completing all wetland crossings 

in accordance with its Procedures, and by complying with the terms and conditions of other state and 

federal permits, including the provisions of any required wetland compensatory mitigation. Gulf South 

would also minimize effects to wetlands by reducing the construction right-of-way width in wetlands to 

75 feet. To reduce impacts to sensitive, high-quality, forested wetlands, Gulf South proposes to reduce its 

construction right-of-way width and attempt to avoid large tupelo and cypress trees that it encounters. 

Following construction, affected wetlands located outside the maintained portion of the permanent 

pipeline right-of-way would be allowed to revert to preconstruction conditions. 

5.1.5 Vegetation 

In addition to wetlands, construction and operation of the proposed Project would affect three 

upland vegetative communities: upland forest, pine plantation, and open lands (scrub-shrub habitats, 

pasture, herbaceous, and agricultural lands). Approximately 74 percent of the upland vegetation 

resources affected during construction would consist of pine plantation and upland forest, with open 

lands, agriculture, and pasture making up the remainder. Vegetative communities of special concern 

include NRCS-administered CRP lands. 

Gulf South would restore all disturbed vegetated areas in accordance with its Plan and 

Procedures and the specific recommendations of local agencies and soil conservation services. Affected 

agricultural and open lands typically would be revegetated within one or two growing seasons, but 

impacts to pine plantations and upland forest would be long-term, taking up to 30 years or more to 

recover. Impacts to forested areas contained within the permanent pipeline right-of-way would also 

represent a more substantial change in vegetative strata. Impacts to forested areas, including large 

forested tracts, would be minimized by routing the proposed Project along existing rights-of-way and 

through other previously disturbed areas, such as agricultural and open lands, where possible. 

Additionally, many of the large forested tracts crossed by the proposed Project are subject to some 

disturbance associated with timber management programs. To minimize construction-related impacts to 

vegetative resources, we are recommending that, prior to construction, Gulf South complete consultation 

with several agencies regarding impacts to vegetation communities of special concern, seeding and 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 5-4 

vegetation restoration practices, and develop plans to control the spread of exotic and/or invasive plant 

species in areas affected by construction. 

Based on Gulf South's proposed measures to avoid and minimize impacts to forested areas; the 

relatively minor impacts to forested areas, pastures, and open lands; the implementation of Gulf South's 

plan; and the implementation of our recommendation, we believe that impacts to vegetative communities 

would be minor. 

5.1.6 Wildlife and Aquatic Resources 

The wetlands and upland vegetation communities crossed by the proposed Project route 

support habitats that provide cover and forage for a variety of wildlife species, including birds, mammals, 

reptiles, and amphibians. Physical disturbance, displacement, and clearing of herbaceous upland and 

wetland habitats would affect wildlife at or near the time of construction, but such effects would be 

largely temporary and many habitats would generally recover quickly following construction. Upland 

and wetland forested habitats would be affected, with a long-term conversion of wooded areas to 

successional stages in the temporary construction right-of-way and a permanent conversion to scrub-shrub 

or herbaceous levels within the permanent pipeline right-of-way. The proposed Project route would be 

collocated with or parallel to existing utility rights-of-way where possible to minimize impacts to 

previously undisturbed vegetation and wildlife habitat, and Gulf South would further minimize impacts to 

wildlife habitat through implementation of its Plan and Procedures. 

The waterbodies that would be traversed by the proposed Project provide habitat for a variety 

of aquatic species, including warmwater fishes and mussels. Potential impacts to fisheries and aquatic 

habitats would include sedimentation and turbidity, loss of cover, introduction of pollutants into the 

aquatic environment, potential blockage of fish migrations and interruptions of spawning, and 

entrainment or loss of stream flow during hydrostatic testing. As described above, all waterbody 

crossings would be accomplished in accordance with Gulf South's Procedures and the terms of any 

applicable federal or state permits that may be granted. Direct impacts would be avoided by the use of 

HDD installation at 29 waterbody crossings, and aquatic habitat impacts at other crossing locations would 

be largely temporary, as crossings would be completed in less than 48 hours in most instances. 

Additionally, intake screening to limit entrainment of fishes and maintenance of adequate stream flow 

rates to protect aquatic life during hydrostatic test water withdrawals would further ensure that any 

Project-related impacts to aquatic habitat would be minor and temporary. 

Given the minor and largely temporary impacts and the minimization measures proposed by 

Gulf South, we believe that the proposed Project would not significantly affect aquatic habitat and 

wildlife species. 

5.1.7 Threatened, Endangered, and Special Status Species 

Based on consultations with the FWS, 10 federally listed endangered or threatened species 

potentially occur in the vicinity of the proposed Project. In addition, the proposed Project would also 

traverse Gulf sturgeon critical habitat. Based on our review of these species and the potential impacts to 

them resulting from construction and operation of the proposed Project, we have determined that the 

proposed Project would result in no effect to the red-cockaded woodpecker and the inflated heelsplitter; 

and may affect but is not likely to adversely affect the Louisiana black bear, eastern indigo snake, yellowblotched map turtle, ringed map turtle, gulf sturgeon (including its critical habitat), bald eagle, and the 

wood stork; and may affect the gopher tortoise. As required by the ESA, our determination of may affect 

required us to enter into formal consultation with the FWS. As a result of this formal consultation, the 

FWS issued a BO for the proposed Project concurring with our determinations, and determined that the 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 5-5 

proposed Project is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the gopher tortoise and is not likely 

to adversely modify designated critical habitat and issued an incidental take statement. In its BO, the 

FWS identified several non-discretionary terms and conditions that must be adhered to, and three 

discretionary conservation recommendations to further protect the gopher tortoise and its habitat. In order 

to ensure that the gopher tortoise is sufficiently protected and to ensure compliance with FWS terms and 

conditions, we are recommending that Gulf South file a revised Conservation Strategy for the Gopher 

Tortoise and the Eastern Indigo Snake consistent with the FWS terms and conditions as well as two of its 

three conservation recommendations. 

Since the issuance of the BO, Gulf South has modified its proposed route, identified new 

access roads and ATWSs, and has identified a new location for the proposed Destin Compressor Station. 

For these modifications, Gulf South has compiled additional information on species occurrence and 

habitat that has not been reviewed by the FWS; therefore, to ensure that the modified work areas are 

properly reviewed for the presence or absence of federally listed species and their habitats, and that any 

associated mitigation or construction-related activities are in accordance with applicable FWS 

requirements, we are recommending that Gulf South not begin construction in those areas until all 

Section 7 consultations are completed. 

In addition to federally listed species, 46 species are listed as either endangered, threatened, 

imperiled, or rare by the states of Mississippi, Louisiana, and Alabama. To ensure the protection of these 

species, we are recommending that, prior to construction, Gulf South conduct additional consultations 

with MDWF, LDWF, and ADCNR, complete any required additional surveys, and implement agencyrecommended mitigation measures, if required, to ensure that potential Project-related effects to all 

special status species are adequately avoided or minimized. 

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

Construction of the proposed Project would affect approximately 1,726 acres of land, 

including 1,240 acres for the pipeline construction right-of-way, 146 acres for the aboveground facilities, 

and 340 acres for extra work areas (ATWSs, pipe storage and contractor yards, and access roads). 

Approximately 71 percent of the 1,726 acres within the Project construction right-of-way is currently 

characterized as pine plantation and forestland, with agriculture, pasture, and open lands accounting for 

an additional 18 percent of this acreage. The remaining 11 percent is comprised of residential, 

industrial/commercial, wetlands, and other/roads land use areas. Gulf South proposes a nominal 

construction right-of-way width of 100 feet and a permanent right-of-way width of 60 feet, with the 

pipeline placed at an offset within this permanent right-of-way. However, we have determined that these 

right-of-way requirements are in excess of what is necessary for normal construction and operation. 

Therefore, in order to reduce permanent impacts, we are recommending that Gulf South not exercise 

eminent domain authority granted under the NGA to acquire a permanent right-of-way greater than 50 

feet in width. In order to further reduce right-of-way impacts, we are recommending that Gulf South 

evaluate using at least 10 feet of any adjacent paralleled natural gas pipeline rights-of-way for spoil 

storage. 

Following construction, all affected areas outside the permanent pipeline right-of-way and 

aboveground facility sites would be restored and/or allowed to revert to approximate preconstruction 

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

aboveground facilities, and permanent access roads would encumber approximately 857.6 acres (based on 

Gulf South's proposed 60-foot-wide permanent right-of-way). 

Thirteen residences would be located within 50 feet of construction work area. Gulf South has 

adopted general residential construction mitigation measures for these residences and has developed siteDocument Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 5-6 

specific construction plans for three residences that would be within 25 feet of the construction work 

areas in order to avoid or minimize potential impacts to these structures. We have reviewed these plans 

and find them acceptable. 

Visual resources along the proposed Project route would be affected by the installation of 

some aboveground facilities and alteration of existing vegetative patterns associated with clearing and 

maintenance of the construction and permanent pipeline rights-of-way. The installation of the proposed 

aboveground facilities would not result in significant visual effects on residences; however, we are 

recommending that, prior to construction, Gulf South address visual resource impacts for residences in the 

area of the proposed Delhi Compressor Station for the potential need for visual screening. 

The proposed Project would cross several CRP lands. In the instances where permits and 

approvals for proposed Project-related use and impacts to these resources are outstanding, we are 

recommending that, prior to construction, Gulf South complete consultations with the applicable agencies 

and file site-specific plans to avoid, minimize, or mitigate impacts to these areas. 

To ensure that Gulf South takes into consideration operational and safety concerns regarding 

potential impacts on two nearby airport facilities posed by the Project, we are recommending Gulf South 

provide site-specific construction plans resulting from ongoing consultations with airport and local 

officials for the Delhi Municipal Airport and the Thigpen Field Airport that address any concerns 

identified by those authorities. 

The proposed Project would result mostly in short-term impacts with some permanent longterm impacts to pine plantation and forestland in the proposed permanent right-of-way. However, based 

on Gulf South's proposed construction and mitigation measures, continued consultations with land 

resource agencies, and our recommendations, we believe that impacts to land use, recreation and special 

interest, and visual resources would not be significant. 

5.1.9 Socioeconomics 

The proposed Project would have positive impacts on local spending, employment, and tax 

income during construction and operation; however, these impacts would be relatively minimal. 

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

housing, employment, community services, or local commerce. Any adverse impacts would be highly 

localized and temporary due to the relatively short construction period and the rapid rate at which 

construction crews would pass through any one area. Construction of the proposed Project would 

temporarily increase demand for public services, such as medical, police, and fire protection, but these 

impacts would be offset by increased tax revenues to local governments. There is no evidence that the 

proposed Project would have a disproportionate share of adverse environmental or socioeconomic 

impacts on any racial, ethnic, or socioeconomic group. Therefore, we conclude that the proposed Project 

would not have negative socioeconomic impacts. 

5.1.10 Cultural Resources 

Gulf South identified 43 cultural resource sites along the proposed Project route. Twelve sites 

are considered potentially eligible for listing on the NRHP. Gulf South has adopted route variations that 

avoid impacts to the cultural resource sites identified as potentially eligible for listing on the NRHP 

during the cultural resource surveys. In the event that sites eligible for listing in the NRHP are identified 

in future survey efforts and those sites cannot be avoided, Gulf South would continue to consult with the 

Commission staff and SHPO to develop appropriate treatment plans to avoid or mitigate any adverse 

effects to cultural resource sites. We are recommending that Gulf South defer construction until surveys 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 5-7 

and evaluations of areas not previously accessed are completed, all survey reports and any necessary 

treatment plans have been reviewed by appropriate parties, and the Director of OEP provides written 

notification to proceed. 

5.1.11 Air Quality and Noise 

Air quality impacts associated with construction of the proposed Project would include 

emissions from fossil-fueled construction equipment and fugitive dust. However, such air quality impacts 

would generally be temporary and localized and are not expected to cause or contribute to a violation of 

applicable air quality standards. The proposed Delhi, Harrisville, and Destin Compressor Stations would 

emit air pollutants as a result of combustion of natural gas to drive the compressor units and in association 

with the periodic operation of auxiliary generators. However, the air emissions associated with operation 

of these facilities would meet federal and state ambient air quality standards and permitting requirements. 

Impacts to noise quality associated with construction of the proposed Project would generally 

be temporary, minor, and limited to daylight hours, except at HDD sites where drilling and related 

construction equipment would likely operate on a continuous basis. At the HDD locations, impacts on 

NSAs are projected to be temporary and minor. The proposed compressor stations would also generate 

noise on a continuous basis during operations. However, the predicted noise levels attributable to 

operations of the new compressor stations would not result in significant effects on the NSAs nearest to 

those facilities. To ensure that noise levels are within acceptable limits, we are recommending that Gulf 

South file noise survey reports within 60 days after placing the compressor stations in service to confirm 

that noise levels would be below 55 dBA. 

5.1.12 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, Gulf South would also 

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

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

5.1.13 Cumulative Impacts 

Three types of projects—past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects—could 

potentially contribute to a cumulative impact when considered with the proposed Project. These projects 

include other natural gas transmission pipelines in the area and non-jurisdictional facilities associated 

with the proposed Project. We identified five interstate natural gas pipeline projects planned or proposed 

in Mississippi and/or Alabama that would potentially result in a cumulative impact when considered with 

the proposed Project. One of these has been constructed (Carthage to Perryville Project, CP06-85), one is 

under construction (East Texas to Mississippi Project, CP06-446), and two projects are currently filed at 

the Commission (Spectra Energy's Southeast Supply Header Project [CP07-44], and Boardwalk Pipeline's 

Gulf Crossing Project [CP07-398]). One additional project is being planned and is undergoing the 

Commission's Pre-filing, Kinder Morgan's MidContinent Express Project (PF07-004). Construction of 

the pending projects is projected to occur between the years 2007 and 2009. The potential impacts 

associated with these projects that are most likely to be cumulatively significant are related to wetlands 

and waterbodies, vegetation and wildlife (including federally and state-listed endangered and threatened 

species), land use, air quality, and noise. Cumulative impacts will be addressed during the review process 

for each of the pending projects. 

Based on the proposed construction, minimization, mitigation, and operations procedures and 

measures, we believe that impacts associated with the proposed Project would be relatively minor. 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 5-8 

Similarly, each of the projects considered in our analysis has been or would be designed to avoid or 

minimize impacts to sensitive environmental resources. We are including recommendations that Gulf 

South reduce the permanent right-of-way width, to evaluate whether it can use about 10 feet of other 

existing utility rights-of-way for spoil storage, and to justify the currently proposed size of ATWSs in 

order to minimize construction requirements. Additionally, it is anticipated that any significant 

unavoidable impacts to sensitive resources resulting from these projects would be mitigated. Mitigation 

generally leads to the avoidance or minimization of cumulative impacts. Any proposed projects under the 

Commission's jurisdiction would also be the subject of our NEPA review to avoid or minimize impacts. 

Consequently, only a small cumulative effect is anticipated when the impacts of the proposed Project are 

added to past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future projects in the area. 

5.1.14 Alternatives 

We evaluated the No Action or Postponed Action alternatives, system alternatives, major 

route alternatives, route variations, and aboveground facility site alternatives. While the No Action or 

Postponed Action alternative would eliminate the short- and long-term environmental impacts identified 

in this EIS, the objectives of the proposed Project would not be met, and Gulf South would not be able to 

provide a new source of natural gas to markets that can be accessed through the proposed pipeline 

interconnects. 

Our analysis of system alternatives included an evaluation of whether existing and proposed 

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

advantage over the proposed Project. Gulf South's existing 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 is operating at full 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 currently requested by the market 

is 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 capacity constraints developing in the 

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

evaluated this and other potential system alternatives to Gulf South's proposed expansion, including the 

proposed Southeast Supply Header and East Texas to Mississippi Expansion projects and the newlyconstructed Carthage to Perryville Expansion Project. We found that no other interstate pipeline systems 

in the region could serve Gulf South's customers without having to construct additional facilities, which 

would result in environmental impacts similar in nature to those of the proposal, or could have greater 

impacts than Gulf South's proposal. Consequently, no system alternatives are considered to be 

environmentally preferable to the proposed Project. 

We also evaluated one major route alternative to the proposed Project route. However, as 

described in the EIS, that alternative would not offer significant environmental advantages over the 

proposed Project route, and we eliminated it from further consideration. 

The draft EIS included 11 minor route changes that were developed during the pre-filing 

process. Gulf South adopted 16 additional route changes following the issuance of the draft EIS. We 

have evaluated these route changes and considered their associated environmental consequences as part of 

our environmental analysis of the proposed Project. We concur with the use of all of these route changes, 

as they were developed to lessen environmental impacts to streams, residences, farms, and other sensitive 

environmental resources. No other route changes were identified. 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 5-9 

We also evaluated the proposed locations of the Project aboveground facilities to determine 

whether environmental impacts would be reduced or mitigated by use of alternative facility sites. 

Because the locations of the aboveground facilities would be linked to the location of the pipeline, the 

search for alternatives was constrained to sites located adjacent to the proposed Project route. We 

approved an alternative site proposed by Gulf South for its Destin Compressor Station. There were no 

environmental concerns with any of the aboveground facility locations. Therefore, we did not identify 

any other alternative sites for the proposed compressor station or M/R or MLV facilities. 

In summary, we have determined that Gulf South's proposed project, as modified by our 

recommended mitigation measures, is the preferred alternative. 

5.2 STAFF'S RECOMMENDEDATIONS 

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 minimize and mitigate the environmental impacts associated with the construction and operation 

of the proposed Project. 

1. Gulf South 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. Gulf South 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 all steps necessary to ensure the protection of 

life, health, property, and the environment during construction and operation of the Project. This 

authority shall include: 

a. the modification of conditions of the Commission's Order; and 

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

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

well as the avoidance or mitigation of adverse environmental impact resulting from Project 

construction and operation. 

3. Prior to any construction, Gulf South shall file an affirmative statement with the Secretary, certified 

by a senior company official, that all company personnel, 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 location(s) 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 prior to the start of construction, Gulf South 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 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 5-10 

conditions of the Order or site-specific clearances must be written and must reference locations 

designated on these alignment maps/sheets. 

Gulf South's exercise of eminent domain authority granted under NGA Section 7(h) in any 

condemnation proceedings related to the Order must be consistent with these authorized facilities and 

locations. Gulf South'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-ofway for a pipeline to transport a commodity other than natural gas. 

5. Gulf South 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, 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 prior to construction in or near that area. 

This requirement does not apply to route variations required herein or minor field realignments per 

landowner needs and requirements that 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 would affect sensitive 

environmental areas. 

6. Within 60 days of the acceptance of this certificate and prior to construction, Gulf South shall 

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

of OEP describing how Gulf South will implement the mitigation measures required by the Order. 

Gulf South must file revisions to the plan as schedules change. The plan shall identify: 

a. how Gulf South 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 on-site 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 Gulf South will give to all personnel involved with construction and 

restoration (initial and refresher training as the Project progresses and personnel changes), with 

the opportunity for OEP staff to participate in the training session; 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 5-11 

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

responsibility for compliance; 

f. the procedures (including use of contract penalties) Gulf South will follow if non-compliance 

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 on-site personnel; 

(3) the start of construction; and 

(4) the start and completion of restoration. 

7. Gulf South shall employ one or more EIs per construction spread. The environmental inspectors shall 

be: 

a. responsible for monitoring and ensuring compliance with all mitigative 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 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. 

8. Gulf South shall file updated status reports with the Secretary on a weekly basis until all 

construction-related activities, including restoration, are complete for each phase of the Project. 

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 each spread, 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 non-compliance observed by the EI(s) 

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. a description of corrective actions implemented in response to all instances of non-compliance, 

and their cost; 

d. the effectiveness of all corrective actions implemented; 

e. a description of any landowner/resident complaints that 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 Gulf South from other federal, state, or local permitting 

agencies concerning instances of non-compliance, and Gulf South's response. 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 5-12 

9. Gulf South must receive written authorization from the Director of OEP before commencing service 

from the Project. Such authorization will only be granted following a determination that 

rehabilitation and restoration of areas affected by the Project are proceeding satisfactorily. 

10. Within 30 days of placing the certificated facilities in service, Gulf South 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; and 

b. identifying which of the certificate conditions Gulf South 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 non-compliance. 

11. Gulf South 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, Gulf South shall mail the complaint procedures to each 

landowner whose property would be crossed by the Project. 

a. In its letter to affected landowners, Gulf South 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 Gulf 

South'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 Gulf South's 

Hotline, they should contact the Commission's Enforcement Hotline at (888) 889-8030, or at 

hotline@ferc.gov. 

b. In addition, Gulf South shall include in its weekly status 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 and 

approximate location by MP; 

(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. 

12. Gulf South shall not exercise eminent domain authority granted under Section 7(h) of the NGA to 

acquire a permanent right-of-way greater than 50 feet in width. (Section 2.2.1)

13. Prior to construction, Gulf South shall file with the Secretary for review and written approval by the 

Director of OEP: 

 a. revised alignment sheets and cross-section diagrams showing the use of at least 10 feet of 

Transco's and Crosstex's maintained permanent right-of-way for at least spoil storage, as part of 

its 100-foot-wide construction right-of-way; and 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 5-13 

 b. site-specific justification by milepost for areas where Gulf South believes use of the existing 

maintained permanent right-of-way to be infeasible for spoil storage. (Section 2.2.1)

14. Gulf South shall conduct, with the well-owner's permission, pre- and post-construction well 

monitoring of well yield and water quality for wells identified in Table 3.3.1.1-1. Prior to 

construction, Gulf South shall file with the Secretary, for review and written approval by the 

Director of OEP, a well monitoring and mitigation plan that describes standard testing procedures, 

and the measures that would be taken should a well be impacted such that it is no longer operable or 

that it becomes impaired. Gulf South shall offer this plan to the landowners before construction. 

Gulf South shall also file a report with the Secretary, within 30 days of placing its pipeline facilities 

in service, identifying all private or domestic water wells or systems damaged by construction and 

describing how they were repaired. The report shall include a discussion of any complaints 

concerning well yield or quality and how each problem was resolved. (Section 3.3.1.2)

15. Prior to construction, Gulf South shall file along with its site-specific construction plans for the 

Delhi, Harrisville, and Destin Compressor Stations a description of the measures that it would take to 

avoid impacts to waterbodies affected by these facilities. (Section 3.3.2.1)

16. Prior to construction, Gulf South shall complete consultation with the NPS regarding its proposed 

HDD crossings of, and hydrostatic test water withdrawals from, the NRI-listed Strong and 

Chickasawhay Rivers, and file copies of those consultations with the Secretary. If applicable, Gulf 

South shall also file plans to address any additional mitigation measures recommended by the NPS. 

(Section 3.3.2.1)

17. Prior to construction, Gulf South shall file with the Secretary copies of approvals or concurrences 

from the ADCNR indicating that in-stream construction between December 1 and May 31 is 

acceptable. (Section 3.3.2.2)

18. Gulf South shall prevent sediment and heavily silt-laden water from entering ponds adjacent to areas 

disturbed by construction activities. Gulf South shall conduct the open-cut crossing of the 

waterbodies feeding these ponds (at the following mileposts: 6.8, 12.5, 15.0, 25.0, 40.9, 41.6, 51.2, 

53.4, 59.5, 60.0, 63.5, 65.1, 75.1, 77.1, 86.9, 87.1, 98.6, and 110.0) in a manner that prevents 

sediment and heavily silt-laden water from entering the ponds. (Section 3.3.2.2)

19. Gulf South shall not begin an open-cut crossing of any of the waterbodies proposed to be crossed 

using HDD until it files an amended crossing plan with the Secretary for review and written approval 

by the Director of OEP. The amended crossing plan shall include site-specific drawings identifying 

all areas that would be disturbed using the proposed alternate crossing method. Gulf South shall file 

the amended crossing plan concurrent with the appropriate state and federal applications required for 

implementation of the plan. (Section 3.3.2.3)

20. Prior to construction, Gulf South shall consult further with the MDWFP, the LDWF, the ADCNR, 

the NRCS, and other appropriate agencies, regarding seeding and vegetation restoration practices for 

the proposed Project. Gulf South shall file a report with the Secretary for review and written approval 

by the Director of OEP that describes the outcome of these consultations and identifies the agencyrecommended seeding and vegetation restoration practices that Gulf South plans to implement. 

(Section 3.5.2)

21. Prior to construction, Gulf South shall file with the Secretary, for review and written approval by 

the Director of OEP, an Exotic and Invasive Species Control Plan developed in consultation with the 

FWS, the LDWF, the MDWFP, the ADCNR, and the NRCS. This plan shall identify the specific 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 5-14 

measures that Gulf South would implement during construction and operation to control exotic and 

invasive plant species. (Section 3.5.4)

22. Prior to construction, Gulf South shall file a revised Conservation Strategy for the Gopher Tortoise 

and Eastern Indigo Snake that incorporates all non-discretionary terms and conditions of the FWS's 

BO for this Project, as well as conservation recommendations 1 and 2. (Section 3.7.1)

23. Gulf South shall not begin construction activities on modified work areas until: 

a. the staff completes Section 7 consultations with the FWS; and 

b. Gulf South has received written notification from the Director of OEP that construction or use of 

mitigation may begin. (Section 3.7.1) 

24. Gulf South shall continue to consult with the LDWF, the MDWFP, and the ADCNR to determine the 

need for surveys or mitigation that would substantially minimize or avoid potential impacts to statelisted species. Gulf South shall file copies of the results of these consultations, as well as any 

associated survey reports and mitigation plans with the Secretary, prior to construction. (Section 

3.7.2)

25. Prior to construction, Gulf South shall consult with the Delhi Municipal Airport officials and the 

FAA regarding impacts of the proposed Project, specifically the proposed Delhi Compressor Station, 

on airport operations, and file a site-specific construction plan that addresses any concerns identified 

by those authorities with the Secretary. (Section 3.8.4)

26. Prior to construction, Gulf South shall consult with the Thigpen Field Airport officials and the FAA 

regarding impacts of the proposed Project on airport operations, and file a site-specific construction 

plan that addresses any concerns identified by those authorities with the Secretary. (Section 3.8.4)

27. Gulf South shall consult with the FSA to determine appropriate seed mixes and/or revegetation efforts 

that should be implemented on CRP lands to minimize and mitigate construction and operations 

impacts. Gulf South shall also retain and have available for inspection any records of consultation(s) 

with the FSA indicating specific measures agreed upon by Gulf South and the FSA that would be 

implemented on CRP lands. (Section 3.8.4)

28. Prior to construction, Gulf South shall file with the Secretary for review and written approval by the 

Director of OEP a visual screening plan to reduce the long-term adverse effects on the visual quality 

of residences located along Highway 17 that would result from installation of the Delhi Compressor 

Station. (Section 3.8.6.1)

29. Gulf South shall defer implementation of any treatment plans/measures (including archaeological 

data recovery), construction of facilities, and use of all staging, storage, or temporary work areas and 

new or to-be-improved access roads until: 

a. Gulf South files with the Secretary cultural resources survey and evaluation reports, any 

necessary treatment plans, and the Mississippi and Alabama SHPO comments on the reports and 

plans; and 

b. The Director of OEP reviews and approves all cultural resources survey reports and plans and 

notifies Gulf South in writing that treatment plans/procedures may be implemented and/or 

construction may proceed. 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 5-15 

All material filed with the Secretary 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." (Section 3.10.4) 

30. Gulf South shall file noise surveys with the Secretary no later than 60 days after placing each of the 

Delhi, Harrisville, and Destin Compressor Stations in service. If the noise attributable to operation of 

all of the equipment at any compressor station at full load exceeds an Ldn of 55 dBA at any nearby 

NSA, Gulf South shall file a report on what changes are needed and shall install the additional noise 

controls to meet the level within one year of the in-service date. Gulf South shall confirm 

compliance with the above requirement by filing a second noise survey with the Secretary no later 

than 60 days after it installs the additional noise controls. (Section 3.11.3)

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
APPENDIX A 

DISTRIBUTION LIST

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
APPENDIX A 

Distribution List 

 A-1 

Federal Government Agencies

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

 Director of Cultural Resources 

Army Corps of Engineers (COE) 

 Mike Miller, Vicksburg District 

 Elizabeth Guynes, Vicksburg District 

 Mike Stewart, Vicksburg District 

 Tunis McElwain, Mobile District 

 Damon M. Young, Mobile District 

 Rudolph C. Villarreal, Mobile District 

 Regulatory Division 

 Office of the Chief of Army Engineers 

Department of Agriculture (USDA) 

 Office of Finance and Management 

Farm Service Agency (FSA) 

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) 

 National Environmental Coordinator 

 Larry Phillips, Richland Parish, LA, District Conservationist 

 Tim Poole, Choctaw County, AL, District Conservationist 

 Kelvin Jackson, District Conservationist 

 Harriet Lowe, District Conservationist 

 Malcolm Lowe, District Conservationist 

 Ronald Read, District Conservationist 

 Mason Dollar, Choctaw County, AL 

 Al Garner 

 Yancy Magee 

 Matthew R. Judy 

 U.S. Forest Service 

 Deputy Chief, National Forest System 

Director of Lands 

 Ecosystem Management Coordinator 

Department of Commerce 

Office of the Secretary 

 Sloan Rappoport, Senior Policy Advisor 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

 Director of Ecology and Conservation 

 National Marine Fisheries Service 

 Karen Abrams, National EFH Coordinator 

Department of Defense 

 Office of Under Secretary of Defense 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
APPENDIX A 

Distribution List 

 A-2 

Federal Government Agencies (continued)

 Philip Grone 

 Sonny White 

U.S. Air Force 

 Office of Deputy Secretary Environment, Safety, and Occupational Health 

 Air Force Real Property Agency 

 Vincent Leduc 

U.S. Army 

 Installation Management Agency 

 Paul Mason 

Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) 

Chip Smith 

U.S. Navy 

 Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Navy 

 Robert Uhrich 

Department of Energy 

 Robert Corbin, Manager Natural Gas Regulatory Activities 

 Harvey Harmon, Director for Import/Export Activities 

 Office of Environmental Compliance 

 Office of Intergovernmental Affairs 

 Steve Lerner 

Department of Health and Human Services 

Centers for Disease Control (CDC) 

Department of Homeland Security 

 United States Coast Guard 

 Admiral Thomas H. Collins, Commandant 

 Office of Operating and Environmental Standards 

 Captain David Scott 

Department of Housing and Urban Development 

 Director of Environment 

Department of Interior 

 Director of the Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance 

Patricia E. Morrison, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Land & Minerals Management 

 Minerals Management Service 

Walter Cruickshank, Deputy Director 

 National Park Service 

 Natchez Trace Parkway 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
APPENDIX A 

Distribution List 

 A-3 

Federal Government Agencies (continued)

D. Craig Stubblefield 

Kurt Foote 

 River, Trails, & Conservation Assistance Program 

Jeff Duncan 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

 Daphne Ecological Services Field Office, Alabama 

 Bruce Porter 

 Elaine Snyder-Conn 

 Jackson Ecological Services Field Office, Mississippi 

 Kathy Lunceford 

 Ray Aycock 

 David Felder 

 Daniel Gregg 

 Lafayette Ecological Services Field Office, Louisiana 

 Brigette Firmin 

 Atlanta Field Office, Georgia 

Department of Justice 

 Land and Natural Resources Division 

Department of Labor 

 Office of Regulatory Economics 

Department of State 

 Office of Environment/Health 

Department of Transportation 

 Camille Mittelholtz, Environmental Policies Team Leader 

 Office of Pipeline Safety 

 Research and Special Program Administrator 

Karen Butler 

Alex Dankanich 

Linda Daugherty, Southern Region 

Kimbra Davis, Community Assistance/Technical Services 

Tom Fortner 

Stacy Gerard, Acting Assistant Administrator 

William Gute, Eastern Region 

 Mike Schwarzkof 

Rodrick M. Seeley, Southwestern Region 

 Harold Winnie 

 Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 

 Kimberly Hughes, Executive Secretary 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
APPENDIX A 

Distribution List 

 A-4 

Federal Government Agencies (continued)

Environmental Protection Agency 

 Office of Federal Activities 

 Region 4 

 Chris Hoberg 

 J. I. Palmer, Jr. Administrator 

 Region 6 

 Mike Jansky 

Executive Office of the President 

Council on Environmental Quality 

Dinah Bear, General Council 

Horst Greczmiel, Associate Director for NEPA Oversight 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

 Office of Energy Projects 

Juan Polit, Project Manager 

Interstate Commerce Commission 

 Chief Energy & Environment 

Library of Congress 

 Exchange & Gift Division 

 Federal Documents Section 

U.S. Senate 

 Committee on Energy and Natural Gas 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

 Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 

Federal Representatives and Senators

Alabama 

The Honorable Terry Everett - United States House of Representatives 

The Honorable Jo Bonner - United States House of Representatives 

The Honorable Mike Rogers - United States House of Representatives 

The Honorable Robert B. Aderholt - United States House of Representatives 

The Honorable Robert E. (Bud) Cramer, Jr. - United States House of 

Representatives 

The Honorable Spencer Bachus - United States House of Representatives 

The Honorable Artur Davis - United States House of Representatives 

The Honorable Richard C. Shelby - United States Senate 

The Honorable Jeff Sessions - United States Senate 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
APPENDIX A 

Distribution List 

 A-5 

Federal Representatives and Senators (continued)

Mississippi 

The Honorable Roger F. Wicker - United States House of Representatives 

The Honorable Bennie G. Thompson - United States House of Representatives 

The Honorable Charles W. (Chip) Pickering - United States House of 

Representatives 

The Honorable Gene Taylor - United States House of Representatives 

The Honorable Thad Cochran - United States Senate 

The Honorable Trent Lott - United States Senate 

Louisiana 

The Honorable Rodney Alexander - United States House of Representatives

 The Honorable Senator Mary Landrieu - United States Senate 

 The Honorable Senator David Vitter - United States Senate 

State Representatives and Senators

Alabama Rep. Artis McCampbell, District 71 

 Rep. Bobby Singleton, District 24 

 Senator Pat Lindsey, District 22 

Mississippi Rep. Blaine Eaton, District 79 

Rep. Joey Hudson, District 91 

Rep. Sherra Lane, District 86 

Rep. John Moore, District 60 

Rep. Eric Robinson, District 84 

Rep. Clint Rotenberry, District 77 

Rep. Omeria Scott, District 80 

Rep. Greg Snowden, District 83 

Rep. Johnny Stringer, District 87 

Rep. J. L. Warren, District 90 

Rep. Tom Weathersby, District 62 

Rep. Steve Horne, District 81 

Senator Videt Carmichael, District 33 

Senator Cindy Hyde-Smith, District 39 

Senator Perry Lee, District 35 

Senator Billy Thames, District 34 

Louisiana 

Representative Francis Thompson, District 19 

Senator Charles Jones, District 34 

Senator Noble Ellington, District 32 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
APPENDIX A 

Distribution List 

 A-6 

State Government Agencies

Alabama 

Governor Bob Riley - State Capitol

Alabama Wildlife and Freshwater Fisheries Division 

 M. N. "Corky" Pugh, Director 

Mark Sasser, Coordinator Non-game Wildlife Program 

Alabama Department of Environmental Management 

 Allen Phelps 

 Scott Brown 

 Water Division 

 Lynn Sisk, Chief 

Alabama Dept. of Natural Resources - State Lands Division 

James H. Griggs 

Alabama Department of Archives and History 

 Dr. Edwin C. Bridges 

 Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources 

James Cherry 

Penny Ragland 

Chuck Sharp 

 Alabama Historical Commission 

 Colonel (Ret.) John A Neubauer 

 Stacye Hathorne 

 Alabama Natural Heritage Program 

 Michael Barbour 

Louisiana 

 Governor Kathleen Blanco – State Capitol 

Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries 

 Gary Lester, Natural Heritage 

 Kyle Balkum 

 Louisiana Department of Culture, Recreation, and Tourism 

 Phillip "Duke" Rivet 

Mississippi 

Governor Haley Barbour – State Capitol

Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality 

 Jim Morris 

 Maya Rao 

Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks 

 Brad Young 

 Dennis Riecke 

Mississippi Natural Heritage Program 

 Matt Hicks 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
APPENDIX A 

Distribution List 

 A-7 

State Government Agencies (continued)

Mississippi Department of Archives and History 

 Tom Waggener 

Mississippi Secretary of State 

 Eric Clarke 

William Cheney 

Local Government Agencies

Mississippi 

Clarke County Schools - Quitman, MS 

Jasper County - Heidelberg, MS 

Jasper County Dists. 2, 4, and Jasper County Court - Bay Springs, MS 

Town of Heidelberg - Heidelberg, MS 

 Town of Bay Springs - Bay Springs, MS 

 Simpson County 

 Curtis Skiffer, Supervisor 

 Jasper County 

 Curtis Gray, Supervisor 

 Smith County 

 Wilson Hallman, Supervisor 

 Clarke County 

 Arthur Nelson, Supervisor 

Alabama 

Choctaw County 

 Michael Armistead, Supervisor 

Libraries

Alabama 

Choctaw County Public Library

Mississippi 

Bay Springs Public Library 

Floyd J. Robinson Memorial Library 

Mary Weems Parker Memorial Library 

Mendenhall Public Library 

 Cindy Rankin 

Quitman Public Library 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
APPENDIX A 

Distribution List 

 A-8 

Media

Alabama 

 Choctaw Advocate 

 Tommy Campbell 

Louisiana 

 The Delhi Dispatch 

 Mary Terry 

Mississippi 

Hattiesburg American Newspaper 

Jackson Clarion-Ledger 

Jasper County Beat 5 

Laurel Leader-Call 

Meridian Star 

Simpson County News 

The Vicksburg Post 

Native American Tribes

Alabama Coushatta Tribe of Texas 

 Debbie Thomas 

Caddo Nation 

 Robert Cast 

Cher-O-Creek Intra Tribal Indians 

 State Recognized Tribe 

Cherokee Tribe of Northeast Alabama 

State Recognized Tribe 

Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana 

 Loveline Poncho 

Echota Cherokee Tribe of Alabama 

 State Recognized Tribe 

Jena Band of Choctaw Indians 

 Christine Norris 

Ma-Chis Lower Creek Indian Tribe 

 State Recognized Tribe 

Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians 

 Kenneth Carleton 

 Choctaw Branch 

Mowa Band of Choctaw Indians 

 State Recognized Tribe 

Piqua Shawnee Tribe 

 State Recognized Tribe 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
APPENDIX A 

Distribution List 

 A-9 

Native American Tribes (continued)

Poarch Band of Creek Indians 

 Federal and State Recognized Tribe 

Star Clan of Muscogee Creeks 

 State Recognized Tribe 

Tunica-Biloxi Indian Tribe 

Earl J. Barbry, Jr. 

United Cherokee Ani-Yun-Wiya Nation 

 State Recognized Tribe 

Intervenors

United Municipal Distributors Group 

 Members Include: 

 Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP 

 Utilities Board of the City of Atmore, Alabama 

 City of Brewton, Alabama 

 Town of Century, Florida 

 Utilities Board of the Town of Citronelle, Alabama 

 City of Fairhope, Alabama 

 Utilities Board of the City of Foley, Alabama 

 North Baldwin Utilities, Alabama 

 Okaloosa Gas District, Florida 

 City of Pascagoula, Mississippi 

 City of Pensacola, Florida 

 South Alabama Gas District, Alabama 

 James H. Byrd 

 Miller, Balis & O'Neil, P.C. 

Southern Company Services, Inc. 

Agent for Alabama Power Company, Georgia Power Company, Gulf Power 

Company, Mississippi Power Company, and Southern Power Company 

(collectively, "SCS") 

 Roy. R. Robertson, Jr. 

CenterPoint Energy Entex ("Entex") 

 Kent Armstrong, Manager 

Atmos Energy Corporation ("Atmos") 

 Mark Bergeron 

 Kenny Malter 

Florida Power & Light Company ("FPL") 

 William G. Walker III 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
APPENDIX A 

Distribution List 

 A-10 

Intervenors (continued)

Carolina Power & Light Company d/b/a Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc. (CP&L) 

 Richard Rhodes 

Florida Power Corporation d/b/a Progress Energy Florida, Inc. (Florida Power) 

 Richard Rhodes 

Southern Natural Gas Company 

 John C. Griffin 

Mobile Gas Service Corporation ("Mobile Gas") 

 Mr. G. Edgar Downing, Jr. 

Willmut Gas Company ("Willmut") 

 Mr. Karl H. Ficken, President 

Mayor and Aldermen of the City of Vicksburg, Mississippi ("Vicksburg") 

 Mr. Timothy M. Smith 

Organizations and Individuals

PBS&J 

 Kari Sutton 

 Heather Dusek 

 Mike Letson 

 Nancy Porter 

 Joanna Silosky 

Louisiana

Allen R. Best 

Austin Simms 

Bob Dwain Mikell 

Bobby Hugh Hale and Bettie Johnson Hale 

CenterPoint Energy Gas Transmission Co. 

Charles A. Black 

Columbia Gulf Transmission Co. 

Dawson Farms, LLC 

Delhi City Property 

Ellis Herring, et. al. 

Gary Lane Cater and Angie Cater 

Jacqueline J. Howard, et al 

James Brantly 

Jeanetter Allen Bullock 

Providence Memorial Park Corp. 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
APPENDIX A 

Distribution List 

 A-11 

Organizations and Individuals (continued) 

Ricky and Patricia Rudd 

Steve Britton 

T.A. Redd 

Waverly Land & Timber 

Mississippi

Adirondack Timber, LLC 

 Charles Vanover 

Alexander Plantation 

Anderson Tully Company 

American Gas Association 

 Dave Parker 

Barry Satcher Estate, Mariah Development, Inc. 

Chantilly Corp. 

W. M. Deavours 

Chickasawhay Farms, LLC 

Cook Timber Company 

Denbury Onshore, LLC 

Denbury Resources 

Destin Pipeline Co., LLC 

First Presbyterian Church 

 Earl Davis 

Gulf South Pipeline Company 

 Andrew Chartrand 

 Kyle Stephens 

 Ted Ryther 

 James N. Sheppard 

Hallforest L.P. 

Halltree, Inc. 

International Paper 

Johnston’s Sand & Gravel, Inc. 

K & T Poultry Sales and Services 

K.T. Farms, Inc. 

Lace Dase Est. 

Mame, LP 

Mississippi Audubon Society 

 Bruce Reid 

Mississippi Wildlife Federation 

 Dr. Cathy Shropshire 

Pipe Line Contractors Association 

 J. Patrick Tielborg 

Plum Creek Timberlands 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
APPENDIX A 

Distribution List 

 A-12 

Organizations and Individuals (continued) 

Plummer Heidelberg Est. 

Quitman Timber, LLC 

Roaring Creek, LP – Lillous Faye Shoemaker 

Rocky Mountain P/L Construction Association 

 J. D. Lormand 

Simpson County School District 

Sierra Club, Mississippi Chapter 

 Rose Johnson 

South Miss. Elec. Power Company 

Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corp., Tulsa 

Transcontinenal Gas Pipeline Corp., Houston 

Transcontinenal Gas Pipeline Corp. 

 Chuck Pittman 

 Steve M. Cole 

 David Whiteside 

Weyerhaeuser Company 

The Wilderness Society 

 Pete Morton 

Esther Richardson 

Carolyn Dear 

Jeff A. Arrington and Sandra K. Arrington 

Mason Newell 

Bobby Mills 

C.V. Herrington, Jr. 

Martin C. Harwell, Sr. 

Billy Terry Ashley 

James Price Wallace 

Billy Jim Thompson 

David and Elizabeth Livingston 

Chauncey Tanner 

James Scott and Clair B. Scott 

Owen Wilson Garrett 

Greg Fleming 

W. C. Anderson 

Carol F. Knouse 

William S. and Virginia W. Scott 

Albert E. Rowell 

John Palmer 

Toby Sims 

Hal T. McMullan 

James C. Sims 

Bertha J. and Will R. Collins, Jr. 

Ruth McCardy Estate c/o Robbie Kashona 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
APPENDIX A 

Distribution List 

 A-13 

Organizations and Individuals (continued)

Ben Cooper Est. 

Jessie Allen 

Albert and Alfred Evans 

Tommie S. Collins 

Anita Fay Jones 

Dorothy Allen 

Sarah Ann Brannan 

Jason Busby 

Juliette Clayton 

George H. Childer 

Billy Jean Gregory 

Charlotte McCoy 

Ronald M. Griffin 

Johnny Morgan 

Alice M. Rankin 

Parry and Ada B. Roundtree 

G. C. Hankins 

Charles E. Seal, Sr. 

Douglas H. Veazey 

Charles B. Brashier III 

Stone Windham 

Howard R. and Ione Sims 

Thurston McCarty 

Alford Doba 

Annie Mae Turner 

Harry Lee Haney 

Ann Shoemaker 

Mark Magee 

Warner Mitchell 

J. Curtis Moffatt 

Rickey Fournoy 

Alabama

Alabama Environmental Council 

 Jayme Hill 

Alabama Wildlife Federation 

 Tim Gothard 

Caraland, LLC 

Cuba Timber 

Jodane Partnership, Ltd. 

L.A. Timberlands, LLC 

Land Properties, Ltd. 

 Virginia Sikes 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
APPENDIX A 

Distribution List 

 A-14 

Organizations and Individuals (continued)

Willoise W. Estes 

Sierra Club, Alabama Chapter 

 Paul Perret 

South Alabama Land & Timber Co. 

Willie and Sue Hearn, Et ux. 

Sara Life 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
APPENDIX B 

FACILITY LOCATION MAPS 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
Non-Internet Public 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE 

PROPOSED SOUTHEAST EXPANSIONPROJECT 

Docket No. CP07-032-000 

Figure B-1 

Sheets 1-40 

Appendix B 

Facility Location Maps

Public access for this Non-Internet Public information is 

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

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
Non-Internet Public 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE 

PROPOSED SOUTHEAST EXPANSIONPROJECT 

Docket No. CP07-032-000 

Figure B-2 

Sheets 1-3 

Appendix B 

Pipe Storage and Contractor Yards

Public access for this Non-Internet Public information is 

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

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
APPENDIX C 

SOILS

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
C-1 

APPENDIX C-1

Soil Associations Crossed by the Proposed Southeast Expansion Project 

Soil Series 

Cumulative 

Miles 

Traversed 

Prime 

Farmland 

Erosion 

Potential 

Hydric 

Soils Rock 

Revegetation 

Potential 

Ch

Arundel-Cantuche complex, 25 to 60 percent slopes, stony 

0.31 No Severe Yes No Fair W

Bibb and Chastain fine sandy loams (bibb and una) 2.25 No Severe Yes No Good PoBibb fine sandy loam, frequently flooded 1.59 No Severe Yes No Fair PoBibb soils 0.34 Yes Severe Yes No Good PoBibb-Iuka complex, 0 to 1 percent slopes, frequently flooded 

0.11 No Severe Yes No Good Po

Boswell fine sandy loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes 0.36 Yes Moderate No No Good MoBoswell fine sandy loam, 5 to 8 percent slopes 1.35 Yes Moderate Yes No Good MoBoswell fine sandy loam, 8 to 12 percent slopes, eroded (sweatman) 

0.62 No Severe Yes No Fair W

Boswell, Shubuta, and Cuthbert fine sandy loams, 12 to 45 percent slopes (sweatman) 

2.50 No Severe Yes No Fair W

Boykin-Luverne-Smithdale complex, 15 to 35 percent slopes, eroded 

3.74 No Severe Yes No Fair W

Cahaba fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes 0.29 Yes Low Yes No Good WCahaba fine sandy loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes 0.07 Yes Low No No Good WEustis loamy sand, 12 to 35 percent slopes 1.59 No Severe Yes No Fair S

exce

Eustis loamy sand, 5 to 8 percent slopes 0.48 Yes Moderate Yes No Fair S

exce

Eustis loamy sand, 8 to 12 percent slopes 0.42 No Severe Yes No Fair S

exce

Eustis loamy sand, terrace 0.541 Yes Moderate Yes No Good S

exce

Eutaw-Vaiden clays, deep (louin) 1.63 No Moderate Yes No Good S

exce

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
C-2 

APPENDIX C-1

Soil Associations Crossed by the Proposed Southeast Expansion Project 

Soil Series 

Cumulative 

Miles 

Traversed 

Prime 

Farmland 

Erosion 

Potential 

Hydric 

Soils Rock 

Revegetation 

Potential 

Ch

Flint fine sandy loam, loamy substratum, 0 to 2 percent slopes (annemaine) 

0.03 Yes Low Yes No Good Mo

Freest loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes, eroded 0.23 Yes Severe No No Good MoFreest loam, 5 to 8 percent slopes, eroded 0.06 Yes Low No No Good MoHeidel sandy loam, 12 to 30 percent slopes 0.37 No Severe Yes No Fair WHeidel sandy loam, 15 to 35 percent slopes 1.21 No Severe Yes No Fair WHeidel sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes 0.59 No Moderate Yes No Fair WHeidel-Troup association, hilly 2.84 No Severe Yes No Fair WHoulka clay 0.10 Yes Low Yes No Good SomIuka fine sandy loam (ochlockonee) 0.09 Yes Low Yes No Fair WIzagora fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, rarely flooded 

0.18 Yes Low Yes No Fair Mo

Jena fine sandy loam, occasionally flooded 1.64 Yes Low Yes No Good WJohnston loam 0.08 No Severe Yes No Good Very Kirkville fine sandy loam, occasionally flooded 1.51 Yes Low Yes No Good MoKirkville-Jena association, frequently flooded 1.17 No Severe Yes No Fair MoKirkville-Mantachie complex 3.40 No Low Yes No Good MoLakeland sand, 5 to 12 percent slopes 0.05 No Severe Yes No Fair WLakeland sand, 12 to 30 percent slopes 0.04 No Severe Yes No Fair WLauderdale-Arundel complex, 2 to 10 percent slopes, stony, eroded 

0.05 No Moderate No No Fair W

Leaf fine sandy loam 0.23 No Moderate Yes No Fair Po

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
C-3 

APPENDIX C-1

Soil Associations Crossed by the Proposed Southeast Expansion Project 

Soil Series 

Cumulative 

Miles 

Traversed 

Prime 

Farmland 

Erosion 

Potential 

Hydric 

Soils Rock 

Revegetation 

Potential 

Ch

Luverne sandy loam, 1 to 5 percent slopes 0.08 Yes Moderate No No Good WMantachie loam, occasionally flooded 0.30 Yes Low Yes No Good SomMantachie soils, local alluvium 0.68 Yes Low Yes No Good MoMantachie, Bibb, and Iuka soils (kirkville, kinston, iuka) 

2.08 No Severe Yes No Good Mo

Mantachie-Mathiston association, frequently flooded 0.77 No Severe Yes No Good SomMashulaville fine sandy loam, terrace 0.21 Yes Moderate Yes No Good PoMcCrory-Deerford complex, 0 to 2 percent slopes, occasionally flooded 

0.05 No Moderate Yes No Fair Po

McLaurin loamy sand, 2 to 5 percent slopes 0.71 Yes Low No No Good WMcLaurin loamy sand, 5 to 8 percent slopes 0.56 Yes Moderate Yes No Good WOchlockonee, Kinston, and Iuka soils, 0 to 1 percent slopes, frequently flooded 

0.25 No Severe Yes No Good w

Ora fine sandy loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes 1.39 Yes Low No No Fair MoOra fine sandy loam, 5 to 8 percent slopes 1.11 Yes Moderate Yes No Fair MoOra fine sandy loam, 8 to 12 percent slopes, eroded 0.61 No Moderate Yes No Fair MoOra loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes, eroded 0.21 Yes Low Yes No Fair MoOra loam, 5 to 8 percent slopes, eroded 0.31 Yes Moderate No No Fair MoOrangeburg fine sandy loam, 12 to 17 percent slopes (smithdale) 

0.09 No Severe Yes No Fair W

Orangeburg fine sandy loam, 17 to 35 percent slopes (smithdale) 

0.23 No Severe Yes No Fair W

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
C-4 

APPENDIX C-1

Soil Associations Crossed by the Proposed Southeast Expansion Project 

Soil Series 

Cumulative 

Miles 

Traversed 

Prime 

Farmland 

Erosion 

Potential 

Hydric 

Soils Rock 

Revegetation 

Potential 

Ch

Petal and Smithdale soils, 15 to 35 percent slopes 2.44 No Severe Yes No Fair MoPetal and Smithdale soils, 8 to 15 percent slopes 4.09 No Moderate Yes No Fair MoPheba fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes (stough) 

0.17 Yes Low Yes No Good Som

Prentiss fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes 1.29 Yes Low Yes No Good MoPrentiss fine sandy loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes 0.58 Yes Low No No Good MoProvidence silt loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes, eroded 0.04 Yes Low No No Good MoProvidence silt loam, 5 to 8 percent slopes, eroded 0.60 Yes Moderate Yes No Good MoQuitman fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, occasionally flooded 

0.41 Yes Low Yes No Good Som

Quitman loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes 1.42 Yes Low Yes No Good SomQuitman-Jena-Trebloc association, flooded 2.77 Yes Low Yes No Good SomRuston fine sandy loam, 12 to 17 percent slopes (smithdale) 

0.48 No Severe Yes No Fair W

Ruston fine sandy loam, 17 to 35 percent slopes (smithdale) 

0.66 No Severe Yes No Fair W

Ruston fine sandy loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes 2.49 Yes Moderate No No Good WRuston fine sandy loam, 5 to 8 percent slopes 3.56 Yes Moderate Yes No Good WRuston fine sandy loam, 8 to 12 percent slopes (smithdale) 

1.08 Yes Moderate Yes No Fair W

Savannah fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes 0.30 Yes Low Yes No Fair Mo

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
C-5 

APPENDIX C-1

Soil Associations Crossed by the Proposed Southeast Expansion Project 

Soil Series 

Cumulative 

Miles 

Traversed 

Prime 

Farmland 

Erosion 

Potential 

Hydric 

Soils Rock 

Revegetation 

Potential 

Ch

Savannah fine sandy loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes 3.13 Yes Low No No Fair MoSavannah fine sandy loam, 5 to 8 percent slopes 0.84 Yes Moderate Yes No Fair MoSavannah loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes, eroded 1.51 Yes Low No No Fair MoSavannah loam, 5 to 8 percent slopes, eroded 1.92 Yes Moderate Yes No Fair MoSavannah silt loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes 0.12 Yes Low No No Fair WShubuta fine sandy loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes 0.24 Yes Low No No Good WShubuta fine sandy loam, 5 to 8 percent slopes 2.67 Yes Moderate Yes No Good WShubuta fine sandy loam, 8 to 12 percent slopes 0.69 Yes Moderate Yes No Fair WShubuta sandy clay loam, 5 to 8 percent slopes, severely eroded 

0.02 No Moderate Yes No Good W

Shubuta sandy clay loam, 8 to 12 percent slopes, severely eroded 

0.15 No Severe Yes No Fair W

Smithdale fine sandy loam, 15 to 35 percent slopes 7.64 No Severe Yes No Fair WSmithdale fine sandy loam, 8 to 12 percent slopes, eroded 

0.34 Yes Moderate Yes No Fair W

Smithdale fine sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes 2.52 No Moderate Yes No Fair WSmithdale loamy fine sand, 5 to 15 percent slopes 0.66 No Moderate Yes No Fair WSmithdale sandy loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes 1.04 Yes Low No No Good WSmithdale-Lucy association, 12 to 40 percent slopes 3.37 No Severe Yes No Fair WSmithdale-Lucy association, hilly 0.06 No Severe Yes No Fair WStough fine sandy loam 0.36 Yes Low Yes No Good SomStough fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes 1.65 Yes Low Yes No Good SomStough loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes 2.15 Yes Low Yes No Good Som

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
C-6 

APPENDIX C-1

Soil Associations Crossed by the Proposed Southeast Expansion Project 

Soil Series 

Cumulative 

Miles 

Traversed 

Prime 

Farmland 

Erosion 

Potential 

Hydric 

Soils Rock 

Revegetation 

Potential 

Ch

Sumter clay, 5 to 12 percent slopes, severely eroded 

0.40 No Severe Yes No Fair W

Sumter clay, 5 to 8 percent slopes, eroded 0.08 Yes Moderate Yes No Good WSusquehanna fine sandy loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes 

0.09 Yes Moderate No No Good Som

Susquehanna fine sandy loam, 5 to 8 percent slopes, eroded 

0.90 Yes Severe Yes No Good Som

Sweatman association, hilly 2.70 No Severe Yes No Fair WSweatman fine sandy loam, 15 to 35 percent slopes 0.11 No Severe Yes No Fair WSweatman fine sandy loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes 0.74 Yes Moderate No No Good WSweatman fine sandy loam, 8 to 17 percent slopes, eroded 

4.37 No Severe Yes No Fair W

Sweatman-Smithdale complex, 8 to 20 percent slopes, eroded 

0.08 No Severe Yes No Fair W

Tilden fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes (savannah) 

0.17 Yes Low Yes No Good Mo

Tilden fine sandy loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes, eroded (savannah) 

0.15 Yes Low No No Fair Mo

Trebloc silt loam, frequently flooded 0.82 Yes Severe Yes No Good PoUna and Urbo soils, frequently flooded 1.08 No Moderate Yes No Fair PoVaiden and Oktibbeha silt loams, deep, 2 to 5 percent slopes 

0.33 Yes Moderate No No Good Som

Vaiden and Oktibbeha silt loams, deep, 5 to 8 percent slopes 

1.76 Yes Moderate Yes No Good Som

Vaiden clay, deep, 0 to 2 percent slopes 0.22 Yes Moderate Yes No Good SomVaiden clay, deep, 2 to 5 percent slopes, eroded 0.11 Yes Moderate No No Good SomVaiden clay, deep, 5 to 8 percent slopes, eroded 0.20 Yes Moderate Yes No Good Som

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
C-7 

APPENDIX C-1

Soil Associations Crossed by the Proposed Southeast Expansion Project 

Soil Series 

Cumulative 

Miles 

Traversed 

Prime 

Farmland 

Erosion 

Potential 

Hydric 

Soils Rock 

Revegetation 

Potential 

Ch

Vaiden clay, deep, 8 to 12 percent slopes, eroded 0.04 No Severe Yes No Fair SomWahee fine sandy loam (izagora) 1.14 Yes Low Yes No Good Mo_______________ Notes: A Erosion potential based on land capability subclass. High potential includes Subclasses Ve through VIIIe. Moderate potential includes Subclasses IIIe a

other subclasses. 

B Includes areas where rock may be found within 60 inches below ground surface. C Parameters of classification of soils with poor revegetation potential include those that are highly acidic, soils with slopes greater than 8 percent, and soils 

coarse fragments (rocks and stones) in the surface layer of soil. 

D Soils with clay loam or finer textures and somewhat poor to very poor drainage characteristics are considered to have severe compaction potential. 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
C-8 

APPENDIX C-2

Soils at Aboveground Facilities on the Proposed Southeast Expansion Project 

Facility MP Soil Series 

Prime 

Farmland 

Erosion 

PotentialA Hydric/ Non-Hydric RockB Revegetation PotentialC 

Ch

Compressor Stations

Delhi Compressor Station 

NA Calhoun-Calloway silt loams, gently 

rolling 

Yes Low Hydric No Good Moder

Harrisville Compressor Station 

0.0 Smithdale fine sandy loam, 15 to 

35 percent slopes 

No Severe Hydric No Fair W

Destin Compressor Station 

82.9 Mantachie, Bibb and luka soils No Severe Hydric No Good Moder

Meter and Regulation Facilities 

CenterPoint M&R Station 

NA Grenada silt loam Yes Moderate Non-Hydric No Good Mo

Southern Natural M&R Station 

45.7 Stough fine sandy loam, 0 to 

2 percent slopes 

Yes Low Hydric No Good Som

Tennessee Gas M&R Station 

72.5 Heidel-Troup association, hilly No Severe Hydric No Fair W

Destin M&R Station 82.9 Mantachie, Bibb, and Iuka soils No Severe Hydric No Good ModerTransco M&R Station 110.8 Boykin-Luverne-Smithdale 

complex, 15 to 35 percent slopes 

No Severe Hydric No Fair W

Valves and Other Facilities

Mainline Valve No. 1 0.0 Smithdale fine sandy loam, 15 to 

35 percent slopes 

No Severe Hydric No Fair W

Mainline Valve No. 2 14.9 Savannah loam, 5 to 8 percent 

slope 

Yes Moderate Hydric No Fair Moder

Mainline Valve No. 3 30.3 Ora fine sandy loam, 2 to 5 percent 

slopes 

Yes Low Non-hydric No Fair Moder

Mainline Valve No. 4 45.7 Stough fine sandy loam, 0 to 

2 percent slopes 

Yes Low Hydric No Good Som

Mainline Valve No. 5 60.0 Heidel-Troup association, hilly No Severe Hydric No Fair WSide Valve 72.4 Sweatman association, hilly No Severe Hydric No Fair W

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
C-9 

APPENDIX C-2

Soils at Aboveground Facilities on the Proposed Southeast Expansion Project 

Facility MP Soil Series 

Prime 

Farmland 

Erosion 

PotentialA Hydric/ Non-Hydric RockB Revegetation PotentialC 

Ch

Mainline Valve No. 6 75.4 McLaurin loamy sand, 2 to 

5 percent slopes 

Yes Low Non-Hydric No Good W

Mainline Valve No. 7 91.3 Savannah fine sandy loam, 5 to 

8 percent slopes 

Yes Moderate Hydric No Fair Moder

Mainline Valve No. 8 110.8 Boykin-Luverne-Smithdale 

complex, 15 to 35 percent slopes 

No Severe Hydric No Fair W

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
APPENDIX D 

WATERBODY CROSSINGS

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
D-1

APPENDIX D 

Waterbodies Crossed by the Proposed Southeast Expansion Project 

Feature 

Identification 

Begin 

Milepost 

End 

Milepost Waterbody Name 

Waterbody 

Type 

Crossing 

Width 

(ft) 

State Water 

Quality 

Classification(a) USGS Quad 

42-INCH MAINLINE PIPELINE Simpson County, Mississippi 

S1CSI013 0.64 0.64 Unnamed Intermittent 4 A,C Whites S9CSI005 1.34 1.38 Unnamed Pond 300 A,C Star 

S1ASI001 1.55 1.56 Unnamed Pond 25 A,C Star 

S1CSI010 1.59 1.59 Unnamed Intermittent 6 A,C Star S1CSI011 1.62 1.63 Unnamed Perennial 20 A,C Star S1CSI012 1.76 1.84 Unnamed Intermittent 10 A,C Star 

S1DSI007R 2.25 2.28 Limestone Creek Perennial 30 A,C Star S1DSI008R 3.02 3.03 Unnamed Intermittent 6 A,C Star S1DSI009R 3.35 3.37 Unnamed Intermittent 6 A,C Star S1DSI010R 3.88 3.89 Unnamed Intermittent 5 A,C Star 

S1DSI013 5.10 5.11 Unnamed Intermittent 8 A,C Star S1DSI014 5.18 5.18 Unnamed Perennial 18 A,C Star S9CSI002 5.42 5.43 Unnamed Perennial 5 A,C Star S9CSI001 5.43 5.44 Unnamed Perennial 40 A,C Star 

S1BSI001 5.84 5.85 Unnamed Intermittent 2 A,C Star S1BSI002 5.96 6.02 Unnamed Intermittent 3 A,C Star S1BSI003 6.18 6.19 Unnamed Intermittent 4 A,C Star 

S1DSI011R 6.85 6.86 Unnamed Perennial 9 A,C Star S1DSI004R 7.12 7.13 Little Creek Tributary Perennial 8 A,C Star S1DSI005R 7.97 7.99 Unnamed Intermittent 6 A,C Star 

S1DSI002 8.37 8.38 Unnamed Intermittent 4 A,C Star S1DSI003 8.48 8.51 Unnamed Intermittent 4 A,C Star 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
D-2

APPENDIX D 

Waterbodies Crossed by the Proposed Southeast Expansion Project 

Feature 

Identification 

Begin 

Milepost 

End 

Milepost Waterbody Name 

Waterbody 

Type 

Crossing 

Width 

(ft) 

State Water 

Quality 

Classification(a) USGS Quad 

S1CSI009 10.41 10.43 Unnamed Perennial 70 A,C Braxton S1CSI001 10.60 10.60 Unnamed Intermittent 10 A,C Braxton S1CSI002 10.70 10.71 Unnamed Intermittent 8 A,C Braxton S1CSI004 10.86 10.89 Unnamed Intermittent 10 A,C Braxton S1CSI005 11.00 11.02 Unnamed Intermittent 10 A,C Braxton S1CSI006 11.36 11.39 Unnamed Intermittent 25 A,C Braxton S1CSI007 11.88 11.89 Unnamed Intermittent 3 A,C Braxton 

S1BSI019 12.32 12.32 Dabbs Creek Tributary Perennial 15 A,C Braxton 

S1BSI019A 12.40 12.43 Dabbs Creek Perennial 18 A,C Braxton 

S1DSI006R 12.61 12.62 Unnamed Perennial 30 A,C Braxton 

S1BSI020 13.61 13.62 Dabbs Creek Tributary Perennial 6 A,C Braxton S1BSI017 14.32 14.32 Indian Creek Intermittent 3 A,C Braxton S9BSI003 14.58 14.61 Unnamed Intermittent 3 A, C Braxton S9BSI001 15.63 15.64 Unnamed Intermittent 3 A,C Braxton S1ASI005 16.13 16.15 Campbell Creek Perennial 70 A,C Braxton S1ASI006 16.48 16.52 Unnamed Perennial 10 A,C Puckett S1ASI007 17.16 17.18 Unnamed Perennial 10 A,C Puckett 

S1DSI012 17.96 17.98 Strong River Perennial 60 A,C Puckett 

S1BSI007 18.58 18.59 Unnamed Intermittent 4 A,C Puckett S1BSI008 18.66 18.68 Unnamed Intermittent 12 A,C Puckett S1BSI009 18.77 18.77 Unnamed Intermittent 8 A,C Puckett 

S1BSI009B 18.78 18.78 Unnamed Intermittent 6 A,C Puckett 

S1BSI011 19.54 19.55 Unnamed Intermittent 2 A,C Puckett 

S1BSI012A 19.61 19.62 Unnamed Intermittent 5 A,C Puckett 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
D-3

APPENDIX D 

Waterbodies Crossed by the Proposed Southeast Expansion Project 

Feature 

Identification 

Begin 

Milepost 

End 

Milepost Waterbody Name 

Waterbody 

Type 

Crossing 

Width 

(ft) 

State Water 

Quality 

Classification(a) USGS Quad 

S1BSI012B 19.62 19.64 Unnamed Intermittent 5 A,C Puckett 

S1ASI010 19.88 19.90 Unnamed Perennial 30 A,C Puckett S1ASI011 20.46 20.47 Unnamed Intermittent 40 A,C Puckett 

S1BSI014B 21.01 21.01 Unnamed Perennial 4 A,C Puckett 

S1BSI014 21.03 21.06 Unnamed Intermittent 2 A,C Puckett S1BSI015 21.17 21.19 Unnamed Intermittent 2 A,C Puckett S1BSI016 21.44 21.46 Unnamed Perennial 8 A,C Puckett S1ASI012 21.63 21.65 Unnamed Intermittent 10 A,C Puckett 

S1ASI012B 21.65 21.65 Unnamed Intermittent 4 A,C Puckett 

S1ASI013 21.66 21.67 Crooked Creek Perennial 20 A,C Puckett S1ASI014 21.91 21.93 Unnamed Intermittent 2 A,C Puckett 

S1ASI014B 21.92 21.94 Unnamed Intermittent 2 A,C Puckett 

S1ASI015 22.10 22.11 Unnamed Intermittent 2 A,C Puckett S1ASI016 22.64 22.65 Unnamed Intermittent 2 A,C Puckett S1ASI017 22.72 22.73 Unnamed Intermittent 5 A,C Puckett S1ASI019 23.14 23.14 Unnamed Intermittent 2 A,C Puckett 

S1DSI001 24.42 24.43 Little Rocky Creek Intermittent 5 A,C White Oak 

S9ASI020 24.66 24.69 Unnamed Perennial 15 A,C White Oak S9ASI021 24.74 24.75 Unnamed Perennial 15 A,C White Oak S9ASI023 24.79 24.81 Unnamed Intermittent 3 A,C White Oak S9ASI022 24.82 24.83 Unnamed Intermittent 3 A,C White Oak S9ASI024 25.02 25.03 Unnamed Intermittent 2 A,C White Oak S9ASI025 25.11 25.12 Unnamed Intermittent 3 A,C White Oak 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
D-4

APPENDIX D 

Waterbodies Crossed by the Proposed Southeast Expansion Project 

Feature 

Identification 

Begin 

Milepost 

End 

Milepost Waterbody Name 

Waterbody 

Type 

Crossing 

Width 

(ft) 

State Water 

Quality 

Classification(a) USGS Quad 

S9ASI026 25.13 25.17 Unnamed Intermittent 3 A,C White Oak 

S9DSI001 25.84 25.86 Rocky Creek Perennial 45 A,C White Oak 

S1ASI024 26.46 26.46 Unnamed Intermittent 3 A,C White Oak S1ASI025 26.64 26.64 Unnamed Perennial 8 A,C White Oak S1ASI026 26.65 26.66 Unnamed Intermittent 5 A,C White Oak S1ASI027 27.08 27.09 Unnamed Perennial 10 A,C White Oak S1ASI028 27.82 27.82 Unnamed Intermittent 3 A,C White Oak S1ASI029 28.07 28.08 Unnamed Intermittent 5 A,C Magee 

North 

S1ASM001 29.10 29.11 Unnamed Intermittent 2 A Magee 

North 

Smith County, Mississippi 

S1ASM002 29.63 29.63 Unnamed Perennial 5 A Magee 

North 

S1ASM003 30.02 30.04 Unnamed Intermittent 4 A Magee 

North 

S1ASM004 30.41 30.46 Unnamed Intermittent 3 A Magee 

North 

S1BSM002 30.65 30.65 Unnamed Intermittent 3 A Magee 

North 

S1BSM006B 30.74 30.77 Unnamed Intermittent 4 A Magee 

North 

S1BSM004 31.02 31.03 Clear Creek Intermittent 10 A Magee 

North 

S1BSM005 31.08 31.09 Unnamed Intermittent 3 A Magee 

North 

S1BSM006 31.20 31.21 Unnamed Intermittent 4 A Cohay S1BSM008 32.51 32.54 Unnamed Intermittent 4 A Cohay S1BSM009 32.60 32.65 Unnamed Intermittent 4 A Cohay 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
D-5

APPENDIX D 

Waterbodies Crossed by the Proposed Southeast Expansion Project 

Feature 

Identification 

Begin 

Milepost 

End 

Milepost Waterbody Name 

Waterbody 

Type 

Crossing 

Width 

(ft) 

State Water 

Quality 

Classification(a) USGS Quad 

S1BSM010 32.64 32.68 Unnamed Intermittent 4 A Cohay S1ASM007 33.01 33.02 Unnamed Intermittent 10 A Cohay S1ASM008 33.12 33.16 Unnamed Perennial 24 A Cohay S1ASM009 33.26 33.29 Unnamed Intermittent 10 A Cohay S1ASM010 33.78 33.79 Unnamed Intermittent 3 A Cohay S1ASM011 34.13 34.14 Oakohay Creek Perennial 45 A Cohay 

S1CSM005 34.63 34.64 Beaver Creek Perennial 15 A Cohay S1CSM006 34.72 34.72 Unnamed Perennial 10 A Cohay S1DSM014 35.31 35.31 Unnamed Intermittent 4 A Cohay S1DSM016 35.48 35.57 Unnamed Intermittent 4 A Cohay 

S1ASM012 36.14 36.14 Unnamed Perennial 2 A Cohay 

S1DSM011 36.53 36.54 Unnamed Intermittent 2 A Cohay S1DSM012 36.68 36.76 Unnamed Perennial 20 A Cohay S1CSM008 38.19 38.20 Unnamed Perennial 12 A Cohay 

S1CSM008B 38.21 38.21 Unnamed Perennial 4 A Cohay 

S1DSM005 39.04 39.12 Unnamed Intermittent 3 A Center 

Ridge 

S1DSM006 39.20 39.21 Unnamed Perennial 15 A Center 

Ridge 

S1DSM007 39.45 39.47 Unnamed Intermittent 3 A Center 

Ridge 

S9CSM010 39.76 39.76 Unnamed Intermittent 6 A Center 

Ridge 

S1DSM008D 40.03 40.04 Unnamed Intermittent 11 A Center 

Ridge 

S1DSM008E 40.11 40.11 Unnamed Perennial 11 A Center 

Ridge 

S1DSM008B 40.45 40.48 Unnamed Intermittent 25 A Center 

Ridge 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
D-6

APPENDIX D 

Waterbodies Crossed by the Proposed Southeast Expansion Project 

Feature 

Identification 

Begin 

Milepost 

End 

Milepost Waterbody Name 

Waterbody 

Type 

Crossing 

Width 

(ft) 

State Water 

Quality 

Classification(a) USGS Quad 

S1DSM009 40.90 40.90 Unnamed Intermittent 2 A Center 

Ridge 

S1DSM010 41.06 41.07 Unnamed Intermittent 2 A Center 

Ridge 

S1CSM001 41.30 41.31 Unnamed Intermittent 3 A Center 

Ridge 

S1CSM002 41.39 41.39 Unnamed Intermittent 3 A Center 

Ridge 

S1CSM003 42.23 42.24 Unnamed Intermittent 9 A Center 

Ridge 

S1CSM004 42.35 42.36 Unnamed Perennial 20 A Center 

Ridge 

S1DSM001 43.01 43.05 Unnamed Intermittent 4 A Center 

Ridge 

S9CSM009 43.86 43.91 Unnamed Perennial 9 A Center 

Ridge 

S9CSM006 44.16 44.20 Leaf River Perennial 140 A Center 

Ridge 

S9CSM005 44.22 44.26 Unnamed Intermittent 10 A Center 

Ridge 

S9CSM004 44.36 44.37 Unnamed Intermittent 8 A Center 

Ridge 

S9CSM003 44.64 46.66 Unnamed Intermittent 7 A Center 

Ridge 

S9CSM002 45.21 45.21 Unnamed Intermittent 3 A Center 

Ridge 

S9CSM001 45.29 45.30 West Tallahala River 

Tributary 

Intermittent 10 A Center 

Ridge 

S9BSM001 45.33 45.36 West Tallahala River Perennial 200 A Center 

Ridge 

S9BSM002 45.78 45.79 Unnamed Intermittent 10 A Center 

Ridge 

S9BSM003 46.00 46.03 Unnamed Intermittent 2 A Center 

Ridge 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
D-7

APPENDIX D 

Waterbodies Crossed by the Proposed Southeast Expansion Project 

Feature 

Identification 

Begin 

Milepost 

End 

Milepost Waterbody Name 

Waterbody 

Type 

Crossing 

Width 

(ft) 

State Water 

Quality 

Classification(a) USGS Quad 

S9BSM004 46.14 46.14 Unnamed Intermittent 10 A Center 

Ridge 

S1DSM019 47.23 47.25 Unnamed Perennial 20 A Bay Springs S1DSM020 48.33 48.34 Unnamed Perennial 6 A Bay Springs S1DSM021 48.37 48.38 Unnamed Perennial 5 A Bay Springs S1DSM022 48.73 48.75 Unnamed Intermittent 5 A Bay Springs S1CSM009 49.07 49.07 Unnamed Intermittent 3 A Bay Springs S1CSM010 49.19 49.20 Unnamed Intermittent 2 A Bay Springs 

S1CSM010B 49.28 49.33 Unnamed Intermittent 3 A Bay Springs 

Jasper County, Mississippi

S1CSM011 51.48 51.48 Unnamed Intermittent 10 A Bay Springs S1CSM012 51.60 51.60 Unnamed Intermittent 10 A Bay Springs 

S1DJS015R 51.68 51.68 Unnamed Intermittent 6 A Bay Springs 

S1CSM013 51.79 51.80 Unnamed Perennial 20 A Bay Springs 

S1AJS001 53.42 53.44 Unnamed Pond 400* A Waldrup S1AJS002 53.47 53.50 Unnamed Perennial 4 A Waldrup S1AJS003 53.56 53.58 Unnamed Perennial 15 A Waldrup S9BJS006 54.21 54.22 Unnamed Intermittent 2 A Waldrup S9BJS007 54.56 54.58 Unnamed Intermittent 10 A Waldrup 

S1CJS002A 54.90 54.91 Unnamed Perennial 3 A Waldrup 

S1CJS004 55.51 55.51 Unnamed Perennial 3 A Waldrup 

S9BSM004 55.76 55.78 Unnamed Intermittent 2 A Waldrup 

S9BJS003 55.83 55.85 Tallahoma Creek Perennial 80 A Waldrup S9BJS005 55.92 55.94 Tallahoma Creek Perennial 80 A Waldrup 

S1DJS020 56.63 56.65 Unnamed Perennial 15 A Waldrup 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
D-8

APPENDIX D 

Waterbodies Crossed by the Proposed Southeast Expansion Project 

Feature 

Identification 

Begin 

Milepost 

End 

Milepost Waterbody Name 

Waterbody 

Type 

Crossing 

Width 

(ft) 

State Water 

Quality 

Classification(a) USGS Quad 

S1AJS006 57.75 57.75 Unnamed Perennial A Waldrup S1AJS007 58.58 58.58 Unnamed Perennial 4 A Waldrup 

S1DJS003 59.96 59.96 Unnamed Intermittent 3 A Waldrup 

S1BJS001 60.31 60.32 Unnamed Intermittent 5 A Waldrup S1BJS002 60.64 60.64 Unnamed Intermittent 5 A Waldrup S1BJS003 60.71 60.74 Unnamed Perennial 25 A Waldrup S1BJS004 61.23 61.26 Unnamed Perennial 15 A Waldrup S1BJS005 62.24 62.25 Unnamed Intermittent 10 A Waldrup S1BJS006 62.55 62.57 Tallahala Creek Perennial 40 A Waldrup S1BJS010 62.82 62.83 Unnamed Intermittent 6 A Waldrup S1BJS011 63.10 63.15 Unnamed Intermittent 3 A Waldrup 

S1BJS011B 63.13 63.14 Unnamed Intermittent 3 A Waldrup 

S1BJS012 63.14 63.15 Unnamed Perennial 4 A Waldrup S1BJS013 63.21 63.23 Unnamed Perennial 3 A Waldrup S1BJS007 63.70 63.71 Unnamed Intermittent 6 A Waldrup S1BJS008 64.03 64.03 Unnamed Intermittent 3 A Waldrup S1BJS009 64.03 64.04 Bogue Ealiah Creek Perennial 15 A Waldrup 

S1CJS001 65.26 65.26 Unnamed Intermittent 2 A Waldrup S1CJS002 65.40 65.40 Unnamed Intermittent 2 A Waldrup S1DJS017 66.15 66.18 Unnamed Intermittent 4 A Waldrup 

S1DJS017A 66.18 66.18 Unnamed Intermittent 4 A Waldrup 

S1DJS011 66.90 66.91 Unnamed Intermittent 9 A Waldrup S1DJS012 67.25 67.27 Unnamed Intermittent 4 A Waldrup 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
D-9

APPENDIX D 

Waterbodies Crossed by the Proposed Southeast Expansion Project 

Feature 

Identification 

Begin 

Milepost 

End 

Milepost Waterbody Name 

Waterbody 

Type 

Crossing 

Width 

(ft) 

State Water 

Quality 

Classification(a) USGS Quad 

S1AJS015 67.35 67.39 Unnamed Intermittent 7 A Waldrup 

S1AJS015B 67.36 67.43 Unnamed Intermittent 4 A Waldrup 

S1AJS015C 67.43 67.43 Unnamed Intermittent 2 A Waldrup 

S1AJS016 67.80 67.80 Unnamed Intermittent 3 A Waldrup S1AJS017 67.87 67.97 Unnamed Perennial 20 A Waldrup 

S1AJS017B 67.94 67.94 Unnamed Intermittent 2 A Waldrup 

S1AJS008 68.79 68.81 Unnamed Intermittent 4 A Waldrup S1AJS009 68.87 68.87 Unnamed Intermittent 2 A Waldrup S1AJS010 68.90 68.90 Unnamed Intermittent 1 A Waldrup S1AJS011 69.08 69.08 Unnamed Intermittent 2 A Waldrup S1AJS012 69.27 69.27 Unnamed Intermittent 2 A Waldrup S1AJS013 69.33 69.34 Unnamed Perennial 17 A Waldrup S1AJS014 69.38 69.39 Unnamed Intermittent 39 A Waldrup S1AJS018 69.60 69.60 Unnamed Intermittent 8 A Waldrup 

S1DJS005 70.15 70.16 Unnamed Perennial 25 A Waldrup 

S1DJS006B 70.46 70.47 Unnamed Intermittent 5 A Waldrup 

S1DJS006 70.46 70.48 Unnamed Intermittent 5 A Waldrup S1DJS007 70.97 70.98 Unnamed Intermittent 5 A Waldrup S1DJS008 71.71 71.73 Unnamed Intermittent 3 A Waldrup S1DJS010 71.87 71.88 Unnamed Perennial 7 A Waldrup S1DJS009 71.88 71.90 Unnamed Perennial 20 A Waldrup S1DJS002 72.69 72.71 Unnamed Pond 75 A Waldrup S1DJS001 74.35 74.36 Little Bogue Homo 

Tributary 

Perennial 10 A Heidelberg 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
D-10

APPENDIX D 

Waterbodies Crossed by the Proposed Southeast Expansion Project 

Feature 

Identification 

Begin 

Milepost 

End 

Milepost Waterbody Name 

Waterbody 

Type 

Crossing 

Width 

(ft) 

State Water 

Quality 

Classification(a) USGS Quad 

Clarke County, Mississippi

S1DCK008 77.91 77.92 Unnamed Pond 45* A Heidelberg S1DCK009 78.05 78.06 Unnamed Intermittent 6 A Heidelberg S1DCK010 78.06 78.07 Unnamed Perennial 6 A Heidelberg S1DCK011 78.15 78.18 Unnamed Perennial 6 A Heidelberg 

S9BCK001 78.30 78.31 Unnamed Intermittent 5 A Heidelberg 

S1DCK012 78.54 78.56 Unnamed Perennial 3 A Heidelberg S1DCK013 78.97 78.98 Unnamed Intermittent 6 A Heidelberg 

S1BCK001 79.56 79.57 Unnamed Intermittent 3 A Heidelberg S1BCK003 80.24 80.28 Unnamed Intermittent 10 A Heidelberg S1BCK004 81.11 81.14 Unnamed Perennial 25 A Heidelberg S1BCK005 81.97 81.98 Unnamed Intermittent 6 A Hale S9ACK017 82.41 82.41 Unnamed Intermittent 3 A Hale S9ACK015 82.59 82.60 Unnamed Pond 30 A Hale S9ACK014 82.62 82.67 Unnamed Pond 30 A Hale S9ACK013 82.67 82.69 Shubuta Creek Perennial 50 A Hale S9ACK012 83.06 83.07 Unnamed Perennial 7 A Hale S9ACK011 83.09 83.09 Unnamed Intermittent 7 A Hale S9ACK010 83.14 83.15 Unnamed Intermittent 5 A Hale 

S1DCK019 83.45 83.93 Unnamed Intermittent 8 A Hale 

S1BCK036 83.93 83.93 Bogue Homo Creek 

Tributary 

Intermittent 4 A Hale 

S1BCK006 84.58 84.60 Unnamed Intermittent 6 A Hale S1BCK007 84.73 84.74 Bogue Homo Creek Perennial 40 A Hale 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
D-11

APPENDIX D 

Waterbodies Crossed by the Proposed Southeast Expansion Project 

Feature 

Identification 

Begin 

Milepost 

End 

Milepost Waterbody Name 

Waterbody 

Type 

Crossing 

Width 

(ft) 

State Water 

Quality 

Classification(a) USGS Quad 

S1BCK008 85.23 85.27 Unnamed Intermittent 1 A Hale S1BCK009 85.76 85.77 Unnamed Intermittent 5 A Hale S1BCK010 86.04 86.15 Unnamed Intermittent 3 A Hale S1BCK011 86.14 86.17 Unnamed Intermittent 3 A DeSoto S1BCK012 86.15 86.19 Unnamed Intermittent 3 A DeSoto S1BCK013 86.18 86.31 Unnamed Intermittent 6 A DeSoto S1BCK014 86.33 86.34 Watts Creek Perennial 10 A DeSoto 

S9DCK005 87.77 87.81 Unnamed Pond 150 A DeSoto 

S9ACK023 87.86 87.86 Unnamed Intermittent 10 A DeSoto S9ACK022 87.88 87.88 Unnamed Intermittent 5 A DeSoto S9ACK021 87.94 87.94 Unnamed Intermittent 3 A DeSoto S9ACK020 87.96 87.97 Unnamed Intermittent 4 A DeSoto S9BCK002 88.31 88.31 Unnamed Intermittent 10 A DeSoto S9BCK003 88.80 88.81 Unnamed Intermittent 4 A DeSoto S9BCK005 89.29 89.35 Chickasawhay River Perennial 200 A DeSoto S9BCK006 89.34 89.35 Chickasawhay River 

Tributary 

Intermittent 8 C DeSoto 

S1BCK034 90.59 90.63 Cooniper Creek Perennial 25 A DeSoto 

S1DCK016 91.08 91.09 Cooniper Creek Perennial 20 A DeSoto 

S1BCK018 91.56 91.66 Unnamed Intermittent 5 A DeSoto S1BCK019 92.12 92.13 Unnamed Intermittent 4 A DeSoto S1BCK020 92.33 92.34 Unnamed Intermittent 2 A DeSoto S1BCK021 92.58 92.58 Unnamed Intermittent 3 A DeSoto S1BCK022 92.59 92.60 Unnamed Intermittent 2 A DeSoto 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
D-12

APPENDIX D 

Waterbodies Crossed by the Proposed Southeast Expansion Project 

Feature 

Identification 

Begin 

Milepost 

End 

Milepost Waterbody Name 

Waterbody 

Type 

Crossing 

Width 

(ft) 

State Water 

Quality 

Classification(a) USGS Quad 

S1BCK023 93.30 93.42 Unnamed Intermittent 2 A DeSoto S1BCK024 93.65 92.67 Unnamed Intermittent 3 A CarmichaeS1BCK025 93.67 93.74 Unnamed Perennial 5 A CarmichaeS1BCK026 93.88 93.90 Unnamed Perennial 11 A CarmichaeS1BCK027 93.99 94.00 Unnamed Intermittent 3 A CarmichaeS1BCK028 94.00 94.04 Unnamed Intermittent 3 A CarmichaeS1BCK029 94.35 94.36 Unnamed Intermittent 2 A Carmichae

S1CCK002 94.91 94.93 Unnamed Perennial 10 A CarmichaeS1CCK004 95.14 95.14 Unnamed Perennial 3 A CarmichaeS1CCK005 95.37 95.38 Unnamed Perennial 15 A CarmichaeS1DCK020 95.92 95.93 Unnamed Intermittent 6 A CarmichaeS1DCK021 95.96 95.97 Unnamed Intermittent 7 A CarmichaeS1DCK022 96.45 96.47 Unnamed Perennial 3 A Carmichae

S1BCK017 96.77 96.78 Unnamed Intermittent 3 A Carmichae

S1DCK001 98.61 98.61 Unnamed Intermittent 5 A CarmichaeS1DCK002 98.71 98.72 Unnamed Perennial 4 A CarmichaeS1DCK003 99.39 99.40 Unnamed Intermittent 6 A CarmichaeS1DCK004 99.85 99.85 Unnamed Intermittent 5 A CarmichaeS1DCK005 100.35 100.35 Unnamed Intermittent 1 A CarmichaeS1DCK006 100.44 100.47 Bucatunna Creek Perennial 30 A CarmichaeS1DCK007 100.65 100.67 Unnamed Intermittent 3 A CarmichaeS9DCK004 101.06 101.07 Unnamed Intermittent 4 A Sykes S9DCK003 101.15 101.16 Unnamed Intermittent 4 A Sykes S9DCK002 101.16 101.18 Unnamed Perennial 13 A Sykes S9DCK001 101.20 101.29 Unnamed Intermittent 3 A Sykes 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
D-13

APPENDIX D 

Waterbodies Crossed by the Proposed Southeast Expansion Project 

Feature 

Identification 

Begin 

Milepost 

End 

Milepost Waterbody Name 

Waterbody 

Type 

Crossing 

Width 

(ft) 

State Water 

Quality 

Classification(a) USGS Quad 

S1BCK037 102.01 102.02 Cedar Creek Tributary Intermittent 3 A Hinton 

S1CCK006 102.31 102.31 Unnamed Intermittent 3 A Hinton S1CCK007 102.83 102.85 Unnamed Intermittent 5 A Hinton S1CCK008 102.91 102.93 Unnamed Intermittent 10 A Hinton 

S1BCK016 103.74 103.75 Unnamed Intermittent 3 A Hinton 

Choctaw County, Alabama

S1BCW001 104.46 104.47 Unnamed Perennial 2 E Hinton S9ACW012 104.90 104.91 Unnamed Intermittent 2 E Hinton S1BCW002 105.35 105.35 Unnamed Perennial 15 E Hinton S9ACW013 105.45 105.47 Unnamed Perennial 1 E Hinton 

S1DCW002 105.46 105.47 Unnamed Intermittent 9 E Hinton S1DCW003 105.78 105.79 Unnamed Intermittent 9 E Hinton S1DCW004 106.17 106.21 Unnamed Intermittent 5 E Hinton S1DCW006 106.80 106.80 Unnamed Intermittent 4 E Hinton S1DCW005 107.34 107.37 Okatuppa Creek Perennial 30 E Hinton S1DCW008 108.00 108.00 Unnamed Intermittent 7 E Hinton S1DCW009 109.01 109.01 Unnamed Perennial 5 E Hinton S1DCW010 109.55 109.56 Unnamed Perennial 3 E Hinton S1DCW011 109.96 109.96 Unnamed Perennial 5 E Hinton S1DCW012 110.06 110.08 Unnamed Perennial 5 E Hinton S1DCW013 110.30 110.30 Unnamed Perennial 4 E Hinton 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
D-14

APPENDIX D 

Waterbodies Crossed by the Proposed Southeast Expansion Project 

Feature 

Identification 

Begin 

Milepost 

End 

Milepost Waterbody Name 

Waterbody 

Type 

Crossing 

Width 

(ft) 

State Water 

Quality 

Classification(a) USGS Quad 

ABOVEGROUND FACILITIES 

Feature ID Milepost Associated Facility Waterbody Name Waterbody Type Crossing Width (Feet) State Water Quality Classification(a) USGS Quad 

S9DRI001 N/A Delhi 

Compressor 

Station 

Unnamed Intermittent 2 H.I.J Delhi 

S1DSI017 N/A Harrisville 

Compressor 

Station 

Unnamed Intermittent N/A1 A,C Whites 

SF9ACK002 N/A Destin 

Compressor 

Station 

Unnamed Perennial N/A A Hale 

SF9ACK001 N/A Destin 

Compressor 

Station 

Unnamed Perennial N/A A Hale 

ACCESS ROADS 

Feature ID Milepost 

Associated 

Access Road 

ID 

Waterbody Name Waterbody Type Crossing Width (Feet) State Water Quality Classification(a) USGS Quad 

S1DSI016 0.62 AR1BSI004B Unnamed Pond 200 A,C Star 

S9BSM006 30.72 AR9BSM001 Unnamed Intermittent 6 A Raleigh S9BSM005 30.74 AR9BSM001 Unnamed Intermittent 8 A Raleigh S9BSM007 31.44 AR9BSM001 Unnamed Intermittent 4 A Raleigh S9BSM008 31.58 AR9BSM001 Unnamed Intermittent 2 A Raleigh S9BSM009 31.66 AR9BSM001 Unnamed Intermittent 10 A Raleigh 

S1BSM001AR 44.01 AR1BSM004 Leaf River Tributary Perennial 10 A Center 

Ridge 

S1BJS014 58.68 AR1BJS002 Tallahoma Creek 

Tributary 

Intermittent 6 A Lake Como 

S1BJS016 69.62 AR1BJS006A Bogue Homo Creek 

Tributary 

Perennial 10 A Waldrup 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
D-15

APPENDIX D 

Waterbodies Crossed by the Proposed Southeast Expansion Project 

Feature 

Identification 

Begin 

Milepost 

End 

Milepost Waterbody Name 

Waterbody 

Type 

Crossing 

Width 

(ft) 

State Water 

Quality 

Classification(a) USGS Quad 

S1DJS021 72.48 AR1DJS003 Unnamed Intermittent 6 A Heidelberg S1DJS022 72.63 AR1DJS003 Unnamed Intermittent 6 A Heidelberg 

S1BCK031 80.93 AR1BCK005 Luke Fluffer Creek Perennial 10 A Hale S1BCK032 81.41 AR1BCK005A Luke Fluffer Creek Perennial 20 A Hale 

ARS9ACK010 82.31 AR1BCK005B Unnamed Tributary to 

Shubuta Creek 

Perennial 15 A Hale 

S1BCK033 82.31 AR1BCK005B Luke Fluffer Creek Perennial 20 A Hale S1BCK035 83.05 AR1BCK006 Shubuta Creek Tributary Intermittent 10 A Hale S1BCK030 86.14 AR1BCK002 Watts Creek Perennial 10 A Desoto 

S1DCK024 86.89 AR1DCK001 Unnamed Intermittent 6 A Desoto 

S1DCW007 106.17 AR1DCW001 Unnamed Intermittent 3 E Hinton 

_______________ Notes: (a) State Water Quality Classifications according to the MDEQ and ADEM A In MS: Fish and Wildlife. In AL: Outstanding Alabama Water B In AL: Fish and Wildlife C In MS: Recreation. In AL: Swimming N/A Not Applicable * Pipeline centerline does not cross Feature. 1 Feature identified within proximity of aboveground facilities. 2 Feature existing along access roads with culverted stream crossings; no proposed changes or impacts to feature are anticipated. 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
APPENDIX E 

WETLAND CROSSINGS

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 E-1 

APPENDIX E

Wetlands Crossed by the Proposed Southeast Expansion Project 

Identifier County 

Begin 

Milepost 

End 

Milepost Type 

ATWS 

Impacts 

(acres) 

Permanent 

Impact 

(acres) 

Temporary 

Impacts 

(Acres) 

Crossing 

Method 

Simpson County 

W1CSI003 Simpson, 

MS 1.65 1.72 PFO 0.00 0.27 0.68 Open Cut 

W1DSI008R Simpson, 

MS 3.70 3.72 PFO 0.00 0.04 0.10 Open Cut 

W1BSI001 Simpson, 

MS 5.53 5.54 PEM 0.00 0.00 0.0 Work Space 

Only 

W1BSI005 Simpson, 

MS 6.91 6.93 PFO 0.02 0.03 0.06 Open Cut 

W1DSI06R Simpson, 

MS 7.49 7.51 PFO 0.00 0.07 0.16 Open Cut 

W1DSI005R Simpson, 

MS 7.52 7.58 PFO 0.00 0.15 0.36 Open Cut 

W1DSI004 Simpson, 

MS 8.26 8.29 PFO 0.00 0.06 0.14 Open Cut 

W1BSI025 Simpson, 

MS 10.11 10.18 PFO 0.23 0.28 0.70 Open Cut 

W1CSI002 Simpson, 

MS 10.19 10.43 PSS 0.45 0.00 2.38 Open Cut 

W9ASI001 Simpson, 

MS 10.46 10.47 PSS 0.00 0.00 0.01 Open Cut 

W9ASI001B Simpson, 

MS 10.47 10.48 PSS 0.00 0.00 0.01 Open Cut 

W1CSI001 Simpson, 

MS 11.46 11.49 PSS 0.00 0.00 0.02 Work Space 

Only 

W1CSI004 Simpson, 

MS 12.61 12.80 PFO/PEM/PSS 0.00 0.12 0.24 Open 

Cut/HDD3 

W1BSI026 Simpson, 

MS 13.02 13.44 PFO 0.32 1.50 3.67 Open Cut 

W9BSI003 Simpson, 

MS 15.48 15.87 PFO 0.55 1.39 3.43 Open Cut 

W9BSI001 Simpson, 

MS 15.94 15.96 PFO 0.00 0.00 0.00 HDD3

W9BSI002 Simpson, 

MS 15.96 15.96 PEM 0.00 0.00 0.00 HDD3

W1ASI003 Simpson, 

MS 16.25 16.26 PEM 0.00 0.00 0.03 Open Cut 

W1ASI004A Simpson, 

MS 16.45 16.49 PFO 0.00 0.09 0.21 Open Cut 

W1BSI008 Simpson, 

MS 17.48 17.49 PFO 0.00 0.01 0.03 Open Cut 

W1BSI007 Simpson, 

MS 17.49 17.50 PFO 0.00 0.02 0.05 Open Cut 

W1BSI009 Simpson, 

MS 17.53 17.54 PEM 0.00 0.00 0.06 Open Cut 

W1BSI0010 Simpson, 

MS 17.54 17.54 PFO 0.00 0.00 0.00* Work Space 

Only 

W1BSI0011 Simpson, 

MS 17.59 17.64 PFO 0.00 0.12 0.27 Open Cut 

W1BSI0012 Simpson, 

MS 17.67 17.68 PFO 0.00 0.02 0.06 Open Cut 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 E-2 

APPENDIX E

Wetlands Crossed by the Proposed Southeast Expansion Project 

Identifier County 

Begin 

Milepost 

End 

Milepost Type 

ATWS 

Impacts 

(acres) 

Permanent 

Impact 

(acres) 

Temporary 

Impacts 

(Acres) 

Crossing 

Method 

W1BSI013 Simpson, 

MS 17.77 17.82 PFO 0.00 0.11 0.18 Open Cut 

W1BSI014 Simpson, 

MS 18.00 18.01 PEM 0.00 0.00 0.00 HDD3 

W1DSI010 Simpson, 

MS 18.05 18.06 PEM 0.00 0.00 0.00 HDD3 

W1DSI011 Simpson, 

MS 18.10 18.11 PEM 0.00 0.00 0.00 HDD3 

W1BSI018 Simpson, 

MS 18.18 18.22 PFO 0.00 0.00 0.00 HDD3 

W1BSI019 Simpson, 

MS 18.23 18.32 PFO 0.00 0.00 0.00 HDD3 

W1BSI020 Simpson, 

MS 18.39 18.42 PFO 0.00 0.02 0.07 Open Cut/HDD3 

W1BSI022A Simpson, 

MS 18.99 19.50 PSS 0.00 0.00 4.49 Open Cut 

W1BSI023 Simpson, 

MS 19.54 19.56 PFO 0.00 0.07 0.18 Open Cut 

W1BSI024 Simpson, 

MS 19.59 19.61 PFO 0.00 0.05 0.13 Open Cut 

W1BSI027 Simpson, 

MS 21.00 21.03 PSS 0.00 0.00 0.04 Work Space 

Only 

W1DSI003 Simpson, 

MS 24.35 24.42 PSS 0.11 0.00 0.58 Open Cut 

W1DSI009 Simpson, 

MS 25.00 25.02 PFO 0.00 0.05 0.12 Open Cut 

W9ASI020 Simpson, 

MS 25.12 25.16 PFO 0.00 0.08 0.15 Open Cut 

W1ASI008 Simpson, 

MS 26.63 26.65 PSS 0.00 0.00 0.22 Open Cut 

W1ASI009 Simpson, 

MS 28.73 28.76 PEM 0.00 0.00 0.08 Open Cut 

W1ASM001 Simpson, 

MS 29.61 29.63 PEM 0.00 0.00 0.11 Open Cut 

Smith County 

W1BSM001 Smith, 

MS 30.72 30.74 PFO 0.00 0.03 0.07 Open Cut 

W1BSM002 Smith, 

MS 30.77 30.81 PSS 0.00 0.00 0.12 Open Cut 

W1ASM002 Smith, 

MS 33.30 33.32 PFO 0.00 0.07 0.16 Open Cut 

W1ASM003 Smith, 

MS 33.77 33.80 PFO 0.00 0.10 0.24 Open Cut 

W1CSM001 Smith, 

MS 34.18 35.07 PFO 0.80 3.19 7.00 Open Cut/

HDD3 

W1ASM004 Smith, 

MS 36.16 36.18 PFO 0.00 0.08 0.19 Open Cut 

W1DSM007 Smith, 

MS 36.55 36.73 PEM 0.00 0.00 0.81 Open Cut 

W1DSM008 Smith, 

MS 36.91 36.95 PFO 0.00 0.09 0.23 Open Cut 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 E-3 

APPENDIX E

Wetlands Crossed by the Proposed Southeast Expansion Project 

Identifier County 

Begin 

Milepost 

End 

Milepost Type 

ATWS 

Impacts 

(acres) 

Permanent 

Impact 

(acres) 

Temporary 

Impacts 

(Acres) 

Crossing 

Method 

W1CSM002 Smith, 

MS 38.06 38.07 PFO 0.00 0.01 0.02 Open Cut 

W1CSM003 Smith, 

MS 38.17 38.22 PFO 0.00 0.21 0.51 Open Cut 

W1DSM003 Smith, 

MS 39.48 39.50 PFO 0.00 0.04 0.13 Open Cut 

W9CSM004 Smith, 

MS 39.51 39.53 PSS 0.00 0.00 0.14 Open Cut 

W9CSM005 SMITH, 

MS 39.81 39.83 PFO 0.00 0.04 0.10 Open Cut 

W1DSM004 Smith, 

MS 40.63 40.64 PSS 0.00 0.00 0.07 Open Cut 

W1DSM005 Smith, 

MS 40.76 40.77 PSS 0.00 0.00 0.04 Open Cut 

W1DSM006 Smith, 

MS 41.05 41.08 PEM 0.00 0.00 0.13 Open Cut 

W9CSM003 Smith, 

MS 44.40 44.42 PSS 0.00 0.00 0.05 Open Cut 

W9CSM002 Smith, 

MS 44.63 44.76 PSS 0.00 0.00 0.15 Open Cut 

W9CSM001 Smith, 

MS 45.18 45.20 PSS 0.00 0.00 0.11 Open Cut 

W9BSM001 Smith, 

MS 45.93 46.06 PFO 0.00 0.49 1.22 Open Cut 

W1DSM010 Smith, 

MS 47.76 47.79 PFO 0.00 0.06 0.16 Open Cut 

W1DSM011 Smith, 

MS 48.32 48.35 PFO/PEM 0.00 0.07 0.18 Open Cut 

W1DSM012 Smith, 

MS 48.46 48.48 PSS 0.00 0.00 0.03 Work Space 

Only 

Jasper County 

W1AJS001 Jasper, 

MS 50.74 50.84 PFO 0.00 0.32 0.66 Open Cut 

W1DJS007R Jasper, 

MS 51.70 51.79 PFO 0.00 0.21 0.53 Open Cut 

W1DJS008R Jasper, 

MS 51.85 51.94 PFO 0.25 0.32 0.77 Open Cut 

W1AJS002 Jasper, 

MS 52.50 52.53 PFO 0.00 0.04 0.11 Open Cut 

W1AJS003 Jasper, 

MS 52.65 52.65 PSS 0.00 0.00 0.00* Work Space 

Only 

W1AJS004 Jasper, 

MS 54.18 54.19 PFO 0.00 0.02 0.04 Open Cut 

W1CJS001 Jasper, 

MS 55.13 55.16 PEM 0.00 0.00 0.12 Open Cut 

W1DJS010 Jasper, 

MS 55.69 55.73 PFO 0.91 2.48 5.42 Open Cut 

W1AJS005 Jasper, 

MS 59.69 59.73 PSS 0.02 0.00 0.07 Open Cut 

W1BJS001 Jasper, 

MS 60.53 60.65 PFO 0.22 0.07 0.20 Open Cut 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 E-4 

APPENDIX E

Wetlands Crossed by the Proposed Southeast Expansion Project 

Identifier County 

Begin 

Milepost 

End 

Milepost Type 

ATWS 

Impacts 

(acres) 

Permanent 

Impact 

(acres) 

Temporary 

Impacts 

(Acres) 

Crossing 

Method 

W1BJS002 Jasper, 

MS 60.92 60.95 PFO 0.00 0.04 0.08 Open Cut 

W1BJS003 Jasper, 

MS 61.11 61.16 PEM 0.00 0.00 0.21 Open Cut 

W1BJS004 Jasper, 

MS 62.09 62.13 PFO 0.00 0.08 0.19 Open Cut 

W1BJS005 Jasper, 

MS 64.71 64.73 PFO 0.00 0.05 0.14 Open Cut 

W1CJS001A Jasper, 

MS 65.39 65.45 PFO 0.00 0.16 0.42 Open Cut 

W1DJS009 Jasper, 

MS 65.74 65.91 PFO 0.46 0.52 1.32 Open Cut 

W1DJS005 Jasper, 

MS 66.32 66.97 PSS 1.06 0.00 5.92 Open Cut 

W1DJS006 Jasper, 

MS 67.23 67.29 PFO 0.00 0.19 0.48 Open Cut 

W1DJS002 Jasper, 

MS 70.10 70.21 PFO 0.00 0.37 0.89 Open Cut 

W1DJS003 Jasper, 

MS 70.57 70.66 PEM 0.35 0.00 0.71 Open Cut 

W1DJS004 Jasper, 

MS 70.95 71.00 PEM 0.00 0.00 0.40 Open Cut 

W1DJS001 Jasper, 

MS 73.00 73.08 PEM 0.00 0.00 0.63 Open Cut 

Clarke County 

W1DCK007 Clarke, 

MS 76.41 76.46 PFO 0.00 0.11 0.27 Open Cut 

W1DCK006 Clarke, 

MS 76.49 76.53 PFO 0.00 0.04 0.13 Open Cut 

W9ACK024 Clarke, 

MS 82.17 82.18 PEM 0.00 0.00 0.02 Open Cut 

W9ACK023 Clarke, 

MS 82.19 82.20 PEM 0.02 0.00 0.07 Open Cut 

W9ACK022 Clarke, 

MS 82.26 82.27 PSS 0.00 0.00 0.02 Work Space Only 

W9ACK021 Clarke, 

MS 82.32 82.33 PEM 0.00 0.00 0.03 Work Space Only 

W9ACK020 Clarke, 

MS 82.40 82.41 PEM 0.00 0.00 0.01 Work Space Only 

W9ACK018 Clarke, 

MS 82.44 82.52 PEM/PFO 0.00 0.10 0.22 Open Cut/HDD3

W9ACK017 Clarke, 

MS 82.53 82.57 PEM 0.00 0.00 0.00 HDD3

W9ACK015 Clarke, 

MS 82.78 82.79 PEM 0.00 0.00 0.00 HDD3

W9ACK014 Clarke, 

MS 82.86 82.88 PEM 0.00 0.00 0.06 Open Cut 

W9ACK013 Clarke, 

MS 82.89 82.90 PEM 0.00 0.00 0.03 Open Cut 

W9ACK012 Clarke, 

MS 83.03 83.04 PEM/POW 0.00 0.00 0.15 Open Cut 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 E-5 

APPENDIX E

Wetlands Crossed by the Proposed Southeast Expansion Project 

Identifier County 

Begin 

Milepost 

End 

Milepost Type 

ATWS 

Impacts 

(acres) 

Permanent 

Impact 

(acres) 

Temporary 

Impacts 

(Acres) 

Crossing 

Method 

W9ACK011 Clarke, 

MS 83.06 83.08 PEM 0.00 0.00 0.16 Open Cut 

W9ACK010 Clarke, 

MS 83.22 83.24 PFO 0.00 0.06 0.13 Open Cut 

W1DCK010 Clarke, 

MS 83.34 83.35 PEM 0.00 0.00 0.07 Open Cut 

W1DCK011 Clarke, 

MS 83.36 83.37 PEM 0.01 0.00 0.01 Work Space 

Only 

W1BCK015 Clarke, 

MS 83.92 83.95 PFO 0.00 0.10 0.25 Open Cut 

W1BCK002 Clarke, 

MS 85.62 85.63 PEM 0.00 0.00 0.03 Open Cut 

W1BCK003 Clarke, 

MS 86.86 86.93 PEM 0.00 0.00 0.44 Open Cut 

W9ACK020A Clarke, 

MS 87.93 87.93 PSS 0.00 0.00 0.00 HDD3

W9ACK022A Clarke, 

MS 88.29 88.30 PFO 0.00 0.04 0.09 Open Cut 

W9BCK001 Clarke, 

MS 88.31 88.37 PFO 0.00 0.19 0.46 Open Cut 

W1DCK008R Clarke, 

MS 88.93 89.96 PFO 0.28 0.00 0.00 Work Space 

Only 

W9BCK002 Clarke, 

MS 89.39 89.40 PSS 0.00 0.00 0.00 HDD3

W1BCK009 Clarke, 

MS 91.61 91.68 PFO 0.00 0.21 0.44 Open Cut 

W1BCK010 Clarke, 

MS 92.10 92.13 PFO 0.00 0.06 0.11 Open Cut 

W1BCK011 Clarke, 

MS 92.25 92.26 PFO 0.00 0.02 0.04 Open Cut 

W1BCK012 Clarke, 

MS 93.41 93.55 PSS 0.00 0.00 1.21 Open Cut 

W1BCK013 Clarke, 

MS 93.64 93.66 PSS 0.00 0.00 0.07 Work Space 

Only 

W1CCK001 Clarke, 

MS 95.36 95.39 PSS 0.00 0.00 0.23 Open Cut 

W1BCK006 Clarke, 

MS 96.96 97.01 PFO 0.00 0.18 0.43 Open Cut 

W1BCK007 Clarke, 

MS 97.11 97.13 PFO 0.00 0.03 0.08 Open Cut 

W1BCK008 Clarke, 

MS 97.64 97.72 PFO 0.00 0.26 0.62 Open Cut 

W1DCK001-A Clarke, 

MS 98.20 98.24 PSS 0.00 0.00 0.12 Open Cut 

W1DCK001-B Clarke, 

MS 98.62 98.62 PSS 0.00 0.00 0.00* Work Space 

Only 

W1DCK001-C Clarke, 

MS 99.84 100.44 PSS 0.62 0.00 5.11 Open 

Cut/HDD3 

W9DCK001 Clarke, 

MS 101.03 101.31 PFO 0.00 0.99 2.55 Open Cut 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 E-6 

APPENDIX E

Wetlands Crossed by the Proposed Southeast Expansion Project 

Identifier County 

Begin 

Milepost 

End 

Milepost Type 

ATWS 

Impacts 

(acres) 

Permanent 

Impact 

(acres) 

Temporary 

Impacts 

(Acres) 

Crossing 

Method 

W1BCK016 Clarke, 

MS 101.61 101.64 PFO 0.00 0.05 0.14 Open Cut 

W1BCK017 Clarke, 

MS 101.92 101.95 PFO 0.00 0.07 0.19 Open Cut 

W1CCK002 Clarke, 

MS 102.79 102.91 PEM/PFO 0.14 0.42 1.05 Open Cut 

W1DCK003 Clarke, 

MS 103.44 103.51 PSS 0.00 0.00 0.40 Open Cut 

W1BCK004 Clarke, 

MS 103.95 103.97 PEM 0.00 0.00 0.13 Open Cut 

W1BCK005 Clarke, 

MS 104.10 104.13 PEM 0.00 0.00 0.14 Open Cut 

Choctaw County 

W1BCW001 Clarke, 

MS 104.33 104.34 PEM 0.00 0.00 0.03 Work Space Only 

W1BCW002 Choctaw, 

AL 104.78 104.79 PEM 0.00 0.00 0.05 Open Cut 

W9ACW010 Choctaw, 

AL 104.79 104.79 PEM 0.00 0.00 0.06 Open Cut 

W1BCW003 Choctaw, 

AL 104.89 104.99 PEM 0.00 0.00 0.29 Open Cut 

W1BCW004 Choctaw, 

AL 105.33 105.38 PSS 0.00 0.00 0.11 Open Cut 

W1DCW003 Choctaw, 

AL 106.56 106.60 PEM 0.00 0.00 0.13 Open Cut 

W1DCW002 Choctaw, 

AL 107.31 107.34 PFO 0.00 0.00 0.00 HDD3

W1DCW005 Choctaw, 

AL 109.00 109.02 PSS 0.00 0.00 0.06 Open Cut 

W1DCW006 Choctaw, 

AL 109.04 109.09 PSS 0.00 0.00 0.17 Open Cut 

W1DCW007 Choctaw, 

AL 109.23 109.26 PEM/PSS 0.00 0.00 0.22 Open Cut 

W1DCW008 Choctaw, 

AL 109.54 109.57 PFO 0.00 0.09 0.22 Open Cut 

W1DCW009 Choctaw, 

AL 109.68 109.74 PFO 0.00 0.17 0.45 Open Cut 

W1DCW010 Choctaw, 

AL 110.04 110.09 PSS 0.00 0.00 0.18 Open Cut 

W1DCW011 Choctaw, 

AL 110.23 110.31 PEM/PFO 0.00 0.23 0.55 Open Cut 

W1DCW012 Choctaw, 

AL 110.35 110.47 PSS 0.00 0.00 0.52 Open Cut 

Grand Total 6.82 17.32 68.94 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
 E-7 

APPENDIX E

Wetlands Crossed by the Proposed Southeast Expansion Project

ACCESS ROADS 

Milepost 

Associated 

Access Road 

ID 

Wetland ID NWI 

Classification 

USGS 

Quad 

Crossing 

Length 

Permanent 

Acreage 

Temporary 

Acreage 

Crossing 

Method 

12.9 AR1BSI006A W1BSI0264 PFO Braxton N/A 0.00 0.00 N/A 

18.3 AR1DSI001 W1BSI0194 PFO Puckett N/A 0.00 0.00 N/A 

43.9 AR1BSM004 W1BSM001A PEM Center 

Ridge N/A 0.00 0.00 N/A 

76.93 AR1BCK001 W1BCK014A PFO Heidelberg N/A 0.00 0.00 N/A 

82.2 AR1BCK005B W1BCK0014 PFO Hale N/A 0.00 0.00 N/A 

86.8 AR1DCK001 W1DCK0124 PEM Desoto N/A 0.00 0.00 N/A 

Total for Access Roads: N/A 0.00 0.00 

_______________ 

1 Impact calculations are based on a 30-foot-wide ROW that will be operationally maintained through forested wetlands, converting to scrubshrub or emergent wetland. 

 Scrub-shrub and emergent wetlands will be allowed to naturally revegetate. 

2 Temporary ROW calculations are based on a 75-foot construction ROW and acreages of additional temporary workspace. 

3 Impacts to vegetation and wetland functions are 0 because the HDD construction impacts will result in no surface impacts. 

4 Feature crosses both the centerline and aboveground facilities or access roads; acreages have been split between respective project areas. 

*Wetland impacts are less than 0.001 acre and per rounding resulted in zero impacts in the table 

PEM = Palustrine emergent 

PSS = Palustrine scrub-shrub 

PFO = Palustrine forested 

POW = Palustrine open water 

N/A = Not Applicable 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
APPENDIX F 

EXTENSIVE FORESTED TRACTS ALONG THE 

PROPOSED SOUTHEAST EXPANSION PROJECT

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
F-1 

APPENDIX F

Extensive Forested Tracts Along the Proposed 

Southeast Expansion Project 

County/Parish Begin MP End MP Acres 

Simpson 0.00 0.31 7.22 

Simpson 1.25 1.64 5.90 

Simpson 1.72 1.93 3.73 

Simpson 1.94 2.01 0.82 

Simpson 2.24 2.29 1.16 

Simpson 2.90 3.15 3.20 

Simpson 3.52 3.70 3.07 

Simpson 3.71 5.55 33.12 

Simpson 5.57 6.59 18.11 

Simpson 6.81 6.92 2.01 

Simpson 7.72 8.05 5.69 

Simpson 8.10 8.11 0.19 

Simpson 8.22 8.52 4.63 

Simpson 8.61 8.73 2.25 

Simpson 8.74 8.98 4.78 

Simpson 9.19 9.44 3.31 

Simpson 9.78 9.82 0.45 

Simpson 9.93 10.12 2.29 

Simpson 10.71 10.78 0.75 

Simpson 10.83 11.04 2.47 

Simpson 11.08 11.36 3.96 

Simpson 11.59 11.92 4.17 

Simpson 11.93 11.98 0.87 

Simpson 12.17 12.53 3.90 

Simpson 12.79 13.02 4.67 

Simpson 13.44 13.62 2.65 

Simpson 14.06 14.80 11.57 

Simpson 14.96 15.27 3.33 

Simpson 15.44 15.57 1.99 

Simpson 15.71 15.97 3.70 

Simpson 16.00 16.21 1.53 

Simpson 16.21 16.42 4.28 

Simpson 16.44 16.56 1.88 

Simpson 16.90 16.96 0.75 

Simpson 17.14 17.21 1.43 

Simpson 17.28 17.33 0.77 

Simpson 17.50 17.53 0.72 

Simpson 17.53 17.59 0.93 

Simpson 17.63 17.68 0.83 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
F-2 

APPENDIX F

Extensive Forested Tracts Along the Proposed 

Southeast Expansion Project 

County/Parish Begin MP End MP Acres 

Simpson 17.68 17.82 1.68 

Simpson 17.98 18.05 0.50 

Simpson 18.06 18.10 0.26 

Simpson 18.11 18.19 0.53 

Simpson 18.23 18.23 0.05 

Simpson 18.49 18.83 6.28 

Simpson 19.87 19.91 0.73 

Simpson 20.35 20.51 3.16 

Simpson 20.76 21.53 15.16 

Simpson 21.63 21.72 1.47 

Simpson 22.09 22.14 0.93 

Simpson 22.64 23.21 10.37 

Simpson 23.30 23.35 0.89 

Simpson 23.53 24.31 10.30 

Simpson 24.64 24.78 2.45 

Simpson 24.82 25.00 2.05 

Simpson 25.01 25.77 9.52 

Simpson 25.82 25.84 0.24 

Simpson 26.24 26.33 0.78 

Simpson 26.65 27.23 8.30 

Simpson 29.03 29.28 5.28 

Simpson 29.30 29.36 0.98 

Smith 29.36 29.38 0.27 

Smith 29.62 29.75 1.85 

Smith 29.88 29.94 0.75 

Smith 30.16 30.24 1.13 

Smith 31.02 31.11 1.57 

Smith 31.19 31.22 0.48 

Smith 32.61 32.68 0.97 

Smith 32.96 33.30 5.96 

Smith 33.32 33.32 0.00 

Smith 34.11 34.19 0.53 

Smith 35.06 35.17 1.76 

Smith 35.30 35.34 0.56 

Smith 35.74 36.16 5.53 

Smith 36.18 36.31 2.34 

Smith 36.42 36.63 3.05 

Smith 36.72 36.91 2.83 

Smith 36.94 36.98 0.54 

Smith 37.17 37.31 2.05 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
F-3 

APPENDIX F

Extensive Forested Tracts Along the Proposed 

Southeast Expansion Project 

County/Parish Begin MP End MP Acres 

Smith 37.97 38.07 1.12 

Smith 38.14 38.18 0.74 

Smith 38.23 38.32 1.48 

Smith 38.60 39.48 11.67 

Smith 39.49 40.63 14.67 

Smith 41.97 42.04 0.88 

Smith 42.13 42.43 4.95 

Smith 42.45 42.58 2.07 

Smith 43.58 44.16 7.37 

Smith 44.17 44.34 1.77 

Smith 45.08 45.10 0.27 

Smith 45.13 45.30 2.08 

Smith 45.31 45.35 0.32 

Smith 45.51 45.65 2.34 

Smith 45.68 45.72 0.55 

Smith 45.87 45.87 0.04 

Smith 45.98 46.19 3.47 

Smith 46.21 46.55 5.35 

Smith 46.69 46.98 3.49 

Smith 47.08 47.76 9.57 

Smith 47.78 48.32 6.57 

Smith 48.35 49.01 7.89 

Smith 49.43 49.52 1.59 

Jasper 49.84 49.87 0.37 

Jasper 50.04 50.13 1.52 

Jasper 50.49 50.62 1.53 

Jasper 51.10 51.25 1.84 

Jasper 51.28 51.54 4.35 

Jasper 51.56 51.72 3.45 

Jasper 51.78 51.85 1.13 

Jasper 51.94 52.55 7.36 

Jasper 52.81 52.85 0.52 

Jasper 53.00 53.03 0.39 

Jasper 53.08 53.39 3.99 

Jasper 53.44 53.60 2.27 

Jasper 53.83 53.90 1.21 

Jasper 54.14 54.39 4.77 

Jasper 54.40 54.93 7.56 

Jasper 54.98 54.98 0.05 

Jasper 55.40 55.68 4.31 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
F-4 

APPENDIX F

Extensive Forested Tracts Along the Proposed 

Southeast Expansion Project 

County/Parish Begin MP End MP Acres 

Jasper 55.74 56.41 8.07 

Jasper 57.41 58.35 12.46 

Jasper 61.43 62.10 9.64 

Jasper 62.13 62.82 9.83 

Jasper 62.90 63.50 9.63 

Jasper 64.03 64.72 8.78 

Jasper 64.73 64.95 3.07 

Jasper 65.52 65.62 1.64 

Jasper 65.63 65.76 1.64 

Jasper 65.91 66.25 5.15 

Jasper 66.97 67.23 3.57 

Jasper 67.28 67.45 2.86 

Jasper 67.78 68.77 13.67 

Jasper 68.78 69.04 3.52 

Jasper 69.32 69.38 0.39 

Jasper 69.46 70.10 6.77 

Jasper 70.20 70.40 3.22 

Jasper 70.42 70.43 0.15 

Jasper 70.44 70.51 1.14 

Jasper 70.67 70.75 1.27 

Jasper 71.77 72.07 4.88 

Jasper 72.07 72.41 4.89 

Jasper 72.44 73.00 7.95 

Jasper 73.30 73.44 1.73 

Jasper 73.48 73.54 1.05 

Jasper 73.66 73.76 1.32 

Jasper 74.16 74.38 2.94 

Jasper 74.47 74.74 3.73 

Jasper 74.77 74.86 1.72 

Jasper 75.00 75.09 1.47 

Jasper 75.18 75.38 3.29 

Jasper 75.39 75.54 3.36 

Clarke 75.54 75.61 1.32 

Clarke 75.73 76.03 4.14 

Clarke 76.04 76.30 5.26 

Clarke 76.45 76.92 5.44 

Clarke 76.94 77.02 1.90 

Clarke 77.05 77.31 5.49 

Clarke 77.32 77.33 0.35 

Clarke 77.65 77.88 4.59 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
F-5 

APPENDIX F

Extensive Forested Tracts Along the Proposed 

Southeast Expansion Project 

County/Parish Begin MP End MP Acres 

Clarke 77.89 78.26 6.15 

Clarke 78.86 79.00 1.81 

Clarke 82.98 83.15 2.76 

Clarke 83.79 83.92 2.54 

Clarke 83.95 84.24 4.89 

Clarke 84.28 84.35 0.93 

Clarke 84.59 84.78 2.93 

Clarke 86.02 86.23 2.75 

Clarke 86.31 86.47 2.30 

Clarke 87.62 87.82 3.68 

Clarke 88.10 88.20 1.54 

Clarke 88.22 88.35 2.50 

Clarke 88.43 88.46 0.99 

Clarke 88.78 88.92 1.83 

Clarke 88.98 89.04 0.88 

Clarke 89.80 90.01 3.28 

Clarke 90.57 90.64 0.83 

Clarke 91.07 91.19 1.97 

Clarke 91.60 91.62 0.24 

Clarke 91.67 91.75 1.23 

Clarke 93.01 93.31 3.69 

Clarke 93.54 94.08 9.50 

Clarke 95.21 95.34 1.76 

Clarke 95.36 95.67 5.32 

Clarke 97.01 97.04 0.50 

Clarke 98.71 98.81 1.97 

Clarke 99.23 99.39 3.60 

Clarke 100.46 100.62 1.23 

Clarke 100.65 100.66 0.84 

Clarke 101.07 101.21 2.52 

Clarke 101.47 101.55 1.48 

Clarke 101.56 101.61 0.68 

Clarke 101.62 101.70 1.39 

Clarke 101.81 101.92 1.88 

Clarke 101.94 102.01 1.13 

Clarke 102.91 102.92 0.09 

Clarke 102.93 103.08 2.47 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
APPENDIX G 

Appendix G-1 Extra Workspace Areas for the Proposed Southeast Expansion Project 

Appendix G-2 New and Modified Access Roads for the Proposed Southeast Expansion 

Project 

Appendix G-3 Existing Road Crossings for the Proposed Southeast Expansion Project 

Appendix G-4 Pipe Storage and Contractor Yards for the Proposed Southeast Expansion 

Project 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
G1-1

TABLE G-1 

Extra Workspace Areas for the Proposed Southeast Expansion Project 

MP 

Location/Reason for 

ATWS Ownership Width Length Acres Reason for ATW

Simpson County, Mississippi 

0.1 Side Hill Slope Private 50 680 0.78 Potential Cut and Fill Situation to Accommoda0.5 Dirt Road Private 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 0.6 Stream 1 State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 0.7 Stream 1 State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 0.8 Twin Lakes Road Simpson 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 0.8 Twin Lakes Road Simpson 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 0.9 Side Hill Slope Private 45 885 0.91 Potential Cut and Fill Situation to Accommoda1.3 Highway 469 State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 1.6 Stream 2 State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 1.8 Stream 3 State 50 150 0.17 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 1.9 Foreign Pipeline Private 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage of Excess Soil to Accommodate 1.9 Foreign Pipeline Private 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage of Excess Soil to Accommodate 2.2 Limestone Creek Private 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 2.3 Limestone Creek Private 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 2.5 Rexford Road Simpson 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 2.5 Rexford Road Simpson 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 2.9 Creek State 50 250 0.29 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 3.2 Side Hill Slope Private 50 1,710 1.96 Potential Cut and Fill Situation to Accommoda3.5 Side Hill Slope Private 50 1,020 1.17 Potential Cut and Fill Situation to Accommoda3.6 Rexford Road Simpson 50 90 0.10 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 3.6 Rexford Road Simpson 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 3.8 Ditch State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 3.8 Ditch State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 3.9 Field Road Private 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 4.0 Side Hill Slope Simpson 45 230 0.24 Potential Cut and Fill Situation to Accommoda4.0 Ditch State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 4.1 Side Hill Slope Private 45 135 0.14 Potential Cut and Fill Situation to Accommoda4.1 Ditch State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 4.1 Side Hill Slope Private 45 290 0.30 Potential Cut and Fill Situation to Accommoda4.2 Ditch State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 4.2 Side Hill Slope Private 45 55 0.06 Potential Cut and Fill Situation to Accommoda4.2 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
G1-2

TABLE G-1 

Extra Workspace Areas for the Proposed Southeast Expansion Project 

MP 

Location/Reason for 

ATWS Ownership Width Length Acres Reason for ATW

4.3 Side Hill Slope Private 45 220 0.23 Potential Cut and Fill Situation to Accommoda4.3 Ditch State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 4.3 Side Hill Slope Private 45 90 0.09 Potential Cut and Fill Situation to Accommoda4.4 Ditch State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 4.6 Side Hill Slope Private 45 2,350 2.43 Potential Cut and Fill Situation to Accommoda4.8 Braswell Road Simpson 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 4.9 Braswell Road Simpson 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 5.1 Stream 4 State 45 200 0.21 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 5.1 Stream 4 State 50 170 0.20 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 5.2 Stream 5 State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 5.5 Big Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 5.5 Star Braxton Simpson 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 5.6 Star Braxton Simpson 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 5.6 Foreign Pipeline Private 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage of Excess Soil to Accommodate 5.8 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 5.9 Creek State 50 260 0.30 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 6.1 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 6.1 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 6.3 Stream 6 State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 6.3 Side Hill Slope Private 45 135 0.14 Potential Cut and Fill Situation to Accommoda6.4 Side Hill Slope Private 45 1,158 1.20 Potential Cut and Fill Situation to Accommoda6.6 Boggs Road Simpson 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 6.6 Boggs Road Simpson 50 100 0.11 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 6.7 Side Hill Slope Private 50 200 0.23 Potential Cut and Fill Situation to Accommoda6.8 Side Hill Slope Private 45 1,090 1.13 Potential Cut and Fill Situation to Accommoda6.8 Stream 7 State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 6.9 Stream 7 State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 7.1 Stream 8 State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 7.2 Stream 8 State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 7.4 Wetland Crossing Private 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Wetland Crossing 7.6 Wetland Crossing Private 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Wetland Crossing 7.7 Johnson Road Simpson 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 7.7 Johnson Road Simpson 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 7.9 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 8.0 Creek State 50 150 0.17 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
G1-3

TABLE G-1 

Extra Workspace Areas for the Proposed Southeast Expansion Project 

MP 

Location/Reason for 

ATWS Ownership Width Length Acres Reason for ATW

8.0 Holly Grove Road Simpson 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 8.1 Holly Grove Road Simpson 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 8.3 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 8.4 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 8.5 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 8.7 Side Hill Slope Private 50 1,470 1.69 Potential Cut and Fill Situation to Accommoda8.8 Bynum Road Simpson 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 8.9 Bynum Road Simpson 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 9.1 Thomas Road Simpson 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 9.2 Thomas Road Simpson 50 155 0.18 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 9.2 Harrisville Braxton Road Simpson 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 9.5 Field Road Private 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 

10.1 Wetland Crossing Private 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Wetland Crossing 10.2 Ash Road Simpson 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 10.2 Ash Road Simpson 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 10.4 Sanders Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 10.5 Sanders Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 10.6 Illinois Central RR Private 50 300 0.34 Ditch Spoil Storage for Bore Pit 11.4 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 11.4 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 11.6 Gum Springs Road Simpson 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 11.6 Gum Springs Road Simpson 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 11.9 Highway 149 State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 12.0 Highway 149 State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 12.2 Sawmill Road Simpson 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 12.2 Sawmill Road Simpson 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 12.3 HDD Highway 49 US 100 200 0.46 HDD Hwy 49 and Dabbs Creek 12.8 HDD Highway 49 US 95 410 0.89 HDD Hwy 49 and Dabbs Creek 13.0 Foreign Pipe Private 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Pipe Crossing 13.1 Foreign Pipe Private 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Pipe Crossing 13.5 Wetland Crossing Private 50 400 0.46 Spoil Storage for Wetland Crossing Excavatio13.6 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 13.6 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 13.8 Ditch State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 14.0 St. Johns Road Simpson 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
G1-4

TABLE G-1 

Extra Workspace Areas for the Proposed Southeast Expansion Project 

MP 

Location/Reason for 

ATWS Ownership Width Length Acres Reason for ATW

14.1 St. Johns Road Simpson 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 14.3 Indian Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 14.3 Indian Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 14.6 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 14.6 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 14.8 Cato Road Simpson 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 14.8 Cato Road Simpson 50 190 0.22 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 15.0 Ditch State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 15.3 Foreign Pipeline Simpson 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage of Excess Soil to Accommodate 15.5 Stream 8 State 50 400 0.46 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 15.8 HDD Campbells Creek Private 120 200 0.55 HDD Campbells Creek and Campbells Creek 16.2 HDD Campbells Creek Private 100 200 0.46 HDD Campbells Creek and Campbells Creek 16.2 Field Road Private 50 160 0.18 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 16.3 Field Road Private 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 16.4 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 16.5 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 17.2 Stream 9 State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 17.2 Stream 9 State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 17.5 Strong River Road Simpson 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 17.5 Wetland Crossing Private 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 17.7 Wetland Crossing Private 50 100 0 Spoil Storage and 5 Crossing Excavation 17.7 Wetland Crossing Private 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Wetland Crossing Excavatio17.9 HDD Strong River Private 95 200 0.44 HDD Strong River and Highway #13 18.3 HDD Strong River Private 100 200 0.46 HDD Strong River and Highway #13 18.4 Wetland Crossing Private 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Wetland Crossing 18.6 Stream 11 State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 18.6 Stream 11 State 50 300 0.34 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 18.7 Stream 12 State 50 270 0.31 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 18.8 Field Road Private 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 18.9 Wetland Crossing Private 50 400 0.46 Spoil Storage and Wetland Crossing Excavatio19.5 Foreign Pipeline Private 50 170 0.20 Spoil Storage of Excess Soil to Accommodate 19.7 Ponder Mason Road Simpson 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 19.7 Ponder Mason Road Simpson 45 200 0.21 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 19.8 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 19.9 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
G1-5

TABLE G-1 

Extra Workspace Areas for the Proposed Southeast Expansion Project 

MP 

Location/Reason for 

ATWS Ownership Width Length Acres Reason for ATW

20.3 Side Hill Slope Private 45 890 0.92 Potential Cut and Fill Situation to Accommoda20.4 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 20.5 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 20.5 Side Hill Slope Private 45 120 0.12 Potential Cut and Fill Situation to Accommoda20.6 Everett Church Road Simpson 50 300 0.34 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 20.6 Everett Church Road Simpson 50 100 0.11 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 20.7 Field Road Private 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 20.8 Side Hill Slope Private 50 2,010 2.31 Potential Cut and Fill Situation to Accommoda20.9 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 21.1 Creek State 50 330 0.38 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 21.2 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 21.3 Side Hill Slope Private 50 875 1.00 Potential Cut and Fill Situation to Accommoda21.4 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 21.5 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 21.5 Side Hill Slope Private 50 30 0.03 Potential Cut and Fill Situation to Accommoda21.6 Shows Road Simpson 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 21.6 Shows Road Simpson 50 350 0.40 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 21.7 Crooked Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 21.8 Jones Layton Road Simpson 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 21.8 Jones Layton Road Simpson 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 21.9 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 22.0 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 22.1 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 22.1 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 22.4 Layton Jones Road Simpson 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 22.4 Layton Jones Road Simpson 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 22.5 Side Hill Slope Private 45 1,180 1.22 Potential Cut and Fill Situation to Accommoda22.6 Denbury Resources Road Private 50 130 0.15 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 22.7 Side Hill Slope Private 45 220 0.23 Potential Cut and Fill Situation to Accommoda22.8 Side Hill Slope Private 45 1,360 1.40 Potential Cut and Fill Situation to Accommoda23.0 Layton Jones Drive Simpson 50 330 0.38 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 23.2 Creek Simpson 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 23.4 St. Hwy 541 Simpson 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 23.5 St. Hwy 541 Simpson 50 415 0.48 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 23.5 Paved Drive Way Private 50 75 0.09 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
G1-6

TABLE G-1 

Extra Workspace Areas for the Proposed Southeast Expansion Project 

MP 

Location/Reason for 

ATWS Ownership Width Length Acres Reason for ATW

23.9 Foreign Pipeline Private 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage of Excess Soil to Accommodate 24.4 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 24.4 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 24.5 Field Road Private 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 24.6 Field Road Private 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 24.6 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 24.7 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 24.8 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 25.0 Wetland Crossing Simpson 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Wetland Crossing 25.2 Dr Magee Road Simpson 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 25.2 Dr Magee Road Simpson 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 25.8 Rocky Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 25.8 Rocky Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 26.3 Cole Road Simpson 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 26.3 Cole Road Simpson 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 26.5 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 26.5 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 26.6 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 26.6 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 27.1 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 27.1 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 27.8 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 27.8 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 27.9 Sixteen Section Road Simpson 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 28.0 Sixteen Section Road Simpson 25 200 0.11 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 28.0 Ag. Area Private 25 480 0.28 Area Needed to Avoid Concerns 28.1 Creek State 25 200 0.11 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 28.1 St. Hwy 540 Simpson 50 158 0.18 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 28.2 St. Hwy 540 Simpson 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 28.7 Wetland Crossing Simpson 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Wetland Crossing 29.0 Dry Creek Rd. Simpson 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 29.0 Dry Creek Rd. Simpson 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 29.2 Creek State 50 260 0.30 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 29.2 Ditch State 50 225 0.26 Spoil Storage and Ditch Crossing Excavation 29.2 Ditch State 50 315 0.36 Spoil Storage and Ditch Crossing Excavation 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
G1-7

TABLE G-1 

Extra Workspace Areas for the Proposed Southeast Expansion Project 

MP 

Location/Reason for 

ATWS Ownership Width Length Acres Reason for ATW

29.3 Martin Road Simpson 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 29.5 Side Hill Slope Simpson 50 1,010 1.16 Potential Cut and Fill Situation to Accommoda29.6 Creek Simpson 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Creek Crossing 

Simpson County ATWS Subtotal 66.31 

Smith County, Mississippi 

30.0 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 30.1 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 30.3 CR 503 Smith 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 30.3 CR 503 Smith 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 30.4 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 30.4 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 30.5 Foreign Pipeline Private 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage of Excess Soil to Accommodate 30.7 Creek State 50 305 0.35 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 30.9 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 31.0 Field Road Private 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 31.0 Field Road Private 50 110 0.13 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 31.1 Creek State 50 60 0.07 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 31.1 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 31.2 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 31.2 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 31.4 Private Road Private 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 31.4 Private Road Private 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 31.8 Georgia Pacific Land Road Private 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 31.8 Georgia Pacific Land Road Private 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 32.5 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 32.7 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 32.8 Green Grass Private 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 32.8 Green Grass Private 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 33.0 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 33.1 Creek State 50 385 0.44 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 33.2 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 33.2 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 33.3 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 33.5 Field Road Private 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 33.5 Field Road Private 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
G1-8

TABLE G-1 

Extra Workspace Areas for the Proposed Southeast Expansion Project 

MP 

Location/Reason for 

ATWS Ownership Width Length Acres Reason for ATW

33.7 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 33.8 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 34.1 HDD Oakohay Creek Private 100 200 0.46 HDD Oakohay Creek and Beaver Creek 34.8 HDD Oakohay Creek Private 120 300 0.83 HDD Oakohay Creek and Beaver Creek 35.1 Wetland Crossing Smith 50 320 0.37 Spoil Storage for Wetland HDD Crossing 35.2 CR 121 (Shopping Center) Smith 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 35.2 CR 121 (Shopping Center) Smith 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 36.1 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 36.2 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 36.2 CR 77/CR77-3 Smith 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 36.3 CR 77/CR77-3 Smith 25 200 0.11 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 36.3 Ag Area Private 25 500 0.30 Area Needed to Avoid Concerns 36.5 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 36.8 Ely Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 36.9 Wetland Crossing Private 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 37.3 St. Hwy 35 State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 37.3 St. Hwy 35 State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 37.7 CR 35-6 Smith 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 37.7 CR 35-6 Smith 25 200 0.11 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 37.8 Ag Area Private 25 1,140 0.65 Area Needed to Avoid Concerns 38.1 Wetland Crossing Private 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Wetland Crossing Excavatio38.1 Fisher Creek State 50 290 0.33 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 38.3 Fisher Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 38.6 St. Hwy 37 State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 38.6 St. Hwy 37 State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 38.7 Hot Bend Private 50 200 0.23 Work Area Necessary to Accommodate Pipeli38.9 Hot Bend Private 50 200 0.23 Work Area Necessary to Accommodate Pipeli39.1 Creek State 50 150 0.17 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 39.1 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 39.1 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 39.4 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 39.5 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 39.8 Beaver Dam Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 39.9 Beaver Dam Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 40.0 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
G1-9

TABLE G-1 

Extra Workspace Areas for the Proposed Southeast Expansion Project 

MP 

Location/Reason for 

ATWS Ownership Width Length Acres Reason for ATW

40.1 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 40.1 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 40.2 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 40.5 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 40.6 Creek State 50 180 0.21 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 40.7 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 40.9 Field Rd. Private 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 40.9 Field Rd. Private 50 190 0.22 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 41.0 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 41.3 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 41.3 Creek State 50 325 0.37 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 41.4 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 41.6 CR 93 Smith 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 41.6 CR 93 Smith 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 42.2 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 42.2 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 42.3 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 42.4 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 42.6 CR 84 Smith 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 42.6 CR 84 Smith 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 42.8 CR 19 Smith 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 42.8 CR 19 Smith 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 43.0 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 43.2 Ditch State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 43.5 Ditch State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 44.0 Field Road and Hot Bend Private 50 320 0.37 Work Area Necessary to Accommodate Pipeli44.1 HDD Leaf River Private 100 300 0.69 HDD Leaf River 44.4 HDD Leaf River Private 100 300 0.69 HDD Leaf River 44.6 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 44.8 Wetland Crossing Private 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Wetland Crossing Excavatio44.9 Foreign Pipeline Private 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage of Excess Soil to Accommodate 44.9 Foreign Pipeline Private 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage of Excess Soil to Accommodate 45.0 Pipeline Corridor and Road Private 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 45.1 Pipeline Corridor and Road Private 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 45.2 HDD Tallahala Creek Private 100 200 0.46 HDD Tallahala Creek 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
G1-10

TABLE G-1 

Extra Workspace Areas for the Proposed Southeast Expansion Project 

MP 

Location/Reason for 

ATWS Ownership Width Length Acres Reason for ATW

45.5 HDD Tallahala Creek Private 100 200 0.46 HDD Tallahala Creek 45.5 HDD Tallahala Creek Private 70 150 0.24 HDD Tallahala Creek and Foreign Pipeline Cr45.6 CR 99 Smith 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 45.7 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Creek Crossing 45.8 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Creek Crossing 46.1 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 46.1 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 46.3 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 46.3 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 46.8 Hot Bend Private 50 200 0.23 Work Area Necessary to Accommodate Pipeli46.9 Foreign Pipeline Private 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage of Excess Soil to Accommodate 46.9 Foreign Pipeline Private 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage of Excess Soil to Accommodate 47.2 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 47.3 Creek State 50 400 0.46 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 

Modification 

47.8 Wetland Crossing Private 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 48.3 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 48.4 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 48.7 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 48.8 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 49.2 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 49.3 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 49.3 St. Hwy 531 State 50 300 0.34 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 49.3 St. Hwy 531 State 50 230 0.26 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 49.3 St. Hwy 531 State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 

Smith County ATWS Subtotal 31.86 

Jasper County, Mississippi 

49.5 Hot Bend and Flip W.S. Private 50 260 0.30 Work Area Necessary to Accommodate Pipeli49.5 Hot Bend and Flip W.S. Private 50 200 0.23 Work Area Necessary to Accommodate Pipeli50.1 CR 9 Jasper 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 50.1 CR 9 Jasper 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 50.2 Ditch State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 50.3 Ditch State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 50.3 Ditch State 70 200 0.34 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 50.7 Wetland Crossing Private 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Wetland Crossing Excavatio

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
G1-11

TABLE G-1 

Extra Workspace Areas for the Proposed Southeast Expansion Project 

MP 

Location/Reason for 

ATWS Ownership Width Length Acres Reason for ATW

51.3 Hot Bend and Flip W.S. Private 50 300 0.34 Work Area Necessary to Accommodate Pipeli51.3 Hot Bend and Flip W.S. Private 50 300 0.34 Work Area Necessary to Accommodate Pipeli51.5 St. Hwy 15 State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 51.6 St. Hwy 15 State 50 120 0.14 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 51.6 Creek State 50 310 0.36 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 51.7 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 51.8 Abandoned RR Private 50 180 0.21 Ditch Spoil Storage for Bore Pit 51.9 Abandoned RR Private 50 200 0.23 Ditch Spoil Storage for Bore Pit 51.9 Wetland Crossing Private 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Wetland Crossing Excavatio52.6 Wetland Crossing Private 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Wetland Crossing Excavatio52.9 CR 17 Jasper 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 52.9 CR 17 Jasper 25 200 0.11 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 52.9 Ag Area Private 25 290 0.17 Area Needed to Avoid Concerns 53.4 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Pond Crossing Excavation 53.6 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 53.6 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 53.8 CR 5282 Jasper 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 53.8 CR 5282 Jasper 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 54.1 CR 1725 Jasper 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 54.1 CR 1725 Jasper 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 54.2 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 54.2 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 54.4 CR 1725 Jasper 50 140 0.16 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 54.6 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 54.6 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 54.9 Creek State 50 125 0.14 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 54.9 Creek State 50 65 0.07 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 55.1 Field Road Private 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 55.1 Field Road Private 50 45 0.05 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 55.5 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 55.5 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 55.7 Wetland Crossing Private 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Wetland Crossing Excavatio55.7 HDD Tallahoma Creek State 120 200 0.55 HDD Tallahoma Creek 56.2 HDD Tallahoma Creek State 120 200 0.55 HDD Tallahoma Creek 56.4 Wetland Crossing Private 50 400 0.46 Spoil Storage and Wetland Crossing Excavatio

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
G1-12

TABLE G-1 

Extra Workspace Areas for the Proposed Southeast Expansion Project 

MP 

Location/Reason for 

ATWS Ownership Width Length Acres Reason for ATW

56.6 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 56.7 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 57.3 CR 23 Jasper 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 57.4 CR 23 Jasper 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 57.7 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 57.8 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 58.2 CR 2337 Jasper 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 58.2 CR 2337 Jasper 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 58.3 Foreign Pipeline Private 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage of Excess Soil to Accommodate 58.6 Hot Bend Private 50 200 0.23 Work Area Necessary to Accommodate Pipeli58.7 Field Road Jasper 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 58.7 Field Road Jasper 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 59.1 Foreign Pipeline Private 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage of Excess Soil to Accommodate 59.7 Wetland Crossing Private 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Wetland Crossing Excavatio59.7 Private Road Private 50 65 0.07 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 59.7 Private Road Private 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 59.9 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 60.1 CR 2333 Jasper 50 360 0.41 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 60.1 CR 2333 Jasper 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 60.6 Ditch State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 60.6 Ditch State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 60.6 Creek State 50 370 0.42 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 60.8 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 60.9 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 61.1 Wetland Crossing Private 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Wetland Crossing Excavatio61.2 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 61.3 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 61.2 Creek State 70 200 0.34 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 61.4 Foreign Pipeline Private 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage of Excess Soil to Accommodate 61.4 Foreign Pipeline Private 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage of Excess Soil to Accommodate 61.5 Field Road Jasper 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 61.5 Field Road Jasper 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 62.1 Wetland Crossing Private 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Wetland Crossing Excavatio62.3 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 62.3 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
G1-13

TABLE G-1 

Extra Workspace Areas for the Proposed Southeast Expansion Project 

MP 

Location/Reason for 

ATWS Ownership Width Length Acres Reason for ATW

62.4 HDD Tallahala Creek Private 100 200 0.46 HDD Tallahala Creek 62.7 HDD Tallahala Creek Private 100 200 0.46 HDD Tallahala Creek 62.8 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 62.8 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 63.1 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 63.2 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 63.3 Field Road Private 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 63.3 Field Road Private 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 63.5 Field Road Private 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 63.5 Field Road Private 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 63.7 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 63.7 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 64.0 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 64.1 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 64.7 Wetland Crossing Private 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Wetland Crossing Excavatio64.9 CR 31 Jasper 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 65.3 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 65.3 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 65.4 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 65.4 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 65.6 CR 52824 Jasper 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 65.6 CR 52824 Jasper 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 65.8 Wetland Crossing Private 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Wetland Crossing Excavatio65.9 Wetland Crossing Private 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Wetland Crossing Excavatio66.1 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 66.2 Creek State 50 75 0.09 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 66.2 Creek State 50 175 0.20 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 66.3 Wetland Crossing Private 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Wetland Crossing Excavatio66.4 CR 52830 Jasper 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 66.4 CR 52830 Jasper 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 66.9 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 66.9 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 67.0 Wetland Crossing Private 50 400 0.46 Spoil Storage and Wetland Crossing Excavatio67.2 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 67.3 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
G1-14

TABLE G-1 

Extra Workspace Areas for the Proposed Southeast Expansion Project 

MP 

Location/Reason for 

ATWS Ownership Width Length Acres Reason for ATW

67.4 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 67.8 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 67.8 Creek State 50 350 0.40 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 68.0 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 68.3 Ditch State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 68.3 Ditch State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 68.6 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 68.8 St. Hwy 528 Jasper 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 69.1 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 69.1 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 69.3 HDD Interstate 59 Private 100 200 0.46 HDD Interstate 59 69.6 HDD Interstate 59 Private 100 200 0.46 HDD Interstate 59 69.9 Field Road Private 50 300 0.34 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 70.0 Field Road Private 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 70.1 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 70.2 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 70.4 Foreign Pipeline Private 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage of Excess Soil to Accommodate 70.5 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 70.5 CR 35 Jasper 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 70.6 CR 35 Jasper 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 70.7 CR 8 Jasper 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 70.7 CR 8 Jasper 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 70.9 CR 828 Jasper 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 70.9 CR 828 Jasper 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 70.9 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 71.0 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 71.4 Field Road Private 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 71.4 Field Road Private 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 71.7 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 71.7 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 71.8 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 71.9 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 72.1 Southern Railway Private 50 200 0.23 Ditch Spoil Storage for Bore Pit 72.1 Southern Railway Private 50 200 0.23 Ditch Spoil Storage for Bore Pit 72.4 Foreign Pipeline Private 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage of Excess Soil to Accommodate 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
G1-15

TABLE G-1 

Extra Workspace Areas for the Proposed Southeast Expansion Project 

MP 

Location/Reason for 

ATWS Ownership Width Length Acres Reason for ATW

72.5 Foreign Pipeline Private 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage of Excess Soil to Accommodate 72.7 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 72.7 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 73.6 CR 115 Jasper 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 73.6 CR 115 Jasper 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 73.8 Hot Bend Private 50 200 0.23 Work Area Necessary to Accommodate Pipeli73.9 US Hwy 11 Federal 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 73.9 US Hwy 11 Federal 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 74.1 Field Road Private 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 74.1 Field Road Private 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 74.4 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 74.4 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 74.7 Foreign Pipeline and 

Crossover 

Private 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage of Excess Soil to Accommodate 

74.7 Foreign Pipeline and 

Crossover 

Private 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage of Excess Soil to Accommodate 

74.8 Foreign Pipeline and 

Crossover 

Private 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage of Excess Soil to Accommodate 

74.9 CR 64 Jasper 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 75.0 CR 64 Jasper 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 75.1 Field Road Private 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 75.1 Field Road Private 25 200 0.11 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 75.1 Field Road Private 25 200 0.11 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 75.1 Field Road Private 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 75.4 CR 39 Jasper 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 75.4 CR 39 Jasper 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 75.5 Side Hill Slope Private 50 970 1.11 Potential Cut and Fill Situation to Accommoda

Jasper County ATWS Subtotal 42.39 

Clarke County, Mississippi 

76.0 CR 235 Clarke 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 76.1 CR 235 Clarke 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 76.1 CR 235 Clarke 95 200 0.45 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 76.1 CR 235 Clarke 25 200 0.13 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 76.1 Cross Over Private 50 590 0.68 Spoil Storage of Excess Soil to Accommodate 76.1 Cross Over Private 45 350 0.36 Spoil Storage of Excess Soil to Accommodate 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
G1-16

TABLE G-1 

Extra Workspace Areas for the Proposed Southeast Expansion Project 

MP 

Location/Reason for 

ATWS Ownership Width Length Acres Reason for ATW

76.4 Wetland Crossing Private 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Wetland Crossing Excavatio76.9 CR 2301 Clarke 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 77.0 CR 2301 Clarke 50 350 0.40 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 77.1 Foreign Pipeline and 

Crossover 

Private 50 300 0.34 Spoil Storage of Excess Soil to Accommodate 

77.2 Side Hill Slope Private 50 950 1.09 Potential Cut and Fill Situation to Accommoda77.3 Foreign Pipeline and 

Crossover 

Private 50 85 0.10 Spoil Storage of Excess Soil to Accommodate 

77.3 Foreign Pipeline and 

Crossover 

Private 50 500 0.57 Spoil Storage of Excess Soil to Accommodate 

77.5 Side Hill Slope Private 50 2,300 2.64 Potential Cut and Fill Situation to Accommoda77.9 CR 240 Clarke 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 78.0 Side Hill Slope Private 50 540 0.62 Potential Cut and Fill Situation to Accommoda78.3 Creek State 50 320 0.37 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 78.3 Foreign Pipeline Private 50 200 0 Spoil Storage of Excess Soil to Accommodate 78.4 Foreign Pipeline Private 50 160 0.18 Spoil Storage of Excess Soil to Accommodate 78.4 Side Hill Slope Private 50 390 0.45 Potential Cut and Fill Situation to Accommoda78.5 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 78.6 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 78.6 Foreign Pipeline Private 50 220 0.25 Spoil Storage of Excess Soil to Accommodate 78.7 Foreign Pipeline Private 50 400 0.46 Spoil Storage of Excess Soil to Accommodate 78.8 Field Road Private 50 620 0.71 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 79.0 CR 216 Clarke 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 79.6 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 79.6 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 79.7 Foreign Pipeline Private 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage of Excess Soil to Accommodate 80.3 Field Road Private 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 80.3 Field Road Private 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 81.1 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 81.2 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 81.9 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 82.0 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 82.1 Field Road Private 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 82.1 Field Road Private 50 160 0.18 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 82.1 Field Road Private 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
G1-17

TABLE G-1 

Extra Workspace Areas for the Proposed Southeast Expansion Project 

MP 

Location/Reason for 

ATWS Ownership Width Length Acres Reason for ATW

82.2 Field Road Private 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 82.4 HDD Shubuta Creek Private 100 200 0.46 HDD Shubuta Creek 82.9 HDD Shubuta Creek Private 100 200 0.46 HDD Shubuta Creek 83.2 Wetland Crossing Private 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Wetland Crossing Excavatio83.4 CR 250 Clarke 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 83.4 CR 250 Clarke 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 83.5 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 83.7 Hot Bend State 50 200 0.23 Work Area Necessary to Accommodate Pipeli83.7 CR 270 Clarke 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 83.8 CR 270 Clarke 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 83.9 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 84.0 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 84.1 CR 2702 Clarke 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 84.1 CR 2702 Clarke 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 84.6 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 84.7 Creek State 50 125 0.14 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 84.8 Bogue Homa Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 85.1 Ditch State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 85.2 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 85.3 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 85.4 Field Road Private 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 85.4 Field Road Private 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 85.6 Wetland Crossing State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Wetland Crossing Excavatio85.7 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 85.8 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 85.9 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 86.3 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 86.8 Field Road Private 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 86.8 Field Road Private 50 335 0.38 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 86.9 Field Road Private 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 87.2 Field Road Private 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 87.2 Field Road Private 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 87.5 Field Road Private 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 87.6 Field Road Private 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 87.6 HDD U.S. Hwy 45 Private 80 160 0.29 HDD U.S. Hwy 45 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
G1-18

TABLE G-1 

Extra Workspace Areas for the Proposed Southeast Expansion Project 

MP 

Location/Reason for 

ATWS Ownership Width Length Acres Reason for ATW

88.0 U.S. Hwy 45 Clarke 100 200 0.46 HDD U.S. Hwy 45 88.2 Wetland Crossing Private 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Wetland Crossing Excavatio88.5 Wetland Crossing Private 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Wetland Crossing Excavatio88.9 HDD Chickasawhay River Private 100 200 0.46 HDD Chickasawhay River 89.4 HDD Chickasawhay River Private 100 200 0.46 HDD Chickasawhay River 89.4 HDD Chickasawhay River Private 50 200 0.23 HDD Chickasawhay River 89.5 Foreign Pipeline and 

Crossover 

Private 50 300 0.34 Spoil Storage of Excess Soil to Accommodate 

89.6 Foreign Pipeline and 

Crossover 

Private 50 300 0.34 Spoil Storage of Excess Soil to Accommodate 

89.8 Ditch State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Ditch Crossing Excavation 89.9 Ditch State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Ditch Crossing Excavation 90.6 CR 695 Clarke 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 90.9 Side Hill Slope Private 50 1,735 1.99 Potential Cut and Fill Situation to Accommoda91.2 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 91.3 Side Hill Slope Private 50 560 0.64 Potential Cut and Fill Situation to Accommoda91.3 CR 694 Clarke 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 91.3 CR 694 Clarke 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 91.4 Side Hill Slope Private 50 675 0.77 Potential Cut and Fill Situation to Accommoda91.5 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 91.6 Creek State 50 80 0.09 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 91.8 Side Hill Slope Private 50 1995 2.29 Potential Cut and Fill Situation to Accommoda92.1 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 92.2 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 92.2 Side Hill Slope Private 50 560 0.64 Potential Cut and Fill Situation to Accommoda92.3 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 92.3 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 92.4 Side Hill Slope Private 50 690 0.79 Potential Cut and Fill Situation to Accommoda92.6 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 92.9 Field Road Private 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 93.0 Field Road Private 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 93.4 CR 680 Clarke 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 93.4 CR 680 Clarke 50 190 0.22 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 93.5 Side Hill Slope Private 50 170 0.20 Potential Cut and Fill Situation to Accommoda93.5 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
G1-19

TABLE G-1 

Extra Workspace Areas for the Proposed Southeast Expansion Project 

MP 

Location/Reason for 

ATWS Ownership Width Length Acres Reason for ATW

93.7 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 93.8 Side Hill Slope Private 50 260 0.30 Potential Cut and Fill Situation to Accommoda93.9 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 93.9 Creek State 50 390 0.45 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 94.1 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 94.3 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 94.4 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 94.7 HDD Residential Private 100 200 0.46 HDD Residential 95.1 HDD Residential Private 100 200 0.46 HDD Residential 95.2 CR 630 Clarke 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 95.2 CR 630 Clarke 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 95.3 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 95.4 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 95.7 Side Hill Slope Private 50 2,390 2.74 Potential Cut and Fill Situation to Accommoda96.0 Foreign Pipeline Private 50 135 0.15 Spoil Storage of Excess Soil to Accommodate 96.0 Foreign Pipeline Private 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage of Excess Soil to Accommodate 96.2 Field Road Private 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 96.2 Field Road Private 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 96.7 Side Hill Slope Private 50 1,560 1.79 Potential Cut and Fill Situation to Accommoda96.9 Side Hill Slope Private 50 590 0.68 Potential Cut and Fill Situation to Accommoda96.9 Wetland Crossing State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Wetland Crossing Excavatio97.1 Wetland Crossing State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Wetland Crossing Excavatio97.1 Wetland Crossing Private 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Wetland Crossing Excavatio97.2 Wetland Crossing Private 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Wetland Crossing Excavatio97.6 Wetland Crossing Private 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Wetland Crossing Excavatio97.7 Wetland Crossing Private 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Wetland Crossing Excavatio98.0 CR 665 Clarke 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 98.1 CR 665 Clarke 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 98.1 Side Hill Slope Private 50 275 0.32 Potential Cut and Fill Situation to Accommoda98.2 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 98.2 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 98.3 Side Hill Slope Private 50 265 0.30 Potential Cut and Fill Situation to Accommoda98.3 Field Road Clarke 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 98.4 Field Road Clarke 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 98.4 Side Hill Slope Private 50 165 0.19 Potential Cut and Fill Situation to Accommoda

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
G1-20

TABLE G-1 

Extra Workspace Areas for the Proposed Southeast Expansion Project 

MP 

Location/Reason for 

ATWS Ownership Width Length Acres Reason for ATW

98.5 Field Road Private 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 98.5 Field Road Private 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 98.6 Side Hill Slope Private 50 380 0.44 Potential Cut and Fill Situation to Accommoda98.7 Creek State 50 270 0.31 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 98.8 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 98.8 Side Hill Slope Private 50 460 0.53 Potential Cut and Fill Situation to Accommoda98.9 St. Hwy 511 State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 98.9 St. Hwy 511 State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 99.1 Field Road Private 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 99.3 Side Hill Slope Private 50 1,110 1.27 Potential Cut and Fill Situation to Accommoda99.4 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 99.4 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 99.7 Side Hill Slope Private 50 1,870 2.15 Potential Cut and Fill Situation to Accommoda99.8 Field Road Private 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 99.9 Field Road Private 75 200 0.34 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 

100.3 HDD Buckatunna Creek Private 100 200 0.46 HDD Buckatunna Creek 100.6 HDD Buckatunna Creek Private 100 200 0.46 HDD Buckatunna Creek 100.7 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 100.7 Parallel Road Private 50 195 0.22 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 100.8 Field Road Private 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 100.8 Field Road Private 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 100.9 Side Hill Slope Private 50 420 0.48 Potential Cut and Fill Situation to Accommoda100.9 Field Road Private 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 101.0 Field Road Private 50 400 0.46 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 101.3 Creeks State 50 400 0.46 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 101.6 CR 650 Clarke 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 101.6 CR 650 Clarke 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 101.7 Ditch State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 101.8 CR 657 Clarke 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 101.8 CR 657 Clarke 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 101.9 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 101.9 Creek State 50 100 0.11 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 102.1 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 102.2 Side Hill Slope Private 50 260 0.30 Potential Cut and Fill Situation to Accommoda102.3 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
G1-21

TABLE G-1 

Extra Workspace Areas for the Proposed Southeast Expansion Project 

MP 

Location/Reason for 

ATWS Ownership Width Length Acres Reason for ATW

102.3 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 102.6 Side Hill Slope Private 50 1,825 2.09 Potential Cut and Fill Situation to Accommoda102.8 Wetland Crossing Private 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Wetland Crossing Excavatio102.9 CR 643 Clarke 50 80 0.09 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 102.9 CR 643 Clarke 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 103.1 Private Road Private 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 103.1 Private Road Private 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 103.3 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 103.4 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 103.4 Side Hill Slope Private 50 220 0.25 Potential Cut and Fill Situation to Accommoda103.6 Side Hill Slope Private 50 1,060 1.22 Potential Cut and Fill Situation to Accommoda103.8 Side Hill Slope Private 50 910 1.04 Potential Cut and Fill Situation to Accommoda104.0 Side Hill Slope Private 50 550 0.63 Potential Cut and Fill Situation to Accommoda104.2 Side Hill Slope Private 50 380 0.44 Potential Cut and Fill Situation to Accommoda104.3 CR 411 Clarke 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 104.3 CR 411 Clarke 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 104.4 Side Hill Slope Private 50 530 0.61 Potential Cut and Fill Situation to Accommoda

Clarke County ATWS Subtotal 71.66

Choctaw County, Alabama 

104.5 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 104.5 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 104.6 Side Hill Slope Private 50 540 0.62 Potential Cut and Fill Situation to Accommoda104.7 Field Road Private 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 104.7 Field Road Private 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 104.8 Side Hill Slope Private 50 260 0.30 Potential Cut and Fill Situation to Accommoda104.9 Side Hill Slope Private 50 420 0.48 Potential Cut and Fill Situation to Accommoda105.1 Private Road Private 50 110 0.13 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 105.1 Private Road Private 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 105.1 Side Hill Slope Private 50 160 0.18 Potential Cut and Fill Situation to Accommoda105.2 CR 410 Choctaw 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 105.2 CR 410 Choctaw 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 105.3 Side Hill Slope Private 50 95 0.10 Potential Cut and Fill Situation to Accommoda105.4 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 105.4 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 105.4 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
G1-22

TABLE G-1 

Extra Workspace Areas for the Proposed Southeast Expansion Project 

MP 

Location/Reason for 

ATWS Ownership Width Length Acres Reason for ATW

105.5 Side Hill Slope Private 50 1,035 1.19 Potential Cut and Fill Situation to Accommoda105.8 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 105.8 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 106.0 Side Hill Slope Private 50 1,560 1.79 Potential Cut and Fill Situation to Accommoda106.2 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 106.3 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 106.6 Side Hill Slope Private 50 2,570 2.95 Potential Cut and Fill Situation to Accommoda106.8 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 106.8 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 107.0 Side Hill Slope Private 50 1,090 1.25 Potential Cut and Fill Situation to Accommoda107.1 HDD Okatuppa Creek Private 100 200 0.46 HDD Okatuppa Creek 107.4 HDD Okatuppa Creek Private 95 300 0.65 HDD Okatuppa Creek 107.5 Field Road Private 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 107.6 Field Road Private 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 107.9 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 108.1 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 108.2 Field Road/Foreign Pipeline Private 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 108.2 Field Road/Foreign Pipeline Private 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 108.3 Side Hill Slope Private 50 425 0.49 Potential Cut and Fill Situation to Accommoda108.3 Field Road Private 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 108.4 Field Road Private 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 108.4 Side Hill Slope Private 50 60 0.07 Potential Cut and Fill Situation to Accommoda108.4 Field Road Private 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 108.5 Field Road Private 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 108.6 Side Hill Slope Private 50 1,290 1.48 Potential Cut and Fill Situation to Accommoda108.8 Field Road Private 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 108.8 Field Road Private 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 108.9 Side Hill Slope Private 50 660 0.76 Potential Cut and Fill Situation to Accommoda109.0 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 109.0 Creek State 50 70 0.08 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 109.2 Side Hill Slope Private 50 395 0.45 Potential Cut and Fill Situation to Accommoda109.3 Ditch State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Ditch/Wetlands Crossing Ex109.4 Side Hill Slope Private 50 510 0.58 Potential Cut and Fill Situation to Accommoda109.4 CR 9 Choctaw 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 109.5 CR 9 Choctaw 50 470 0.54 Spoil Storage for Road Crossing 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
G1-23

TABLE G-1 

Extra Workspace Areas for the Proposed Southeast Expansion Project 

MP 

Location/Reason for 

ATWS Ownership Width Length Acres Reason for ATW

109.7 Side Hill Slope Private 50 360 0.41 Potential Cut and Fill Situation to Accommoda109.8 Side Hill Slope Private 50 200 0.23 Potential Cut and Fill Situation to Accommoda109.8 Side Hill Slope Private 50 760 0.87 Potential Cut and Fill Situation to Accommoda109.9 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 110.1 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 110.2 Side Hill Slope Private 50 325 0.37 Potential Cut and Fill Situation to Accommoda110.2 Creek State 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 110.3 Creek State 50 65 0.07 Spoil Storage and Creek Crossing Excavation 110.4 Wetland Crossing Private 50 200 0.23 Spoil Storage and Wetland Crossing Excavatio110.6 Side Hill Slope Private 50 2,010 2.31 Potential Cut and Fill Situation to Accommoda

Choctaw County ATWS Subtotal 26.86 

Total ATWS 239.08 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
G2-1 

TABLE G-2 

New and Modified Access Roads for the Proposed Southeast Expansion Project 

MP Feature ID Ownership County 

Length x 

Width 

(ft) 

Existing 

Road Type 

Temporary/

Permanent 

Use 

New/

Existing 

0.2 AR1BSI004 Weyerhaeuser Company Simpson, MS 6,000 x 15 Gravel/Dirt Temp Existing 0.3 AR1BSI004B Weyerhaeuser Company Simpson, MS 3,200 x 15 Gravel/Dirt Temp Existing 9.4 AR1BSI003 Jeff Turnage/Bernie Turnage Simpson, MS 600 x 15 Gravel/Dirt Temp Existing 

10.5 AR1BSI003A J & N Timber Simpson, MS 2,150 x 15 New Perm New 10.9 AR1DSI002A Equity Development Simpson, MS 600 x 15 New Perm New 12.9 AR1BSI006A Jewell Macon Simpson, MS 800 x 15 Gravel/Dirt Temp Existing 16.3 AR1BSI005 Billy Jim Thompson Simpson, MS 1,500 x 15 Gravel/Dirt Temp Existing 18.3 AR1DSI001 Gloria Reviere Simpson, MS 700 x 15 Gravel/Dirt Temp Existing 22.7 AR1BSI001A North America Timber Simpson, MS 1,100 x 15 Gravel/Dirt Temp Existing 23.1 AR1BSI001 North America Timber Simpson, MS 1,300 x 15 Gravel/Dirt Temp Existing 24.6 AR1BSI002 Frances Shows/North America Timber Simpson, MS 5,800 x 15 Gravel/Dirt Temp Existing 31.0 AR1BSM003 Plum Creek Smith, MS 4,800 x 15 Gravel/Dirt Temp Existing 31.8 AR1BSM003A Plum Creek Smith, MS 1,600 x 15 Gravel/Dirt Temp Existing 33.5 AR1BSM002 Plum Creek Smith, MS 2,400 x 15 Gravel/Dirt Temp Existing 39.2 AR1BSM002A Eugene Tullos/GC Hankins/Larry 

Barnett, Amer Craft 

Smith, MS 4,200 x 15 Gravel/Dirt Temp Existing 

43.9 AR1BSM004 Alton Blakeney Smith, MS 4,200 x 15 Gravel/Dirt Temp Existing 46.5 AR1BSM001 James Smith Et Al Smith, MS 1,800 x 15 Gravel/Dirt Temp Existing 55.1 AR1BJS001 Charles Brown Jasper, MS 1,000 x 15 Gravel/Dirt Temp Existing 58.7 AR1BJS002 Billie Windham/Tommie Stringer Jasper, MS 4,100 x 15 Gravel/Dirt Temp Existing 58.8 AR1BJS002A Gauins/Gammage/Hosey/Windham Jasper, MS 4,200 x 15 Gravel/Dirt Temp Existing 59.0 AR1DJS001A JS Scott Jr. Jasper, MS 4,000 x 15 Gravel/Dirt Temp Existing 59.8 AR1DJS001C Betty Windham Jasper, MS 5,200 x 15 Gravel/Dirt Temp Existing 61.5 AR1BJS003 Anderson Tully Company Jasper, MS 2,900 x 15 Gravel/Dirt Temp Existing 63.2 AR1BJS004A Mary Simms Jasper, MS 2,100 x 15 Gravel/Dirt Temp Existing 63.6 AR1BJS004 Mary Simms Jasper, MS 2,400 x 15 Gravel/Dirt Temp Existing 69.1 AR1DJS002 Sarah Life Jasper, MS 3,600 x 15 Gravel/Dirt Temp Existing 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
G2-2 

TABLE G-2 

New and Modified Access Roads for the Proposed Southeast Expansion Project 

MP Feature ID Ownership County 

Length x 

Width 

(ft) 

Existing 

Road Type 

Temporary/

Permanent 

Use 

New/

Existing 

69.1 AR1DJS002A Sarah Life Jasper, MS 1,200 x 15 New Perm New 69.9 AR1BJS005 Plummer Heidelberg Estate Jasper, MS 800 x 15 Gravel Temp Existing 72.4 AR1DJS003 Lace Dace, Warren Seals Jasper, MS 3,600 x 15 Gravel/Dirt Temp Existing 75.1 AR1DJS003A O. C. Dantzier Jasper, MS 350 x 15 Gravel/Dirt Temp Existing 80.3 AR1BCK005 Hall Tree Inc. Clarke, MS 20,200 x 15 Gravel/Dirt Temp Existing 81.5 AR1BCK005A Hall Tree Inc. Clarke, MS 2,200 x 15 Gravel/Dirt Temp Existing 82.2 AR1BCK005B Hall Tree Inc. Clarke, MS 3,000 x 15 Gravel/Dirt Temp Existing 82.5 AR1BCK005C Hall Tree Inc. Clarke, MS 3,500 x 15 Gravel/Dirt Temp Existing 82.9 AR1BCK006 Hall Tree Inc. Clarke, MS 4,800 x 15 Gravel/Dirt Temp Existing 85.7 AR1BCK002 Tommy Brady Clarke, MS 6,300 x 15 Gravel/Dirt Temp Existing 86.8 AR1DCK001 Paul Duvall Clarke, MS 400 x 15 Gravel/Dirt Temp Existing 93.0 AR1BCK003 Timber East Clarke, MS 3,400 x 15 Gravel/Dirt Temp Existing 94.8 AR1BCK003A Walter Lafferty Clarke, MS 150 x 15 Gravel/Dirt Temp Existing 96.3 AR1DCK002 International Paper Clarke, MS 6,600 x 15 Gravel/Dirt Temp Existing 99.5 AR1BCK004 Pauline Hunter/Ray Anderson Clarke, MS 3,200 x 15 Gravel/Dirt Temp Existing 

100.8 AR1BCK003 Timber East Clarke, MS 11,500 x 15 Gravel/Dirt Temp Existing 100.8 AR1BCK003A Timber East Clarke, MS 9,000 x 15 Gravel/Dirt Temp Existing 104.3 AR1DCK004 Clarke County Schools Clarke, MS 2,800 x 15 Gravel/Dirt Temp Existing 106.6 AR1DCW001 Mame LP, et al Choctaw, AL 17,500 x 15 Gravel/Dirt Temp Existing 108.6 AR1DCW002 LA Timberlands Choctaw, AL 6,400 x 15 Gravel/Dirt Temp Existing 110.6 AR1DCW003 LA Timberlands Choctaw, AL 4,500 x 15 Gravel/Dirt Temp Existing 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
G3-1

TABLE G-3 

Existing Road Crossings for the Proposed Southeast Expansion Project

MP Road Name Road Type Jurisdiction 

Construction 

Method

0.8 Twin Lakes Gravel Simpson County Bore 

1.3 St. Hwy 469 Paved State Bore 

2.5 Rexford Paved Simpson County Bore 

3.6 Rexford Paved Simpson County Bore 

4.9 Brasswell Gravel Simpson County Bore 

5.6 Star Braxton Paved Simpson County Bore 

6.6 Boggs Gravel Simpson County Bore 

7.7 Johnson Paved Simpson County Bore 

8.1 Holly Grove Paved Simpson County Bore 

8.9 Bynum Gravel Simpson County Bore 

9.2 Harrisville Braxton Paved Simpson County Bore 

10.2 Ash Paved Simpson County Bore 

11.6 Gum Springs Paved Simpson County Bore 

11.9 St. Hwy 149 Paved State Bore 

12.2 Sawmill Gravel Simpson County Bore 

12.6 US 49 Paved Federal Bore 

14.1 Saint John Paved Simpson County Bore 

14.8 Cato Paved Simpson County Bore 

16.0 Campbells Creek Paved Simpson County Bore 

17.5 Strong River Gravel Simpson County Bore 

18.2 St. Hwy 13 Paved State Bore 

19.7 Ponder Mason Gravel Simpson County Bore 

20.6 Everett Church Asphalt Simpson County Bore 

21.6 Shows Asphalt Simpson County Bore 

21.8 Jones Layton Asphalt Simpson County Bore 

22.4 Jones Layton Asphalt Simpson County Bore 

23.1 Layton Jones Gravel Simpson County Bore 

23.4 St. Hwy 541 Paved State Bore 

25.2 Dr Magee Asphalt Simpson County Bore 

26.3 Cole Asphalt Simpson County Bore 

28.0 Sixteen Section Gravel Simpson County Bore 

28.1 St. Hwy 540 Paved State Bore 

29.0 Dry Creek Asphalt Simpson County Bore 

29.3 Martin Asphalt Simpson County Bore 

30.3 CR 503 Paved Smith County Bore 

31.8 CR 540-1 (Georgia Pacific Land) Gravel Smith County Bore 

32.8 Green Grass Gravel Smith County Bore 

35.2 CR 121 (Shopping Center) Paved Smith County Bore 

36.3 CR 77 and CR 77-3 Asphalt Smith County Bore 

37.3 St. Hwy 35 Paved State Bore 

37.7 CR 35-6 Asphalt Smith County Bore 

38.6 St. Hwy 37 Paved State Bore 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
G3-2

TABLE G-3 

Existing Road Crossings for the Proposed Southeast Expansion Project

MP Road Name Road Type Jurisdiction 

Construction 

Method

41.6 CR 93 Asphalt Smith County Bore 

42.6 CR 84 Asphalt Smith County Bore 

42.8 CR 19 Gravel Smith County Bore 

45.7 CR 99 Asphalt Smith County Bore 

49.4 St. Hwy 531 Paved State Bore 

50.1 CR 9 Paved Jasper County Bore 

51.5 St. Hwy 15 Paved State Bore 

52.9 CR 17 Paved Jasper County Bore 

53.8 CR 5282 Gravel Jasper County Bore 

54.1 CR 1725 Asphalt Jasper County Bore 

54.4 CR 1725 Asphalt Jasper County Bore 

57.4 CR 23 Paved Jasper County Bore 

58.2 CR 2337 Gravel Jasper County Bore 

60.0 CR 2333 Paved Jasper County Bore 

61.5 CR 52812 Gravel Jasper County Bore 

65.0 CR 31 Asphalt Jasper County Bore 

65.6 CR 52824 Gravel Jasper County Bore 

66.4 CR 52830 Gravel Jasper County Bore 

68.8 St. Hwy 528 Paved State Bore 

69.4 US Hwy 59 Paved Federal Bore 

69.5 CR 8 Asphalt Jasper County Bore 

70.6 CR 35 Asphalt Jasper County Bore 

70.7 CR 8 Asphalt Jasper County Bore 

70.9 CR 828 Asphalt Jasper County Bore 

73.5 CR 115 Paved Jasper County Bore 

73.9 US Hwy 11 Paved Federal Bore 

75.0 CR 642 Gravel Jasper County Bore 

75.4 CR 39 Asphalt Jasper County Bore 

76.0 CR 235 Asphalt Clarke County Bore 

76.9 CR 2301 Gravel Clarke County Bore 

77.9 CR 240 Asphalt Clarke County Bore 

79.0 CR 216 Dirt Clarke County Bore 

83.4 CR 250 Asphalt Clarke County Bore 

83.7 CR 270 Asphalt Clarke County Bore 

84.1 CR 2702 Gravel Clarke County Bore 

87.6 CR 266 Asphalt Clarke County Bore 

87.9 US Hwy 45 Paved Federal Bore 

88.2 CR 2661 Asphalt Clarke County Bore 

88.4 CR2661 Asphalt Clarke County Bore 

90.6 CR 695 Asphalt Clarke County Bore 

91.3 CR 694 Asphalt Clarke County Bore 

93.4 CR 680 Gravel Clarke County Bore 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
G3-3

TABLE G-3 

Existing Road Crossings for the Proposed Southeast Expansion Project

MP Road Name Road Type Jurisdiction 

Construction 

Method

94.8 CR 615 Asphalt Clarke County Bore 

95.2 CR 630 Asphalt Clarke County Bore 

98.0 CR 665 Asphalt Clarke County Bore 

99.1 St. Hwy 511 Paved State Bore 

101.6 CR 650 Asphalt Clarke County Bore 

101.8 CR 657 Asphalt Clarke County Bore 

102.9 Pine Ridge Paved Clarke County Bore 

105.0 CR 411 Gravel Choctaw County Bore 

109.4 CR 8 Paved Choctaw County Bore 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
G4-1 

TABLE G-4 

 Pipe Storage and Contractor Yards 

for the Proposed Southeast Expansion Project

Yard 

Designation County, State Location Original Land Use 

Temporary 

Impact 

(acres) 

Permanent 

Impact 

(acres) 

Site 1 Hinds, MS 2648 Old Highway 51 

Terry, MS 

Contractor Yard for 

Gulf South’s East 

Texas to Mississippi 

Expansion Project 

15.0 0 

Site 2 Jones, MS 5 Thames Blvd 

Laurel, MS 

Industrial Yard at 

Laurel Airport 20.0 0 

Site 3 Lauderdale, MS 1602 60th Place South 

Meridian, MS 

Industrial Yard at 

Meridian Airport 6.0 0 

Total 41.0 0 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
APPENDIX H 

MINOR ROUTE VARIATION MAPS 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
Non-Internet Public 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE 

PROPOSED SOUTHEAST EXPANSIONPROJECT 

Docket No. CP07-032-000 

Figure H-1 

Sheets 1-16 

Appendix H 

Minor Route Variations

Public access for this Non-Internet Public information is 

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

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
APPENDIX I 

LITERATURE CITED 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
I-1 

Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM). 2006. ADEM 2006 Integrated Water 

Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report, Accessed on October 12, 2006, at 

http://www.adem.state.al.us/WaterDivision/WQuality/305b/WQ305bReport.htm 

Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (ADCNR). 2006. Correspondence from 

Penny Ragland to Lynda Schubring dated August 17, 2006. 

Alabama State Oil and Gas Board (ASOGB). 2005. Oil and Gas Leases of Choctaw County. Accessed 

at http://www.ogb.state.al.us/ 

American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA). 2006. Taxes—State—Sales Tax. 

Accessed at http://www.aicpa.org/yellow/yptstax.htm 

Banks Information Solutions (BIS). 2006a. Hazardous Waste Site Search along the Pipeline. 

Encyclopedia Louisiana: Richland Parish. Accessed October 20, 2006, at http://www.enlou.com/

parishes/richland-parish.htm 

Banks Information Solutions (BIS). 2006b. Environmental FirstSearch Report. October 17, 2006. 

Inquiry Number ES03916. 

Bates, R. L., and J. A. Jackson. 1984. Dictionary of Geological Terms, 3rd Edition, Anchor Books, New 

York. 

Connecticut Siting Council (CSC). 2004. Review of Connecticut Electric Utilities' Ten-Year Forecasts 

of Loads and Resources. 

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). 1997. Considering Cumulative Effects under the National 

Environmental Policy Act. 

Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F. C. Golet, and E. T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and 

deepwater habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Services 

Program. USFWS/OBS-79/31. 103pp. 

Energy Information Administration (EIA). 2006a. Annual Energy Outlook 2006 (Early Release). 

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/index.html. 

Energy Information Administration (EIA). 2006b. Energy Overview. 

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/txt/stb0101.xls. 

Energy Information Administration (EIA). 2007. Annual Energy Outlook 2007 with projections to 2030, 

Early Release. DOE/EIA 0383(2007). 

Environmental Laboratory. 1987. U.S. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual, Technical 

Report Y-87-1, U.S. Army Engineers Waterways Experimental Station, Vicksburg, MS. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2007. Water Quality Standards Database – Designated Use 

Data Across States. Last updated on Monday, May 7th, 2007. Accessed 5/7/07. Found at: 

Http://oaspub.epa.gov/wqs/wqsi_waterbody.report_control#%20JavaScript:void(0). 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
I-2 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). 2006. "Gulf South Pipeline Co, LP Requests that 

FERC Staff Initiate a National Environmental Policy Act Pre-Filing Review of its Proposed East 

Texas Expansion Project Under PF06-17." Docket No. PF06-17-000. FERC. Washington, DC. 

Felder, David. 2006. Telephone conversation between David Felder of the Jackson, MS, office of the 

USFWS and Brian Ham of ENSR. 

Geological Survey of Alabama (GSA), Geologic Map of Alabama, 2006. Accessed at 

http://www.gsa.state.al.us/gsa/gis/geointeractive.html 

Hattiesburg Convention and Visitors Bureau. 2006. Accessed on October 10, 2006, at 

http://www.hattiesburg.org/. 

Invasive Species. 2006. Invasive and Exotic Species – Tallow Tree. http://www.invasive.org/browse/

subject.cfm?sub=3079 

Jones County Economic Development Authority. 2006. Accessed on October 10, 2006, at 

http://www.edajones.com/Lodging/lodging.html 

Jones, D. J., G. S. Kramer, D. N. Gideon, and R. J. Eiber. 1986. "An Analysis of Reportable Incidents 

for Natural Gas Transportation and Gathering Lines 1970 Through June 1984." NG-18 Report 

No. 158, Pipeline Research Committee of the American Gas Association. 

Jones, et al. (1986). DOT, OPS, Accessed online at http://ops.dot.gov/stats.htm. 

Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ). 2002. 2002 Consent Decree 202(d) List. 

Accessed 5/7/07. Found at: http://www.deq.louisiana.gov/portal/default.aspx?tabid=1560. 

Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ). 2003. Baseline Monitoring Program, Fiscal 

Years 2001 – 2003 (July 2000 through June 2003), Triennial Summary Report, 2003, for the 

Environmental Technology Division of the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality. 

Louisiana Department of Natural Resources (LDNR). 2006. Strategic Online Natural Resources 

Information System (SONRIS). Accessed at http://sonris-www.dnr.state.la.us/www_root/

sonris_portal_1.htm 

Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development (LDTD). 2007. Water Well Registration Data 

File. Accessed 5/10/07. Found at: http://www.dotd.state.la.us/intermodal/wells/home.asp.

Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries (LDWF). 2006. Rare, Threatened, and Endangered 

Species & Natural Communities Tracked by the Louisiana Natural Heritage Program Richland 

Parish. Accessed at: http://www.wlf.louisiana.gov/pdfs/experience/naturalheritage/richland.pdf 

Louisiana Geological Survey (LGS). 2006. Generalized Geology of Louisiana. Accessed June 2006 at 

http://www.lgs.lsu.edu/pubs/gengeotext.pdf. 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
I-3 

Matlack, Glenn R. 2002. Exotic Plant Species in Mississippi, USA: Critical Issues in Management and 

Research. Natural Areas Journal. 22 (3): 241-247. 

Meridian Chamber of Commerce Website. 2006. Accessed on October 10, 2006, at 

http://www.discoverourtown.com/MS/Meridian/Organizations-15.html 

Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality. 2004(a). State of Mississippi Water Quality 

Assessment 2004 Section 305(b) Report. 

Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ). 2004(b). Mississippi 2004 Section 303(d) 

List of Impaired Water Bodies. 

Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks, Natural Heritage Program (MNHP). 2006. 

Natural Heritage Inventory. Mississippi Museum of Natural History. Accessed at 

http://mdwfp.com/museum/html/research/animal_db.asp 

Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks (MDWFP). 2006. State Parks and Wildlife 

Reserves. Accessed September 19, 2006, at http://www.mdwfp.com/default.asp 

Mississippi Mineral Resources Institute (MMRI). 1976. Geologic Map of Mississippi. Accessed at 

http://www.olemiss.edu/depts/mmri/welcome/ms_geo.pdf 

Mississippi Mineral Resources Institute (MMRI). 2005. Compilation of Oil and Gas Well Data for Mize 

Field, Smith County, Mississippi. Accessed at http://www.olemiss.edu/depts/mmri/welcome/

ms_geo.pdf 

Mississippi Secretary of State. 2006. Sixteenth Section Lands – Frequently Asked Questions. 

http://www.sos.state.ms.us/PublicLands/16th/16l_faq.asp. 

National Atlas.gov (NA.gov). 2006. Earthquake occurrences, Landslide Potential, and Karst Topography 

in Mississippi and Alabama. Accessed August 21, 2006, at http://nationalatlas.gov/natlas/

Natlasstart.asp 

National Park Service (NPS). 2004. Nationwide Rivers Inventory. Accessed on October 17, 2006, at 

http://www.nps.gov/ncrc/programs/rtca/nri/index.html 

National Park Service (NPS). 2006. Nationwide Rivers Inventory. Accessed on November 17, 2006, at 

http://www.nps.gov/ncrc/programs/rtca/nri/ 

Nature Serve. 2006. Accessed at http://www.natureserve.org/. 

New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA). 1999. Energy Efficiency 

and Renewable Energy Resource Development Potential in New York State. 

Sargent, P. 2002. Water Use in Louisiana. 2000. Louisiana Department of Transportation and 

Development, Water Resources Special Report No. 15. 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
I-4 

Stewart, R. A. 2003. Physiographic Regions of Mississippi. Handout, Department of Biological 

Sciences, Delta State University, 6 pp. Accessed at http://www.marshdoc.com/physiography/

physiography3/physiography3.html 

U.S. Census Bureau. 1996. "Statistical Abstract of the United States, 118th Edition." 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2000. Census 2000. Accessed online at http://www.census.gov/. Alabama 

Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. 2006. Outdoor Alabama. Accessed at 

www.outdooralabama.com 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2006. Farm Service Agency - Conservation Reserve Program. 

http://www.fsa.usda.gov/FSA/webapp?area=home&subject=copr&topic=crp 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2006a. State Soil 

Geographic (SSURGO) Database for Mississippi and Alabama. Available online at 

http://www.ncgc.nrcs.usda.gov/products/datasets/statsgo/index.html. Accessed August 2006. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2006b. Major Land 

Resource Areas. http://www.ar.nrcs.usda.gov/soils/mo16_mlra.html. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture. Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS). 2006c. Wetlands 

Reserve Program. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/WRP/. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2006d. Ecological 

and Interpretive Groups. http://soils.usda.gov/technical/handbook/contents/part622.html. 

U.S. Department of the Interior (USDI). 2006. Aquifer Systems in Mississippi and Alabama. Accessed 

October 10, 2006, at http://nationalatlas.gov/natlas/Natlasstart.asp. 

U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT). 1987. "Annual Report on Pipeline Safety – Calendar Year 

1987." http://www.phmsa.dot.gov/index.html 

U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT). 2006. Office of Pipeline Safety Internet site: 

http://ops.dot.gov/. 

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). May 1999. Consideration of Cumulative Impacts in 

EPA Review of NEPA Documents. http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/policies/nepa/

cumulative.pdf. 

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2006. Designated Sole Source Aquifers in Region 

IV. Accessed October 10, 2006, at (http://www.epa.gov/safewater/swp/ssa/reg4.html 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2002. Colonial-Nesting Waterbird Factsheet. USFWS, Division 

of Migratory Bird Management. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2006a. Consultation letter from the Jackson, Mississippi, FWS 

Field Office dated July 21, 2006. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2006b. Louisiana Black Bear. http://www.fws.gov/endangered/ 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
I-5 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 1998. Areas of Quaternary Deformation and Faulting Accessed on 

August 21, 2006, at: http://earthquake.usgs.gov/regional/qfaults/eusa/gulf.php 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2004. Sate Minerals Information – Mississippi. Accessed at 

http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/state/ms.html 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2005. Groundwater Atlas of the United States; Arkansas, Louisiana, 

Mississippi, HA 730-F Coastal Lowland Aquifer. Accessed on October 6, 2006, at 

http://capp.water.usgs.gov/gwa/ch_f/F-text3.html 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2006a. Earthquake History of Mississippi. Accessed on August 21, 

2006, at http://earthquake.usgs.gov/regional/states/mississippi/history.php. 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2006b. Land Subsidence Information. http://water.usgs.gov/ogw/pubs/

fs00165/. 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2006c. Land Subsidence Information. http://geochange.er.usgs.gov/

sw/changes/anthropogenic/subside/. 

Weather.com. 2006. Weather information for Jackson is based on http://www.weather.com/outlook/

travel/businesstraveler/wxclimatology/monthly/graph/JAN:9?from=month_bottomnav_business 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
APPENDIX J 

LIST OF PREPARERS 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
J-1 

LIST OF PREPARERS 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

Polit, Juan – Project Manager 

M.S., Forest Ecology, 1992, University of Illinois 

 B.S., Forestry, 1989, University of Illinois 

Peconom, John – Assistant Project Manager 

B.S., Environmental Biology and Management, 2000, University of California at Davis 

Button, Van – Cultural Resources, Socioeconomics 

M.A., Anthropology, 1976, University of Arizona 

 B.A., Anthropology, 1973, Reed College 

Manco, Magdalene – Air Quality/Noise/Reliability and Safety 

B.S., Environmental Systems Engineering, 2004, Pennsylvania State University 

PBS&J 

Sutton, Kari - Project Manger: Proposed Action, Alternatives 

M.S., Wildlife Biology, 1997, Southwest Texas State University 

 B.S., Wildlife Biology, 1994, Southwest Texas State University 

Letson, Mike - Assistant Project Manger: Proposed Action, Alternatives, Reliability and Safety 

 M.S., Limnology, 1991, State University of New York, College at Brockport 

 B.S., Biology, 1988, State University of New York, College at Brockport 

Asteris, Kerry - Water Resources 

B.S., Environmental Science, 1996, Stephen F. Austin State University 

Branom, John - Wildlife and Aquatic Resources 

 B.S., Marine Biology, 2000, Southwest Texas State University 

Dusek, Heather - Air Quality and Noise, Wetlands, Vegetation 

M.S., Environmental Science, 1998. Stephen F. Austin State University 

B.S., Environmental Science and Ecology, 1997, Stephen F. Austin State University 

Fitzgibbons, Kim - Alternatives, Proposed Action 

M.S., Biology and Coastal Zone Studies, 1996, University of West Florida 

 B.S., Marine Science, 1994, University of South Carolina Coastal, Conway 

Fulmer, John - Cultural Resources 

M.S., Anthropology, 1992, University of Southern Mississippi 

 B.A., Anthropology, 1989, University of Southern Mississippi 

Gutierrez, Paula - Cumulative Impacts, Water Resources 

 M.S., Wildlife Science, 2001. Texas A&M University 

 B.S., Forest and Wildlife Management, 1998, Stephen F. Austin University 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
J-2 

Jones, Melinda, P.G. - Geology 

M.S., Geology, 1997, Baylor University 

 B.A., Anthropology, 1993, Baylor University 

LaRue, Trisha - Cumulative Impacts 

M.S., Land Design and Management, 2004, Southwest Texas State University 

 B.S., Biology, 1998, Angelo State University 

Norton, Dale - Cultural Resources 

B.A., Anthropology, 1998, Southwest Texas State University 

Olday, Nathan - Threatened and Endangered Species 

B.S., Wildlife Ecology, 2000, Texas A&M University 

Porter, Nancy – Soils and Geology 

B.S., Anthropology, 2000, University of Houston 

Racki, Tabitha - Socioeconomics, Land Use, Recreation and Special Interest Areas, and Visual 

Resources 

B.S., Geography (Urban and Regional Studies), 1998, University of Iowa 

Silosky, Joanna - Threatened and Endangered Species, Water Resources, Vegetation 

B.A., Ecology, 2004, University of Illinois 

John Fields, Argent. Air Quality 

Post-graduate work Environmental Engineering, 1993 (no degree conferred), University of 

Houston 

M.S., Environmental Science, 1992, University of Texas at San Antonio 

B.S., Engineering Science, 1989, Trinity University 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
APPENDIX K 

CONSERVATION STRATEGY FOR THE 

GOPHER TORTOISE AND EASTERN INDIGO SNAKE 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
1.0 CONSERVATION STRATEGY FOR THE GOPHER TORTOISE AND EASTERN 

INDIGO SNAKE 

The following conservation strategies are designed to minimize potential impacts to 

gopher tortoises and Eastern indigo snakes that occur in the vicinity of the proposed Southeast 

Expansion Project (Project) as well as methods for handling unanticipated discoveries or 

encounters of either species. The strategies detailed below are common to many of the 

projects which have recently been granted by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). 

 Gulf South has determined the location of gopher tortoise burrows within and adjacent to 

the construction right-of-way during field surveys. Gulf South will use this information as a 

baseline for gopher tortoise occupation of the right-of-way. Gopher tortoise surveys methods 

used by Gulf South are presented in Appendix A of this Conservation Strategy. 

1.1 Construction Personnel Education 

All Project construction personnel will be provided comprehensive training with respect 

to gopher tortoises and eastern indigo snakes based on the personnel’s individual level of 

involvement with the proposed Project. This training will include gopher tortoise and Eastern 

indigo snake identification methods, and training on the measures to be implemented in the 

event that an individual or burrow is encountered during Project activities. The training will 

emphasize that any contact or handling of a gopher tortoise and Eastern indigo snake is 

prohibited, unless under the direction of the contract qualified biologist or that either species is 

in a position of imminent harm. 

Training will include: 

1. Reasons for species protection and its protection status; 

2. Penalties for killing, injuring, harassing, or otherwise disturbing a gopher tortoise or 

its burrow, or an Eastern indigo snake; 

3. Discussion of the conservation strategy detailed herein and noncompliance with; and 

4. Procedures for contacting qualified biologists should an individual gopher tortoise or 

Eastern indigo snake be encountered. 

1.2 Pre-Construction Surveys 

Prior to any construction activity commencement, work areas where gopher tortoises 

were identified during field surveys will be resurveyed by qualified personnel to determine if 

dispersion or movement has occurred. Previously unidentified gopher tortoise burrows will be 

documented and mapped using GPS devices. Efforts will be made to inspect all active and 

inactive burrows using a remote infrared video camera system that enables a determination of 

occupancy by tortoises or commensals such as the Easter indigo snake. 

Upper Respiratory Tract Disease (URTD) has been detected in an increasing number of 

gopher tortoise populations in the southeast over the past decade. In order to prevent the 

potential spread of this disease while handling gopher tortoises, latex gloves will be worn, and 

K-1 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
all equipment (including guide pole, scope, scale, measuring equipment, shovels, etc.) will be 

thoroughly cleaned with a ten percent bleach solution following each contact with an individual 

gopher tortoise or burrow. 

Burrows will be identified using a unique numbering system to facilitate proper 

monitoring. Following completion of the initial re-surveys of the proposed right-of-way and 

before construction, a report will be submitted to the FWS and the Mississippi Museum of 

Natural Science (MMNS) containing information on any gopher tortoise individuals that will 

require capture and relocation. Gopher tortoises and burrows in area adjacent to the 

construction right-of-way will be excluded from the construction zone by barricading silt fencing 

or orange construction fencing erected along the edge of the right-of-way to prevent accidental 

contact with and damage from construction equipment. 

1.3 Collection of Gopher Tortoises for Relocation 

Collection of gopher tortoises from the work areas will be determined on an individual 

basis and will be constrained as follows: 

1. Any personnel involved with the relocation of a gopher tortoise will have experience 

in working with gopher tortoises and be under the supervision of the qualified 

biologist; 

2. Any activities resulting in the capture/relocation of a tortoise will occur only from April 

1 to October 15; 

3. A qualified biologist will determine whether any burrows show signs of nesting. If 

determined that a burrow may have eggs buried within the apron, they will be hand 

excavated, carried without rotation, and reburied at a suitable location. Egg 

relocation sites will be protected using two-inch mesh to enable hatchlings to escape, 

while predators are excluded; 

4. If an individual is captured outside or near the entrance of a burrow, the burrow will 

be examined with a remote infrared video camera system. If no additional tortoises 

or commensal species are present, the burrow will be excavated with a backhoe to 

verify that the burrow is unoccupied and then filled in to prevent reoccupation; 

5. Small sub-adult and hatchling burrows will be shovel excavated. Small flexible 

tubing (PVC, HDPE) will be entered into the burrow to determine depth and shape of 

the burrow and will be used as a guide for digging the burrow. This tubing will be 

graduated to aid in determining burrow depth. As shovel digging approaches the 

end of the burrow, hand digging will replace shoveling until completion of the burrow 

is reached. Following removal of the tortoise, backfilling can occur; 

6. Backhoe digging of adult burrows will occur using the same steps as shoveling. 

Backhoe buckets will have their teeth removed or a metal plate welded over the 

teeth. A flexible tubing will be inserted into the burrow to be used as a guide for the 

backhoe operator and to ensure the path is maintained. A qualified person will 

inspect the progress of the digging. The last one or two feet of the burrow path are 

to be hand dug. Following extraction of the tortoise, backfilling can proceed; 

K-2 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
7. Captured tortoises will be sexed, aged, permanently marked using standard marginal 

scute numbering (Cable, 1944); 

8. Sick or injured tortoises will be brought to a local veterinarian for treatment by a 

qualified person with FWS and MMNS approval to move tortoises. If injuries are 

critical, it will be euthanized. Documentation for all tortoises brought to a veterinarian 

will be submitted to the FWS and the MMNS; 

9. All materials used to capture, dig, relocate gopher tortoises will be sanitized using a 

ten percent bleach solution after each use to prevent spread of disease; and 

10. Handling of gopher tortoises will be by qualified personnel wearing latex gloves and 

gloves will be changed after handling each turtle to prevent spread of disease. 

1.4 Relocation of Gopher Tortoises 

As has been shown with previous pipeline projects (Wester and Kolb, 1999; Thomas, 

2001), gopher tortoises temporarily displaced from the construction corridor will likely remain in 

the immediate vicinity of their capture and will be able to reoccupy their original home range 

once construction and re-vegetation activities are completed. Therefore, Gulf South proposes to 

temporarily relocate directly impacted individuals from the proposed right-of-way into nearby 

burrows within their normal range. In locations where nearby burrows do not exist, starter 

burrows will be dug for release of displaced tortoise following the guidelines outlined in Gulf 

South’s Gopher Tortoise Standard Operating Procedures for Protecting Gopher Tortoise Along 

Existing Rights-of-Way (Appendix B of this Conservation Strategy). All relocations will be within 

the same colony and will be supervised and directed by the qualified biologist approved for such 

activity and with proper permits. 

The relocation of individuals from the construction areas will be conducted in accordance 

with the following guidelines: 

1. Relocations will occur only between April 1 and October 15; 

2. Relocation will take place immediately to previously selected inactive/abandoned 

burrows of similar size and in the same general area; 

3. All tortoises to be relocated will be examined for Upper Respiratory Disease (URD). 

Systematic tortoises will be separated from other tortoises and reported to the FWS 

and the MMNS. Blood samples will be taken by qualified personnel and sent to the 

University of Florida for testing in accord with methodologies provided by the 

University of Florida and as required by the FWS and the MMNS; 

4. All recipient burrows will be scoped to determine activity status prior to releasing 

captured individuals; and 

5. A report will be prepared to detail the relocation efforts to both the FWS and the 

MMNS. 

K-3 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
1.5 Construction Monitoring 

An environmental inspector (EI) thoroughly trained in the procedures included in this 

Conservation Strategy will be on-site at all times to ensure compliance with all aspects of this 

plan, environmental permits, the FERC Certificate, and the Endangered Species Act (ESA). A 

qualified biologist with all necessary state and federal endangered species permits will be 

available at all times during construction to handle any gopher tortoise or eastern indigo snake 

issues as they arise. This biologist will provide continued training on listed species throughout 

construction to all construction personnel as needed. 

1.5.1 Burrow Adjacent to Construction Corridor 

Individual gopher tortoises, or gopher tortoise colonies located adjacent to, and outside 

of the construction corridor, will be protected from impacts by installation of silt fence or orange 

barricade type fencing. To prevent tortoises from wandering into construction areas, fencing will 

be placed on the outer edge of the proposed construction corridor and buried to a minimum 

depth of 6 inches below grade. Additionally, fencing will help to prevent inadvertent impacts 

from construction equipment and personnel to these areas by clearly demarcating these areas. 

The exact location and placement of fencing will be determined by a qualified biologist and be 

appropriate for the habitat being affected. Signage will be posted to clearly demarcate these 

areas. The EI will monitor all installed fencing at a frequency determined by the qualified 

biologist to insure proper functioning. Following construction, all gopher tortoise fencing will be 

removed and the flora and fauna allowed to re-inhabit the area. 

1.5.2 Access Roads 

All access roads in the general vicinity of areas where there are known populations of 

gopher tortoises or Eastern indigo snakes will be resurveyed prior to construction. Additionally, 

the following guidelines will be adhered to further protect individual species; 

1. Signs will be placed on unimproved access roads where there are known colonies of 

gopher tortoises and speed limits restricted to 10 MPH. 

2. If a burrow is located within 50 feet of an unimproved road, it will be barricaded with 

exclusion silt fencing or orange construction fencing, with a minimal length of 150 

feet. 

3. All unimproved access roads in the vicinity of known gopher colonies or burrows will 

be examined daily for the presence of wandering individuals. 

1.5.3 Right-of-Way Surveying Throughout Construction 

In order to further minimize impacts to gopher tortoises and Eastern indigo snakes, Gulf 

South will conduct regular surveys throughout the duration of construction. The following is a 

listing of proposed re-surveys to be conducted during construction: 

1. Re-survey the right-of-way as necessary to document any new locations or activities 

of gopher tortoises or Eastern indigo snakes; 

2. Survey all open trenches for individual tortoises or Eastern indigo snakes daily and 

before backfilling. Should a tortoise be found during these surveys, the qualified 

K-4 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
biologist should be contacted so that it may be removed in accord with proper 

handling procedures; and 

3. All spoil piles within the general vicinity of known gopher tortoise populations will be 

surveyed daily by a qualified biologist to ensure that no tortoises have colonized the 

spoil piles. If a burrow is located in a spoil pile, it will be excavated in accord with 

this plan and under instruction of the qualified biologist. 

1.5.4 Construction Monitoring 

All monitoring of the terms and conditions of the biological assessment and conservation 

strategy will be carried out by the EI under instruction of the qualified biologist. Roles and 

responsibilities with respect to this biological assessment include: 

1. At all times the qualified biologist will be available to the EI; 

2. The EI will have stop work authority and direct contact with the environmental project 

manager and construction superintendent should a burrow or individual gopher 

tortoise be located with potential to be impacted by the proposed Project; 

3. Except in the event that a gopher tortoise or Eastern indigo snake is in immanent 

danger that might lead to the injury or mortality, no personnel, other than a qualified 

biologist, shall handle or disturb a tortoise; 

4. Any violations of the conditions or terms of this document, the FERC Certificate, or 

the ESA shall be reported to the environmental project manager who will contact the 

FWS and the MMNS; 

5. Monitoring will continue until deemed complete by the FWS and the MMNS. 

1.6 Operation and Maintenance 

Gulf South is proposing a 60-foot wide permanent right-of-way; however, we have 

recommended a permanent right-of-way of 50 feet. The area will be planted with grasses that 

normally occupy such rights-of-way such as dallis, Bermuda, and Bahia grasses. Gulf South 

will follow the Standard Operating Procedures for Protecting Gopher Tortoises for the Project as 

summarized below and included as Appendix B of this Conservation Strategy. Gulf South will 

also follow the guidelines outlined in their Unanticipated Discoveries/Encounters with Eastern 

indigo snakes that is included in Appendix C of this Conservation Strategy. 

1.6.1 Training 

Qualified personnel will be used to determine if gopher tortoises or Eastern indigo 

snakes are present on a construction site before work begins. These personnel will be Gulf 

South employees or contracted mowing personnel that have been trained to identify gopher 

tortoises, their habitat, and/or burrows, as well as eastern indigo snakes. A training module, 

including gopher tortoise and Eastern indigo snake identification keys and habitat information 

will be provided to personnel who will be responsible for the right-of-way clearance. Maps 

showing the locations of known active/inactive burrows on the right-of-way will be provided to 

mowing personnel, as needed. A list of personnel who have completed training will be provided 

upon FWS request. 

K-5 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
1.6.2 Reporting 

Reporting of findings will be made by trained personnel on all jobs in affected 

counties/parishes. Inspection report forms will be retained for inclusion in reporting under the 

FERC blanket or for any reporting requested by the FWS under the terms of their approval of 

this plan or subsequent consultations. 

1.6.3 Small Excavations 

Small excavations are routinely necessary for replacing valves, sections of pipe or small 

appurtenance construction. Prior to the excavation, the area within which work will be 

conducted (including the area to be excavated and the path that equipment will be traveling) will 

be surveyed for tortoise burrows and individual tortoises. If an individual tortoise or Eastern 

indigo snake is encountered, they will be allowed to leave the area without contact from any 

Gulf South staff or its contractors. If maintenance activities are required within 50 feet of 

tortoise burrows, the burrows will be clearly marked for avoidance, and the FWS will be 

contacted for consultation. If an active burrow cannot be avoided, then Gulf South will initiate 

formal consultation with the FWS. 

Except for travel on existing roads and paths, routine maintenance activities will be 

restricted to areas beyond at least 50 feet from tortoise burrows. Where these maintenance 

activities require work be performed closer than 50 feet from burrows, only hand-held equipment 

will be used, and maintenance personnel will avoid the burrow apron, entrance and area 

immediately behind the entrance. 

If excavations are to be left unattended in areas where gopher tortoises have been 

identified, the area will be fenced to prevent gopher tortoises from entering the excavation area. 

Small excavation projects such as those applicable to this management plan are unlikely to 

exceed two days from the initial date of ground disturbance. Excavation areas within 100 feet of 

tortoise burrows will be surrounded by a fence with a minimum 2-inch mesh to exclude tortoises 

during construction. Attention should be paid to the bottom of the fence to make sure that it is 

secured to prevent tortoises from going underneath the fence. Enough area should be fenced 

to allow work to proceed within the enclosure with minimal limitations on tortoise foraging habitat 

as practical. Fencing should remain in place until the excavation is backfilled. 

All excavated trenches and underneath vehicles will be checked daily for tortoises before 

commencing work. All maintenance debris that could hinder tortoise movement will be removed 

at the completion of construction activities. 

1.3.4 Right-of-Way Mowing 

The mowing of rights-of-way is a necessary and regulated practice. Since gopher 

tortoises and Eastern indigo snakes have been documented to utilize existing rights-of-way, 

special attention should be given before and during mowing activity. The right-of-way should be 

walked before mowing begins to determine areas of occupied habitat and potentially occupied 

habitat. When mowing in these areas, a “tortoise monitor” will verify that the right-of-way is 

clear immediately ahead of the mowers. Individual tortoises should be allowed to move out of 

the path of the mowers. Gopher tortoises are active year round; however their activity slows 

down in the winter months. When possible, mowing should be conducted in the winter (between 

November 1st and March 1st) to reduce the likelihood of encountering gopher tortoises. If 

practical, mowing should be planned for cloudy days when the temperature is below 50oF. This 

K-6 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
will further reduce the probability of encountering a tortoise. Mowing will be conducted at a 

frequency sufficient to maintain suppression of woody growth, and in accord with FERC and US 

Department of Transportation (DOT) standards. In addition, no herbicides will be used to control 

vegetation within areas occupied by tortoises. 

Maintenance personnel will use hand-held power equipment to mow vegetation 

surrounding the burrows. Hand-pushed mowers and hand-held equipment will be used within 

50 feet of tortoise burrows, and maintenance personnel will avoid mowing across the burrow 

apron, burrow entrance, and the area immediately behind the entrance. 

1.3.5 Pipeline Leaks and Emergencies 

In case of emergency such as a pipeline leak or blowout, it may be necessary to initiate 

repair work immediately. If this occurs in an area inhabited by gopher tortoises, every effort will 

be made to protect the burrows and individuals. Gulf South will contact qualified personnel to 

address any and all impacts to gopher tortoises. This will include immediate assessment of the 

potential effects of the situation, and every effort will be made to minimize or avoid such any 

potential adverse effects. Any such events will be reported to appropriate FWS Field Offices 

and state agencies. 

2.0 POST-CONSTRUCTION MONITORING, COORDINATION AND REPORTING 

The pipeline right-of-way will be monitored for three years following the initial relocations 

of gopher tortoises to assess the success of relocation efforts. Surveys will be conducted 

during the active periods of the year. Burrows located within the right-of-way will be identified 

and located with GPS coordinates. The status of starter and relocation burrows will also be 

assessed during surveys. Using GIS technology, these burrows will be mapped and compared 

to pre-construction and yearly post-construction data. 

Gulf South will compile the findings of this monitoring efforts into an annual summary 

report and present its findings to the FWS and the MMNS beginning one year after construction 

completion and site restoration. 

3.0 References 

Cox, J., D. Inkley, and R. Kautz. 1987. Ecology and habitat protection needs of gopher tortoise 

(Gopherus polyphemus) populations found on lands slated for large-scale development 

in Florida. Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission Nongame Wildlife Program 

Technical Report 4, Tallahassee, Florida. 74 pages. 

Thomas, D.P. 2001. Recruitment of Gopher Tortoises to a newly constructed pipeline corridor in 

Mississippi. Proceedings of the Seventh International Symposium on Environmental 

Concerns in Right-of-Way Management, Calgary 2000. Elsevier Science Ltd. London. 

Wester, E.E. and J.W. Kolb. 1997. Conservation of the gopher tortoise and associated species 

during construction of the Florida Gas Transmission Company Phase III Expansion 

Project. Pp. 330-34- in J.R. Goodrich-Mahoney, J.R. Wisniewski, and J. Wisniewski eds. 

Elsevier Sci. New York. X+511pp. 

K-7 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
APPENDIX A 

SURVEY METHODOLOGY FOR GOPHER TORTOISES 

AND EASTERN INDIGO SNAKES 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
1.0 SURVEY METHODOLOGY 

Areas of suitable gopher tortoise habitat, as described in the following section, as well as 

areas considered to be of marginal quality will be “100 percent” surveyed for the presence of 

tortoise burrows. Survey sites will be divided into consecutive “site distance” strip transects, 

each of which will be traversed, on foot, by a member of the survey team across the entire width 

of the survey corridor as required. The width of each transect will be determined by ground 

visibility within the site. In other words, a site composed of pasture, recent timber clear-cut, or 

other forms of open land will have a greater transect width than that of a very thick timber stand 

with reduced sight distance. Transect widths may range from 10 to 50 feet, depending on 

ground visibility within the site. 

If a tortoise burrow is found, the coordinates for the burrow will be documented, a photo 

taken, and the location and activity status will be documented as active, inactive, or abandoned. 

The classification for activity status is defined below and is based on the appearance of the 

burrow apron and entrance at the time of survey. 

1. Active – most likely occupied by a tortoise; as evidenced by presence of tortoise, 

freshly dug sand, tortoise tracks, or tortoise scat. 

2. Inactive – used by a tortoise as part of a home range with other burrows, but is not 

currently occupied. Evidence includes absence of active burrow signs listed above 

and/or the presence of debris in burrow entrance. 

3. Abandoned – most likely not occupied by a tortoise for many years; as evidenced by 

deteriorated nature of burrow entrance, (i.e. burrow collapsed, lack of maintained 

apron, sand washed in, etc.) Old burrows are in such a condition that they are not 

considered to be good candidates for future use by tortoises. 

Gopher tortoises occupy a wide range of upland habitat types. The general physical and 

biotic features thought to characterize suitable adult tortoise habitat are: 

1. Presence of well-drained, sandy soils, which allow easy burrowing; 

2. Abundance of herbaceous ground cover; and 

3. Generally open canopy and sparse shrub cover, which allows sunlight to reach the 

ground floor (Cox et al., 1987). 

1.1 Soils 

Soil conditions are responsible for the nature of habitats preferred by tortoises. The U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service has assigned each soil series as either a priority, suitable, marginal, or 

unsuitable type for the gopher tortoise. US Department of Agriculture Natural Resources 

Conservation Service (USDA-NRCS) county soil survey maps can be obtained either from the 

NRCS website (if available) or from the local NRCS office. 

1. Priority soils are humus poor, excessively well-drained, relatively deep to deep sandy 

soils, without fragipans. These soils typically occur on the highest upland positions 

1

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
and adjacent side slopes. Priority soils include Lakeland, Alaga, Eustis, and 

Troup/Waldey. 

2. Suitable soils consist of deep, well drained, loamy sands, without fragipans. Suitable 

soils, in comparison to priority soils, have horizons with a greater portion of clay. 

Suitable soils usually occupy topographically adjacent and lower positions when 

associated with priority soils. Suitable soils include Benndale, McLaurin, Smithdale, 

and Ruston. 

3. Marginal soils are deep, moderately well drained soils, with a greater amount of clay 

or plinthite, which may include fragipans. Marginal soils are not classified as hydric 

or wetland soils. Marginal soils include Poarch, Saucier, Susquehana, Freest, and 

Lucy types. 

All other soil series are considered unsuitable soils. These soils frequently are classified 

as hydric, or they occur on stream terraces and floodplains. 

1.2 Vegetation 

The vegetation characterizing gopher tortoise habitats varies with geography, soil type, 

and past and present land use. Long-leaf pine (Pinus palustris) , loblolly, slash pine(loblolly) 

and/ or hardwood trees (i.e. turkey oak, blackjack oak, wax myrtle, etc) can often be found at 

such sites. Herbaceous vegetation tends to be composed of species tolerant of dry conditions 

(i.e. wiregrass, prickly pear, reindeer moss, gopher apple, blackberry, and several grasses of 

the genera Andropogon and Panicum). 

Tortoise burrows also can be found along powerline and pipeline rights-of-way, road 

rights-of-way, and ruderal habitats; including fence rows, orchard edges, golf course roughs and 

edges, old fields, and pasturelands. Tortoises are often pushed into these areas due to 

adjacent habitat becoming unsuitable (i.e. thick under and mid story canopy, residential and 

commercial development, etc). 

2

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
APPENDIX B 

GULF SOUTH’S STANDARAD OPERATING PROCEDURES FOR 

PROTECTING GOPHER TORTOISES 

ALONG EXISTING RIGHTS-OF-WAY 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
January, 2007 

Before any tortoise can be handled, moved, harassed, etc., Gulf South must first obtain 

a federal incidental take permit from the FWS and a state permit from the MDWFP. 

This Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) is to be included into all future biological 

assessments submitted to the FWS during formal consultation per Section 7 the Endangered 

Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). This SOP will be considered 

part of the “proposed action” for that particular project. 

This SOP is intended to cover the majority of tortoise relocation issues. Additional 

information may need to be included on a project by project basis such as specific relocation 

site information, additional monitoring and reporting, etc. 

Contact Information 

Cale LeBlanc 

Environmental Specialist 

111 Park Place, Suite 100 

Covington, LA 70433 

Office: 985-898-1051 

Cell: 985-791-8395 

David Felder, Biologist 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

6578 Dogwood View Parkway 

Jackson, MS 39213 

Office: 601-321-1139 

Cell: 601-720-6458 

Tom Mann, Tortoise Biologist 

MS Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks 

2148 Riverside Drive 

Jackson, MS 39202 

Office: 601-354-7303 

1.0 COLLECTION OF TORTOISES FROM PROJECT AREA 

a) Gopher tortoises will only be captured and relocated during the active season (April 1 

to October 1). 

b) All burrow excavation efforts will be directly supervised by a biologist with experience 

excavating gopher tortoise burrows. All active burrows will be fitted with wire have-ahart traps. All traps should be clearly marked “Do not disturb”. Traps will be 

sufficiently shaded to prevent overheating of a trapped tortoise and will be checked 

twice daily, once in late morning and once in late afternoon. Hatchling and subadult 

burrows will be hand excavated, using shovels. Backhoes may be used to excavate 

adult burrows if have-a-hart traps fail to trap tortoises. 

c) Before beginning hand or backhoe excavation, a flexible tube, with length 

graduations marked, will be inserted into the burrow to ensure that the burrow path is 

1

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
not lost and to indicate the distance to the end of the burrow or to the 

tortoise/commensal. Throughout the excavation process, the burrow will be 

frequently inspected to ensure that the tortoise/commensal has not moved to a 

position where it might be injured by the backhoe or shovel. The last one - two feet 

of the burrow will be excavated by hand using shovels and small hand spades. 

Following removal of the tortoise/commensal, all excavated burrows will be refilled. 

d) Captured gopher tortoises will be photographed (dorsal, ventral, and anterior views 

for tortoises), measured, weighed, sexed (if possible), aged (if possible), and marked 

using a standard marginal scute numbering scheme. 

e) All relocated gopher tortoises will be examined for visual signs of upper respiratory 

tract disease (URTD). A blood sample will be collected for each tortoise and sent to 

the University of Florida for an ELISA test for URTD antibodies. Because of the 

specialized expertise needed for this sampling effort, field personnel should have 

experience extracting blood for URTD analysis according to the protocol established 

by the Gopher Tortoise Council. Immediately following data/blood sample collection, 

each tortoise will be given an opportunity to drink water. 

2.0 RELOCATION AND MONITORING OF TORTOISES FROM PROJECT ROW 

a. If available, release burrows will be inspected with a remote video system to ensure 

that they are unoccupied. In areas with limited numbers of existing unoccupied 

burrows, starter burrows will be dug for release of displaced tortoises. Starter 

burrows will be dug at a 20-30 degree angle with shovels/post hole diggers/power 

augers to the greatest distance possible (minimum 3-4 feet). Starter burrows should 

have a size and shape similar to the burrow being replaced. 

b. All colonies will remain intact and starter burrows for each colony will be located 

within 600 feet of each other. Starter burrows and tortoises will be temporary 

penned using silt screen fencing material for seven days. Individual pens will be a 

minimum of 40 feet in diameter and round in construction to eliminate corners in 

which tortoises will tend to dig. 

c. To minimize the risk of disease transmission, all material used during the 

displacement of gopher tortoises from the construction corridor (e.g., traps, shovels, 

backhoe buckets, remote video cameras, etc.) will be disinfected with a dilute 

chlorine solution after each use. Tortoises will be handled with disposable latex 

gloves. 

3.0 CONSTRUCTION PERSONNEL EDUCATION 

Before any construction activities, Gulf South will require all construction personnel to 

attend an educational presentation, conducted by trained personnel, to acquaint them with 

gopher tortoise ecology, their protected status, and Gulf South’s conservation /mitigation efforts. 

Such a presentation will include: 

a) An overview of the terms and conditions of the FWS’s biological opinion and 

penalties for noncompliance. 

2

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
b) Legal penalties for killing, injuring, harassing, or otherwise disturbing a gopher 

tortoise or its burrow. 

c) Procedures for coordinating with and contacting the Project biologist. 

4.0 MONITORING OF CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES 

a) Any new burrows found within the construction corridor or spoil piles will be 

inspected for occupancy using a remote video system. Occupied burrows will be 

trapped or excavated and the tortoises/commensals handled, data collected and 

released into designated unoccupied/starter burrow following preconstruction 

procedures. Unoccupied burrows will be collapsed. 

b) Except in emergencies, only gopher tortoise Project biologists and specifically 

trained environmental inspectors will be allowed to handle tortoises. Tortoise 

biologists and inspectors will have access to radios or cellular phones while in the 

field. 

c) If a gopher tortoise is encountered by construction personnel within the construction 

corridor, all activities that might harm these species will cease and a Project biologist 

or environmental inspector will be summoned. The USFWS will be contacted to 

determine where the tortoise should be released. 

d) If a gopher tortoise is found dead during construction activities, the Project biologist 

will be notified, who will then report the incident to the USFWS. 

5.0 COORDINATION AND REPORTING 

a) The development of a tortoise relocation plan (i.e. tortoise relocation and monitoring) 

and any significant changes to the proposed Project will be coordinated with the 

FWS. FWS personnel will be invited to visit the construction site and accompany 

Project biologist during all phases of the gopher tortoise conservation effort. 

b) Following the relocation of tortoises, a report documenting the capture and 

displacement of gopher tortoises will include the following information: (1) names and 

qualifications of the investigators; (2) survey dates; (3) area surveyed, including 

mileposts; (4) specific burrow locations, including the milepost, distance from 

roadway centerline, and direction; (5) survey methods; (6) burrow size, condition, 

and activity level; (7) the individual marking used to identify each relocated tortoise or 

snake and their associated original and relocated burrow sites; (8) date of relocation; 

and (9) conclusions. The survey report will be sent to the FWS. 

6.0 POST-CONSTRUCTION ROW MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS 

a. Maintenance personnel will be trained in tortoise awareness. Maintenance 

personnel will use power equipment to mow vegetation surrounding the burrows, but 

will reduce their speed within 50 feet of burrows. Maintenance personnel will avoid 

mowing across the burrow apron, burrow entrance and the area immediately behind 

the entrance. 

3

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
b. In case of an emergency (e.g., chemical or fuel leaks and/or spills), a gopher tortoise 

biologist will be called to the site as soon as possible to assess the potential impacts 

of the emergency and repair work on nearby tortoises, and to prevent further impacts 

during ongoing repair work. The FWS will be immediately contacted concerning any 

adverse effects on a gopher tortoise. 

c. All tortoises or burrows found along existing roads will be reported to the Project 

biologist. 

d. When a tortoise is found alive in the road and in danger of being hit by vehicular 

traffic, the tortoise should be moved to one side of the road. If the tortoise appears 

to be heading in one direction, move the tortoise to that side of the road. If unsure, 

then relocate tortoise to closest side. 

e. If a tortoise is found in the road that has been hit by a vehicle, and is still alive, 

contact the Project biologist (Gulf South) or Tom Mann (MMNS), for coordination on 

where injured tortoises can be taken. 

f. Dead tortoises found in Gulf South’s right-of-way should be photographed if possible, 

location recorded (mile marker, north or south bound lane, etc), and reported to the 

Project biologist. 

g. A database will be developed that catalogs the occurrence of tortoises/burrows found 

on Gulf South right-of-way, number of tortoises impacted by vehicles, location, etc. 

4

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
APPENDIX C 

UNANTICIPATED DISCOVERIES/ENCOUNTERS WITH 

EASTERN INDIGO SNAKE 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
EASTERN INDIGO SNAKE UNANTICIPATED DISCOVERIES/ENCOUNTERS 

The Eastern indigo snake is a threatened species that occurs throughout peninsular 

Florida. This species is actually characteristic of moist habitats, but inhabits sandy xeric 

habitats in conjunction with gopher tortoises. In the drier habitats, the Eastern indigo snake will 

occupy gopher tortoise burrows. The preferred habitats include pine flatwoods, xeric oak 

stands, palmetto scrub, and tropical hammocks. No Eastern indigo snakes were observed 

within the proposed Southeast Expansion Project study area during any of the field surveys. 

The prevalence of potential habitat within the corridor could potentially involve the Eastern 

indigo snake. However, to minimize any impacts to any individual Eastern indigo snakes during 

construction, the following special provision will be included in the construction contract to 

advise the contractor of the potential presence of this species and its protected status: 

• If an Eastern indigo snake is sighted during construction, the contractor will be 

required to cease all operation(s) which might cause harm to the snake. 

• If the snake does not move away from the construction area, a state or federal 

biologist will be contacted to capture and relocate the snake to suitable habitat 

either adjacent to the proposed Project area or off-site to an acceptable donor 

site. 

• If an Eastern indigo snake is killed or found dead within the construction area, the 

snake should be frozen and the FWS Jackson Field Office [(601) 965-5392] will 

be notified immediately. 

• Due to the condition of the surrounding area, the abundance of habitat in the 

Project area, and the special provisions to protect transient individuals 

encountered during construction, the proposed Project is not anticipated to affect 

the Eastern indigo snake. 

1

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
APPENDIX L 

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
Mendenhall Public Meeting 

 1 Public Meeting 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
Mendenhall Public Meeting 

 2 Public Meeting 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
Mendenhall Public Meeting 

 3 Public Meeting 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
Mendenhall Public Meeting 

 4 Public Meeting 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
Mendenhall Public Meeting 

P1-1: The Final EIS in Sections 3.11.2.2 animpacts to the Twin Lakes Conference CenGulf South and Twin Lakes, and minimizatThese measures include restricted use of cecrews and ingress and egress for the work sabatement measures to be implemented for Compressor Station. 

P1-1

 5 Public Meeting 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
Mendenhall Public Meeting 

 6 Public Meeting 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
Heidelberg Public Meeting 

 7 Public Meeting 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
Heidelberg Public Meeting 

 8 Public Meeting 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
Heidelberg Public Meeting 

 9 Public Meeting 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
Heidelberg Public Meeting 

 10 Public Meeting 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
Heidelberg Public Meeting 

P2-1: Potential construction related impacts South’s proposed measures to minimize and safety for residents during construction, are General Construction and Operational Impaavoidance and mitigation measures Gulf SoUpland Erosion Control, Revegetation, and obeying construction right-of-way limits (Ssafety at road crossings (Section III.D and I(III.E), conserving topsoil (Section IV.B), aand landowner fences (Section V). Gulf Soustaff’s Plan, which is available for viewing industries/gas/enviro/uplndctl.pdf. Gulf Souand residents, prior to construction, a proceGulf South’s construction impacts on their Recommendations, Environmental Conditio

P2-1

P2-2: Pipeline safety is addressed in Sectiodata show that natural gas pipelines continuenergy transportation. 

P2-2

 11 Public Meeting 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
Heidelberg Public Meeting 

P2-3: Property tax considerations and potendiscussed in Section 3.9.5 Property Values. local governmental processes involved with authorities for land put under pipeline easemthe proposed pipeline route would be permitypes of restricted land uses following cons3.8.3 General Impacts and Mitigation, and wconstruction of house additions, garages, ba

P2-3

 12 Public Meeting 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
Heidelberg Public Meeting 

P2-4: Abandonment of above-ground pipeldone by removing the equipment (facilities)the easement. Abandonment of below grouneither by removal or leaving the pipeline in procedures. Any abandonment performed ban application and approval by the Commis

P2-3

P2-4

 13 Public Meeting 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
Heidelberg Public Meeting 

 14 Public Meeting 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
Heidelberg Public Meeting 

P2-5: The period transpiring from the time related surveys until the FERC makes a decconstruction describes the current process oundergoing. An example time period could of its project at the FERC, review of Gulf SEIS with subsequent 45-day comment perioFinal EIS, followed by a 30-day no-action wapproved, and all permits and conditions hagranted commencement of construction thatime the FERC would issue authorization fo

P2-5

 15 Public Meeting 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
Heidelberg Public Meeting 

P2-6: Gulf South must file all required infoenvironmental and business rate aspects in Environmental information in the form of rprovided by Gulf South, which FERC staff additional resource-specific or site-specific needed, conducting additional information gincluding gathering public comment. Based FERC staff performs an analysis of the expinformation is then summarized with FERC measures and is presented in the Final EIS t

P2-5

P2-6

 16 Public Meeting 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
Heidelberg Public Meeting 

 17 Public Meeting 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
Heidelberg Public Meeting 

 18 Public Meeting 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
Heidelberg Public Meeting 

P2-7: Based on conversation at the Heidelband consulting aerial alignment sheets, we dShoemakers’ interest would be impacted at 52.8 and 54.1. The three projects that could potentially affinclude the Southeast Expansion Project, ththe Midcontinent Express Project. The Soureferred to is filed as the New Home Storag

005-000). The project would include a 9-mproposed Project at MP 47. The New Homwithdrawn. Cumulative impacts are discuss

P2-7

 19 Public Meeting 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
Heidelberg Public Meeting 

P2-8: The proposed width between existing pipipeline is the result of certain minimum safety required for pipeline placement and constructi2.2.1. However, we are recommending in Sectpermanent right-of-way to a width of 50 feet in

addition, we are requiring Gulf South to use at pipeline rights-of-way during construction aloway, unless justification is provided otherwise indicated that it would redesign its temporary cfeet for almost all of its adjacent pipeline areasthat it would file with the FERC. We believe twould use in locating existing pipelines, carefurelated to spoil placement in this overlap zone install the pipeline. These recommendations sSouth’s proposed pipeline and adjacent existinand 55 feet. Finally, Gulf South has agreed to widths in rugged areas to a width of 150 feet o

P2-8

 20 Public Meeting 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
Heidelberg Public Meeting 

P2-9: While the EIS does evaluate System Aprojects mentioned by Ms. Shoemaker are eobjectives which do not lend themselves to arrangements. P2-10: See response to Public Comment P2

P2-8

P2-9

P2-10

 21 Public Meeting 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
Heidelberg Public Meeting 

P2-11: Comment noted. FERC is actively ienvironmental report filing requirements anthat landowners are treated fairly and with rdevelopment and construction. Gulf Southprocedure for construction activities is discuuse of FERC’s Enforcement Hotline if Gulf 

P2-10 reasonable degree. 

P2-11

 22 Public Meeting 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
Heidelberg Public Meeting 

P2-12: Whether FERC approves of denies a pipeline project depends on a company’s peneed for its proposed natural gas deliveries, and whether the project poses unacceptable the natural and human environment, all of wthe Commission in its decision. FERC has not met any of the criteria for public need. 

P2-12

 23 Public Meeting 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
Heidelberg Public Meeting 

 24 Public Meeting 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
Heidelberg Public Meeting 

P2-13: See response to Public Comment P2

P2-13

 25 Public Meeting 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
Heidelberg Public Meeting 

 26 Public Meeting 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
Heidelberg Public Meeting 

P2-14: See Public Comment response to P2

P2-14

 27 Public Meeting 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
Heidelberg Public Meeting 

P2-14 (cont’d)

 28 Public Meeting 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
Heidelberg Public Meeting 

 29 Public Meeting 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
Heidelberg Public Meeting 

 30 Public Meeting 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
Butler Public Meeting 

 31 Public Meeting 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
Butler Public Meeting 

 32 Public Meeting 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
Butler Public Meeting 

 33 Public Meeting 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
Butler Public Meeting 

 34 Public Meeting 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
Butler Public Meeting 

P3-1: We recognize that the limits of Transalways stated as to their width. Gulf South of the easement that abuts their proposed pi

to correspond with Transco for their construbasis to ensure construction does not impedexisting parallel pipelines. Gulf South indicproposed pipeline location with respect to aeasements may necessitate overlapping of pGulf South from the certificate, if approved 

P3-1

P3-2: We have added a new Section 2.3.2.7 three locations where Transco’s line is crosspecifying the distance of clearance Gulf So

P3-2

 35 Public Meeting 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
Butler Public Meeting 

P3-3: See response to Comment P2-8. We to cooperate with the intention of FERC staP3-4: The sentence was intended to refer to right-of-way that would abut but not cross opermanent right-of-way, and that the 10 feeSouth’s construction right-of-way only. SeFacilities and Section 5.1.8 Land Use, Rec

and Visual Resources for summary statemwell as our response to Comment P2-8. 

P3-3

P3-4

 36 Public Meeting 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
Butler Public Meeting 

P3-4 (cont’d)

 37 Public Meeting 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
Butler Public Meeting 

P3-5: At approximate MP 110, the streams 

be open cut. The addition of Gulf South’s ppond at approximately MP 110 area would the slope and northern edge of this impoundSouth’s use of erosion and sedimentation coproposed Plan and Procedures (discussed in Construction Procedures and Section 2.3.

Construction Procedures) during construcinflux of sediment into the pond. Such meawithin 24 hours, installing erosion control ddisturbance, and proper maintenance througremoved devices would be repositioned at tplace if heavy precipitation is imminent. In Gulf South install such measures as necessato impoundments located adjacent to its conway. Finally, regular inspection of Gulf SoFERC staff, its contractors, and through the monitoring program would ensure adequate 

P3-5

 38 Public Meeting 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
Butler Public Meeting 

P3-6: As for adding another line, it is still Festablished corridors so that the least amounenvironment occurs. Our recommendation to reduce impacts. Transco and Gulf South facilities. 

P3-6 

 39 Public Meeting 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
Butler Public Meeting 

 40 Public Meeting 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
Butler Public Meeting 

P3-7: See response to Comment P2-8. 

P3-7 

 41 Public Meeting 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
Butler Public Meeting 

 42 Public Meeting 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
Butler Public Meeting 

 43 Public Meeting 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
David Felder 

F1-1: The Biological Opinion (BO) was dadescribes the measures to comply with the B

F1-1

 44 Public Meeting 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
Ronald M. Griffin 

C1-1: See response to Comment P2-3 for pfor the safety issue. C1-2: The right of eminent domain is confeGas Act. 

C1-1

C1-2

 45 Individual Co

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
U.S. Department of the Interior 

F2-1: Gulf South is currently consulting wipipeline crossings of the NRI-listed Strong Sections 3.2.2.1 and 3.2.2.3 for updated disGulf South’s consultations with the NPS ansite-specific plans for use of the HDD procehydrostatic testwater. F2-2: See response to Comment F1-1. 

F2-1

F2-2

 46 Federal Agency 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
U.S. Department of the Interior 

 47 Federal Agency 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

F3-1: Table 3.11.1-1, National Ambient Air has been revised to reflect the new ParticulaF3-2: Two copies of the Final EIS will be m

F3-1

F3-2

 48 Federal Agency 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
First Presbyterian Church 

C2-1: See response to Comment P1-1. 

C2-1

 49 Individual Co

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
First Presbyterian Church 

C2-1 

(cont’d)

 50 Individual Co

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
First Presbyterian Church 

 51 Individual Co

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
APPENDIX M 

SUBJECT INDEX 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
APPENDIX M 

Subject Index 

Page

aboveground facilities... ES-1, ES-3, 2-1, 2-4, 2-11, 2-12, 2-28, 2-29, 2-30, 3-4, 3-5, 3-9, 3-10, 3-11, 3-12, 

3-13, 3-14, 3-16, 3-22, 3-27, 3-28, 3-41, 3-43, 3-51, 3-68, 3-69, 3-74, 3-76, 3-83, 3-84, 3-88, 

3-95, 3-101, 3-110, 4-4, 4-7, 5-2, 5-3, 5-5, 5-6, 5-9 

aboveground facility .....ES-4, 1-10, 3-9, 3-18, 3-20, 3-22, 3-43, 3-44, 3-51, 3-68, 3-84, 4-1, 5-3, 5-5, 5-8, 

5-9 

access road .................................................................................................................................................4-8 

access roads.....ES-3-13, 3-14, 3-37, 3-42, 3-43, 3-51, 3-57, 3-68, 3-69, 3-70, 3-71, 3-72, 3-73, 3-74, 3-93, 

3-94, 3-101, 3-102, 3-103 

ACHP ............................................................................................................................................ 1-6, 3-93 

ADCNR ............... 1-4, 1-8, 2-6, 3-14, 3-26, 3-27, 3-45, 3-46, 3-52, 3-54, 3-56, 3-65, 3-68, 5-5, 5-13, 5-14 

ADEM ....................................................................1-4, 1-8, 2-6, 3-17, 3-18, 3-22, 3-23, 3-24, 3-52, 3-125 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation ....................................................................................... 1-3, 1-6 

air quality ............................. 1-7, 3-95, 3-96, 3-97, 3-101, 3-102, 3-103, 3-119, 3-124, 3-127, 4-2, 4-7, 5-7 

air quality control region........................................................................................................................3-127 

airport ........................................................................................................ ES-3, 3-78, 3-79, 4-8, 5-6, 5-14 

Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources.......................................................... 1-4, 1-8 

Alabama Department of Environmental Management ...................................................................... 1-4, 1-8 

Alabama hickorynut.................................................................................................................................3-67 

Alabama shad...........................................................................................................................................3-66 

alternative...ES-4, 1-10, 2-6, 2-18, 2-21, 3-31, 3-37, 3-39, 3-40, 3-81, 4-1, 4-2, 4-3, 4-4, 4-5, 4-7, 4-8, 4-9, 

5-8, 5-9 

alternatives ........................................... ES-4, 1-2, 1-7, 3-80, 3-81, 4-1, 4-2, 4-3, 4-4, 4-5, 4-7, 5-1, 5-8, 5-9 

American alligator ...................................................................................................................................3-67 

AQCR ....................................................................................................................................................3-96 

aquifer .......................................................................................................................................... 3-17, 3-19 

aquifers ................................................................................................................ 3-16, 3-17, 3-20, 3-21, 5-2 

ATWS .....................................................................................2-8, 2-11, 2-21, 2-25, 3-13, 3-14, 3-37, 3-38 

Bachman's sparrow ..................................................................................................................................3-66 

bald eagle .......................................................................................................................3-56, 3-63, 3-65, 5-4 

Bay Springs salamander...........................................................................................................................3-66 

best management practices.................................................................................................... 3-14, 3-44, 3-54 

Bewick's wren ..........................................................................................................................................3-66 

Braxton Estates .............................................................................................................................. 3-76, 3-77 

Bucatunna Creek......................................................................................... 2-22, 3-23, 3-24, 3-31, 3-53, 5-2 

CAA ............................................................................................1-6, 1-7, 3-95, 3-96, 3-97, 3-102, 3-124 

Campbell's Creek ............................................................................................................................. 2-22, 4-6 

Canada wild-ginger..................................................................................................................................3-67 

carbon dioxide............................................................................................................................................4-5 

carbon monoxide......................................................................................................................................3-95 

Carthage to Perryville Project...............................................................................3-118, 3-121, 4-7, 4-8, 5-7 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
cathodic protection........................................................................................................................2-30, 3-115 

CEGT ........................................................................................................................... 3-118, 3-121, 3-127 

CEQ ........................................................................................................................ 1-2, 1-10, 1-11, 3-118 

Certificate............................... ES-1, 1-1, 1-2, 1-3, 2-29, 3-1, 3-12, 3-13, 3-73, 3-78, 3-118, 3-121, 4-1, 5-9 

Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity .................................................................... ES-1, 1-1, 1-3 

CFR 1-2, 1-6, 2-12, 2-17, 2-29, 2-30, 3-8, 3-9, 3-22, 3-93, 3-95, 3-97, 3-98, 3-100, 3-101, 3-110, 3-113 

CGT .............................................................................................................................................. 4-7, 4-8 

Chickasawhay River ................ 2-21, 2-22, 3-23, 3-24, 3-26, 3-29, 3-31, 3-53, 3-62, 3-80, 3-81, 3-125, 5-2 

Clean Air Act.................................................................................................................................. 1-6, 3-100 

Clean Water Act .......................................................................................................................... 1-3, 1-4, 1-6 

CO ............................................................................................... 3-95, 3-98, 3-99, 3-100, 3-101, 3-102 

CO2 .............................................................................................................................................. 4-2, 4-5 

Code of Federal Regulations......................................................................................................................1-2 

COE .............................ES-1, 1-2, 1-3, 1-4, 1-6, 1-7, 1-8, 2-6, 3-26, 3-31, 3-32, 3-37, 3-40, 3-82, 3-125 

collocation.................................................................................3-40, 3-45, 3-46, 3-51, 3-69, 3-80, 3-84, 4-5 

Commission .........ES-1, 2, 4, 1-1, 1-2, 1-3, 1-4, 1-7, 1-10, 1-11, 2-8, 2-27, 2-29, 3-26, 3-54, 3-56, 3-100, 

3-110, 3-117, 3-121, 3-124, 4-1, 5-1, 5-6, 5-7, 5-8, 5-9, 5-11, 5-12 

compensatory mitigation..............................................................................................3-37, 3-40, 3-125, 5-3 

compressor station ......1-8, 1-10, 2-4, 2-11, 2-28, 2-29, 3-1, 3-38, 3-44, 3-70, 3-71, 3-72, 3-79, 3-84, 3-85, 

3-86, 3-93, 3-100, 3-102, 3-104, 3-107, 3-108, 3-109, 3-121, 3-128, 4-4, 4-7, 4-8, 5-9, 5-15 

conclusions......................................................................................................................................... 1-2, 5-1 

Conclusions........................................................................................................................... 3-1, 3-10, 3-128 

Conservation Reserve Program...................................................................................................... 3-42, 3-45 

construction procedures ....................................................................................... 2-12, 3-36, 3-75, 3-79, 5-9 

construction right-of-way ...... ES-4, 2-5, 2-6, 2-7, 2-8, 2-11, 2-13, 2-17, 2-19, 2-21, 2-22, 2-24, 2-27, 3-4, 

3-5, 3-13, 3-14, 3-15, 3-17, 3-20, 3-27, 3-28, 3-33, 3-34, 3-36, 3-39, 3-41, 3-42, 3-45, 3-50, 3-54, 

3-57, 3-68, 3-69, 3-76, 3-77, 3-84, 3-124, 4-4, 5-1, 5-3, 5-4, 5-5, 5-12 

contamination................................................................................................................................... 1-9, 3-27 

contractor yards............................................................... 2-11, 3-13, 3-14, 3-42, 3-51, 3-68, 3-73, 3-93, 5-5 

Council on Environmental Quality ............................................................................................................1-2 

critical habitat................................................. ES-3, 1-6, 3-24, 3-31, 3-53, 3-55, 3-56, 3-57, 3-58, 3-62, 5-4

CRP ......................................................................................ES-3, 3-42, 3-45, 3-46, 3-82, 5-3, 5-6, 5-14 

cultural resources ................2, 3, 1-4, 1-5, 1-6, 1-7, 1-9, 2-13, 2-18, 2-29, 3-93, 3-94, 4-5, 5-10, 5-14, 5-15 

cumulative impacts ........................ ES-4, 1-2, 3-117, 3-118, 3-121, 3-124, 3-125, 3-126, 3-127, 3-128, 5-8 

CWA ....................................................................................................... 1-3, 1-6, 1-7, 3-32, 3-124, 3-125 

cypress ............................................................................................. ES-3, 3-33, 3-34, 3-39, 3-62, 3-63, 5-3 

Dabbs Creek.................................................................................2, 2-22, 3-24, 3-25, 3-31, 3-53, 3-106, 5-2 

dBA ............................................................. 3-103, 3-104, 3-105, 3-106, 3-107, 3-108, 3-109, 5-7, 5-15 

decibels on the A-weighted scale.........................................................................3-103, 3-105, 3-108, 3-109 

DEGT .......................................................................................................................................... 3-121, 4-7 

Delhi Municipal Airport......................................................................................... 3-78, 3-79, 4-8, 5-6, 5-14 

Denbury Resources .......................................................................................................................... 2-6, 3-69 

Destin Pipeline Company, LLC .................................................................................................................1-1 

DOT ...........2-4, 2-12, 2-16, 2-17, 2-29, 2-31, 3-102, 3-110, 3-111, 3-112, 3-113, 3-114, 3-117, 4-7, 5-7 

Duke Energy Gas Transmission.............................................................................................................3-121 

easement............................................ 2-7, 2-24, 3-73, 3-74, 3-75, 3-78, 3-80, 3-81, 3-82, 3-89, 3-90, 3-124 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
East Texas to Mississippi Expansion .............................2-3, 2-4, 3-78, 3-118, 3-119, 3-121, 3-123, 4-3, 5-8 

EI ...................................................................................2-29, 3-12, 3-26, 3-28, 3-44, 3-49, 3-78, 5-11 

EIA ....................................................................................................................................... 1-1, 4-1, 4-2 

eminent domain...................................................................................................... 2-6, 3-73, 5-5, 5-10, 5-12 

emissions...............................................1-5, 3-95, 3-97, 3-100, 3-101, 3-102, 3-103, 3-127, 3-128, 4-2, 5-7 

Endangered Species Act................................................................................................................. 4, 1-3, 1-6 

Energy Information Administration ...........................................................................................................1-1 

EPA ..................................1, 2, 1-4, 1-6, 1-7, 1-10, 1-11, 3-17, 3-96, 3-100, 3-101, 3-102, 3-103, 3-105 

erosion ....... 3, 1-9, 2-13, 2-16, 2-17, 2-18, 2-22, 2-23, 2-30, 3-9, 3-10, 3-11, 3-12, 3-13, 3-14, 3-16, 3-26, 

3-27, 3-28, 3-29, 3-31, 3-32, 3-36, 3-42, 3-43, 3-44, 3-46, 3-54, 5-1 

ESA ..............................................................................................1-6, 3-55, 3-56, 3-57, 3-58, 3-124, 5-4 

exotic and invasive species ......................................................................................................................3-46 

extensive forested tracts................................................................................................................. 3-45, 3-46 

FAA ................................................................................................................................. 3-78, 3-79, 5-14 

Farm Service Agency..................................................................................................................... 3-42, 3-82 

Federal Aviation Administration ..............................................................................................................3-78 

Federal Register ........................................................................................................................... 2, 1-7, 1-10 

FERC ....... 1, 1-1, 1-2, 1-6, 1-7, 1-8, 1-10, 1-11, 1-12, 2-7, 2-18, 2-21, 2-29, 2-31, 3-1, 3-2, 3-12, 3-24, 

3-32, 3-37, 3-55, 3-73, 3-78, 3-80, 3-87, 3-88, 3-89, 3-93, 3-94, 3-102, 3-107, 3-110, 3-117, 

3-118, 3-121, 3-124, 3-128 

fish .......................ES-2, 1-3, 1-9, 3-22, 3-24, 3-31, 3-32, 3-52, 3-53, 3-54, 3-55, 3-62, 3-63, 3-66, 5-4 

fisheries............................................................................................................................... 2, 3-53, 3-54, 5-4 

forest ....... 3-16, 3-40, 3-41, 3-42, 3-45, 3-47, 3-49, 3-51, 3-66, 3-68, 3-69, 3-71, 3-72, 3-74, 3-75, 3-85, 

3-104, 3-126, 4-4, 4-5, 4-6, 4-7, 4-8, 5-1, 5-3 

forested wetland................................................................................................... 3-34, 3-35, 3-125, 4-6, 5-3 

FR ...............................................................................................................................ES-2, 1-10, 3-112 

FSA ................................................................................................................................. 3-42, 3-82, 5-14 

FWS ......ES-1, ES-3, ES-4, 1-2, 1-3, 1-6, 1-8, 2-6, 3-46, 3-49, 3-52, 3-54, 3-55, 3-56, 3-57, 3-58, 3-60, 

3-62, 3-63, 3-64, 5-4, 5-5, 5-14 

geologic hazards............................................................................................................................3-10, 3-115 

gopher tortoise .................................................................................. ES-3, 3-56, 3-57, 3-58, 3-60, 3-65, 5-4 

groundwater .....................................................ES-2, 1-4, 1-5, 2-16, 3-16, 3-18, 3-19, 3-20, 3-21, 3-32, 5-3 

Gulf sturgeon .............................................................................................. 3-24, 3-53, 3-56, 3-62, 3-65, 5-4 

HAPs ....................................................................................................................3-98, 3-99, 3-100, 3-102 

hazardous waste sites ..................................................................................................................... 3-68, 3-79 

HDD ........ES-2, 2-8, 2-11, 2-18, 2-19, 2-20, 2-21, 2-22, 2-23, 3-23, 3-24, 3-25, 3-29, 3-32, 3-35, 3-37, 

3-38, 3-43, 3-53, 3-54, 3-61, 3-62, 3-65, 3-76, 3-81, 3-83, 3-84, 3-105, 3-106, 3-107, 3-125, 

3-128, 4-6, 5-2, 5-4, 5-7, 5-13 

Henslow's sparrow ...................................................................................................................................3-66 

Horizontal Directional Drill.................................................................................................. 2-19, 2-22, 3-29 

hydrostatic testing ................................. 1-6, 2-17, 3-23, 3-30, 3-31, 3-32, 3-53, 3-54, 3-55, 3-125, 5-3, 5-4 

inflated heelsplitter.........................................................................................................3-56, 3-64, 3-65, 5-4 

LAC ..................................................................................................................................................3-100 

land requirements........................................................................1-8, 2-11, 2-12, 3-68, 3-70, 3-71, 3-72, 4-5 

land use .....ES-2, 2-11, 3-13, 3-16, 3-68, 3-69, 3-74, 3-75, 3-77, 3-80, 3-82, 3-84, 3-86, 3-90, 3-92, 3-119, 

3-124, 3-126, 3-127, 4-8, 5-5, 5-6, 5-7, 5-10 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
LDEQ ....................................................................... 1-5, 1-6, 3-17, 3-18, 3-23, 3-24, 3-101, 3-102, 3-125 

LDNR ......................................................................................................................................................3-4 

LDTD ....................................................................................................................................................3-17 

LDWF ....................................................................1-5, 3-14, 3-45, 3-46, 3-52, 3-65, 3-68, 5-5, 5-13, 5-14 

Leaf River ..........................................................2, 2-22, 3-23, 3-24, 3-25, 3-30, 3-31, 3-53, 3-125, 4-6, 5-2 

Louisiana Administrative Code..............................................................................................................3-100 

Louisiana black bear ............................................................................................ 3-56, 3-61, 3-62, 3-65, 5-4 

Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality......................................................................................1-5 

Louisiana Department of Natural Resources .............................................................................................3-4 

Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development ....................................................................3-17 

Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries .......................................................................................1-5 

MDEQ ............................................................1-5, 3-17, 3-18, 3-19, 3-22, 3-23, 3-24, 3-101, 3-102, 3-125 

MDWFP....................................... 1-8, 2-6, 3-23, 3-26, 3-31, 3-45, 3-46, 3-52, 3-54, 3-65, 3-68, 5-13, 5-14 

migratory birds........................................................................................................................ 1-3, 3-47, 3-49 

mineral resources ............................................................................................................................... 3-4, 3-5 

Mississippi ..... ES-1, ES-2, 1-1, 1-3, 1-5, 1-7, 1-8, 1-10, 1-11, 2-1, 2-3, 2-5, 2-6, 2-7, 2-12, 2-23, 3-1, 3-2, 

3-4, 3-5, 3-7, 3-8, 3-9, 3-10, 3-16, 3-17, 3-18, 3-19, 3-20, 3-21, 3-22, 3-23, 3-24, 3-35, 3-45, 3-48, 

3-56, 3-60, 3-61, 3-62, 3-64, 3-66, 3-67, 3-68, 3-69, 3-76, 3-78, 3-79, 3-80, 3-86, 3-87, 3-88, 

3-89, 3-90, 3-91, 3-92, 3-93, 3-94, 3-95, 3-100, 3-101, 3-102, 3-103, 3-104, 3-118, 3-119, 3-121, 

3-123, 3-124, 4-3, 4-5, 4-7, 4-8, 5-5, 5-7, 5-8, 5-14 

Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality....................................................................................1-5 

Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks .........................................................................1-8 

Mississippi Museum of Natural Science................................................................................. 1-5, 3-24, 3-60 

Mississippi Natural Heritage Program.......................................................................................................1-8 

Mississippi pigtoe ....................................................................................................................................3-67 

MMNS ............................................................................................................................................ 1-5, 3-24 

MNHP ......................................................................1-8, 2-6, 3-14, 3-42, 3-46, 3-52, 3-61, 3-62, 3-65, 3-68

NAAQS.......................................................................................................... 3-95, 3-96, 3-97, 3-103, 3-127 

Natchez stonefly............................................................................................................................. 3-53, 3-66 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards ....................................................................................... 3-95, 3-96 

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants......................................................... 3-97, 3-100 

National Environmental Policy Act .................................................................................................ES-1, 1-2 

National Historic Preservation Act ............................................................................ES-4, 1-3, 1-4, 1-5, 1-6 

National Park Service ...................................................................................................................... 1-3, 3-23 

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System............................................................................. 1-4, 1-6 

National Register of Historic Places .............................................................................................. 1-6, 3-123 

Nationwide Rivers Inventory.................................................................................... ES-2, 2-21, 3-80, 3-125 

Natural Gas Act........................................................................................................................ ES-1, 1-1, 1-3 

Natural Resources Conservation Service...................................................................................................3-2 

NEPA ...................................................................................... ES-1, 1-2, 1-7, 1-11, 3-117, 3-128, 4-1, 5-8 

New Source Performance Standards............................................................................................ 3-97, 3-100 

New Source Review.................................................................................................................................3-97 

NHPA ............................................................................................................................1-3, 1-6, 3-93, 3-94 

nitrogen dioxide .......................................................................................................................................3-95 

nitrogen oxides.......................................................................................................................................3-100 

NO2 ............................................................................................................................. 3-95, 3-102, 3-103 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
noise ..........ES-2, ES-3, 1-9, 2-27, 2-28, 3-77, 3-78, 3-103, 3-104, 3-105, 3-106, 3-107, 3-108, 3-109, 

3-119, 3-124, 3-127, 3-128, 4-7, 5-7, 5-15 

NPDES ..............................................................................................................................1-4, 1-5, 1-6, 3-31 

NPS ................................................................3-23, 3-24, 3-29, 3-80, 3-81, 3-82, 3-84, 3-125, 5-2, 5-13 

NRCS ...........................................................3-2, 3-10, 3-11, 3-12, 3-15, 3-34, 3-45, 3-46, 5-3, 5-13, 5-14 

NRHP ..................................................................................................................................... 1-6, 3-93, 5-6 

NRI ...................................ES-2, ES-3, 2-21, 3-23, 3-24, 3-29, 3-32, 3-80, 3-82, 3-84, 3-125, 5-2, 5-13 

NSA .....................................................................3-104, 3-105, 3-106, 3-107, 3-108, 3-109, 3-128, 5-15 

NSPS ................................................................................................................................. 1-7, 3-97, 3-100 

NSR ....................................................................................................................................................3-97 

Oakohay Creek...................................................................................................................... 2-22, 3-25, 3-30 

OEP .......1-2, 2-8, 3-21, 3-22, 3-29, 3-45, 3-46, 3-57, 3-78, 3-85, 3-94, 5-7, 5-9, 5-10, 5-12, 5-13, 5-14 

Office of Energy Projects.................................................................................................................ES-1, 1-2 

Office of Pipeline Safety........................................................................................................................3-110 

Okatuppa Creek .................................................................................................................... 2-22, 3-23, 3-26 

OPS ................................................................................................................ 3-110, 3-112, 3-114, 3-116 

ozone .......................................................................................................................................... 3-95, 3-96 

Pearl darter...............................................................................................................................................3-66 

permanent right-of-way ... ES-2, ES-3, ES-4, 1-9, 2-3, 2-5, 2-6, 2-7, 2-8, 2-13, 3-5, 3-36, 3-41, 3-42, 3-43, 

3-45, 3-46, 3-50, 3-51, 3-69, 3-70, 3-71, 3-72, 3-73, 3-74, 3-75, 3-76, 3-82, 3-84, 4-4, 5-5, 5-6, 

5-8, 5-12, 5-13 

permits ...ES-3, 1-2, 1-3, 1-4, 1-5, 1-7, 2-18, 2-22, 2-23, 3-2, 3-26, 3-31, 3-83, 3-97, 3-101, 3-110, 3-118, 

3-124, 5-2, 5-3, 5-4, 5-6, 5-11 

Petal Gas Storage, LLC..............................................................................................................................2-4 

pig launcher/receiver......................................................................................................2-11, 2-28, 3-85, 4-7 

pipe storage yards ....................................................................................................................................5-10 

pipeline facilities......1-2, 2-1, 2-3, 2-12, 2-30, 2-31, 3-17, 3-21, 3-41, 3-70, 3-71, 3-72, 3-110, 3-112, 5-13 

Plan .......ES-, ES-4, 2-18, 2-21, 2-23, 2-27, 2-29, 2-30, 3-7, 3-16, 3-20, 3-23, 3-27, 3-28, 3-29, 3-31, 

3-32, 3-44, 3-46, 3-51, 3-54, 3-61, 3-62, 3-75, 3-79, 3-83, 3-94, 3-125, 5-2, 5-3, 5-4, 5-10, 5-13 

PM10 .......................................................................................................... 3-95, 3-98, 3-99, 3-101, 3-102 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration ...................................................................................................3-97 

prime farmland......................................................................................................3-11, 3-12, 3-15, 3-16, 5-1 

Procedures ........ ES-3, ES-4, 2-13, 2-18, 2-19, 2-22, 2-28, 2-29, 2-30, 3-2, 3-14, 3-20, 3-22, 3-24, 3-26, 

3-27, 3-31, 3-32, 3-36, 3-37, 3-39, 3-40, 3-44, 3-46, 3-50, 3-51, 3-54, 3-55, 3-81, 3-82, 3-102, 

3-125, 3-126, 5-2, 5-3, 5-4 

proposed facilities .......................................................................................... ES-4, 1-1, 3-1, 3-4, 3-10, 3-63 

PSD ........................................................................................................................1-7, 3-97, 3-98, 3-102 

red-cockaded woodpecker ...................................................................................................... 3-56, 3-64, 5-4 

residence .......................................................................................................... 3-76, 3-77, 3-78, 3-86, 3-104 

revegetation...........ES-3, 2-18, 2-22, 3-10, 3-12, 3-13, 3-14, 3-26, 3-40, 3-44, 3-75, 3-82, 3-126, 5-1, 5-14 

ringed map turtle............................................................................................................3-56, 3-61, 3-65, 5-4 

road crossings........................................................................................................................ 2-11, 3-13, 3-83 

route alternatives................................................................................................................................ 4-1, 5-8 

route variations................................................................ ES-4, 1-7, 3-78, 3-93, 4-1, 4-5, 4-6, 5-6, 5-8, 5-10 

rugged topography ........................................................................................................................... 2-24, 3-2 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
safety ....... ES-2, 1-10, 2-4, 2-7, 2-12, 2-17, 2-22, 2-23, 2-27, 2-28, 2-29, 2-30, 3-4, 3-8, 3-9, 3-36, 3-39, 

3-75, 3-77, 3-79, 3-110, 3-111, 3-116, 3-117, 4-7, 5-6, 5-7 

Secretary .... 1-8, 2-6, 2-8, 2-11, 3-21, 3-22, 3-24, 3-26, 3-27, 3-29, 3-45, 3-46, 3-68, 3-79, 3-80, 3-85, 3-94, 

3-109, 5-9, 5-10, 5-11, 5-12, 5-13, 5-14, 5-15 

SHPO ..........................................................................................................................3-93, 3-94, 5-6, 5-14 

Shubuta Creek....................................................................................................................... 2-22, 3-25, 3-30 

side valve ....................................................................................... ES-1, 1-1, 2-1, 2-3, 2-4, 2-11, 3-41, 3-84 

Sixteenth Section lands............................................................................................................................3-80 

SO2 ................................................................................................... 3-95, 3-98, 3-99, 3-101, 3-102, 4-2 

soils . ES-2, 1-9, 2-13, 2-16, 2-18, 2-21, 2-23, 3-8, 3-10, 3-11, 3-12, 3-13, 3-14, 3-15, 3-16, 3-20, 3-27, 

3-36, 3-54, 3-57, 3-67, 3-68, 3-82, 5-1, 5-2 

Southern Natural Gas Company ................................................................................................................2-1 

SPCC ............................................................................................2-18, 3-16, 3-20, 3-28, 3-31, 3-125, 5-2 

spike ....................................................................................................................................................3-67 

Strong River ..................................................2-21, 2-22, 3-23, 3-24, 3-25, 3-29, 3-31, 3-53, 3-61, 3-80, 5-2 

surface water .............................................................................................. ES-2, 2-17, 3-23, 3-29, 3-32, 5-3 

Tallahala Creek ............................................................................................................2-22, 3-19, 3-24, 3-25 

Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company .............................................................................................................2-1 

terrorism.................................................................................................................................................3-117 

Texas .............................. ES-1, 1-1, 2-3, 2-4, 3-78, 3-118, 3-119, 3-121, 3-123, 3-124, 4-2, 4-3, 5-7, 5-8 

Thigpen Field Airport ............................................................................................................. 3-79, 5-6, 5-14 

threatened and endangered species ..............................................ES-2, ES-3, ES-4, 3-22, 3-31, 3-52, 3-124 

Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company.................................................................................................4-3 

two-tone .................................................................................................. ES-4, 2-8, 2-24, 2-27, 3-2, 3-4, 3-9 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ................................................................................................ ES-1, 1-2, 1-3 

U.S. Department of Agriculture .................................................................................................................3-2 

U.S. Department of Transportation.................................................................................................... 1-4, 2-4 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ...........................................................................................ES-1, 1-4 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service................................................................................................. ES-1, 1-2, 1-3 

U.S. Geological Survey..............................................................................................................................4-4 

USDA ....................................................................................................... 3-2, 3-10, 3-11, 3-12, 3-42, 3-82 

USDI ....................................................................................................................................................3-16 

USGS ............................................................................................................... 3-3, 3-5, 3-8, 3-9, 3-17, 4-8 

variance....................................................................................................................................................2-11 

vegetation ........ES-2, 1-8, 1-9, 2-7, 2-12, 2-22, 2-23, 2-30, 3-11, 3-12, 3-13, 3-14, 3-20, 3-23, 3-24, 3-27, 

3-32, 3-33, 3-40, 3-41, 3-42, 3-43, 3-45, 3-46, 3-50, 3-53, 3-54, 3-57, 3-61, 3-62, 3-64, 3-66, 

3-73, 3-74, 3-80, 3-81, 3-82, 3-83, 3-84, 3-85, 3-119, 3-124, 3-125, 3-126, 3-127, 4-5, 5-3, 5-4, 

5-7, 5-13 

water tupelo..............................................................................................................................................3-33 

waterbodies ..... ES-2, ES-3, ES-4, 1-4, 1-5, 1-6, 2-12, 2-13, 2-17, 2-18, 2-19, 2-21, 3-13, 3-22, 3-23, 3-24, 

3-25, 3-26, 3-27, 3-28, 3-29, 3-30, 3-31, 3-32, 3-37, 3-43, 3-51, 3-52, 3-53, 3-54, 3-55, 3-62, 

3-80, 3-81, 3-119, 3-124, 3-125, 3-128, 4-1, 4-4, 4-5, 4-7, 5-2, 5-3, 5-4, 5-7, 5-13 

West Tallahala River ...............................................................2-22, 3-23, 3-24, 3-25, 3-31, 3-53, 3-125, 5-2 

Wetland and Waterbody Construction and Mitigation Procedures ............................................................5-2 

Wetland Reserve Program........................................................................................................................3-34 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
wetlands ..... ES-2, ES-3, ES-4, 1-3, 1-7, 1-9, 2-5, 2-6, 2-12, 2-13, 2-17, 2-18, 2-19, 2-21, 2-22, 2-23, 3-11, 

3-13, 3-31, 3-32, 3-33, 3-34, 3-35, 3-36, 3-37, 3-39, 3-40, 3-43, 3-44, 3-45, 3-50, 3-51, 3-61, 

3-67, 3-68, 3-69, 3-72, 3-119, 3-123, 3-124, 3-125, 3-127, 3-128, 4-1, 4-4, 4-5, 4-6, 4-9, 5-3, 5-4, 

5-5, 5-7, 5-10 

wildlife ........ES-2, 1-3, 1-9, 3-13, 3-22, 3-24, 3-32, 3-33, 3-36, 3-42, 3-43, 3-47, 3-49, 3-50, 3-51, 3-52, 

3-65, 3-80, 3-119, 3-124, 3-126, 4-5, 5-4, 5-7 

wood stork......................................................................................................................3-56, 3-63, 3-65, 5-4 

WRP ....................................................................................................................................................3-34 

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
Southeast Expansion Project

General Location Map

DATE: Jan 2007 Figure 2.1-1

north

1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000

LEGEND

Proposed Project Route

Proposed Compressor Station

Proposed M&R Station 

Harrisville

Compressor

Station

Delhi

Compressor

Station

CenterPoint Energy

M&R Station

Southern

Natural Gas

M&R Station

Tennessee Gas

Pipeline M&R

Station

Destin Compressor

Station/ Destin

Transmission

M&R Station

Transco

M&R Station

Public

2-2

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007
Document Content(s)

Report_Cover.PDF .........................................................1

Cover_Letter_to_the_Parties.PDF ..........................................2

Table_of_Contents.PDF ....................................................4

Executive_Summary.PDF ...................................................16

Section_1_Introduction.PDF ..............................................20

Section_2_Proposed_Actions.PDF ..........................................32

Section_3_Environmental_Analysis.PDF ....................................63

Section_4_Alternatives.PDF .............................................191

Section_5_Conclusions_and_Recommendations.PDF ..........................203

Appendix_A.PDF .........................................................218

Appendix_B.PDF .........................................................233

Appendix_C.PDF .........................................................236

Appendix_D.PDF .........................................................246

Appendix_E.PDF .........................................................262

Appendix_F.PDF .........................................................270

Appendix_G.PDF .........................................................276

Appendix_H.PDF .........................................................306

Appendix_I.PDF .........................................................308

Appendix_J.PDF .........................................................314

Appendix_K.PDF .........................................................317

Appendix_L.PDF .........................................................335

Appendix_M.PDF .........................................................388

Public_Figure_2.1-1.PDF ................................................397

Document Accession #: 20070803-4000 Filed Date: 08/03/2007