Final Environmental Impact Statement

Southeast Supply Header Project

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Office of Energy Projects

Washington, DC 20426

August 2007

Cooperating Agencies:

Docket Nos.: CP07-44-000

CP07-45-000

PF06-28-000

FERC EIS 0211

Southeast Supply Header, LLC

U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers

U.S. Fish & 

Wildlife Service

U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency

National Park

Service

Natural Resource

Conservation Service

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20426 

OFFICE OF ENERGY PROJECTS 

In Reply Refer To: 

OEP/DG2E/Gas Branch 2 

Southeast Supply Header, LLC 

Docket Nos. CP07-44-000, CP07-45-000 

 PF06-28-000, and FERC EIS 0211 

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 Southeast 

Supply Header, LLC (SESH) under the above-referenced dockets. SESH’s Southeast Supply Header Project 

(Project) would be located in various counties and parishes in Louisiana, Mississippi, and 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), National Park Service (NPS), U.S. Environmental 

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

Service (NRCS) 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. 

The purpose of the Project is to provide new transportation capacity that significantly enhances access 

to reliable, onshore gas supplies to serve growing demand in the Southeast. To provide this service, SESH 

proposes to construct and operate approximately 270 miles of natural gas pipeline and associated ancillary 

facilities capable of transporting up to approximately 1.14 billion cubic feet per day of natural gas. 

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

operation of the following facilities: 

• approximately 104 miles of 42-inch-diameter natural gas pipeline extending southeasterly from 

Richland Parish, Louisiana to Lawrence County, Mississippi; 

• approximately 165 miles of 36-inch-diameter natural gas pipeline extending southeasterly from 

Lawrence County, Mississippi to Mobile County, Alabama; 

• approximately 1.7 miles of 6-, 16-, 20-, 24- and 42-inch-diameter laterals in Jefferson Davis, 

Covington, and Forrest counties, Mississippi and Mobile County, Alabama; 

• three new compressor stations, the Delhi, Gwinville, and the Lucedale Compressor Stations, 

located in Richland Parish, Louisiana, and Jefferson Davis and George counties, Mississippi, 

respectively; 

• two natural gas booster stations, the Collins Booster Station and Petal Booster Station in 

Covington and Forrest counties, Mississippi, respectively; and 

• other ancillary facilities including 13 meter and regulator facilities, 18 mainline valves, 2 tap 

valves, and 3 pig launcher and/or receiver facilities. 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
Docket No. CP07-44-000, CP07-45-000 - 2 -

Dependent upon Commission approval, SESH proposes to commence construction of the proposed 

Project in November 2007. 

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

at: 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

Public Reference Room 

888 First Street N.E., Room 2-A 

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 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 SESH 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 (i.e., CP07-44) 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 which 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 ww.ferc.gov/esubscribenow.htm. 

Kimberly D. Bose, 

Secretary 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 i 

Southeast Supply Header Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

SECTION PAGE

LIST OF APPENDICES ................................................................................................................. vii 

LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................................... viii 

LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................................................................................... ix 

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS........................................................................................ x 

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-3 

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED ...................................................................................... ES-5 

CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................... ES-5 

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

1.1 PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED......................................................................... 1-2 

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

1.3 PERMITS, APPROVALS AND REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS.................. 1-3 

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

1.5 NON-JURISDICTIONAL FACILITIES................................................................. 1-10 

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

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

2.2 LAND REQUIREMENTS ...................................................................................... 2-5 

2.2.1 Pipeline Facilities .............................................................................................. 2-5 

2.2.2 Aboveground Facilities ..................................................................................... 2-10 

2.2.3 Extra Work Areas.............................................................................................. 2-11 

2.2.3.1 Additional Temporary Workspaces ............................................... 2-11 

2.2.3.2 Pipeyards/Wareyards ..................................................................... 2-11 

2.2.3.3 Access Roads ................................................................................. 2-11 

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

2.3.1 General Pipeline Construction Procedures........................................................ 2-12 

2.3.1.1 Right-of-Way Survey and Fence Crossings................................... 2-15 

2.3.1.2 Sediment Controls ......................................................................... 2-15 

2.3.1.3 Clearing and Grading..................................................................... 2-15 

2.3.1.4 Trenching ............................................................................... 2-16 

2.3.1.5 Pipe Stringing, Bending, and Welding .......................................... 2-16 

2.3.1.6 Lowering-in and Backfilling.......................................................... 2-18 

2.3.1.7 Hydrostatic Testing........................................................................ 2-18 

2.3.1.8 Cleanup and Restoration................................................................ 2-18 

2.3.2 Specialized Pipeline Construction Procedures .................................................. 2-19 

2.3.2.1 Waterbody Crossings..................................................................... 2-19 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 ii 

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) 

SECTION PAGE

2.3.2.2 Wetlands ........................................................................................ 2-25 

2.3.2.3 Residential and Commercial Areas................................................ 2-25 

2.3.2.4 Active Croplands ........................................................................... 2-26 

2.3.2.5 Road Crossings .............................................................................. 2-27 

2.3.2.6 Rock Removal and Blasting .......................................................... 2-28 

2.3.2.7 Steep Vertical and Side Slopes ...................................................... 2-28 

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

2.4 CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE............................................................................. 2-30 

2.5 ENVIRONMENTAL TRAINING AND MONITORING ...................................... 2-30 

2.6 OPERATION, MAINTENANCE, AND SAFETY CONTROLS........................... 2-31 

2.7 FUTURE PLANS AND ABANDONMENT .......................................................... 2-33 

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

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

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

3.1.1.1 Topography.................................................................................... 3-1 

3.1.1.2 Bedrock.......................................................................................... 3-2 

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

3.1.3 Paleontological .................................................................................................. 3-4 

3.1.4 Geologic Hazards .............................................................................................. 3-5 

3.1.4.1 Seismicity and Faults..................................................................... 3-5 

3.1.4.2 Soil Liquefaction ........................................................................... 3-5 

3.1.4.3 Slope Failures/Landslides.............................................................. 3-6 

3.1.4.4 Subsidence ..................................................................................... 3-6 

3.1.5 Conclusion Regarding Impacts to Geologic Resources .................................... 3-7 

3.2 SOILS .................................................................................................................... 3-7 

3.2.1 Existing Soil Resources..................................................................................... 3-7 

3.2.2 Major Soil Characteristics................................................................................. 3-7 

3.2.2.1 Erosion Hazard .............................................................................. 3-8 

3.2.2.2 Drainage Class ............................................................................... 3-8 

3.2.2.3 Presence of Hydric Soils................................................................ 3-8 

3.2.2.4 Compaction Potential..................................................................... 3-8 

3.2.2.5 Presence of Shallow Bedrock ........................................................ 3-9 

3.2.2.6 Revegetation Potential ................................................................... 3-9 

3.2.2.7 Prime Farmland Designation ......................................................... 3-9 

3.2.2.8 Loess Soils..................................................................................... 3-9 

3.2.3 General Impacts and Mitigation ........................................................................ 3-10 

3.2.4 Site-Specific Impacts and Mitigation ................................................................ 3-12 

3.2.4.1 Compaction Potential..................................................................... 3-13 

3.2.4.2 Revegetation Potential ................................................................... 3-14 

3.2.4.3 Prime Farmlands............................................................................ 3-15 

3.3 WATER RESOURCES ........................................................................................... 3-15 

 3.3.1 Groundwater...................................................................................................... 3-15 

3.3.1.1 Existing Groundwater Resources................................................... 3-15 

3.3.1.2 General Impacts and Mitigation .................................................... 3-21 

3.3.1.3 Site-Specific Impacts and Mitigation ............................................ 3-22 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 iii 

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) 

SECTION PAGE

3.3.2 Surface Water Resources................................................................................... 3-23 

3.3.2.1 Sensitive Waterbodies.................................................................... 3-23 

3.3.2.2 Waterbody Construction Methods and Procedures........................ 3-26 

3.3.2.3 General Impacts and Mitigation .................................................... 3-27 

3.3.2.4 Site-Specific Impacts and Mitigation ............................................ 3-28 

3.3.2.5 Hydrostatic Testing........................................................................ 3-29 

3.4 WETLANDS ........................................................................................................... 3-31 

3.4.1 Existing Wetland Resources.............................................................................. 3-31 

3.4.1.1 High Quality, Sensitive, or Special Status Wetlands..................... 3-32 

3.4.2 Wetland Construction Methods and Procedures ............................................... 3-33 

3.4.3 Wetland Impacts and Mitigation ....................................................................... 3-37 

3.4.3.1 Wetland Impacts ............................................................................ 3-37 

3.4.3.2 Wetland Mitigation........................................................................ 3-40 

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

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

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

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

3.5.3 Exotic or Invasive Plant Communities.............................................................. 3-48 

3.6 WILDLIFE AND AQUATIC RESOURCES.......................................................... 3-49 

3.6.1 Wildlife.............................................................................................................. 3-49 

3.6.1.1 Existing Wildlife Resources .......................................................... 3-49 

3.6.1.2 Sensitive or Managed Wildlife Habitats........................................ 3-51 

3.6.1.3 Unique and Sensitive Wildlife Species.......................................... 3-52 

3.6.1.4 General Impacts and Mitigation .................................................... 3-54 

3.6.1.5 Sensitive or Managed Wildlife Habitats and Species Effects 

 and Mitigation................................................................................ 3-56 

3.6.1.6 Conclusion Regarding Impacts to Wildlife Habitats and 

 Species ........................................................................................... 3-57 

3.6.2 Aquatic Resources............................................................................................. 3-57 

3.6.2.1 Existing Aquatic Resources........................................................... 3-57 

3.6.2.2 General Impacts and Mitigation .................................................... 3-59 

3.6.2.3 Site-Specific Impacts and Mitigation ............................................ 3-60 

3.7 THREATENED, ENDANGERED, AND SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES ............. 3-60 

3.7.1 Federally Listed Threatened and Endangered Species...................................... 3-61 

3.7.1.1 Louisiana Quillwort ....................................................................... 3-64 

3.7.1.2 Pallid Sturgeon............................................................................... 3-64 

3.7.1.3 Bayou Darter.................................................................................. 3-64 

3.7.1.4 Gulf Sturgeon................................................................................. 3-65 

3.7.1.5 Pearl Darter.................................................................................... 3-65 

3.7.1.6 Mississippi Gopher Frog................................................................ 3-65 

3.7.1.7 Ringed Map Turtle......................................................................... 3-66 

3.7.1.8 Gopher Tortoise ............................................................................. 3-66 

3.7.1.9 Yellow-Blotched Map Turtle......................................................... 3-69 

3.7.1.10 Alabama Red-Bellied Turtle.......................................................... 3-70 

3.7.1.11 Eastern Indigo Snake ..................................................................... 3-70 

3.7.1.12 Black Pine Snake ........................................................................... 3-70 

3.7.1.13 Bald Eagle...................................................................................... 3-71 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 iv 

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) 

SECTION PAGE

3.7.1.14 Interior Least Tern ......................................................................... 3-72 

3.7.1.15 Red Cockaded Woodpecker........................................................... 3-72 

3.7.1.16 Louisiana Black Bear..................................................................... 3-73 

3.7.2 State Listed Species........................................................................................... 3-74 

3.7.2.1 Louisiana........................................................................................ 3-74 

3.7.2.2 Mississippi ..................................................................................... 3-74 

3.7.2.3 Alabama......................................................................................... 3-75 

3.7.2.4 Potential Impacts and Mitigation................................................... 3-76 

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

RESOURCES .......................................................................................................... 3-76 

3.8.1 Land Use ........................................................................................................... 3-76 

3.8.1.1 Land Requirements and Existing Cover Types ............................. 3-76 

3.8.2 Easement Process .............................................................................................. 3-82 

3.8.2.1 General Impacts and Mitigation .................................................... 3-82 

3.8.2.2 Site-Specific Impacts and Mitigation ............................................ 3-83 

3.8.3 Existing Residences and Planned Developments.............................................. 3-83 

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

3.8.3.2 Site-Specific Impacts and Mitigation ............................................ 3-85 

3.8.4 Transportation ................................................................................................... 3-85 

3.8.5 Recreation and Special Interest Areas, Impacts and Mitigation........................ 3-86 

3.8.6 Hazardous Waste Sites ...................................................................................... 3-89 

3.8.7 Visual Resources ............................................................................................... 3-89 

3.8.7.1 Current Viewshed .......................................................................... 3-90 

3.8.7.2 General Impacts and Mitigation .................................................... 3-91 

3.8.8 Conclusions Regarding Impacts to Land Use, Recreation, and Special 

 Interest Areas, and Visual Resources ................................................................ 3-93 

3.9 SOCIOECONOMICS.............................................................................................. 3-93 

3.9.1 Region of Influence........................................................................................... 3-93 

3.9.2 Population.......................................................................................................... 3-93

3.9.3 Economy and Employment ............................................................................... 3-96 

3.9.4 Housing ............................................................................................................. 3-96

3.9.5 Property Values ................................................................................................. 3-98 

3.9.6 Government Revenue........................................................................................ 3-99 

3.9.7 Public Services .................................................................................................. 3-99 

3.9.8 Transportation ................................................................................................... 3-101 

3.9.9 Impact on Specific Economic Sectors............................................................... 3-102 

3.10 CULTURAL RESOURCES .................................................................................... 3-103 

3.10.1 Results of Cultural Resources Survey ............................................................... 3-103 

3.10.1.1 Louisiana........................................................................................ 3-103 

3.10.1.2 Mississippi ..................................................................................... 3-104 

3.10.1.3 Alabama......................................................................................... 3-105 

3.10.2 Unanticipated Discoveries Plan......................................................................... 3-105 

3.10.3 Native American Consultation .......................................................................... 3-105 

3.10.4 General Impacts and Mitigation ........................................................................ 3-106 

3.11 AIR QUALITY AND NOISE ................................................................................. 3-106 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 v 

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) 

SECTION PAGE

3.11.1 Air Quality......................................................................................................... 3-106 

3.11.1.1 Existing Air Quality....................................................................... 3-107 

3.11.1.2 Regulatory Requirements .............................................................. 3-108 

3.11.1.3 General Impacts and Mitigation .................................................... 3-114 

3.11.2 Noise Quality..................................................................................................... 3-118

3.11.2.1 Regulatory Requirements .............................................................. 3-118 

3.11.2.2 Existing Noise Levels .................................................................... 3-118 

3.11.2.3 General Impacts and Mitigation .................................................... 3-120 

3.12 RELIABILITY AND SAFETY............................................................................... 3-124 

3.12.1 Safety Standards................................................................................................ 3-124 

3.12.2 Pipeline Accident Data...................................................................................... 3-130 

3.12.3 Impact on Public Safety .................................................................................... 3-133 

3.13 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS..................................................................................... 3-134 

3.13.1 Other Natural Gas Pipeline Projects.................................................................. 3-135 

3.13.2 Unrelated Projects ............................................................................................. 3-141 

3.13.3 Potential Cumulative Impacts of the Proposed Action...................................... 3-141 

3.13.3.1 Wetlands and Waterbodies ............................................................ 3-141 

3.13.3.2 Vegetation and Wildlife................................................................. 3-142 

3.13.3.3 Land Use........................................................................................ 3-143 

3.13.3.4 Air Quality..................................................................................... 3-144 

3.13.3.5 Noise.............................................................................................. 3-144 

3.13.4 Conclusions ....................................................................................................... 3-145

4.0 ALTERNATIVES............................................................................................................... 4-1 

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

4.2 SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES................................................................................... 4-2 

4.2.1 Gulf South System Alternative.......................................................................... 4-3 

4.2.2 Gulf South System Alternative (Proposed East Texas to Mississippi Expansion 

Project) .............................................................................................................. 4-3 

4.2.3 Transco System Alternatives............................................................................. 4-5 

4.2.3.1 Transco Alternative 1 (Delhi to Butler to Coden) ......................... 4-5 

4.2.3.2 Transco Alternative 2 (Delhi to Citronelle to Coden) ................... 4-7 

4.3 PIPELINE ROUTE ALTERNATIVES................................................................... 4-9 

4.4 ROUTE VARIATIONS........................................................................................... 4-12 

4.4.1 Myers Route ...................................................................................................... 4-16 

4.4.2 Wyatt Route Variation....................................................................................... 4-18 

4.4.3 Beasley Route Variation.................................................................................... 4-20 

4.4.4 Herrin Route Variation...................................................................................... 4-22 

4.4.5 The Nature Conservancy Route Variation ........................................................ 4-24 

4.4.6 Whitehead- Leonard Route Variation ............................................................... 4-24 

4.4.7 Springdale Stores Route Variation .................................................................... 4-28 

4.4.8 Brigham/McGowin/Hill Route Variation.......................................................... 4-28 

4.4.9 Seignious Route Variation................................................................................. 4-32 

4.4.10 Barnes Route Variation ..................................................................................... 4-34 

4.4.11 Alabama Department of Transportation (DOT) Route Variation ..................... 4-34 

4.4.12 Woolwine Variation .......................................................................................... 4-37 

4.5 ABOVEGROUND FACILITY ALTERNATIVES................................................. 4-38 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 vi 

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) 

SECTION PAGE

4.5.1 Delhi Compressor Station, Richland Parish, Louisiana .................................... 4-40 

4.5.1.1 Proposed Site ................................................................................. 4-40 

4.5.1.2 Alternative Sites............................................................................. 4-40 

4.5.2 Gwinville Compressor Station, Jefferson Davis County, Mississippi............... 4-40 

4.5.2.1 Proposed Site ................................................................................. 4-40 

4.5.2.2 Alternative Sites............................................................................. 4-41 

4.5.3 Collins Booster Station, Covington County, Mississippi.................................. 4-41 

4.5.3.1 Proposed Site ................................................................................. 4-41 

4.5.3.2 Alternative Sites............................................................................. 4-41 

4.5.4 Petal Booster Station, Forrest County, Mississippi........................................... 4-42 

4.5.4.1 Proposed Site ................................................................................. 4-42 

4.5.4.2 Alternative Sites............................................................................. 4-42 

4.5.5 Lucedale Compressor Station, George County, Mississippi ............................. 4-42 

4.5.5.1 Proposed Site ................................................................................. 4-42 

4.5.5.2 Alternative Sites............................................................................. 4-42 

5.0 CONCLUSION 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 ....................................... 5-5 

5.1.8 Land Use, Recreation and Special Interest Areas, and Visual Resources......... 5-6 

5.1.9 Socioeconomics................................................................................................. 5-7 

5.1.10 Cultural Resources ............................................................................................ 5-7 

5.1.11 Air Quality and Noise........................................................................................ 5-8 

5.1.12 Reliability and Safety ........................................................................................ 5-8 

5.1.13 Cumulative Impacts........................................................................................... 5-9 

5.1.14 Alternatives ....................................................................................................... 5-9 

5.2 FERC STAFF’S RECOMMENDED MITIGATION.............................................. 5-10 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 vii 

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) 

LIST OF APPENDICES 

APPENDIX A DISTRIBUTION LIST 

APPENDIX B FACILITY LOCATION MAPS 

APPENDIX C SOIL ASSOCIATIONS 

APPENDIX D WATERBODY CROSSINGS 

APPENDIX E AFFECTED WETLANDS 

APPENDIX F ADDITIONAL TEMPORARY WORKSPACE, ACCESS ROADS, AND 

PIPEYARDS AND WAREYARDS 

APPENDIX G NATCHEZ TRACE PARKWAY CROSSING 

APPENDIX H LITERATURE CITED 

APPENDIX I LIST OF PREPARERS 

APPENDIX J CONSERVATION STRATEGY FOR THE GOPHER TORTOISE 

APPENDIX K COMMENT RESPONSE 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 viii 

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) 

LIST OF TABLES 

TABLE PAGE

1.3-1 Summary of Major Permits, Approvals and Consultations for the SESH Project............ 1-5 

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

for the Proposed SESH Project......................................................................................... 1-8 

1.5-1 Summary of Nonjurisdictional Facilities for the Proposed SESH Project ....................... 1-11 

2.1-1 Pipeline Facilities for the Proposed SESH Project ........................................................... 2-3 

2.1-2 Aboveground Facilities for the Proposed SESH Project .................................................. 2-3 

2.2-1 Locations and Land Requirements for the Proposed SESH Project................................. 2-6 

3.1.1-1 Geologic Units Underlying the Proposed SESH Facilities............................................... 3-2 

3.1.2-1 Mineral Resources within 0.25 mile of the Proposed SESH Project................................ 3-3 

3.2.2-1 Soil Series Impacted by Major Aboveground Facilities for the Proposed SESH Project 3-15 

3.3-1 Summary of Aquifers Crossed by the Project .................................................................. 3-17 

3.3.1-2 Water Supply Wells Located Within 150 feet of Proposed SESH Project Construction 

Work Areas....................................................................................................................... 3-20 

3.3.1-3 Well Head and Surface Water Protection Areas............................................................... 3-21 

3.3.2-2 Sensitive Surface Waterbodies Crossed by the Proposed SESH Project.......................... 3-25 

3.4.2-1 Summary of Proposed ATWS in or within 50 feet of Wetlands and Waterbodies .......... 3-35 

3.4.3-1 Summary of Wetland Impacts for the Proposed SESH Project........................................ 3-38 

3.5.1-1 Vegetative Cover Types Occurring along the Proposed SESH Project............................ 3-42 

3.5.1-2 Extensive Forested Tracts Crossed by the Proposed SESH Project ................................. 3-44 

3.5.2-1 Vegetative Cover Types by Acreage Affected for the Proposed SESH Project............... 3-46 

3.6.1-1 Common Wildlife Species That Occur Along the Proposed SESH Project ..................... 3-50 

3.6.1-2 Sensitive or Managed Wildlife Habitats for the SESH Project ........................................ 3-53 

3.6.2-1 Typical Fish Species in Waterbodies Crossed by the Proposed SESH Project ................ 3-58 

3.7-1 Threatened, Endangered, and Special Status Species Potentially Occurring in the 

Proposed Project Area ...................................................................................................... 3-62 

3.8.1-1 Acreage Affected by the Proposed SESH Project ............................................................ 3-79 

3.8.3-1 Residences Within 50 Feet of the Construction Work Area for the Proposed SESH Project 3-84 

3.8.5-1 Sixteenth Section Lands Crossed by the Proposed SESH Project.................................... 3-90 

3.9.1-1 Population and Demographics in the Region of Influence for the Proposed SESH Project 3-94 

3.9.2-1 Estimated Maximum Population Change in the Region of Influence for the 

 Proposed SESH Project .................................................................................................... 3-95

3.9.3-1 Current Income and Employment within the Region of Influence for the Proposed SESH 

Project ........................................................................................................................... 3-97 

3.9.4-1 Temporary Housing Units Available within the Region of Influence for the 

 Proposed SESH Project .................................................................................................... 3-98

3.9.6-1 County/Parish Revenue and Estimated Annual Tax Payments for the Proposed 

 SESH Project .................................................................................................................... 3-100 

3.9.7-1 Existing Educational, Medical, Police, and Fire Full-time Equivalents within the 

Region of Influence for the Proposed SESH Project........................................................ 3-101 

3.11.1-1 National Ambient Air Quality Standards ......................................................................... 3-108 

3.11.1-2 Estimated Annual Air Emission Rates – Delhi Compressor Station ................................ 3-111 

3.11.1-3 Estimated Annual Air Emission Rates – Gwinville Compressor Station......................... 3-111 

3.11.1-4 Estimated Annual Air Emission Rates – Collins Booster Station .................................... 3-112 

3.11.1-5 Estimated Annual Air Emission Rates – Petal Booster Station........................................ 3-112 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 ix 

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) 

LIST OF TABLES (continued) 

TABLE PAGE

3.11.1-6 Estimated Annual Air Emission Rates – Lucedale Compressor Station .......................... 3-113 

3.11.1-7 Construction Emissions for Typical Compressor / Booster Station Construction............ 3-115 

3.11.2-1 Estimated Noise Impacts at NSAs Located within One-Half Mile of HDD Operations.. 3-121 

3.11.2-2 Mitigated Noise Impacts at HDD Sites That Could Otherwise Exceed Benchmark Levels 3-121 

3.11.2-3 Noise Quality Analysis for the SESH Compressor and Booster Stations ........................ 3-123 

3.12.1-1 Area Class Locations for the Proposed SESH Project...................................................... 3-128 

3.12.2-1 Natural Gas Service Incidents by Cause........................................................................... 3-132 

3.12.2-2 Outside Forces Incidents by Cause (1970 through 1984)................................................. 3-132 

3.12.2-3 External Corrosion by Level of Control (1970 through June 1984)................................. 3-133

3.12.3-1 Annual Average Fatalities Natural Gas Transmission and Gathering System ................. 3-133 

3.12.3-2 Nationwide Accidental Deaths ......................................................................................... 3-134 

3.13-1 Existing or Proposed Projects that Would Cumulatively Impact Resources in the 

Proposed SESH Project Area ........................................................................................... 3-137 

3.13-2 Environmental Resources that Would Be Cumulatively Affected During Construction 

and Operation of Projects in the Vicinity of the Proposed SESH Project ........................ 3-138 

4.3-1 Comparison of “Straight Line” Route and Proposed Project as a Result of Pre-filing..... 4-10 

4.4-1 Route Variations Adopted for the Proposed SESH Project.............................................. 4-13 

4.4.2 Landowner Route Variations for the Proposed SESH Project ......................................... 4-16 

4.4.1-1 Comparison of the Myers Route Variation and the Myers Route to the Original Route.. 4-18 

4.4.2-1 Comparison of the Wyatt Route Variation to the Original Route .................................... 4-20 

4.4.3-1 Comparison of the Beasley Route Variation to the Original Route ................................. 4-20 

4.4.4-1 Comparison of the Herrin Route Variation to the Original Route.................................... 4-22 

4.4.6-1 Comparison of the Seward/Middleton/Whitehead- Leonard Route Variations to the 

Original Route .................................................................................................................. 4-26 

4.4.7-1 Comparison of the Springdale Stores Route Variation to the Original Route.................. 4-28 

4.4.8-1 Comparison of the Brigham/McGowin/Hill Route Variation to the Original Route........ 4-30 

4.4.9-1 Comparison of the Seignious Route Variation and the Seignious Route to the 

Original Route .................................................................................................................. 4-32 

4.4.10-1 Comparison of the Barnes Route Variation to the Original Route................................... 4-34 

4.4.11-1 Comparison of the Alabama DOT Variation to the Original Route................................. 4-37 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 x 

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) 

LIST OF FIGURES 

FIGURE PAGE

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

2.2.1-1 Typical Rights-of-Way Cross Sections 36-inch and 42-inch Diameter Pipeline ............. 2-8 

2.2.1-2 Typical Construction Widths Through Wetland Areas and Foreign Utility 

 Right-of-ways................................................................................................................... 2-9 

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

2.3.1-2 Typical Trench and Spoil Area Topsoil Stripping............................................................ 2-17 

2.3.2-1. Typical Horizontal Directional Drill Installation Process ................................................ 2-24 

2.3.2-2. Typical Side Slope Construction Widths in Steep Terrain............................................... 2-29 

3.3.1-1 Aquifer Systems ............................................................................................................... 3-18 

3.13-1 Natural Gas Pipeline Projects Near the Proposed SESH Project...................................... 3-136 

4.2-1 Proposed Gulf South System Alternative......................................................................... 4-4 

4.2-2 Transco System Alternative 1 Delhi to Butler to Coden .................................................. 4-6 

4.2-3 Transco System Alternative 2 Delhi to Citronelle to Coden ............................................ 4-8 

4.3-1 Most Direct Route Alternative Delhi to Lucedale to Coden ............................................ 4-11 

4.4.1-1 Myers Route and Myers Route Variation......................................................................... 4-17 

4.4.2-1 Wyatt Route Variation...................................................................................................... 4-19 

4.4.3-1 Beasley Route Variation................................................................................................... 4-21 

4.4.4-1 Herrin Route Variation ..................................................................................................... 4-23 

4.4.5-1 The Nature Conservancy Route Variation........................................................................ 4-25 

4.4.6-1 The Whitehead-Leonard Route Variation ........................................................................ 4-27 

4.4.7-1 The Springdale Stores Route Variation ............................................................................ 4-29 

4.4.8-1 The Brigham/McGowin/Hill Route Variation.................................................................. 4-30 

4.4.9-1 The Seignious Route Variation......................................................................................... 4-33 

4.4.10-1 The Barnes Route Variation ............................................................................................. 4-35 

4.4.11-1 The Alabama Department of Transportation Route Variation ......................................... 4-36 

4.5-1 Compression and Interconnect Facilities.......................................................................... 4-39 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 xi 

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 

ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

ADCNR NHP Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, National 

Heritage Program 

ADEM Alabama Department of Environmental Management 

AGS Alabama Geological Survey 

amsl above mean sea level 

ANHP Alabama National Heritage Program 

APE area of potential effect 

AQCR Air Quality Control Region 

ARPA Archaeological Resource Protection Act 

ATWS additional temporary workspace 

BA Biological Assessment 

BACT best available control technology 

Bcfd billion cubic feet per day 

BGEPA Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act

BHP brake horsepower 

BO Biological Opinion 

BTU British thermal unit 

CAA Clean Air Act 

CAAA Clean Air Act Addendum 

CERCLIS Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation Liability 

Information System 

CEGT CenterPoint Energy Gas Transmission Company 

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CO carbon monoxide 

COE U.S. Army Corp of Engineers 

CP Carthage to Perryville (Project) 

CREP Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program 

CRP Conservation Reserve Program 

CWA Clean Water Act 

CZMA Coastal Zone Management Area 

dBA decibels on the A-weighted scale 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 xii 

DDT dichloro-diphenyl-tricholorethane 

DEIS Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

DOT U.S. Department of Transportation 

ECMR Environmental Compliance Monitoring and Reporting (Program) 

EFH essential fish habitat 

EI environmental inspector 

EIA U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration 

EIS Environmental Impact Statement 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

ESA Endangered Species Act 

ESD emergency shut down 

ETM East Texas to Mississippi Expansion (Project) 

oF degrees Fahrenheit 

FERC or Commission Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

F&W fish and wildlife 

FGT Florida Gas Transmission 

FR Federal Register 

FSA Farm Services Agency 

ft foot/feet 

FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

FWS-AL Fish and Wildlife Service of Alabama 

FWS-LA Fish and Wildlife Service of Louisiana 

FWS-MS Fish and Wildlife Service of Mississippi 

GIS geographic information system 

GOM Gulf of Mexico 

gpm gallons per minute 

GSA Geological Survey of Alabama 

GWPC Groundwater Protection Council 

HAP hazardous air pollutant 

HCA high consequence area 

HDD horizontal directional drill 

hp horsepower 

kV kilovolt 

kVA kilovolt-ampere 

LAC Louisiana Administrative Code 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 xiii 

LADOT Louisiana Department of Transportation 

LDEQ Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality 

LDN day-night sound level 

LDNR Louisiana Department of Natural Resources 

LDWF Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries 

LDWF-NHP Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries-National Heritage 

Program 

LEQ equivalent sound level 

LGS Louisiana Geological Survey 

LNG liquefied natural gas 

μS/cm micro-Siemens per centimeter 

mg/L milligrams per liter 

μg/m3

 micrograms per cubic meter 

m3

 cubic meters 

M&R meter/regulator 

MACT maximum achievable control technology 

MAOP maximum allowable operating pressure 

MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act 

MCEQ Mississippi Commission on Environmental Quality 

MDEQ Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality 

MDWFP Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks 

Memorandum Memorandum of Understanding on Natural Gas Transportation Facilities 

mgd million gallons per day 

mg/L milligrams per liter 

MMcf million cubic feet 

MP milepost 

MSDOT Mississippi Department of Transportation 

MSNHP Mississippi National Heritage Program 

mya million years ago 

NA not available/not applicable 

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

NESHAP National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

NGA Natural Gas Act 

NGPSA Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 xiv 

NHP National Heritage Program 

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act 

NMHC non-methane hydrocarbons 

NNSR Non-attainment New Source Review 

NO2 nitrogen dioxide 

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

NOI Notice of Intent 

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 noise-sensitive area 

NSPS New Source Performance Standards 

NSR New Source Review 

NWI National Wetlands Inventory 

NWR National Wildlife Refuge 

OEP Office of Energy Projects 

OPS Office of Pipeline Safety 

PAR permanent access road 

PCU platinum-color unit 

PE permanent access 

PEM palustrine emergent 

PFO palustrine forested 

PFW Partners for Fish and Wildlife (Program) 

PSIA Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2002 

PHMSA Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 

PM2.5 particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 microns or less 

PM10 particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 microns or less 

ppm parts per million 

ppmvd parts per million, volumetric dry 

PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

Psig pounds per square inch gauge 

PSS palustrine scrub-shrub 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 xv 

RCW red-cockaded woodpecker 

REC recreation 

SESH or Applicant Southeast Supply Header, LLC (Project) 

SHPO State Historic Preservation Office 

SIL significant impact level 

SO2 sulfur dioxide 

SONAT Southern Natural Gas 

SPCC Spill Prevention, Containment, and Countermeasure (Plan) 

SU standard unit 

SWDF solid waste disposal facility 

SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan 

T&E threatened and endangered 

Tcf trillion cubic feet 

TETLP Texas Eastern Transmission Limited Partnership 

TNC The Nature Conservancy 

typ tons per year 

UBC Uniform Building Code 

USCB U.S. Census Bureau 

USC United States Code 

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture 

USGS U.S. Geological Survey 

UST underground storage tank 

VOC volatile organic compound 

WMA Wildlife Management Area 

WRP Wetland Reserve Program 

WQ water quality 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
ES-1 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

INTRODUCTION 

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

environmental impact statement (EIS) to satisfy the 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 Supply Header 

(SESH) Project (Project) and to request comments on our analysis. This document has been prepared in 

cooperation with the following federal agencies: the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), the National 

Park Service (NPS), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE), the Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) and the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS). 

PROJECT BACKGROUND 

On May 30, 2006, we1

 approved the SESH request to use the Commission’s pre-filing review 

process for the proposed Project. The purpose of our pre-filing review is to work in partnership with the 

project sponsor, other federal and state agencies, and 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 18, 2006, SESH filed an application with the Commission pursuant to Section 7(c) 

of the Natural Gas Act and Part 157 of the Commission’s regulations for a Certificate to construct, 

operate, and maintain an interstate natural gas pipeline and associated ancillary and aboveground 

facilities. We have prepared our analysis of this Project based on this application and subsequent filings 

by SESH. 

On April 27, 2007, we issued the Draft EIS for the proposed Project. 

PROPOSED ACTION 

In order to enhance access to reliable, onshore gas supplies to serve growing demand in the 

Southeast, including Florida, SESH proposes to construct and operate approximately 270 miles of natural 

gas pipeline and associated ancillary facilities capable of transporting up to approximately 1.14 billion 

cubic feet per day of natural gas. Specifically, SESH proposes to construct and operate: 

• approximately 104 miles of 42-inch-diameter natural gas pipeline extending southeasterly 

from Richland Parish, Louisiana, to Lawrence County, Mississippi; 

• approximately 165 miles of 36-inch-diameter natural gas pipeline extending southeasterly 

from Lawrence County, Mississippi to Mobile County, Alabama; 

• approximately 1.7 miles of 6-, 16-, 20-, 24- and 42-inch-diameter laterals in Jefferson Davis, 

Covington, and Forrest counties, Mississippi, and Mobile County, Alabama; 

• three new natural gas mainline compressor stations: the Delhi, Gwinville, and Lucedale 

compressor stations, located in Richland Parish, Louisiana, and Jefferson Davis and George 

counties, Mississippi, respectively; 

• two natural gas booster compressor stations, the Collins Booster Station and the Petal Booster 

Station in Covington and Forrest counties, Mississippi, respectively; and 

 

1

 “We”, “us”, and “our” refer to the environmental staff of the FERC’s Office of Energy Projects. 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
ES-2 

• other ancillary facilities including 13 meter and regulator (M&R) facilities, 18 mainline 

valves, 2 tap valves, and 3 pig launcher and receiver facilities. 

Dependent upon Commission approval, SESH proposes to commence construction of the 

proposed Project in November 2007. 

PUBLIC OUTREACH AND COMMENTS 

SESH used the Commission’s pre-filing review process prior to filing an application with the 

Commission for a Certificate to construct and operate the proposed Project. 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 for the SESH Project on July 28, 2006. The notice was published in 

the Federal Register and sent to affected landowners; federal, state, and local governmental agencies; 

elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native American tribes; local libraries and 

newspapers; and other interested parties. 

In response to our notice and three public meetings held along the proposed Project route, we 

received numerous written and verbal comments from landowners, concerned citizens, public officials, 

and government agencies representing the public. 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, the Wetland Reserve Program (WRP), and other state and federallymanaged lands. 

In addition to comments provided by the public, we also consulted with several federal and state 

agencies. Numerous informal conversations, as well as several interagency meetings, were held to 

discuss the proposed action, the impacts of constructing and operating the proposed Project, and possible 

mitigation measures to minimize project-related impacts. 

We prepared a Draft EIS for the proposed Project and issued a Notice of Availability (NOA) on 

April 27, 2007. The Draft EIS was also filed with the EPA, and a formal notice was published in the 

Federal Register (FR) on May 4, 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 (Refer to Appendix 

A). In accordance with CEQ regulations, the NOA and FR notice established a 45-day comment period 

ending on June 18, 2007; described procedures for filing comments on the Draft EIS; and announced the 

time, dates, and locations of public comment meetings on the Draft EIS. These announcements also 

described how additional information on the proposed Project 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 

Lucedale, Hattiesburg, and Gallman, Mississippi on May 21, 22 and 24, 2007. The meetings provided 

interested individuals, including nine landowners, and groups 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. Fourteen individuals, including landowners, provided oral comments at the public meetings. 

In addition, we received written comments on the Draft EIS from five federal agencies, the National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), NRCS, Department of the Interior (DOI), FWS, and 

EPA and three state agencies, Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ), Mississippi 

Department of Marine resources (MDMR), and the Alabama Historical Commission (AHC), and twenty 

one landowners. The public comment transcripts and all written comments 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 

these comments are provided in Appendix K of the Final EIS. Changes were made in the text of the Final 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
ES-3 

EIS in response to the comments on the Draft EIS and in order to include updated information that 

became available following issuance of the Draft EIS. 

The Final EIS is being 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. 

Comments filed with the Commission and interagency meeting notes have been placed in the 

Commission’s public record for the proposed Project and are available for review by the public on the 

Commission’s eLibrary system. 

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, land use, 

cultural resources, air and noise quality, and cumulative impacts and alternatives. The primary issues 

associated with the proposed Project are related to impacts to wetlands, waterbodies, land use, and 

special-interest areas. 

Numbers of commenters expressed concern about the width of the construction right-of-way. Our 

recommendations to: (1) eliminate SESH’s proposed 10-foot-wide buffer between its construction rightof-way and existing utility corridors; (2) overlap construction workspace with existing utility right-of-way 

to allow for at least the use of temporary spoil storage; and (3) have SESH justify the need for greater 

than a 100-foot-wide nominal construction right-of-way, would reduce permanent impacts and the 

acreage necessary for construction of the pipeline. 

Construction of the proposed pipeline would cross more than 650 surface waterbodies. SESH 

proposes to use conventional open-cut construction techniques to cross all but 31 of these waterbodies, 

which SESH would cross using horizontal directional drills (HDD). SESH would use HDDs to cross: 

y 9 major or navigable streams; 

y 7 Nationwide Rivers Inventory (NRI)-listed streams (Big Black River, Bayou Pierre, Pearl 

River, Bowie Creek, Okatoma Creek, Leaf River, and Chickasawhay River); 

y the rivers most likely to contain habitat for federally listed fish species (the Mississippi River,

Bayou Pierre, Pearl River, Turkey Creek, and the Escatawpa River); and 

y all 10 impaired waterbodies that occur along the proposed Project route. 

Construction of the proposed Project would affect 267 wetlands, disturbing approximately 

238.8 acres. Special-status and high-quality wetlands, including wetlands in the NRCS-administered 

WRP program and potential pitcher plant bog communities, would be affected by construction and 

operation of the proposed Project. 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, 

102.8 acres of forested wetlands would be cleared during construction, converted to emergent and scrubshrub wetlands, and maintained in those states within the permanent right-of-way during operation. 

Construction and operation of the proposed Project, specifically the maintenance of the 

permanent right-of-way, would affect and preclude certain uses of maintained lands resulting in shortand long-term impacts to forests, timber production, and special-interest areas. The proposed Project 

would cross: 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
ES-4 

y recreational and special-interest areas, including Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) lands 

administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Farm Service Agency (FSA); 

prior converted wetlands; and WRP lands administered by the NRCS; 

y all special status waterbodies (by HDD as noted above); 

y a Nature Conservancy (TNC) wetland mitigation site, and the National Park Service (NPS)-

managed Natchez Trace Parkway; 

y Highway 90 (The Old Spanish Trail); and 

y the lands administered by the Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge (although not the refuge 

proper). 

Because construction activities are temporary, most of the impacts resulting from construction 

would be temporary. However, removal of trees/forest and the conversion of forested wetland impacts 

are considered long-term or permanent, respectively. Detailed descriptions of environmental impacts and 

impacts to other resources, including land uses and socioeconomics, and a description of cumulative 

impacts are described in Section 3.0 of this document. 

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

Project, SESH has developed and would implement several 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); 

• Contamination Contingency Plan; 

• Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasures Plan; 

• Loess Soils Management Plan; 

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

Directional Drilled; 

• HDD Contingency Plan; and 

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

Paleontological Evidence during Construction. 

SESH’s proposed Plan and Procedures are consistent with our guidance documents regarding 

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

implementation of these measures and plans, SESH would be required to obtain several federal, state, and 

local permits and authorizations that would minimize and mitigate environmental impacts resulting from 

construction and operation of the proposed Project. Specifically, SESH would comply with the 

requirements of the COE, the FWS, the NRCS, and the EPA. 

To further minimize and mitigate environmental impacts, SESH sited its proposed pipeline 

parallel to existing utility easements for approximately 58.5 miles. When the Draft EIS was issued, 

SESH’s proposed route incorporated 70 route modifications to address issues and concerns raised by 

landowners and agencies during the pre-filing process. We evaluate twelve additional route variations 

proposed by landowners in Section 4.4. We are also making several site-specific recommendations to 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
ES-5 

reduce impacts regarding construction- and operation-related impacts on threatened and endangered 

species, land uses, and special-interest areas. 

Detailed descriptions of SESH’s proposed mitigation measures and our recommendations to 

further minimize and mitigate impacts are included in Sections 3.0 and 5.0 of this document. 

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 

We have evaluated the No Action and Postponed Action Alternatives, alternative energy sources, 

the potential effects of energy conservation, system alternatives, route 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 also considered the 

potential impacts to environmental resources and land uses and evaluated alternatives that would avoid or 

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

timber production and federally-managed and state-managed lands. None of the major alternatives 

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

recommended mitigation measures. SESH has agreed to incorporate into its route alignment nine of the 

twelve route variations developed in consultation with landowners. Four variations are not fully analyzed 

because environmental surveys may need to be completed. Therefore, we are not approving use of these 

remaining variations at this time. 

CONCLUSION 

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

avoid, minimize, or mitigate environmental impacts that would result from construction and operation of 

the proposed Project. We are recommending that these mitigation 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 convenience and necessity and is constructed and operated in accordance with SESH’s 

proposed impact minimization and mitigation measures as well as our recommended mitigation measures, 

the proposed facilities would have limited adverse environmental impacts, with one exception. The 

project would result in a conversion of about five acres of forested wetland. However, our evaluation 

concluded that the impact would be substantive, but not significant and is environmentally acceptable. In 

support of this conclusion, we offer the following: 

• SESH would implement its Plan and Procedures and additional environmental protection 

plans, which would minimize and mitigate impacts to natural resources during construction 

and operation of the Project. 

• SESH would implement an environmental inspection and monitoring program that would 

ensure compliance with all proposed and recommended mitigation measures. 

• SESH’s proposed route would incorporates over 70 route modifications developed during the 

NEPA process in response to issues and concerns identified by landowners and reviewing 

government agencies. 

• We are recommending that SESH implement the provisions of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Services’s Biological Opinion of July 19, 2007 for the federally listed gopher tortoise. 

• SESH would complete consultations with the NRCS and FSA for federally managed lands 

including WRP and CRP programs, and would implement any appropriate mitigation during 

construction. 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
ES-6 

• SESH would complete consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officers and 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, as required by Section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act, before beginning construction. 

• SESH would obtain consistency determinations from the states of Mississippi and Alabama, 

in accordance with the Coastal Zone Management Act, prior to construction. 

• We are recommending that SESH limit its construction right-of-way for its 42-inch-diameter 

pipeline to 100 feet; and removal of a 10-foot buffer between existing pipeline rights-of-way 

and the edge of SESH’s construction right-of-way to further reduce vegetation impacts, 

including the amount of tree clearing required. 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 1-1 

The vertical line in the margin identifies text that has been modified in the Final EIS and differs from the 

corresponding text in the Draft EIS. The acreage values presented have not changed from the Draft EIS. 

The proposed changes in acreage and impacts were found to be minimal. 

1.0 INTRODUCTION 

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

prepared this Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to assess the environmental impacts associated with 

the construction and operation of the facilities proposed by Southeast Supply Header, LLC (SESH or 

Applicant). The facilities proposed by SESH are hereafter collectively referred to as the SESH Project, or 

the proposed Project, in this EIS. 

On December 18, 2006, SESH filed an application for the proposed Project with the FERC, 

pursuant to Section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA), as amended, and Parts 157 and 284 of the 

FERC’s regulations. With this application, SESH seeks a Certificate of Public Convenience and 

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

associated ancillary facilities. The FERC issued a notice of SESH’s application in the Federal Register 

(FR) on December 28, 2006. 

The proposed Project would consist of 

• approximately 269 miles of interstate natural gas mainline pipeline (104 miles of 42-inchdiameter, 165 miles of 36-inch-diameter), 

• eight laterals (1.7 miles of 6-, 16-, 20-, 24- and 42-inch-diameter), 

• three new mainline compressor stations (totaling 51,385 horsepower [hp]), 

• two booster stations (totaling 10,650 hp), and 

• associated valves, piping, and appurtenant facilities. 

The pipeline would extend from the Delhi Compressor Station in Delhi, Louisiana, to Coden, 

Alabama, with 13 interconnections with 10 existing interstate natural gas pipelines. Those existing 

pipelines are in Richland Parish, Louisiana (CenterPoint Energy Gas Transmission Company or CEGT, 

Columbia Gulf Transmission or Columbia Gulf, and Gulf South Pipeline Company or Gulf South), 

Copiah County, Mississippi (Texas Eastern Transmission Limited Partnership or TETLP), Jefferson 

Davis County, Mississippi (Southern Natural Gas or SONAT), Covington County, Mississippi (Transco), 

Forrest County, Mississippi (Tennessee Gas), George County, Mississippi (Florida Gas Transmission or 

FGT), and Mobile County, Alabama (Mobile Gas Services, Transco, Gulf South, and Gulfstream Natural 

Gas System or Gulfstream). 

SESH proposes to commence construction of the Project in November 2007 with a planned 

in-service date of June 2008. Upon completion of construction, the proposed Project would be capable of 

moving 1.14 billion cubic feet per day (Bcfd). The proposed Project would act as a virtual header system 

capable of receiving or delivering natural gas to and from CEGT, Columbia Gulf, Gulf South, TETLP, 

SONAT, Transco, Tennessee Gas, Mobile Gas Services, FGT, and Gulfstream. 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 1-2 

1.1 PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED 

SESH indicates that the primary purpose of the proposed Project is to provide needed, new 

transportation capacity that significantly enhances access to reliable onshore gas supplies to serve 

growing demand in the Southeast for power generation and industrial and local gas distribution needs. 

The proposed Project would provide access to diverse sources of natural gas, including emerging basins 

of new supply such as the Barnett Shale, Bossier Sands, Arkoma, and Fayetteville Shale, as well as 

providing access to traditional Gulf Coast supplies. Access to these diverse supply sources would provide 

additional reliability and flexibility to the growing markets. 

SESH designed the proposed Project so that it would enhance the seasonal demand requirements 

of multiple regional markets. Depending on the season, the proposed Project, via its interconnections 

with multiple interstate transmission systems, would help to offset a portion of the declining supply from 

the shallow water Gulf of Mexico continental shelf while maintaining peak day deliveries to Northeast 

and Southeast customers. In addition, the SESH system would be a reliable source of supply to the 

Florida market during the summer, as SESH mainly sources its gas from the Perryville Hub in Delhi, 

Louisiana, which is not sensitive to inclement weather. Consequently, the proposed Project would 

provide multiple shippers with additional capacity and enhanced reliability and consumers with increased 

opportunities for price competition. 

Energy demand in the United States has been growing and continues to increase steadily. The 

Energy Information Administration (EIA) Annual Energy Outlook 2006 Overview estimates that total 

energy consumption in the United States will increase from 99.7 quadrillion British thermal units (BTUs) 

per year in 2004 to 127.0 quadrillion BTUs per year in 2025, representing an annualized increase of 

1.2 percent (EIA 2006a). Although this energy will be obtained from a variety of sources (e.g., coal, 

petroleum, hydropower, and other renewable sources), natural gas usage will represent about 22 percent 

of all energy consumption in the United States by 2025. To maintain pace with growing energy demands, 

the EIA anticipates that consumption of natural gas in the United States will grow from 22.4 trillion cubic 

feet (Tcf) per year in 2004 to 27.0 Tcf by 2025, an increase of more than 20 percent. The growth in 

natural gas demand is being driven primarily by increased use of natural gas for electricity generation and 

industrial applications, which together account for 62 percent of the projected demand growth from 2004 

to 2025 (EIA 2006a). 

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

production, pipeline imports from Canada and Mexico, and imports 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 total United States natural gas consumption by 2025. Domestic 

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

with onshore production expected to account for the bulk of that supply, growing to 14.7 Tcf by 2025 

(EIA 2006a). 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 that growth. The EIA projects 

unconventional natural gas production in the lower 48 states will account for about 45 percent of total 

domestic production by 2030. 

1.2 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THIS EIS 

The FERC is the federal agency responsible for evaluating applications filed for authorization to 

construct and operate interstate natural gas pipeline facilities. As such, the FERC is the lead federal 

agency for the preparation of this EIS in compliance with the requirements of the National Environmental 

Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations for implementing 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 1-3 

NEPA (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Parts 1500 –1508), and the FERC regulations 

implementing NEPA (18 CFR Part 380). 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), the National Park Service (NPS), the Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA), and the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) 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. 

Our1

 principal purposes in preparing this EIS are to 

y identify and assess potential impacts on the natural and human environment that would result 

from implementation of the proposed action; 

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

minimize adverse effects on the human environment; 

y identify and recommend specific mitigation measures, as necessary, to minimize the 

environmental impacts; and 

y facilitate public involvement in identifying the significant environmental impacts. 

The topics addressed in this EIS include geology; soils; water use and quality; vegetation and 

wetlands; fish and wildlife resources; threatened and endangered species; land use, recreation and special 

use areas, and visual resources; socioeconomics; cultural resources; air quality and noise; reliability and 

safety; cumulative impacts; and alternatives. The EIS describes the affected environment as it currently 

exists, addresses the environmental consequences of the proposed Project, and compares the proposed 

Project’s potential impacts to those of alternatives. The EIS also presents our conclusions and 

recommended mitigation measures. 

With the issuance of the Final EIS, the Commission will determine whether the proposed Project 

should be approved. A final approval will be granted only if, after a consideration of both environmental 

and non-environmental issues, the FERC determines that the Project is consistent with the public interest. 

The environmental impact assessment and mitigation development discussed in this EIS will be important 

factors in that final determination. 

1.3 PERMITS, APPROVALS, AND REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS 

A number of federal, state, and local agencies have permit or approval authority or consultation 

requirements for portions of the proposed Project (see Table 1.3-1). The FERC states in its orders that 

applicants should cooperate with state and local agencies. However, any state or local permits issued with 

respect to jurisdictional facilities must be consistent with the conditions of any Certificate the FERC may 

issue. The FERC encourages cooperation between interstate natural gas 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. As the lead 

federal agency for the proposed Project, the FERC has certain obligations under Section 7 of the 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). At 

the federal level, required permits and approval authority outside of the FERC’s jurisdiction include 

 

1

 “We”, “us”, and “our” refer to the environmental staff of the FERC’s Office of Energy Projects. 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 1-4 

compliance with the Clean Water Act (CWA), the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, and the Clean Air Act

(CAA). Each of these statutes has 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 

FERC, or SESH as a non-federal party, is required to consult with the FWS to determine whether any 

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

habitat, occurs near the proposed Project. If, upon review of existing data or data provided by SESH, the 

FERC determines that a species or habitat may be adversely affected by the proposed Project, the FERC 

is required to prepare a biological assessment to identify the nature and extent of the adverse impact and 

to recommend measures that would avoid the habitat and/or species or would reduce potential impacts to 

acceptable levels. If the FERC determines that no federally listed or proposed endangered or threatened 

species or its critical habitat would be adversely affected by the proposed Project, then no further action is 

necessary. See Section 3.7 of this EIS for discussion of the ESA review. 

Section 106 of the NHPA requires the FERC 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 SESH, 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 Part 800. Additional information on Section 

106 consultation is provided in Section 3.10 of this EIS. 

SESH 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 the state. Water used for hydrostatic testing of pipelines, which 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 

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 dredged 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 the 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. 

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. 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 1-5 

TABLE 1.3-1 

Summary of Major Permits, Approvals, and Consultations for the Proposed SESH Project 

Agency Permit/Approval/Consultations Agency Action (Status) 

FEDERAL 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

Section 7(c) Certificate of Public 

Convenience and Necessity 

Application submitted December 2006 

U.S. Army Corp of Engineers—

Vicksburg and Mobile Districts 

Section 404 Clean Water Act (CWA)/ Section 10 

Rivers and Harbors Act Nationwide Permits 

Application submitted March 2007 

U. S. Department of Interior, 

Fish and Wildlife Service—

Louisiana, Mississippi, and 

Alabama 

Consultations under Section 7 of the 

Endangered Species Act, the Migratory Bird 

Treaty Act, and the Fish and Wildlife 

Coordination Act

Consultations on endangered and 

threatened species and migratory birds 

complete. A Biological Opinion was issued 

by the FWS on July 19, 2007. Consultations 

for a Longleaf Pine Vegetative Community 

Plan and Exotic and Invasive Species 

Control Plan are ongoing. Consultations for 

any proposed variations to the pipeline route, 

additional temporary workspaces, or new 

access roads are ongoing. 

U. S. Department of Interior, 

Fish and Wildlife Service— 

Tensas River National Wildlife 

Refuge 

Special Use Permit (crossing fee title and 

conservation easements on federal lands) 

Consultations are ongoing 

National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration 

(NOAA)—National Marine 

Fisheries Service (NMFS), 

Southeast Region 

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, the 

Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries and Conservation 

Act, and Threatened and Endangered Species 

Consultation 

No essential fish habitat (EFH) issues; no 

NMFS jurisdictional T&E issues are 

anticipated 

U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA)— Regions 4 and 

6 

CWA and Clean Air Act (CAA) Consultation EPA consultations will continue as a part of 

the air permitting and the Section 404 

permitting processes 

National Park Service (NPS)—

Natchez Trace Parkway 

Archaeological Resource Protection Act (ARPA) 

Permit 

An ARPA permit will not be required due to 

crossing the Natchez Trace Parkway in a 

previously disturbed area. NPS has agreed 

upon the proposed crossing location. 

Application submitted April 2007 

Natural Resources 

Conservation Service (NRCS) 

and Farm Services Agency 

(FSA)—Louisiana, Mississippi, 

and Alabama 

Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP), prime 

farmland and seed mix consultations 

Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) and 

Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program 

(CREP) Lands consultation/easement 

Loess Soil Management Plan 

Recommended seed mixes have been 

received or approved; prime farmland 

conversion forms will be submitted for 

aboveground facilities 

Consultations regarding crossing of WRP, 

CRP, and CREP lands are ongoing 

A draft Loess Soil Management Plan has 

been submitted on June 11, 2007 for NRCS 

approval 

LOUISIANA 

Louisiana Department of 

Wildlife and Fisheries 

State T&E Species Consultation Consultations for an Exotic and Invasive 

Species Control Plan are ongoing. State 

listed T&E species consultations regarding 

the need for additional surveys or mitigation 

to minimize or avoid impacts are ongoing.. 

Louisiana Department of 

Environmental Quality 

Section 401 Water Quality Certification Permit application submitted March 2007 

 Hydrostatic Test Water Discharge Permit Permit application submitted May 2007 

 Air Permit Permit application submitted March 2007 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 1-6 

TABLE 1.3-1 

Summary of Major Permits, Approvals, and Consultations for the Proposed SESH Project 

Agency Permit/Approval/Consultations Agency Action (Status) 

Louisiana Department of 

Culture, Recreation, and 

Tourism 

Section 106 NHPA Consultation, State Cultural 

Resource Compliance 

Consultations are ongoing. Phase I Cultural 

Resource Survey Report submitted, 

concurrence was received on the initial 

Phase I survey in March 2007; Phase I 

addendum submitted March 2007; Phase II 

testing reports submitted in March 2007 

MISSISSIPPI 

Mississippi Department of 

Archives and History—Historic 

Preservation Division 

Section 106 NHPA Consultation, State Cultural 

Resource Compliance 

Consultations are ongoing. Phase I Cultural 

Resource Survey Report submitted; 

concurrence was received on the initial 

Phase I survey in March 2007; Phase I 

addendum submitted March 2007; Phase II 

testing reports submitted February 2007 

Mississippi Department of 

Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks 

State T&E Species Consultation Consultations for a Pitcher Plant Bog 

Mitigation Plan and Exotic and Invasive 

Species Control Plan are ongoing. State 

listed T&E species consultations regarding 

the need for additional surveys or mitigation 

to minimize or avoid impacts are ongoing. 

Mississippi Department of 

Environmental Quality 

Section 401 Water Quality Certification Permit application submitted March 2007 

 Hydrostatic Test Water Discharge Permit Permit application submitted May 2007 

Mississippi Department of 

Environmental Quality 

Water Withdrawal Permit Anticipated permit submittal Fall 2007 (if 

required) 

 Coastal Zone Consistency Determination Permit application submitted March 2007 

 Air Permit Permit application submitted March 2006 

ALABAMA 

Alabama Department of 

Environmental Management 

Section 401 Water Quality Certification Permit application submitted March 2007 

 Hydrostatic Test Water Discharge Permit Anticipated permit submittal Fall 2007 (if 

required) 

 Coastal Zone Consistency Determination Permit application submitted March 2007 

Alabama Historical Commission Section 106 NHPA Consultation, State Cultural 

Resource Compliance 

Consultations are ongoing; Phase I Cultural 

Resource Survey Report submitted in 

December 2006; concurrence was received 

on the initial Phase I survey in March 2007; 

Phase I addendum submitted March 2007 

Alabama Department of 

Conservation and Natural 

Resources—Division of Wildlife 

and Freshwater Fisheries 

State T&E Species Consultation Consultations for a Pitcher Plant Bog 

Mitigation Plan and Exotic and Invasive 

Species Control Plan are ongoing. State 

listed T&E species consultations regarding 

the need for additional surveys or mitigation 

to minimize or avoid impacts are ongoing. 

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 the states and the EPA review applications, only the 

states would determine the need for NSPS or a PSD permit. Air quality and applicable regulations are 

discussed further in Section 3.11 of this EIS. 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 1-7 

1.4 PUBLIC REVIEW AND COMMENT 

On May 5, 2006, SESH filed a request with the FERC to implement the Commission’s pre-filing 

process for the SESH Project. At that time, SESH was in the preliminary design stage of the proposed 

Project and no formal application had been filed with the FERC. The FERC granted SESH’s request to 

use the pre-filing process on May 30, 2006, and established a pre-filing docket number (PF06-28-000) to 

place information relevant to the proposed Project into the public record. The pre-filing process was 

established by the FERC to encourage early involvement of interested stakeholders, facilitate interagency 

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

Open houses were held by SESH in June and July 2006 at the following locations: 

y Gallman, Mississippi – June 12, 2006 

y Vicksburg, Mississippi – June 13, 2006 

y Tallulah, Louisiana – June 14, 2006 

y Lucedale, Mississippi – June 19, 2006 

y Irvington, Alabama – June 20, 2006 

y Hattiesburg, Mississippi – June 21, 2006 

y Gallman, Mississippi – July 10, 2006 

Staff representing the FERC attended the open houses to explain the environmental review 

process to interested parties and accept comments about the proposed Project. 

On July 28, 2006, the FERC issued a “Notice of Intent [NOI] to Prepare an Environmental Impact 

Statement for the Proposed Southeast Supply Header Project, Request for Comments on Environmental 

Issues, and Notice of Public Scoping Meetings.” The NOI was sent to affected landowners; federal, state, 

and local government agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native 

American tribes; other interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. The NOI, which was 

published in the FR, provided a summary of the proposed Project, outlined the 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 EIS. The NOI also listed the dates and times of 

three public scoping meetings that were sponsored by the FERC to give the public an opportunity to learn 

more about the proposed Project and to comment on environmental issues to be addressed in the EIS. 

These scoping meetings were held on August 21, 22, and 24, 2006, in Gallman, Mississippi; Hattiesburg, 

Mississippi; and Lucedale, Mississippi, respectively. 

The transcripts of the 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 (http://www.ferc.gov). Excluding representatives of SESH and the FERC, 

about 100 people attended the public scoping meetings for the proposed Project, and approximately 36 

individuals provided verbal statements. During the pre-filing and scoping periods for the proposed 

Project, we received numerous written comment letters from members of the general public, Native 

American tribes, and federal and state resource agencies. The issues and concerns identified 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. All comments received during the pre-filing period, and 

since SESH’s application was filed under Docket No. CP07-44-000 and CP07-45-000 are considered part 

of the record for the SESH Project. 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 1-8 

TABLE 1.4-1 

Issues Identified and Comments Received During the Public Scoping Process 

for the Proposed SESH Project 

Issues/Specific Comments EIS Section 

Addressing Comment 

General 

 Project purpose and need Section 1.1 

 Public notification Section 1.4 

 Construction methods and land requirements Sections 2.3 and 3.8 

 Maintenance procedures to be implemented during operation, including 

vegetation management and inspections 

Sections 2.6 and 3.5 

 Potential damage to existing utilities, including water lines and irrigation 

systems 

Sections 3.3 and 3.8 

Geology and Soils 

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

following construction, and associated mitigation 

Sections 3.1 and 3.2 

 Impacts to prime farmland soils Section 3.2 

Water Resources 

 Construction-related impacts to wells; potential for contamination and 

monitoring requirements 

Section 3.3 

 Impacts to waterbodies (rivers, streams, lakes, and ponds), particularly that 

associated with crossings of major or state-designated scenic rivers 

Section 3.3 and Appendix D 

 Impacts associated with hydrostatic test water withdrawals Section 3.3 

Vegetation and Wetlands 

 Avoidance and minimization of impacts to sensitive habitats, including 

wetlands, bottomland hardwoods, riparian habitats, undisturbed forested 

tracts, and unique or sensitive vegetative communities during construction 

and maintenance activities; mitigation for Project-related effects 

Sections 3.3, 3.4 and 3.5 and 

Appendix E 

 Use of native vegetation and seed mixes to restore disturbed areas Section 3.5 

Fish and Wildlife Resources 

 Impacts to fish and wildlife habitat Section 3.6 

 Potential impacts to colonial, nesting water birds, or migratory bird species Section 3.6 

 Collocation with other existing rights-of-way to minimize habitat 

fragmentation 

Section 3.5, 3.6 and 3.8 

Threatened, Endangered, and Special Status Species 

 Potential impacts to state- and federally protected species, including redcockaded woodpecker (RCW), bald eagle, interior least tern, Louisiana black 

bear, pallid sturgeon, and Louisiana pine snake, or their habitats 

Section 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 

Section 3.8 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 1-9 

TABLE 1.4-1 

Issues Identified and Comments Received During the Public Scoping Process 

for the Proposed SESH Project 

Issues/Specific Comments EIS Section 

Addressing Comment 

 Proximity of pipeline to occupied structures Section 3.8 

 Reduced property access during construction activities, including that of 

livestock 

Section 3.8 

 Allowable uses/restrictions on future development along the permanent rightof-way Section 3.8 

 Compatibility/potential conflicts with designated special-use areas, including 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) conservation easements and lands 

within the Natural Resources Conservation Service’s (NRCS’s) Wetland 

Reserve and Conservation Reserve Programs 

Section 3.8 

 Impacts of multiple pipeline and utility rights-of-way Section 3.8 

Air Quality and Noise 

 Potential impacts from construction-related noise Section 3.11 

 Potential noise impacts from compressor stations during operations Section 3.11 

Cultural Resources 

 Identification, evaluation, and protection of potentially affected cultural 

resources 

Section 3.10 

 Native American notification and consultation Section 3.10 

Socioeconomics 

 Potential effect on property values Section 3.9 

 Loss of timber production values for affected silviculture operations Section 3.9 

 General economic effects to agricultural operations Section 3.9 

 Potential for landowner liability associated with accidental pipeline damage; 

associated insurance premium effects 

Section 3.9 

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

Reliability and Safety 

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

 Stability and integrity of pipeline; potential for damage from outside forces 

such as agricultural operations and equipment 

Section 3.12 

Cumulative Impacts 

 Cumulative impacts of similar proposed pipeline projects Section 3.13 

Alternatives 

 Analysis of alternative pipeline routes and aboveground facility locations, 

including alternative compressor station sites 

Section 4 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 1-10 

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 this 

EIS. These activities included participation in interagency meetings on August 23, 2006, in Mississippi, 

and August 24, 2006, in Alabama, to discuss the proposed Project and its associated environmental 

review process with other key federal and state agencies. The agencies that participated in those meetings 

included the FWS; Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries and Parks; Mississippi Natural Heritage 

Program; Alabama Department of Environmental Management—Water Quality Division and Coastal 

Section; and Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources—Division of Wildlife and 

Freshwater Fisheries. 

We prepared a Draft EIS for the proposed Project and issued a Notice of Availability (NOA) on 

April 27, 2007. The Draft EIS was also filed with the EPA, and a formal notice was published in the 

Federal Register on May 4, 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 (Refer to Appendix 

A). In accordance with CEQ regulations, the NOA and FR notice established a 45-day comment period 

ending on June 18, 2007; described procedures for filing comments on the Draft EIS; and announced the 

time, dates, and locations of public comment meetings on the Draft EIS. These announcements also 

described how additional information on the proposed Project 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 

Lucedale, Hattiesburg and Gallman, Mississippi on May 21, 22 and 24, 2007. The meetings provided 

interested individuals and groups 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. Fourteen individuals 

provided oral comments at the public meetings. In addition, we received written comments on the Draft 

EIS from five federal agencies, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), NRCS, 

Department of Interior (DOI), FWS, and EPA and three state agencies, Mississippi Department of 

Environmental Quality (MDEQ), Mississippi Department of Marine Resources (MDMR) and Alabama 

Historical Commission (AHC), and two dozen state legislators. The public comment transcripts and all 

written comments 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 these comments are provided in Appendix K of the Final 

EIS. Changes were made in the text of the Final EIS in response to the comments on the Draft EIS and in 

order to include 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 SESH 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 NONJURISDICTIONAL FACILITIES 

Under certain circumstances, the FERC is required to consider, as part of a decision to certificate 

jurisdictional facilities, all facilities including nonjurisdictional 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 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 1-11 

detail in Section 2.1 and are addressed throughout this EIS. Nonjurisdictional 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. 

Nonjurisdictional facilities that were identified include electrical power lines that would be 

constructed to provide electrical service to the three new compressor stations, two booster stations, and a 

meter/regulator (M&R) station. These facilities would be constructed and operated by Entergy Louisiana, 

Inc. (Entergy); and Southwest, Southern Pine, Dixie, and Singing River Energy Power Associations; and 

have been identified as nonjurisdictional facilities (See Table 1.5-1). Although these facilities are outside 

the Commission’s jurisdiction, they are directly related to the Project. In order to ensure that our 

responsibilities under NEPA are met, we are recommending that:

• SESH should not begin service until: the staff receives documentation, including 

clearances and/or surveys required from the FWS and SHPO regarding the 

proposed electric service lines to compressor stations, and SESH has received 

written notification from the Director of OEP that service may begin. 

TABLE 1.5-1 

Summary of Nonjurisdictional Facilities for the Proposed SESH Project 

Facility County/ State 

Certificated 

Supplier 

Capacity 

(kVA) Voltage 

Easement 

(ft) Length 

Delhi Compressor/ 

Meter Station Richland, LA Entergy 1,000 

3-phase/ 

15-kV 

Class 

60 1,200 ft 

TETLP M&R Station Copiah, MS 

Southwest 

Mississippi 

Energy Power 

Association 

1,000 

1-phase/ 

100 

amps 

60 4,300 ft 

Gwinville 

Compressor/Meter 

Station 

Jefferson 

Davis, MS 

Southern Pine 

Energy Power 

Association 

300/500 

3-phase/ 

15-kV 

Class 

40 1.25 miles 

Collins Booster/ 

Meter Station Covington, MS 

Southern Pine 

Energy Power 

Association 

150/200 

3-phase/ 

15-kV 

Class 

40 900 ft 

Petal Booster/ Meter 

Station Forrest, MS 

Dixie Energy 

Power 

Association 

150/200 

3-phase/ 

15-kV 

Class 

60 1,500 ft 

Lucedale 

Compressor/ Meter 

Station 

George, MS 

Singing River 

Energy Power 

Association 

300/500 

3-phase/ 

15-kV 

Class 

40 2.75 miles 

ft = foot/feet 

kV = kilovolts 

kVA = kilovolt-ampere 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 2-1 

2.0 PROPOSED ACTION 

2.1 PROPOSED FACILITIES 

SESH proposes to construct, own, operate, and maintain a new, approximately 269-mile-long, 

interstate natural gas pipeline, which includes approximately 104 miles of 42-inch-diameter pipeline and 

165 miles of 36-inch-diameter pipeline, approximately 1.7 miles of various laterals (6-, 16-, 20-, 24- and 

42-inch-diameter), and associated ancillary facilities. The proposed Project pipeline would extend from 

receipt points with four existing intrastate pipelines (see Section 1.0) near Delhi in Richland Parish, 

Louisiana, to a terminus at the Rock Road Meter Site near Coden in Mobile County, Alabama. 

Gulfstream, SONAT, Mobile Gas Services, and FGT operate the interstate pipelines that would receive 

natural gas transported by the proposed Project. In addition, the Project would act as a virtual header 

system capable of receiving and delivering natural gas to the customers of Columbia Gulf, CEGT, Gulf 

South, TETLP, SONAT, Transco, Tennessee Gas, FGT, Mobile Gas Services, and Gulfstream. 

The general location of the proposed Project facilities is shown in Figure 2.1-1 and more detailed 

facility location maps are provided in Appendix B. Throughout the sections of this document, the 

locations of specific features along the proposed pipeline, such as proposed Project facilities and 

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

length information for the pipeline facilities associated with the proposed Project. 

In addition to the proposed pipeline, SESH would also construct and operate 3 new compressor 

stations, 2 booster stations, 13 M&R stations, 18 mainline valves, and 3 pig2

 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. 

Natural gas is transported through a pipeline under pressure. The majority of the pipeline is 

designed for a maximum allowable operating pressure (MAOP) of 1,200 pounds per square inch gauge 

(Psig). Exceptions include the first 30 miles after leaving the Delhi Compressor Station, which is 

designed for an MAOP of 1,300 Psig, and the first 23 miles leaving the Gwinville Compressor Station, 

which is designed for an MAOP of 1,250 Psig. 

As natural gas flows through a pipeline, friction causes a reduction in pressure. Compressor 

stations are used to increase the pressure and keep the flow of natural gas moving through the pipeline at 

an appropriate rate. As described in Section 2.2.2, four turbine compressor units at three compressor 

stations and two booster units would be installed along the system. During operation, the proposed 

Project would receive, transport, and deliver up to 1.14 Bcfd of natural gas. 

The compressor units and associated equipment at each compressor station would be housed in 

buildings constructed on a slab foundation. Each compressor station would also include a natural 

gas-fired generator to provide backup electrical power at the facility. SESH would also construct an 

office building at each compressor station site. Additional aboveground facilities would include a pig 

launcher/receiver, mainline valve sites, control enclosures, and blowdown stacks. 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. 

 

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

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 2-2 

NON-INTERNET PUBLIC 

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE PROPOSED SOUTHEAST 

SUPPLY HEADER PIPELINE PROJECT 

Docket No. CP07-44-000 and CP07-45-000 

Page 2-2 

Section 2.1 

Figure 2.1-1 

General Location Map 

Public Access for the above information is available only through the Public Reference Room, or by 

e-mail at 

public.referenceroom@ferc.gov

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 2-3 

TABLE 2.1-1 

Pipeline Facilities for the Proposed SESH Project 

Milepost

County/Parish Begin End Length (miles) 

Louisiana 

Richland Parish 0 0.35 0.35 

Madison Parish 0.35 35.86 35.51 

Mississippi 

Warren County 35.86 44.63 8.77 

Claiborne County 44.63 59.99 15.36 

Copiah County 59.99 100.85 40.86 

Lawrence County 100.85 111.44 10.59 

Jefferson Davis County 111.44 126.45 15.01 

Covington County 126.45 151.85 25.4 

Jones County 151.85 157.24 5.39 

Forrest County 157.24 168.94 11.7 

Perry County 168.94 192.16 23.22 

Greene County 192.16 210.58 18.42 

George County 210.58 236.41 25.83 

Jackson County 236.41 239.65 3.24 

Alabama 

Mobile County 239.65 269.31 29.66 

Total 269.31 

TABLE 2.1-2 

Aboveground Facilities for the Proposed SESH Project 

Facility Facility Type MP State County/ 

Parish 

M&R Station Header/Lateral 750 feet of 42–inch-diameter pipeline -0.03-

0.00 

LA Richland 

CEGT CP Project M&R Station M&R runs, assoc. piping -0.03 LA Richland 

Gulf South Mississippi Expansion 

M&R Station 

M&R runs, assoc. piping -0.03 LA Richland 

Columbia Gulf M&R Station M&R runs, assoc. piping -0.01 LA Richland 

CEGT 24-inch M&R Station M&R runs, assoc. piping 0.10 LA Richland 

Delhi Compressor Station, Pig 

launcher, and mainline Valve 

25,782 hp compressor station, 

48-inch launcher, 42-inch launcher valve 

0.22 LA Richland 

Mainline valve 42-inch valve operator, 12-inch blowoffs 17.82 LA Madison 

Mainline valve 42-inch valve operator, 12–inch blowoffs & reg. 

runs 

29.31 LA Madison 

Mainline valve 42-inch valve operator, 12–inch blowoffs 39.72 LA Warren 

Mainline valve 42-inch valve operator, 12-inch blowoffs 55.79 MS Claiborne 

TETLP M&R Station M&R runs, assoc. piping 72.39 MS Copiah 

Mainline valve 42-inch valve operator, 12–inch blowoffs 73.69 MS Copiah 

Mainline valve 42-inch valve operator, 12-inch blowoffs 84.21 MS Copiah 

Mainline valve 42-inch valve operator, 12-inch blowoffs 100.77 MS Lawrence 

Pig receiver and launcher 48-inch receiver, 42-inch receiver valve, 

42-inch launcher, 36-inch launcher, & bypass 

valves 

104.08 MS Lawrence 

Gwinville Compressor Station, 

SONAT M&R Station, and SONAT 

lateral 

12,712-hp compressor station, M&R runs, 

assoc. piping, 610 ft of 24–inch-diameter 

pipeline to SONAT 

115.70 MS Jefferson 

Davis 

Mainline valve 36-inch valve operator, 12-inch blowoffs 125.64 MS Jefferson 

Davis 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 2-4 

TABLE 2.1-2 

Aboveground Facilities for the Proposed SESH Project 

Facility Facility Type MP State County/ 

Parish 

Collins Booster Station, Transco M&R 

Station, Transco Williams lateral, and 

mainline valve 

7,100-hp compressor station, M&R runs and 

assoc. piping, and 36-inch valve operator, 12-

inch blowoffs & reg., 310 ft of 20–inch-diameter 

pipeline to Transco Williams 

138.22 MS Covington 

Mainline valve 36-inch valve operator, 12-inch blowoffs 153.00 MS Jones 

Mainline valve 36-inch valve operator, 12-inch blowoffs 161.97 MS Forrest 

Petal Booster Station, Tennessee 

Gas M&R Station, and Tennessee 

Gas lateral 

3,550-hp compressor station and M&R runs, 

assoc. piping, 420 ft of 20–inch-diameter 

pipeline to Tennessee Gas 

166.54 MS Forrest 

Mainline valve 36–inch valve operator, 12–inch blowoffs 176.00 MS Perry 

Mainline valve 36–inch valve operator, 12–inch blowoffs 190.53 MS Perry 

Future interconnect tap 16–inch tap valve operator 195.27 MS Greene 

Lucedale Compressor Station and 

FGT M&R station 

12,891-hp compressor station; M&R runs, 

assoc. piping 

212.34 MS George 

Mainline valve 36–inch valve operator, 12–inch blowoffs 221.59 MS George 

Mainline valve 36–inch valve operator, 12–inch blowoffs 236.36 MS Jackson 

Future interconnect tap 16–inch tap valve operator 250.40 AL Mobile 

Mainline valve 36–inch valve operator, 12–inch blowoffs 250.77 AL Mobile 

Mainline valve 36–inch valve operator, 12–inch blowoffs 258.44 AL Mobile 

Lateral tap valve 24–inch valve operator, 8–inch blowoffs 269.07 AL Mobile 

Pig receiver/Gulfstream M&R Station 42–inch receiver, 36–inch receiver valve, M&R 

runs, assoc. piping 

269.08 AL Mobile 

Rock Road lateral 1.15 miles of 24–inch-diameter pipeline (ties in 

to SESH mainline at MP 269.07) 

0.00 – 

1.151/

AL Mobile 

Common M&R stations filter separator Filter separator, assoc. piping 1.091/ AL Mobile 

Rock Road meter site includes the 

relocated mobile gas services M&R 

station, Transco (south) M&R Station, 

and Gulf South (south) M&R Station 

M&R runs, assoc. piping 1.11a

 AL Mobile 

Mobile gas services lateral 370 ft of 6–inch-diameter pipeline (ties in to 

Rock Road lateral) 

1.11a AL Mobile 

Transco (south) lateral 350 ft of 16–inch-diameter pipeline (ties in to 

Rock Road lateral) 

1.13a AL Mobile 

Gulf South (south) lateral 175 ft of 16–inch-diameter pipeline (ties in to 

Rock Road lateral) 

1.15a AL Mobile 

a MPs associated with the Rock Road lateral 

AL = Alabama 

CP = Carthage to Perryville Project 

FGT = Florida Gas Transmission 

ft = foot/feet 

hp = horsepower 

LA = Louisiana 

M&R = meter and regulator 

MP = milepost 

MS = Mississippi 

SESH = Southeast Supply Header 

SONAT = Southern Natural Gas 

TETLP = Texas Eastern Transmission Limited Partnership 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 2-5 

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

accomplished via M&R facilities provided at the 13 proposed stations (see Table 2.1-2). Similarly, 

facilities at the proposed M&R stations located at interconnects would be used to meter the flow and 

adjust the pressure of natural gas delivered to those systems. Each M&R station would include 

skid-mounted M&R equipment, a filter separator, and a control building housed within a fenced 

perimeter. 

Eighteen mainline valves (block valves) would be installed along the proposed Project to enable 

portions of the pipeline to be shut down or isolated, if necessary. The mainline valves would be installed 

in areas easily accessible to operating personnel and at intervals specified in U.S. Department of 

Transportation (DOT) safety standards for natural gas pipelines. Each mainline valve assembly would 

consist of a 42-inch-diameter or 36-inch-diameter belowground valve with 12-inch-diameter piping and 

valves extending aboveground for blowdown and bypass. These sites would typically have security 

fencing and a lockable gate around the aboveground piping and valves. 

2.2 LAND REQUIREMENTS 

The land requirements of the proposed Project are summarized in Table 2.2-1. This summary 

identifies the construction and operational land requirements of the proposed pipeline, aboveground 

facilities, and additional temporary workspaces (ATWSs). Temporary land requirements for the proposed 

Project during construction would total 4,021.20 acres including the proposed pipeline construction 

right-of-way, construction areas for aboveground facilities, ATWSs, pipeyards/wareyards, and access 

roads. Of this total, SESH would retain 1,697.10 acres as permanent easements associated with operation 

of the proposed pipeline and aboveground facilities. Following construction, SESH would restore the 

remaining 2,324.10 acres to preconstruction conditions or allow the acres to revert to their former use. 

The land requirements of the proposed Project facilities are discussed further in the following subsections, 

and additional information is provided in Section 3.8. 

2.2.1 Pipeline Facilities 

SESH has proposed a nominal construction right-of-way width of 125 feet (ft) for the first 104 

miles of 42-inch-diameter pipeline and 100 ft for the remaining 165 miles of 36-inch-diameter pipeline 

along upland sections of the proposed pipeline. The proposed pipeline would generally be installed using 

conventional, open-cut trenching techniques (see Section 2.3.1). Figure 2.2.1-1 illustrates the typical 

right-of-way cross section for the 36-inch- and 42-inch-diameter pipelines. A review of proposed 42-

inch- diameter pipe construction techniques and cross section figure, and the use of a 100 foot right-ofway for similar size pipe in the area indicate SESH’s need for a nominal right-of-way width of 125 ft for 

topsoil and spoil storage are not justified. We believe that since the proposed Project is new construction 

it should limit its impact by making efficient use of a 100-foot nominal right-of-way. Therefore, we 

recommend that:

• Prior to construction, SESH should reduce the width of the construction right-ofway to 100 feet in width for its 42-inch diameter pipeline (MP 0.0 to MP 104). SESH 

should identify on the revised alignment sheets, and provide a table listing by MP, 

all additional temporary workspaces beyond the 100-foot nominal construction 

right-of-way for any area where SESH believes additional right-of-way is required 

due to site-specific circumstances. The work space table should include justification 

for the extra work space (such as association with road, foreign utilities, waterbody, 

and wetland crossings, two-tone construction areas, or extensive top soil 

segregation) and must be approved in writing by the Director of OEP. 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 2-6 

A reduced 75-ft-wide construction corridor would be used in wetlands. A nominal construction 

right-of-way width of 75 ft is proposed for pipeline laterals. These construction right-of-way widths 

would encompass a 50-ft-wide permanent right-of-way centered over the proposed pipeline; an additional 

75-, 50-, or 25-ft-wide temporary construction work area in upland areas; and a 25-ft-wide temporary 

construction work area in wetland work areas. Figure 2.2.1-2 illustrates the typical proposed pipeline 

construction right-of-way requirements through wetland areas. 

The FERC regulations (18 CFR § 380.15[d][1]) give primary consideration to the use, 

enlargement, or extension of existing rights-of-way over developing a new right-of-way to reduce 

potential impacts on potentially sensitive resources. In general, installation of new pipeline along 

existing, cleared rights-of-way (e.g., pipeline, power line, road, or railroad) may be environmentally 

preferable to construction along new rights-of-way. Where possible, SESH’s proposed construction rightof-way would collocate with or parallel existing utility rights-of-way. As shown in Figure 2.2.1-1, 

SESH’s requested construction right-of-way would partially overlap with existing right-of-ways. 

TABLE 2.2-1 

Locations and Land Requirements for the Proposed SESH Project 

Facility Location 

Land Affected 

during Construction

(acres) 

Land Affected 

during Operation 

(acres) 

Pipeline Facilities (42-inch- and 36-inchdiameter)a 

Pipeline Various 3,338.75 1,592.07 

SESH lateralsb Various 15.95 9.57 

Subtotal Pipeline Facilities 3,354.70 1,601.64 

Aboveground Facilities 

Compressor Stations 

Delhi Compressor Station Richland, LA 14.28 14.28 

Gwinville Compressor Station Jefferson Davis, MS 18.90 18.90 

Lucedale Compressor Station George, MS 22.28 14.59 

Booster Stations 

Collins Booster Station Covington, MS 19.73 19.73 

Petal Booster Station Forrest, MS 16.74 9.33 

M&R Stations 

CEGT CP Expansion M&R Station Richland, LA 0.92 0.92 

Gulf South Mississippi Expansion M&R Station Richland, LA 0.92 0.92 

Columbia Gulf M&R Station Richland, LA 0.92 0.92 

CEGT 24-inch M&R Station Richland, LA 0.92 0.92 

Texas Eastern M&R Station Copiah, MS 0.95 0.95 

Rock Road Meter Sitec Mobile, AL 4.81 4.81 

Pig receiver/Gulfstream M&R Station Mobile, AL 1.44 1.44 

Pig receiver and launcher Lawrence, MS 0.92 0.35 

Future interconnect tapsd Various 0.0 0.0 

Other mainline valvese Various 0.0 0.0 

Subtotal Aboveground Facilities 103.73 88.06 

Extra Workspace 

ATWS Various 224.89 0.00 

Access roadsf Various 7.40 7.40 

Pipeyards/wareyards 

Tallulah Madison, LA 51.31 0.00 

Letourneau Warren, MS 36.10 0.00 

Wesson Copiah, MS 3.35 0.00 

Georgetown Copiah, MS 66.18 0.00 

New Hebron Jefferson Davis, MS 9.68 0.00 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 2-7 

TABLE 2.2-1 (continued) 

Locations and Land Requirements for the Proposed SESH Project 

Facility Location 

Land Affected 

during Construction

(acres) 

Land Affected 

during Operation 

(acres) 

Highway 11 Forrest, MS 21.92 0.00 

Highway 98 Perry, MS 6.24 0.00 

Lucedale 1 George, MS 35.01 0.00 

Lucedale 2 George, MS 60.84 0.00 

Mobile Mobile, AL 39.85 0.00 

Subtotal for Extra Workspace 562.77 7.4

Total 4,021.20 1,697.10

Notes: 

a Construction area includes all temporary workspace and permanent easement impact acreages. b The construction and operation acreages associated with minor laterals for meter stations are included in the acreages reported for the meter station or adjacent 

aboveground facility. c The Rock Road meter site includes impacts for the Mobile Gas Services, Transco (South), and Gulf South (South) M&R stations, PAR - RRL2, and the filter separator. d These facilities are located entirely within the pipeline PE; therefore, their land requirements are included in the pipeline PE total. e These other mainline valves (not collocated with compressor or booster stations) lie within the pipeline PE; therefore, their land requirements are included in the pipeline PE 

total. f Only land requirements associated with construction of the new access roads to the aboveground facilities are included, excluding PAR RRL2, for which impacts are 

captured within the Rock Road meter site. 

CEGT = CenterPoint Energy Gas Transmission Company 

M&R = meter and regulator 

PAR = permanent access road 

PE = permanent easement 

RRL = Rock Road lateral

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 2-8 

NON-INTERNET PUBLIC 

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE PROPOSED SOUTHEAST 

SUPPLY HEADER PIPELINE PROJECT 

Docket No. CP07-44-000 and CP07-45-000 

Page 2-8 

Section 2.2.1 

Figure 2.2.1-1 

Typical Right-of-Way Cross Section 

36-inch- and 42-inch-Diameter Pipeline 

Public Access for the above information is available only through the Public Reference Room, or by 

e-mail at 

public.referenceroom@ferc.gov

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 2-9 

NON-INTERNET PUBLIC 

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE PROPOSED SOUTHEAST 

SUPPLY HEADER PIPELINE PROJECT 

Docket No. CP07-44-000 and CP07-45-000 

Page 2-9 

Section 2.2.1 

Figure 2.2.1-2 

Typical Construction Widths through Wetland Areas 

Foreign Utility Right-of-way 

Public Access for the above information is available only through the Public Reference Room, or by 

e-mail at 

public.referenceroom@ferc.gov

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 2-10 

SESH indicated that its permanent right-of-way would be offset by 10 ft from adjacent utilities. 

Because of the number of large diameter pipelines in the project area, the cumulative width of the 

permanently maintained right-of-ways is reducing the amount of forests and putting increased restrictions 

on the landowner’s use of the property. To limit these impacts, we believe that new construction should 

make more efficient use of the existing right-of-ways. Therefore, we recommend that:

y SESH should modify its project right-of-way requirements and file with the Secretary 

revised figures and alignment sheets with the Implementation Plan to reflect removal of 

the proposed 10-foot buffer between the edge of the permanent right-of-way and foreign 

pipeline rights-of-way. 

Along some sections of the proposed Project route (some major waterbody, road, and railway 

crossings), pipeline installation would be accomplished via horizontal directional drill (HDD) or bored 

crossings (see Section 2.3.2). In these areas, the only land requirements would consist of the permanent 

50-ft-wide right-of-way, as additional temporary construction work areas would not be required in 

association with these subsurface installation techniques. 

Land requirements for the pipeline construction right-of-way would total 3,354.70 acres (see 

Table 2.2-1). Following construction and restoration of the construction right-of-way, the 50-ft-wide 

permanent easement retained by SESH along the length of the proposed pipeline would encompass 

1,601.64 acres. 

2.2.2 Aboveground Facilities 

The land requirements for the proposed aboveground facilities would total 103.73 acres during 

construction and 88.06 acres during operation (Table 2.2-1). The proposed aboveground facilities include 

3 compressor stations, 2 booster stations, 13 M&R stations, 18 mainline valves, and 3 pig launcher and 

receiver facilities. 

Construction and operation of the Delhi, Gwinville, and Lucedale compressor stations would 

encumber 14.28, 18.90, and 22.28 acres of land, respectively. The land within the fenced perimeter of the 

compressor station facilities would be occupied by buildings, piping, and other equipment. SESH may 

pave, cover with gravel, or landscape portions of these sites, depending on facility operations and 

maintenance requirements. A pig launcher/receiver would be located within the fenced perimeter of 

Delhi and Lucedale compressor station sites. Construction and operational land requirements of the 

CEGT CenterPoint, Gulf South Mississippi Expansion, Columbia Gulf, and CEGT 24-inch M&R stations 

would be 0.92 acre each. The TETLP M&R Station would require 0.95 acre of land and the combined 

pig receiver/Gulfstream M&R Station would require 1.44 acres of land for construction and operation. 

The Mobile Gas Services, Transco (south), and Gulf South (south) M&R stations would be located within 

the Rock Road meter site and would require 4.81 acres. The remaining four M&R stations are within the 

grounds of the compressor or booster station sites. 

Two of the mainline valves would be located within the confines of the Delhi Compressor Station 

and Collins Booster Station and would not result in additional land requirements beyond that noted for 

those facilities. The remaining mainline valve sites would consist of a 25-ft by 25-ft fenced area installed 

within the confines of the permanent pipeline right-of-way. Thus, construction and operation of those 

facilities would not result in land requirements beyond that already noted for the permanent pipeline 

right-of-way. 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 2-11 

2.2.3 Extra Work Areas 

2.2.3.1 Additional Temporary Workspaces 

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. SESH would locate these ATWSs adjacent to the 

construction right-of-way and use them for such activities as topsoil and spoil storage, staging, equipment 

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

Project would require 2,582 ATWSs, totaling 224.89 acres. An individual ATWS would range in size 

from less than 0.1 acre to 2.0 acres. ATWSs would be returned to their preconstruction condition and 

former usage following completion of construction activities. Additional information on ATWSs is 

provided in Sections 3.5, 3.6 and 3.8. We note that SESH has requested some relatively large ATWSs. 

These ATWSs may substantially increase the area of disturbance and the amount of forest clearing. Our 

review of maps and information provided by SESH indicates that the slopes and soil types in the project 

area may not justify the size of the requested ATWS. To address the issue of ATWSs impacts refer to 

Section 3.5.2.1 and the discussion of vegetative communities of special concern. 

2.2.3.2 Pipeyards/Wareyards 

SESH has proposed the use of 10 off-site pipeyards/wareyards that would consist of warehouses 

or open lots located in areas of existing commercial or industrial use. The identified yards would range in 

size from 3.35 to 66.18 acres, and the total land requirements for these facilities would be 330.48 acres. 

The general locations of the proposed yards are identified on the facility location maps included as 

Appendix B of this EIS. All yards would be leased from willing landowners and, upon completion of 

construction activities, would be returned to their preconstruction condition and former usage. 

Additional pipeyards/wareyards beyond those currently identified could be required during 

construction of the proposed Project. If additional pipeyards/wareyards were required, SESH would use 

previously disturbed and/or industrial lands for those facilities to the extent practicable. If such sites 

cannot be identified and undeveloped property must be used, SESH would perform all necessary 

environmental surveys and provide this information to FERC for approval prior to use of the site. 

2.2.3.3 Access Roads 

SESH would use existing roads to the extent possible to facilitate equipment and material access 

along the proposed Project route. SESH has indicated that construction of the proposed pipeline and 

aboveground facilities would require the temporary use of 236 existing access roads of varying lengths 

and construction. No new access roads are being proposed for the construction or operation of the 

pipeline. Following construction, SESH would restore all temporary access roads used for construction in 

accordance with landowner agreements. 

In addition to temporary use of existing access roads, permanent upgrade of existing or 

construction of new permanent access roads would also be required in association with the proposed 

Delhi and Lucedale compressor stations, Collins Booster Station, and the CEGT CenterPoint, Gulf South 

Mississippi Expansion, TETLP M&R stations and Rock Road lateral. Construction and operation of 

access roads at these facilities would total 1.88 miles and permanently affect 7.40 acres, assuming a 

standard access road width of 50 ft. All new permanent 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 and shown on the facility location maps provided as Appendix B of this EIS. 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 2-12 

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, SESH would comply with the siting and maintenance requirements in 18 CFR § 380.15 and 

other applicable federal and state regulations. 

To minimize construction-related effects, SESH has agreed to adopt the January 17, 2003, 

versions of our “Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation, and Maintenance Plan” (Plan) and our “Wetland 

and Waterbody Construction and Mitigation Procedures” (Procedures), with some minor exceptions or 

alternative measures, as described in the Applicant’s filing to FERC. The FERC Plan and Procedures are 

available for review on the FERC website at http://www.ferc.gov/industries/gas/enviro/guidelines.asp. 

SESH’s Plan and Procedures (submitted with the filed application) identify baseline mitigation measures 

for minimizing erosion and enhancing revegetation in upland areas and baseline mitigation measures for 

minimizing the extent and duration of construction-related disturbance on wetlands and waterbodies. 

SESH has also developed several Project-specific plans to avoid or minimize environmental impacts 

during construction. SESH has prepared a “Project Spill Prevention, Containment, and Control (SPCC) 

Plan” (submitted with the filed application), 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. A 

Contamination Contingency Plan has been prepared by SESH in the event contaminated media (soil or 

groundwater) is encountered (see Section 3.2). In addition, an HDD contingency plan for inadvertent 

releases of drilling mud from the boring to the stream channel (i.e., frac outs) would be developed and 

submitted to the FERC. The contingency plan would describe the procedures that would be implemented 

to monitor for, contain, and clean up any inadvertent releases of drilling fluid during HDD operations (see 

Section 3.3). Additionally, SESH has developed an “Unanticipated Discoveries Plan” (submitted with the 

filed application) that would guide the treatment of any unanticipated discoveries of cultural resources or 

human remains during construction (see Section 3.10). 

2.3.1 General Pipeline Construction Procedures 

Prior to initiating construction-related activities, SESH would secure right-of-way easements 

from private landowners and managers of public lands whose properties would be crossed by the pipeline 

route. All owners, tenants, and lessees of private land and lessees and managers of public lands along the 

right-of-way would be notified in advance of construction activities that could affect their property, 

business, or operations. If the necessary land rights or easements cannot be obtained through good-faith 

negotiations with landowners and the proposed Project has been certificated by the FERC, SESH could 

use the right of eminent domain granted to it under Section 7(h) of the NGA to obtain a right-of-way. 

SESH would still be required to compensate the landowners for the rights-of-way as well as for any 

damages incurred during construction. However, the level of compensation would be determined by the 

court according to state laws that set forth the procedures for the use of eminent domain once the FERC 

issues a Certificate. SESH would be required to proceed through the appropriate state or federal court to 

condemn land for which it has received a Certificate from the FERC. The FERC does not take part in 

such proceedings. 

The majority of the proposed pipeline construction process would be accomplished using 

conventional open-cut methods which typically include the steps described below. The proposed methods 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 2-13 

for accomplishing pipeline installation across waterbodies and wetlands, as well as other specialized 

construction procedures, are described in Section 2.3.2. Conventional overland installation of pipeline is 

best represented 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. Construction 

at any single point along the pipeline, from right-of-way surveying and clearing to backfill and finish 

grading, would last approximately 6 to 10 weeks. The entire process would be coordinated to limit the 

time of disturbance to an individual area thereby minimizing the potential for erosion and the loss of 

normal use. SESH indicates that construction of the pipeline would entail the simultaneous activity of 

three individual construction spreads over the proposed Project route. 

SESH would implement dust control measures during construction, as necessary, and at the 

discretion of the contractor supervisor, environmental inspector (EI), or on-site chief construction 

inspector. Measures to minimize dust would primarily involve use of water trucks to dampen the rightof-way under dry-dusty conditions. Special consideration would be given to residential and roadway 

areas where clear visibility is essential. 

Typical sequential operations of pipeline construction would include the following steps: 

y survey and mark the route and approved workspace area; 

y install erosion and sediment controls; 

y clear and grade the site; 

y excavate a new trench to the proper depth for the pipeline; 

y place the pipe joints, each approximately 40 to 60 ft long, adjacent to the ditch line within the 

right-of-way; 

y bend the new pipe joints, as needed, to follow the pipeline route and contours of the terrain; 

y weld the pipe together; 

y visually inspect and non-destructively test the weld area to verify the integrity of the weld; 

y coat the weld area with an approved coating to provide corrosion protection; 

y place the new pipe section in the trench, tie into the previously laid section(s), and backfill; 

y restore the grade of the work area to previous contours; and 

y conduct final clean-up, restoration, and seeding. 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 2-14 

NON-INTERNET PUBLIC 

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE PROPOSED SOUTHEAST 

SUPPLY HEADER PIPELINE PROJECT 

Docket No. CP07-44-000 and CP07-45-000 

Page 2-14 

Section 2.3.1 

Figure 2.3.1-1 

Typical Pipeline Construction Sequence 

Public Access for the above information is available only through the Public Reference Room, or by 

e-mail at 

public.referenceroom@ferc.gov

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 2-15 

Mainline valve assemblies would be prefabricated and delivered to the construction work area for 

installation within the permanent easement during pipeline construction. 

Once SESH has constructed a segment of pipeline, they would perform the following additional 

tasks: 

y conduct hydrostatic testing to ensure the integrity of the new pipeline; 

y perform in-line tool inspections of the new pipeline segment; and 

y tie into existing pipeline(s), purge, and pack the new pipeline with gas. 

2.3.1.1 Right-of-Way Survey and Fence Crossings 

After right-of-way easements have been obtained, the pipeline centerline, construction right-ofway, and ATWS would be surveyed and staked. SESH would contact the appropriate state “One-Call” 

system to have existing underground utilities 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. 

2.3.1.2 Sediment Controls 

To contain disturbed soils in upland areas and minimize the potential for sediment loss off the 

right-of-way or to wetlands and waterbodies, temporary erosion controls would be installed immediately 

after initial disturbance of soils and maintained throughout construction. Erosion and sedimentation 

control devices would be installed in accordance with SESH’s Plan and Procedures and a Stormwater 

Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), should one be required by the permitting agencies. 

2.3.1.3 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; however, natural drainage patterns would be preserved to the extent possible. 

Brush, trees, roots, and other obstructions such as large rocks and stumps would be cleared from all 

construction work areas. Non-woody vegetation, such as crops and grasses, in areas where grading is not 

required, would be mowed to avoid damage to root systems. To protect properties located adjacent to the 

proposed Project corridor, brush and trees would be felled parallel to and within the construction right-ofway where feasible. Marketable timber would be cut to standard lengths and stacked at the edge of the 

right-of-way or removed. Tree stumps would be removed from within the permanent right-of-way. 

Within the temporary construction right-of-way, stumps would either be removed or ground to a suitable 

height to allow safe passage of equipment. Cleared woody debris would be chipped and left in place or 

disposed of according to local restrictions, regulatory requirements, and landowner agreements. 

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 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 2-16 

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

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

the area directly over the pipeline ditch and the adjacent subsoil spoil storage area (see Figure 2.3.1-2), 

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. 

2.3.1.4 Trenching 

Before beginning excavation, SESH would contact the appropriate state ”One-Call” system to 

have existing underground utilities located, identified, and flagged. A trench would then be excavated 

using rotary wheel ditching machines, backhoes, or rippers. Excavated materials would normally be 

stored on the non-working side of the trench (see Figure 2.3.1 2). 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 would typically consist of either compacted subsoil or sandbags placed across the 

ditch (soft plugs) or short, unexcavated portions of trench (hard plugs). Trench dewatering could also 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 would 

typically be excavated to a depth of 7 ft for the 36-inch-diameter pipe and 8 ft for the 42-inch-diameter 

pipe to enable the proposed pipeline to be installed at a minimum depth of 3 ft (measured from the top of 

the pipe segment) below the ground surface. In agricultural areas, the depth of cover would be increased 

such that the top of the pipeline would be a minimum of 4 ft below the ground surface. The actual 

installation 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 SESH does not anticipate the need 

for blasting associated with trench excavation. However, if blasting were to be required, such work 

would be accomplished in accordance with SESH’s Plan and Procedures. 

2.3.1.5 Pipe Stringing, Bending, and Welding 

Sections of pipe would be delivered to the job site and temporarily placed or “strung” adjacent to 

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. 

A factory-applied, fusion-bonded epoxy external coating (or similar coating technique) would 

cover and protect the delivered pipeline sections. Following welding, the previously uncoated ends of the 

pipe would be coated at all joints with material compatible with the factory-applied coating 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. 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 2-17 

NON-INTERNET PUBLIC 

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE PROPOSED SOUTHEAST 

SUPPLY HEADER PIPELINE PROJECT 

Docket No. CP07-44-000 and CP07-45-000 

Page 2-17 

Section 2.3.1 

Figure 2.3.1-2 

Typical Trench Spoil Area and Topsoil Stripping 

Public Access for the above information is available only through the Public Reference Room, or by 

e-mail at 

public.referenceroom@ferc.gov

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 2-18 

2.3.1.6 Lowering-in and Backfilling 

Prior to lowering the pipeline, the trench would be cleaned of debris and foreign material and 

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, as well as SESH’s Plan and Procedures. In areas of rock, the 

bottom of the trench would 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 would 

then be lowered into the 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 nearsurface 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 would occur to existing grade or higher 

to accommodate future soil settlement. 

2.3.1.7 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 would 

consist 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. The entire 

pipeline would be tested, but typically, extended segments of pipeline would be tested individually. 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 no biocides 

or other hydrostatic test water additives would be added to the test water. After hydrostatic testing is 

completed, the test water would either be pumped to the next segment of pipeline to be tested or 

discharged in upland areas using energy dissipation devices to minimize erosion. Hydrostatic test water 

would be obtained from surface water sources and discharged in accordance with applicable regulations 

and in accordance with SESH’s Plan and Procedures. 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 would then be removed, and the pipe would be connected to the remainder of the pipeline using 

the welding and inspection procedures describe above. 

2.3.1.8 Cleanup and Restoration 

Within 20 days of completion of backfilling the trench, or as soon as possible, all remaining trash, 

debris, surplus materials, and temporary structures would be removed from the right-of-way and disposed 

of in accordance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations. All disturbed areas would be finishgraded and restored as closely as possible to preconstruction contours. Permanent erosion control 

measures would also be installed during this phase in accordance with SESH’s Plan and Procedures. 

Topsoil previously segregated from the trench material in all agricultural and residential areas would be 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 2-19 

spread uniformly across the construction right-of-way, and the topsoil and subsoil in agricultural areas 

would be tested for compaction along the disturbed corridor. 

SESH would accomplish vegetation restoration according to its Plan and Procedures and would 

begin within 10 days of final grading. After the soil is readied for planting or seeding in areas where 

SESH and landowners have negotiated agreements, SESH 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. SESH 

would not fertilize, lime, or mulch wetland areas unless 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, 

such as fences, gates, and driveways, would also be restored to original or better condition consistent with 

individual landowner agreements. 

SESH would install pipeline markers and warning signs along the pipeline centerline at specified 

intervals to identify the pipeline location, specify SESH as the operator of the pipeline, and provide 

telephone numbers for emergencies and inquiries. 

2.3.2 Specialized Pipeline Construction Procedures 

2.3.2.1 Waterbody Crossings 

The FERC procedures define a water body as any natural or artificial stream, river, or drainage 

with perceptible flow at the time of crossing, or permanent waterbodies such as ponds and lakes. 

Installation of the proposed Project pipeline across rivers and streams would be accomplished in 

accordance with SESH’s Plan and Procedures and all applicable permits. SESH’s Plan and Procedures 

identifies the baseline mitigation measures (from preconstruction planning through construction, 

restoration, and monitoring) for minimizing the extent and duration of project-related disturbance to 

waterbodies. The waterbody crossing measures specified in SESH’s Plan and Procedures are based on 

industry standard practices. 

SESH would accomplish installation of the pipeline across waterbodies using either a “wet” or 

“dry” construction technique. A “wet” or open-cut crossing involves trenching and installing the pipeline 

without isolating the construction work area from stream flow. The objective of this method is to 

complete the crossing as quickly as practical to minimize the duration of impacts on aquatic resources. A 

“dry” crossing involves isolating the construction zone from the stream flow by directing water flow 

through a flume pipe (flume crossing), by damming the flow and pumping the water around the 

construction area (dam and pump crossing), or by directionally drilling and installing the pipeline beneath 

the waterbody (HDD). The primary objectives of these methods are to minimize siltation of the 

waterbody and allow for a more extended construction period. Each of these techniques is discussed 

further below. 

Over 650 waterbodies would be crossed by the proposed Project. SESH has proposed the use of 

either open-cut or HDD techniques for all of these crossings. However, SESH has also proposes that, 

except for those streams for which HDD is proposed, the actual method of waterbody crossing would be 

determined based on site-specific conditions and waterbody characteristics at the time of construction. 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 2-20 

Additional information on the proposed waterbody crossing procedures and potential environmental 

consequences is presented in Section 3.3. 

Equipment 

A necessary early step in the construction process would be mobilization and positioning of 

necessary equipment at the stream or river crossing. To facilitate equipment deployment, SESH would 

construct a temporary bridge across the waterbody during clearing and grading activities to allow 

construction equipment to cross. With the exception of the clearing crew, which is allowed one pass 

through the waterbody before the bridge is installed, construction equipment would be required to use the 

bridge. The bridges and any support structures would be removed immediately after restoration is 

complete. If bridges were not installed at a state-designated fishery stream, equipment would be required 

to move around the waterbody to gain access to the other side. 

In general, construction equipment and vehicle refueling and lubrication would take place in 

upland areas located more than 100 ft from the edge of the stream, river, or wetland. In addition, fuels, 

lubricating oils, petroleum products, and other hazardous materials would not be stored within 100 ft of 

an aquatic resource. The EI would check all equipment for leaks prior to SESH beginning work in the 

water body or wetland. However, instances could arise where equipment refueling and lubrication near or 

in a stream or river would be necessary. For example, stationary equipment, such as a hydrostatic test 

water pump, could need to operate continuously on the bank of a waterbody and could require refueling in 

place. SESH’s SPCC Plan addresses the handling of fuel and other hazardous materials in or within 

100 ft of a waterbody. If SESH determines that refueling would be needed in or near a stream or wetland, 

they would prepare a variance request for FERC and would not initiate construction at this location until 

approval has been received. 

If trench dewatering were necessary in or near a waterbody, the removed trench water would be 

discharged into an energy dissipation/sediment filtration device, such as a geotextile filter bag or straw 

bale structure, located away from the water’s edge to prevent heavily silt-laden water from flowing into 

the waterbody. 

Clearing 

Clearing would involve removing trees and brush from the permanent easement and temporary 

workspace. SESH would clear woody vegetation to the edge of the waterbody; however, they would 

leave a 10-ft-long herbaceous strip adjacent to the crossing until immediately before construction to 

provide a natural sediment filter and minimize the potential for erosion immediately adjacent to the 

waterbody. Initial grading of the herbaceous strip would be limited to what is needed to install the bridge 

and, where a large grade cut is needed, to the extent necessary to safely implement the construction 

activity. 

During clearing, SESH would install and maintain sediment barriers adjacent to the waterbody 

and within construction work areas as needed to minimize the potential for sediment runoff. SESH could 

install and maintain a drivable berm across the right-of-way in lieu of a silt fence or straw bale barrier. 

Blasting In Streams 

No blasting is anticipated to be required for construction of the proposed Project. 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 2-21 

Flume Crossing Method 

SESH could choose to cross specific waterbodies using the flume crossing method. This method 

would involve diverting the flow of the stream across the alignment through one or more flume pipes 

placed in the stream. The flume pipes must be sufficient in number and adequate in size to accommodate 

the highest anticipated flow during construction. After placing the flume pipe(s) in the stream, sand or 

pea gravel bags would be placed upstream and downstream of the proposed trench. These bags serve to 

divert stream flow through the flume pipes and away from the construction area. 

Backhoes, located on both banks of the stream, would then excavate a trench under the flume 

pipe(s) in the isolated stream bed. Spoil excavated from the stream trench would be placed in a straw 

bale/silt fenced containment area located a minimum of 10 ft from the edge of the waterbody for 

temporary storage. Once the trench is excavated, a prefabricated segment of pipe would be installed 

beneath the flume pipes. The trench would be immediately backfilled with the stored native spoil. 

Stream banks would be immediately stabilized. Once restoration is complete, the flume pipes and pea 

gravel bags would be removed, and normal flow would be re-established. 

Dam and Pump Crossing Method 

The dam and pump crossing method would involve constructing temporary sand or pea gravel 

bag dams upstream and downstream of the proposed crossing site and using a high-capacity pump to 

divert water around the construction area. Energy dissipation devices, such as plywood boards, would be 

placed at the discharge point on the downstream side to prevent streambed scour. A portable pump would 

be used, as necessary, to remove any standing water from between the dams, thereby creating a “dry” 

construction area. This water would be pumped into an energy dissipation/sediment filtration dewatering 

structure such as a straw bale/silt fence or a geotextile filter bag located away from the stream banks to 

prevent heavily silt-laden water from flowing into the waterbody. 

Once the construction area between the dams is dry, backhoes positioned on both banks would 

excavate the trench across the stream. Spoil excavated from the trench would be temporarily stored in a 

straw bale/silt fence containment area located a minimum of 10 ft from the edge of the stream bank. 

Leakage from the dams or subsurface flow from the streambed could cause water to accumulate in the 

trench. Accumulating trench water would be periodically pumped out, as necessary, and discharged into 

a dewatering structure located away from the stream bank. 

After trenching is accomplished, a prefabricated segment of pipe would be installed in the trench, 

and the streambed portion of the trench would be immediately backfilled with stored streambed spoil. 

Following completion of restoration, the dams would be removed, and normal flow would be 

re-established. 

Wet Trench Crossing Method 

This crossing method would involve trenching through a stream while water continues to flow. 

After clearing the stream approaches and installing sediment control measures (including earthen trench 

plugs), track hoes positioned on both banks would excavate the trench in the flowing stream. Spoil 

excavated from the trench would be placed in a straw bale/silt fence containment area located a minimum 

of 10 ft from the edge of the waterbody for temporary storage. Trench plugs would be left in place until 

immediately before pipe installation. Trench plugs would serve to separate the trench in the stream from 

the upland trench, thereby preventing muddy water from flowing into the stream. Once trenching is 

accomplished, a prefabricated segment of pipe would be installed, and the trench would be backfilled 

with stored streambed spoil. 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 2-22 

Restoration 

Completed stream crossings using the flume, dam and pump, or wet trench technique would be 

stabilized within 24 hours of backfilling. Original streambed and bank contours would be re-established, 

and mulch, jute thatching, or bonded fiber blankets would be installed on the stream banks to prevent 

erosion and encourage reestablishment of vegetation cover. Permanent slope breakers would be installed 

adjacent to stream banks with the potential for erosion to affect streams, as needed. Where the flume 

technique is used, stream banks would be stabilized before removing the flume pipes and returning flow 

to the temporarily isolated channel segment. 

Seeding of disturbed stream approaches would be completed after final grading in accordance 

with SESH’s Plan and Procedures, weather and soil conditions permitting. Sediment barriers, such as silt 

fence or straw bales, would be maintained across the right-of-way until a permanent vegetation cover is 

established. 

Mitigation 

Mitigation measures would be implemented to minimize impacts to the aquatic environment 

during construction as described in SESH’s Plan and Procedures. Construction would be scheduled so 

that the trench would be excavated immediately prior to pipe-laying activities. The duration of 

construction would be limited to 24 hours for minor waterbodies (10 ft wide or less) and 48 hours for 

intermediate waterbodies (greater than 10 ft wide but less than or equal to 100 ft wide). In accordance 

with SESH’s Plan and Procedures, excavated spoil would be stockpiled in the construction right-of-way 

at least 10 ft from the stream bank or in approved ATWSs 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 

HDD is a trenchless crossing method that could be used to avoid direct impacts to sensitive 

resources, such as waterbodies and wetlands, or 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 borehole. HDD 

installation would be 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 borehole. 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. 

Directional control of the pilot hole drill would be achieved by using a non-rotating drill string 

with an asymmetrical leading edge. The asymmetry of the edge creates a steering bias, while the nonrotating aspect of the drill string allows the steering bias to be held in a specific position during 

advancement. The path of the drill head would be controlled using a magnetic steering tool positioned 

behind the drill head and, if needed, an electromagnetic survey system. The magnetic steering tool would 

measure the position (azimuth and inclination) of the drill head and transmit that information to a console 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 2-23 

at the drill station. If magnetic interference were encountered, an electromagnetic survey system would 

be used to monitor the path and progress of the drill head. This system would consist of a small diameter 

cable (less than 0.5 inch) laid out on the ground surface to form a rectangular coil. The long axis of the 

coil would be oriented along the path of the pilot hole. The coil would be energized to produce an 

electromagnetic field of known intensity and location. The position of the magnetic steering tool would 

be measured relative to the induced field. 

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 borehole, 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 extra workspace areas 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 

borehole. 

Drilling fluid circulates 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 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. SESH has stated that it would not use any synthetic or potentially toxic drilling 

fluid additives during HDD activities. 

A successful HDD would result in little or no impact to the waterbody being crossed. HDD 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 borehole 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 borehole 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, SESH would implement the corrective measures identified in the HDD 

Contingency Plan. In the event of a complete loss of drilling fluid circulation, which is potentially 

indicative of a frac out, the HDD operator would cease pumping of drilling fluids immediately, any 

surfaced drilling fluids would be contained, and cleanup procedures would commence. A discussion of 

the potential impacts of HDD on waterbodies and wetlands is provided in Section 3.3. 

SESH is proposing using HDDs on certain waterbodies and some roadway crossings. Information 

on the waterbodies to be crossed via HDD is included in Appendix D, while the roadways to be crossed 

by HDD are identified in application filing to FERC. SESH proposes to use 31 separate HDD crossings 

to accomplish pipeline installation that include the crossings of 17 major waterbodies (greater than 100 ft 

wide). The NPS has not identified any waterbodies crossed by the Project as National Wild and Scenic 

Rivers (NPS 2006a). Section 3.3 identifies and describes the waterbodies that would be crossed using 

HDD techniques. 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 2-24 

NON-INTERNET PUBLIC 

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE PROPOSED SOUTHEAST 

SUPPLY HEADER PIPELINE PROJECT 

Docket No. CP07-44-000 and CP07-45-000 

Page 2-24 

Section 2.3.2 

Figure 2.3.2-1 

Typical Horizontal Directional Drill Installation Process 

Public Access for the above information is available only through the Public Reference Room, or by 

e-mail at 

public.referenceroom@ferc.gov

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 2-25 

2.3.2.2 Wetlands 

Wetland construction would be conducted in accordance with best management practices 

described in SESH’s Plan and Procedures. In addition, SESH would implement the SPCC Plan as needed 

to further minimize the potential for adverse effects to wetlands. 

The method of pipeline construction and the required construction right-of-way width in wetlands 

depends largely on soil stability and other conditions. Stable temporary work surfaces could be required 

in wetlands where soils are saturated and unstable. Installing construction mats in the equipment travel 

lane is a typical method of stabilization. Typically, an ATWS would be located a minimum of 50 ft from 

the edge(s) of the wetland. However, if a riparian wetland is located adjacent to a waterbody, an ATWS 

could be required within the wetland itself. 

Within the wetland, vegetation would be cut to ground level except over the trench where stumps 

would be removed. Grading and stump removal would be limited to the area over the trench except 

where safety conditions dictate additional removal on the working side of the right-of-way. 

Unsaturated Wetlands 

The construction procedures used to cross unsaturated wetlands are similar to those used on dry 

land. Excavated topsoil would be segregated in a manner similar to that used when crossing agricultural 

land. Temporary trench plugs would be installed in the trench at the edges of the wetland if the 

possibility exists for sediment-laden water to flow from uplands down the trench and into the wetland. 

Silt fences and/or straw bales would be installed at the edges of the construction work area if the 

possibility exists for temporarily stored spoil to flow into undisturbed areas of the wetland. 

Preconstruction contours would be restored after completion of construction. 

Saturated Wetlands 

Construction techniques in highly saturated wetlands could involve the “push” or “pull” 

construction techniques. These techniques would involve floating a prefabricated pipe section over the 

water-filled trench by either pushing or pulling it. With this method, the trench would be cut with a 

backhoe, dragline, clamshell dredge, or a combination of such equipment. The push and pull staging 

sites, pipe storage sites, and fabricating areas would be located outside the saturated portion of the 

wetland. Floats would be attached to the pipe to achieve positive buoyancy, and the floating pipe would 

be pushed or pulled into place. Once the pipe is in place, the floats would be removed, and the pipe 

would settle to the bottom of the trench. This operation would be repeated, as necessary, to complete the 

wetland crossing. Following placement of the pipeline, excavated material would be used to fill in the 

trench, and the original contours of the wetland would be re-established. 

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 SESH. 

2.3.2.3 Residential and Commercial Areas 

Section 3.8 contains information concerning the locations of residences and structures within 

50 ft of the construction work area. Specialized construction methods SESH would use near residences 

are discussed in SESH’s Plan and Procedures. SESH would make every effort to ensure that 

construction-related impacts to residences and residential areas are minimized and that cleanup is quick 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 2-26 

and thorough. For 100 ft on either side of a nearby residence, the duration of a trench opening would be 

limited to contractor working hours. 

SESH proposes using specialized methods such as drag section and/or stovepipe construction 

techniques, as necessary, to minimize impacts to residences. Both techniques would substantially reduce 

workspace requirements. Drag section construction would involve welding two or more joints of pipe 

together in an area away from a residence and then transporting the joined pipe into the right-of-way for 

installation. This would minimize the amount of time that residential property would be disturbed. 

Stovepipe construction, which is generally best suited for situations where the available workspace is 

extremely limited, would involve installing one or two joints of pipe at a time. The pipeline ditch would 

be dug just ahead of construction. One or two joints of pipe are carried into place, lowered into the ditch, 

and welded. The ditch would be immediately backfilled before the next section of ditch is excavated. 

While stovepipe construction would significantly reduce the amount of property disturbed at any one 

time, it tends to be slower and more expensive than other construction techniques. 

Homeowners would be notified in advance of nearby construction activities and any scheduled 

disruption of household utilities. Should any proposed Project-related work activity in a residential area 

disrupt landowner ingress to or egress from his or her residence, SESH would offer to temporarily 

relocate the landowner and provide a meal allowance. 

SESH would attempt to leave mature trees and landscaping intact within the construction rightof-way unless the trees and landscaping interfere with the installation techniques or present unsafe 

working conditions. Fences, mailboxes, and other structures that have been removed would be restored. 

Sidewalks, driveways, and roads would be restored as soon as practical. After cleanup, a SESH 

representative would contact landowners to ensure that conditions of all agreements have been met. 

2.3.2.4 Active Croplands 

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, SESH 

would implement special procedures to minimize impacts on current agricultural uses in accordance with 

SESH’s Plan and Procedures. Topsoil would be removed to its actual depth, up to a maximum of 

12 inches, and stockpiled separately from the subsoil excavated from the pipeline trench. Typically, 

topsoil would be stripped from the area directly over the pipeline ditch and the adjacent subsoil spoil 

storage area (see Figure 2.3.1-2); however, landowners would be provided with the option of topsoil 

segregation across the full 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 and residential areas would be spread uniformly across the construction right-of-way, and any 

excess rock would be removed from at least the top 12 inches of soil. The topsoil and subsoil in all 

agricultural areas would also be tested for compaction at regular intervals using penetrometers or other 

appropriate devices. Any severely compacted areas would be plowed with a paraplow or other deeptillage device. In areas where the topsoil was segregated, the subsoil would be plowed before replacing 

the segregated topsoil. 

SESH indicates that no known drainage structures or irrigation facilities would be crossed by the 

proposed Project. SESH would work with landowners prior to construction 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. 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 2-27 

Table 3.8.1-1 provides the cumulative total active cropland (i.e., agricultural lands in active 

rotation including permanent or rotated cropland, hayfields, and improved pastures) crossed by the 

proposed Project. 

Specialized construction methods to be used in active croplands are discussed in SESH’s Plan and 

Procedures. Typical steps in pipeline construction in active croplands are discussed below. 

Grading 

Topsoil would be stripped as appropriate (full width or trench plus spoil side) and segregated 

from excavated subsoil. Subsoil could be stored either on subsoil in defined storage areas or on the 

natural ground surface if a recognizable, biodegradable vegetative layer either exists or is emplaced prior 

to subsoil placement. Natural drainage patterns would be maintained by providing breaks in topsoil and 

subsoil stockpiles. 

Drain Tiles 

There are no known areas of drain tiles in the proposed Project area. 

Restoration and Revegetation 

Restoration and revegetation practices follow those described in SESH’s Plan and Procedures. 

Any rutting or compaction would be repaired prior to revegetation of disturbed areas. All rocks larger 

than, or in higher densities than, those in adjacent undisturbed areas would be collected and properly 

disposed. 

2.3.2.5 Road Crossings 

All roadways crossed by the proposed Project are listed in application filing to FERC. A table in 

the filing identifies the crossing by MP, roadway name, surface type, jurisdiction, and anticipated method 

of crossing. Specialized construction methods to be used at roadway crossings are discussed in detail in 

SESH’s Plan and Procedures. 

Prior to any excavation, all utility companies with underground facilities that might be affected 

by trenching or other excavation activities would be alerted via the “One Call” system. Representatives 

of the utility companies would then visit the site and mark their facilities within the construction work 

area so the excavation can proceed with relative certainty regarding the location of underground lines. 

Where there is a question as to the location of a utility, such as a water, cable, gas, or sewer line, it would 

be located by field instrumentation and/or excavation of test pits. 

During the crossing of residential streets by the open-cut method, every attempt would be made to 

keep at least one lane of traffic open. During the brief period when a road may be completely cut, steel 

plates would be available on-site to cover the open area to permit travel by emergency vehicles. 

Generally, boring or HDD would be required under major arterial roadways. HDD is discussed 

in Section 2.3.2.1. Boring would entail drilling a shaft below the roadway through which the pipeline 

crosses. First, a bore pit would be excavated on one side of the artery and a receiving pit would be 

excavated on the other side. These pits would be excavated to a depth equal to the bottom of the pipe to 

be emplaced, and the bore pit would be graded such that the bore follows the grade of the pipe. A boring 

machine would be lowered to the bottom of the bore pit and placed on supports. The machine would cut 

a shaft under the artery using a cutting head mounted on an auger. The auger would rotate in a casing, 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 2-28 

both of which would be pushed forward as the hole is cut. Once the shaft is complete, the auger would be 

removed and the pipeline would be pushed through the casing. The casing would be removed and the 

area between the pipeline and the shaft would be grouted as required by permit. 

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, paved and unimproved rural dirt roads would typically 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 be made to avoid peak-traffic periods on all road construction. All construction 

operations at these crossings, including repair and surface restoration, would normally be completed 

within one day. 

Three minor road crossings, Highway 577 Road (MP 4.2), Quebec Road (MP 10.9), and Carlisle 

Land (MP 55.7), would be accomplished via HDDs associated with the crossing of adjacent waterbody 

features. 

2.3.2.6 Rock Removal and Blasting 

SESH does not anticipate encountering solid bedrock during pipeline construction; therefore, 

there should be no blasting or excess rock. 

2.3.2.7 Steep Vertical and Side Slopes 

Additional grading could be required in areas where the pipeline runs up and down steep slopes to 

accommodate the bending limitations of the pipe. In such areas, the slope would be cut away and, after 

the pipeline is installed, reconstructed to its original contours. 

In areas where the alignment runs along the side of a slope additional grading could be required. 

Generally, on steep side slopes, soil from the high side of the right-of-way would be moved to the low 

side to create a safe and level terrace. See Figure 2.3.2-2 for an illustration of typical side slope (twotone) construction widths in steep terrain. After the pipeline is installed, the soil from the low side of the 

right-of-way would be returned to the high side, and the original contours of the slope would be restored. 

The two-tone construction technique would likely require ATWS areas to accommodate the 

additional volumes of fill material generated by this technique. 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 SESH’s 

Plan and Procedures. 

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 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 2-29 

NON-INTERNET PUBLIC 

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE PROPOSED SOUTHEAST 

SUPPLY HEADER PIPELINE PROJECT 

Docket No. CP07-44-000 and CP07-45-000 

Page 2-29 

Section 2.3.2 

Figure 2.3.2-2 

Typical Side Slope Construction Widths in Steep Terrain 

Public Access for the above information is available only through the Public Reference Room, or by 

e-mail at 

public.referenceroom@ferc.gov

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 2-30 

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 aboveground and belowground, 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 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 

SESH proposes to commence construction of the proposed Project in November 2007 with an 

anticipated in-service date of June 2008. The duration of construction for all facilities combined would 

be approximately 6 months with all spreads and aboveground facilities being constructed concurrently. 

2.5 ENVIRONMENTAL TRAINING AND MONITORING 

SESH would conduct environmental training for all company and construction contractor 

personnel prior to and during construction activities. Such training would focus on implementation of 

SESH’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, EIs would be responsible for monitoring and ensuring compliance 

with all environmental mitigation measures required by the FERC Certificate, if granted, and SESH’s 

Plan and Procedures. 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. SESH has indicated that it would be 

represented by at least one EI per construction spread. However, the number and experience of EIs 

assigned to each construction spread should be appropriate for the length of the construction spread and 

the number and significance of resources affected. If the Project were authorized, SESH 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 SESH. 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 2-31 

In addition to the EI personnel specified above, we believe that SESH’s implementation of the 

third-party independent Environmental Compliance Monitoring and Reporting (ECMR) Program would 

provide a number of benefits, both to us and to SESH, if the proposed Project is certificated. The overall 

objective of an ECMR Program would be twofold: to assess environmental compliance during 

construction in order to achieve a high level of environmental compliance throughout the Project, and to 

assist us in the screening and processing variance requests during construction. Therefore, we 

recommend: 

y SESH should hire and fund a third-party contractor, to work under the direction of the 

Commission staff, for the sole purpose of monitoring compliance with the 

environmental conditions attached to the Order for the project, including all measures 

proposed by SESH. A draft monitoring program should be developed by SESH and 

filed with the Commission for review and approval of the Director of OEP, along with a 

proposal from potential contractors that will be available to provide the monitoring and 

reporting services. The monitoring program should include the following elements: 

a. the employment by the contractor of one to two full-time, on-site monitors per 

construction spread; 

b. the employment by the contractor of a full-time compliance manager to direct 

and coordinate with the monitors, manage the reporting systems, and provide 

technical support to the Commission staff; 

c. a systematic strategy for the review and approval by the contract compliance 

manager and monitors of variances to certain construction activities as may be 

required based on site-specific field conditions; 

d. the development of an Internet web site for the posting of daily or weekly 

inspection reports submitted by both the third-party monitors and 

environmental inspectors; and 

e. a discussion of how the monitoring program could incorporate and/or be 

coordinated with the monitoring or reporting that may be required by other 

Federal and state agencies. 

SESH established an Internet website (http://www.spectraenergy.com/businesses/projects/sesh/) 

and toll-free telephone number (1-888-312-7374) to provide potentially affected landowners and 

stakeholders with a venue for providing comments or requesting additional information about the 

proposed Project. The FERC staff is interested in ensuring that landowner issues are resolved in an 

effective and timely manner. Therefore, we encourage SESH to continue its commitment to maintain 

open communications with affected landowners during construction through similar methods should the 

Project ultimately be certificated. 

2.6 OPERATION, MAINTENANCE, AND SAFETY CONTROLS 

The proposed Project 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). These 

safety standards are discussed further in Section 3.12. 

The pipeline would be constructed of welded carbon steel that meets or exceeds industry 

standards and would be covered with a protective epoxy coating to minimize rust and corrosion. To 

protect against damage from external forces, the proposed pipeline would be buried at a minimum depth 

of 3 ft below ground surface. All welds joining each section of pipe would be visually inspected and 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 2-32 

x-rayed to ensure the integrity of the welds. Prior to being placed in service, the pipeline would be 

hydrostatically pressure tested to verify its integrity and to ensure its ability to withstand the MAOP. A 

cathodic protection system would be installed to protect all underground and submerged pipeline facilities 

constructed of metallic materials from external, internal, and atmospheric corrosion. 

During operations, SESH 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 

and vehicle 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 washout 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. SESH 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 be performed at all aboveground facilities by qualified 

personnel. SESH would maintain safety equipment, such as pressure-relief devices, fire-detection and 

fire-suppression systems, and gas-detection systems, throughout the life of each facility. In addition, 

SESH would inspect, service, and test mainline valves to ensure proper functioning. 

SESH 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. 

SESH would place and maintain pipeline markers along the right-of-way at roadway crossings, 

railroad crossings, and other highly visible places to alert those contemplating working near the buried 

pipeline. The markers would identify SESH as the operator and display telephone numbers to call if any 

abnormal conditions are detected. 

SESH 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 SESH of any planned excavation near the pipeline so that SESH could flag the 

location of the pipeline and assign staff to monitor activities, if required. 

SESH would perform vegetation-management procedures during operation in accordance with 

their Plan and Procedures, which would include regular mowing, cutting, and trimming along most of the 

50-ft-wide permanent pipeline right-of-way, except in wetland resource areas, where only an area up to 

30 ft wide would be maintained. Routine vegetative maintenance clearing would not be performed more 

frequently than every 3 years, unless requested and approved by appropriate state and local agencies. 

However, a corridor, not exceeding 10 ft wide, centered on the pipeline, could be maintained annually in 

an herbaceous state, as required to facilitate periodic corrosion and leak detection surveys. In addition, 

SESH has indicated that routine vegetation maintenance would not occur between April 15 and August 1 

of any year to minimize the potential for impacts on migratory bird species that may use the permanent 

right-of-way for nesting. Vegetation management is discussed further in Section 3.5. 

2.7 FUTURE PLANS AND ABANDONMENT 

SESH currently has no plans for future expansion of the facilities proposed. However, the design 

of the SESH Project includes two taps located at MP 195.27 and MP 250.40 to accommodate potential 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 2-33 

future interconnects with certain power generation facilities. If additional demand for natural gas supplies 

requires future expansion, SESH 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. 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 3-1 

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 

3.1 GEOLOGY 

3.1.1 Geological Setting 

The proposed Project is located in the Mississippi Alluvial Plain Section (Delhi, Louisiana, 

MP 0.0 to the eastern slope of the Mississippi River, approximate MP 37.0) and the East Gulf Coastal 

Plain Section (approximate MP 37.0 in western Mississippi to Coden, Alabama, terminating at MP 

268.94) of the extensive Coastal Plain physiographic province. These two physiographic sections are 

located within the ancient and expansive Mississippi Embayment, a structural trough in which the 

underlying crust of the Earth forms a deep valley that plunges toward the Gulf of Mexico. Over time, 

massive deposits of sediments in the Mississippi Embayment have led to formation of sedimentary rocks, 

some of which have been reworked and deposited as formations that are more recent. 

The Mississippi Alluvial Plain is characterized by a conspicuous band of alternating Pleistocene 

age (0.01 to 1.8 million years ago [mya]) and Holocene age (present to 0.01 mya) deposits. The surficial 

geology in this area is primarily alluvial, which has terrace deposits of sand, gravel, and clay with some 

loess (windblown) deposits east of the Mississippi River. In general, the thickness of these deposits range 

from 100 to 200 ft (U.S. Geological Survey [USGS] 1996). The irregularly striped pattern owes its origin 

to extensive and accelerated deposition by streams during interglacial phases of the Pleistocene followed 

by erosion of these materials by Holocene river systems (see Table 3.1.1-1). 

The East Gulf Coastal Plain in the proposed Project area (MP 37.0 eastward) is characterized by 

unconsolidated or poorly consolidated sand, gravel, and clay deposits of Pliocene age (1.8 mya to 

5.3 mya) and Late Miocene age (5.3 mya to 11.2 mya). These materials were deposited mostly in marine 

environments and were subsequently uplifted to the extent that they now tilt seaward (USGS 2006a). At 

the westernmost edge of the East Gulf Coastal Plain is an expansive “blanket” of partially consolidated 

loess, or windblown glacial silt, of Pleistocene age covering Miocene formations for 50 – 60 miles of the 

proposed Project alignment. This area is known as the Loess Hills Region and is characterized by steep 

vertical bluffs along stream banks where it is thickest at the westernmost edge. The deposit thins to the 

east, gradually feathering out halfway across Mississippi (see Table 3.1.1-1). 

The proposed Project crosses seven geologic formations, including Braided Stream TerracesLoess; Alluvium; Catahoula; Pascagoula/Hattiesburg; Citronelle; Miocene Undifferentiated; and Alluvial, 

Coastal, and Low Terrace Deposits. Refer to Table 3.1.1-1 for the cumulative surface distance for each 

geologic formation crossed by the proposed Project. 

3.1.1.1 Topography 

The topography of the proposed Project area is generally flat to moderately sloping terrain with 

the steepest terrain located in western Mississippi in the Loess Hills. Topographic elevations range from 

85 ft above mean sea level (amsl) at Delhi, Louisiana, up to 500 ft amsl near New Hebron, Mississippi, 

and down to 15 ft amsl near Coden, Alabama. Some areas of moderately rugged topography associated 

with loess deposits east of the Mississippi River would be encountered along the proposed Project route. 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 3-2 

 

3.1.1.2 Bedrock 

Unconsolidated or poorly consolidated materials are located at all proposed Project facilities 

where excavation is necessary. Consolidated bedrock is located at extreme depths relative to the 

proposed Project facilities and thus would not be encountered during construction. SESH would 

complete all excavation work with standard excavation equipment; they anticipate no bedrock blasting for 

the proposed Project. 

The primary effect of pipeline construction on geology would be disturbances to the existing 

near-surface geology and topography along the construction right-of-way. As described in Section 2.3.1, 

TABLE 3.1.1-1 

Geologic Units Underlying the Proposed SESH Project 

Cumulative 

Length 

Crossed 

(miles) 

Physiographic 

Province 

Group/ 

Formation/Type Description 

0.17 Mississippi Alluvial 

Plain 

Braided Stream 

Terraces-Loess 

Tan to reddish brown massive silt with some clay 

and minor amounts of very fine sand (USGS 

2006b). 

36.9 Mississippi Alluvial 

Plain 

Alluvium Gray to brownish-gray clay and silty clay with 

some sand and gravel (NRCS 2006 and USGS 

2006b). 

52.1 East Gulf Coast 

Plain 

Catahoula Gray to white sandstone, loose quartz sands, 

tuffaceous sandstones, and brown sandy clay. In 

outcrop, the Catahoula formation consists of 

generally nonmarine to marginal marine (fluvial to 

deltic) partially carbonaceous, varicolored gravel, 

sand, silt, and clay (Heinrich 2001 and Tew 

1992). 

95.68 East Gulf Coast 

Plain 

Pascagoula/ 

Hattiesburg 

Gray-green and blue-green shale and clay, gray 

sand, and silt. 

69.8 East Gulf Coast 

Plain 

Citronelle Brown, red, and orange gravelly sand that locally 

contains clay balls and partings and gray, orange, 

and brown lenses of sandy clay. The base of the 

formation is generally marked by ferruginous 

sandstone that contains quartz and minor 

amounts of chert gravel (Reed 1971). 

3.32 East Gulf Coast 

Plain 

Miocene Series 

Undifferentiated 

Gray, orange, and red very fine to coarse-grained 

sand, ferruginous sandstone, and gray, olive, 

blue, and green sandy silty clay. In some 

exposures, beds of sand contain gravel and 

petrified plant fossils, and clays contain 

carbonized leaf remains (Reed 1971). 

10.78 East Gulf Coast 

Plain 

Alluvial, Coastal, and 

Low Terrace 

Unconsolidated tan and gray sands with some 

silts and clays that locally contain quartz, chert 

pebbles, and fossils. Low Terrace Deposits are 

fluvial gravels, sands, and clays of Pleistocene 

and Holocene age. 

___________________________________________________________________________________ 

NRCS = Natural Resources Conservation Service 

USGS = U.S. Geological Survey 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 3-3 

all areas disturbed during pipeline construction would be finish-graded and restored as closely as possible 

to pre-construction contours during cleanup and restoration. 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 

The surface mineral predominately mined in Louisiana is lignite and is found in the northwestern 

part of the state. Lignite mining does not occur within the proposed Project area (Louisiana Geological 

Survey [LGS] 2000). Sand and gravel rank first in sales among Mississippi’s leading industrial 

commodities. Forty-four counties within the state have permitted gravel pits (Mississippi Department of 

Environmental Quality [MDEQ] 1995). Alabama also thrives on mineral mining. Stone, sand, gravel, and 

clay make up a multi-million dollar industry in Alabama (Geological Survey of Alabama 2006). 

SESH used USGS topographic maps and field surveys to identify mining sites within a 0.25-mile 

radius of the proposed Project facilities. Three sand and gravel pits/quarries were identified within 

0.25 mile of the Project (Table 3.1.2-1). The sand and gravel pit at MP 150.28 is located approximately 

422 ft from the construction work area, so there should be no impacts associated with Project 

construction. A field survey indicated that the quarry at MP 200.03 is quite small and was probably used 

for farm/logging road maintenance with limited access. This quarry is located approximately 100 ft from 

the construction work area, so there should be no impact to this quarry. The proposed Project would 

directly cross the inactive sand quarry at MP 188.53; however, it would parallel the Enterprise pipeline 

which also crosses the inactive quarry. Construction of the proposed Project could affect the sand 

resource at the inactive quarry. However, SESH would obtain the necessary easement through the 

property to offset any potential loss of access to the resource. 

Forty oil and gas wells currently in production are located within 0.25 mile of the proposed 

Project. Only one is in Louisiana (MP 3.42). The remaining wells occur largely in two clusters: the first 

from MP 114.0 to MP 118.0, about 4 miles southeast of New Hebron in Lawrence County, Mississippi; 

and the other from MP 129.0 to MP 137.0, in eastern Jefferson Davis and western Covington counties in 

Mississippi. SESH would solicit additional information regarding plugged and abandoned oil and gas 

wells within 150 ft of the construction right-of-way from local and state resource agencies. Generally, 

there is no surface evidence for abandoned well locations, but the potential exists for approximations or 

inaccuracies of latitude and longitude information obtained from database research. Abandoned wells 

with the potential to be affected by construction would be field-verified prior to construction. 

TABLE 3.1.2-1 

Mineral Resources within 0.25 Mile of the Proposed SESH Project 

Facility Milepost Feature Name 

Distance 

from 

Construction 

Workspace 

(Feet) 

Pipeline 150.28 Sand and Gravel LUX PIT 422.40 

Pipeline 188.53 Sand Quarry a, b UNKNOWN 0.00 

Pipeline 200.03 Quarry a, c UNKNOWN 98.53 ___________________________________________________________________________________ 

a Features were identified during ecological field surveys.. 

 b Civil field surveys identified this area to be consistent with past quarry operations. c Civil field surveys identified this area to be a quarry for farm/logging road maintenance and not commercial use due to the limited 

access.

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 3-4 

If it were determined prior to construction that one of the abandoned oil or gas wells is located 

within or near the trench line, SESH would contact the FERC to request an alternative measure, as 

appropriate, to adjust the pipeline centerline slightly to avoid impact to the abandoned well casing. Any 

such adjustment request would be minor (generally a 10-ft centerline offset), and disturbance would be 

limited to the previously identified construction right-of-way. In the unlikely event that a non-reported 

abandoned gas/oil well is discovered during construction, the following steps would be taken: 

y stop all work in the area; 

y notify the EIs and SESH Management; 

y contain any spill that may have occurred in accordance with the SESH SPCC Plan; 

y erect warning signs and barricade the area; 

y notify the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ), MDEQ, or the Alabama 

Department of Environmental Management (ADEM) to identify the owner, who would then 

plug and abandon the well, as necessary; 

y notify the Commission of the discovery, nature, and size of any spill and the actual plan to 

handle the discovery; and 

y reroute the pipeline around the unanticipated discovery, if possible. 

Construction and operation of the proposed Project is not expected to have an impact on 

exploitable oil and natural gas resources. The proposed pipeline route would avoid all existing well sites; 

therefore, impacts to any wells at and near the ground surface would be unlikely. Excavation of the 

pipeline trench would typically only extend to a depth of approximately 6.5 to 8 ft below the ground 

surface, and none of the proposed HDDs would exceed a depth greater than 100 ft below the ground 

surface. Current oil and gas extraction operations are conducted at thousands of feet below the ground 

surface and would not be affected by proposed Project-related construction. Furthermore, because new 

drilling operations would be conducted outside of the permanent right-of-way, the proposed Project 

would not directly affect future oil or gas field development. 

Direct access to future development areas could be restricted by the presence of the proposed 

pipeline. This would most likely occur in isolated areas where the presence of access roads is restricted or 

in a situation where future exploration activity could occur on both sides of the proposed pipeline. The 

presence of a pipeline could potentially prevent access across the pipeline from one potential resource 

area to another. SESH would develop access agreements with property owners, as necessary, to allow for 

safe travel across the pipeline. 

3.1.3 Paleontology 

Large, shallow, tropical seas covered much of the central United States, including the proposed 

Project area, during the Tertiary age (1.8 to 65 mya). Marine invertebrates flourished in these shallow 

seas from the Devonian to Mississippian ages. After dying, individuals fell to the bottoms of these seas, 

where some became fossilized in chert as the Tertiary age sedimentary rock formed. In the late Tertiary 

Period, some of these fossil-rich deposits were eroded, and the deposited material contributed to the 

Citronelle Formation. The fossils are primarily associated with pebble-sized chert in this formation. In 

some areas, Citronelle Formation deposits have eroded and chert gravel containing fossils is associated 

with recent alluvial deposits (MDEQ 1995; USGS 2006b; and LGS 2001). 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 3-5 

The proposed Project alignment crosses the Citronelle Formation 23 times for a cumulative 

distance of 69.8 miles (see Table 3.1.1-1). While construction could disturb deposits containing some 

fossil-containing chert, the impacts would be negligible in light of the massive quarrying of Citronelle 

Formation deposits throughout the proposed Project area. Although reporting is not required, in the event 

that a significant fossil discovery is made SESH would contact the Mississippi State Geological Survey, 

the LGS, or the Geological Survey of Alabama (GSA). Based on SESH's adherence to its procedure to 

inform the above agencies should it encounter paletontological resources, we believe that construction 

and operation of the proposed Project would not significantly affect paleontological resources. 

3.1.4 Geologic Hazards 

Geologic hazards are natural physical conditions that can, when active, result in impacts to the 

environment and man-made structures or present public safety concerns. Such hazards typically include 

seismicity, soil liquefaction, landslides, and subsidence and are discussed below. 

3.1.4.1 Seismicity and Faults 

Earthquakes are caused by stress building up along a fault until a critical limit is reached and the 

stress is released through sudden movement along the fault. The proposed Project area is not known for 

large earthquakes. Seismic events at the proposed Project facilities were not identified in a review of 

USGS-compiled seismic data on earthquakes in the central United States from 1699 to 2002 

(USGS 2003). 

Guidelines exist in today’s building codes for new construction based on seismic risk. The 

Uniform Building Code (UBC) for the United States is divided into five zones, 0 to 4, where Zone 0 

designates an area where seismic activity is not expected and Zone 4 designates an area of high 

probability of a damaging seismic event. Seismic zones are based on a statistical compilation of the 

number and magnitude of past earthquakes. This provides some indication of where the next earthquake 

may occur, how often, and at what magnitude. The proposed Project area is located in Zone 0 and Zone 1 

(UBC 1997). 

SESH would design and construct the proposed Project facilities in full accordance with the 

building codes for this seismic risk. Consequently, the potential for seismicity and faulting would not 

represent a significant risk to the proposed Project area. 

3.1.4.2 Soil Liquefaction 

Soil liquefaction is the process by which saturated, unconsolidated soil or sand is converted into a 

suspension due to a sudden change in pressure or repeated shock. Soil liquefaction can lead to landslides 

and earthflows, movement or failure of foundations and footings, and mobility of buried objects. For 

liquefaction to occur, a relatively shallow water table, rapid, strong ground motion, and non-cohesive 

soils must be present (University of Washington 2000). 

The surface sediments within the proposed right-of-way have some cohesion and in some areas 

shallow water is present. Rapid, strong ground motion is closely related to seismic risk which is low in 

the Project area. Because of these conditions, the potential for soil liquefaction for the proposed Project 

area is low. Furthermore, the linear extent and ductile nature of pipelines generally make them less 

susceptible than other structures to the effects of soil liquefaction. Existing building codes and standards 

applicable to the proposed Project facilities should adequately address the low potential for soil 

liquefaction. 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 3-6 

3.1.4.3 Slope Failures/Landslides 

Slope failures/landslides occur when rock, sediments, soils, and debris move down steep slopes. 

Such gravity-induced flow is usually precipitated by heavy rains, erosion by rivers, earthquakes, or 

human activities (e.g., man-made structures or pilings of rock or ore). 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. 

Landslide incidence is low in the proposed Project area (typically less than 1.5 percent of the area 

involved). The exception is the relatively steep, loess-covered terrain east of the Mississippi River. Here 

landslide incidence is moderate (1.5 to 15 percent of the area involved) (USGS 1978 and Champlin 2006). 

The geological composition and structure of loess makes it particularly susceptible to erosion. As a result, 

where exposed in road cuts, stream banks, gullies, excavations, or other exposures, loess forms steep 

vertical cliffs. SESH would reroute the pipeline, where possible, to avoid steeper topography should 

construction conditions reveal unforeseen difficulties in preventing landslides in response to pipeline 

installation. 

Construction of the pipeline would be accomplished in accordance with SESH’s Plan, which 

includes measures to minimize risks of landslides including controlling runoff and erosion. During 

construction, steps would be taken to minimize the potential risk due to landslides. SESH would install 

permanent trench breakers constructed of materials such as sand bags or polyurethane foam in the trench, 

over and around the pipe, in areas of slope with erosion potential. Trench plugs, usually composed of 

compacted earth or other suitable low-permeable material, would be used to isolate wet areas to minimize 

channeling of water along the ditch line. 

When severe side slopes are encountered, the upslope side of the construction right-of-way would 

be cut during grading if necessary. The material removed from the cut would be used to fill the 

downslope edge of the right-of-way to provide a safe and level surface from which to operate heavy 

equipment. Side hills could require ATWSs down slope to accommodate the excavated material. During 

grade restoration, the spoil would be placed back in the cut and compacted to restore original contours. 

Water from any springs or seeps found in the cut would be carried down slope through drainpipes and/or 

gravel trench drains that would be installed as part of the cut restoration. 

Once construction activities were completed, the grade and drainage patterns would be 

reestablished and permanent erosion controls would be installed to minimize post-construction erosion. 

Post-construction inspections would identify areas of risk, and continued monitoring along slopes would 

likely identify any significant landslide hazards before they develop. Based on the characteristics of the 

proposed Project area and SESH’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 Subsidence 

Ground subsidence is a lowering of the land-surface elevation that results from changes that take 

place underground. 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. 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. No areas of karst terrain or subsurface mines are located along the proposed Project area; thus, 

subsidence related to these conditions would not be expected to adversely affect the proposed Project. 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 3-7 

No subsidence along the proposed Project is anticipated as there is no evidence of sinkholes or 

other indications of subsidence along the route. Even in Alabama, where coastal marshes have a stronger 

tendency towards subsidence, new sediment entering the system from fluvial and tidal flooding offsets the 

potential for subsidence (Schmid and Octvos 2006). Upon pipeline installation, route surveillance, as 

required by 49 CFR § 192.613, in conjunction with training of personnel responsible for identifying signs 

of soil movement or subsidence, would be used to monitor the pipeline right-of-way for subsidence. 

Should subsidence occur, the affected area would be exposed, repositioned, or replaced to a stress-free 

state and properly bedded and backfilled to restore the original state. The proposed Project facilities 

would be designed and constructed to meet or exceed the federal safety standards set forth in 49 CFR Part 

192, which should ensure integrity of the Project facilities and minimize the potential for any pipe failures 

due to ground subsidence. We believe that use of the appropriate construction methods, as well as postconstruction monitoring, would minimize the potential for any risk to the proposed Project posed by 

ground subsidence. 

3.1.5 Conclusion Regarding Impacts to Geologic Resources 

The proposed Project would be unlikely to affect paleontological resources, and would be 

unlikely to encounter bedrock along the pipeline route. However, SESH 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 by 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 is there more than a negligible 

risk to the proposed pipeline from geologic hazards. 

3.2 SOILS 

3.2.1 Existing Soil Resources 

Data were analyzed for the soils to be traversed by the proposed Project using NRCS soil survey 

databases and county and parish soil surveys. The soil association descriptions were compiled from 

information in the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA’s) soil surveys of Richland and Madison 

Parish, Louisiana; Warren, Claiborne, Copiah, Lawrence, Jefferson Davis, Covington, Jones, Forrest, 

Perry, Greene, George, and Jackson counties, Mississippi; and Mobile County, Alabama, as well as the 

USDA NRCS soils website (www.soils.usda.gov). A summary of the soil associations crossed is 

presented in Appendix C. 

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 erosion hazard, drainage class, presence of hydric soils, 

compaction potential, presence of shallow bedrock, revegetation potential, and prime farmland 

designation. The characteristics of the various soil units crossed by the proposed pipeline are compiled in 

Appendix C. 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 3-8 

3.2.2.1 Erosion Hazard 

Erosion hazard is the potential for soil to erode when unprotected from erosive forces. Many 

factors influence the potential for erosion of soils, such as soil structure, drainage characteristics, texture, 

slope, climate, and vegetation. The NRCS provides an erosion hazard rating in its soil surveys. Soils are 

rated as having a low, low-moderate, moderate, moderate-high, high, or very high erosion hazard. The 

potential for soil erosion varies along the proposed pipeline route, but about 34 percent of the soils that 

would be traversed have a low erosion potential. Approximately 50 percent of the soil classifications have 

an erosion potential that ranges from low to high. However, about 13 percent of the soils are characterized 

as having an erosion potential of high to very high. These soils would generally be confined to areas of 

steep slopes, which occur along the proposed Project route in Copiah, Jefferson Davis, and Jones 

counties, Mississippi, and Mobile County, Alabama. 

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. Well-sorted 

or coarse-grained soils have more pore space and thus are better-drained. Poorly-sorted or fine-grained 

soils have less pore space and prevent water from draining. Six classes of drainage, ranging from poorlydrained to excessively-drained, are used to describe the relative wetness of a soil. Approximately 

48 percent of the soils that would be crossed are moderately well to well-drained (see Appendix C). 

Approximately 21 percent of the soils that would be crossed are somewhat poorly to poorly-drained, and 

approximately 2 percent of the soils that would be crossed are somewhat excessively to excessivelydrained. 

3.2.2.3 Presence of Hydric Soils 

Hydric soils are defined as soils that formed under conditions of saturation, flooding, or ponding 

long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions. 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. Hydric soils may also be prone to compaction and rutting. 

Approximately 35 percent of the soils that would be crossed by the proposed pipeline are classified as 

hydric. Approximately 24 percent of the land crossed by the proposed pipeline is both hydric and 

agricultural land. Consequently, some of the hydric soils crossed by the proposed pipeline route have 

likely been altered from their undisturbed state. 

3.2.2.4 Compaction Potential 

Compaction modifies the structure of soil and, as a result, alters its strength and drainage 

properties. Soil compaction decreases pore space and water-retention capacity, which restricts the 

transport of air and water to plant roots. As a result, soil productivity and plant growth rates may be 

reduced, soils may become more susceptible to erosion, and natural drainage patterns may be altered. 

Consequently, soil compaction is of particular concern in agricultural areas where crop yields would be 

adversely affected. 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 experience compaction. The liquid limit, which is the percent water content at which a soil 

changes from a plastic state to a liquid state, is a good indicator of susceptibility to compaction and is 

used here to approximate compaction potential. High liquid limits have greater compaction potential. 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 3-9 

We assigned a compaction potential rating of low, low-moderate, moderate, moderate-high, or 

high to each of the soil types traversed by the proposed pipeline based on the liquid limit of those soils. 

Many of the soils that would be traversed by the proposed pipeline are somewhat prone to compaction; 

about 13 percent of the soils have a moderate compaction potential. Approximately 11 percent of the soils 

are characterized as having high compaction potential. 

3.2.2.5 Presence of Shallow Bedrock 

Rock could be introduced into surface layers of soil during various pipeline construction activities 

such as blasting and trenching. Such introductions could reduce moisture-holding capacity, thereby 

reducing soil productivity and creating poor revegetation potential. Additionally, some agricultural 

equipment could be damaged by contact with large rocks. The presence of shallow bedrock, which is 

defined as bedrock within 60 inches of the land surface, is often used as an indicator of the potential for 

introductions of rock to surface layers of soils. The soils that would be crossed by the proposed pipeline 

route do not contain shallow bedrock as defined above. 

3.2.2.6 Revegetation Potential 

Revegetation potential is a rating of the ability of a soil to support revegetation efforts following 

construction-related disturbance. The potential for revegetation of each soil type that would be affected by 

construction of the proposed pipeline was assessed based on such factors as soil texture, drainage 

properties, wetness, and slope. Considering these factors, four general classes were defined for 

revegetation potential ranging from low to good. Most of the soils that would be affected by pipeline 

construction are considered to have good (49 percent) or medium (28 percent) revegetation potential. 

Approximately 23 percent of the affected soils are considered to have revegetation concerns (i.e., low 

revegetation potential). 

3.2.2.7 Prime Farmland Designation 

The NRCS (NRCS 1993) 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.” Soils classified as prime farmland have few or no rocks, a dependable water 

supply, and a favorable growing season and are not saturated for long periods of time, 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 units that have been surveyed, and this information is available directly from the soil 

survey databases. Approximately 41 percent of the soils crossed by the proposed pipeline are classified as 

prime farmland. Construction of the compressor and booster stations would temporarily affect 

approximately 67 acres of prime farmlands. Compressor and booster station operation would permanently 

affect approximately 63 acres of prime farmland. 

3.2.2.8 Loess Soils 

Loess soils are composed of fine, tightly packed, windblown sediments that have been described 

as unique because of their ability to maintain near vertical slopes, their occurrence in large deposits, and 

their high susceptibility to erosion. In the proposed Project area, loess deposits are found east of the 

Mississippi River in Warren and Claiborne counties, Mississippi. Through consultation with local NRCS 

offices, SESH has been able to identify the areas where the proposed project would cross loess soils. The 

proposed pipeline would cross these deposits for 5.17 miles in Warren County and 15.33 miles in 

Claiborne County. The 20.5 miles of loess soils extend from MP 39.5 to MP 60 and represent about 7.6 

percent of the total pipeline length. 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 3-10 

The majority of the construction area containing loess soils would be crossed using two-tone 

construction techniques as described in Section 2.3.2.7. Adherence to the impact avoidance, 

minimization, and mitigation measures outlined in the SESH Plan and described below should minimize 

impacts to loess soils. However, based on agency concerns regarding the unique qualities of loess soils, 

we recognize that additional measures could further minimize impacts. SESH is consulting with the 

NRCS to determine the need for additional measures that could be implemented and would further protect 

loess soils during construction and operation of the proposed Project. SESH has submitted a Loess Soil 

Management Plan dated June 11, 2007 to NRCS for their review and comment. Because that consultation 

has not yet been completed, we recommend that: 

• Prior to construction between MP 39.5 to MP 60.0, SESH should file with the 

Secretary a final Loess Soil Management Plan developed in consultation with the 

NRCS. This plan should indicate any NRCS recommendations to minimize or 

mitigate impacts to loess soils and whether SESH would implement these 

recommendations would and if not, explain why. 

The Loess Soil Management Plan submitted to NRCS for review and comment includes the 

following measures: 

• Retention of a geotechnical engineer, experienced with construction and restoration in 

areas containing loess soils, to approve construction plans in advance and to monitor 

construction activities; 

• Excavation of the trench to as near a vertical slope as possible and use of a berm or other 

obstacle to prevent water from entering the open trench; 

• Use of both cool and warm season species for reseeding, including wheat, rye, bahia, and 

bermuda grasses; use of unhulled bahia and Bermuda grass seeds that would minimize 

seed decay prior to germination; 

• Mulching of seeded areas at levels meeting or exceeding rates recommended by NRCS; 

and 

• Monthly inspections of the restored areas for the first six months following restoration, 

and then inspections every two months for the following year; problems such as poorly 

revegetated areas, evidence of erosion, or loss of mulch would be immediately addressed. 

We believe that the implementation and adherence to the impact avoidance, minimization and 

mitigation measures described in the Loess Soil Management Plan and SESH’s Plan as described below 

would effectively minimize impacts to loess soils. 

3.2.3 General Impacts and Mitigation 

Construction activities associated with the proposed Project, such as clearing, grading, trenching, 

and backfilling, have the potential to affect soil resources through multiple mechanisms. The most 

significant effects include potential increases in soil erosion and compaction and the loss of soil 

productivity and fertility by mixing topsoil and subsoil horizons and changing drainage patterns. 

Removing vegetative cover increases the possibility of erosion by wind and water. Mixing topsoil with 

subsoil and compaction caused by passage of heavy construction equipment can adversely affect 

revegetation potential and agricultural productivity. Alteration of the surface topography can affect 

hydrology, influencing stormwater runoff and soil drainage patterns. 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 3-11 

To minimize and mitigate the impacts to soils resources described above, SESH would adopt and 

follow the guidelines described in its Plan during construction and operation of the proposed Project. The 

intent of this Plan is to identify baseline mitigation measures for minimizing erosion and enhancing 

revegetation in upland areas. Mitigation measures identified in SESH’s Plan include using 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. The 

more important aspects of this Plan regarding erosion control are summarized below. 

y At least one third-party EI would be deployed for each construction spread during 

construction and restoration; 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 authorization and order corrective action. 

y Project-related ground disturbance would be limited to the construction right-of-way, 

ATWSs, pipeyards/wareyards, borrow and disposal areas, access roads, and other areas 

approved in the Certificate. 

y Mixing of topsoil with subsoil would be minimized 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, and other areas at the landowner’s or land 

managing agency’s request. 

y Temporary erosion controls would usually be installed after vegetative clearing but prior to 

excavation. 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. 

y Sediment barriers would be installed (such as silt fences, 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. 

y Topsoil and subsoil would be tested for compaction at regular intervals in areas disturbed by 

construction activities, with the exception of residential areas where grass would be resodded. 

Topsoil in areas where resodding occurs would not be tested for compaction. Soils disturbed 

by proposed Project-related activities would be revegetated; all turf, ornamental shrubs, and 

specialized landscaping would be restored in accordance with the landowner’s request or the 

landowner would be compensated. 

y All areas disturbed by Project-related activities would be revegetated or otherwise stabilized. 

Disturbed areas would be seeded in accordance with written recommendations from local soil 

conservation authorities or the request of the landowner or land management agency. 

y Revegetation efforts would be confirmed through post-construction monitoring of all 

disturbed areas after the first and second growing seasons following completion of 

construction activities. In areas not used for agriculture, restoration would be considered 

successful when the density and cover of non-nuisance vegetation is similar to adjacent 

undisturbed land. In agricultural areas, revegetation would be considered successful if crop 

yields were similar to adjacent undisturbed portions of the same field. 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 3-12 

SESH would also develop and implement an SWPPP in compliance with federal and state 

regulations, if required for the proposed Project. The SWPPP would incorporate the requirements for 

mitigating upland erosion and revegetation described in SESH’s Plan and would further detail the erosion 

control structural best management practices, inspection procedures, and reporting protocols to be 

implemented during construction of the proposed Project. 

Other potential impacts during construction would include the accidental release of petroleum 

hydrocarbons or other hazardous materials, as well as the discovery of contaminated soils during trench 

excavation and grading activities. During construction, SESH would implement a SPCC Plan to prevent 

and contain, if necessary, accidental spills of any material that could contaminate soils and to ensure that 

inadvertent spills of fuels, lubricants, or solvents would be contained and cleaned up in an appropriate 

manner. SESH has prepared a SPCC Plan (filed with application), which describes the management of 

hazardous materials, such as fuels, lubricants, and coolants, that would be used during construction. 

Contaminated soils could also be encountered during construction activities along the proposed 

construction right-of-way or extra workspace areas. If contaminated soils were encountered during 

construction, SESH would implement procedures from the Contamination Contingency Plan, filed in the 

application to FERC, to identify and properly manage the contamination. 

3.2.4 Site-Specific Impacts and Mitigation 

SESH has developed its own Plan and Procedures. Faithful implementation of these procedures 

would help ensure compliance with applicable SESH specifications, federal regulations and guidelines, 

and the specific requirements of any required permits. 

During construction, SESH proposes to make every reasonable attempt to minimize the quantity 

and duration of soil exposure. Erosion-control structures, temporary seeding and revegetation, and 

erosion-control fabrics would be used, as needed, to protect exposed soil. To ensure the continued 

productivity of agricultural land, SESH would excavate topsoil from construction areas prior to trenching 

and segregate it from the trench spoil. This segregated topsoil would be returned to the ditch following 

backfilling of the trench with the subsurface spoil. Given this treatment, the approximately 57 miles of 

active cropland crossed by the pipeline would be expected to return to full agricultural use and 

productivity after completion of construction. 

After construction is complete, the right-of-way would be returned to its preconstruction 

contours. SESH would minimize erosion by re-grading and reseeding these disturbed areas as soon as 

possible according to recommendations by NRCS local offices or landowner requests. Active drainage 

tiles, culverts, and other items affected during construction would be repaired or replaced to 

preconstruction conditions. Following restoration, SESH would monitor the disturbed areas to ensure the 

functionality of erosion control structures and would repair any developing erosion until final stabilization 

is achieved. 

Soil susceptibility to erosion varies along the proposed pipeline route and is a function of 

variables such as soil type, topography, vegetation, and climate. Approximately 34 percent of the soils 

that would be traversed have a low erosion potential (see Appendix C). Approximately 50 percent of the 

soil classifications have an erosion potential that ranges from low to high. However, about 13 percent of 

the soils are characterized as having an erosion potential of high to very high. These soils are generally 

confined to areas of steep slopes, which occur along the proposed Project route in Copiah, Jefferson 

Davis, and Jones counties, Mississippi, and Mobile County, Alabama. Several phases of pipeline 

construction, including vegetation and pavement clearing/removing, grading, topsoil segregation, open 

trenching, and backfilling, would destabilize the soil material and make it susceptible to water and wind 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 3-13 

erosion. Soils would be most susceptible to erosion after vegetation is removed and before 

reestablishment of a vegetative cover after the pipeline is installed. Soil erosion would also result from 

off-road vehicle traffic on the right-of-way following construction. 

SESH should reduce soil erosion with both temporary and permanent erosion control practices. 

As SESH’s Plan describes, the temporary and permanent erosion control practices would be implemented 

during construction and operation of the proposed Project. Temporary erosion controls would be installed 

immediately after the initial soil disturbance and, in areas with steep slopes, erosion control devices 

would be installed at closer intervals than required for more moderately sloped areas. Wherever possible, 

contours would be returned to their approximate preconstruction condition and revegetated to stabilize the 

slope. SESH would initiate vegetation restoration efforts and final grading as soon as weather and soil 

conditions permit. Revegetation measures are described further below. Although there could be some 

short-term increase in erosion in sloped areas, these slopes eventually would be stabilized and permanent 

erosion control devices would be installed to avoid long-term erosion problems. Therefore, we do not 

anticipate that significant long-term soil erosion impacts would result from construction and operation of 

the proposed Project. 

As required by its Plan, SESH would take measures to control unauthorized vehicle access to the 

proposed pipeline right-of-way during construction and operation. These measures could include signs, 

fences with locking gates, slash and timber barriers, or appropriate trees or shrubs planted to block access 

to the right-of-way. SESH would coordinate with affected landowners regarding the installation of access 

barriers on their property. 

3.2.4.1 Compaction Potential 

Compaction damages the structure of the soil and restricts transport of air and water to plant 

roots. As a result, soil productivity and plant growth rates may be reduced, soils may be made more 

susceptible to erosion, and natural drainage may be altered. In general, about one-half of the soils that 

would be crossed by the proposed pipeline are considered prone to compaction due to the prevalence of 

hydric soils and soils with poor drainage. Use of the construction right-of-way, extra workspaces, and 

access roads by heavy construction equipment would, therefore, 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 its Plan and Procedures, SESH would use measures such as 

restricting vehicular traffic, reducing loads, employing lower ground-pressure equipment, and 

rescheduling certain activities when soil moisture is high to avoid and minimize compaction and rutting. 

In agricultural, residential, and wetland areas, topsoil would be segregated from other materials 

excavated from the trench and placed in piles that would usually be opposite the working side of the 

trench. Therefore, heavy equipment would not travel on the piles, and compaction of excavated topsoil 

would be minimized. Due to construction-related activities, some topsoil and subsoil located along the 

working side of the construction right-of-way would be compacted. These areas would be tested and, if 

either the subsoil or topsoil is severely compacted, a paraplow or other deep tillage device would be used 

to break up the soils. However, during cleanup and restoration activities, the topsoil and subsoils in all 

agricultural areas would be tested for compaction at regular intervals, using penetrometers or other 

appropriate devices in accordance with SESH’s Plan. Any severely compacted areas would be plowed 

with a paraplow or other deep tillage device. In areas where the topsoil was segregated, the subsoil would 

also be plowed before replacing the segregated topsoil. These measures would ensure that any soil 

compaction resulting from construction of the proposed pipeline would be only temporary, and significant 

or long-term impacts to soil resources associated with compaction would not be anticipated. 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 3-14 

SESH does not anticipate the need for compaction testing or mitigation in residential areas 

because topsoil segregation or topsoil replacement would be implemented. Therefore, SESH proposes an 

alternative measure to Section VI.C.1 of the FERC Plan that requires compaction testing in residential 

areas disturbed by construction. In accordance with SESH’s Plan VI.C.3, we believe this alternative 

measure is acceptable. 

3.2.4.2 Revegetation Potential 

As the majority of soils that would be disturbed during construction have medium (28 percent) to 

good (49 percent) revegetation potential, vegetation restoration should not be of concern across most of 

the proposed pipeline route. However, a small percentage (23 percent) of the soils that would be 

disturbed during construction is characterized as having low revegetation potential. Revegetation would 

be necessary for the stabilization and restoration of the construction right-of-way, extra workspaces, and 

areas adjacent to access roads. Revegetation potential could 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 described above, SESH would return the construction right-of-way and extra work areas to 

preconstruction contours to the extent feasible, control erosion by implementing the procedures in its 

Plan, segregate and loosen compacted 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, SESH would consult with the local soil conservation authorities to determine the 

appropriate seed mixtures for stabilization and permanent erosion control. 

SESH would be responsible for successful revegetation of all disturbed areas and would follow its 

Plan to ensure all mitigation is sufficient. SESH would conduct at least 2 years of post-construction 

monitoring of all work areas to verify successful revegetation or determine the need for additional 

restoration. In accordance with SESH’s Plan, 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 there were excessive noxious weeds after two full 

growing seasons, a professional agronomist would determine the need for additional restoration 

measurements. In agricultural areas, SESH would monitor crop yields to ensure that those yields in areas 

affected by construction were similar to yields in adjacent, undisturbed areas. 

Heavy equipment traffic and trenching along the construction right-of-way would 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 damage 

were not corrected. SESH indicates that no known drainage structures would be crossed by the proposed 

Project; however, SESH would work with property owners to identify locations of existing drainage 

structures that would be damaged during construction. If active drainage tiles, culverts, or other drainage 

facilities were damaged during construction, SESH would replace or repair them to a condition that is 

equal to or better than their preconstruction condition. Additionally, SESH would be responsible for 

ensuring that all areas affected by construction activities are finish-graded and restored as closely as 

possible to preconstruction contours. Although damage to drainage structures and patterns would result 

in short-term impacts, the corrective procedures to be implemented by SESH would avoid or minimize 

any long-term impacts. 

3.2.4.3 Prime Farmlands 

Approximately 41 percent of the lands crossed by the proposed pipeline contain soils classified as 

prime farmland soils. As described above, SESH would implement the measures included in its Plan to 

minimize and mitigate any impacts to prime farmland soils. Additionally, all impacts to prime farmland 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 3-15 

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 right-ofways would largely revert to their preconstruction uses, such as agriculture, following restoration. 

Table 3.2.2-1 identifies and quantifies the actual and relative acreage of prime farmland that 

would be affected during construction (temporary) and operation (permanent) of individual aboveground 

facilities. Approximately 67 acres of prime farmland soils (73 percent of the total) would be affected 

during construction and approximately 63 acres of prime farmland soils (75 percent of the total) would be 

affected during operation of the five major aboveground facilities combined. However, only 5.53 acres of 

the prime farmland soils affected during operation of the five major aboveground facilities are in active 

agricultural use. 

NRCS has jurisdiction over prime farmland conversion. SESH initiated consultation with the 

NRCS offices that serve all 16 counties across the proposed Project area regarding potential impacts to 

prime farmland. SESH also consulted with the NRCS offices in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama 

concerning recommended seed mixes. To date, all NRCS offices have replied with recommended seed 

mixes or concurrence with proposed seed mixes. SESH would comply with their recommendations 

unless a landowner requests otherwise. 

As described above, SESH would coordinate with the NRCS regarding the proposed Project 

impacts to prime farmland soils and gain all necessary approvals for their permanent conversion to 

non-agricultural uses. These consultations and approvals would ensure that permanent impacts to prime 

farmland soils associated with construction and operation of the proposed Project aboveground facilities 

would be minor. 

TABLE 3.2.2-1 

Soil Series Affected by Major Aboveground Facilities for the Proposed SESH Project 

Project 

Component Soil Series 

Prime 

Farmland 

(Y/N) 

Total Property 

Temporarily 

Affected 

(acres/percent) 

Total Property 

Permanently 

Affected 

(acres/percent) 

Grenada (Gr) Y 4.18/29 4.18/29 Delhi Compressor Grenada (Gs) Y 0.85/6 0.85/6 Station Calhoun-Calloway (Cc) Y 9.25/65 9.25/65 

Total Prime Farmland/Total % Prime Farmland 14.28/100 14.28/100

Smithdale (Sm) N 0.11/1 0.11/1 

Ora (Or) Y 8.69/46 8.69/46 

Gwinville 

Compressor 

Station Smithdale (Sme) N 10.1/53 10.1/53 

Total Prime Farmland/Total % Prime Farmland 8.69/46 8.69/46 

Collins Booster Boswell-Savannah (BsC) Y 2.27/11 2.27/11 

Station Pheba (Ph) Y 17.46/89 17.46/89 

Total Prime Farmland/Total % Prime Farmland 19.73/100 19.73/100

Benndale (Be) Y 1.02/6 1.02/6 

Heidel (He) N 0.57/3 0.57/3 Petal Booster 

Station McLaurin (Mb) Y 15.15/91 15.15/91 

Total Prime Farmland/Total % Prime Farmland 16.17/97 16.17/97

Susquehanna-Benndale (SxE) N 4.60/21 2.57/18 

Benndale (Bn) Y 0.04/0 0.00/0 

Cahaba (Ca) N 9.09/41 7.59/52 

Lucedale 

Compressor 

Station McLaurin (Ml) Y 8.55/38 4.43/30 

Total Prime Farmland/Total % Prime Farmland 8.59/38 4.43/30 

Total Combined Prime Farmland/ 

Total Combined % Prime Farmland 

67.46/73 63.30/75 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 3-16 

3.3 WATER RESOURCES 

3.3.1 Groundwater 

3.3.1.1 Existing Groundwater Resources 

The proposed Project is wholly located within the extent of two major aquifer systems: the 

Mississippi River Valley Alluvial Aquifer System and the Coastal Lowlands Aquifer System (called the 

Sand and Gravel Aquifer in Alabama). The State of Louisiana recognizes the portion of the aquifer 

underlying the state’s portion of the Project area as the Mississippi River Valley Alluvial Aquifer (LDEQ 

2006b). The State of Mississippi also recognizes the Mississippi River Valley Alluvial Aquifer, as well 

as two sub-units of the Coastal Lowlands system, the Miocene Aquifer (equivalent to lower Zone C 

through Zone E) and the Citronelle System (equivalent to upper Zone C, (MDEQ 2006f)). Additionally, 

within the Coastal Lowlands Aquifer System is the Southern Hills Aquifer System, an EPA-designated 

sole-source aquifer. In the Project area, this aquifer is designated in portions of Mississippi only and is 

bound to the west by the Mississippi River and to the east by the Pearl River. Alabama identifies the 

portion of the Coastal Lowlands system aquifer in the Project area as the Miocene/Pliocene Aquifer. 

Figure 3.3.1-1 illustrates the locations of these aquifers in relation to the proposed pipeline route. 

Mississippi River Valley Alluvial Aquifer System 

The Mississippi River Valley Alluvial System underlies the proposed pipeline route from MP 0.0 

to MP 40.0 in Richland and Madison Parishes, Louisiana, and the very western portion of Warren 

County, Mississippi. The portion of this system in the proposed Project area consists of Quaternary age 

deposits of sand, gravel, silt, and minor clay, which are further divided into two hydrogeologic units: the 

upper confining layer and the lower coarse aquifer. The upper confining layer consists of silt, clay, and 

The overall depth of the aquifer system (upper confining layer and lower aquifer) in the proposed Project 

area is approximately 100 to 150 ft below ground surface. Wells screened in the lower confined aquifer 

typically yield 500 gallons per minute (gpm) with some yielding as much as 5,000 gpm (USGS 1998). 

An average of 354 million gallons per day (mgd) of water is withdrawn from the Mississippi River Valley 

Alluvial Aquifer System. 

Coastal Lowlands Aquifer System in Louisiana and Mississippi 

The Coastal Lowlands aquifer system underlies the proposed pipeline route from MP 40.0 to the 

terminus at MP 270.0. This aquifer consists of permeable sedimentary rocks of Holocene and Upper 

Pleistocene age containing deposits of interbedded sand and clay (USGS 1998). This system extends and 

thickens toward the Gulf of Mexico (GOM) and is deepest (approximately 14,000 ft) in southern 

Louisiana and adjacent offshore areas. It is approximately 1,000 to 3,000 ft deep in the proposed Project 

area and deepens toward the coast. 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 3-17 

The Coastal Lowlands aquifer has been divided into five hydraulically connected units, A 

(uppermost) through E (deepest), based largely on differences in hydraulic conductivity and depth. The 

two youngest zones (Zones A and B) are not found in the proposed Project area, which is largely 

underlain by Permeable Zones C and D and by a portion of Zone E in Claiborne and Warren counties, 

Mississippi. Zone C is comprised of deposits from the early Pliocene to late Miocene age and Zone D is 

made up of deposits from the middle Miocene age; together these zones make up the Miocene aquifer 

system in southern Mississippi. Zone E consist of deposits from the early Miocene to late Oligocene age 

and is referred to as the Oligocene aquifer system. The Coastal Lowlands aquifer zones outcrop in bands 

across the northern end of the overall aquifer system and increase in thickness to the south until 

terminating into the Vicksburg-Jackson Confining Unit. Wells screened in Zone C yield an average of 

1,000 to 3,000 gpm; wells screened in Zone D yield an average of 300 and 1,000 gpm. No information is 

available for wells screened in Zone E (USGS 1998). 

Coastal Lowlands Aquifer System in Alabama 

The Coastal Lowlands Aquifer is also known as the Sand and Gravel Aquifer in Alabama. The 

aquifer underlies the southern portion of Mobile, Baldwin, and Escambia counties, Alabama, and extends 

into the Florida panhandle. The proposed Project would be constructed in the southern portion of Mobile 

County, where the aquifer is about 1,400 ft thick. The water table ranges from a few feet in low-lying 

areas to about 50 ft below land surface under hills and ridges. In most places, the aquifer can be divided 

into two high-permeability zones, the upper surficial and lower main producing zones, separated by a less 

permeable sand and clay unit. The upper zone is mostly fine- to medium-grained sand, with gravel beds 

and lenses, and contains water that is mostly unconfined. This zone is recharged directly by precipitation, 

and groundwater moves laterally for the most part. The upper zone is used for water supply in southern 

Mobile County. 

Yields are highly variable, but as much as 1,000 gpm have been reported. In 1985, about 30 

million gpd were withdrawn from the aquifer in Mobile County (USGS 1990). The Alabama Geological 

Survey (AGS) monitors water level depths across Alabama. The nearest wells to the proposed Project 

area are in Baldwin County across Mobile Bay from Mobile County.

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 3-18 

NON-INTERNET PUBLIC 

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE PROPOSED SOUTHEAST 

SUPPLY HEADER PIPELINE PROJECT 

Docket No. CP07-44-000 and CP07-45-000 

Page 3-18 

Section 3.3.1 

Figure 3.3.1-1 

Aquifer Systems 

Public Access for the above information is available only through the Public Reference Room, or by 

e-mail at 

public.referenceroom@ferc.gov

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 3-19 

Groundwater Quality and Use 

In general, groundwater quality in the proposed Project area is good. Within the vicinity of the 

proposed pipeline and aboveground facilities, groundwater is primarily used for agriculture, livestock, 

public supply, aquaculture, and industry. Table 3.3-1 summarizes groundwater quality parameters for 

each aquifer crossed. 

TABLE 3.3-1 

Summary of Aquifers Crossed by the Project 

Parameters 

Aquiferd State TDS 

(mg/L) 

Hardness

(mg/L) 

Specific 

Conductance

(μS/cm) 

pH 

(SU) 

color 

(PCU) 

iron 

(mg/L) 

nitrate

(mg/L) 

LA Mississippi River a 506 325.6 862 7.0 52.3 6.01 0.63 

Valley Alluvial 

Aquifer MS b 344 290.0 580 7.2 5 5.40 0.20 

Miocene Aquifer MS b 192 11.0 340 8.0 7 0.03 0.30 

Citronelle Aquifer MS b 50 9.0 40 5.4 5 0.02 1.50 

Miocene/Pliocene AL c 49 17.0 32 5.7 n/a 0.16 1.50 

a

 Mean observed values during the fiscal year 2002; Source: LDEQ 2006a 

b Median of observed values from screened wells; Source: MDEQ 2006f 

c

 Mean observed values from screened wells; Source: ADEM 2006e 

d

 State aquifer name 

mg/L = milligrams per Liter 

μS/cm = micro-Siemens per centimeter 

PCU = platinum-color units 

SU = standard units 

Contaminated Groundwater 

Several sites containing potentially contaminated groundwater have been identified along the 

proposed pipeline route. Consultation with the LDEQ indicated that an underground storage tank (UST) 

lies 218 ft south of MP 17.0 where the groundwater has been affected; however, construction of the 

proposed pipeline would be unlikely to affect this groundwater due to location and depth. Consultation 

with MDEQ indicated that a solid waste disposal facility (SWDF) lies approximately 931 ft north of MP 

164.82 and that two USTs are located approximately 0.14 mile south of MP 219.21 and 0.20 mile south 

of MP 227.55. The SWDF is an active facility that only accepts vegetation and concrete waste. It is 

highly unlikely that this facility has affected underlying groundwater resources. The UST at MP 219.21 

is a closed tank with no recorded leaks or violations, while the UST at MP 227.55 is an open tank, also 

with no reported leaks or violations. Neither tank is expected to have affected any groundwater resources 

in the Project area. 

Sole Source Aquifers 

Sole-source aquifers are defined by the EPA as those aquifers that contribute more than 50 

percent of the drinking water to a specific area and for which there are no reasonably available alternative 

sources of water should the aquifer become contaminated. Review of the EPA’s designated sole source 

aquifers in Regions 4 and 6 indicates that a portion of the Project is located over the Southern Hills 

Aquifer System which was designated as a sole-source aquifer in 1988 (EPA 2006a). As described 

previously, the Southern Hills Aquifer System underlies the proposed Project in portions of Mississippi. 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 3-20 

Approximately 290 million gallons are pumped from the Southern Hills Aquifer per day and are 

used for public supply (49 percent), industry (39 percent), rural domestic (6 percent), power generation (5 

percent), and other uses (1 percent) (USGS 2002 and LADOT 2002). 

Water Supply Wells and Wellhead Protection Areas 

Six private water supply wells are located within proposed construction work areas and three 

private water supply wells are located within 150 ft of proposed construction work areas. Detailed data, 

including MP, distance from construction work area, and type/use of each well, are provided in Table 

3.3.1-2. 

TABLE 3.3.1-2 

Water Supply Wells Located Within 150 Feet of Proposed SESH Project 

Construction Work Areas 

MP Location 

Distance from 

Construction 

Work Area (ft) 

Well Type 

13.83 Madison Parish, LA 0 Private 

13.83 Madison Parish, LA 0 Private 

17.05 Madison Parish, LA 97.8 Private 

26.19 Madison Parish, LA 45.57 Private 

27.12 Madison Parish, LA 0 Private 

27.69 Madison Parish, LA 0 Private 

29.86 Madison Parish, LA 39.5 Private 

218.23 George County, MS 0 Private 

228.73 George County, MS 0 Private 

__________________________

ft = foot/feet 

MP = milepost 

Three wellhead protection areas occur along the proposed pipeline route in Mississippi. Well 

head protection areas are designated by states to protect the surface and subsurface areas surrounding 

groundwater drinking water wells. No wellhead protection areas occur in the vicinity of the proposed 

pipeline or aboveground facilities in Louisiana or Alabama. Table 3.3.1-3 identifies the location and 

description of each wellhead protection area that would be crossed by the proposed pipeline. 

3.3.1.2 General Groundwater Impacts and Mitigation 

Groundwater quality, quantity, flow and recharge potential could be affected by construction of 

the proposed Project. However, impacts to groundwater due primarily to the placement of the proposed 

pipeline well above major groundwater resources would have little to no impacts on the deep aquifer. 

Impacts to the first shallow aquifer would be temporary with the exception of potential impacts to 

groundwater flow and recharge potential, which could be permanent. Additionally, groundwater quality 

could be affected if construction of the proposed pipeline and its operation resulted in the contamination 

of groundwater. 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 3-21 

TABLE 3.3.1-3 

Wellhead and Surface Water Protection Areas 

Facility Name Location 

Groundwater or 

Surface Water 

Protection Area 

Type of System Contact 

Information 

Louisiana 

No groundwater protection areas 

No waterbodies identified for public water supplya

Mississippi 

Pipeline MP 85.15 Groundwater Public supply well 

protection area 

MDEQ 

Pipeline MP 107.71 Groundwater Public supply well 

protection area 

MDEQ 

Lucedale Pipe Yard MP 218.32 Groundwater Public Supply well 

protection area 

MDEQ 

No waterbodies designated for public water supplyb

Alabama 

No groundwater protection areas 

No waterbodies designated for public water supplya 

_______________________________________ 

a Groundwater protection areas within one-half mile of the Project Area and source water protection areas within three 

miles of the Project area b Obtained from state water quality regulations for designated uses 

MDEQ = Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality 

MP = milepost 

Further impacts to groundwater quality, quantity and flow could also result from: 

y the pipeline trench acting as a preferential pathway for groundwater flow in areas where it 

intersects the water table, thus potentially altering the existing groundwater flow patterns 

within shallow saturated zones; 

y the operation of heavy construction equipment and the storage of construction materials and 

spoils resulting in the compaction of underlying soils; and 

y dewatering of the pipeline trench in areas with a high water table or after a heavy rain resulting 

in a temporary fluctuation in localized groundwater levels. 

Recharge of aquifers could also be affected by installation of impervious surfaces; however, 

given the relatively small area of graveled and paved surfaces planned across the entire Project area, it is 

unlikely the proposed Project would result in any significant changes in groundwater recharge. 

During construction of the proposed Project, SESH would implement measures described in its 

Plan and SPCC Plan to protect groundwater quality, quantity, flow and recharge potential and to 

minimize spills or leaks of hazardous liquids resulting from the refueling of construction vehicles and/or 

the storage of fuel, oil, or other potentially hazardous fluids. Some of the preventive measures proposed 

by SESH include: 

y installation of trench breakers such as sand bags or polyurethane foam at intervals along the 

pipeline trench to slow the flow of subsurface water along the trench, allowing the 

groundwater to flow away from the pipeline; 

y segregation of topsoil in selected areas, minimizing soil compaction in those areas; 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 3-22 

y testing of soils for compaction at regular intervals in agricultural areas and mitigating 

appropriately; 

y discharging of trench water into a well-vegetated upland area through properly constructed 

dewatering structures or dissipation devices such as hay bales structures or filter bags; 

y overall structuring of operations to reduce the risk of accidental spills or exposure of fuels or 

other hazardous materials into the environment; 

y proper training of employees handling fuels and other hazardous materials; 

y regular inspection of all equipment to ensure it is in good operating order; 

y provision of the necessary tools, equipment, and supplies to contain and recover spilled 

materials at the job site; and 

y prompt reporting of any spills to the appropriate agencies. 

In addition to these preventive measures, signs would be posted at identified water supply wells 

in the vicinity of the Project area prohibiting overnight parking of equipment and refueling. To further 

protect groundwater resources underlying aboveground facilities, SESH’s hazardous material storage 

units would be designed with respect to applicable engineering, safety, and environmental standards. Each 

unit would include leak detection and spill containment structures commensurate with the quantity of 

materials stored and would otherwise comply with applicable state and federal regulations and permits. 

3.3.1.3 Site-Specific Impacts and Mitigation 

Per landowner request or approval, wells within 150 ft of the proposed pipeline would be tested 

for functionality, water quality, and depth to water table prior to commencing construction and after final 

cleanup. These tests would be used to determine whether any construction-related impacts have occurred 

to the wells themselves or to the quality of the water they supply. If it is determined that any private water 

supply is damaged or affected as a result of construction, SESH would ensure that a temporary source of 

water is provided until the well is restored to its former capabilities and supplies water of acceptable 

quality. 

The Southern Hills Aquifer System, an EPA designated sole-source aquifer, would not be 

impacted by construction and operation of the proposed Project due to the absence of withdrawal wells in 

the vicinity of proposed pipeline facilities and SESH’s measures to prevent and minimize impacts to 

groundwater. 

The three wellhead protection areas are in the vicinity of the proposed pipeline could be affected 

by construction activities; however, since these areas are all located at least 400 ft away from proposed 

construction work areas, construction and operation of the proposed Project would not significantly affect 

them. 

3.3.2 Surface Water Resources 

Waterbody Crossings 

The proposed pipeline would cross 654 waterbodies including 175 perennial and 462 intermittent 

waterbodies and 17 ponds or lakes. Numerous surface waterbodies that would be crossed by the proposed 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 3-23 

pipeline have been assigned state-designated water quality classifications that characterize the bestintended use(s) of that waterbody. Common water quality classifications crossed by the proposed pipeline 

include primary contact recreation, secondary contact recreation, and fish and wildlife use and 

propagation. Appendix D identifies affected waterbodies, their location by MP, width of crossing, 

waterbody classification, and proposed crossing method. 

Major and Navigable Waters 

Major waterbodies are those greater than 100 ft wide at the time of crossing. The proposed 

Project would cross the following major waterbodies: Macon Bayou (MP 0.32), Tensas River (MP 

10.84), Mississippi River (MP 35.40), Pearl River (MP 101.40), Tallahala River (MP 170.59), 

Chickasawhay River (MP 209.06), and the Escatawpa River (MP 235.54). Additionally, the proposed 

Project would cross ponds and lakes that are greater than 100 ft wide at the crossing location including 

Despair Lake (MP 12.12), Oxbow Lake (MP 18.09), ponded water (MP 44.35), and unnamed ponds at 

MPs 32.29, 62.14, 83.67, 119.54, 215.26, and 221.49. 

According to 33 CFR Part 329, navigable waters of the United States “are those waters that are 

subject to the ebb and flow of the tide and/or are presently used, or have been used in the past, or may be 

susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce." The navigable waters crossed by the 

proposed Project include Tensas River (MP 10.84), Mississippi River (MP 35.40), Big Black River (MP 

44.63), Bayou Pierre (MP 55.97), Pearl River (MP 101.40), and Escatawpa River (MP 235.54) (COE 

2003, 2006). 

3.3.2.1 Sensitive Waterbodies 

Sensitive waterbodies include those streams designated as 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. Sensitive waterbodies are identified in Table 3.3.2-2. 

The Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks (MDWFP) has indicated that the 

Escatawpa River will be listed by 2007 in the state’s Scenic Rivers program. Inclusion in the State of 

Mississippi’s Scenic Rivers Program would require the use of best management practices for timber 

production activities near listed waterbodies (MDWFP 2006b). 

NPS designates waterbodies on a National Rivers Inventory (NRI) that are believed to possess 

“outstandingly remarkable” natural or cultural values judged to be of more than local or regional 

significance. No waterbodies crossed by the Project in Louisiana or Alabama are identified on the NRI. 

However, the following waterbodies crossed in Mississippi have NRI designation (NPS 2006b): 

y Big Black River, MP 44.63; 

y Bayou Pierre, MPs 55.97 and 62.26; 

y Pearl River, MP 101.40; 

y Okatoma Creek, MP 150. 89; 

y Bowie Creek, MP 127.61; 

y Leaf River, MP 157.94; and 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 3-24 

y Chickasawhay River, MP 209.06. 

Waterbodies identified as sensitive due to the actual or potential presence of listed threatened and 

endangered species are identified in Table 3.3.2-2 and include the Mississippi River, Bayou Pierre, 

Turkey Creek, Pearl River, and Escatawpa River. Threatened and endangered species are further 

discussed in Section 3.7. 

The proposed Project would also cross numerous waterbodies that feed into known waterbodies 

supporting threatened and endangered species or are believed to provide suitable habitat for threatened 

and endangered species. Choctaw, Dry, and Long Creek are tributaries to Bayou Pierre. Crumps Creek 

and the East and West Prongs of Silver Creek drain into the Pearl River. Shelton Creek is a reference 

stream for the MDEQ and a major tributary to Okatoma Creek. Thompson and Gaines Creek drain into 

the Leaf River. Degradation of water quality in these tributaries may negatively impact water quality in 

downstream sensitive waterbodies and indirectly impact threatened and endangered species. The 

MDWFP has expressed concerns about potential impacts to these waterbodies and the downstream 

resources and requested HDD crossing of each of the tributaries. However, SESH plans to open-cut these 

waterbodies. Based on the potential that these waterbodies do contain suitable habitat for threatened and 

endangered species and agency concerns regarding the potential impacts to downstream resources 

resulting from implementation of the proposed crossing methods, we recommend that:

y SESH should use a dry crossing method to cross the Choctaw, Crump, Dry, Gaines, 

Long, Shelton, and Thompson Creeks, or as an alternate, SESH should investigate the 

feasibility of crossing these creeks using the HDD method. SESH should file sitespecific crossing plans for its proposed dry crossing method, for review and written 

approval by the Director of OEP prior to construction at each waterbody.

None of the waterbodies that would be crossed by the proposed Project are designated as drinking 

water supply or public water supply. In addition, the proposed route does not cross within three miles of 

any surface water withdrawal locations in Louisiana, Mississippi, or Alabama. 

In Louisiana, three waterbody segments that would be crossed by the proposed Project are listed 

on the 2004 state 303(d) list of impaired waters: Bayou Macon, Joe’s Bayou, and the Tensas River. 

Bayou Macon is listed as impaired from dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane (DDT), total suspended solids, 

and turbidity from crop production as well as fecal coliform contamination from septic and other 

decentralized treatment systems. Joe’s Bayou is listed as impaired from elevated levels of carbonfuran, 

DDT, total suspended solids and turbidity from crop production, as well as elevated nitrate/nitrite levels, 

low dissolved oxygen levels, and elevated levels of total phosphorus from unknown sources. The Tensas 

River is listed as impaired from elevated levels of carbonfuran, DDT, nitrate/nitrite, total suspended 

solids, total phosphorus, toxaphene, turbidity, and low levels of dissolved oxygen from crop production 

(LDEQ 2005). 

In Mississippi, nine waterbody segments that would be crossed by the proposed Project are listed 

on the state 303(d) list for 2004: the Big Black River, Bayou Pierre, Pearl River, Bowie Creek, Okatoma 

Creek, Leaf River, Tallahala Creek (also called Tallahala River), Chickasawhay River, and Escatawpa 

River. Big Black River is listed as impaired from sedimentation/siltation and pesticides. Bayou Pierre is 

listed as impaired for aquatic life support due to nutrients, organic enrichment, low dissolved oxygen, 

pesticides, and sediment/siltation. Pearl River is listed as impaired due to high nutrient and pesticide 

levels, organic enrichment, low dissolved oxygen levels, and high levels of sediment/siltation. Bowie 

Creek is listed as impaired due to organic enrichment, low dissolved oxygen levels, elevated levels of 

nutrients, and sediment/siltation. Okatoma Creek is listed as impaired due to elevated levels of nutrients 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 3-25 

TABLE 3.3.2-2 

Sensitive Surface Waterbodies Crossed by the Proposed SESH Project 

MP Field ID Name 

State WQ 

Classification 

Sensitive Water 

Classification 

Crossing 

Method 

0.32 SA239-2 Macon Bayou A,B,C 303(d) HDD 

1.74 SA245-1 Joe’s Bayou A,B,C 303(d) HDD 

10.84 SA173 Tensas River A,B,C 303(d) HDD 

35.40 SA247 

Mississippi 

River 

A,B,C (LA); F&W 

(MS) 

T&E Habitat (Listed habitat 

for interior least tern, pallid 

sturgeon, Alabama redbellied turtle) HDD 

44.63 SA297-1 Big Black River F&W NRI, 303(d) HDD 

55.97 SD216 Bayou Pierre REC, F&W 

NRI, T&E (Bayou darter 

listed and observed habitat, 

crystal darter) HDD 

62.26 SA367 Bayou Pierre F&W 

NRI, T&E (Bayou darter 

listed and observed habitat, 

crystal darter) HDD 

72.69 SA123 Turkey Creek REC, F&W 

T&E (Bayou darter [listed 

and observed habitat]) HDD 

101.40 SB164 Pearl River REC, F&W 

NRI, 303(d), T&E (delicate 

spike, gulf sturgeon, crystal 

darter, frecklebelly madton, 

ringed map turtle HDD 

127.61 SF113-1 Bowie Creek REC, F&W NRI, 303(d) HDD 

150.89 SB129 Okatoma Creek REC, F&W NRI, 303(d) HDD 

157.94 SF117 Leaf River F&W NRI, 303(d) HDD 

170.59 SG161 Tallahala River F&W 303(d) HDD 

209.06 SC235 

Chickasawhay 

River F&W NRI, 303(d) HDD 

235.54 SR106-1 

Escatawpa 

River F&W 

303(d), T&E (Alabama redbellied turtle and yellow 

blocked map turtle listed 

habitat) HDD 

Notes: 

A = Primary Contact Recreation 

B = Secondary Contact Recreation 

C = Fish and Wildlife 

F&W = Fish and Wildlife 

HDD = horizontal directional drill 

MP = milepost 

NRI = Nationwide Rivers Inventory 

REC = Recreation 

T&E = threatened and endangered 

WQ = water quality 

and pesticides, organic enrichment, low dissolved oxygen levels, high levels of sediment/siltation, and 

presence of pathogens. Leaf River is listed as impaired due to high levels of nutrients and 

sediment/siltation. Tallahala Creek is listed due to biological impairment. The cause of the Chickasawhay 

River listing is unknown. The Escatawpa River is listed due to elevated levels of mercury, metals, total 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 3-26 

toxics, organic nutrients, chlorine, organic enrichment, suspended solids, turbidity, pH, pathogens and 

low dissolved oxygen (MDEQ 2005). 

No river segments crossed by the Project in Alabama were found on that state’s 303(d) list for 

2004 (ADEM 2006). 

3.3.2.2 Waterbody Construction Methods and Procedures 

As described in Section 2.0, SESH would construct the proposed pipeline through waterbodies 

using either open-cut or HDD methods. Appendix D identifies the proposed crossing method for each 

waterbody. 

To minimize the potential impacts to waterbodies resulting from construction of the proposed 

pipeline, SESH would adhere to all federal, state, and local regulations and permit requirements and 

would implement measures described in its Plan and Procedures. These measures include, but are not 

limited to: 

y obtaining all necessary permits from the COE and state agencies prior to construction and 

notifying applicable state agencies at least 48 hours before commencing with in-stream 

trenching; 

y using EIs during construction; 

y 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; 

y placing spoil at least 10 ft away from the water’s edge or top of the bank with installation of 

sediment barriers to prevent the flow of spoil or silt-laden water to the waterbody; 

y preserving as many existing trees on wooded stream banks as possible, while considering 

safety and other construction conditions, and allowing reestablishment except for a 30-ftwide corridor centered over the pipeline; 

y completing all in-stream construction activity, including stabilization and recontouring of 

banks, within 24 hours for minor waterbody crossings and 48 hours for intermediate 

waterbody crossings; 

y using temporary erosion and sediment control measures such as sediment barriers and trench 

plugs, and installing permanent sediment controls (e.g., slope breakers) as necessary; and 

y conducting restoration activities including restoring preconstruction bank contours, installing 

slope breakers, and revegetating disturbed riparian areas with suitable grasses and legumes to 

stabilize the banks. 

Alternative Measures to Our Procedures 

SESH proposes alternative measures to Sections IV.A.1.d, V.B.1, V.B.2.a, and V.B.3 of our 

Procedures. Section IV.A.1.d states that all equipment is parked overnight and/or fueled at least 100 feet 

from a waterbody or in an upland area at least 100 feet from a wetland boundary. SESH proposes to 

conducted fueling within 100 feet of a waterbody or wetland boundary if the fueling is conducted on a 

paved road. Section V.B.1 relates to when in-stream construction could occur. SESH proposes to 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 3-27 

construct through waterbodies during a time within its construction schedule. Section V.B.2.a states that 

all extra work areas should be located at least 50 feet from a waterbody’s edge, except where the adjacent 

upland consists of actively cultivated or rotated cropland or other disturbed land. In Section 3.4, Table 

3.4.2-1 identifies ATWS located within 50 feet of a waterbody or wetland boundary. Section V.B.3 

relates to general crossing procedures. SESH proposes that the EI, in consultation as necessary with the 

construction inspector, environmental coordinator and appropriate agencies, and other SESH inspectors, 

identify or approve the appropriate construction method for each location based on site-specific 

conditions at the time of construction. 

The prohibition of fueling within 100 feet of a waterbody or wetland boundary was designed to 

reduce the potential contamination of sensitive resources that could result from fueling activities. In order 

to grant a measure of flexibility, this section also states that the EI in specific situations may allow 

refueling activities to occur closer than 100 feet to a waterbody or wetlands boundary. Since flexibility is 

provided for in our Procedures, SESH’s alternative measure is not necessary, and therefore we do not 

approve this alternative measure to Section IV.A.1.d of our Procedures. 

The restricting of in-stream construction to certain time windows was designed to limit the 

potential adverse impacts to fisheries resulting from construction of a proposed pipeline. Since SESH has 

consulted with the appropriate agencies regarding these time windows and received approval to construct 

outside these windows, we have determined that its alternative measure to Section V.B.1 of our 

Procedures is acceptable. 

As described in Section 2.0, we are recommending that SESH reduce the size of its proposed 

ATWSs. Additionally, as outlined in SESH’s procedures, SESH would file prior to construction sitespecific plans for each ATWS within 50 feet of waterbodies. Based on our review of these ATWSs, our 

recommendation in Section 2.0, and SESH’s commitment to file site-specific construction plans as 

described above and in its Procedures, we have determined that the proposed alternative measure to 

Section V.B.2.a of our Procedures is acceptable. 

General crossing procedures were developed to guide construction activities while ensuring that 

waterbodies crossed by a proposed Project were adequately protected and impacts to them minimized to 

the extent possible. We believe that SESH’s proposed alternative measure to Section V.B.3 of our 

Procedures would not adequately ensure the protection and minimization of impacts to waterbodies; 

therefore, we do not approve this alternative measure to Section V.B.3 of our Procedures. 

3.3.2.3 General Impacts and Mitigation 

The proposed construction activities (clearing, excavation, and backfilling) could result in the 

following, which, in turn, could adversely affect water quality and in-stream habitat: 

y increased runoff, erosion, and associated sedimentation of streams; 

y increased turbidity in the waterbody, leading to reduced photosynthetic activity and levels of 

dissolved oxygen in the water; 

y increased water temperature due to the removal of riparian vegetation and loss of associated 

shading; 

y disturbance of contaminated soils and sediments; and 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 3-28 

y introduction of chemical contaminants, such as fuels and lubricants, into surface waters from 

operation of heavy equipment or other vehicles in and near surface waterbodies or from 

accidental spills during construction. 

To avoid impacts to waterbodies resulting from the disturbance of contaminated sediments and 

waters, SESH proposes to cross all impaired waters using the HDD method. 

Maintenance of the proposed permanent right-of-way would result in a relatively small, but 

potentially long-term, impact to waterbodies. The maintenance of a permanent right-of-way adjacent to 

waterbodies would result in the loss of taller vegetation (e.g., trees and shrubs) which would remove some 

habitat and could increase water temperatures. 

3.3.2.4 Site-Specific Impacts and Mitigation 

HDD Crossings 

Numerous waterbodies would be crossed using HDDs. As described in Section 2.0, HDD is a 

trenchless crossing method that may be used to avoid direct impacts to waterbodies by directionally 

drilling beneath them. In addition to major waterbodies, SESH would also use HDD at the crossing of 

waterbodies that are classified as impaired and those listed on the NRI. If an HDD crossing failed or an 

HDD crossing was determined not to be feasible, SESH would contact FERC and other relevant resource 

agencies. In the event that a HDD failed and drilling fluid was released inadvertently into the waterbody 

or on land or a frac-out occurred, SESH would implement the measures outlined below. A frac-out occurs 

when drilling fluid escapes the drill borehole and is forced through the subsurface substrate to the ground 

surface. SESH would not use any synthetic or potentially toxic drilling fluid additives. During HDD 

operations, a frac-out would cause turbidity and sedimentation if released in a waterbody. Potential 

impacts from increased turbidity would include decreased water quality and compromised aquatic habitat 

integrity. As suspended materials settle out of the water column, sedimentation would partially or entirely 

cover the waterbody substrate and any sessile, benthic organisms. 

y Measures to Contain a Release of Drilling Fluid in a Waterway: If a release of drilling 

fluid occurs within a major waterway, appropriate federal and state agencies would be 

contacted immediately. Drilling fluid pressure would be reduced and operations suspended 

to assess the extent of the release and to implement other possible corrective actions. If 

reducing the drilling fluid pressure does not seal or stop the release, then drilling fluid 

circulation pumps would be turned off. This measure would be taken as a last resort because 

of the potential for drill-hole collapse resulting from loss of down-hole pressure. 

y Measures to Contain a Release of Drilling Fluid on Land: If a land release was detected, 

the drilling crew would take immediate corrective action to contain the release and to 

prevent migration off-site. Pits and/or berms would be constructed around the borehole 

entry point to contain drilling fluids and returns. Containment equipment, including earthmoving equipment, portable pumps, hand tools, sand bags, silt fencing, and lumber, would 

be stored and readily available at the drilling site. If the amount of drilling fluid from an onland release does not allow practicable collection, the drilling fluid would be diluted with 

fresh water and allowed to dry. Steps would be taken (such as berms, silt fence, and/or hay 

bale installation) to prevent silt-laden water from escaping the affected area. If hand tools 

cannot contain a small on-land release, small collection sumps (less than 5 cubic yards) 

could be constructed to pump the release material into the drilling fluid process. Any 

drilling fluid seepage would be removed using sump pumps or a vacuum truck and then 

transported to an approved disposal site. 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 3-29 

Since SESH has not filed as HDD contingency plans that describe the procedures that would be 

implemented to monitor for, contain, and clean up any inadvertent releases of drilling fluids during HDD 

operations, we recommend that: 

y Prior to construction, SESH shall file with the Secretary, for review and written 

approval by the Director of OEP, a detailed HDD Contingency Plan for the Project 

(e.g. alternative construction measures, agency and emergency contact information, 

required equipment and materials) the contingency plan shall address how SESH: 

a. will handle any inadvertent release of drilling mud into the waterbody or areas 

adjacent to the waterbody, including procedures to contain inadvertent releases; 

b. will seal the abandoned drill hole; and 

c. clean up any inadvertent releases. 

y SESH shall not begin an open-cut crossing of any of the waterbodies proposed to be 

crossed using HDD until the HDD attempt has failed and it files an amended crossing 

plan 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. SESH shall file the amended crossing 

plan concurrent with the appropriate state and federal applications required for 

implementation of the plan. (Section 3.3.2.4) 

3.3.2.5 Hydrostatic Testing 

Hydrostatic Testing Protocol 

Hydrostatic testing verifies the integrity of pipeline segments. Pipeline integrity is tested by 

capping the pipeline segments with test manifolds and filling the capped segments with water. The 

pipeline and associated facilities would be filled with water and pressurized to a pressure that is typically 

one and a half times higher than the maximum pressure at which the pipeline would be operated. The 

water would be maintained at the prescribed pressure for a minimum of 8 hours to verify the strength and 

integrity of the new facilities. Hydrostatic testing would be conducted in a manner that meets or exceeds 

the DOT’s “Transportation of Natural and Other Gas by Pipeline: Minimum Federal Safety Standards” at 

49 CFR Part 192. 

SESH does not anticipate using chemicals for testing or for drying the pipeline following 

hydrostatic testing. Water quality monitoring would be conducted during discharge, per the requirements 

of NPDES and state permits, to identify and address any potential impacts to water quality. 

Details regarding hydrostatic testing for the Project, such as the number of segments, sources, 

discharge locations by MP, rate of discharge, and final volumes, are pending the finalization of detailed 

profile designs and DOT class locations. In general, SESH would require the use of multiple sources of 

water for conducting hydrostatic testing of the pipeline. Sources could include public and private surface 

and well supplies and, potentially, municipal water supplies. SESH would correspond with all appropriate 

agencies and obtain any necessary permits for withdrawal from any surface, well, or municipal water 

supply prior to water withdrawal as well as obtain any necessary discharge permit. To date, SESH has 

not provided detailed hydrostatic testing information including the water sources proposed for use. 

Therefore, we recommend that: 

y Prior to any hydrostatic testing SESH should file for review and written approval by 

the Director of OEP, a detailed report of all water sources proposed for hydrostatic 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 3-30 

testing including the project component or facility to be tested, the corresponding 

water source, withdrawal and discharge locations by MP, and estimated volumes of 

withdrawal required. 

Hydrostatic testing has the potential to impact the withdrawal and receiving waters used for 

obtaining or releasing the hydrostatic test water. Withdrawal of large amounts of water for hydrostatic 

testing of pipeline segments could affect or limit other uses of rivers and streams including water supply, 

recreation, and aquatic habitat, particularly during low flow and drought conditions, or if the withdrawal 

was large relative to overall flow. Other impacts would include increased water temperatures, reduced 

levels of dissolved oxygen, and entrainment of aquatic organisms. 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 low flow or drought conditions when there is less water 

available in the receiving stream for dilution. Unregulated discharges could also result in erosion of 

upland areas or stream banks and increased sedimentation or turbidity in streams. 

Hydrostatic test water withdrawal and discharge would be conducted in accordance with SESH’s 

Procedures and any federal and state permit conditions. Environmental impacts resulting from withdrawal 

and discharge of test water would be minimized by using the measures described in SESH’s Procedures 

as follows: 

y locate hydrostatic test manifolds outside of wetlands and riparian areas to the extent 

practicable; 

y withdraw from and discharge to water sources in compliance with appropriate agency 

requirements that consider the protection of fishery resources on a case-by-case basis; 

y comply with all appropriate permit requirements; 

y screen the intake to minimize entrainment of fish; 

y maintain adequate streamflow rates to protect aquatic life and provide for all designated 

uses as well as downstream withdrawals by existing users; 

y anchor the discharge pipe for safety; 

y discharge test water against a splash plate or other energy-dissipating device to a suitable 

receiving body of water to prevent erosion, stream bank scour, suspension of sediments, and 

excessive streamflows; 

y alternately, discharge test water to a well-vegetated upland area, through a filter bag or hay 

bale structure, or into an erosion-control barrier to prevent erosion of the adjacent upland 

and sedimentation of the waterbody; and 

y control the rate of discharge to prevent flooding or erosion. 

Conclusion Regarding Impacts to Water Resources 

Based on the characteristics of the identified water resources, SESH’s proposed construction 

measures, its Plan and Procedures, the impacts to these resources and SESH’s adherence to our 

recommendations; we believe that impacts to water resources resulting from construction and operation of 

the proposed Project would not be significant. 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 3-31 

3.4 WETLANDS 

Wetlands are areas that are inundated or saturated by 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 perform a number of valuable 

functions, including flood flow attenuation, sediment retention, nutrient retention, provision of wildlife 

habitat, groundwater recharge and discharge, recreation, and erosion control. 

Section 404 of the CWA of 1972 established standards to minimize impacts to wetlands. These 

standards, which are enforced by the COE, require the avoidance of wetlands, where possible and to the 

degree practical, or the minimization of disturbance to wetlands where unavoidable. All wetland 

disturbances and crossings are subject to review and approval by the Vicksburg and Mobile Districts of 

the COE. 

3.4.1 Existing Wetland Resources 

Using the methodology described in the 1987 COE Wetland Delineation Manual, SESH 

completed comprehensive field surveys to identify, delineate, and classify each wetland potentially 

affected by the proposed Project. Appendix E summarizes each wetland crossing, specifically the 

locations, field identification numbers, crossing distances, FWS National Wetland Inventory (NWI) 

classifications, and construction and operation impacts (including wetlands conversion and loss). 

Based on SESH’s field delineations and the FWS NWI classification system, three types of 

wetlands occur along and near the proposed Project facilities: palustrine forested (PFO), palustrine shrubscrub (PSS), and palustrine emergent (PEM). Construction of the proposed Project would affect 187 PFO 

wetlands, 24 PSS wetlands, and 56 PEM wetlands. 

The vegetative component of the PFO wetland type generally consists of a diverse, multi-story 

assemblage of hard- and softwood trees, shrubs, and grasses. By definition, tree species in this wetland 

type are at least 20 ft tall. PFO wetlands can be dominated by one tree species or several species. This 

wetland type can consist of the following vegetative species near the proposed Project: Drummond’s 

maple (Acer rubrum var. drummondii), red maple (Acer rubrum var. trilobum), yellow-poplar 

(Liriodendron tulipifera), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), redbay 

(Persea borbonia), spruce pine (Pinus glabra), American sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), overcup oak 

(Quercus lyrata), swamp chestnut oak (Quercus michauxii), water oak (Quercus nigra), willow oak 

(Quercus phellos), winged elm (Ulmus alata), American elm (Ulmus americana), water hickory (Carya 

aquatica), green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), water tupelo (Nyssa aquatica), swamp tupelo (Nyssa 

biflora), black willow (Salix nigra), and bald cypress (Taxodium distichum). 

The vegetative component of the PSS wetland type generally consists of shrubs and grasses. By 

definition, this wetland type is dominated by woody vegetation that is less than 20 ft tall. The overstory of 

this wetland type can consist of the following vegetative species near the proposed Project: boxelder 

(Acer negundo), silver maple (Acer saccharinum), hazel alder (Alnus serrulata), river birch (Betula 

nigra), large gallberry (Ilex coriacea), gallberry (Ilex glabra), Virginia- (Itea virginica), buttonbush 

(Cephalanthus occidentalis), redbay (Persea borbonia), roughleaf dogwood (Cornus drummondii), 

swampprivet (Forestiera acuminata), Carolina ash (Fraxinus caroliniana), deciduous holly (Ilex 

decidua), privet (Ligustrum sinense), southern magnolia (Magnolia grandiflora), wax myrtle (Myrica 

cerifera), red mulberry (Morus rubra), diamondleaf oak (Quercus laurifolia), willow oak (Quercus 

phellos), cherrybark oak (Quercus pagoda), water oak (Quercus nigra), black willow (Salix nigra), 

elderberry (Sambucus canadensis), and Chinese tallow (Triadica sebifera). The understory of this 

wetland type can consist of the following vegetative species: peppervine (Ampelopsis arborea), 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 3-32 

switchcane (Arundinaria gigantea), false nettle (Boehmeria cylindrica), ladies-eardrops (Brunnichia 

ovata), sedge (Carex spp. and Cyperus spp.), Indian sea oats (Chasmanthium latifolium), dayflower 

(Commelina spp.), leathery rush (Juncus coriaceus), rush (Juncus effusus), needlepod rush (Juncus 

scirpoides), climbing hempvine (Mikania scandens), royal fern (Osmunda regalis), Virginia creeper 

(Parthenocissus quinquefolia), swamp smartweed (Polygonum hydropiperoides), water pepper 

(Polygonum hydropiper), pinkweed (Polygonum pensylvanicum), jumpseed (Polygonum virginianum), 

blackberry (Rubus spp.), greenbrier (Smilax spp.), dwarf palmetto (Sabal minor), and lizard’s tail 

(Saururus cernuus). 

The vegetative component of the PEM wetland type is characterized by erect, rooted, herbaceous 

hydrophytes, excluding mosses and lichens. This wetland type can consist of the following vegetative 

species near the proposed Project: alligatorweed (Alternanthera philoxeroides), broomsedge (Andropogon 

virginicus), beggartick (Bidens laevis), watershield (Brasenia schreberi), sedges (Carex spp. and Cyperus 

spp.), spikerush (Eleocharis spp.), mallow (Hibiscus spp.), smooth hydrolea (Hydrolea uniflora), rush 

(Juncus effusus), sprangle-top (Leptochloa filiformis), duckweed (Lemna spp.), swamp smartweed 

(Polygonum hydropiperoides), slender beaksedge (Rhynchospora gracilenta), white top sedge 

(Rhynchospora colorata), colicroot (Aletris farinosa), yellow pitcher plant (Sarracenia alata), hooded 

pitcherplant (Sarracenia minor), pink sundew (Drosera capillaris), orange milkweed (Polygala lutea), 

cattail (Typha latifolia), cockleburr (Xanthium strumarium), yelloweyed grass (Xyris spp.), and 

buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis). 

3.4.1.1 High Quality, Sensitive, or Special Status Wetlands 

The proposed Project would cross high quality, sensitive and special status wetlands. The 

determination of these wetlands was based on comments provided by the states of Mississippi and 

Alabama as well as comments provided by the NRCS. These wetlands either exhibit unique biological 

characteristics or have been designated by a federal or state entity for additional management. 

Pitcher Plant Bogs 

Pitcher plant bogs are a unique and sensitive type of emergent wetland that has been recognized 

by the states of Mississippi and Alabama as valuable. Pitcher plant bogs have been generally described as 

sandy or mucky seepage areas that can occur in a variety of sizes, landscapes, and slope positions and, 

due to their wetness and exposure to fire, remain treeless. Pitcher plant bogs, though dominated by pitcher 

plants, can also consist of a variety of forbs and grasses. Approximately 97 percent of pitcher plant bogs 

along the Gulf Coast have been lost. Today, there are approximately 10,000 acres of pitcher plant bogs 

remaining in southeast Mississippi. 

Both the MDWFP and the ADCNR NHP expressed concerns about the impacts to pitcher plant 

bogs resulting from the crossing of these unique and sensitive wetlands during construction and operation 

of the proposed pipeline. Based on wetlands surveys of the proposed Project route no pitcher plant bogs 

were identified in Mississippi; however, one pine savanna wetland exhibiting pitcher plant bog 

characteristics was identified in Alabama and based on agency consultations the presence of additional 

bogs is likely. 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 3-33 

Wetlands Reserve Program 

The proposed Project would cross lands entered into, and actively managed under, the NRCSsponsored Wetland Reserve Program (WRP) in Madison Parish, Louisiana. According to the NRCS, all 

lands entered into the WRP are jurisdictional wetlands. The WRP, as described in more detail in Section 

3.8, is generally designed and managed to protect, improve, and restore wetlands. The general quality and 

function of wetlands in the WRP ranges from low/recently restored to high/fully functional. 

3.4.2 Wetlands Construction Methods and Procedures 

Construction Methods 

As described in Section 2.0, SESH would use four general construction methods to install the 

proposed pipeline across wetlands: 

• Crossing Method 1: Conventional wetlands construction in unsaturated soils. This method 

would be used in wetlands where the soils are dry and stable enough to support construction 

equipment without sinking. Topsoil would be segregated and timber mats would generally 

not be used. 

• Crossing Method 2: Conventional wetlands construction in saturated soils. This method 

would be used in wetlands where the soils are too wet to support mainline construction 

equipment, such as permanently or semi-permanently saturated soils. Topsoil would not be 

segregated and timber mats would be used as necessary to support construction equipment. 

• Crossing Method 3: Push/pull wetlands construction. This method would be used in wetlands 

where standing water is present at the time of construction. Topsoil would not be segregated 

and timber mats would be used as necessary to support construction equipment. 

• Crossing Method 4: Horizontal Directional Drilling. This method would be used and 

considered for the crossing of high-quality, sensitive, or special-status wetlands. 

All wetlands crossings would use a nominal 75-ft-wide construction right-of-way. 

Wetlands Procedures 

SESH has developed several measures as described in its Procedures to minimize and mitigate 

potential affects to wetlands resulting from construction and operation of the proposed Project. These 

measures include but are not limited to: 

• clearly marking wetland boundaries and buffers in the field until construction is complete; 

• limiting tree stump removal and grading to the area directly over the pipeline, unless it is 

determined that safety-related construction constraints require grading or removal of tree 

stumps from under the working side of the construction right-of-way; 

• stripping topsoil from the area directly over the trench line to a maximum depth of 12 inches 

in unsaturated soils; 

• minimizing the amount of time that topsoil is segregated and the trench is open; 

• using sediment barriers to prevent sediment flow into wetlands; 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 3-34 

• de-watering trenches in a way that does not cause sedimentation into a wetland; 

• using trench breakers to ensure maintenance of the original wetland hydrology; 

• prohibiting the storage of hazardous materials and re-fueling within 100 ft of a wetland; 

• restoring preconstruction contours; and 

• monitoring post-construction. 

SESH would adhere to these Procedures during construction and operation of the proposed 

Project except where alternatives to its Certificate are requested and granted due to site-specific 

conditions or applicable permit conditions. 

Alternative Measures to Our Procedures 

SESH proposes alternative measures to Sections VI.A.6, VI.B.1.a and VI.C.4 of our Procedures. 

Section VI.A.6 states that aboveground facilities should not be located in any wetland, except where the 

location of such facilities would prohibit compliance with DOT regulations. SESH proposes to place 

permanent aboveground facilities in wetlands which would result in the permanent conversion of 5.49 

acres of PFO wetlands to uplands. Section VI.B.1.a states that all extra work areas should be located at 

least 50 ft outside of identified wetland boundaries, except where the adjacent upland consists of actively 

cultivated or rotated cropland or other disturbed land. SESH proposes to place numerous ATWSs in and 

within 50 ft of wetlands. The locations and justifications for these workspaces are identified in Table 

3.4.2-1. Section VI.C.4 of our Procedures relates to the preparation of a project-specific wetland 

restoration plan and outlines consultation with the appropriate land management or state agencies to assist 

in the development of this plan. SESH proposes to accomplish the restoration of wetlands by allowing 

them to naturally revegetate. 

As stated above, the construction of aboveground facilities at the terminus of the proposed 

pipeline would result in the permanent conversion of 5.49 acres of wetlands to uplands. The location of 

the proposed aboveground facilities is an area that is relatively developed, containing numerous other 

natural gas and industrial facilities. On June 7, 2007 SESH filed with FERC a site-specific plan for 

constructing and installing the proposed aboveground facilities in wetlands. By co-locating certain parts 

of the proposed aboveground facilities with those of other companies’ existing facilities, SESH was able 

to reduce the amount of wetlands permanent converted from 6.60 acres to 5.49 acres. Based on the 

overall location of the proposed aboveground facilities’, surrounding land uses, their collocation with 

existing facilities, SESH’s adherence to applicable measures of its Procedures, and its compliance with 

the terms and conditions of any Section 404 authorization issued by the COE, we believe that locating 

these facilities in wetlands would result in a substantial, but not adverse impact and is environmentally 

acceptable. 

As described in Section 2.0, we are recommending that SESH reduce the size of its proposed 

ATWSs. Additionally, as outlined in SESH’s procedures, prior to construction SESH would file sitespecific plans for each extra work area in and within 50 ft of wetland boundaries. Based on our review of 

SESH’s proposed ATWSs, our recommendation in Section 2.0, and SESH’s commitment to file sitespecific construction plans as described above and in its Procedures, we have determined that its proposed 

alternative measure to place ATWS in and within 50 ft of wetlands is acceptable. Based on the 

characteristics of the identified wetland vegetative species, our previous experience with wetlands 

revegetation in the southeast, SESH’s proposed Procedures, and its compliance with terms and conditions 

of any Section 404 authorization issued by the COE, we have determined that SESH’s proposed 

alternative measure regarding the preparation of a wetlands restoration plan is acceptable and would 

adequately allow for the restoration of wetlands. 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 3-35 

TABLE 3.4.2-1 

Summary of Proposed ATWS in or within 50 Feet of Wetlands and Waterbodies 

Facility Milepost Length/ 

Size 

Wetland/Waterbody 

Identifier 

Distance from 

Wetland/Waterbody 

Applicable 

FERC 

Procedures 

Section 

Basis for 

Alternative 

SESH Pipeline 

Wetland 4.22 50’ x 150’ WA158 0 VI.B.1.a ATWS for 

drill 

workspace 

Wetland 33.17 475’ x 

377’ 

450’ x 

377’ 

WD178 0 VI.B.1a ATWS for 

overland 

levee 

crossing 

Wetland 35.14 58’ x 50’ 

50’ x 50’ 

WA158 0 VI.B.1a ATWS 

needed in 

large 

wetland 

Wetland 35.3 25’ x 200’ 

50’ x 200’ 

WD178 0 VI.B.1.a ATWS for 

drill 

workspace 

Wetland 44.3 10’ x2 00’ WA297 40 VI.B.1.a ATWS for 

drill 

workspace 

Stream 52.00 35’ x 86’ SX101 25 VI.B.1a ATWS for 

Road Bore 

Stream 85.01 15’ x 100’ SX107 0 VI.B.1a ATWS for 

road bore 

Wetland 97.0 25’ x 100’ SB148 30 VI.B.1.a ATWS for 

foreign 

pipeline 

crossing 

Wetland 127.4 50’ x 200’ 

25’ x 200’ 

WF113 0 VI.B.1.a ATWS for 

drill 

workspace 

Wetland 127.8 50’ x 200’ 

25’ x 200’ 

WF113 0 VI.B.1.a ATWS for 

drill 

workspace 

Wetland 130.69 25’ x 100’ WA312 30 VI.B.1a ATWS for 

road bore 

Wetland 158.9 50’ x 249’ 

25’ x 200’ 

WF118 0 VI.B.1.a ATWS for 

road bore 

Stream 163.59 15’ x 100’ SF137 0 VI.B.1a ATWS for 

road bore 

Wetland/Waterbody 200.8 15’ x 117’ 

45 ’x 35’ 

WC140/SC152-1 0 VI.B.1.a ATWS for 

road bore 

workspace 

Wetland 203.2 15’ x 100’ 

35’ x 244’ 

WC156 0 VI.B.1.a ATWS for 

road bore 

Wetland 208.09 25’ x 332’ WH135 0 VI.B.1a ATWS for 

pipe 

bending 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 3-36 

TABLE 3.4.2-1 

Summary of Proposed ATWS in or within 50 Feet of Wetlands and Waterbodies 

Facility Milepost Length/ 

Size 

Wetland/Waterbody 

Identifier 

Distance from 

Wetland/Waterbody 

Applicable 

FERC 

Procedures 

Section 

Basis for 

Alternative 

Stream 208.23 40’ x 125’ SH135-1 5 VI.B.1a ATWS for 

wetland 

crossing 

Stream 208.30 35’ x 125’ SH135-1 0 VI.B.1a ATWS for 

pipe 

bending 

Wetland 214.91 50’ x 175’ WC187 0 VI.B.1a ATWS for 

multiple 

foreign 

pipeline 

crossings 

Wetland 217.0 15’x116’ 

35’x100’ 

WC197 0 VI.B.1.a ATWS for 

railroad 

bore 

Wetland 235.37 50’x 200’ 

50’x 200’ 

WD262 0 VI.B.1.a ATWS for 

Drill 

Workspace 

Wetland 235.73 50’x 200’ 

25’x 200’ 

WD262 0 VI.B.1.a ATWS for 

drill 

workspace 

Wetland 248.10 15’x108’ WG103 20 VI.B.1.a ATWS for 

road bore 

Wetland 248.12 25’x100’ WE128 0 VI.B.1.a ATWS for 

road 

bore/foreign 

pipeline 

crossing 

Wetland 262.45 50’x107’ 

50’x100’ 

50’x100’ 

50’x106’ 

WE137 0 VI.B.1.a ATWS for 

road bore 

Wetland 266.75 150’x100’ 

35’x125’ 

WE118 0 VI.B.1.a ATWS for 

road bore 

Wetland 268.97 25’x145’ 

50’x100’ 

WE119 0 VI.B.1.a ATWS for 

road bore 

Wetland 268.98 25’x100’ 

50’x145’ 

WE124 0 VI.B.1.a ATWS for 

road bore 

Rock Road Lateral 

Wetland 0.24 25’x305’ 

25’x190’ 

WE124 0 VI.B.1.a ATWS for 

multiple 

foreign 

pipeline 

crossings 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 3-37 

TABLE 3.4.2-1 

Summary of Proposed ATWS in or within 50 Feet of Wetlands and Waterbodies 

Facility Milepost Length/ 

Size 

Wetland/Waterbody 

Identifier 

Distance from 

Wetland/Waterbody 

Applicable 

FERC 

Procedures 

Section 

Basis for 

Alternative 

Wetland 0.35 25’x100’ 

25’x287’ 

WE124 0 VI.B.1.a ATWS for 

multiple 

foreign 

pipeline 

crossings 

Wetland 0.86 25’x144’ 

25’x100’ 

25’x100’ 

25’x144’ 

WE124 0 VI.B.1.a ATWS for 

foreign 

pipeline 

crossing 

Wetland 1.04 25’x144’ 

25’x100’ 

25’x144’ 

WE124 0 VI.B.1.a ATWS for 

foreign 

pipeline 

crossing 

Note: 

ATWS = additional temporary workspace 

Wetland Restoration 

Wetlands restoration would be conducted in accordance with SESH’s Procedures. In general, 

wetlands restoration would include the establishment of a suitable substrate, restoration of original 

contours and hydrology, and revegetation of affected wetlands through seeding and natural processes. 

Specifically, as applicable during restoration, previously segregated topsoil would be replaced over the 

trench line and wetland contours and drainage patterns would be restored to as near original conditions as 

possible. In addition, SESH would conduct post-construction monitoring of affected wetlands to assess 

the condition of vegetation and the success of restoration. 

3.4.3 Wetlands Impacts and Mitigation 

3.4.3.1 Wetlands Impacts 

General Impacts 

As demonstrated in Table 3.4.3-1, construction of the proposed pipeline and associated 

aboveground facilities would affect 238.76 acres of wetlands, including 159.85 acres of PFO wetlands, 

74.68 acres of PSS wetlands, and 4.23 acres of PEM wetlands. 

Construction activities, including clearing, trenching, installation, and restoration, would affect 

the three identified wetland types and the functions they provide. The removal of vegetation during 

clearing would result in the displacement of wildlife and loss of wildlife habitat and increase the potential 

for erosion and could affect soil characteristics. The disturbance of soils during trenching and installation 

would result in an increased potential for erosion and compaction and could alter soil characteristics and 

subsequent revegetation efforts. Clearing, trenching, and installation would also affect groundwater and 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 3-38 

TABLE 3.4.3-1 

Summary of Wetland Impacts for the Proposed SESH Project (all data in acres) 

Operation Impactb

Vegetation Conversion (acres) 

PFO Conversion to PEM or PSSc 

Facility Type NWI 

Classification 

Centerline 

Crossing 

Length 

(miles) 

Construction 

Impacta

(acres) 

Total PFO 

Conversion 

PFO 

to 

PSS 

PFO to 

PEM 

PSS 

Conversion 

to PEMd

(acres) 

Permanent 

Fill Impact 

(acres) 

PEM 1.56 4.23 NA NA NA NA 0.00 

PSS 8.39 74.68 NA NA NA 10.23 0.00 

PFO 12.83 153.25 54.29 36.19 18.10 NA 0.00 

Pipeline 

Subtotal 22.78 232.16 54.29 36.19 18.10 10.23 0.00 

PEM NA 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NA 0.00 

PSS NA 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

PFO* NA 6.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 NA 6.60 

Aboveground 

Facilitiese

Subtotal NA 6.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.60 

Project Total 22.78 238.76 54.29 36.19 18.10 10.23 6.60 

a Construction impacts include all temporary work areas and permanent easement areas. 

b Operation impacts include only the permanent easement or the permanent fenced boundary of aboveground facilities. 

c Conversion calculated based on a 30-ft strip that would be maintained according to FERC guidelines. The inner 10 ft would be 

maintained free of woody vegetation (i.e., maintained as PEM vegetation), while the outer 20 ft (10 ft on each side) would be 

allowed to regenerate shrubs (PSS vegetation) but not trees (PFO vegetation). 

d PSS conversion calculated based on a 10 foot strip centered over the pipeline centerline. 

e As stated in the text, SESH would evaluate ways to reduce the permanent impact area of aboveground facilities in wetlands. This 

acreage also includes acreage for permanent access road (PAR)–RRL1. 

FERC = Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

ft = foot/feet 

National Wetland Inventory (NWI) classifications: PEM = palustrine emergent wetland, PSS = palustrine shrub-scrub wetland, PFO = 

palustrine forested wetland. 

NA = not applicable 

* = 6.60 acres of PFO was reduced to 5.49 acres by SESH’s in response to FERC’s DEIS condition. 

surface water movement. Collectively, construction activities would affect a wetland’s ability to regulate 

water flow, control erosion, and provide habitat for terrestrial and aquatic wildlife species. 

Operation of the proposed Project would also affect wetlands. Vegetation maintenance (mowing) 

would result in the displacement of wildlife and a decrease in the quality of wildlife habitat. 

Construction and operation activities would result in the conversion of wetland types. Portions of 

crossed forested wetlands would be converted, temporarily and permanently, to emergent and scrub-shrub 

wetlands, and scrub-shrub wetlands would be converted, temporarily, to emergent wetlands. 

Construction and operation of the proposed Project would also result in the permanent conversion 

of wetlands and associated wetland functions. Specifically, the installation of aboveground facilities in 

Alabama would require the clearing and filling of 5.49 acres of forested wetlands (WE124) resulting in 

the permanent conversion of these wetlands to uplands. These facilities would include a pig receiver on 

Gulfstream’s meter station site, PAR-RRL1, and the Rock Road meter site located at the end of the Rock 

Road lateral. As described above, SESH filed with FERC a site-specific plan for constructing and 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 3-39 

installing the proposed aboveground facilities in wetlands. By collocating certain proposed aboveground 

facilities with those of other companies’ existing facilities, SESH was able to reduce the amount of 

wetlands permanent converted to uplands from 6.60 acres to 5.49 acres. Additionally, SESH’s sitespecific plan included site-specific drawings illustrating the aboveground facilities’ locations in relation to 

the wetland and a description of measures that SESH would implement to reduce the amount of wetlands 

lost. The plan also described potential facility alternative sites that SESH considered during its planning 

of the aboveground facilities. We reviewed the plan and find it acceptable. 

With the exception of the proposed aboveground facilities that would permanently affect wetland 

WE124, most impacts to wetlands would be temporary. As indicated in Table 3.4-1, 4.23 acres of PEM 

wetlands and 74.68 acres of PSS wetlands would be temporarily affected by construction of the proposed 

Project. Specifically, 4.23 acres of PEM wetlands and 64.45 acres of PSS wetlands would be seeded and 

restored once the pipeline is installed, subsequently returning them to pre-construction conditions. The 

remaining 10.23 acres of PSS wetlands affected by the proposed Project would be located in the 10-ftwide strip over the pipeline centerline where shrub regeneration would not be allowed and would remain 

in PEM status over the operational lifetime of the pipeline. 

Impacts to forested wetlands resulting from construction and operation of the proposed Project 

would be long-term and permanent. As indicated in Table 3.4.3-1, approximately 159.85 acres of PFO 

wetlands would be affected by construction of the proposed Project. Specifically, approximately 

86.2 acres of PFO wetlands affected by construction would be allowed to naturally revert to preconstruction conditions; however, this process would take 20 to 30 years. 36.2 acres of PFO wetlands 

affected by construction would be permanently converted to PSS wetlands, and 18.1 acres of PFO 

wetlands would be located in the 10-ft-wide strip over the pipeline centerline, where shrub regeneration 

would not be allowed, and would remain in PEM status over the lifetime of the pipeline. 

Site-Specific Impacts 

Pitcher Plant Bogs 

One identified pitcher plant bog would be crossed by the proposed Project. Impacts to this bog 

resulting from construction of the proposed pipeline would be similar to the wetlands impacts described 

above, except that impacts to them would be longer in duration and could be permanent due to the unique 

vegetative, hydrological, and soil characteristics of these wetlands. 

Impacts to pitcher plant bogs resulting from maintenance of the proposed Project, specifically the 

loss of vegetation due to mowing, and the compaction of soils created by the use of light and heavy 

equipment, in conjunction with similar impacts resulting from construction, could be significant. 

Therefore, based on agency concerns regarding these unique wetlands, the likely presence of additional 

pitcher plant bogs along the proposed pipeline route, and to ensure that SESH adequately minimizes and 

mitigates impacts to these areas, we recommend that: 

• Prior to construction, SESH should develop a Pitcher Plant Bog Mitigation Plan for 

review and written approval by the Director of OEP, developed in consultation with the 

MDWFP and ADCNR NHP that describes how SESH would avoid pitcher plant bog 

communities during construction, and the measures, in addition to those in SESH’s 

Procedures, SESH would implement to minimize impacts to these areas. 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 3-40 

Wetland Reserve Program 

Construction and operation of the proposed project through WRP wetlands would result in 

temporary impacts similar to those described in the previous section. Future management of these 

wetlands by the NRCS, including restoration and improvement efforts, would be affected as wetland 

types would be temporarily and permanently converted and wetlands within the permanent right-of-way 

would be maintained as PSS and PEM wetlands. Additional WRP restoration measures and our 

recommendation to minimize impacts to WRP lands are described in Section 3.8.5. 

3.4.3.2 Wetlands Mitigation 

In addition to guiding the construction and operation of the proposed Project, SESH’s Procedures 

also describe and serve as mitigation plans for wetland impacts. 

To mitigate impacts to high quality, sensitive, and special-status wetlands, we are recommending 

in this section as well as Section 3.8 that SESH consult with the MDWFP, ADCNR NHP, and the NRCS 

to prepare plans that identify and minimize impacts to these wetlands. As required by the COE, SESH has 

applied for permits pertaining to unavoidable wetland impacts resulting from construction and operation 

of the proposed Project. 

As part of the permitting process, the COE would require the use of best management practices 

and minimization measures during construction and compensatory mitigation for unavoidable wetlands 

impacts. SESH would fully comply with the conditions established in its COE-issued permits, including 

any off-site mitigation, conservation, enhancement, and on-site mitigation. 

3.4.4 Conclusions Regarding Impacts to Wetlands 

Based on the characteristics of the wetlands that would be affected by construction and operation 

of the proposed Project, including high quality, sensitive and special-status wetlands, SESH’s proposed 

construction methods and Procedures, impacts to these wetlands, identified minimization measures and 

mitigation, and SESH’s adherence to our recommendations in this section and throughout this document, 

SESH’s adherence to our recommendations in this section and throughout this document, and its 

compliance with the terms and conditions of any Section 404 authorization issued by the COE, we believe 

that the proposed Project would not significantly affect wetlands. 

3.5 VEGETATION 

3.5.1 Existing Vegetation Resources 

Construction and operation of the proposed Project would affect seven classified vegetative 

communities: agricultural, forest, pine plantation, open land, residential, industrial/commercial, and open 

water. The vegetative communities crossed by the proposed Project and representative species are 

described and listed in Table 3.5-1. Forested areas include upland and bottomland forest and forested 

wetlands. Open land areas include scrub-shrub wetlands. Wetland vegetation resources, impacts, 

restoration, and mitigation are discussed in detail in Section 3.4. 

Pipeline Facilities 

Relatively large areas of forest, agricultural, and open lands would be crossed by construction of 

the proposed pipeline and associated ATWSs. The approximately 3,580 acres that would be contained 

within the pipeline construction right-of-way and ATWSs consist of forested areas (50 percent), 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 3-41 

agricultural areas (23 percent), and open lands (15 percent). Approximately 319 acres of pine plantations 

(9 percent) would be affected during construction. Residential, industrial/commercial, and open water 

vegetative communities would account for the remaining 3 percent of areas that would be crossed. 

Temporary pipeyards/wareyards that would be used to support construction of the proposed 

Project would temporarily encumber approximately 330 acres. Of this area needed for pipe storage 

facilities and temporary contractor use, approximately 71 percent would occur in open lands and 

approximately 26 percent in agricultural fields. These areas primarily consist of lands currently used for 

open space and pastures. 

Aboveground Facilities 

The proposed aboveground facilities include three new compressor stations, two new booster 

stations, as well as M&R facilities, pig launchers and receivers, mainline valves, and other ancillary 

facilities. Forest, pine plantation, and agricultural lands are the dominant existing vegetation cover types 

at the proposed compressor station and booster stations. All pig launchers and receivers and mainline 

valves would be contained within the proposed permanent pipeline right-of-way and would not result in 

impacts to vegetation beyond that required for the proposed pipeline corridor. 

Access Roads 

SESH indicates that construction of the proposed pipeline and aboveground facilities would 

require the use of 236 existing temporary access roads of varying lengths (see Table F-2, Appendix F). 

SESH reports that the aboveground facilities would require nine permanent access roads. Of the nine 

permanent access roads, one is an existing road, whereas the remaining eight are proposed new roads. The 

one permanent access road (PAR) that is already in existence is PAR-72.37 in Copiah County, 

Mississippi. This road is the proposed way of access for the TETLP M&R Station. The two [PAR-(-0.03)] 

access roads in Richland Parish, Louisiana, have an agricultural vegetative cover and would be the access 

roads for the CEGT CenterPoint M&R Station and the Gulf South Mississippi Expansion M&R Station. 

The proposed Delhi Compressor Station access road, PAR-0.26, is primarily agricultural and is located in 

Richland Parish, Louisiana. The proposed Collins Booster Station road, PAR-138.37, in Covington 

County, Mississippi, has both forest and developed land cover types. The proposed Petal Booster Station 

road, PAR-166.54, in Forrest County has a forest and commercial /industrial land cover type. The 

proposed PAR-212.42 in George County, Mississippi, is primarily pine plantation and would be the 

access road for the Lucedale Compressor Station. PAR-RRL1 and PAR-RRL2 are primarily forested 

areas. They would be access roads to the Rock Road Lateral located in Mobile County, Alabama. 

Approximately 46 percent of the total 7.40 acres encompassing new permanent access roads would be 

within the open land vegetation category and most of the remainder of the acreage would be composed of 

agriculture (25 percent). 

Vegetative Communities of Special Concern or Value 

SESH reviewed maps and other available information, conducted field surveys, and consulted 

with resource agencies to identify areas containing vegetation of special concern or value and identified 

easement lands held by The Nature Conservancy, in the Pascagoula Wildlife Management Area (WMA), 

and by the FSA’s CRP, CREP, and NRCS’s WRP. The TNC, FSA and NRCS-administered programs for 

vegetation resources, impacts, restoration, and mitigation are discussed in detail in Section 3.8. Through 

the planting of native grasses, trees, and other cover, these easements are designed to reduce soil erosion 

and 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. 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 3-42 

TABLE 3.5.1-1 

Vegetation Cover Types Occurring along the Proposed SESH Project 

Vegetation Cover Type General Description Common Species 

Agricultural Active cropland, including 

hayfields 

Cotton (Gossypium spp.), soybeans 

(Glycine spp.), corn (Zea spp.), rice 

(Oryza sativa), orchards and 

vineyards 

Forest Tracts of upland and bottomland 

forest and forested wetlandsa Red maple (Acer rubrum), mockernut 

hickory (Carya tomentosa ), water 

oak (Quercus nigra), tuliptree 

(Liriodendron tulipifera), pecan (Carya 

illinoinensis), water hickory (Carya 

aquatica), and bald cypress 

(Taxodium distichum) 

Pine plantation Pine plantation includes varying 

age stands of loblolly pine that 

are planted, managed, and 

periodically cut for timber 

production 

Loblolly pine as a canopy species, 

with an understory of sweet gum 

(Liquidambar styraciflua), blackberry 

(Rubus spp.), greenbrier (Smilax 

spp.), and yaupon holly (Ilex 

vomitoria) 

Open Lands Scrub/shrub areas, fields and 

pastures, and other areas such 

as maintained rights-of-way 

Yaupon holly (Ilex vomitoria), 

blackberry (Rubus spp.), bahiagrass 

(Paspalum notatum), woolly croton 

hogwort (Croton capitatus), and 

clover (Trifolium spp.) 

Residential Residential lots, subdivisions, 

and planned developments 

Mainly consists of maintained lawns 

and ornamental landscaping 

Industrial/commercial Manufacturing plants, landfills, 

commercial and retail facilities 

Substantial amounts of non-vegetated 

surfaces, pavement, and gravel 

Open water Major waterbodies and ponds Not Applicable 

a Wetland forest resources, impacts, restoration, and mitigation are discussed in detail in Section 3.4.

Based on a review of maps, field surveys, and available information, and on consultations with 

the resource agencies, two vegetative communities of special concern or value could be present within or 

near the proposed construction work areas: pitcher plant bogs and longleaf pine ecosystems. The Alabama 

Department of Conservation and Natural Resources Natural Heritage Program (ADCNR NHP) expressed 

concerns for a “healthy whitetop pitcher plant (Sarracenia leucophylla) community” that could be within 

the proposed Project area. The MDWFP did not identify any vegetative communities of special concern. 

For additional information on pitcher plant bogs see Section 3.4.1.1. According to SESH, telephone 

consultations with the FWS-Alabama (FWS-AL) and FWS-Mississippi (FWS-MS) resulted in the FWS 

requesting a map of the proposed Project and recommending field surveys be performed to identify 

longleaf pine (Pinus palustris) ecosystems. 

Extensive Forested Tracts 

Based on a review of aerial photographs and field surveys conducted by SESH, several areas of 

large, relatively non-fragmented forested tracts were identified that would be crossed by the proposed 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 3-43 

pipeline. The operational impacts, location of these tracts, and the length of the associated crossings are 

identified in Table 3.5.1-2. These areas are relatively non-fragmented tracts, consisting primarily of 

mixed late succession growth, that do not appear to be actively managed. SESH indicates that many of 

these tracts are interspersed between areas of agricultural lands and managed timber stands. 

3.5.2 General Impacts and Mitigation 

General Impacts 

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, or roads, SESH 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 50-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. Periodic maintenance of the permanent pipeline right-of-way would prevent the 

re-growth 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. 

Community Specific Impacts 

The proposed Project would impact approximately 4,021.20 acres of vegetation during 

construction. Vegetated areas would be primarily impacted by the proposed pipeline and ATWSs. The 

anticipated impacts to vegetation types associated with specific Project components are listed and 

enumerated in Table 3.5.2-1. Relatively large amounts of agricultural, forested, and open land would be 

affected by construction and operation of the proposed pipeline. Smaller impacts would result from 

construction of the aboveground facilities, modification of access roads, and use of pipeyards/wareyards. 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 3-44 

Most impacts to agricultural and open lands would be short term, as these areas typically would 

return to their herbaceous or shrub status within one to two years following construction, cleanup, and 

restoration. Areas planted with field crops are typically disturbed by periodic agricultural practices and 

would be replanted in the next growing season. It is also anticipated that pastures and other shrubby or 

herbaceous areas would revegetate within one or two growing seasons, given the abundant rainfall and 

long growing season in the proposed Project region. 

Impacts to pine plantations and forests within the temporary construction right-of-way would be 

long term, as re-growth to preconstruction condition would take 30 years or more. Impacts resulting from 

construction and operation of the proposed Project would include a change in vegetative strata, 

appearance, conversion of community type, and loss of habitat. 

Maintenance of the permanent right-of-way would have a much greater impact on the area’s 

forest vegetation than on agricultural areas and open lands. Pine plantation would also be permanently 

impacted by operation and maintenance of the permanent pipeline right-of-way. These impacts would 

represent a marked, permanent change from forested vegetation to herbaceous or shrubby vegetation. 

Although agricultural and open lands would also occur within the permanent pipeline right-of-way, the 

vegetative strata in those areas would not be significantly changed compared to preconstruction 

conditions. 

TABLE 3.5.1-2 

Extensively Forested Tracts Crossed by the Proposed SESH Project 

Operation Impacts 

(acres) Begin Milepost End Milepost 

Crossing Length 

(miles) 

9.31 37.07 39.20 1.54 

18.24 39.85 42.87 3.02 

46.45 45.05 53.39 7.68 

13.75 58.64 60.93 2.27 

4.06 61.57 62.24 0.67 

10.00 73.06 74.75 1.65 

32.64 88.50 99.95 5.40 

35.57 101.51 108.01 5.88 

8.88 111.63 113.34 1.47 

3.57 119.06 119.65 0.59 

22.25 123.97 127.91 3.68 

11.16 176.04 179.25 1.84 

23.48 195.23 201.01 3.88 

4.14 229.49 230.18 0.68 

15.07 233.49 238.15 2.49 

16.35 243.07 245.83 2.70 

12.62 266.74 268.83 2.09 

Total 287.52 47.54

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 3-45 

Mitigation 

To minimize Project-related effects to vegetative communities, SESH would implement measures 

in its Plan, which include baseline mitigation procedures for minimizing erosion and enhancing 

revegetation in upland areas. Implementation of its Plan would aid vegetative restoration and prevent or 

minimize sedimentation and turbidity in streams and wetlands. Some of the restoration and best 

management practices identified in its Plan are: 

y use of at least one EI per construction spread, who would ensure compliance with the Plan, 

Procedures, and other required conditions; 

y segregation of topsoil; 

y installation of temporary erosion control measures, such as slope breakers, sediment barriers, 

and mulch; 

y commencement of cleanup immediately after backfilling and completion of restoration within 

20 days; 

y installation of permanent erosion control devices, such as trench breakers, and slope breakers; 

y testing and mitigation for soil compaction; 

y revegetation in accordance with the recommendations of the local soil conservation authority, 

other land management agencies, or the affected landowner; 

y provision of barriers to control off-road vehicle activities; and 

y post-construction monitoring and maintenance of revegetated areas. 

Further, its 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. SESH indicates that consultations with state and federal 

agencies regarding appropriate vegetative restoration practices have been completed and would be 

implemented during final clean up activity. 

Project impacts to vegetative communities would vary depending upon disturbance duration, 

magnitude, and vegetation cover type. As described above, approximately 50 percent of the disturbed 

vegetation would be forested. Due to the nature of forest re-growth, 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, SESH avoids forested areas to the 

extent possible through selective routing and minimizes impacts to vegetation through collocation with 

existing rights-of-way. Impacts to agricultural and open-lands would be minimal and limited primarily to 

the construction phase. Based on SESH’s proposed measures to avoid and minimize impacts to forested 

areas, the relatively minor impacts to agricultural areas and open lands, and the implementation of 

SESH’s Plan, we believe that impacts to general vegetative communities would be minimized. 

Impacts to Vegetation Communities of Special Concern or Value 

Most of the general construction impacts described above are applicable to specially designated 

vegetation types or conservation program areas depending on the vegetation present. These specially 

designated areas include those managed/owned/leased by The Nature Conservancy, CRP, CREP, and 

WRP lands (which may be grassed or forested), NWR and WMA lands, large forested tracts, pitcher plant 

bogs and longleaf pine ecosystems. 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
3-46 

TABLE 3.5.2-1 

Vegetative Cover Types by Acreage Affected for the Proposed SESH Project 

Agricultural Forest 

Pine 

Plantation Open Land Residential 

Indust

Facility Comme

Const. Oper. Const. Oper. Const. Oper. Const. Oper. Const. Oper. Const. 

Pipeline (and Laterals) 765.83 336.76 1,679.48 811.64 302.79 150.24 501.90 243.05 16.23 8.33 85.13 ATWS 41.57 0 110.83 0 15.71 0 33.14 0 2.83 0 20.81 Aboveground Facilities 21.90 15.78 36.04 34.18 22.28 14.59 16.80 17.58 5.93 5.93 0 Access Roadsa 1.82 1.82 1.15 1.15 0.51 0.51 3.39 3.39 0.06 0.06 0.47 Pipeyards/Wareyards 86.53 0 4.12 0 0 0 236.04 0 0.09 0 3.70 Total 917.65 354.36 1,831.62 846.97 341.29 165.34 792.05 264.02 25.14 14.32 110.11 

Notes: Const. = Construction Impacts include all temporary workspace impacts due to construction and permanent easement operation areas. 

Oper. = Operation Impacts include permanent easements. 

a Only land use impacts due to the construction of new permanent access roads are detailed, excluding PAR RRL2, which is included in the calculations f

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 3-47 

SESH is currently in consultations with The Nature Conservancy, FSA and NRCS-administered 

programs (CRP, CREP, and WRP) to minimize impacts and coordinate easement agreements for the 

crossings of these areas. Vegetative communities such as hardwood and pine forests and native grasses 

would be affected by the proposed Project. Potential impacts and recommendations are discussed in more 

detail in Section 3.8. 

SESH rerouted the pipeline alignment to avoid impacts to the Tensas River NWR; however, the 

pipeline would cross fee title land and conservation easements managed by the NWR. Potential impacts 

and recommendations are discussed in more detail in Section 3.8. 

The large forested tracts present along the proposed route would be affected by clearing of the 

construction right-of-way and routine mowing, cutting, and trimming along the proposed 50-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 the early herbaceous, shrub, and sapling 

succession strata. Forested areas within the 50-foot-wide permanent pipeline right-of-way would be 

permanently impacted and replaced by herbaceous and shrubby areas. Although these areas are relatively 

non-fragmented, many of these tracts contain some roads or other corridors and are subject to periodic 

tree harvests or thinning, thereby reducing their overall quality. Through selective routing and collocation 

with other rights-of-way, SESH minimizes impacts related to fragmentation and disturbance of large 

forested areas. The Department of Interior and MDWFP both commented the need to preserve bottomland 

hardwood tracts, forested wetlands, and habitat connectivity. The FERC requested additional information 

on the sites from SESH in the DEIS. Our evaluation concluded that preservation of the resources was 

worthwhile if feasible. Therefore, we recommend that: 

y Prior to construction, in the area between MPs 108.8 and 117.7, SESH should file with 

the Secretary for review and written approval by the Director of OEP, a plan for 

crossing of the East and West Prongs of Silver Creek that minimizes or avoids the 

cutting of adjacent hardwood forest. The plan shall evaluate the feasibility of 

performing an HDD. 

Field surveys have revealed that the proposed Project crosses a pine savannah exhibiting 

characteristics of a pitcher plant bog community in Alabama. As proposed by SESH, these pitcher plant 

bogs would be permitted like other wetlands along the route and avoidance and minimization measures 

would be implemented as appropriate. However, we are recommending special mitigation measures for 

pitcher plant bogs in Section 3.4.3.

Longleaf pine stands are an increasingly rare plant community in the southeast, especially those 

managed by prescribed burning. Typical commercial timber practices do not include the slow-growing 

longleaf pine, opting for faster-growing loblolly and slash pine that reach saw timber size in 25-30 years. 

Wildlife species associated with the longleaf pine are also becoming rare and many are special status 

species (see Section 3.7). Surveys identified an extensive tract of longleaf pine with a fire-suppressed 

open mid-story in Mobile County, Alabama between MPs 244 and 246. The proposed SESH corridor 

will remove only a small width of longleaf pine owing to the fact that the proposed corridor is aligned 

contiguous to an existing pipeline corridor. Since an existing pipeline is adjacent to the tract of longleaf 

pine with a fire history, it is assumed that the SESH Project will also not affect or interfere with the 

landowner’s ability to conduct prescribed burning on the adjacent property. The FWS-AL and FWS-MS 

requested a map of the Project and recommended that field surveys be performed to identify potential 

longleaf pine ecosystems. We concur with FWS comments to identify these rare vegetative communities 

and believe that additional mitigation measures should be implemented in these areas when identified; 

therefore we recommend that: 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 3-48 

y Prior to construction, SESH should file with the Secretary for review and written 

approval by the Director of OEP, a Longleaf Pine Vegetative Community Plan, 

developed in consultation with the FWS that describes how SESH would identify 

longleaf pine vegetative communities during construction, and the measures, in 

addition to those in SESH’s Plan and Procedures, SESH would implement to minimize 

impacts to these areas. 

Due to the diverse nature of the vegetative communities associated with specially designated 

lands within the proposed Project area, impacts to vegetative communities of special concern would range 

from temporary to long-term or permanent. Adherence to the mitigation measures as described in 

Section 3.5.2 would minimize any impacts to specially designated lands that contain sensitive or specially 

protected vegetative communities. In addition to the implementation of its Plan, selective routing, rightof way reduction and collocation with existing rights-of-way, as well as avoidance of some sensitive 

vegetative communities through the use of HDD, would further minimize potential Project impacts to 

vegetation in specially designated areas and we believe that impacts would be minor overall. 

3.5.3 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. Several exotic and/or invasive plant 

species are listed as potentially present in the proposed Project area. They include Chinese tallow tree 

(Triadica sebifera), Brazilian satintail (Imperata brasiliensis), cogongrass (Imperata cylindrica), giant 

salvinia (Salvinia molesta), hydrilla (Hydrilla verticillata), itchgrass (Rottboellia cochinchinensis), kudzu 

(Pueraria montana var. lovata), tropical soda apple (Solanum viarum), Chinese/European privet 

(Ligustrum sinense), Japanese climbing fern (Lygodium japonicum), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera 

japonica), multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora), Cherokee rose (Rosa laevigata), and Macartney rose (Rosa 

bracteata). The FWS and NRCS both identified cogongrass as an invasive species of potential concern in 

all states crossed by the proposed Project. 

In order to minimize the impacts of exotic and invasive species, SESH would implement its Plan, 

which includes measures to reduce erosion such as topsoil stripping and specific vegetation restoration 

measures. Further, locally prescribed seed mixes and post-construction monitoring would be implemented 

to further minimize the spread of exotics to and within the Project area. 

SESH proposes to mitigate for infestation of the right-of-way by invasive and exotic species 

(beyond conditions observed prior to construction) by applying agency-recommended seed-mixes, 

following prescribed revegetation plans during restoration, and conducting ongoing surveillance during 

operation and maintenance activities. Consultations with the respective NRCS offices and other relevant 

natural resource managing agencies regarding control/mitigation of invasive species, particularly 

cogongrass, are ongoing. Agencies from each of the states affected by this proposed Project and FWS 

commented during meetings with FERC the serious challenge of controlling invasive and exotic species 

in the region, specifically cogongrass. Our evaluation of the issue concluded that the linear nature of the 

proposed Project warranted additional mitigation; therefore, we recommend that:

• Prior to construction, SESH 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, LDWF, MDWFP, and ADCNR. This plan 

should identify the specific measures that SESH would implement during 

construction and operation to control exotic and invasive species. 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 3-49 

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 encountered and crossed by the proposed 

Project. Habitats are found along the proposed route in upland forests, agricultural fields, pasture, open 

lands, wetlands, and open waters. Sections 3.4 and 3.5 describe the vegetative components of these 

habitats. Wildlife species commonly associated with these habitats are listed in Table 3.6.1-1. In addition 

to the wildlife habitats and species described below, Section 3.7 describes federal- and state-listed 

threatened and endangered species occurring in the Project area. 

Upland Forest 

Mixed hardwood/pine forest, pine plantation, and slope hardwood upland forest provide wildlife 

species with a variety of foraging, rearing, nesting, and cover habitats. The canopy of mixed 

hardwood/pine forest is typically composed of a significant hardwood component with at least 20 percent 

of the stand comprised of loblolly pine. Hardwoods present vary depending on soil type, moisture regime, 

and slope. Although hardwood/pine forests may also have an understory of small shrub species and 

herbaceous growth, the understory would naturally trend toward hardwood dominance without periodic 

fire suppression. Slope hardwood forests are found on the slopes of small stream floodplains. Both of 

these upland forest habitat types offer significant cover and forage for a variety of wildlife species. 

Wildlife use of pine plantation habitat varies according to the wildlife species’ life stage, the 

season, and the forest successional stage. Pine plantation areas have an average rotation time of 20 to 30 

years, allowing regular change in the successional vegetation species and habitat types. All successional 

stages provide some form of forage, cover, and nesting habitat for various bird, mammal, and reptile 

species. Early and intermediate successional stages are most 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. 

Agricultural Fields 

Row crops and other agricultural areas provide a small amount of cover and foraging 

opportunities for birds, deer, and small mammal species, especially for those species tolerant of periodic 

disturbance. 

Pasture 

Pastures are areas that are primarily used for livestock grazing or hay production. These areas are 

dominated by Bermuda grass and crabgrasses that provide grazing opportunities for wildlife such as 

white-tailed deer, but typically foraging opportunities are somewhat low overall. Pastures do not provide 

significant cover habitat for most wildlife species. 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
3-50 

TABLE 3.6.1-1 

Common Wildlife Species That Occur Along the Proposed SESH Project 

Upland Forest Wetlands 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Mixed 

Loblolly/ 

Hardwood 

Forests 

Slope 

Hardwood 

Forest 

Pine 

Plantation 

Forested (PFO) 

and ScrubShrub (PSS) 

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 Lontra 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 PEM = palustrine emergent; PFO = palustrine forested; PSS = palustrine scrub-shrub 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 3-51 

Open Lands 

Open lands include maintained utility rights-of-way, upland shrub areas, and other 

non-agricultural herbaceous areas. Open land habitat can be important to a variety of species, particularly 

birds and small mammals, by providing edge areas and feeding and rearing habitats. 

Forested Wetlands 

Forested wetlands are dominated by woody vegetation that is at least 20 ft tall. Section 3.4 

provides a more detailed description of the vegetation communities present in wetland habitats. The 

diverse vegetation assemblages comprising forested wetlands provide an abundance of cover, foraging, 

and nesting habitat for a variety of wildlife species, especially those that are dependant upon these 

resources, such as migrating birds, reptile and amphibian species, and mammal species. During winter 

flooding periods, this habitat also provides migratory waterfowl wintering habitat. 

Scrub-Shrub Wetlands 

Like their upland scrub-shrub counterpart, scrub-shrub wetlands consist of saplings and low-lying 

vegetation; however, due to their lack of a developed tree canopy, scrub-shrub wetlands are typically not 

as structurally diverse as forested wetlands. As in forested wetlands, scrub-shrub wetlands provide an 

abundance of cover, foraging, and nesting habitat for a variety of wildlife species including mammals, 

birds, and reptiles. 

Emergent Wetlands 

Emergent wetlands are characterized by the presence of erect, herbaceous plants that are used by 

a variety of wildlife species for cover and as foraging and nesting habitat. Vegetation in emergent 

wetlands associated with the proposed Project includes various herbaceous species. Additionally, 

migratory birds may use emergent wetland habitats as resting sites. 

Open Water 

Open water habitats, including some wetlands, are characterized by a lack of emergent vegetation 

within water depths that would normally be suitable for wetland plant growth. Within the proposed 

Project area, these open water habitats are generally found in larger stream and river crossings, shallow 

man-made impoundments, and beaver ponds. Like the other wet habitat types, open water habitats 

provide food and water sources, in addition to habitat for species such as wading birds, waterfowl, 

beavers, otters, snakes, and other wildlife species dependent upon an aquatic environment. 

3.6.1.2 Sensitive or Managed Wildlife Habitats 

As shown in Table 3.6.1-2, the proposed Project would cross lands managed by the FWS, WRP 

lands managed by the NRCS, CRP and CREP lands managed by the FSA, lands managed by the 

Mississippi Chapter of TNC, and large forested tracts. 

National Wildlife Refuge-Managed Lands 

The proposed Project would cross lands managed by the Tensas River NWR between MP 0.4 to 

MP 0.9 and MP 5.6 to 7.0. Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge lands are located within a quarter mile 

of either side of the centerline of the proposed pipeline corridor. Tracts of land that are crossed by the 

proposed Project are managed by the Tensas River NWR but are not a part of the designated NWR. For 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 3-52 

the proposed Project to cross these lands, all negotiations would have to be approved by the Tensas NWR 

Manager and the FWS would have to provide a compatibility determination for the use of these lands for 

a utility right-of-way. These tracts include fee title property at MP 0.4 to MP 0.9, a conservation easement 

at MP 5.6 to MP 6.0, and NWR lands at MP 6.0 to MP 7.0. 

Natural Resource Conservation Service- and Farm Service Agency-Managed Lands 

The proposed Project would affect WRP, CRP, and CREP tracts of land. The WRP is a voluntary 

conservation easement program administered by the NRCS offering landowners the opportunity to 

protect, restore, and enhance wetlands and wildlife habitat on their property on a long-term basis. A bird 

rookery has been identified on WRP land near MP 18.19 The CRP and CREP lands are managed by the 

FSA, which assists farmers and ranchers in complying with federal, state, and tribal environmental laws 

and encourages environmental enhancement. 

The Nature Conservancy-Managed Lands 

The proposed Project would cross land that is currently managed by the Mississippi Chapter of 

TNC. The mission of TNC is to preserve the plants, animals, and natural communities on the adjacent 

Pascagoula Wildlife Management Area. 

Large Forested Tracts 

Seventeen large, relatively intact, forested tracts would be affected by construction and operation 

of the proposed Project. The proposed pipeline would pass through 47.5 miles of large forested tracts. 

Many of the large forested tracts are used primarily for silviculture and their quality as undisturbed forest 

habitat has been reduced by existing roads and rights-of-way, but they are not fragmented by any other 

open-land-use type. Some forest interior species, such as many songbirds, exclusively use or nest in 

relatively large forested areas to avoid disturbed and edge habitats. In addition to providing protected 

nesting habitat, these large forested tracts also comprise contiguous forest habitat corridors for migration, 

feeding, and escape cover for a number of wildlife species. 

3.6.1.3 Unique and Sensitive Wildlife Species 

Unique or sensitive wildlife species, such as colonial nesting waterbirds and migratory birds, may 

occur within the vicinity of the proposed Project. 

Migratory Birds 

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (MBTA), as amended, protects migratory birds by 

regulating the taking of them or otherwise affecting them. Over 175 migratory bird species potentially 

occur along the proposed pipeline route. Migratory birds would be expected to occur, at least as 

transients, in the proposed Project area throughout the year. 

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 nesting seasons. Rookeries are found in permanently flooded wetland habitat with 

some shrubs and/or trees to support the nests. Rookeries are not stationary features and often do not occur 

in the same location from year to year. 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 3-53 

TABLE 3.6.1-2 

Sensitive or Managed Wildlife Habitats for the SESH Project

County, State Mileposts Name of Area 

Richland Parish, LA 0.32 Macon Bayou [Designated Use and Impaired Water] 

Madison Parish, LA 0.4 - 0.9 Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge fee title property 

Madison Parish, LA 1.8 – 3.0 CRP Lands 

Madison Parish, LA 3.1 - 9.1 WRP Lands 

Madison Parish, LA 5.6 - 6.0 Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge conservation easement 

Madison Parish, LA 6.0 - 7.0 Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge 

Madison Parish, LA 9.1 – 10.8 CRP Lands 

Madison Parish, LA 14.7 - 15.0 WRP Lands 

Madison Parish, LA 17.9 - 18.9 WRP Lands and Bird Rookery 

Madison Parish, LA 22.6 - 23.3 WRP Lands 

Madison Parish, LA 31.6 - 32.7 WRP Lands 

Madison Parish, LA 33.1 Levee for Mississippi River 

Warren County, MS 37.07 – 39.20 Large Relatively-Intact Forested Tract 

Warren County, MS 37.9 – 38.4 CRP Lands 

Warren County, MS 39.85 – 42.87 Large Relatively-Intact Forested Tract 

Warren County, MS 44.2 – 45.1 CRP Lands 

Claiborne County, MS 45.05 – 53.39 Large Relatively-Intact Forested Tract 

Claiborne County, MS 52.0 - 52.2 Natchez Trace Parkway 

Claiborne and Copiah County, MS 58.64 – 60.93 Large Relatively-Intact Forested Tract 

Copiah County, MS 61.1 – 61.3 CRP Lands 

Copiah County, MS 61.57 – 62.24 Large Relatively-Intact Forested Tract 

Copiah County, MS 66.3 – 66.6 CRP Lands 

Copiah County, MS 66.9 – 67.7 CRP Lands 

Copiah County, MS 71.9– 72.2 CRP Lands 

Copiah County, MS 73.06 – 74.75 Large Relatively-Intact Forested Tract 

Copiah County, MS 79.61 – 79.3 CRP Lands 

Copiah County, MS 79.7 – 79.8 CRP Lands 

Copiah County, MS 83.6 – 83.9 CRP Lands 

Copiah County, MS 88.50 – 99.95 Large Relatively-Intact Forested Tract 

Copiah County, MS 96.4 – 97.0 CRP Lands 

Lawrence County, MS 101.51 – 108.01 Large Relatively-Intact Forested Tract 

Jefferson Davis County, MS 111.63 – 113.34 Large Relatively-Intact Forested Tract 

Jefferson Davis County, MS 119.06 – 119.65 Large Relatively-Intact Forested Tract 

Jefferson Davis County, MS 123.97 – 127.91 Large Relatively-Intact Forested Tract 

Perry County, MS 176.04 - 179.25 Large Relatively-Intact Forested Tract 

Greene County, MS 195.23 – 201.01 Large Relatively-Intact Forested Tract 

Greene County, MS 209.1 - 210.5 The Nature Conservancy 

George County, MS 229.49 – 230.18 Large Relatively-Intact Forested Tract 

George County, MS 233.49 – 238.15 Large Relatively-Intact Forested Tract 

Jackson County, MS 236.2 - 239.5 Mississippi Coastal Zone Management Area 

Mobile County, AL 243.07 – 245.83 Large Relatively-Intact Forested Tract 

Mobile County, AL 266.74 – 268.83 Large Relatively-Intact Forested Tract 

CRP = Conservation Reserve Program 

WRP = Wetland Reserve Program 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 3-54 

Field surveys identified a bird rookery at MP 18.19 in Louisiana. At the time of the survey, the 

rookery contained hundreds of birds including the following species: great egret (Ardea alba), snowy 

egret (Egretta thula), cattle egret (Bubulcus ibis), great blue heron (Ardea herodias), little blue heron 

(Egretta caerulea), tricolored heron (Egretta tricolor), and anhinga (Anhinga anhinga). These species 

usually begin nesting in late February to early March. 

3.6.1.4 General Impacts and Mitigation 

Construction and operation of the proposed Project would result in several temporary and longterm impacts to wildlife species and their habitats including loss of habitat, habitat fragmentation, creation 

of additional edge habitat, and species displacement. As discussed in Sections 3.5 and 3.8, a total of 

4,021.20 acres of land would be temporarily disturbed and 1,697.10 acres of land would be permanently 

affected by the proposed Project. 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 its individual life history requirements. 

Pipeline Facilities 

The clearing of vegetation in the pipeline construction right-of-way and extra workspaces would 

reduce cover, nesting, and foraging habitat for some wildlife until construction is complete and vegetation 

is reestablished along the right-of-way. During construction, more mobile species would be temporarily 

displaced from the construction right-of-way and surrounding areas to similar habitats nearby. Some 

wildlife species disturbed or displaced by construction may be able to return to adjacent, undisturbed 

habitats soon after completion of construction. Less mobile species, such as small mammals, reptiles, 

amphibians, and birds nesting in the right-of-way, could be affected by construction activities due to 

direct mortality or permanent displacement, potentially affecting reproduction, recruitment, and survival. 

Non-forested habitats that would be affected by construction and operation of the proposed 

Project include open lands, agriculture, scrub-shrub and emergent wetlands, and open water. The impacts 

on these habitats and associated wildlife species would be relatively minor and either temporary or shortterm. Due to the rapid pace of pipeline installation, these areas could be naturally recolonized within 1 

growing season or within 3 years after construction for scrub-shrub habitats. Temporary alterations to 

these non-forested habitats would not have a significant or long-term impact on their value as wildlife 

habitat. 

Effects to wildlife using forested habitats would be more severe than that to wildlife inhabiting 

other open habitat types, as vegetative strata in forested areas would undergo a more marked change. 

Potential impacts to wildlife would include not only the broader loss of habitat in general, but also 

potential losses of den or nesting sites. A total of 2,172.91 acres of forested lands (1831.62 acres of forest 

and 341.29 acres of pine plantation) would be affected during construction, and approximately 44 percent 

of that acreage (961.88 acres) would be permanently affected by maintenance of the pipeline right-of-way 

during operation. Disturbed forested areas located outside the permanent right-of-way would be allowed 

to revert to their preconstruction cover type but this process would take 30 years or more in some forested 

habitats, thus representing a long-term impact. 

Forest interior species would avoid cleared areas and edge habitats, which could potentially affect 

migratory patterns. However, those species that depend upon a forest-open land interface (edge habitat) 

for feeding opportunities could actually benefit from openings associated with right-of-way maintenance. 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 3-55 

Construction during fall and early winter could conflict with hunting seasons. Construction could 

interfere with hunting activities through noise disturbance or by affecting wildlife movement patterns, but 

these impacts would affect a small area for a relatively short period during construction. 

Aboveground Facilities, Pipeyards and Wareyards, and Access Roads 

Construction of the aboveground facilities would permanently affect several types of wildlife 

habitats and associated species, but we anticipate that these impacts would be minor overall. The 

construction and operation of aboveground facilities would affect only a small percentage of the land area 

and wildlife habitats affected by the proposed Project, but wildlife occurring in these areas would suffer 

mortality or be permanently displaced. Construction of aboveground facilities and access roads would 

remove 50.43 acres of forest and pine lands, 17.58 acres of open land habitat, and 15.78 acres of 

agricultural land. All disturbed areas associated with the aboveground facilities that do not contain 

infrastructure such as buildings and other enclosures would be finish-graded 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 permanent conversion of some existing wildlife habitat into 

primarily non-vegetated industrial/commercial uses. 

SESH is proposing to use existing pipeyards and warehouses in commercial and industrial areas 

as pipe storage and contractor yards for the proposed Project to the extent possible, to avoid impacts to 

wildlife habitat associated with those construction-related activities. However, four pipeyards/wareyards 

would not be located in open, commercial- or industrial-use areas. The Letourneau, Lucedale 1, and 

Mobile yards would temporarily affect 86.53 acres of agricultural land; and the Highway 11 and Mobile 

yards would temporarily affect 4.12 acres of forested land. 

Improvement and use of existing access roads would potentially affect a small amount of wildlife 

habitat. The new permanent access roads would affect 1.82 acres of agricultural land, 1.15 acres of forest 

land, 0.51 acres of pine plantation, 3.39 acres of open land, 0.06 acres residential land, and 0.47 acres of 

industrial/commercial land. 

Lands permanently converted due to operation of aboveground facilities would only be a small 

percentage of the land area and wildlife habitat affected by the proposed Project. Generally, wildlife 

occurring in these areas would be permanently displaced, which could result in increased stress, injury, 

and/or mortality. Construction and operation of structures, parking lots, and roads at the aboveground 

facility sites would potentially result in the loss and permanent conversion of some existing wildlife 

habitat into non-vegetated industrial/commercial uses. 

Impact Minimization and Mitigation Measures 

SESH would minimize impacts to wildlife and wildlife habitats through selective routing, 

collocation with existing rights-of-way, aboveground site selection, and other measures described in its 

Plan and Procedures. The proposed route would be collocated within or parallel to existing utility rightsof-way, where possible, thereby minimizing impacts upon previously undisturbed vegetation and wildlife 

habitats. 

Along the pipeline, non-forested areas would generally be restored within 1 growing season for 

herbaceous habitats and within 3 years after construction for scrub-shrub habitats found in open lands. 

SESH would further reduce impacts to aquatic and riparian habitats used by terrestrial wildlife by 

crossing sensitive streams using HDDs. 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 3-56 

Due to the rapid pace of pipeline installation and the vegetation restoration measures included in 

SESH’s Plan and Procedures, we believe that impacts to wildlife species during construction would be 

minimal. Right-of-way maintenance would affect a relatively small percentage of the forested habitat 

relative to the total amount of forested land areas in the general vicinity of the proposed Project. 

Operational maintenance of the right-of-way would be relatively infrequent and performed in accordance 

with SESH’s Plan and Procedures; therefore, we believe that the anticipated impacts to wildlife resulting 

from operation of the proposed Project would not be significant. 

3.6.1.5 Sensitive or Managed Wildlife Habitats and Species Effects and Mitigation 

The proposed Project would affect NWR and FWS-managed properties, TNC managed lands, 

large forested tracts, and WRP, CRP, and CREP lands. 

SESH has coordinated with the FWS-Louisiana (FWS-LA) and FWS-MS to develop a plan for 

construction and restoration of the right-of-way to minimize impacts to Louisiana black bear den sites 

(see Section 3.7) and other wildlife habitats managed by the FWS-MS. 

Impacts to wildlife resulting from construction and operation of the proposed pipeline in large 

forested tracts would be diverse and either long-term or permanent. These impacts would include loss of 

forest interior habitat and displacement of wildlife; increased stress and mortality; increased rates of nest 

predation, parasitism, or inter-specific competition; inhibition of migration, dispersal, foraging, and other 

movements of forest interior species that are hesitant to cross openings; and potential increase of nonnative or invasive plant and/or animal species. Although fragmentation could cause long-term and adverse 

effects to wildlife that use large forested tracts, the proposed Project would be collocated for 

approximately 58 miles of its length to minimize the effects of fragmentation. The prevention of 

excessive fragmentation would also minimize increased species competition, loss of higher quality habitat 

access, and increased edge effects. Additionally, construction of the proposed Project actually would 

benefit many wildlife species, such as white-tailed deer, wild turkey, certain raptors, and foxes, which use 

forest edge and open habitats. Given the measures to avoid and minimize impacts to large forested areas 

and current disturbances in large forested tracts as a result of commercial timber operations, we believe 

that impacts to wildlife from disturbance of these areas would be relatively minor. 

Except in wooded areas, impacts to WRP, CRP, and CREP lands would be temporary. SESH is 

coordinating with the NRCS and FSA to develop acceptable plans for crossing these lands. Through use 

of these plans and SESH’s Plan and Procedures, and our analysis in Section 3.8, impacts to WRP, CRP, 

and CREP lands would be minor. 

Colonial nesting waterbirds could be affected by construction if their habitats or nests were 

damaged or disturbed during construction. Consultations with federal and state agencies regarding this 

rookery indicated that construction of the pipeline should occur during the non-nesting season, September 

1 to February 15. These agencies also stipulated that if construction is scheduled during the nesting 

season, a qualified biologist should conduct rookery surveys 2 weeks prior to construction. If the rookery 

is actively being used, SESH would maintain a 400-meter (1,312-ft) avoidance radius until both the 

LDWF and the FWS-LA could be consulted. The LDWF further suggests that if construction must occur 

near the beginning of nesting season (February 15), vegetation could be cleared for construction well in 

advance of the nesting season to increase the odds of a rookery not establishing in the immediate area. If 

the rookery was not actively being used, then construction could proceed without restriction; therefore,

we recommend that: 

y If construction is anticipated during the colonial nesting bird rookery time restrictions 

(February 16 to September 1), SESH should perform a pre-construction survey to 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 3-57 

determine if the rookery at MP 18.19 occupied during the construction period. If colonial 

nesting birds are observed at the rookery, SESH should contact the MDWFP to determine 

what measures would be prudent for use at the time of construction. 

3.6.1.6 Conclusion Regarding Impacts to Wildlife Habitats and Species 

The proposed Project would affect wildlife and wildlife habitats along the proposed route. 

Impacts would be either temporary or 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, 

measures proposed by SESH to avoid or minimize these impacts and our recommendations, 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 

The proposed Project would cross 175 perennial streams, 462 intermittent streams, and 

17 ponds/lakes. Thirty-three of the perennial streams are intermediate crossings (8 by HDD), 17 are major 

(10 by HDD), and the remaining 140 are minor crossings. All of the intermittent streams are classified as 

minor crossings (< 25 ft). A table identifying the waterbodies crossed or otherwise affected by the 

proposed Project, as well as their width, location along the proposed route, state waterbody classification, 

and proposed crossing method, is included in Appendix D. Waterbodies crossed or otherwise affected by 

the proposed Project are discussed in more detail in Section 3.3.2. 

Table 3.6.2-1 is a list of commonly occurring fish species in the streams along the proposed 

Project route. The proposed Project would be located in an inland area where marine and estuarine fishes 

do not occur. There is no known significant spawning or rearing area for anadromous species, or 

commercially important species, near the proposed Project. However, some fish spawning and rearing 

undoubtedly occurs in the streams and rivers that would be affected by the proposed Project. Many of the 

major and intermediate stream crossings are recreationally important streams and rivers including the Big 

Black River, Bayou Pierre, Pearl River, Bowie Creek, Okatoma Creek, Turkey Creek, Leaf River, 

Tallahala Creek, Bogue Homo, Chickasawhay River, and Escatawpa River. The Mississippi state record 

striped bass (37.82 pounds) was caught on Bowie Creek. The Okatoma Creek is one of Mississippi’s most 

popular canoe/float streams. 

Fisheries of Special Concern 

Fisheries of special concern include surface waters containing fisheries of exceptional 

recreational or commercial value, such as those that support coldwater fisheries through natural 

reproduction, those that provide habitat for protected species, i.e. those listed as essential fish habitat 

(EFH), or those that are covered by special state fishery management regulations. Other special-concern 

fisheries include those where economic investments, such as clean-up or stocking programs, have been 

implemented or those that support commercial or tribal harvests. 

The proposed Project would not be likely to affect areas designated as EFH or areas supporting 

federally managed fisheries under the jurisdiction of the National Marine Fisheries Service. Of the 

federally protected fisheries managed in the Gulf of Mexico region by the NOAA Protected Resources 

Division, only the Gulf sturgeon would likely be present in the area of the proposed Project. The Pearl 

River provides critical habitat for the Gulf sturgeon, a federally threatened anadromous fish. 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 3-58 

The Big Black River, Bayou Pierre, Pearl River, Bowie Creek, Okatoma River, Leaf River, and 

Chickasawhay River are listed not only for their scenic and recreational value, but also for their F&W 

habitat. Additional information for these waterbodies is provided in Section 3.3. 

State-Designated Waters 

In Louisiana, the proposed Project would cross portions of the Ouachita River and Mississippi 

River Basins. Waterbodies with designated uses that would be crossed by the proposed Project are Macon 

Bayou, Joe’s Bayou, the Tensas River in the Ouachita River Basin, and the Mississippi River in the 

Mississippi River Basin. All three streams in the Ouachita River Basin are designated for Primary Contact 

Recreation, Secondary Contact Recreation, and F&W propagation for the segments crossed. In addition, 

all three streams are on the state 303(d) list, a list of impaired waters that do not meet the state’s 

designated use. Bayou Macon is not fully supporting primary contact recreation and F&W propagation 

(pesticides, bacteria, and sediment/siltation), while Joe’s Bayou and the Tensas River are not supporting 

F&W propagation (pesticides, nutrients, and sediment/siltation). The Mississippi River is designated for 

primary contact recreation, secondary contact recreation, and F&W propagation, and is identified as fully 

supporting all of these designated uses. 

Table 3.6.2-1 

Typical Fish Species in Waterbodies Crossed 

 by the Proposed SESH Project 

Common Name Scientific Name 

White bass Morone chrysops 

Largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides 

Black crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus 

White crappie Pomoxis anularis 

Bluegill sunfish Lepomis macrochirus 

Pickerel Esox niger 

Longear sunfish Lepomis megalotis 

Channel catfish Ictalurus punctatus 

Dusky darter Percina sciera 

Red shiner Cyprinella lutrensis 

Spotted sucker Minytrema melanops 

In Mississippi, the proposed Project would cross the Big Black River Basin, the South 

Independent Streams Basin, the Pearl River Basin, and the Pascagoula River Basin. According to state 

water-quality regulations, all waters in these basins are classified for F&W. The following rivers would 

be crossed by the proposed Project (all included in Mississippi’s 303(d) list) and do not fully support 

aquatic life: Big Black River (pesticides and sediment/siltation), Pearl River (nutrients), Leaf River 

(nutrients), Chickasawhay River (nutrients), and the Escatawpa River (dissolved oxygen). Additionally, 

the Escatawpa River is listed as impaired for fish consumption due to mercury. 

In Alabama, the proposed Project would cross the Escatawpa River Basin and the Mobile River 

Basin. According to Alabama state water quality regulations, each waterbody that would be crossed is 

designated for F&W use unless it is demonstrated that such a designation is not appropriate (e.g., an 

intermittent stream that does not contain suitable habitat for sustaining fish or wildlife). 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 3-59 

3.6.2.2 General Impacts and Mitigation 

SESH’s proposed crossing methods for pipe installation across each identified waterbody are 

listed in Appendix D. The crossing methods are described in Sections 2.3.2. Impacts to water quality and 

aquatic habitats that would be associated with construction of the proposed Project are generally 

described in Section 3.3. Some of these impacts include physical disturbance, interruptions to fish 

passage, sedimentation, turbidity, altered water temperatures and dissolved oxygen levels, and the 

introduction of contaminants. 

The proposed waterbody crossing techniques include wet open-cut, dry open-cut, bore, and HDD, 

depending on the size of the waterbody, use classification, and type of fishery resource. The use of the 

open-cut crossing method would result in several temporary impacts to aquatic resources including 

plankton, aquatic vegetation, amphibians, fish, and aquatic invertebrates (including mussels). With the 

exception of potential impacts resulting from a frac-out, the use of the HDD crossing method would result 

in the avoidance of some impacts to aquatic resources. However, the withdrawal of hydrostatic test water 

from the source waterbodies to facilitate the HDD crossing method and testing of pipeline integrity could 

result in the entrainment of fish and other aquatic organisms and a disruption of stream flow. 

Pipeline construction using open-cut methods would result in sedimentation and turbidity in 

surface waters and aquatic habitats, as described in Section 3.3. Benthic macroinvertebrates, which 

typically provide a key food source for fishes and fish spawning sites, could be buried under accumulated 

sediments. In addition to altering fish habitat and food sources, sedimentation could also affect mussel 

species by eliminating habitat or causing direct mortality through burial by sediments. However, stream 

gradients tend to be relatively low in much of the proposed Project area; thus, stream velocities would 

also tend to be low. Under these conditions, suspended sediments within these streams would only be 

transported over short distances and would likely have a limited impact on aquatic species and their 

associated habitats. Further, reduced levels of dissolved oxygen arising from increased turbidity could 

result in stress, displacement, and mortality to aquatic life, including fishes and mussels, particularly 

during periods of low flows or high water temperatures. 

As described in Sections 2.3.2 and 3.3, the use of an HDD would significantly minimize impacts 

to waterbodies and aquatic species. However, HDD methods are not without risk and a release of nontoxic drilling fluids (frac-out) would cause increased turbidity and sedimentation and would result in 

impacts to aquatic habitats similar to those described above. 

Overhanging vegetation in riparian and adjacent wetland areas, undercut banks, logs, and other 

streamside features provide cover for fish. These types of cover and in-stream 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 portion of a much longer stream feature. 

Introduction of pollutants into waterbodies and aquatic habitats could occur through disturbance 

of contaminated soils or sediments, accidental spills, and inadvertent releases of drilling fluids during 

HDD and open-cut operations. Pollutants would affect fishes and other aquatic life through acute or 

chronic toxicity and sub-lethal effects would affect reproduction, growth, and recruitment. Filter feeding 

species, such as mussels, would be particularly vulnerable to the introduction of pollutants or the 

disturbance of contaminated sediments. Disturbance and re-suspension of contaminated soils and 

sediments would result in adverse impacts to water quality and in-stream habitat. Although there are no 

known contaminated sediments in waterbodies along the proposed Project route, SESH is proposing to 

cross all waterbodies listed as impaired (303(d)) with an HDD technique to prevent potential release of 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 3-60 

contaminated sediments. Further, implementation of SESH’s Plan and Procedures would control erosion 

and would limit the flow of any contaminated sediments into waterways. Given the lack of contaminated 

sediments and pollutants near the proposed Project area and sediment erosion control measures included 

in SESH’s Plan and Procedures, the risk to water quality and aquatic species from contaminated soils and 

sediments is low. 

Overall, the impacts to aquatic habitats and species resulting from construction of the proposed 

Project would be minor, localized, and short-term. Many of the warmwater species that occur in the 

waterbodies that would be crossed by the proposed Project route are accustomed to occasionally turbid 

conditions and are, therefore, resilient to such periodic impacts. Removal of riparian vegetation would 

have an impact on in-stream conditions, but would be localized and relatively minor over the length of the 

waterbody. Waterbodies would be restored to preconstruction contours and banks would be stabilized and 

allowed to revegetate. Operation of the proposed Project would not significantly affect aquatic species 

and habitats. 

3.6.2.3 Site-Specific Impacts and Mitigation 

In many instances, the HDD method would be used to avoid and minimize impacts to aquatic 

resources. HDD is a trenchless crossing method that avoids direct impacts to waterbodies and aquatic 

habitats by directionally drilling beneath them. A successful HDD would result in little or no impact to 

the waterbody or aquatic habitats being crossed. Waterbodies proposed to be crossed using the HDD 

include major and/or navigable streams, those on the state 303(d) list, and NRI-listed rivers and 

waterbodies most likely to contain habitat for listed species. 

The feasibility of each proposed HDD crossing would be evaluated based on the results of 

ongoing geotechnical studies. Although these geotechnical analyses are not yet complete, the experience 

of SESH and its sub-contractors in performing other HDD crossings near the proposed Project maximizes 

the expectation of success. In the event of an HDD failure, the crossing would be re-drilled in 

approximately the same location. If the re-drill fails, the pipeline would be installed across the waterbody 

using the open-cut construction method after obtaining the necessary permits and approvals from the 

appropriate state and federal agencies. An amended plan would be developed in consultation with 

applicable agencies prior to initiating an open-cut crossing of any of the waterbodies proposed to be 

crossed using HDD. 

Each of the proposed HDD waterbody crossings would be constructed in accordance with 

SESH’s Plan and Procedures, SPCC Plan, and the terms of applicable federal or state permits. 

Additionally, through implementation of procedures, SESH would monitor for and address any advertent 

releases of non-toxic drilling fluids. These factors, combined with the additional mitigation measures 

recommended, would effectively minimize the potential for adverse environmental impacts associated 

with the proposed HDD crossings. 

Based on the measures to avoid or minimize proposed Project effects on fisheries, other aquatic 

life, and associated habitats, the construction and operation of the proposed Project would not have a 

significant negative impact on aquatic resources. 

3.7 THREATENED, ENDANGERED, AND SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES 

Federally and state-listed threatened and endangered species, as well as special status species, 

occur within and near proposed Project facilities. Table 3.7-1 identifies these species, their listing status 

or other designation, and their known location(s). 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 3-61 

3.7.1 Federally Listed Threatened and Endangered Species 

Section 7 of the ESA requires each federal agency to ensure that any action authorized, funded, or 

carried out by the agency does not jeopardize the continued existence of federally listed threatened and 

endangered species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of the designated critical habitat 

for any federally listed species. 

The FERC, as the lead federal 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. The FWS does not require consultation regarding impacts to candidate 

species; however, the FWS encourages the avoidance of activities that may adversely affect candidate 

species. For actions involving major construction activities with the potential to affect listed species or 

designated critical habitats, the FERC must report its findings to the FWS in a biological assessment 

(BA). 

Based on consultation with the FWS, 14 federally listed threatened and endangered species and 2 

candidate species occur or potentially occur within the proposed Project area. These species and known 

locations of occurrences are listed in Table 3.7-1. 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. 

Based on our review of these species, we have determined that construction and operation of the 

proposed project is not likely to adversely affect the Louisiana quillwort, Louisiana black bear, red 

cockaded woodpecker, interior least tern, bald eagle, yellow blotched map turtle, ringed map turtle, 

Alabama red-bellied turtle, gulf sturgeon, pallid sturgeon, bayou darter, Mississippi gopher frog, eastern 

indigo snake; may affect the gopher tortoise; and would not significantly affect the pearl dater or the 

black pine snake. 

With the issuance of the DEIS on April 27, 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 May 4, 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 19, 2007. In its 

BO the FWS concurred with our determinations of "is not likely to adversely affect" and determined that 

the proposed Project is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the gopher tortoise, is not likely 

to adversely modify designated gopher tortoise critical habitat and issued an incidental take statement for 

gopher tortoises. 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. 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 3-62 

TABLE 3.7-1 

Threatened, Endangered, and Special Status Species 

Potentially Occurring in the Proposed Project Area 

Common Name Scientific Name Federal 

Status 

Louisiana 

Status 

Mississippi 

Status 

Alabama 

Status 

Known Locations 

(County/Parish) 

Plants 

Louisiana Quillwort Isoetes louisianensis E - - - 

MS: Jones, Forrest, Perry, 

Greene, George and Jackson; 

AL: Mobile 

Mussels 

Delicate Spike Elliptio arctata NL - E - 

MS: Copiah, Jefferson Davis, 

Covington, Jones, Forrest, 

Perry, Greene, George, 

Lawrence and Jackson 

White heelsplitter Lasmigona complanata NL S1 - - LA: Madison 

Fish 

Pallid Sturgeon Scaphirhynchus albus E E - - LA: Madison; MS: Warren, 

Claiborne 

Bayou Darter Etheostoma rubrum T - E - MS: Claiborne, Copiah 

Gulf Sturgeon Acipenser oxyrhynchus 

desotoi T - E - MS: Copiah, Lawrence, 

Greene, George, Jackson 

Pearl Darter Percina aurora C - E - MS: Jones, Forrest, Perry, 

Greene, George, Jackson 

Crystal Darter Crystallaria asprella NL - E - MS: Copiah and Claiborne 

Frecklebelly 

Madtom Noturus minitus NL - E - MS: Lawrence 

Amphibians 

MS Gopher Frog Rana capito sevosa E - - - MS: Jackson 

Reptiles 

Ringed Map Turtle Graptemys oculifera T - E - MS: Copiah, Lawrence 

Gopher Tortoise Gopherus polyphemus T - E P 

MS: Covington, Jones, Forrest, 

Perry, Greene, George, 

Jackson and Jefferson Davis; 

AL: Mobile 

Yellow-blotched 

Map Turtle 

Graptemys 

flavimaculata T - E - MS: Jones, Forrest, Perry, 

Greene, George, Jackson 

Eastern indigo 

Snake 

Drymarchon corais 

couperi T - - P 

MS: Jones, Forrest, Perry, 

Greene, George, Jackson; AL: 

Mobile 

Black Pine Snake Pituophis melanoleucus 

ssp. lodingi C - E P MS: Jones, Forrest, Perry, 

George; AL: Mobile 

Alabama 

Red-bellied Turtle 

Pseudemys 

alabamensis E - E P MS: Jackson; AL: Mobile 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 3-63 

TABLE 3.7-1 

Threatened, Endangered, and Special Status Species 

Potentially Occurring in the Proposed Project Area 

Common Name Scientific Name Federal 

Status 

Louisiana 

Status 

Mississippi 

Status 

Alabama 

Status 

Known Locations 

(County/Parish) 

Delta Map Turtle Graptemys nigrinoda 

delticola NL - - P AL: Mobile 

Alligator Snapping 

Turtle Macrochelys temminckii NL - - P AL: Mobile 

Mississippi 

Diamondback 

Terrapin 

Malaclemys terrapin 

pileata NL - - P AL: Mobile 

Gulf Salt Marsh 

Snake Nerodia fasciata clarkii NL - - P AL: Mobile 

Rainbow Snake Farancia erytrogramma NL - E - MS: Copiah, Forrest, Jackson 

Birds 

Bald Eagle Haliaeetus 

leucocephalus DL T - - 

LA: Richland; MS: Warren, 

Claiborne, Copiah, Lawrence, 

Jefferson Davis, Covington, 

Jones, Forrest, Perry, Greene, 

George, Jackson; AL: Mobile 

Interior Least Tern Sterna antillarum E E - - LA: Madison; MS: Warren, 

Claiborne; AL: Mobile 

Red-cockaded 

Woodpecker Picoides borealis E - - - 

MS: Copiah, Jones, Forrest, 

Perry, Greene, George, 

Jackson; AL: Mobile 

Wilson's Plover Charadrius wilsonia NL - - P AL: Mobile 

Reddish Egret Egretta rufescens NL - - P AL: Mobile 

American 

Oystercatcher Haematopus palliates NL - - P AL: Mobile 

Osprey Pandion haliaetus NL - - P AL: Mobile 

Gull-billed Tern Sterna nilotica NL - - P AL: Mobile 

Mammals 

Louisiana Black 

Bear 

Ursus americanus 

luteolus T T E - 

LA: Richland, Madison; MS: 

Warren, Claiborne, Copiah, 

Lawrence, Jefferson Davis, 

Covington, Jones, Forrest, 

Perry, Greene, George, 

Jackson 

Notes: 

ADCNR = Alabama Department of Environmental Management 

E = Endangered 

T = Threatened 

C = Candidate species proposed for federal listing 

NL = Not listed 

P = State protected species (ADCNR does not rank by threatened or endangered.) 

S1= Critically imperiled 

DL = recently delisted 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 3-64 

Since the issuance of the BO, SESH has indicated route variations are being developed for the final 

project alignment. Modifications to the proposed project alignment, identification any new access roads 

or additional temporary workspace, unsurveyed tracts (where previous access was denied), have not been 

reviewed by the FWS for the presence or absence of federally-listed species and habitats, therefore we 

recommend that: 

• SESH should not begin construction of the newly identified variations and any tracts of 

land that have not been surveyed due to landowner denial of access activities until: 

a. the staff completes Section 7 consultations with the FWS; and 

b. SESH has received written notification from the Director of OEP that construction 

or use of mitigation may begin. 

3.7.1.1 Louisiana Quillwort 

The Louisiana quillwort (Isoetes louisianensis) is a federally listed endangered plant species that 

occurs in Jones, Forrest, Perry, Greene, George, and Jackson counties, Mississippi, and in Mobile County, 

Alabama. The Louisiana quillwort is a non-flowering grasslike plant that lives in wetland or aquatic 

habitats. Mature plants are 6 to 10 inches long and generally grow in groups of 5 to 10 or more. 

Based on the absence of observations during field surveys and SESH’s commitment to cease 

operations and contact the FWS should they encounter this species during construction, we have 

determined that construction and operation of the proposed Project may affect the Louisiana quillwort, 

but it is not likely that the effect would be adverse. 

3.7.1.2 Pallid Sturgeon 

The pallid sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus albus), a federally listed endangered fish species that occurs 

near the proposed Project, occurs primarily within the Mississippi River in Warren and Claiborne 

counties, Mississippi, and in Madison Parish, Louisiana. This species prefers large, turbid, free-flowing 

rivers and inhabits strong currents over firm gravel or sandy substrate. The pallid sturgeon spawns 

primarily from July to August and preys on aquatic insects, crustaceans, mollusks, annelids, eggs of other 

fish, and sometimes other fish. 

SESH proposes to cross the Mississippi River using an HDD. We are recommending that, prior to 

construction, SESH file an HDD contingency plan that includes measures to contain potential frac-outs 

(see Section 3.3). We have determined that construction and operation of the proposed Project may affect 

the pallid sturgeon, but it is not likely that the effect would be adverse. 

3.7.1.3 Bayou Darter 

The bayou darter (Etheostoma rubrum) is a federally listed threatened fish species that occurs in 

Claiborne and Copiah counties, Mississippi. Specifically, the bayou darter is found in Bayou Pierre and 

three of its tributaries: White Oak Creek, Foster Creek, and Turkey Creek. This species may occur in Dry 

Creek and the Leaf and Chickasawhay rivers. The bayou darter typically inhabits creeks and small- to 

medium-sized rivers, preferring stable, moderately swift riffles flowing over large gravel and rock. 

SESH proposes to cross Bayou Pierre, Turkey Creek, and the Leaf and Chickasawhay rivers 

using HDDs and Dry Creek using the open-cut crossing method. The proposed Project would not cross 

White Oak and Foster creeks. 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 3-65 

Use of HDDs would significantly minimize potential impacts to the bayou darter. Our 

recommendation that SESH file an HDD contingency plan that includes measures to contain potential 

frac-outs would further minimize impacts to this species. Additionally, we are recommending in Section 

3.3 that SESH construct dry crossings and evaluate the feasibility of using HDD methods regarding the 

crossing of several sensitive tributaries to the Bayou Pierre, including Dry Creek, Choctaw Creek, Mill 

Creek, and Long Creek. 

Based on the characteristics of this species including its mobility; SESH’s proposed construction 

methods; general impacts to waterbodies resulting from construction activities; and adherence to our 

recommendations, we believe that construction and operation of the proposed Project may affect the 

bayou darter, but it is not likely that the effect would be adverse. 

3.7.1.4 Gulf Sturgeon 

The Gulf sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrhynchus desotoi) is a federally listed threatened fish species 

that occurs in Copiah, Lawrence, Greene, George, and Jackson counties, Mississippi. Specifically, the 

Gulf sturgeon is found in the Pearl and Leaf rivers and may occur in the Chickasawhay River. The Gulf 

sturgeon is a bottom feeder that preys on insects, crustaceans, mollusks, annelids, and small fish. 

This anadromous species migrates into coastal rivers beginning in early spring and continuing 

into May. Spawning begins soon after arrival in freshwater, typically occurring over bottoms of hard 

clay, rubble, gravel, or shell. Individuals spend their first two years in riverine habitats where they are 

often found near the mouths of rivers in winter and spring. Downstream migration of adults and subadults 

begins in late September or October. 

SESH is proposing to cross the Pearl, Leaf, and Chickasawhay rivers using HDDs. We are 

recommending that, prior to construction, SESH file an HDD contingency plan that includes measures to 

contain potential frac-outs (see Section 3.3). We have determined that construction and operation of the 

proposed project may affect the Gulf sturgeon, but the effect is not likely to be adverse. 

3.7.1.5 Pearl Darter 

The pearl darter (Percina aurora) is a candidate for the endangered species list. The pearl darter 

occurs within the Pascagoula River System in Jones, Forrest, Perry, Greene, George, and Jackson 

counties, Mississippi. It is typically found at the lower ends of riffles or at the edges of deep channels in 

large creeks and rivers. During spawning, pearl darters move into slower currents of pools to lay eggs on 

scattered rubble substrates. 

Several tributaries of the Pascagoula River, which provide suitable habitat for the pearl darter, 

would be crossed during construction of the proposed Project. According to the FWS, the pearl darter 

historically occurred in Okatoma Creek and the Leaf, Bowie, and Chickasawhay rivers. Suitable pearl 

darter habitat is also believed to be present in Bowie, Thompson, Gaines, and Atkinson creeks as well as 

the Bogue Homo and Tallahala rivers. 

SESH proposes to cross Bowie, Okatoma, and Atkinson creeks as well as the Leaf, 

Chickasawhay, Bogue Homo, and Tallahala rivers using HDDs. SESH also proposes to cross Thompson 

and Gaines creeks using the open-cut crossing methods, however, we are recommending in Section 3.3 

that SESH construct dry crossings and evaluate the feasibility of using HDD methods to cross these two 

waterbodies. The proposed Project would not cross the Bowie River. 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 3-66 

Based on SESH’s proposed HDD crossings, known occurrences of this species, its relative 

mobility, general impacts to waterbodies resulting from construction activities, and adherence to our 

previous recommendation concerning waterbody crossings, we believe that construction and operation of 

the proposed Project would not significantly affect the pearl darter. 

3.7.1.6 Mississippi Gopher Frog 

The Mississippi gopher frog (Rana capita sevosa) is a federally listed endangered species that 

occurs in Jackson County, Mississippi; however, the only known population in Jackson County is located 

several miles from any proposed Project facilities. Based on that information, we have determined that 

construction and operation of the proposed Project would not affect this species. 

3.7.1.7 Ringed Map Turtle 

The ringed map turtle (Graptemys oculifera) is a federally listed threatened species that occurs in 

Copiah and Lawrence counties, Mississippi. Specifically, the ringed map turtle occurs in the Pearl River. 

The ringed map turtle is a medium-sized turtle, ranging from 3 to 8 inches long, with a dark olive-green 

shell. Male shells possess black, spine-like projections on the dorsal keel. The ringed map turtle lives in 

clean, high quality rivers that have a moderate to fast current, an open canopy, and numerous nesting 

beaches and basking logs. These turtles lay eggs in nests dug in sandy beaches or gravel bars. Ideal 

beaches for nesting are islands composed of clean, fine-grain sand with minimum vegetative cover at 3 to 

10 ft above river level. 

SESH is proposing to cross the Pearl River using an HDD. We are recommending that, prior to 

construction, SESH file an HDD contingency plan that includes measures to contain potential frac-outs. 

We have determined that construction and operation of the proposed project may affect the ringed map 

turtle, but it is not likely that the effect would be adverse. 

3.7.1.8 Gopher Tortoise 

The gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus) is a federally listed threatened species that occurs in 

Covington, Jones, Forrest, Perry, Greene, George, Jefferson Davis, and Jackson counties, Mississippi, and 

in Mobile County, Alabama. The gopher tortoise is a medium-sized turtle, ranging from 9 to 11 inches 

long and 6 to 10 inches wide and weighing 8 to 10 pounds, with a dark brown to grayish-black colored 

carapace. 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 gopher tortoise burrows varies depending on the size of the turtle; 

however, burrows are generally about 15 ft long and 6 ft 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 ft of each other. Gopher tortoises mate between May and July, with nesting taking place from midApril through mid-July. 

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 J, prior to construction SESH would resurvey for gopher tortoise 

burrows and conduct a burrow assessment. SESH would displace gopher tortoises by capturing, holding, 

and then releasing those tortoises back to the construction right-of-way after construction. SESH’s 

proposed capture and release efforts would result in stress to gopher tortoises and could lead to injury 

and/or mortality. Following the capture of gopher tortoises, SESH would construct the proposed pipeline 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 3-67 

that 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 (e.g., 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. 

Conversely, construction and operation of the proposed project would also beneficially affect gopher 

tortoises by creating and maintaining habitat that gopher tortoises find favorable. 

To minimize potential adverse impacts to gopher tortoises during construction and operation of 

the proposed Project, SESH has developed a conservation strategy based on information provided by the 

FWS. SESH’s proposed conservation strategy is described in detail in Appendix J and includes measures 

to resurvey for gopher tortoises prior to, during, and following construction; capture, hold, and release 

gopher tortoises; educate construction personnel; 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 

SESH’s proposed 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 100 foot 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 released into adjacent unoccupied burrows will be temporarily 

penned for a minimum of two weeks. 

c. If landowners refuse to allow the relocation of tortoises onto adjacent lands, then tortoises 

will be relocated to the closest colony along the pipeline and will be penned for a 

minimum of two weeks. 

d. If a tortoise moves outside of its original colony range within the first month 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. In addition to the radio telemetry monitoring proposed in the BA, tortoises will be 

checked at least once a month during the dormant season (October 1 through April 1). 

f. Tortoises collected between October 1 and October 15 will require these additional 

measures: 

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 night time 

low temperature will be below 60 degrees. Monitoring will be conducted for 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 3-68 

each of the first five nights when such low temperatures are predicted. 

Monitoring will identify any tortoise located above ground 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 above-ground 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. 

iii. Monitoring will continue after sundown to determine if any above-ground 

tortoises observed during late afternoon have taken shelter in their burrow, or if 

they remain above ground, or if they periodically emerge above-ground after 

sundown. If any tortoise is found above-ground, its behavior will be observed 

and recorded with the measured air temperature at ground level. If any tortoise is 

observed above ground 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 above-ground 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 if 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 above ground 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 above-ground 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 contained (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. 

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. 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 3-69 

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. SESH 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 SESH 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 Service and the Mississippi Museum of Natural Science for 

inclusion into the states tracking database. 

To ensure that the gopher tortoise is sufficiently protected and compliance with the FWS terms 

and conditions, we recommend that: 

• SESH should adhere to all non-discretionary terms and conditions as well as 

conservation recommendations 1, 2, and 3 as identified in the FWS Biological 

Opinion issued July 19, 2007 for the proposed Southeast Supply Header Project.

3.7.1.9 Yellow-Blotched Map Turtle 

The yellow-blotched map turtle (Graptemys flavimaculata) is a federally listed threatened species 

that occurs in Jones, Forrest, Perry, Greene, George, and Jackson counties, Mississippi. Specifically, this 

species occurs in the Leaf, Chickasawhay, Pascagoula, and Escatawpa rivers. In addition, yellow-blotched 

map turtle habitat may exist in Gaines and Thompson creeks. The yellow-blotched turtle is a mediumsized turtle, ranging from 3 to 7 inches long, with an olive to brown shell with yellow to orange blotches. 

Suitable habitat for this species is found in relatively wide rivers, with moderate currents, that have sand 

and clay bottoms and an abundance of sand bars or rocky bottoms with limestone ledges along the banks. 

Yellow-blotched map turtles bask in areas with tangled tree roots or logs. They nest on sandbars or in 

small clearings from mid- to late-May through early- to mid-August. 

SESH proposes to cross the Leaf, Chickasawhay, and Escatawpa rivers using HDDs. Gaines and 

Thompson creeks would be crossed using open-cut crossing methods, however, we are recommending in 

Section 3.3 that SESH construct dry crossings and evaluate the feasibility of using HDD methods to cross 

these two waterbodies. The Pascagoula River would not be crossed by the proposed Project. 

Based on the known characteristics of the species including habitat requirements, SESH’s 

proposed HDD crossings, our consultation with the FWS, adherence to our previous recommendation 

concerning waterbody crossings, general impacts to waterbodies resulting from construction activities, 

and adherence to our recommendation concerning an HDD contingency plan, we believe that construction 

and operation of the proposed Project may affect the yellow-blotched map turtle, but the effect is not 

likely to be adverse. 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 3-70 

3.7.1.10 Alabama Red-Bellied Turtle 

The Alabama red-bellied turtle (Pseudemys alabamensis) is a federally listed endangered species 

that occurs in Jackson County, Mississippi, and Mobile County, Alabama. In Mississippi, it inhabits the 

lower Pascagoula River and its tributaries, Bluff Creek and the Escatawpa River. In Alabama, this 

species is most abundant in the upper backwaters of Mobile Bay. There are no records of this species 

within 3 miles of the proposed Project. 

Based on known occurrences of this species and agency consultations, we have determined that 

construction and operation of the proposed Project may affect the Alabama red-bellied turtle, but the 

effect is not likely to be adverse. 

3.7.1.11 Eastern Indigo Snake 

The eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon corais couperi) is a federally listed threatened species that 

could occur in Forrest, George, Greene, Jackson, Jones, and Perry counties, Mississippi, and is known to 

occur in Mobile County, Alabama near 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, because gopher tortoise burrows have been identified 

within and near the proposed Project, we recommend that:

• SESH should adhere to the following eastern indigo snake protection measures: 

a. If an eastern indigo snake is sighted during construction, the contractor will be 

required to cease all operation(s) that might cause harm to the snake. 

b. If the snake does not move away from the construction area, a state or federal snake 

expert will 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. 

c. 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 for 

transport and evaluation. 

Based on the lack of known occurrences of this species, SESH’s adherence to our recommended 

eastern indigo snake protection measures, and SESH’s commitment to contact the FWS if the species is 

encountered during construction, we have determined that construction and operation of the proposed 

Project may affect the eastern indigo snake, but the effect is not likely to be adverse. 

3.7.1.12 Black Pine Snake 

The black pine snake (Pituophis melanoleucus ssp. lodingi) is a candidate for the endangered 

species list. The black pine snake occurs in Jones, Forrest, Perry, and George counties, Mississippi, and 

Mobile County, Alabama. Typical habitat for this species consists of hills, ridges, sandy well-drained 

soils, and forests with an overstory of longleaf pine, a fire suppressed mid-story, and dense herbaceous 

ground cover. Individuals spend most of their time underground in the trunks or root channels of rotting 

pine stumps. Reproduction takes place in the spring, and the eggs are laid in burrows or under large rocks 

or logs. The black pine snake mainly eats small mammals such as cotton rats, mice, and young rabbits as 

well as some birds and bird eggs. Agency records indicate that this sub-species has been found as close 

as 2 miles to the proposed Project alignment. 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 3-71 

Because a significant portion of SESH’s proposed construction activities would occur in the 

winter and we have recommended that SESH develop a longleaf pine ecosystem construction plan that 

would further minimize impacts to this species, we believe that construction and operation of the 

proposed Project would not significantly affect the black pine snake. 

3.7.1.13 Bald Eagle 

The bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) is a recently federally delisted species that occurs 

statewide in Louisiana and Mississippi and is found primarily near seacoasts, rivers, and large lakes. Bald 

eagles are large and distinctive birds, with wingspans of close to 7 ft 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 available prey species. 

The bald eagle nests in tall trees or on cliffs near water between September and mid-May. 

Breeding bald eagles occupy “territories” that they will defend against intrusion by other eagles and that 

they likely return to each year. A territory may include one or more alternate nests that the eagles build 

and maintain; however, they may not use the nests for nesting in a given year. Potential nest trees within a 

nesting territory may provide important alternative bald eagle nest sites. 

The bald eagle has recently been removed from the ESA list of federally protected threatened or 

endangered species (delisted) in the lower 48 states, following a comment period it will be official on 

August 8, 2007. However, two other federal laws still protect the bald eagle, the Bald and Golden Eagle 

Protection Act (BGEPA) and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), The BGEPA and MBTA, known 

collectively as the “Eagle Act”, prohibit ”disturbance” of eagles, their nests or eggs. Currently, 

guidelines are provided by the FWS to avoid disturbing eagles and violating the Eagle Act, with 

recommendations including regional, seasonal distance restrictions and landscape buffer zones around 

eagles and their nests during the breeding season. 

No individual bald eagles or bald eagle nests have been identified within the proposed Project 

area. However, the FWS states that, should the proposed Project or associated work activities encroach 

within 660 ft of an eagle nest during nesting season (September through May), further consultation with 

the Service would be necessary. Therefore, to ensure that the bald eagle is sufficiently protected, we 

recommend that: 

• SESH should immediately notify the FERC staff and the FWS if bald eagles or their 

nests are observed within 660 feet of work activities prior to or during construction and 

should cease such construction activities until notified by FERC to proceed. 

Based on habitat requirements, known occurrences, consultation with the FWS, SESH’s 

commitment to train contract workers regarding bald eagles and their habitats, and SESH’s adherence to 

our recommendation regarding bald eagles, we have determined that construction and operation of the 

proposed Project may affect the bald eagle, but the effect is not likely to be adverse. 

3.7.1.14 Interior Least Tern 

The interior least tern (Sterna antillarum) is a federally listed endangered, migratory shorebird 

that occurs in Madison Parish, Louisiana; Warren and Claiborne counties, Mississippi; and Mobile 

County, Alabama. The interior least tern generally rests and loafs on sandy beaches and mudflats, 

preferring open habitats and avoiding thick vegetation and narrow beaches. The tern nests from April to 

early June in colonies. Nests range from 10 to 30 ft apart and occur on bare or sparsely vegetated sand, 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 3-72 

shell, and gravel beaches; sandbars; islands; and salt flats associated with shallow water areas in rivers 

and reservoirs. The size of nesting areas depends on water levels and the extent of associated sandbars 

and beaches. 

On the lower Mississippi River, the interior least tern population is concentrated within 

approximately 500 river miles between its confluence with the Ohio River at Cairo, Illinois, and 

Vicksburg, Mississippi. In Louisiana, the bird historically occurred along the Mississippi River north of 

Baton Rouge. To ensure that interior least terns are sufficiently protected, we recommend that: 

• SESH should immediately notify the FERC staff and the FWS if interior least terns are 

observed within 650 feet of proposed waterbody crossings prior to or during 

construction and should cease crossing activity until notified by FERC to proceed. 

Based on the characteristics of this species including its mobility, its habitat requirements, known 

occurrences, consultation with the FWS, SESH’s commitment to train contract workers regarding interior 

least terns, and SESH’s adherence to our recommendation regarding interior least terns, we have 

determined that construction and operation of the proposed Project may affect the interior least tern, but 

the effect is not likely to be adverse. 

3.7.1.15 Red Cockaded Woodpecker 

The RCW (Picoides borealis) is a federally listed endangered species that occurs in Copiah, 

Jones, Forrest, Perry, Greene, George, and Jackson counties, Mississippi, and in Mobile County, 

Alabama. It nests in older, mature pine or pine-hardwood forests (greater than 60 years old) and prefers 

longleaf pine species. It will also nest in shortleaf and loblolly species and mixed pine-hardwood upland 

forests, all with little to no hardwood midstory. The RCW excavates cavities exclusively in living pine 

trees. It prefers older pines and trees that suffer from a fungus called red heart disease, which attacks the 

center of the trunk, causing the inner wood to become soft for ease in creating cavities. The average 

cavity tree age ranges from 60 to 126 years for longleaf pine, 70 to 90 years for loblolly pine, and 75 to 

149 years for shortleaf pine. Clusters of cavities associated with an RCW breeding group may have 1 to 

20 or more cavity trees on 3 to 60 acres. The average area required for a breeding group is about 

10 acres. Foraging habitat is defined as pine and pine-hardwood stands (i.e., 50 percent or more of the 

dominant trees are pine trees) over 30 years old that are located contiguous to and within 0.5 mile of the 

cluster. 

In April 2007, pine plantations along the SESH corridor were identified using aerial photographs 

and verified visually in the field. The silviculture rotation common in most of the pine stands does not 

provide potential RCW habitat. One large stand of long-leaf pine in Mobile County, Alabama near MP 

244 to MP 246 potentially provides RCW habitat and was traversed on foot. No evidence of RCW 

nesting activity was observed. The loss of foraging habitat from the permanent corridor was determined 

to be minimal based on the size of the stand. Based on the results of this survey, and concurrence by the 

FWS through consultations, the SESH project may affect but is not likely to adversely affect the RCW. 

Based on the lack of known occurrences of this species, SESH’s adherence to our 

recommendation to develop a longleaf pine ecosystem construction plan that would further minimize 

impacts to this species, we believe that construction and operation of the proposed Project may affect the 

RCW, but the effect is not likely to be adverse.

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 3-73 

3.7.1.16 Louisiana Black Bear 

The Louisiana black bear (Ursus americanus luteolus) is a federally threatened listed species that 

occurs in Richland and Madison parishes, Louisiana, and Warren, Claiborne, Copiah, Lawrence, Jefferson 

Davis, Covington, Jones, Forrest, Perry, Greene, George, and Jackson counties, Mississippi. Although 

individuals are known to occur in Mississippi, whether any breeding populations occur outside of 

Louisiana is unknown. Black bear habitat is primarily associated with forested wetlands; however, bears 

may use a variety of habitat types including marsh, spoil banks, and upland forests. In upland forests, 

black bears use soft and hard forage for food, thick vegetation for escape cover, vegetated corridors for 

dispersal and movement, large trees for den sites, and isolated areas for refuge from human disturbance. 

The primary threats to this species are from the continued loss of bottomland hardwoods and 

fragmentation of the remaining forested tracts as well as human conflicts where they may be intentionally 

and illegally shot or killed in automobile collisions. The FWS also noted that bears may become 

habituated to human food sources, especially garbage, when activities encroach on their habitat. Such 

habituation can cause nuisance behavior by black bears, which can be very difficult to control and may 

require removal of the animal from the wild or the animal being euthanized, thereby affecting the 

recovery of this species. 

Louisiana black bears den from December through April, preferably in bald cypress and watertupelo trees with visible cavities that have a diameter at breast height of 36 inches or greater and are 

located along rivers, lakes, streams, bayous, sloughs, or other waterbodies. Where suitable den trees are 

unavailable, black bears will often den in shallow burrows or depressions within areas of dense cover. 

The FWS has extended legal protection to “actual” and “candidate” den trees. Actual den trees include 

any tree used by a denning bear during winter and early spring; candidate den trees are those with visible 

cavities, having the appropriate diameter and being located along a waterbody. 

One bear and bear tracks were identified along the proposed pipeline route; however, no den trees 

were observed near either sighting. 

The FWS indicates that it is concerned with construction- and operation-related impacts to 

potential habitat located within the vicinity of the Tensas NWR. To minimize potential impacts to this 

species, SESH has developed a Louisiana Black Bear Management Plan based on FWS 

recommendations. The management plan proposes conservation techniques to protect the potential 

migration corridor so that bears could utilize both northern and southern tracts within the Tensas NWR 

and prevent isolation of existing subpopulations. Conservation techniques proposed to avoid and 

minimize impacts to bears between MPs 0.4 – 0.9 and 5.6 – 7.0 include: monitoring of clearing activities 

that occur within bear habitat during denning season; surveying for signs of denning bears prior to 

mechanized clearing; communicating activities with FWS Lafayette Office; leaving stumps and roots in 

place (except over pipeline) to promote revegetation; returning the topography of the corridor to preconstruction contours; and restoring trees and shrubs on Wetland Reserve Program easement lands.

Based on the characteristics of this species including habitat requirements; the identification of 

potential habitat, known occurrences, SESH’s commitment to train contract workers regarding Louisiana 

black bears and their habitat, and SESH’s adherence to FWS recommendations regarding Louisiana black 

bears, we have determined that construction and operation of the proposed Project may affect the 

Louisiana black bear, but the effect is not likely to be adverse. 

3.7.2 State-Listed Species 

Louisiana and Mississippi have implemented state endangered species acts for listed animal 

species; plants are also listed but are not afforded regulatory protection. Louisiana and Mississippi 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 3-74 

statutes protect animals considered by the states to be threatened or endangered. Alabama has not 

implemented a state endangered species act; there is no regulatory protection afforded to state-listed 

species in Alabama, However, the ADCNR NHP maintains lists of nongame species it considers 

endangered, threatened, of special concern, or poorly known. State-listed species identified through 

consultation with the respective state agencies are provided in Table 3.7-1. 

3.7.2.1 Louisiana 

State-listed species in the Louisiana portion of the proposed Project area, as identified by the 

Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries (LDWF), are the pallid sturgeon, bald eagle, interior least 

tern, and Louisiana black bear. These species are also federally listed and discussed in Section 3.7.1. 

A single state-protected species that is not federally listed in the Louisiana portion of the 

proposed Project area, as identified by the LDWF, is the white heelsplitter (Lasmigona complanata). The 

white heelsplitter is listed as a critically imperiled freshwater mussel that has been identified in the Bayou 

Mothiglam. This species prefers narrow and shallow rivers, streams, or pools and are typically found 

buried deep within a substrate of sand, gravel, or mud. 

3.7.2.2 Mississippi 

Federally listed and candidate species that are also listed by the state include bayou darter, pearl 

darter, gulf sturgeon, Alabama red-bellied turtle, gopher tortoise, ringed map turtle, yellow-blotched map 

turtle, black pine snake, and Louisiana black bear. The species’ respective habitats were discussed in 

Section 3.7.1. 

Species listed by the state only include the delicate spike (Elliptio arctata), crystal darter 

(Crystallaria asprella), frecklebelly madtom (Noturus minitus), and rainbow snake (Farancia 

erytrogramma). 

The delicate spike is listed in Mississippi as an endangered freshwater mussel and inhabits 

moderate to large rivers with moderate to swift currents. They prefer riffle or shoal areas with stable 

sandy gravel or gravel bottoms. 

The crystal darter is listed in Mississippi as an endangered fish. According to the MDWFP, it is 

found in Bayou Pierre and the Pearl River, is a big river fish, and is likely found only in the main stems of 

these rivers. 

The frecklebelly madtom is listed in Mississippi as an endangered freshwater catfish with known 

occurrences in Lawrence County. The species is also found in the Pearl River system, both main stems 

and large tributaries. This species typically occurs in firm, stable gravel or rubble riffles with swift 

currents and is also often associated with in-stream cover such as logs, sticks, and leaf packs. 

The rainbow snake is listed in Mississippi as an endangered species and is known to occur in 

Forrest, Jackson, and Copiah counties. Its upper surface is shiny blue or blue-black with three narrow red 

stripes running the length of its body. The belly is red with two rows of black spots running length-wise, 

and its side is yellow. This snake is aquatic and is found in rivers, streams, springs, ponds, and lakes 

associated with soils that are sandy enough to allow it to burrow. It is seldom encountered and is 

presumed to burrow in sandy soils or mats of aquatic vegetation. 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 3-75 

3.7.2.3 Alabama 

The federally listed gopher tortoise, eastern indigo snake, black pine snake, and Alabama redbellied turtle are also on the state protected list in Alabama. These species’ respective habitats and 

anticipated impacts of the proposed Project were discussed in Section 3.7.1. 

State-protected species that are not federally listed in the Alabama portion of the proposed Project 

area, as identified by the ANHP, are the alligator snapping turtle (Macrochelys temminckii), Wilson’s 

plover (Charadrius wilsonia), reddish egret (Egretta rufescens), osprey (Pandion haliaetus), and the gullbilled tern (Sterna nilotica). Some state-protected species identified by ANHP were considered not 

relevant to the proposed Project alignment including the delta map turtle (Graptemys nigrinoda delticola), 

Mississippi diamondback terrapin (Malaclemys terrapin pileata), gulf marsh snake (Nerodia fasciata 

clarkii), and American oystercatcher (Haematopus palliates). Habitats for these species were either 

coastal or distant from the proposed Project. 

The alligator snapping turtle is a protected species in Alabama. It is usually found traveling 

slowly on the bottom of rivers and tributaries with slow flow rates, but can also be found in brackish 

waters with aquatic vegetation. Only during nesting will this turtle be seen out of water. Nesting occurs 

about 2 months after mating in the late spring. Potential habitat for the alligator snapping turtle exists in 

the proposed Project area. If individuals are present, they are highly mobile and will likely vacate the 

proposed Project area during construction. 

Wilson’s plover is an Alabama state-protected migratory bird that winters along the Gulf Coast 

from Florida to Texas. They can be found in Alabama during the winter months along shorelines, 

beaches with mud flats, and sandy flats of coastlines with sparse vegetation. Biological surveys 

determined that no suitable habitat for this species exists within the proposed Project area. 

The reddish egret is a state-protected species that inhabits shallow saltwater habitats such as 

lagoons and tidal flats. This species will nest in groups, often on sandy beaches in thorn brush. In Florida, 

the reddish egret has been known to build platform nests from 3 to 15 ft above ground. 

The osprey is an Alabama-protected species of migratory bird that travels from North America to 

South America. It inhabits areas along coasts, lakes, rivers, and reservoirs and can be found near rock 

walls and cliffs. This species typically nests in the spring, near water, and usually aboveground in trees, 

cliffs, and utility poles. Ospreys will return to the same nest site each year, adding new nest materials to 

the old nest. The offspring typically remain close to the nest through late fall when the annual migration 

begins. Populations of ospreys typically increase during the winter in the proposed Project area as 

individuals migrate south from northern nesting grounds. This species is likely to occur near some of the 

major waterbodies crossed by the proposed Project. 

The gull-billed tern is a state-protected migratory bird that will inhabit coastal areas along sandy 

beaches, tidal flats, and estuaries of the Atlantic and Gulf coasts. This species will nest in sandy dunes 

and saltwater marshes with sparse vegetation. They can be found in smaller quantities around lakes, 

rivers, and freshwater marshes. No suitable nesting habitat was identified within the proposed Project 

area for this species. Any foraging gull-billed tern would likely move out of the proposed Project area 

during construction. 

3.7.2.4 Potential Impacts and Mitigation

Species listed by the states only would be temporarily affected by the construction and operation 

of the proposed Project. Impacts would be similar to those described for terrestrial and aquatic wildlife. 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 3-76 

Appropriate waterbody crossing methods and rapid deployment of crossings would avoid and minimize 

potential impacts to aquatic species such as the delicate spike, white heelsplitter, crystal darter, 

frecklebelly madtom, rainbow snake, and alligator snapping turtle. Seasonal awareness of nesting and 

migratory birds would avoid potential impacts to Wilson’s plover, reddish egret, osprey, and gull-billed 

tern. To minimize these potential impacts, SESH would implement several measures including erosion 

and sedimentation control, as described in its plan and procedures to mitigate construction impacts. 

However, in order to ensure that state-listed species are adequately protected, we recommend that: 

y Prior to construction, SESH should consult further with the LDWF, MDWFP and the 

ADCNR regarding the need for additional surveys or mitigation to further minimize or 

avoid potential impacts to state-listed species. SESH should file the results of its 

consultation, and indicate whether it would adopt any mitigation measures 

recommended by the agencies, and, as applicable, explain why measures were not 

adopted. 

Based on our review of state-listed species; the characteristics of these species including habitat 

requirements; proposed construction and operation techniques and methods; SESH’s plan, procedures, 

and other mitigation efforts; agency consultation; and SESH’s adherence to our recommendation 

regarding further consultation; we believe that construction and operation of the proposed Project would 

not significantly affect state-listed species. 

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

RESOURCES 

3.8.1 Land Use 

As described in Section 2.1, the proposed SESH Project would consist of approximately 

269 miles of 36- and 42-inch-diameter interstate natural gas pipeline, approximately 1.7 miles of 6-, 16-, 

20-, 24-, and 42-inch-diameter laterals, three new compressor stations, two booster stations, and 

associated ancillary facilities. In this section, we further quantify the land requirements for construction 

and operation of the proposed Project, describe the current use of those lands, and evaluate the 

significance of the proposed Project-related impacts to those lands. 

3.8.1.1 Land Requirements and Existing Cover Types 

The land-use types crossed by the proposed pipeline route and located at the proposed 

aboveground facility sites are agricultural, forest, pine plantation, open land, residential, industrial/ 

commercial, and open water. Table 3.8.1-1 summarizes the current land uses that would be affected by 

construction and operation of the proposed Project. 

Construction of the proposed Project would affect 4,021.20 acres (see Table 3.8.1-1). 

Approximately 46 percent of the land that would be affected during construction is characterized as forest 

land, 23 percent is agricultural land, 20 percent is open land, and 8 percent is pine plantation. The 

remaining land uses each represent less than 3 percent of the proposed construction acreage. Following 

construction, all land temporarily used for extra work areas (construction access roads, ATWSs, and 

pipeyards/wareyards) would be allowed to revert to their original use and cover type. 

Operation of the proposed Project, the permanent pipeline right-of-way, and the aboveground 

facilities and permanent access roads would affect 1,697.10 acres. Approximately 50 percent of the land 

that would be affected during operation is currently classified as forest, 21 percent is agricultural, 

16 percent is open land, 10 percent is pine plantation, and 3 percent is industrial/commercial. The 

remaining land-use categories represent less than 1 percent of the acreage required during operation. 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 3-77 

Approximately 92 percent (3,458.43 acres) of the total acreage would be contained within the pipeline 

construction right-of-way and construction areas associated with the proposed aboveground facilities. 

Pipeline Facilities 

For the mainline pipeline in upland areas, SESH has proposed a construction right-of-way width 

of 125 ft for 42-inch-diameter pipeline (the first 104 miles of the Project) and 100 ft for the 36-inchdiameter pipeline (the remaining 165 miles of the Project; however, FERC is recommending SESH 

reduce its nominal right-of-way for the 42-inch-diameter pipeline to 100 ft. (see Section 2.2.1). In 

wetland areas, the construction right-of-way width would be 75 ft unless site-specific alternatives were 

approved. The construction right-of-way for the proposed pipeline laterals would be 75 ft. As detailed in 

Section 2.2, ATWSs would be required for construction at road, railroad, and utility crossings; steep slope 

areas; wetland and waterbody crossings; and other areas where specialized construction techniques would 

be required (see Table F-1 of Appendix F). 

Approximately 73 percent of the 3,354.70 acres of mainline pipeline and laterals construction 

right-of-way consists of agricultural and forest land. Pine plantations and open lands account for an 

additional 24 percent of this acreage. Following construction, SESH would maintain a 50-ft-wide 

permanent right-of-way centered over the pipeline. In wetland areas, the maintained portion of the 

permanent pipeline right-of-way would be reduced to 30 ft wide. Areas disturbed by construction of the 

pipeline, but not retained as permanent right-of-way, would be allowed to revert to preconstruction use. 

1,601.64 acres would be retained as permanent right-of-way for the operation of the proposed mainline 

pipeline and laterals. Approximately 72 percent of the permanent right-of-way would consist of 

agricultural and forest land. Pine plantations and open lands would account for an additional 25 percent of 

the permanent right-of-way. 

Aboveground Facilities 

The proposed Project would include construction and operation of 3 mainline compressor 

stations, 2 booster stations, 13 M&R stations, 18 mainline valves, and 3 pig launcher and/or receiver 

facilities. A pig launcher would be located within the fenced perimeter of the Delhi Compressor Station 

site. One pig launcher and receiver facility would be located approximately 11 miles northwest of the 

Gwinville Compressor Station site at MP 104.08 and the remaining pig receiver facility would be located 

near the end of the proposed Project, adjacent to the Gulfstream M&R Station at MP 269.08. Two of the 

mainline valves would be within the Delhi Compressor Station and the Collins Booster Station and would 

not result in additional land requirements beyond that noted for those facilities. The remaining 16 

mainline valve sites would be installed in 25-ft by 25-ft areas within the permanent right-of-way of the 

pipeline. Thus, construction and operation of mainline valves would not result in land requirements 

beyond that already noted for the permanent pipeline right-of-way. 

Table 3.8.1-1 details the land use that would be affected by construction and operation of the 

proposed aboveground facilities and the locations of the various aboveground facilities are depicted in 

maps provided in Appendix B of this EIS. Construction and operation of the proposed aboveground 

facilities would result in a conversion of those land uses to industrial/commercial for the life of the 

Project. 

Access Roads 

Where feasible, SESH would use existing public and private roadways including paved, graveled, 

and field roads, or the pipeline right-of-way itself to gain access during construction and operation of the 

proposed Project. SESH has indicated that construction of the proposed pipeline would require the 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 3-78 

temporary use of 236 existing roads (see Table F-2 of Appendix F). Improvements to private roads 

including tree trimming, grading, and placement of gravel would be performed as needed to ensure safe 

access of construction-related equipment. All temporary access roads used for construction would be 

restored in accordance with landowner agreements and permit requirements. 

No new access roads would be built for the construction or operation of the pipeline; however, 

nine permanent access roads would be required for operations of the proposed aboveground facilities. All 

new permanent access roads would be between 10 and 50 ft wide and the lengths of the roads would vary 

from 85 ft to 2,224 ft. Of the nine proposed permanent access roads, one is an existing road to the Texas 

Eastern meter station. Three of the new permanent access roads would be constructed on land currently 

classified as agricultural, affecting 1.82 acres. The roads would serve the Delhi Compressor Station and 

two meter stations, respectively. The new permanent access road to the Lucedale Compressor Station 

would affect 0.51 acre of land currently classified as pine plantation. The new permanent access road to 

the Collins Booster Station would require permanent impacts to 0.82 acre of land currently classified as 

forest (0.49 acre), industrial/commercial (0.27 acre), and residential (0.06 acre). The new permanent 

access road to the Petal Booster Station would require permanent impacts to 0.51 acre of land currently 

classified as forest and industrial/commercial. Two new permanent access roads would be constructed for 

the Rock Road lateral, affecting a total of 0.61 acre of forested lands. To minimize impacts, SESH would 

route all proposed new access roads through previously cleared or disturbed areas to the extent 

practicable. These proposed new permanent access roads are also depicted on the facility location maps 

provided in Appendix B of this EIS. 

Pipeyards/Wareyards 

SESH has proposed the temporary use of 10 pipeyards/wareyards during construction. Most of 

these pipeyards/wareyards would be located in land currently classified as open land or agricultural with 

other land-use categories comprising smaller amounts. The land requirements for these facilities would 

total 330.48 acres (see Table 3.8.1-1), and the general locations of these facilities are depicted in the 

facility location maps provided in Appendix B of this EIS. All pipeyards/wareyards would be leased 

from willing landowners and, upon completion of construction activities, would be returned to their 

preconstruction condition in accordance with landowner agreements. No permanent land-use impacts are 

anticipated from the use of the pipeyards/wareyards. If additional pipeyards/wareyards were required, 

SESH has indicated that it would use previously disturbed and/or industrial lands for those facilities to the 

extent practicable. 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
3-79 

TABLE 3.8.1-1 

Acreage Affected by the Proposed SESH Project 

Agricultural Forest Pine Plantation Open Land Residential Industrial/ Commercial Open W

Facility County, State 

Const Oper Const Oper Const Oper Const Oper Const Oper Const Oper Const 

Pipeline Pipeline Various 765.43 336.36 1664.17 802.63 302.79 150.24 501.90 243.05 16.23 8.33 84.89 50.02 3.34 M&R Station Header Lateral 

Richland, LA 

0.40 0.40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

SONAT Lateral 

Jefferson Davis, MS 

0 0 0 0.70 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Transco Williams Lateral 

Covington, MS 

0 0 0.29 0.20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.24 0.16 0 

Tennessee Gas Lateral Forrest, MS 0 0 0 0.48 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Rock Road Lateral Mobile, AL 0 0 13.48 6.61 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mobile Gas Services Lateral 

Mobile, AL 0 0 0.64 0.42 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Transco (South) Lateral 

Mobile, AL 0 0 0.60 0.40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Gulf South (South) Lateral 

Mobile, AL 0 0 0.30 0.20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Subtotal ---- 765.83 336.76 1679.48 811.64 302.79 150.24 501.90 243.05 16.23 8.33 85.13 50.18 3.34 ATWS ATWS Various 41.57 0 110.83 0 15.71 0 33.14 0 2.83 0 20.81 0 0 Aboveground Facilities CEGT CP Expansion M&R Station 

Richland, LA 

0 0 0 0 0 0 0.92 0.92 0 0 0 0 0 

Gulf South Mississippi Expansion M&R Station 

Richland, LA 

0.92 0.92 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Columbia Gulf M&R Station 

Richland, LA 

0.92 0.92 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
3-80 

TABLE 3.8.1-1 

Acreage Affected by the Proposed SESH Project 

Agricultural Forest Pine Plantation Open Land Residential Industrial/ Commercial Open W

Facility County, State 

Const Oper Const Oper Const Oper Const Oper Const Oper Const Oper Const 

CEGT 24-inch M&R Station 

Richland, LA 

0.92 0.92 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Delhi Compressor Stationa

Richland, LA 

5.53 5.53 2.82 2.82 0 0 0 0 5.93 5.93 0 0 0 

Texas Eastern M&R Station 

Claiborne, MS 

0 0 0 0 0 0 0.95 0.95 0 0 0 0 0 

Pig Receiver & Launcher 

Lawrence, MS 

0 0 0.92 0.35 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Gwinville Compressor Stationa

Jefferson Davis, MS 

0 0 18.90 18.90 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Collins Booster Station a

Covington, MS 

0 0 4.02 4.02 0 0 15.71 15.71 0 0 0 0 0 

Petal Booster Station a

Forrest, MS 13.61 7.49 3.13 1.84 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Future Interconnect Tap b George, MS --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- Lucedale Compressor Station a

George, MS 0 0 0 0 22.28 14.59 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Future Interconnect Tap b

Mobile, AL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 

Gulfstream M&R Station and Pig Receiver 

Mobile, AL 0 0 1.44 1.44 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Rock Road Meter Sited Mobile, AL 0 0 4.81 4.81 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mainline Valvesb Various --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- Subtotal --- 21.90 15.78 36.04 34.18 22.28 14.59 17.58 17.58 5.93 5.93 0 0 0 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
3-81 

TABLE 3.8.1-1 

Acreage Affected by the Proposed SESH Project 

Agricultural Forest Pine Plantation Open Land Residential Industrial/ Commercial Open W

Facility County, State 

Const Oper Const Oper Const Oper Const Oper Const Oper Const Oper Const 

Access Roads Access Roadsc Various 1.82 1.82 1.15 1.15 0.51 0.51 3.39 3.39 0.06 0.06 0.47 0.47 0 Pipeyards/Wareyards Tallulah Madison, LA 0 0 0 0 0 0 51.31 0 0 0 0 0 0 Letourneau Warren, MS 36.10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Wesson Copiah, MS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.35 0 0 Georgetown Copiah, MS 0 0 0 0 0 0 66.18 0 0 0 0 0 0 New Hebron Jefferson Davis, MS 0 0 0 0 0 0 9.68 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hwy 11 Forrest, MS 0 0 2.02 0 0 0 19.81 0 0.09 0 0 0 0 Hwy 98 Perry, MS 0 0 0 0 0 0 6.24 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lucedale 1 George, MS 35.01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lucedale 2 George, MS 0 0 0 0 0 0 60.84 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mobile Mobile, AL 15.42 0 2.10 0 0 0 21.98 0 0 0 0.35 0 0 Subtotal --- 86.53 0 4.12 0 0 0 236.04 0 0.09 0 3.70 0 0 

TOTAL 917.65 354.36 1,831.62 846.97 341.29 165.34 792.05 264.02 25.14 14.32 110.11 50.65 3.34 

a Acreage impacts calculated for these facilities include the impacts for collocated pigging facilities, interconnects/M&R stations, and mainline valves. Facilities that are collocate

discussed in the filed application. 

b Impacts are included in the pipeline construction and operation impacts. c Only land-use impacts due to the construction of new temporary or permanent access roads are detailed. d The Rock Road meter site includes acreage impacts for the Mobile Gas Services, Transco (South), and Gulf South (South) M&R Stations, PAR-RRL2, and the filter separator

ATWS = additional temporary workspace CEGT = CenterPoint Energy Gas Transmission Company Const = Construction CP = Carthage to Perryville Project M&R = meter/regulator Oper = Operation 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 3-82 

3.8.2 Easement Process 

During the pre-filing and scoping periods, we received several comments regarding the easement 

acquisition process for the proposed Project. Prior to initiating construction, SESH would secure an 

easement to convey both temporary (for construction) and permanent (for operation) right-of-way. The 

easement acquisition process is designed to provide compensation to the landowners for the right to use 

the property for pipeline construction and operation. 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-ofway after construction. During negotiations, SESH and affected landowners would address 

y allowable uses within the right-of-way, 

y mechanisms required to allow the pipeline to be traversed by heavy equipment such as log 

skidders, and 

y minor route adjustments to accommodate landowner needs (provided 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 is certificated by 

the FERC, SESH 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-ofway and ATWS areas. The company would still be required to compensate the landowner for the right-ofway and for any damages incurred during construction. However, 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. 

3.8.2.1 General Impacts and Mitigation 

The general impacts to land use from construction of the Project would be a function of the 

construction methods employed, the restoration measures implemented once construction has been 

completed, and the nature of the land use affected. Section 2.3 provides a detailed discussion of the 

proposed construction methods and post-construction restoration measures for the proposed Project. 

Following construction, areas outside the permanent pipeline right-of-way disturbed by 

construction would be returned as near as possible to the original grade, seeded, and stabilized with 

temporary or permanent erosion-control devices as required. These areas would be allowed to revert to 

preconstruction 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 areas currently classified as 

agricultural, commercial/industrial, or open land and located outside the permanent pipeline right-of-way 

would be short-term and minor. Forested/pine plantations cleared within the temporary construction rightof-way and ATWS areas would be allowed to revert to preconstruction conditions. However, this process 

would take years, with the duration of recovery dependent on the types and ages of trees removed. As a 

result, impacts to areas classified as forest and pine plantation located outside the permanent right-of-way 

would be long-term. However, given the prevalence of these land uses and cover types within the affected 

counties and parishes, such impacts would not be significant. 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. 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 3-83 

Permanent land-use changes would occur to those lands contained within the permanent pipeline 

right-of-way where reversion to the preconstruction cover type would not be compatible with operation of 

the proposed Project facilities. Land uses not allowed in the permanent pipeline right-of-way would 

include aboveground construction, belowground construction, and the growth, planting, or cultivation of 

trees. Forest and pine plantations would, therefore, be precluded from the permanent pipeline right-ofway. Allowable land uses generally permitted within the permanent right-of-way would include use of 

farming equipment, cultivation of row crops, and use as pastureland. Additional discussion of general 

impacts and mitigation measures that would be implemented to restore the permanent right-of-way is 

provided in Section 2.0. The construction of aboveground facilities and permanent access roads would 

result in the conversion of existing land uses to commercial/industrial land use for the life of the Project. 

Although these impacts would be permanent, the impacts would not be significant given the limited 

acreage involved. 

In general, we believe that the impacts to land-use types would not be significant. However, we 

also believe that in some, more sensitive areas containing undisturbed forested tracts and unique or 

sensitive vegetative communities, it may be possible to reduce the impacts. An examination of 

information filed by SESH indicates that in some areas it may be possible to reduce the construction 

right-of-way to reduce the amount of clearing. 

3.8.2.2 Site-Specific Impacts and Mitigation 

Agricultural, Forest, and Pine Plantation 

Construction could affect the productivity of agricultural and timberland within the areas 

disturbed by construction. SESH would work with landowners prior to construction to establish 

compensation agreements for crop damages and for loss of growing time. In accordance with SESH’s 

Plan, SESH would also implement special construction procedures in agricultural areas to minimize 

potential impacts and restore the right-of-way to approximately preconstruction conditions (see Sections 

2.3 and 3.2). Crop yields would also be monitored for two growing seasons following construction to 

ensure that yields in areas affected by construction are similar to yields in adjacent, undisturbed areas as 

described in Section 3.2. 

As discussed in Section 3.8.1.1, impacts to forest land and land used as pine plantation would 

range from long-term in areas outside the permanent right-of-way to permanent for areas within the 

permanent right-of-way. As such, timber production within the construction and permanent right-of-way 

would be temporarily reduced or permanently precluded. As described in Section 3.9, compensation for 

any losses or limitations on future timber production within the construction and permanent pipeline 

right-of-way would be addressed during easement negotiations. 

3.8.3 Existing Residences and Planned Developments 

The proposed pipeline would traverse primarily rural, unincorporated areas. During the planning 

stages for the proposed Project, SESH consulted with county and parish planning agencies 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. No such developments were identified. 

Six residences would be located within 50 ft of the proposed construction work area (see Table 3.8.3-1). 

One residential property (MP 0.26) is located at the proposed location of the Delhi Compressor Station. A 

mobile home at MP 35.38 is located near the Mississippi River. One abandoned mobile home near MP 

230.10 is located approximately 28 ft from a construction work area. Two houses and one travel trailer 

will be within the construction right-of-way near MP 261.9. 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 3-84 

TABLE 3.8.3-1 

Residences Within 50 Feet of the Construction Work Area for the Proposed SESH Project 

Facility County, 

State MP 

Number of 

Residences/

Structures 

Distance from 

Construction 

Work Area (ft) 

Distance 

from 

Pipeline 

Centerline 

(ft) 

Description 

Delhi Compressor 

Station 

Richland, 

LA 0.26 1 0 N/A Housea

Pipeline Madison, LA 35.38 1 41 63 Mobile Home 

Pipeline George, MS 230.1 1 28 93 Abandoned 

Mobile Home 

Pipeline Mobile, AL 261.9 1 9 74 House 

Pipeline Mobile, AL 261.9 1 0 81 Travel Trailer 

Pipeline Mobile, AL 261.9 1 0 71 House 

 

Notes: 

a House is located on property SESH intends to purchase for its proposed Delhi Compressor Station site. 

ft = foot/feet 

MP = milepost 

3.8.3.1 General Impacts and Mitigation 

The general impacts of construction and operation of the proposed Project on residences could 

include impacts from the noise and dust; 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. In addition, the landowner would be precluded from the 

construction of aboveground structures and septic system leach fields and the planting or cultivation of 

trees or orchards on the permanent right-of-way. 

To minimize disruptions to residential areas near construction work areas, SESH 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, SESH would 

implement the following measures on an as-needed basis: 

y maintain access to all residences except for brief periods essential to pipe-laying activities; 

y where necessary, install temporary safety fencing to control access and minimize the hazards 

associated with an open trench; 

y notify affected landowners in advance of any scheduled disruption of household utilities and 

limit the duration of any interruption to the smallest time possible; 

y attempt to leave mature trees and landscaping within the temporary right-of-way (especially 

near the outer edge) as safety and construction requirements allow; 

y repair any damages to residential property that result from construction activities or provide 

compensation at fair market value; and 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 3-85 

y restore all areas disturbed by construction work areas to as before or better conditions. 

As described in Section 2.5, EIs would be responsible for monitoring and ensuring compliance 

with all environmental mitigation measures required by the FERC 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, SESH 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-of-way (see Section 5.2). 

3.8.3.2 Site-Specific Mitigation 

SESH has entered into an agreement to purchase one residential property (MP 0.26) from the 

landowner that would be permanently converted from land classified as residential to the 

industrial/commercial land classification for construction and operation of the Delhi Compressor Station. 

The mobile home at MP 35.38 would be avoided during the crossing of the Mississippi River by HDD. 

Avoidance of a former SWDF located at MP 261.8 would place three residences at MP 261.9 within or less 

than 10 ft from the construction work area. The proximity to these three structures was required due the 

constraints of the former landfill on the west side of the right-of-way and several residential structures on 

the east side of the right-of-way. To reduce the impacts to these residences during construction, we 

recommend that:

• Prior to construction, SESH should file a site-specific plan for the residences at MP 

261.9. The plan should include: 

a. a description of construction techniques to be used (such as reduced pipeline 

separation, centerline adjustment, use of stove-pipe or drag-section techniques, 

working over existing pipelines, pipeline crossover, bore, etc.), and include a 

dimensioned site plan that shows: 

i. the location of the residence in relation to the new pipeline and, 

where appropriate, the existing pipelines; 

ii. the edge of the construction work area; 

iii. the edge of the new permanent right-of-way; and 

iv. other nearby residences, structures, roads, or waterbodies; 

b. a description of how SESH will ensure the trench is not excavated until the pipe 

is ready for installation and the trench is backfilled immediately after pipe 

installation; and 

c. evidence of landowner concurrence if the construction work area and fencing 

will be located within 10 feet of a residence. 

3.8.4 Transportation 

Construction of the proposed Project could have two effects on transportation. First, 

transportation could be affected if the volume of construction-related vehicles resulted in delays. Second, 

transportation could be affected if construction resulted in road closures or lane blockages. 

The Project area is a predominately low-density, rural area. As such, existing transportation 

infrastructure in the area consists mainly of rural roads and highways. SESH has consulted with the 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 3-86 

counties and parishes crossed by the Project and determined that roadways in the area have the capacity to 

support normal traffic volumes and construction-related traffic. In addition, SESH reports that the 

majority of construction-related traffic would occur in the early morning and late evening, outside the 

normal times of expected peak traffic. As such, congestion-related delays would not be anticipated in 

association with construction of the proposed Project. 

The proposed pipeline route would cross approximately 30 major state, U.S., and interstate 

highways including Interstates 55, 59, and 10. In addition, approximately 124 paved, secondary roads and 

36 dirt or gravel, lightly traveled, rural roads would also be crossed by the Project. As described in 

Section 2.3, all major highways and interstates would be crossed using subsurface boring techniques to 

avoid road and lane closures. Pipeline crossings of lightly traveled, paved and rural roads would typically 

be accomplished via open-cut installation, which could require temporary lane blockages, 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 roadway features would be accomplished in accordance with SESH’s Plan 

and Procedures 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. 

3.8.5 Recreation and Special Interest Areas, Impacts and Mitigation 

Recreation and special interest areas are defined to include lands administered or managed 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 describes the recreation and special interest areas that would be traversed by the proposed Project 

route. 

Nationwide Rivers Inventory (NRI) 

The NRI is managed by the National Park Service (NPS). 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.” Under a 1979 Presidential Directive and related CEQ procedures, all federal 

agencies must seek to avoid or mitigate actions that would adversely affect any NRI segments. 

Waterbodies identified on the NRI meet eligibility requirements with the potential to attract visitors for 

their recreational use. River-related opportunities may include activities such as sightseeing, wildlife 

viewing, hiking and camping, boating and fishing, or swimming. 

The proposed Project would cross seven waterbodies identified on the NRI: the Big Black River, 

Bayou Pierre, Pearl River, Okatoma River, Bowie Creek, Leaf River, and Chickasawhay River. SESH has 

proposed to cross all of these rivers with HDD technology; therefore, no impacts to the waterways are 

expected during construction or operation. 

In addition, SESH has not identified any Wild and Scenic rivers, as designated by the NPS, which 

would be crossed by the Project. 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 3-87 

National Wildlife Refuges (NWR) 

The pipeline construction right-of-way for the proposed Project would cross the Tensas River 

NWR fee title property between MP 0.4 to 0.9 and pass within 80 ft of the Tensas River NWR and the 

NWR conservation easement between MP 5.6 to 7.0. The refuge consists of nearly 70,000 acres of 

bottomland hardwoods and oxbow lakes. The public uses the wildlife refuges for the following primary 

wildlife-dependent recreational uses as defined by the FWS: hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, 

photography, environmental education, and interpretation. SESH rerouted the proposed pipeline right-ofway to avoid crossing the NWR; however, the Project would cross fee title land and conservation 

easements managed by the refuge. At this time, SESH has not filed a plan for crossing these properties 

managed by the FWS and the FWS has not indicated its concerns with the crossing. Therefore, we 

recommend that: 

y SESH should file with its Project Implementation Plan the status of the special-use 

permit for the fee title and conservation easement lands crossed. 

The Nature Conservancy Lands (TNC) 

The Project would cross 1.42 miles of land currently managed by the Mississippi Chapter of TNC 

between MP 209.1 and MP 210.5. The Chapter purchased approximately 3,000 acres that are adjacent to 

the Pascagoula WMA in 1999 and currently manages a portion of these lands as a wetland mitigation 

bank for the Mississippi Department of Transportation (MSDOT). Groups and the public use TNC lands 

for a variety of outdoor activities such as hiking, bicycling, wildlife viewing, outdoor photography, and 

educational activities. SESH is currently in consultation with TNC to minimize impacts to these lands. 

Therefore, we recommend that: 

y SESH should file with its Project Implementation Plan, the plan developed in 

consultation with The Nature Conservancy, to cross the property between MP 209.1 and 

MP 210.5.

Natchez Trace Parkway 

The proposed pipeline route would cross the Natchez Trace Parkway near parkway milepost 52.1. 

The Parkway is a National Scenic Byway and All-American Road that extends 444 miles between 

Natchez, Mississippi, and Nashville, Tennessee. The Parkway commemorates an ancient trail used by 

American Indian tribes to travel between the Mississippi River floodplain and central Tennessee. The 

NPS has requested that an environmental analysis be conducted for the crossing of the parkway. The sitespecific environmental analysis for the crossing of the Natchez Trace Parkway is presented in Appendix 

G. The NPS concludes that, based on the selected route and crossing location of the Parkway; the 

resources present; potential impacts, including cumulative impacts; and mitigation measures, construction 

and operation of the proposal would not have a significant effect on the Natchez Trace Parkway. 

Old Spanish Trail (Highway 90) 

The proposed Project would cross Highway 90 in Mobile County, Alabama. The history of the 

highway is preserved by the Old Spanish Trail Association. The highway represents one of the original 

cross-continental highways from Florida to California with many historical sites along the route. Modernday Interstate 10 has reduced traffic on, and significance of, the road. Alabama is the beginning of the 

trail and is the shortest and least preserved section of the highway. SESH proposes to cross the roadway 

using a road-bore technique thus avoiding any significant impacts to the road. 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 3-88 

Conservation Reserve (CRP), Conservation Reserve Enhancement (CREP), and Wetland Reserve 

Program (WRP) Lands 

The CRP, CREP, and WRP are voluntary programs administered by the Farm Services Agency 

(FSA) - CRP and CREP and Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) - WRP. The CRP and 

CREP allow owners of agricultural land to conserve those lands with financial assistance from the federal 

government through planting of grasses, trees, and other cover. Typically, these areas remove erodible 

soils or otherwise sensitive croplands from production for a period of 10 to 15 years. The WRP offers 

landowners the opportunity to protect, restore, and enhance wetlands located on their property. The 

program attempts to improve wetland function and wildlife habitat and to promote long-term conservation 

through technical and financial assistance. 

CRP, CREP, and WRP lands could be crossed by the proposed pipeline route. However, the exact 

location and extent of these areas would not be determined until easement negotiations with potentially 

affected landowners are conducted. SESH has consulted with the FSA to determine the requirements for 

crossing of CRP and CREP lands and consulted with the NRCS for the requirements of crossing WRP 

lands. Upon disturbance caused by construction of the proposed Project, landowners may no longer be 

eligible to participate in the programs or be able to receive the payments that they currently obtain from 

the FSA or NRCS. Therefore, we recommend that: 

y SESH should file with its Project Implementation Plan the plans developed in 

consultation with the FSA for crossing CRP and CREP lands. These plans should 

indicate any avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures identified by the FSA. 

y SESH should file with its Project Implementation Plan the status of the subordination 

agreements with the NRCS for WRP tracts crossed. 

Levee Crossings 

The proposed Project would cross a flood-control levee administered by the Corps of Engineers 

(COE), Vicksburg District, located west of and associated with the Mississippi River in Madison Parish, 

Louisiana. This levee provides flood control and augments Louisiana’s system of waterborne recreation 

and transportation. The COE has requested the levee be crossed aboveground so that the levee’s integrity 

would not be compromised. SESH has agreed to construct an aboveground pipeline crossing of the levee. 

Coastal Zone Management Areas 

The proposed Project would cross Coastal Zone Management Areas (CZMAs) in Jackson 

County, Mississippi, between MP 236.2 and MP 239.5, and in Mobile County, Alabama, between 

MP 267.1 and MP 268.9. In addition, the Transco (South) M&R Station, Gulf South (South) M&R 

Station, Gulfstream M&R Station, and pig receiver at MP 268.94 would be located within CZMAs. SESH 

is in consultation with the Mississippi Department of Marine Resources (MDMR), and the ADEM to 

determine the requirements of the coastal zone consistency determinations and to minimize impacts to 

these areas. We recommend that: 

y SESH should file documentation of concurrence from the MDMR and the ADEM that 

the proposed Project is consistent with the Mississippi and Alabama Coastal Zone 

Management Plans prior to construction in each state 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 3-89 

Sixteenth Section Lands 

Sixteenth Section Lands are lands whose titles are held by the state of Mississippi in trust to 

support public education. 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. 

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. The state requested that, if it were 

deemed that these properties could not be avoided, crossings occur near parcel boundaries to prevent 

land-use fragmentation on these lands. 

The proposed Project would cross 20 Sixteenth Section Lands (see Table 3.8.5-1). Three of these 

Sixteenth Section Lands would not be included in the permanent pipeline right-of-way. 6.25 miles of the 

permanent right-of-way would cross the remaining properties. Due to these tracts’ extensive size, 

avoidance of these lands would not be feasible. Deviation from the Project alignment through these 

parcels would result in the clearing of new corridors, resulting in increased wildlife habitat and vegetative 

community fragmentation. Thus far, no Mississippi School Boards have requested reroutes on their 

property. 

3.8.6 Hazardous Waste Sites 

SESH reviewed the LDEQ, MDEQ, and EPA websites to identify any known hazardous waste 

sites, including sites on the National Priority List, within 0.25 mile of the proposed Project right-of-way, 

but none was identified. One underground storage tank (UST) was identified in Louisiana near MP 17.8, 

and two USTs were identified in Mississippi, near MP 219.2 and MP 227.5. A former solid waste 

disposal facility (SWDF) was identified near MP 261.8. SESH has proposed to use an alternative route to 

avoid this inactive landfill. In the event that a hazardous waste site is discovered during the construction 

of the proposed Project, in accordance with the Contamination Contingency Plan and SPCC Plan as 

recommended in Section 3.2.3, SESH indicates that it would stop work, notify the appropriate state and 

federal agencies, and proceed in accordance with local, state, and federal regulations. 

3.8.7 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 an area may have for 

residents or visitors. The proposed Project could alter existing visual resources in three ways: construction 

activity and equipment may temporarily alter viewscapes, construction and right-of-way maintenance 

would alter existing vegetation patterns, and aboveground facilities would represent permanent alterations 

to the viewscape. The significance of these visual impacts would be primarily dependent upon the quality 

of the current viewshed, the degree of alteration of that view, the number of potential viewers, and the 

perspective of the viewer. 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 3-90 

TABLE 3.8.5-1 

Sixteenth Section Lands Crossed by the Proposed SESH Project 

Begin 

MP 

End 

MP State County/ 

Parish Township Range Section Owner/Grantor 

57.56 57.67 MS Claiborne 12N 5E 19 Claiborne County School 

Board of Education 

88.56 88.63 MS Copiah 10N 9E 16 Hazlehurst School District 

88.65 88.66 MS Copiah 10N 9E 16 

Board of Trustees of the 

Hazlehurst City School 

District 

88.86 89.18 MS Copiah 10N 9E 16 

Board of Trustees of the 

Hazlehurst City School 

District 

101.36 102.25 MS Lawrence 9N 21W 16 Lawrence County School 

District 

121.34 121.78 MS Jefferson 

Davis 8N 18W 16 

Board of Trustees of 

Jefferson Davis School 

District 

143.79 144.38 MS Covington 6N 15W 16 Covington County Board of 

Education 

163.86 163.91 MS Forrest 5N 12W 16 Petal Municipal Seperate 

School Board 

163.91 164.2 MS Forrest 5N 12W 16 Petal School District 

164.12 164.28 MS Forrest 5N 12W 16 George S. McLemore & 

Sharon F. McLemore 

164.28 164.66 MS Forrest 5N 12W 16 Petal Municipal Seperate 

School Board 

164.66 164.73 MS Forrest 5N 12W 16 Petal School District 

164.73 164.87 MS Forrest 5N 12W 16 Forrest County, Mississippi 

178.6 179.22 MS Perry 4N 10W 16 Richland School Board of 

Education 

187.75 188.79 MS Perry 3N 9W 16 Perry County Schools 

212.8 213.85 MS George 1S 7W 16 Tom Creek Hunting Club 

(Lessee) 

219.15 219.17 MS George 2S 7W 11 George County School 

District 

Notes: 

MP = milepost 

3.8.7.1 Current Viewshed 

Most of the proposed Project would extend through primarily rural areas that consist of pine 

plantation, forest lands, 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 because much of the land 

adjacent to the proposed route is forested. However, public viewpoints are present along some of the 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 3-91 

roadways in the proposed Project area. SESH would locate aboveground facilities near existing pipeline 

or industrial/commercial areas to the maximum extent possible. Other aboveground facilities would be 

located in remote areas and within forested regions. Areas of forest land would be left standing around the 

facilities, where possible, to create visual buffers to the facilities. 

3.8.7.2 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. This temporary alteration to the views would likely be perceived by some as 

detrimental while others may derive enjoyment from viewing construction activity. In either case, 

pipeline construction would represent a short-term, localized alteration to visual resources of the proposed 

Project area. 

After completion of construction, the temporary right-of-way would be restored to approximately 

preconstruction contours and allowed to revert to preconstruction uses and cover type. About 38 percent 

of the proposed pipeline route would traverse agricultural and open lands. 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, recovery in affected forested areas 

outside the permanent pipeline right-of-way could take many years, and forestland 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, SESH’s proposed route 

would be collocated with or parallel to existing utility right-of-way where possible, thereby minimizing 

impacts to previously undisturbed vegetation. The proposed pipeline route would parallel existing rightof-way for 58.51 miles. In these areas, 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 collocate with existing right-of-way, would generally be limited to a relatively small number of 

individuals and brief observations afforded in areas where the corridor intersects roadways. As a result, 

the visual impact of the permanent pipeline corridor would be minor. 

SESH has avoided crossing state and federally managed lands to the extent possible and has also 

avoided most scenic vistas. However, as described in Section 3.1.5, the proposed Project route would 

cross seven NRI-listed waterbodies, lands adjacent to and managed by the Tensas River NWR, and lands 

adjacent to and managed by TNC. All of the NRI-listed waterbodies are proposed to be crossed via HDD 

technology so long-term impacts would be minimized. Although impacts to visual quality would be longterm, due to the presence of the permanent pipeline right-of-way through the Tensas River NWRmanaged land and through lands managed by TNC, SESH would continue consultations with these landmanagement agencies and implement any plans to address additional mitigation measures they may 

recommend. 

Aboveground Facilities 

The proposed Project would include construction and operation of 3 compressor stations, 2 

booster stations, 13 M&R stations, 18 mainline valves, and 3 pig launcher/receiver facilities. Most of the 

aboveground facilities would either be constructed in areas where existing view sheds contain similar 

features or where views would be obstructed either 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 right-of-way or industrial facilities as a group, the aboveground facilities 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 3-92 

would represent a minor visual alteration that would persist for the life of the proposed Project. The 

potential site-specific visual impacts of each aboveground facility are described below. 

Compressor Stations and Booster Stations 

Each of the proposed compressor station sites would contain two main buildings: one insulated 

building housing a compressor unit and associated equipment and another building housing control and 

auxiliary equipment. Aboveground features outside the 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. 

The Delhi Compressor Station would be located at MP 0.22 in Richland Parish, Louisiana. The 

proposed site is 14.28 acres including 5.53 acres of agricultural land, 2.82 acres of forest land, and 

5.93 acres of residential land. SESH has entered into an agreement with the landowner to purchase the 

residential property that would be converted into industrial/commercial use. 

The Gwinville Compressor Station would be located at MP 115.70 in Jefferson Davis County, 

Mississippi. The proposed site would permanently affect 18.9 acres of forestland for operation of the 

facility. 

The Lucedale Compressor Station would be located at MP 212.34 in George County, Mississippi. 

The proposed site would permanently affect 14.59 acres of pine plantation for operation of the facility. 

The Collins Booster Station would be located at MP 138.22 in Covington County, Mississippi. 

The booster station would be collocated with the Transco M&R Station. The proposed site would 

permanently affect 19.73 acres of open land and forest for construction and operation of the facility. 

The Petal Booster Station would be located at MP 166.54 in Forrest County, Mississippi. The 

booster station would be collocated with the Tennessee Gas M&R Station and the Tennessee Gas lateral. 

The proposed site would permanently affect 16.74 acres of agricultural land and forest for construction 

and 9.33 acres for operation. 

Mainline Valve Sites 

Two of the 18 proposed mainline valves would be located within the Delhi Compressor Stations 

and Collins Booster Station and would not result in additional visual impacts beyond that noted for those 

facilities. The remaining mainline valve sites would consist of 25-ft by 25-ft areas surrounded by chainlink fence within the confines of the permanent pipeline right-of-way. 

Meter/Regulator Stations 

Thirteen M&R stations would be constructed at various locations along the pipeline right-of-way 

to meter the flow and adjust the pressure of natural gas received from or delivered to other systems. Eight 

of the M&R stations are collocated at compressor and booster stations. Three of the M&R stations are 

located at the terminus of the proposed Project in Coden, Alabama, near the Gulfstream Compressor 

Station. The remaining two M&R stations are stand-alone facilities located within the permanent pipeline 

easement. 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 3-93 

3.8.8 Conclusions Regarding Impacts to Land Use, Recreation and Special Interest Areas, and 

Visual Resources 

The proposed Project would affect multiple land-use types. Impacts to non-forested areas 

temporarily disturbed by construction would be temporary and short-term, for the most part. The impacts 

to forested areas temporarily disturbed by construction would be long-term, because of the slow growth 

rate of trees. The impacts from the permanent right-of-way may be short-term in non-forested areas and 

long-term or permanent in forested areas. Aboveground facilities would permanently affect the land use 

within their footprints. 

However, these impacts would not be significant, overall, given the large amount of forested 

lands near 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 Project, but based on SESH’s proposed mitigation measures and plans, ongoing 

consultations with managing authorities, and our recommendations, we believe that potential impacts 

would be minimized. 

3.9 SOCIOECONOMICS 

3.9.1 Region of Influence 

The proposed Project would consist of approximately 269 miles of 42-inch- and 36-inch-diameter 

natural gas pipeline and approximately 1.7 miles of pipeline laterals through 2 parishes in Louisiana, 

13 counties in Mississippi, and 1 county in Alabama (see Table 3.9.1-1). The proposed Project would 

involve the addition of three new compressor stations in Richland Parish, Louisiana, and Jefferson Davis 

and George counties, Mississippi. In addition to the compressor stations, there would be construction of 

two new field booster stations in Covington and Forrest counties, Mississippi. For the purposes of this 

socioeconomic analysis, all of these counties and parishes are defined as the region of influence for the 

proposed Project. 

Several potential socioeconomic effects would manifest themselves within the region of 

influence. Temporary effects during construction of the proposed Project would include alteration of 

population levels or local demographics, increased demand for housing and/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 long-term operation of the proposed Project 

would include employment opportunities, ongoing local expenditures by the operating company, an 

increased tax base, and an increase in the demand for provision of public services. 

3.9.2 Population 

Table 3.9.1-1 reports populations and selected demographic characteristics in the states, counties, 

and parishes that would be traversed by the proposed Project. Based on census data for the year 2000, the 

total population in these counties and parishes is 922,871. The proposed Project area as a whole has 

sustained a population increase between the years 1990 to 2000 with only Jefferson Davis County, 

Mississippi, experiencing a (minimal) decline over this 10-year period. Population growth in several 

counties (Madison Parish, Louisiana, and Simpson, Covington, and Greene counties, Mississippi) far 

exceeded the statewide average. (U.S. Census Bureau [USCB] 2005) 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 3-94 

Population densities in the region of influence range from a low of 18.7 persons per square mile 

in Greene County, Mississippi, to a high of 324.3 persons per square mile in Mobile County, Alabama. 

These densities are relatively low compared to urban area densities that typically range from 3,000 to 

6,000 persons per square mile and are consistent with an area that is predominately rural and agricultural 

(FERC 2006). 

The number of residents within the region of influence would increase temporarily during 

construction, which would occur for approximately 6 to 8 months (November 2007 to June 2008), as 

proposed (see Table 3.9.2-1). The peak construction workforce would be 2,450 workers, of which about 

60 percent (1,470) would be local (Duke Energy 2006). Assuming 0.8 family members would accompany 

each non-local worker (980) (FERC 2006), total construction-related immigration would be 

approximately 1,764 persons (see Table 3.9.2-1). SESH 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 the proposed Project route and throughout the 

region of influence, thereby minimizing the potential population level and demographic effects to any 

individual county or parish. 

TABLE 3.9.1-1 

Population and Demographics in the Region of Influence for the 

Proposed SESH Project 

State, County, 

Parish 

2005 

Populationa

Population 

Change 

since 1990 

(%) 

2002 

Population 

Densityb

White, non 

Hispanicc 

(%) 

Black or 

African 

Americanc

(%) 

Hispanicc

(%) 

Asianc

(%) 

Native 

Americanc

(%) 

LOUISIANA 4,523,628 5.9 102.6 61.8 33.0 2.8 1.4 0.6 

Richland Parish 20,526 1.7 37.6 60.7 37.7 1.3 0.2 0.1 

Madison Parish 12,457 10.2 22.0 35.7 61.8 2.4 0.3 0.1 

MISSISSIPPI 2,921,088 10.5 60.6 59.9 36.8 1.7 0.7 0.5 

Warren County 49,131 3.7 84.6 52.2 45.1 1.2 0.8 0.2 

Claiborne County 11,492 4.1 24.3 15.0 84.2 0.8 0.3 0.0 

Copiah County 29,164 4.2 37.0 47.9 50.5 1.3 0.2 0.1 

Simpson County 27,944 15.4 46.9 63.3 34.8 1.4 0.1 0.1 

Lawrence County 13,502 6.4 30.8 66.5 32.2 0.8 0.4 0.2 

Jefferson Davis 

County 13,158 -0.6 34.2 41.1 57.8 1.0 0.3 0.1 

Covington County 20,273 17.4 46.9 62.6 36.1 1.0 0.1 0.1 

Jones County 66,160 4.7 93.6 68.6 27.2 3.3 0.4 0.5 

Forrest County 75,095 6.3 155.6 62.0 34.7 1.4 0.9 0.3 

Perry County 12,160 11.7 18.8 75.4 23.0 1.1 0.2 0.4 

Greene County 13,183 30.1 18.7 72.6 26.2 0.8 0.1 0.3 

George County 21,259 14.8 40.0 87.3 9.2 2.4 0.2 0.4 

Jackson County 135,940 14.0 180.8 72.4 21.7 2.5 1.8 0.4 

ALABAMA 4,557,808 10.1 87.6 69.5 26.4 2.2 0.8 0.5 

Mobile County 401,427 5.6 324.3 61.2 34.4 1.3 1.6 0.7 

a USCB 2005 

b USCB 2002 

c Poverty Status of Families (USCB 2004) 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 3-95 

As depicted in Table 3.9.2-1, construction-related immigration would increase the population in 

the region of influence by about 0.2 percent. This would represent only a minor, temporary population 

increase confined to the proposed Project’s period of 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 are not anticipated to result from construction of the 

proposed Project. During operation, SESH estimates that the proposed Project would employ 

approximately 12 full-time workers. This would represent only a negligible long-term population and 

demographic alteration. 

The proportion of residents that belong to minority groups within the region of influence is higher 

than the proportions reported in the states of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama by approximately 2, 3 

and 11 percent, respectively (see Table 3.9.1-1). The mix of minority groups in the region of influence 

contains a greater percentage of persons describing themselves as black or African-American and a lower 

percentage of Hispanic, Asian, and Native American persons relative to the state-level statistics. As 

discussed in Section 3.9.3, per capita income in the region of influence is lower than the states as a whole, 

while the proportion of persons below the poverty level and unemployment rates are higher. 

The proposed Project would have negligible to minor effects on socioeconomic characteristics 

and economies of the region, and many of the project-related effects would be positive. As discussed 

throughout this EIS, environmental effects associated with the proposed Project would be minimized 

TABLE 3.9.2-1 

Estimated Maximum Population Change in the Region of Influence for the 

SESH Project 

County/ Parish Pipeline 

Workforce 

Compressor 

Stations 

Workforce 

Field 

Booster 

Station 

Workforce

Total 

Workforce

Non-Local 

Workforce

Family 

Members 

Population 

Change 

(Number) 

Population 

Percent 

Change 

LOUISIANA 

Richland Parish 100 250 350 140 112 252 1.23 

Madison Parish 100 100 40 32 72 0.58 

MISSISSIPPI 

Warren County 100 100 40 32 72 0.15 

Claiborne County 100 100 40 32 72 0.63 

Copiah County 100 100 40 32 72 0.25 

Simpson County 83 83 33 27 60 0.21 

Lawrence County 83 83 33 27 60 0.44 

Jefferson Davis 

County 83 250 333 133 107 240 1.82 

Covington County 83 100 183 73 59 132 0.65 

Jones County 83 83 33 27 60 0.09 

Forrest County 84 100 184 74 59 132 0.18 

Perry County 100 100 40 32 72 0.59 

Greene County 100 100 40 32 72 0.55 

George County 100 250 350 140 112 252 1.19 

Jackson County 100 100 40 32 72 0.05 

ALABAMA 

Mobile County 100 100 40 32 72 0.02 

Totals 1,500 750 200 2,450 980 784 1,764 

Source: Duke Energy 2006 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 3-96 

and/or mitigated, as applicable. Further, the proposed Project would be located in rural areas of low 

population density. There is, therefore, no evidence that the proposed Project would have a 

disproportionate share of adverse environmental or socioeconomic impacts on any racial, ethnic, or 

socioeconomic group. 

The primary health issue related to the proposed Project would be the risk associated with a 

pipeline failure. Section 3.12 discusses the risks and associated impacts to public safety that would result 

from a pipeline failure and describes how applicable safety regulations and standards would minimize the 

potential for these risks. The route of the proposed Project through rural, sparsely populated areas would 

minimize the number of persons who would be at risk of injury due to a pipeline failure, and there is no 

evidence that such risks would be disproportionately borne by any racial, ethnic, or socioeconomic 

groups. 

The public review and comment process that the FERC implemented in association with the 

environmental review of the proposed Project is discussed in Section 1.4. In addition to the public review 

and comment process implemented by the FERC, SESH has communicated directly with the property 

owners that would be affected by the proposed Project, irrespective of minority or income status, 

regarding the proposed route and the results of archaeological and environmental surveys of their 

property. Future landowner contacts may include open houses, communications via local newspapers, 

mailings to all property owners, and continued discussions with those parties whose interests would be 

affected by the proposed Project, again without regard to minority or income status. Therefore, all groups 

have been provided appropriate opportunities to participate in the EIS process. 

3.9.3 Economy and Employment 

The civilian labor force within the region of influence includes 416,000 individuals whose major 

employment sectors are manufacturing, healthcare, and social services. On average, the counties and 

parishes within the region of influence report that unemployment is slightly higher, except for Mobile 

County, Alabama, and per capita income is slightly lower than the state-level values reported for 

Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama. Mobile County, the only county affected in Alabama, has an 

unemployment rate that is almost one-half that of the region of influence (see Table 3.9.3-1). 

Construction of the proposed Project would result in the hiring of approximately 1,470 local 

workers. Additional jobs would also be created because of secondary activities associated with 

construction of the proposed Project, as purchases made by non-local workers on 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 12 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 15,600 rental units and units used for seasonal, recreational, or occasional use. 

Approximately 14,802 hotel or motel rooms supplement this potential housing stock. 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 3-97 

TABLE 3.9.3-1 

Current Income and Employment within the Region of Influence for the 

Proposed SESH Project 

County/Parish 

1999 Per 

Capita 

Income 

($)a

2003 

Population 

Below 

Poverty Level 

(%)a

Civilian 

Labor 

Forceb

Unemployment 

Rate (%)b Major Industry 

LOUISIANA 16,912 18.1 NA 7.1 NA 

Richland Parish 12,479 23.4 8,603 7.8 Health care and social services, 

manufacturing and retail trade 

Madison Parish 10,114 28.5 4,685 9.7 Health care and social services, retail 

trade, accommodation and food services 

MISSISSIPPI 15,853 18.3 NA 7.9 NA 

Warren County 17,527 

17.6 

23,448 7.6 Wood manufacturing, accommodation and 

food services, retail trade, and health and 

social services 

Claiborne County 11,244 25.5 3,821 12.3 Health care and social services and retail 

trade 

Copiah County 12,408 21.2 12,958 8.4 Food manufacturing, health care and 

social services 

Simpson County 13,344 19.7 12,352 6.5 Health care and social services, retail 

trade 

Lawrence County 14,469 17.5 5,259 8.6 Paper manufacturing, retail trade, health 

and social services 

Jefferson Davis County 11,974 22.9 5,370 10.1 Health care and social services, retail 

trade 

Covington County 14,506 19.3 9,007 7.0 Food manufacturing, retail trade, health 

care and social services 

Jones County 14,820 18.7 30,895 6.1 Manufacturing, retail trade and health care 

and social services 

Forrest County 15,160 20.4 36,640 6.5 Health care and social services, retail 

trade and manufacturing 

Perry County 12,837 18.3 5,359 8.6 Manufacturing, retail trade, health and 

social services 

Greene County 11,868 19.8 4,865 10.0 Retail/wholesale trade, health care and 

social services 

George County 14,337 

16.1 

8,621 9.3 Retail trade, health care and social 

services, accommodation and food 

services 

Jackson County 17,768 

15.0 

63,498 10.1 Manufacturing, professional, scientific and 

technical services, retail trade and health 

care and social services 

ALABAMA 18,189 15.2 NA 4.0 NA 

Mobile County 17,178 18.5 180,978 4.5 Health care and social services, and retail 

trade 

a Poverty Status in 1999 of Families (USCB 2000) 

b USCB 2005 

NA = Not applicable 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 3-98 

TABLE 3.9.4-1 

Temporary Housing Units Available within the Region of Influence for the 

Proposed SESH Project 

County/Parish Rental 

Unitsa

Rental 

Vacancy Rate 

(%)b

Units for Seasonal, 

Recreational, or Occasional 

Usea

Number of 

Hotel/Motel Rooms 

Total 

Units 

LOUISIANA 54,185 9.3 39,578 NA NA 

Richland Parish 159 7.1 246 160 406 

Madison Parish 104 5.8 167 92 259 

MISSISSIPPI 29,486 9.2 21,845 NA NA

Warren County 822 12.1 199 1,218 1,417 

Claiborne 

County 

68 8.5 149 4 153 

Copiah County 191 8.6 176 43 219 

Simpson County 161 7.8 202 90 292 

Lawrence 

County 

72 8.3 241 30 271 

Jefferson Davis 

County 

78 8.9 124 NA 124 

Covington 

County 

124 10.4 121 93 214 

Jones County 614 9.8 249 844 1,093 

Forrest County 1,205 10.0 175 1,887 2,062 

Perry County 109 13.8 142 NA 142 

Greene County 70 11.6 265 4 269 

George County 119 11.3 191 NA 191 

Jackson County 1,367 10.1 613 6,427 7,040 

ALABAMA 64,091 11.8 47,205 NA NA

Mobile County 5,316 10.2 1,757 3,910 5,667 

Total 10,579 9.3 5,017 14,802 19,819 

Source: USBC(http://www.census.gov/) 

a Denotes 2005 data 

b Denotes 2002 data 

NA= Not applicable 

At its peak, construction of the proposed Project would require 1,764 non-local workers, together 

with family members 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 8.0 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 and moderate increased demand for housing resulting from construction of the 

proposed Project. Housing demand for the 12 permanent positions generated by operation of the proposed 

Project would represent a permanent but minor increase in housing demand. 

3.9.5 Property Values 

During the pre-filing period for the proposed Project, we received several comments regarding 

the proposed Project’s impact on property values and related economic considerations. These concerns 

generally centered on four topics: devaluation of property if encumbered by a pipeline easement, the 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 3-99 

responsible party for property taxes within a pipeline easement, the potential for Project-effects on 

landowner insurance premiums, and economic effects resulting from lost timber production values. 

The impact that a natural gas project could 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 would 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 related pipeline easement for the proposed Project. 

However, if a landowner felt that the proposed Project, should it be constructed, would reduce the value 

of their property, he or she could appeal the assessment and subsequent property taxation to the local 

property taxation agency. If the parcel were re-appraised, the landowner would then be responsible for 

property taxes based upon an appraisal that directly incorporated the pipeline easement. 

Regarding the potential for insurance premium adjustments associated with pipeline proximity, 

insurance advisors consulted on other natural gas projects reviewed by the FERC have indicated that 

pipeline facilities would not have an impact on homeowner insurance rates (FERC 2004). As such, the 

FERC believes that homeowners’ insurance rates would be unlikely to change because of construction 

and operation of the proposed Project facilities. 

3.9.6 Government Revenue 

Table 3.9.6-1 reports the total government revenue of the counties and parishes that would be 

crossed by the proposed Project. A portion of the estimated $235-million proposed 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. Most of the materials for construction 

of the proposed Project would be purchased from a national vendor; however, common supplies, such as 

welding rods, would be purchased from vendors within the proposed Project counties. The majority of 

construction-related expenditures would be subject to Louisiana’s, Mississippi’s, or Alabama’s state sales 

taxes of 4, 7, and 4 percent, respectively. This increase in sales tax would represent a minor, short-term 

increase in government revenues. 

Table 3.9.6-1 contains SESH estimates of the annual taxes that would be payable to each county 

and parish traversed by the proposed Project. On average, operations-related taxes would represent a less 

than 1 percent change of the counties’ total revenues. Thus, operation of the proposed Project would 

provide a permanent but minor increase in government revenues. 

3.9.7 Public Services 

Table 3.9.7-1 summarizes the number of full-time equivalent educational, medical, police, and 

fire protection employees in the counties and parishes traversed by the proposed Project. These 

employees serve a population of approximately 923,000 people (Section 3.9.2). 

Construction of the proposed Project would temporarily increase demand for medical, police, and 

fire protection services. SESH has determined that sufficient public services exist to meet proposed 

Project-related needs. Further, SESH would work with local law enforcement and emergency response 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 3-100 

TABLE 3.9.6-1 

County/Parish Revenue and Estimated Annual Tax Payments for the 

Proposed SESH Project 

County/Parish Total Revenue 

(thousands)a Estimated Annual Tax 

Payments by SESHb Percent Change 

LOUISIANA $27,387,749 NA NA 

Richland Parish $87,389 $838,645 0.96 

Madison Parish $39,768 $1,911,222 4.81 

MISSISSIPPI $15,905,116 NA NA 

Warren County $127,301 $136,807 0.11 

Claiborne County $37,588 $222,032 0.59 

Copiah County $85,614 0 0.0 

Simpson County $44,027 0 0.0 

Lawrence County $27,983 $213,045 0.76 

Jefferson Davis County $28,704 $519,364 1.81 

Covington County $47,760 $464,515 0.97 

Jones County $209,448 $117,759 0.06 

Forrest County $410,179 $345,916 0.08 

Perry County $70,576 $402,080 0.57 

Greene County $18,897 $707,367 3.74 

George County $50,358 $746,354 1.48 

Jackson County $444,230 $262,549 0.06 

ALABAMA $24,112,550 NA NA 

Mobile County $1,032,297 $1,098,205 0.01 

Total $2,762,119 $9,031,678 0.03 

Source: a U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Census 2000 online database. 

(http://www.census.gov/) b Duke Energy 2006 

NA= Not Applicable 

agencies to coordinate effective emergency procedures 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 considerable strain on the region’s approximately 

21,200 education workers. However, due to the nature of the proposed construction and its relatively short 

duration (6 to 8 months), non-local workers are not expected to be accompanied by substantive numbers 

of children. Thus, any impact would be minor and temporary. 

Twelve operations workers 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 proposed Project-related increase in government revenues associated with 

operation. 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 3-101 

TABLE 3.9.7-1 

Existing Educational, Medical, Police, and Fire Full-time Equivalents within the 

Region of Influence for the Proposed SESH Project 

County/Parish Education Health &

Hospitals

Police 

Protection

Fire 

Protection 

Total Full-time 

Equivalent 

LOUISIANA 101,050 13,675 11,791 4,280 130,796 

Richland Parish 600 403 21 4 1,028 

Madison Parish 386 0 1 0 387 

MISSISSIPPI 69,336 17,885 7,094 3,164 99,747 

Warren County 1,112 1 165 150 1,428 

Claiborne County 287 63 34 15 399 

Copiah County 791 141 58 15 1005 

Simpson County 655 53 51 0 759 

Lawrence County 391 131 17 4 543 

Jefferson Davis County 355 177 21 5 558 

Covington County 500 136 22 3 661 

Jones County 2,156 1,057 145 69 3,427 

Forrest County 1,631 2,747 235 114 4,727 

Perry County 281 201 34 1 517 

Greene County 264 2 6 1 273 

George County 453 5 34 3 495 

Jackson County 3,293 9 323 159 3784 

ALABAMA 92,029 27,240 10,605 4,838 134,712 

Mobile County 8,065 399 1,096 522 10,082 

PROJECT AREA TOTAL 21,220 5,525 2,263 1,065 29,773 

Source: www.harvester.census.gov, 2006 

NA= Not Applicable 

3.9.8 Transportation 

Construction of the proposed Project could have two distinct effects on transportation. First, 

transportation could be affected if the volume of construction-related vehicles resulted in delays or other 

inconveniences. Second, transportation could be affected if construction resulted in road closures or lane 

blockages. 

Construction of the proposed Project would result in minor, short-term negative impacts on the 

transportation network in the Project area. Major highways, railroads, and some paved roads would be 

crossed by boring techniques under the road, thus avoiding impacts to traffic flow or damage to the rails 

or road surfaces. Unpaved roads generally would be crossed by the open-cut method, which takes 

approximately one day to complete. To minimize traffic delays, SESH would establish detours before 

open cutting these roads. If no reasonable detour is feasible, at least one traffic lane would be left open 

except for the brief period when road closure is required to lay the pipeline. During the brief period when 

a road may be completely cut, steel plates would be available on-site as needed to cover the open area and 

permit travel by emergency vehicles. The state or county highway/road departments would issue permits 

for roads to be open cut and bored. These permits typically include provisions to minimize traffic 

disruption that SESH would vigorously implement. 

The movement of construction equipment and materials to and from pipe yards/ware yards and 

the construction work area would result in modest, incremental, short-term impacts on the transportation 

network. Several construction-related trips would be made each day on each spread. This level of traffic 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 3-102 

would remain more or less consistent throughout the construction period and would typically occur 

during the early morning and evening hours. To ensure safe conditions, SESH would direct its 

construction contractors to enforce local weight restrictions and related limitations on its vehicles. When 

it is necessary for heavy equipment to cross roads, mats and other appropriate measures (e.g., sweeping) 

would be used to reduce and remove any deposited soil and mud. Once equipment and materials reach the 

construction work area, construction traffic would remain on the right-of-way except to cross roads. 

The daily commuting of workers to and from the construction work areas would also result in 

slight increases in traffic volumes. The potential for traffic congestion caused by construction workers 

commuting to and from work would be greatest if each worker used a personal vehicle and most travel 

took place during peak traffic hours. Pipeline construction work is typically scheduled to take advantage 

of daylight hours (typically starting at 7:00 a.m. and finishing at 6:00 p.m., 6 days a week); therefore, 

most workers would commute to and from the construction right-of-way during off-peak hours. 

Appropriate traffic control measures, such as flagmen and signs, would be used to ensure safety of local 

traffic. To minimize the volume of worker traffic, SESH and its contractors would encourage construction 

workers to leave their personal vehicles at pipe yards/ware yards or other mobilization areas and share 

rides to the construction right-of-way. As necessary to avoid congestion, contractors would provide buses 

to move workers from common parking areas to the construction work area. 

Because pipeline construction would move sequentially along the pipeline route, any local traffic 

flow impacts that do arise would be temporary (i.e., several days to one week) at any particular location. 

During construction of aboveground facilities, traffic flow impacts would be of somewhat longer duration 

but would be temporary. Given the remote, rural locations of the compressor and booster stations, no 

measurable impacts to roadway traffic are anticipated. Operation and maintenance of the proposed Project 

facilities would result in negligible impacts on transportation since the number of workers would be very 

small. 

Prior to construction, SESH would consult with relevant agencies in each county and parish 

crossed by the proposed Project to obtain any necessary road crossing and related permits. These permits 

typically include provisions to minimize traffic disruption that SESH would vigorously implement. SESH 

would also consult with the counties and parishes where major aboveground facilities are to be located to 

initiate permitting activities and identify any traffic concerns that might require implementation of special 

traffic control measures. 

Road detours and traffic congestion associated with the movement of large construction vehicles 

and the crossings of roads by the pipeline could increase the workload of local police. Although the 

number of on-the-job accidents is expected to be small, such occurrences would intermittently increase 

the demand for police, fire, and medical services. SESH would require its contractors to have a safety 

program in place to minimize the potential for on-the-job accidents. In any regard, the anticipated demand 

for police, fire, and medical services would not be expected to exceed the existing capability of the 

infrastructure in the proposed Project area (see Table 3.9.7-1). 

3.9.9 Impact on Specific Economic Sectors 

The potential for the proposed Project to result in significant effects to agriculture and forestry 

economic sectors is considered in this section. These sectors are defined to include activities associated 

with harvested crops, timber production, livestock pasturing, and/or dairy production. This analysis 

focuses on the effects of potential land-use changes (e.g., the incorporation of commercial forestry lands 

into the construction or permanent rights-of-way) on regional economic sectors. Additional discussion of 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 3-103 

the potential for project-related effects to the agricultural and commercial forestry lands that would be 

crossed by the proposed pipeline route is provided in Section 3.8 of this document. 

The vast majority of the land in all three states affected by the proposed Project is either forested 

or agricultural (approximately 77 percent in Louisiana, 85 percent in Mississippi, and 79 percent in 

Alabama (USDA 1997 and NRCS 1997). In Louisiana, 47 percent of the land is in forest, 9 percent in 

pasture, and 21 percent in cropland. In Mississippi, 55 percent of the land is in forest, 18 percent in 

pasture, and 12 percent in cropland. In Alabama, 58 percent of the land is in forest, 8 percent in pasture, 

and 13 percent in cropland. 

As described in Section 3.8, construction and operation of the proposed Project would 

permanently affect 358.36 acres of agricultural land and 165.34 acres of lands currently used for 

commercial forestry practices, as these areas would be contained within the permanent pipeline right-ofway. Agricultural operations within the vast majority of permanent pipeline right-of-way would not be 

precluded during operations. No significant effect to that economic sector would be anticipated in 

association with construction and operation of the proposed Project as affected agricultural lands would 

largely return to their preconstruction condition and use. 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. SESH, as a 

non-federal party, is assisting the FERC in meeting its obligations under Section 106 of the NHPA by 

conducting the field surveys and evaluations required by ACHP regulations in 36 CFR Part 800. 

3.10.1 Results of Cultural Resources Survey 

SESH conducted a cultural resource survey between June 2006 and March 2007 for the proposed 

pipeline, laterals, associated aboveground facilities, access roads, and pipeyards and wareyards of the 

proposed Project route through Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama. SESH conducted surveys for 

historic structures where construction of aboveground facilities or vegetation clearing could affect the 

viewshed of any structure eligible for the NRHP. The survey area for historic structures was 0.5 mile 

from the proposed pipeline corridor and aboveground facilities. 

3.10.1.1 Louisiana 

The initial, approximately 36 miles of the total 269-mile proposed Project route would be within 

Louisiana. SESH conducted a cultural resource survey in Louisiana for the pipeline corridor, 16 miles of 

access roads, 18 acres of aboveground facilities, and 51 acres of pipeyards and wareyards. Five miles of 

access roads have not yet been surveyed. Survey of these roads and subsequent consultation with the 

Louisiana State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) regarding potential impacts to important cultural 

resources would be completed prior to any construction or improvement activities occurring on these 

roads. 

During the survey conducted within Louisiana, SESH identified 14 archaeological sites and 1 

isolated prehistoric artifact. One previously recorded site, a Mississippi Period mound complex, is 

considered eligible for listing on the NRHP. SESH would reroute the pipeline to avoid this site. Another 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 3-104 

previously recorded site is considered potentially eligible. SESH would avoid this site by extending an 

HDD at Despair Lake, which is adjacent to the site, to continue under and past the site. Three newly 

recorded sites were considered potentially eligible for the NRHP. These three sites have undergone 

archaeological test excavations to determine their NRHP eligibility status. The eligibility of two of the 

sites could not be determined based on the deposits present in the Project right-of-way. SESH would 

avoid these two sites by fencing off portions of the right-of-way as construction “exclusion zones.” Based 

on testing data, the third site is eligible for the NRHP. SESH would consult with FERC and the Louisiana 

SHPO to develop measures to mitigate the impacts to this site. The remaining nine sites and the isolated 

artifact are considered not eligible for listing in the NRHP, and no further work is recommended. 

SESH did not identify any historic structures meeting the criteria for NRHP eligibility within the 

area of potential effect (APE) for the proposed Project in Louisiana, which includes the viewshed from 

access roads and aboveground facilities. No cemeteries were identified in the proposed Project APE in 

Louisiana. 

SESH submitted the initial cultural resources survey report to the Louisiana Department of 

Culture, Recreation, and Tourism’s Division of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, which functions 

as the SHPO in Louisiana, on December 15, 2006, and requested concurrence with these findings. The 

Louisiana SHPO responded on March 7, 2007 with concurrence on the survey report findings. SESH also 

submitted an Addendum Phase I Survey letter report for the supplemental Project facilities in Louisiana to 

the Louisiana SHPO in March 2007. SESH submitted the results of Phase II testing to the Louisiana 

SHPO in March 2007 for review and concurrence. SESH would consult with the Louisiana SHPO 

regarding proposed avoidance or mitigation measures. 

3.10.1.2 Mississippi 

Approximately 204 miles of the total 269-mile proposed Project route is within Mississippi. 

SESH conducted a cultural resource survey in Mississippi for the pipeline corridor, 0.25 miles of lateral, 

28 miles of access roads, 79 acres of aboveground facilities, and 239 acres of pipeyards and wareyards. 

Thirty-nine miles of access roads have not yet been surveyed. Survey of these roads and subsequent 

consultation with the Mississippi SHPO regarding potential impacts to important cultural resources would 

be completed prior to any construction or improvement activities occurring on these roads. 

The survey conducted within Mississippi identified 52 archaeological sites and 28 isolated 

prehistoric artifacts. Three archaeological sites were considered potentially eligible for listing in the 

NRHP. SESH would avoid one site by a reroute. SESH conducted Phase II archaeological testing 

excavations on the second site. This site is determined eligible for the NRHP; however, the portion within 

the Project right-of-way does not contribute to the site’s significance. There would be no adverse impact 

to the site if all construction activities were restricted to the right-of-way. SESH is evaluating avoidance 

options for the third site. The remaining 49 sites and 28 isolated artifacts are considered not eligible for 

listing in the NRHP, and no further work is recommended. 

SESH identified one historic structure that is potentially eligible for NRHP-listing. The Richton 

Lookout Tower is located 600 ft north of the proposed pipeline corridor. However, another pipeline and a 

transmission line are found in the area of the tower and the addition of the SESH pipeline right-of-way 

would not significantly affect the viewshed of the tower. No cemeteries were identified in the proposed 

Project APE in Mississippi. 

SESH submitted the initial cultural resources survey report to the Mississippi Department of 

Archives and History, which functions as the SHPO in Mississippi, on December 15, 2006, and requested 

concurrence with these findings. The Mississippi SHPO responded on January 22, 2007, with 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 3-105 

concurrence on the survey report findings. SESH submitted an Addendum Phase I Survey letter report for 

the supplemental Project facilities in Mississippi to the Mississippi SHPO in March 2007. SESH 

submitted the results of Phase II testing to the Mississippi SHPO on February 21, 2007, for review and 

concurrence. SESH would consult with the Mississippi SHPO regarding proposed avoidance or 

mitigation measures. 

3.10.1.3 Alabama 

Approximately 29 miles of the total 269-mile proposed Project route is within Alabama. SESH 

conducted a cultural resource survey in Alabama for the pipeline corridor, 1.32 miles of lateral, 0.5 mile 

of access road, and 40 acres of pipeyards and wareyards. Six miles of access roads have not yet been 

surveyed. Survey of these roads and subsequent consultation with the Alabama SHPO regarding potential 

impacts to important cultural resources would be completed prior to any construction or improvement 

activities occurring on these roads. 

The survey conducted within Alabama identified one archaeological site. This site is considered 

not eligible for listing on the NRHP, and no further work is recommended. 

SESH did not identify any historic structures meeting the criteria for NRHP eligibility within the 

APE for the proposed Project in Alabama, which includes the viewshed from access roads and 

aboveground facilities. No cemeteries were identified in the proposed Project APE in Alabama. 

SESH submitted the cultural resources survey report to the Alabama Historical Commission, 

which functions as the SHPO in Alabama, on December 15, 2006, and requested concurrence with these 

findings. The Alabama SHPO responded on January 11, 2007, with concurrence on the survey report 

findings. SESH submitted an Addendum Phase I Survey letter report for the supplemental Project 

facilities in Alabama to the Alabama SHPO in March 2007. SESH would consult with the Alabama 

SHPO regarding proposed avoidance or mitigation measures. 

3.10.2 Unanticipated Discoveries Plan 

SESH submitted Unanticipated Discoveries Plans to the Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama 

SHPOs on December 15, 2006. The Plans outline 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 

SESH contacted 12 Native American groups resident in, or with traditional ties to, the areas that 

would be affected by the proposed Project. Those groups contacted include the Alabama-Coushatta Tribe 

of Texas, the Caddo Nation, the Chitimacha Tribe of Louisiana, the Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana, the 

Jena Band of Choctaw Indians, the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, the Muscogee Creek Nation of 

Oklahoma, the Poarch Band of Creek Indians, the Quapaw Tribe of Oklahoma, the Seminole Nation of 

Oklahoma, the Seminole Tribe of Florida, and the Tunica-Biloxi Indian Tribe of Louisiana. Letters were 

sent to representatives of each of these tribes on June 1, 2006 requesting comments on the proposed 

Project and the identification of any cultural or religious sites significant to the tribe. On June 5, 2006, the 

Jena Band of Choctaw Indians responded that they have no concerns with the proposed Project. On June 

6, 2005, the Chitimacha Tribe of Louisiana responded that they have no concerns. On September 8, 2006, 

the Seminole Nation of Oklahoma responded that they have no concerns. 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 3-106 

Follow-up telephone calls were made to the remaining tribes in late July 2006 inquiring about the 

status of the initial consultation letter. 

3.10.4 General Impacts and Mitigation 

SESH has not completed cultural resources surveys on 49.67 miles of access roads. The 

completion of road surveys and evaluations, as well as receipt of comments from the Louisiana, 

Mississippi, and Alabama SHPOs on the Addendum Phase I survey reports, would be required to comply 

with Section 106 of the NHPA. For any NRHP-eligible resources that could not be avoided and would be 

affected by the proposed project, consultation between SESH, FERC, and the relevant SHPO would be 

required to develop appropriate mitigation measures. 

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: 

y SESH 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 in areas not 

previously evaluated of where access was denied until: 

a. SESH files with the Secretary cultural resources survey and evaluation reports; 

any necessary treatment plans; and the Louisiana, 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 SESH in writing that treatment plans/measures 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.”

3.11 AIR QUALITY AND NOISE 

3.11.1 AIR QUALITY 

Air quality would be affected by construction and operation of the proposed Project. Although air 

emissions would be generated by operation of equipment during construction of the pipeline and 

aboveground facilities proposed by SESH, most air emissions associated with the proposed Project would 

result from the long-term operation of the proposed compressor stations. 

SESH proposes to construct about 165 miles of 36-inch pipeline, 104 miles of 42-inch pipeline 

and 1.7 miles of various laterals (6-, 16-, 20-, 24- and 42-inch-diameter) that collectively span from 

Richland Parish, Louisiana, to the Gulfstream M&R Station in Mobile County, Alabama. In addition, 

SESH would construct the Delhi Compressor Station in Richland Parish, Louisiana; the Gwinville 

Compressor Station near Gwinville, Mississippi; the Collins Booster Station in Covington County, 

Mississippi; the Petal Booster Station in Forrest County, Mississippi; and the Lucedale Compressor 

Station near Lucedale, Mississippi. 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 3-107 

At the Delhi Compressor Station, SESH proposes to install 2 new Solar Mars 100 gas-turbine 

compressor packages, each rated at 15,000 hp; an 880-hp standby generator; fuel gas heaters; 12 storage 

tanks; new buildings; and all necessary support infrastructure for these new compressor packages. 

At the Gwinville Compressor Station, SESH proposes to install a new Solar Mars 100 gas-turbine 

compressor package rated at 15,000 hp, an 880-hp standby generator, fuel gas heaters, comfort heaters, 

nine storage tanks, new buildings, and all necessary support infrastructure for this new compressor. 

At the Collins Booster Station, SESH proposes to install 2 new Caterpillar G3612 engines, each 

rated at 3,550 hp; 2 Ariel JGD/6 compressors; an 880-hp standby generator; fuel gas heaters; and 11 

storage tanks. 

At the Petal Booster Station, SESH proposes to install a new Caterpillar G3612 engine rated at 

3,550 hp, an Ariel JGD/6 compressor, an 880-hp standby generator, fuel gas heaters, comfort heaters, and 

11 storage tanks. 

At the Lucedale Compressor station, SESH proposes to install 2 new Solar Mars 100 gas-turbine 

compressor packages, each rated at 15,000 hp; an 880-hp standby generator; fuel gas heaters; comfort 

heaters; nine storage tanks; new buildings; and all necessary support infrastructure for these new 

compressor packages. 

3.11.1.1 Existing Air Quality 

SESH would construct the proposed Project in portions of Richland Parish in Louisiana; Madison 

Parish in Louisiana; Warren, Claiborne, Copiah, Simpson, Lawrence, Jefferson Davis, Covington, Jones, 

Forrest, Perry, Greene, George, and Jackson counties in Mississippi; and a portion of Mobile County in 

Alabama. These counties and parishes are characterized by a temperate climate. On the far eastern end of 

the proposed pipeline, in Mobile County, Alabama, the average maximum temperature ranges from about 

61 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) in January to about 90°F in July; the average minimum temperature ranges 

from about 43°F in January to 73°F in August. Average annual precipitation is about 62 inches, which 

varies from a monthly low of 3.4 inches in October to a monthly high of 8.1 inches in July. Snowfall in 

this region is very rare. On the far western end of the proposed pipeline, in Richland Parish, Louisiana, 

the average maximum temperature ranges from about 55°F in January to about 93°F in July; the average 

minimum temperature ranges from about 35°F in January to 72°F in July. Average annual precipitation is 

about 57 inches, which varies from a monthly low of 3.2 inches in August to a monthly high of 6.4 inches 

in March. Snowfall in this region is very rare (www.city-data.com). 

The CAA designates seven pollutants as criteria pollutants for which the National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS) are promulgated. The NAAQS for sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, 

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, ozone, and lead were established 

to protect human health (primary standards) and human welfare (secondary standards). State air quality 

standards cannot be less stringent than the NAAQS. Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi have adopted 

the NAAQS, as defined in 40 CFR Part 50 and shown in Table 3.11.1-1. 

Air Quality Control Regions and Attainment Status 

Air quality control regions (AQCRs) 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 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 3-108 

TABLE 3.11.1-1 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

Pollutant Time Frame Primary Secondary 

Annuala 50 μg/m3 50 μg/m3

Particulate matter less than 

10 microns in diameter 24-hourb

 N/A N/A 

Annualc 15 μg/m3 15 μg/m3

Particulate matter less than 

2.5 microns in diameter 24-hourd

 35 μg/m3 N/A 

Annual 0.030 ppm (80 μg/m3) N/A 

24-hourb 0.014 ppm (365 μg/m3 Sulfur dioxide ) N/A 

3-hourb

 N/A 0.5 ppm (1,300 μg/m3) 

8-hourb 9 ppm (10,000 μg/m3) None Carbon monoxide 

1-hourb

 35 ppm (40,000 μg/m3) None 

Nitrogen dioxide Annual 0.053 ppm (100 μg/m3) 0.053 ppm 

Ozone 8-houre 0.08 ppm (157 μg/m3) 0.08 ppm 

Lead Quarterly 1.5 μg/m3 1.5 μg/m3

Notes: 

a To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the weighted annual mean particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter 

concentration at each monitor within an area must not exceed 50 μg/m3. 

b Revoked on December 17, 2006 

c 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. 

d 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. 

e 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. 

mg = microgram(s) 

m3 = cubic meter(s) 

N/A = not applicable 

ppm = parts per million 

means to implement the CAA and comply with the NAAQS through state implementation plans. The 

AQCRs are intrastate 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. There are four general 

designations for an AQCR: attainment, non-attainment, maintenance, and unclassifiable. An area 

thatsatisfies the NAAQS is designated as attainment, and an area that does not satisfy the NAAQS may be 

designated as non-attainment. An area that was once nonattainment but now satisfies the NAAQS may be 

designated as a maintenance area, and an area for which air monitor data is not available may be 

designated as unclassifiable. The counties and parishes in which the proposed Project would be located 

are designated as attainment or unclassifiable for all criteria pollutants. 

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 that govern air pollution. The provisions of the CAA that are potentially 

relevant to the proposed Project include 

y New Source Review (NSR) 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 3-109 

y New Source Performance Standards (NSPS), 

y National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP), 

y Title V permits, and 

y General Conformity. 

NSR/PSD

NSR refers to the preconstruction permit 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 ensure that new air emission sources do not cause existing air quality to deteriorate 

beyond acceptable levels codified in the federal regulations. For sources located in non-attainment areas, 

the Non-attainment New Source Review (NNSR) program is implemented for the pollutants for which the 

area is classified as non-attainment. The compressor and booster stations for the proposed Project would 

not be located in non-attainment areas. Consequently, an NNSR is not applicable to the proposed Project. 

PSD review regulations apply to proposed new major sources or major modifications to existing 

major sources located in an attainment area. PSD regulations (40 CFR § 52.21) define a “major source” as 

any source type that belongs 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 on the list of named source categories to 

which the 100-tpy trigger applies. The proposed Project compressor and booster stations are, therefore, 

subject to the 250-tpy threshold. 

A PSD review evaluates existing ambient air quality and the potential impacts of the proposed 

source on ambient air quality and reviews the best available control technology (BACT) necessary 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. 

Estimated annual emissions for each proposed compressor and booster station are shown in 

Tables 3.11.1-2 through 3.11.1-6. To mitigate criteria pollutant emissions, the Solar turbine compressors 

at the Delhi, Gwinville, and Lucedale sites would be equipped with the latest dry-low-NOx combustion 

equipment, and exhaust from the Caterpillar compressor engines at the Collins Booster Station would be 

routed through oxidation catalysts to reduce CO and HAP emissions. None of the proposed compressor or 

booster stations would exceed emissions of 250 tpy of any criteria pollutant; therefore, PSD permits are 

not applicable to the proposed Project. 

AQCRs 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 air 

quality 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. Class II areas allow moderate controlled growth. The proposed Project 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 3-110 

would be located in a Class II area. The nearest Class I area is the Breton National Wildlife Refuge 

located in the Gulf of Mexico, 64.3 miles south of the proposed Lucedale Compressor Station site. There 

are no Class I areas located within 62 miles of any of the proposed compressor or booster station 

locations. 

New Source Performance Standards

NSPS, codified in 40 CFR Part 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. 

y Subpart Kb of 40 CFR Part 60, “Standards of Performance for Volatile Organic Liquid Storage 

Vessels,” lists affected emission sources as storage vessels that store volatile organic liquids. 

Subpart Kb does not apply to vessels with a storage capacity below 75 cubic meters (m3

) 

(19,813 gallons). The maximum capacity of any planned volatile organic liquid storage vessel 

is less than 75 m3

 (19,813 gallons); therefore, the proposed Project would not be subject to 

NSPS Subpart Kb. 

y Subpart KKKK of 40 CFR Part 60 applies to natural-gas-fired turbine engines. Based on the 

date of construction, the turbines to be installed as part of this project would be subject to the 

recently promulgated Subpart KKKK. Subpart KKKK imposes a limit on the nitrogen oxide 

concentration of the turbine exhaust of 25 parts per million, volumetric dry (ppmvd), at 15 

percent oxygen during normal operation and 150 ppmvd at ambient conditions of less than 0°F 

or operations at less than 75 percent of peak load. The gas-fired turbines selected for the SESH 

project would comply with this new regulation. Compliance with the nitrogen oxides limit 

would be established through periodic stack tests. Subpart KKKK also contains limits on sulfur 

dioxide, which will be satisfied using pipeline-quality natural gas. Compliance would be 

established by the valid tariff sheet with a fuel specification that limits the maximum total 

sulfur content to 20 grains sulfur or less per 100 cubic feet. 

y The reciprocating engines to be installed at the booster stations and the stand-generator engines 

to be installed at the compressor and booster stations would potentially be subject to the 

recently proposed standard for spark ignition engines (Subpart JJJJ, 40 CFR Part 60, June 

2006). The specific limits to which the engines will be subject are dependent on the type of 

engine, fuel used, and the date of engine manufacture. Assuming that all engines would use 

natural gas, the potential emission limits would be 2.0 grams/brake horsepower (BHP) for NOx

nitrogen oxides, 4.0 grams/BHP for carbon monoxide and 1.0 grams/BHP for non-methane 

hydrocarbons (NMHC). Based on the current facility designs, all units would satisfy the 

standard as currently proposed. 

NESHAP

The NESHAP, codified in 40 CFR Parts 61 and 63, regulates hazardous air pollutant (HAP) 

emissions. Part 61 was promulgated prior to the 1990 CAA Amendments (CAAA) and regulates only 

eight types of hazardous substances (asbestos, benzene, beryllium, coke-oven emissions, inorganic 

arsenic, mercury, radionuclides, and vinyl chloride). 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 3-111 

TABLE 3.11.1-3 

Estimated Annual Air Emission Rates – Gwinville Compressor Station 

Tons per Year 

Pollutant 

NO2 CO PM10 PM2.5 SO2 VOC HAP Total HAP 

Single 

Turbine Compressora 28.9 55.30 3.86 3.86 1.99 3.99 1.95 1.35 

Fuel Heaters 2.25 1.85 0.22 0.22 0.02 0.16 0.05 0.00 

Standby Generatorb 0.97 0.85 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.36 0.22 0.16 

Storage Tanksc -- -- -- -- -- 0.72 0.06 0.00 

Fugitivesc -- -- -- -- -- 18.97 2.17 0.00 

Total 32.16 58.00 4.10 4.10 2.01 24.6 4.46 1.51 

PSD Major Source Threshold 250 250 250 250 250 250 25 10 

a Emissions of No2, CO, and VOCs are based on a Solar Mars 100-class turbine. PM Emissions are based on EPA’s 

Compilation of Air Pollution Emission Factors (AP-42, Section 3.1, Tables 3.1-2a) b Emissions of NO2, CO, and VOCs are based on a Caterpillar 375-kV generator set. PM emissions factor source – EPA’s 

Compilation of Air Pollution Emission Factors (AP-42, Section 3.2, Tables 3.2-2). SO2 emissions are based on fuel 

consumption and 0.5-grain/100CF c Emissions estimates are based on engineering judgment. 

CF = cubic feet 

CO = carbon monoxide 

EPA = U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

HAP = hazardous air pollutant 

NO2 = nitrogen dioxide 

PM2.5 = particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 

2.5 microns or less 

PM10 = particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 

microns or less 

PSD = Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

SO2 = sulfur dioxide 

VOC = volatile organic compound 

TABLE 3.11.1-2 

Estimated Annual Air Emission Rates - Delhi Compressor Station 

Tons per Year 

Sources 

NO2 CO PM10 PM2.5 SO2 VOC HAP 

Total 

HAP 

Single 

Turbine Compressor 1a 28.95 55.30 3.86 3.86 1.99 3.99 1.95 1.35 

Turbine Compressor 2b 28.95 55.30 3.86 3.86 1.99 3.99 1.95 1.35 

Fuel Heaters 2.25 1.85 0.22 0.22 0.02 0.16 0.05 0.00 

Stand-By Generatorb 0.97 0.85 0.02 0.02 0.001 0.36 0.22 0.16 

Storage Tanksc -- -- -- -- -- 0.72 0.06 0.00 

Fugitivesc -- -- -- -- -- 25.89 2.76 0.00 

Total 61.11 113.30 7.96 7.96 4.00 35.5 7.00 2.86 

PSD Major Source 

Threshold 250 250 250 250 250 250 25 10 

a

Emissions of No2, CO, and VOCs are based on a Solar Mars 100-class turbine. PM Emissions are based on EPA’s Compilation 

of Air Pollution Emission Factors (AP-42, Section 3.1, Tables 3.1-2a) b Emissions of NO2, CO, and VOCs are based on a Caterpillar 375-kV generator set. PM emissions factor source – EPA’s 

Compilation of Air Pollution Emission Factors (AP-42, Section 3.2, Tables 3.2-2). SO2 emissions are based on fuel 

consumption and 0.5-grain/100CF c Emissions estimates are based on engineering judgment. 

CF = cubic feet 

CO = carbon monoxide 

EPA = U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

HAP = hazardous air pollutant 

NO2 = nitrogen dioxide 

PM2.5 = particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 

microns or less 

PM10 = particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 

microns or less 

PSD = Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

SO2 = sulfur dioxide 

VOC = volatile organic compound 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 3-112 

TABLE 3.11.1-4 

Estimated Annual Air Emission Rates – Collins Booster Station 

Tons per Year Pollutant 

NO2 CO PM10 PM2.5 SO2 VOC HAP Total HAP Single 

Booster 1a 24.0 6.86 1.17 1.17 0.07 8.46 1.15 0.61 

Booster 2a 24.0 6.86 1.17 1.17 0.07 8.46 1.15 0.61 

Fuel Heaters 1.81 1.49 0.18 0.18 0.01 0.13 0.05 0.04 

Standby Generator 0.97 0.85 0.02 0.02 0.001 0.36 0.22 0.16 

Storage Tanks -- -- -- -- -- 0.77 0.06 0.02 

Fugitivesb -- -- -- -- -- 34.4 3.49 1.10 

Total 51.2 16.4 2.57 2.57 0.16 53.0 6.12 1.38 

PSD Major Source 

Threshold 

250 250 250 250 250 250 25 10 

a Emissions of NO2, CO, and VOCs are based on a Caterpillar 375-kV generator set. PM emissions factor source – EPA’s 

Compilation of Air Pollution Emission Factors (AP-42, Section 3.2, Tables 3.2-2). SO2 emissions are based on fuel 

consumption and 0.5-grain/100CF b Emissions estimates are based on engineering judgment 

CO = carbon monoxide 

EPA = U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

HAP = hazardous air pollutant 

hp = horsepower 

NO2 = nitrogen dioxide 

PM2.5 = particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 

microns or less 

PM10 = particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 

microns or less 

PSD = Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

SO2 = sulfur dioxide 

VOC = volatile organic compound 

TABLE 3.11.1-5 

 Estimated Annual Air Emission Rates – Petal Booster Station 

Tons per Year Pollutant 

NO2 CO PM10 PM2.5 SO2 VOC HAP Total HAP Single 

Booster 1a 24.0 85.70 1.17 1.17 0.07 16.9 10.4 7.57 

Fuel Heaters 1.81 1.49 0.18 0.18 0.01 0.13 0.05 0.04 

Standby Generator 0.97 0.85 0.02 0.02 0.001 0.36 0.22 0.16 

Storage Tanks -- -- -- -- -- 0.77 0.06 0.02 

Fugitivesb -- -- -- -- -- 23.2 2.54 0.73 

Total 27.21 88.39 1.40 1.40 0.09 41.9 13.22 7.74 

PSD Major Source 

Threshold 

250 250 250 250 250 250 25 10 

a Emissions of NO2, CO, and VOCs are based on a Caterpillar 375-kV generator set. PM emissions factor source – EPA’s 

Compilation of Air Pollution Emission Factors (AP-42, Section 3.2, Tables 3.2-2). SO2 emissions are based on fuel 

consumption and 0.5-grain/100CF b Emissions estimates are based on engineering judgment. 

CO = carbon monoxide 

EPA = U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

HAP = hazardous air pollutant 

hp = horsepower 

NO2 = nitrogen dioxide 

PM2.5 = particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 microns or less 

PM10 = particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 microns or less 

PSD = Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

SO2 = sulfur dioxide 

VOC = volatile organic compound 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 3-113 

The 1990 CAAA established a list of 189 HAPs and the promulgation of Part 63 - Maximum 

Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standards. These standards regulate HAP emissions from major 

HAP emission sources 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 total. 

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. Total HAP emissions at any new 

compressor or booster station would be below the major source thresholds; therefore, MACT standards 

would not apply. 

Title V Permit Program 

The Title V permit program, as described in 40 CFR Part 70, requires any source with regulatedpollutant emissions, including HAPs, that reach or exceed major source levels to obtain a federal 

operating permit. A Title V permit lists all applicable air regulations and includes a compliance 

demonstration for each applicable requirement. For the purpose of the Title V permit program, the major 

source threshold level in attainment areas is 100 tpy of nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, 

PM10, PM2.5, and volatile organic compounds. 

Estimated annual carbon monoxide emissions at the proposed Delhi Compressor Station would 

exceed the 100-tpy threshold and would require a Title V permit. None of the other proposed compressor 

or booster stations would require a Title V permit. 

TABLE 3.11.1-6 

Estimated Annual Air Emission Rates - Lucedale Compressor Station 

Tons per Year 

Pollutant 

NO2 CO PM10 PM2.5 SO2 VOC HAP 

Total HAP Single 

Turbine Compressor 1a 28.9 55.30 3.86 3.86 1.99 3.99 1.95 1.34 

Fuel Heaters 1.81 1.49 0.18 0.18 0.01 0.13 0.05 0.04 

Emergency Generatorb 0.97 0.85 0.02 0.02 0.001 0.36 0.22 0.16 

Storage Tanksc -- -- -- -- -- 0.72 0.06 0.02 

Fugitivesc -- -- -- -- -- 19.0 2.17 0.64 

Total 32.16 58.0 4.10 4.10 2.01 24.61 4.46 1.51 

PSD Major Source 

Threshold 

250 250 250 250 250 250 25 10 

a Emissions of No2, CO, and VOCs are based on a Solar Mars 100-class turbine. PM Emissions are based on EPA’s Compilation 

of Air Pollution Emission Factors (AP-42, Section 3.1, Tables 3.1-2a) b Emissions of NO2, CO, and VOCs are based on a Caterpillar 375-kV generator set. PM emissions factor source – EPA’s 

Compilation of Air Pollution Emission Factors (AP-42, Section 3.2, Tables 3.2-2). SO2 emissions are based on fuel 

consumption and 0.5-grain/100CF c Emissions estimates are based on engineering judgment. 

CO = carbon monoxide 

EPA = U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

HAP = hazardous air pollutant 

hp = horsepower 

NO2 = nitrogen dioxide 

PM2.5 = particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 microns or less 

PM10 = particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 microns or less 

PSD = Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

SO2 = sulfur dioxide 

VOC = volatile organic compound 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 3-114 

General Conformity

General Conformity is a review process codified in 40 CFR Parts 51 and 93, designed to ensure 

that federal actions in a non-attainment or maintenance area are consistent with the state implementation 

plan and the local clean air plan (if applicable). The process also ensures that the federal actions do not 

contribute to air quality degradation that would adversely affect state efforts to attain or maintain the 

NAAQS. The proposed Project would not be located in a nonattainment or maintenance area; therefore, 

the general conformity requirements do not apply. 

State Regulations 

In addition to the federal regulations described above, 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 permit, 

compliance, and enforcement programs. Because the proposed Delhi Compressor Station would be a 

major source with respect to carbon monoxide for Title V, SESH will submit a Title V major source 

permit application to the LDEQ. A minor source permit application will be submitted to the MDEQ for 

each of the other proposed compressor and booster stations. 

3.11.1.3 General Impacts and Mitigation 

Construction Emissions 

The movement and operation of construction equipment along unpaved surfaces would generate 

fugitive dust emissions while the areas are graded, trenched, and backfilled. Also, this equipment would 

be powered by combustion of diesel or gasoline fuels, which would produce criteria and HAP pollutant 

emissions. Indirect fugitive dust and tailpipe emissions would also be generated by mobile sources such 

as delivery trucks and worker commuter vehicles that routinely travel to the construction sites. All these 

emissions would contribute to a minor temporary reduction in local ambient air quality. 

Fugitive dust includes particulate emissions that arise from unpaved streets, access roads, 

construction activities, and similar facilities. LDEQ regulates fugitive dust emissions through 

LAC33.III.1305, which requires that roadways be paved or water or dust-retardant chemicals be applied. 

MDEQ does not have a specific regulation for fugitive dust from roadways. 

The most significant air quality impacts from construction would occur at the compressor station 

and booster station sites because construction would occur in the same localized area. SESH would 

employ proven construction practices, such as water sprays, to control fugitive dust emissions during 

construction. Water sprays have provided sufficient control to ensure protection of air quality during 

construction of projects similar to the proposed Project. Therefore, fugitive dust emissions during 

construction would be minor and would subside at the end of construction activities. Table 3.11.1-7 

shows the estimated construction emissions for years 2007 and 2008. 

Operations Emissions 

Operation of the compressor stations would generate criteria pollutant emissions from the naturalgas-driven compressors at the compressor stations. Short-term emissions in terms of pounds per hour are 

based on normal operation at full load and an annual average ambient temperature of 64°F. Annual 

emissions expressed in tpy include emissions associated with startup and shutdown operations for 280 

startup/shutdown hours per year. The total annual operations also include small increases in emissions 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 3-115 

associated with operation at very low ambient temperatures (below 0°F) that occur for about 3 hours per 

year. 

In addition to the primary compressors, criteria pollutant emissions would occur from naturalgas-fired emergency generators, heating devices, storage tanks, and miscellaneous fugitives. Emergency 

generators would be restricted through the air permit to operate 500 hours per year. 

TABLE 3.11.1-7 

Construction Emissions for Typical Compressor/Booster Station Construction 

Activity Year NOx

(tons) 

CO 

(tons) 

SO2

(tons) 

VOC 

(tons) 

PM 

(tons) 

HAP 

(tons) 

 

Delivery Vehicles 2007 0.058 0.015 <0.001 0.003 0.002 <0.001 

 2008 0.053 0.013 <0.001 0.003 0.002 <0.001 

Commuter Travel 2007 1.347 24.242 0.013 1.355 0.209 0.003 

 2008 1.587 29.628 0.015 1.574 0.268 0.004 

Construction Equipment 2007 14.137 5.796 1.848 1.030 0.645 0.049 

 2008 38.364 13.960 5.057 2.747 1.791 0.018 

Fugitive Dust (2007–

2008) 

0 0 0 0 395 0 

Annual Total 2007 15.542 30.053 1.861 2.388 107.15 0.052 

Annual Total 2008 40.004 43.601 5.072 4.324 290.77 0.022 

Notes: 

PM10 and PM2.5 emissions for delivery vehicles, commuter travel, and construction equipment are assumed to equal PM emissions. 

PM emissions listed for fugitive dust represent total suspended particulates. 

Emissions from delivery vehicles represent the sum of those for terminal and pipeline construction. 

Emissions from commuter travel represent the sum of those for terminal and pipeline construction. 

Fugitive dust emissions for terminal represents estimate of total over entire construction period. 

CO = carbon monoxide 

HAP = hazardous air pollutant 

NO2 = nitrogen dioxide 

PM = particulate matter 

SO2 = sulfur dioxide 

VOC = volatile organic compound 

Each compressor station would include an emergency shut down (ESD) system as required by 

DOT requirements. ESD system activation would be triggered only by an emergency condition and would 

vent the contents of the pipeline to the atmosphere. Compressor unit blowdowns would occur as needed 

to relieve pressure when a compression unit is taken off line. Natural gas blowdowns are not part of 

routine operation. 

The anticipated criteria and HAP emissions from the operation of the proposed compressor and 

booster stations are listed in Tables 3.11.1-2 through 3.11.1-6. SESH will submit the required permit 

application to the appropriate state authorities for each proposed compressor and booster station. 

SESH applied the SCREEN3 dispersion model to assess the impacts of the primary emissions 

source at the each compressor and booster station. Each analysis was based on conservative assumptions 

and meteorology. 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 3-116 

Delhi Compressor Station 

The results indicate that Delhi Compressor Station emissions would produce an annual average 

PM2.5 concentration of 1.19 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3

) near the source, which represents 7.9 

percent of the NAAQS. Based on monitor data from Ouachita Parish in Louisiana, the average annual 

background concentration for PM2.5, between years 2001 and 2005, was 11.68 μg/m3

, which represents 

about 77.8 percent of the NAAQS; therefore, the predicted annual average for PM2.5 in the region would 

continue to satisfy the NAAQS as long as background levels remain steady. Nitrogen oxide 

concentrations would be 8.9 percent of the NAAQS. There were no monitors in the project area or 

conterminous counties with available, ambient nitrogen dioxide concentrations. Data from several 

monitors located throughout Louisiana indicate that nitrogen dioxide levels are well below the NAAQS, 

and the proposed project output added to the ambient levels would not contribute any violation of the 

nitrogen dioxide NAAQS. All other predicted pollutant concentrations would be below PSD significant 

impact levels (SILs) and well within the NAAQS. 

Gwinville Compressor Station 

The SCREEN3 assessment shows that Gwinville Compressor Station emissions would produce 

an annual average PM2.5 concentration of 0.6 μg/m3

 near the source, which represents 4 percent of the 

NAAQS. Based on monitor data from Rankin, Jones, and Forrest counties in Mississippi, the average 

annual background concentration for PM2.5 between years 2001 and 2005 was 13.17 μg/m3

, which 

represents about 77.9 percent of the NAAQS; therefore, the predicted annual average for PM2.5 in the 

region would continue to satisfy the NAAQS as long as background levels remain steady. Nitrogen oxide 

concentrations would be 4.5 percent of the NAAQS. There were no monitors in the project area or 

conterminous counties with available, ambient nitrogen dioxide concentrations. Data from one monitor 

located in Mississippi indicate that nitrogen dioxide levels are well below the NAAQS and the proposed 

project added to the ambient would not contribute any violation of the nitrogen dioxide NAAQS. All 

predicted pollutant concentrations (except nitrogen oxides) would be below PSD SILs, and all pollutant 

concentrations would be well within the NAAQS. 

Lucedale Compressor Station

The SCREEN3 assessment shows that Lucedale Compressor Station emissions would produce an 

annual average PM2.5 concentration of 0.6 μg/m3 near the source, representing 4.0 percent of the NAAQS. 

Based on monitor data from Jackson County in Mississippi, the average annual background concentration 

for PM2.5 between years 2001 and 2006 was 12.53 μg/m3, representing about 83.5 percent of the NAAQS; 

therefore, the predicted annual average for PM2.5 in the region would continue to satisfy the NAAQS as 

long as background levels remain steady. Nitrogen oxide concentrations would be 4.5 percent of the 

NAAQS. There were no monitors in the project area with available ambient nitrogen dioxide 

concentrations. Data from one monitor located in Jackson County, Mississippi, indicates that nitrogen 

dioxide levels are well below the NAAQS and the proposed project added to the ambient would not 

contribute any violation of the nitrogen dioxide NAAQS. All other predicated pollutant concentrations 

were below the PSD SILs and are well within the NAAQS. 

Collins Booster Station 

The SCREEN3 assessment for the Collins Booster Station indicated that the additional NOx and 

PM2.5 pollutants could potentially cause a violation of the NAAQS. Therefore, an EPA-approved refined 

analysis model (AERMOD) was applied to more accurately evaluate the impacts of these pollutants. The 

AEROMOD analysis was based on five years of measured meteorological data for the region. The 

AERMOD results show the maximum annual NOx concentrations attributable to the Collins Booster 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 3-117 

Station emissions was 9.67 μg/m3

 for NOx, which represents less than 10 percent of the 100 μg/m3 annual 

standard. There were no monitors in the project area or conterminous counties with available, ambient 

nitrogen dioxide concentrations; however, data from one monitor located in Mississippi indicates that 

nitrogen dioxide levels are well below the NAAQS; therefore, NOx emissions would not contribute any 

violation of the nitrogen dioxide NAAQS. 

Monitor data from the nearby Jones County for years 2001 through 2006 indicate the average 

annual background concentration of PM2.5 is about 14.2 μg/m3, which represents about 95 percent of the 

annual PM2.5 standard and about 41% of the 24-hour PM2.5 standard. The AERMOD analysis indicates the 

maximum PM2.5 impacts attributable to the Collins Booster Station emissions are 0.47 μg/m3 for the 

annual standard and 4.09 μg/m3 for the 24-hour standard. Both estimated increases are less than the 

annual and 24-hour PSD SILs of 1 μg/m3 and 5 μg/m3, respectively and does not warrant further analysis. 

Also, the emissions would be in compliance with the NAAQS. 

Petal Booster Station 

The SCREEN3 assessment shows that NOx emissions from Petal Booster Station would produce 

an annual average nitrogen dioxide concentration in the region that is 19.1 percent of the NOx annual 

standard of 100 μg/m3. There were no monitors in the project area or conterminous counties with 

available, ambient nitrogen dioxide concentrations. Data from one monitor located in Mississippi 

indicates that nitrogen dioxide levels are well below the NAAQS and the proposed project output added 

to the ambient levels would not contribute any violation of the nitrogen dioxide NAAQS. 

Based on the SCREEN3 assessment, emissions from Petal Booster Station would produce carbon 

monoxide concentrations that would exceed the applicable 8-hour SILs; however, no ambient carbon 

monoxide data is available for the entire state, and the predicted concentrations would consume only 6.1 

percent of the NAAQS. Except for PM2.5, all other predicted pollutant concentrations were below PSD 

SILs and are well within the NAAQS. 

Monitor data from the nearby Forrest County for years 2001 through 2006 indicate the average 

annual background concentration of PM2.5 is about 13.4 μg/m3, which represents about 89.3 percent of the 

standard, and the average 24-hour concentration is about 30.4 μg/m3, which represents about 86.9% of the 

standard. Because the regional background PM2.5 levels approach the annual and 24-hour standards, 

SESH applied a refined analysis model (AERMOD) to evaluate the impacts of PM2.5 emissions from the 

Petal Booster Station. The AERMOD analysis was based on five years of measured meteorological data 

for the region. The results indicate the maximum PM2.5 concentrations attributable to the Petal Booster 

Station would be a 24-hour average of 1.26 μg/m3 and an annual average of 0.12 μg/m3. These 

contributions are below the PSD SILs of 5 μg/m3 and 1 μg/m3, respectively and do not warrant further 

analysis. Also, the PM2.5 emissions from the Petal Booster Station would be in compliance with the 

NAAQS 

Operation of the aboveground meter stations and block valves would not result in substantial air 

emissions under normal conditions. Typically, only minor emissions of natural gas, called “fugitive 

emissions,” occur from small connections at meter station and valve sites. 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 fugitive 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. 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 3-118 

Construction of the proposed project would be expected to result in temporary minor impacts to 

air quality. Overall, compressor and booster station operations would be the only long-term source of 

pollutant emissions associated with the project. Based on the recently revised PM2.5 standards, emissions 

from compressor and booster station operations, combined with current background levels, would 

represent a substantial portion of the annual PM2.5 NAAQS. However, the impact calculations were based 

on a conservative air model and conservative data assumptions, so the PM2.5 impacts would likely be 

much lower than predicted by the conservative model. Additional evaluation with a refined air model was 

performed for the Collins and Petal stations to quantify the impacts more accurately. The results indicate 

the impacts are below and would not cause a violation of the NAAQS. Other pollutant emissions do not 

pose a threat of NAAQS violations. The proposed project would remain in compliance with the NAAQS 

for all pollutants. 

3.11.2 Noise Quality 

Construction and operation of the proposed pipeline could affect ambient noise levels in the 

region. Seasonal vegetation cover and weather conditions can influence ambient noise levels. For this 

reason, the magnitude and frequency of environmental noise could vary considerably over the course of 

the day and throughout the week. 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 the day-night sound level (LDN). The LEQ is the level of steady sound with the same total (equivalent) 

energy as the time-variable 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. This 10-dBA penalty accounts for increased human sensitivity to sound in the night hours. The 

A-weighted scale is used because human ears are less sensitive to low and high frequencies than midrange frequencies. For most people, the threshold of perception for a change in noise level is about 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 that state and local governments can use to develop 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 apply it to evaluate the potential noise impact from operation of the 

compressor facilities. Specifically, we require that noise attributable to compressor stations shall not 

exceed the 55-dBA LDN level to limit impacts at any noise-sensitive area (NSA), such as a residence, 

school, or hospital; unless the NSA is developed after the compressor station is constructed. 

Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi do not regulate noise at the state level. Similarly, none of 

the counties or local municipalities to be traversed by the proposed Project has existing regulations or 

ordinances that govern noise pollution from construction or industrial activities. 

3.11.2.2 Existing Noise Levels 

Noise impacts are determined at receptors known as NSAs. NSAs include residences, schools, 

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. For this 

assessment, in addition to the overall ambient noise standard (an LDN of 55 dBA), 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 twice as loud and therefore significantly noticeable. 

Existing noise levels at NSAs near the proposed compressor and booster stations are described below. 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 3-119 

Delhi Compressor Station 

Two sound measurement positions were established for the ambient sound survey of the Delhi 

Compressor Station. NSA#1 represents the homes on the west side of Highway 17, about 1,800 ft west of 

the proposed compressor station, and NSA#2 represents the homes located about 2,000 ft southwest of the 

proposed compressor station. Daytime ambient sound measurements were collected on September 28, 

2006. Daytime noise sources that contributed to the measured sound levels included vehicle traffic along 

Highway 17 and equipment noise from the nearby Columbia Delhi Station. Other ambient noise sources 

included wind noise across nearby foliage and the activities of insects and birds. Based on these sources, 

nighttime noise levels at the nearby NSAs should be lower than those experienced during the daytime. 

The calculated LDN values at NSA#1 and NSA#2 were 54.2 and 59.5 dBA, respectively. 

Gwinville Compressor Station 

Two sound measurement positions were established for the ambient sound survey of the proposed 

Gwinville Compressor Station. NSA#1 represents a home on Parkman Cemetery Road, located about 800 

ft north-northwest of the proposed compressor station; NSA#2 represents a home located about 900 ft 

southwest of the compressor station. Daytime ambient sound measurements were collected on September 

28 and October 26, 2006. Daytime noise sources that contributed to the measured sound levels included 

wind noise across nearby foliage, distant vehicle traffic, occasional farm equipment such as tractors, and 

the activities of insects and birds. Based on these sources, nighttime noise levels at the nearby NSAs 

should be similar to those experienced during the daytime. The calculated LDN values at NSA#1 and 

NSA#2 were 46.2 and 49.0 dBA, respectively. 

Collins Booster Station 

Three sound measurement positions were established for the ambient sound survey of the 

proposed Collins Compressor Station. NSA#1 represents the homes on Smyrna Road, located about 1,000 

ft southeast of the proposed compressor station; NSA#2 represents a home located about 1,200 ft east of 

the proposed compressor station; and NSA#3 represents the homes located about 1,900 ft northeast of the 

proposed compressor station. Daytime ambient sound measurements were collected on September 28, 

2006. Daytime noise sources that contributed to the measured sound levels included equipment noise at a 

nearby compressor station, distant vehicular traffic, wind noise through foliage, occasional noise from 

distant construction activities, and activities of insects and birds. Based on these sources, nighttime noise 

levels at the nearby NSAs should be similar to those experienced during the daytime. The calculated LDN

values at NSA#1, NSA#2, and NSA#3 were 51.8, 62.6, and 51.1 dBA, respectively. 

Petal Booster Station 

Three sound measurement positions were established for the ambient sound survey of the 

proposed Petal Compressor Station. NSA#1 represents a home south of Old Richton Road, located about 

1,300 ft north of the compressor station; NSA#2 represents a home located about 1,500 ft northeast of the 

compressor station; and NSA#3 represents a home located about 2,300 ft east of the compressor station. 

Daytime ambient sound measurements were collected on September 27, 2006. Daytime noise sources that 

contributed to the measured sound levels included noise from wind across trees and foliage, activities of 

insects and birds, vehicle traffic, and occasional distant aircraft. Based on these sources, nighttime noise 

levels at the nearby NSAs should be somewhat lower than those experienced during the daytime. The 

calculated LDN values at NSA#1, NSA#2, and NSA#3 were 48.1, 48.1, and 53.7 dBA, respectively. 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 3-120 

Lucedale Compressor Station 

Three sound measurement positions were established for the ambient sound survey of the 

proposed Lucedale Compressor Station. NSA#1 represents a home on Pete Miles Road, located about 

2,800 ft southeast of the proposed compressor station; NSA#2 represents a home located about 3,600 ft 

southeast of the proposed compressor station; and NSA#3 represents a home located about 4,200 ft 

northwest of the proposed compressor station. Daytime ambient sound measurements were collected on 

September 27, 2006. Daytime noise sources that contributed to the measured sound levels included noise 

from wind across trees and foliage, activities of insects and birds, and occasional distant vehicular traffic. 

Based on these sources, nighttime noise levels at the nearby NSAs should be similar to those experienced 

during the daytime. The calculated LDN values at NSA#1, NSA#2, and NSA#3 were 35.3, 42.7, and 45.6 

dBA, respectively. 

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 near 

proposed Project activities, and the sound levels would vary during the construction period depending on 

the construction phase. The rate of pipeline construction would generally range from several hundred feet 

to one 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 near the construction activity. 

Construction equipment would be operated on an as-needed basis during those periods and would be 

maintained to manufacturer specifications to minimize noise impacts. 

During construction of the Delhi Compressor Station, the LDN for the nearest NSA would increase 

by only 1.4 dBA, from 54.2 dBA to 55.6 dBA, a negligible impact. During construction of the Gwinville 

Compressor Station, the LDN for the nearest NSA would increase by 4.3 dBA, from 49.7 dBA to 

54.0 dBA, a noticeable increase. During construction of the Collins Booster Station, the LDN for the 

nearest NSA would increase by 7.1 dBA, from 51.8 dBA to 58.9 dBA, a significantly noticeable increase. 

During construction of the Petal Booster Station, the LDN for the nearest NSA would increase by 0.6 dBA, 

from 53.7 dBA to 54.3 dBA, a negligible increase. During construction of the Lucedale Compressor 

Station, the LDN for the nearest NSA would increase by 9.2 dBA, from 35.3 dBA to 44.5 dBA. This would 

be a significantly noticeable increase, but would still be rather quiet and would occur in the daytime. 

Nighttime noise levels during construction would normally be unaffected because most pipeline 

construction would occur in daytime hours. The possible exceptions would be at the HDD sites (e.g., 

where the pipeline would cross a highway or waterbody). SESH has identified 20 sites where HDD 

activities would be performed, with an entrance and exit location for each site. At HDD locations, drill 

equipment may operate on a 24-hour-per-day basis. Accordingly, SESH performed a noise survey to 

evaluate the potential impact on NSAs within a half mile of each HDD site (entry or exit). Table 3.11.2.1 

summarizes the unmitigated noise estimates levels due to HDD activities. Note that some HDD sites are 

more than a half mile away from any NSA, and are therefore not listed in the table. In addition, note that 

the ambient noise levels are greater than the 55 dBA at some HDD sites. 

As Table 3.11.2.1 shows, in the absence of noise mitigation, the benchmark sound requirements 

may be exceeded at some HDD locations. Possible noise mitigation measures include the installation of 

temporary noise barriers constructed of 3⁄4-in. thick plywood panels to a minimum height of 16 feet, 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 3-121 

TABLE 3.11.2.1 

Estimated Noise Impacts at NSAs Located within One-Half Mile of HDD Operations 

HDD 

Number 

Location of HDD 

Site 

Entry 

or Exit 

Distance (ft) 

and 

Direction of 

Nearest NSA 

Calculated 

LDN Due to 

HDD 

Ambient 

LDN 

(dBA) 

Ambient + 

Calculated 

LDN (dBA) 

Sound 

Level 

Increase 

(dBA) 

#1 Macon Bayou Entry 900 (SW) 53.4 54.2 56.8 2.6 

#3 Sutt Bayou/Hwy 577 Entry 930 (SE) 59.8 58.0 62.0 4.0 

#3 Sutt Bayou/Hwy 577 Exit 860 (SSW) 50.8 58.0 58.8 0.8 

#4 Tensas River Entry 600 (SE) 61.2 52.3 61.7 9.4 

#4 Tensas River Exit 900 (SW) 48.6 52.3 53.8 1.5 

#5 Despair Lake Entry 2,200 (ENE) 46.7 58.2 58.5 0.3 

#5 Despair Lake Exit 240 (NE) 63.7 58.2 64.7 6.5 

#7 Bird Rookery Entry 2,300 (WNW) 46.2 54.1 54.8 0.7 

#8 Mississippi River Entry 250 (East) 75.2 52.7 75.2 22.5 

#9 Big Black River Entry 280 (NW) 74.1 50.6 74.2 23.6 

#9 Big Black River Exit 650 (SW) 49.9 47.2 51.8 4.6 

#13 Pearl River Entry 1,400 (West) 52.6 47.4 53.8 6.4 

#14 Bowie Creek Entry 1,900 (East) 49.4 44.9 50.7 5.8 

#14 Bowie Creek Exit 700 (North) 49.2 44.9 50.6 5.7 

#15 Okatoma Creek Entry 500 (NW) 63.9 47.3 64.0 16.7 

#15 Okatoma Creek Exit 1,700 (WSW) 39.3 47.3 47.9 0.6 

#16 Leif River Entry 1,400 (West) 52.6 53.0 55.8 2.8 

#17 Tallahalla River Entry 2,100 (West) 47.2 42.4 48.5 6.1 

#17 Tallahalla River Exit 1,700 (East) 39.3 51.4 51.7 0.3 

#19 Chickasawhay River Entry 1,600 (NW) 51.2 58.8 59.5 0.7 

#20 Escatawpa River Exit 1,900 (ESE) 38.1 51.5 51.7 0.2 

Note: Noise levels based on peak operational conditions and no mitigation 

TABLE 3.11.2.2 

Mitigated Noise Impacts at HDD Sites That Could Otherwise Exceed Benchmark Levels 

HDD 

Number 

Location of HDD 

Site 

Entry 

or Exit 

Distance (ft) 

and 

Direction of 

Nearest NSA 

Calculated 

LDN Due to 

HDD 

Ambient 

LDN 

(dBA) 

Ambient + 

Calculated 

LDN (dBA) 

Sound 

Level 

Increase 

(dBA) 

#3 

Sutt Bayou/Hwy 

577 Entry 930 ft. (SE) 51.9 58.0 58.9 0.9 

#4 Tensas River Entry 600 ft. (SE) 53.2 52.3 55.8 3.5 

#5 Despair Lake Exit 240 ft. (NE) 53.6 58.2 59.5 1.3 

#8 Mississippi River Entry 250 ft. (East) 54.4 52.7 56.7 4.0 

#9 Big Black River Entry 280 ft. (NW) 53.4 50.6 55.2 4.6 

#15 Okatoma Creek Entry 500 ft. (NW) 53.0 47.3 54.0 6.7 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 3-122 

temporary noise enclosures around the hydraulic power unit, the use of exhaust mufflers on diesel engines 

used to drive the generators and pumps, and efforts to remotely locate some of the HDD equipment. If 

noise levels cannot be reduced to target levels, other noise mitigation measures may be applied. These 

include limitations to perform HDD activities during daytime hours, or temporary relocation and 

monetary compensation for affected homeowners until noise levels return to allowable levels. However, 

the noise survey estimates indicate that target noise levels can be achieved through application of noise 

suppression measures. SESH has committed to employing mitigation measures at these locations to 

ensure noise levels are reduced to meet or exceed noise benchmarks. Table 3.11.2.2 shows the estimated 

noise impacts for HDD sites 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, and 15 based on application of noise suppression measures. 

These noise levels satisfy either the 55 dBA target, or for locations where the ambient level exceeds 55 

dBA, the increase in noise level due to HDD activities would less than 7 dBA (less than significantly 

noticeable). In addition, HDD activities would be temporary. 

 Operational Noise 

During operation of the proposed Project, potential noise impacts would be limited to the vicinity 

of the new compressor stations. Comments from affected landowners were received that expressed 

concern about noise generated by operation of the proposed compressor stations. Principal noise sources 

would include the air inlet, exhaust, and turbine casings. Secondary noise sources would include yard 

pipes and valves. Noise from the relief valves, blowdown stacks, and emergency electrical generation 

equipment would be infrequent. 

The turbine at each compressor station and booster station would be installed inside a 18-gauge 

metal building with high-density insulated sides and roof. The buildings would not have windows, and all 

wall and roof penetrations would be sealed. Building ventilation vents would be equipped with acoustical 

louvers or duct silencers. The exhaust system for each new turbine would include a muffler system to 

provide dynamic sound insertion loss. Exhaust pipes outside the buildings would be covered with 

acoustical blanket material. 

The impact of operational noise on NSAs near each compressor or booster station is summarized 

in Table 3.11.2-3. A discussion of these impacts is presented below. 

Delhi Compressor Station 

Based on full load operation for all continuously operated station equipment, the estimated station 

sound contribution from the Delhi Compressor Station at the closest property line (about 400 ft away) 

would be 55.4 dBA. At the two closest NSAs, predicted compressor station noise contributions at NSA# 1 

and NSA#2 would be 46.5 and 45.3 dBA, respectively. Ambient noise levels at these NSAs are 54.2 and 

59.5 dBA, and the total projected noise levels (i.e., ambient plus station contribution) would be 54.9 and 

59.7 dBA, respectively. Accordingly, contributions of the station noise to total projected noise would be 

0.7 and 0.2 dBA, respectively. Therefore, the impacts of compressor station operations on the nearest 

NSAs would be below the 55-dBA criterion and would cause a negligible increase in ambient sound. 

The noise of a blowdown event is estimated to be about 63 to 64 dBA LDN at the closest NSA. 

This estimate is higher than the target noise level at NSAs of 55 dBA LDN; however, a unit blowdown 

event occurs infrequently and only for a short period of time, and unit blowdowns would generally be 

performed in the daytime. Therefore, the impact of unit blowdown to sensitive receptors would be 

minimal. 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 3-123 

TABLE 3.11.2-3 

Noise Quality Analysis for the SESH Compressor and Booster Stations 

Closest NSAs 

Distance & 

Direction of NSA 

from Site Center 

(ft) 

Ambient Sound 

Level (LDN) (dBA) 

Predicted Level 

(LDN) of Station 

(dBA) 

Station Sound 

Level (LDN) + 

Ambient Noise 

Level (LDN) (dBA) 

Potential Noise 

Increase (dBA) 

Delhi Compressor Station 

NSA #1 1,800 (W) 54.2 46.5 54.9 0.7 

NSA #2 2,000 (SW) 59.5 45.3 59.7 0.2 

Gwinville Compressor Station 

NSA #1 800 (NNW) 46.2 52.5 53.4 7.2 

NSA #2 900 (SW) 49.0 51.4 53.3 4.3 

Collins Booster Station 

NSA #1 1,000 (ESE) 51.8 50.6 54.3 2.5 

NSA #2 1,200 (E) 62.6 48.7 62.8 0.2 

NSA #3 1,900 (NE) 51.1 43.6 51.8 0.7 

Petal Booster Station 

NSA #1 1,300 (N) 48.1 47.8 51.0 2.9 

NSA #2 1,500 (NE) 48.1 46.3 50.3 2.2 

NSA #3 2,300 (E) 53.7 41.4 53.9 0.2 

Lucedale Compressor Station 

NSA #1 2,800 (SE) 35.3 39.1 40.6 5.3 

NSA #2 3,600 (ESE) 42.7 36.2 42.7 0.9 

NSA #3 4,200 (WNW) 45.6 34.5 45.9 0.3 

dBA = decibels on the A-weighted scale; ft = foot/feet; LDN = day/night sound level; and NSA = noise-sensitive area 

Gwinville Compressor Station 

Based on full load operation for all continuously operated station equipment, the estimated station 

sound contribution from the Gwinville Compressor Station at the closest property line (about 500 ft away) 

would be 50.8 dBA. At NSA#1 and NSA#2, predicted compressor station noise contributions would be 

46.2 and 49.0 dBA, respectively. Ambient noise levels at these NSAs are 52.5 and 51.4 dBA, and the total 

projected noise levels (i.e., ambient plus station contribution) would be 53.4, and 53.3 dBA. Accordingly, 

the noise level increases due to compressor station operations would be 7.2 and 4.3 dBA, respectively. 

Therefore, the impacts to sensitive receptors would be below the 55-dBA criterion and would cause 

negligible increases in ambient sound. 

The noise of a blowdown event is estimated to be about 65 to 66 dBA LDN at the closest NSA. 

This estimate exceeds the target noise level at NSAs of 55 dBA LDN; however, a unit blowdown event 

occurs infrequently and only for a short period of time. Therefore, the impact of unit blowdown to 

sensitive receptors would be minimal. 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 3-124 

Collins Booster Station 

Based on full load operation for all continuously operated station equipment, the estimated station 

sound contribution from the Collins Compressor Station at the closest property line (about 500 ft away) 

would be 52.2 dBA. At NSA#1, NSA#2, and NSA#3, predicted compressor station noise contributions 

would be 50.6, 48.7, and 43.6 dBA, respectively. Ambient noise levels at these NSAs are 51.8, 62.6, and 

51.1 dBA, and the total projected noise levels (i.e., ambient plus station contribution) would be 54.3, 62.8, 

and 51.8 dBA. Accordingly, the noise level increases due to compressor station operations would be 2.5, 

0.2, and 0.7 dBA, respectively. Therefore, the impacts to sensitive receptors would be below the 55-dBA 

criterion and would cause negligible increases in ambient sound. 

The noise of a blowdown event is estimated to be about 68 to 69 dBA LDN at the closest NSA. 

This estimate exceeds the target noise level at NSAs of 55 dBA LDN; however, a unit blowdown event 

occurs infrequently and only for a short period of time. Therefore, the impact of unit blowdown to 

sensitive receptors would be minimal. 

Petal Booster Station 

Based on full load operation for all continuously operated station equipment, the estimated station 

sound contribution from the Collins Compressor Station at the closest property line (about 500 ft away) 

would be 49.4 dBA. At NSA#1, NSA#2, and NSA#3, predicted compressor station noise contributions 

would be 40.5, 37.9, and 37.1 dBA, respectively. Ambient noise levels at these NSAs are 48.1, 48.1, and 

53.7 dBA, and the total projected noise levels (i.e., ambient plus station contribution) would be 51.0, 50.3, 

and 53.9 dBA. Accordingly, the noise level increases due to compressor station operations would be 2.9, 

2.2, and 0.2 dBA, respectively. Therefore, the impacts to sensitive receptors would be below the 55-dBA 

criterion and would cause negligible increases in ambient sound. 

The noise of a blowdown event is estimated to be about 58 to 59 dBA LDN at the closest NSA. 

This estimate exceeds the target noise level at NSAs of 55 dBA LDN; however, a unit blowdown event 

occurs infrequently and only for a short period of time. Therefore, the impact of unit blowdown to 

sensitive receptors would be minimal. 

Lucedale Compressor Station 

Based on full load operation for all continuously operated station equipment, the estimated station 

sound contribution from the Lucedale Compressor Station at the closest property line (about 500 ft away) 

would be 53.0 dBA. At NSA#1, NSA#2, and NSA#3, predicted compressor station noise contributions 

would be 39.1, 36.2, and 34.5 dBA, respectively. Ambient noise levels at these NSAs are 35.3, 42.7, and 

45.6 dBA, and the total projected noise levels (i.e., ambient plus station contribution) would be 40.6, 42.7, 

and 45.9 dBA. Accordingly, the noise level increases due to compressor station operations would be 5.3, 

0.9, and 0.3 dBA, respectively. Although the noise level increase at NSA#1 would be noticeable, the 

overall noise level would remain well below the FERC noise standard. The noise levels at the other NSAs 

would not be noticeable. Therefore, the impacts to sensitive receptors would be below the 55-dBA 

criterion and would not cause a significant impact. 

The noise of a blowdown event is estimated to be about 56 to 57 dBA LDN at the closest NSA. 

This estimate exceeds the target noise level at NSAs of 55 dBA LDN; however, a unit blowdown event 

occurs infrequently and only for a short period of time. Therefore, the impact of unit blowdown to 

sensitive receptors would be minimal. 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 3-125 

Minor long-term noise impacts would be 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 and booster station equipment and 

from periodic blowdown events. To ensure that noise levels from operation of the Project facilities do not 

adversely impact surrounding areas, we recommend that: 

• SESH should make all reasonable efforts to assure its predicted noise levels from the 

Delhi Compressor Station, Petal Booster Station, and Lucedale Compressor Station 

are not exceeded at nearby (NSAs or noise-sensitive areas) and file noise surveys 

showing this with the Secretary no later than 60 days after placing the Delhi 

Compressor Station, Petal Booster Station, and Lucedale Compressor Station in 

service. Also, SESH should file noise surveys with the Secretary no later than 60 

days after placing the Gwinville Compressor Station and Colllins Booster Station in 

service. If the noise attributable to the operation of the Delhi Compressor Station, 

Petal Booster Station, Lucedale Compressor Station, Gwinville Compressor Station 

or Colllins Booster Station at full load exceeds an Ldn of 55 dBA at any nearby 

NSAs, SESH should file a report on what changes are needed and should install 

additional noise controls to meet the level within 1 year of the in-service date. SESH 

should confirm compliance with this requirement by filing a second noise survey 

with the Secretary no later than 60 days after it installs the additional noise controls. 

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 damage caused by a major pipeline rupture. 

Methane, the primary component of natural gas, is colorless, odorless, tasteless, and lighter than 

air. It is not toxic, but is classified as a simple asphyxiate, posing a slight inhalation hazard. If methane is 

breathed in high concentration, oxygen deficiency can occur resulting in serious injury or death. 

Methane has an ignition temperature of about 1,000 oF and is flammable at concentrations 

between 5 and 15 percent in air. Unconfined mixtures of methane in air are not generally explosive. 

Methane is buoyant at atmospheric temperatures and disperses rapidly in air. 

3.12.1 Safety Standards 

The DOT is mandated to provide pipeline safety under Title 49, USC Chapter 601. Under the 

Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2002 (PISA), the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety 

Administration’s (PHMSA’s), and the Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), the DOT 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, and maintenance of, and emergency response to 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 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 3-126 

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 49 CFR Parts 190-199. 49 CFR Part 192 

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 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 will 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 if proposed safety regulations are reasonable, feasible, and practicable. 

In addition, pipeline safety regulations set forth in the PISA use the concept of high consequence 

areas (HCAs) to identify specific locales and areas where a release could have the most significant 

adverse consequences. Once identified, operators are required to devote additional focus, efforts, and 

analysis in HCAs to ensure the integrity of pipelines. Following construction of the pipeline, SESH would 

conduct all necessary analyses to determine the locations of HCAs along the proposed Project and would 

comply accordingly with all necessary integrity measures. 

The proposed facilities would be designed and constructed to meet or exceed the safety standards 

established by the DOT 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. The Project would be built in 

accordance with regulations that govern material selection and qualification, minimum design 

requirements, location adjacent to roads and railroads, and protection from internal, external, and 

atmospheric corrosion. 

49 CFR Part 192 also defines area classifications based on population density near 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: 

y Class 1: Ten or fewer buildings intended for human occupancy. 

y Class 2: More than 10, but less than 46 buildings intended for human occupancy. 

y Class 3: Forty-six 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 per week for 10 weeks in any 12-month period. 

y Class 4: A prevalence of buildings with four or more stories aboveground. 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 3-127 

Class locations representing more populated areas require higher safety factors in pipeline design, 

testing, and operation. In accordance with DOT requirements, 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. Pipelines in Class 2, 3, and 4 locations, as well as under drainage ditches of public 

roads and railroad crossings, must be installed with a minimum cover of 36 inches in normal soil and 

24 inches in consolidated rock. 

Class locations also specify the maximum distance to a sectionalizing block valve: 10 miles in 

Class 1, 7.5 miles in Class 2, 4 miles in Class 3, and 2.5 miles in Class 4. Pipe wall thickness and pipeline 

design pressures, hydrostatic test pressures, maximum allowable operating pressure, inspection and 

testing of welds, and frequency of pipeline patrols and leak surveys must also conform to higher standards 

in more populated areas. Table 3.12.1-1 identifies the class locations for the proposed Project. The 

majority of the Project was identified by SESH as Class 1, totaling approximately 235 miles, while 

approximately 32 miles were identified as Class 2 and approximately 2 miles were identified as Class 3. 

If a subsequent increase in population density adjacent to the right-of-way indicates a change in 

class location for the pipeline, SESH would reduce the maximum allowable operation pressure 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 

were to develop and follow a written integrity management program that contains all the elements 

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 (HCAs). The DOT 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 (68 FR 69778, 69 FR 

18228, and 69 FR 29903). 

OPS published a series of rules from August 6, 2002, to May 26, 2004 (69 FR 29903) that define 

HCAs where a gas pipeline accident could do considerable harm to people and their property and where 

an integrity management program would be required 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: 

y current Class 3 and 4 locations, 

y any area in Class 1 or 2 where the potential impact radius1

 is greater than 660 ft and there are 

20 or more buildings intended for human occupancy within the potential impact circle2

, or 

y any area in Class 1 or 2 where the potential impact circle includes an identified site3. 

 

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 #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 3-128 

TABLE 3.12.1-1 

Area Class Locations for the Proposed SESH Project 

Begin MP End MP Class Length 

(miles) Begin MP End MP Class Length (miles) 

0.00 25.83 1 25.83 172.36 173.47 1 1.11 

25.83 26.93 2 1.10 173.47 174.26 2 0.79 

26.93 35.08 1 8.15 174.26 176.00 1 1.74 

35.08 35.97 2 0.89 176.00 176.38 2 0.38 

35.97 36.38 3 0.41 176.38 190.34 1 13.96 

36.38 43.70 1 7.32 190.34 191.20 2 0.86 

43.70 44.13 2 0.43 191.20 213.80 1 22.60 

44.13 59.78 1 15.65 213.80 215.49 2 1.69 

59.78 60.16 2 0.38 215.49 218.00 1 2.51 

60.16 67.82 1 7.66 218.00 218.90 2 0.90 

67.82 68.94 2 1.12 218.90 219.30 3 0.40 

68.94 78.24 1 9.30 219.30 220.50 2 1.20 

78.24 78.71 2 0.47 220.50 222.80 1 2.30 

78.71 80.88 1 2.17 222.80 225.00 2 2.20 

80.88 81.37 3 0.49 225.00 229.20 1 4.20 

81.37 86.84 1 5.47 229.20 231.95 2 2.75 

86.84 88.38 2 1.54 231.95 236.05 1 4.10 

88.38 152.61 1 64.23 236.05 236.98 2 0.93 

152.61 154.09 2 1.48 236.98 245.80 1 8.82 

154.09 154.66 1 0.57 245.80 246.80 2 1.00 

154.66 157.60 2 2.94 246.80 247.14 1 0.34 

157.60 158.74 1 1.14 247.14 248.23 2 1.09 

158.74 159.20 3 0.46 248.23 252.90 1 4.67 

159.20 161.00 1 1.80 252.90 253.50 2 0.60 

161.00 162.28 2 1.28 253.50 256.33 1 2.83 

162.28 165.12 1 2.84 256.33 257.00 2 0.67 

165.12 165.60 2 0.48 257.00 259.39 1 2.39 

165.60 169.26 1 3.66 259.39 260.10 2 0.71 

169.26 170.07 2 0.81 260.10 261.63 1 1.53 

170.07 171.00 1 0.93 261.63 263.43 2 1.80 

171.00 172.36 2 1.36 263.43 268.98 1 5.51 

Source: Spectra Energy 2007 

MP = milepost 

In the second method, an HCA includes any area within a potential impact circle that contains: 

y 20 or more buildings intended for human occupancy, or 

y 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. SESH would identify HCAs 

once the pipeline design has been undertaken to determine the pipeline centerline with respect to other 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 3-129 

structures or identified sites. The pipeline integrity management rule for HCAs requires inspection of the 

entire pipeline’s HCAs every 7 years. 

49 CFR 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 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: 

y receiving, identifying, and classifying emergency events, gas leakage, fires, explosions, and 

natural disasters; 

y establishing and maintaining communications with local fire, police, and public officials and 

coordinating emergency response; 

y initiating the emergency shutdown of system and safe restoration of service; 

y making personnel, equipment, tools, and materials available at the scene of an emergency; 

and 

y protecting people first and then property and making them safe from actual or potential 

hazards. 

49 CFR Part 192 requires that each operator establish and maintain 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. SESH 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. 

SESH would register with the one-call system programs in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama 

prior to operation of the proposed Project. Through these one-call system programs, SESH would be 

informed of planned third-party excavations, which would allow SESH to monitor activities around the 

right-of-way and to protect the pipeline. 

SESH would create an emergency response plan prior to operation of the Project. In the event of 

an emergency, SESH’s operating personnel would implement the appropriate emergency plan depending 

upon the facilities involved (i.e., compressor station, booster station, or pipeline). SESH’s emergency plan 

would include: 

y the local field headquarters to contact; 

y a listing of company personnel, local police, and fire authorities to contact; 

y a listing of equipment available at field locations; 

y a description of the roles of field supervisors, gas control operators, field crews, and support 

personnel during an emergency; 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 3-130 

y a description of the procedures to maintain communications between gas control operators 

and local fire, police, and government authorities; 

y a description of the procedures for securing additional help from non-company resources if 

needed; and 

y requirements for logging emergency events and responding to company and regulatory 

authorities. 

The new compressor and booster stations would be designed and constructed to meet or exceed 

49 CFR Part 192 requirements. Gas piping at the compressor stations, per DOT requirements, would be 

0.5 design factor. 

The compressor stations would be equipped with automatic detection and emergency shutdown 

systems. These systems would include: 

y a flame detection system that uses ultraviolet sensors, 

y a gas detection system for detecting flammable concentrations of natural gas, 

y a heat detection system that uses infrared sensors, 

y an emergency shutdown system to isolate and blowdown the gas piping and provide a means 

to shut down equipment and electrical circuits to eliminate sources of spark ignition, and 

y individual unit shutdown systems in case of mechanical or electrical failure of a compressor 

unit system or component. 

Compressor station piping would be protected from over-pressurization by means of relief valves 

and venting systems for safe blowdown of gas. Fire-fighting equipment would be maintained at the 

compressor station sites in the form of hand-held or wheeled dry chemical fire extinguishers, in 

accordance with National Fire Prevention Association’s 17 Dry Chemical Extinguishing Systems 

(National Fire Prevention Association 2002). 

Four affected property owners for the proposed Project, all in Copiah County, Mississippi, 

expressed concerns about safety of natural gas pipelines during the scoping process. SESH has attempted 

to address these issues with the individual landowners. In response to the DEIS, the EPA expressed 

concerns about the possibility of vaporized imported liquefied natural gas (LNG) transmission leading to 

degradation of pipeline seals and causing pipeline leaks. The Commission examined this issue in two 

different proceedings, Dominion Cove Point LNG’s application to in Docket No. CP05-130-004, et al.4 as 

well as AES Ocean Express, LLC complaint against Florida Gas Transmission Company in Docket No. 

RP04-249-001.5 

Based upon the research and studies conducted by the parties in both of these proceedings, the 

Commission concluded the claim that vaporized LNG caused an increase in leaks in pipeline seals was 

based upon a flawed analysis.6 The Commission also determined there is no evidence that vaporized LNG 

would have a detrimental effect on seals which had been properly maintained.7 Further, the Commission 

 

4 Dominion Cove Point LNG, LP, 115 FERC ¶ 61,337 (2006) (“June 16 Order”).

5 AES Ocean Express, LLC v. Florida Gas Transmission Company, 119 FERC ¶ 61,075 (2007) (“April 20 Order”). 

6 June 16 Order at PP 99-100.

7 Dominion Cove Point LNG, LP, 118 FERC ¶ 61,007 (2007); at P 27.

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 3-131 

concluded that none of the tests, studies or actual experiences have demonstrated that vaporized LNG that 

meets the proposed interchangeability standards will cause LDCs or their end users problems.8 Therefore, 

based upon the extensive record developed in both the Dominion Cove Point LNG and AES proceedings, 

the FERC staff believes that the EPA’s concern about pipeline seals is not a significant issue. 

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: 

y caused a death or personal injury requiring hospitalization; 

y required taking any segment of transmission line out of service; 

y resulted in gas ignition; 

y caused estimated damage to the property of the operator, or others, or both, of a total of 

$5,000 or more; 

y required immediate repair on a transmission line; 

y occurred while testing with gas or another medium; or 

y was significant in the judgment of the operator 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, or 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 information than 

subsequent years, has been subject to detailed analysis as discussed in the following sections (Jones et al. 

1986).9

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. 

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. 

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 

 

8 April 20 Order at P 206.

9

 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 #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 3-132 

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 near 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. 

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; DOT, OPS, http://ops.dot.gov/stats.htm. 

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 

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 because corrosion is a time-dependent process. Further, 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. 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 3-133 

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 show 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 

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 one-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 

5-fatality nationwide average, fatalities among the public averaged 2.6 per year. 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. 

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: 

Sources: Jones et al. 1986; DOT, OPS, http://ops.dot.gov/stats.htm 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) 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 3-134 

The nationwide totals of accidental fatalities from various manmade and natural hazards are listed 

in Table 3.12.3-2 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 of 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. 

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: 

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.” a

DOT, “Annual Report on Pipeline Safety – Calendar Year 1987” 

b

Jones et al. 1986 

The available data show that natural gas pipelines continue to be a safe, reliable means of energy 

transportation. Based on over 300,000 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 370 years. This would represent a slight 

increase in risk to the nearby public. 

3.13 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 

In accordance with NEPA and FERC policy, we considered the cumulative impacts of the 

proposed SESH 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 over a given 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 1997b). Under these guidelines, 

inclusion of other projects within the analysis is based on identifying commonalties of impacts from other 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 3-135 

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. The action must 

y impact a resource area potentially affected by the proposed Project, 

y cause this impact within all, or part of, the proposed Project area, and 

y 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 parishes traversed by the proposed Project. 

The actions considered in the cumulative impact analysis may vary from the proposed Project in 

nature, magnitude, and duration. These actions were included based on the likelihood of completion, and 

only projects with either ongoing impacts or that were “reasonably foreseeable” future actions were 

evaluated. Existing or reasonably foreseeable actions that would be expected to affect similar resources 

during similar times as the proposed Project were considered further. The anticipated cumulative impacts 

of the proposed Project and these other actions, as well as any pertinent mitigation actions, are discussed 

below. 

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 SESH Project in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama. 

They include Gulf South’s Southeast Expansion Project (SEE Project) and Gulf South's East Texas to 

Mississippi Expansion (ETM) Project. Construction of these projects is projected to occur between the 

years 2007 through 2009. In addition, construction was completed in May 2007 on the FERC-approved 

CEGT Carthage to Perryville Project in northern Louisiana. See Figure 3.13.1 and Tables 3.13.1-1 and 

3.13.1-2 for 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 political considerations. 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. 

While it is not certain if or when these actions will occur, their 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 Southeast Expansion and East Texas Expansion 

projects would result in environmental impacts similar to those of the proposed Project. 

East Texas to Mississippi Expansion Project 

The ETM Expansion Project, proposed by Gulf South, is an approximate 241.9-mile, 36-inchand 42-inch-diameter natural gas pipeline. This project includes the addition of 40,302-hp of additional 

compression at one existing compressor station, two new compressor stations with 30,000 hp and 

40,302 hp, and six new M&R stations. The ETM Expansion Project is located in Panola County, Texas; 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 3-136 

NON-INTERNET PUBLIC 

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE PROPOSED SOUTHEAST 

SUPPLY HEADER PIPELINE PROJECT 

Docket Nos. CP07-44-000 and CP07-45-000 

Page 3-136 

Section 3.13 

Figure 3.13-1 

Natural Gas Pipeline Projects near the Proposed SESH Project 

Public Access for the above information is available only through the Public Reference Room, or by 

e-mail at 

public.referenceroom@ferc.gov

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
3-137 

TABLE 3.13.1-1 

Existing or Proposed Projects that Would Cumulatively Affect 

Resources in the Proposed SESH Project Area 

Project Description 

Anticipated 

Construction 

Date Counties/Parishes within 

Natural Gas Pipeline Projects 

Carthage to Perryville Project Construct and operate a 172-mile-long, 42-

inch-diameter natural gas pipeline 

2006–2007 

(Construction 

complete) 

Panola County, Texas Caddo, DeSoto, Red River, Bienville, JacRichland parishes, Louisiana 

East Texas to Mississippi Expansion Project 

Construct and operate a 261.9-mile-long, 42-inch-diameter natural gas pipeline 

2007 DeSoto, Red River, Bienville, Jackson, O

Madison parishes, Louisiana, Warren, Hinds, Copiah and Simpson cou

Southeast Expansion Project Construct and operate a 112-mile-long, 36-

inch-diameter natural gas pipeline 

2008 Smith, Jasper and Clark counties, Missis

Choctaw County, Alabama 

Southern Pines Energy Center and Expansion 

Constructing natural gas storage caverns, a compressor and meter station, and approximately 3 miles of 24-inch-diameter pipeline Constructing additional capacity of natural 

gas storage caverns, meter station, and 26 miles of dual 24-inch-diameter natural gas pipeline 

2006-2007 2007-2008 

Greene County, Mississippi Greene County, Mississippi Mobile County, Alabama 

Southeast Supply Header Project Construct and operate a 269-mile-long, 42-

inch-diameter (104 miles) and 36-inchdiameter (165 miles) natural gas pipeline 

2008 Richland and Madison parishes, Louisian

Warren, Claiborne, Hinds, Copiah, LawreCovington, Jones, Forrest, Perry, Greenecounties, Mississippi Mobile County, Alabama 

Unrelated Projects 

I-59 S-Curve Project, Laurel Reconstruction and realignment of I-59 2006-2009 Jones County, Mississippi State Route 42, East Petal Perform 3 miles of paving on a 4-lane road 2006-2007 Forrest County, Mississippi U.S. Highway 45/State Route 57 Bypass 

Construct 5.3 miles of 4-lane road and bridge 

2006-2007 Greene and Wayne counties, Mississippi 

U.S. Highway 84, Waynesboro to Alabama State Line 

Construct 4-lane bridge and upgrade 10 miles of road 

2006-2008 Wayne County, Mississippi 

State Route 63, Lucedale to Leaksville Construct 14.1 miles of 4-lane road and 

bridge 

2005-2007 George and Greene counties, Mississipp

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
3-138 

TABLE 3.13.1-2 

Environmental Resources That Would Be Cumulatively Affected During Construction and Operatio

in the Vicinity of the Proposed SESH Projecta

Project 

(Anticipated 

Construction 

Date) 

Total Length/ 

Length of 

Collocation 

(miles) 

Total Land 

Disturbance

(acres) 

Pipeline 

Diameter 

and 

Proposed 

Permanent 

ROW Width 

Open-Cut 

Waterbody 

Crossings 

Wetlands 

Disturbed 

During 

Construction

Forested 

Wetlands 

Disturbed 

Forest Land 

Cleared 

Federall

Listed 

Endanger

Threatene

or Candid

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) 

243/ 

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) 

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) 

111/ 

73 

1,954 

(825 

permanently)

42-inch 

50 feet 

92 perennial 

159 intermittent

129 wetlands

89 acres 48 acres 1,329 acres 9 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 3-139 

DeSoto, Red River, Bienville, Jackson, Ouachita, Richland, and Madison parishes, Louisiana; and 

Warren, Hinds, Copiah, Simpson, and Walthall counties, 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 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 FEIS was issued on May 25, 2007. On June 18, 2007 the FERC issued an 

order granting the requested authorization to construct, subject to conditions. Gulf South indicated the 

project began construction July 5, 2007. The FERC (1989) concluded that the general impact of building 

more than one pipeline would be primarily additive, and the cumulative impact could be calculated by 

adding together the impact of each individual project. Based on the project scope, geographic location, 

and preliminary information, we anticipate that the ETM Expansion Project would result in environmental 

impacts similar to those of the proposed Project. The proposed Project will parallel the right-of-way 

utilized by the ETM Expansion Project in Madison Parish for approximately 10 miles (SESH MP 12.6 to 

MP 22.5). 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 Expansion Project 

The Southeast Expansion Project, also proposed by Gulf South, is an approximate 110-mile-long, 

36-inch-diameter natural gas pipeline from Gulf South’s existing Index 130 transmission pipeline in 

Simpson County, Mississippi to an interconnection with Transco in Choctaw County, Alabama 

(Transco’s Compressor Station 85). The beginning of the Southeast Expansion Project is at the end of the 

ETM Project. Gulf South has indicated that, if approved, the ETM Project would be constructed in 2007. 

The Southeast Expansion 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 has 

been filed. A DEIS was issued on April 13, 2007 and is being evaluated by the FERC. While it is not 

certain if or when this action will occur, its similarity and proximity to the proposed Project merits further 

consideration. The FERC (1989) concluded that the general impact of building more than one pipeline 

would be primarily additive, and the cumulative impact could be calculated by adding together the impact 

of each individual project. Based on the project scope, geographic location, and preliminary information, 

we anticipate that the Southeast Expansion Project would result in environmental impacts similar to those 

of the proposed Project. Detailed information regarding the environmental impacts that would be 

associated with construction and operation of the Southeast Expansion Project can be viewed on the 

FERC website under Docket No. CP07-32-000. 

Southern Pines Energy Center and Expansion Projects 

SG Resources, Mississippi, LLC is completing construction of its Southern Pines Energy Center 

in Greene County, Mississippi. The center includes two underground natural gas storage caverns (12 Bcf 

capacity), two injection and withdrawal wells, five raw water wells and five brine disposal wells; and 

associated pumping and piping systems. It also includes four compressors and two 3.13 mile-long, 24-

inch diameter pipelines extending from the storage facility to an interconnection with the Destin Pipeline 

Company, LLC pipeline system, facility utilities and roadways. 

In 2007, SG Resources, Mississippi, LLC was approved to double its storage capacity to 24 Bcf 

and to construct dual lateral pipelines to connect the center with the Florida Gas and Transco pipeline 

systems. Specifically, SG Resources, Mississippi, LLC requested approval to increase storage capacity by 

two storage caverns, develop a third storage cavern, construct two additional brine disposal wells and 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 3-140 

construct 26 miles of dual 24-inch-diameter pipelines in Greene County, Mississippi, and Mobile County, 

Alabama. The construction of the Southern Pines Energy Center and Expansion Projects started in 2006 

and will continue through 2008. 

The Southern Pines Energy Center and Expansion Projects are considered here with respect to the 

potential for cumulative impacts to the natural and human environments of Mississippi and Alabama. 

Their similarity and the proximity of their pipeline components to the proposed Project merit further 

consideration. As noted above, 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 Southern Pines Energy Center and Expansion Projects would result in 

environmental impacts similar to those of the proposed Project. Detailed information regarding the 

environmental impacts that would be associated with construction and operation of the Southern Pines 

Energy Center and Expansion Projects are included in the environmental assessment prepared by the 

FERC, which can be viewed on the FERC website under Docket No. CP02-229-000. 

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 475 miles southeast from Bryan County, Oklahoma, to 

Choctaw County, Alabama. The route would be collocated with the Gulf Crossing Project, then the ETM 

Expansion Project, and finally with the Southeast Expansion 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 were constructed as presently 

envisioned, this would represent a cumulative land-use effect along with the proposed Project's right-ofway in Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama. 

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 (PF07-4-000) 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 Midcontinent Express Project are not available at this time. 

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 is in the pre-filing stage 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. PF07-1-000. 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 3-141 

3.13.2 Unrelated Projects 

Assorted Mississippi Road Projects 

The MSDOT provides brief updates of projects throughout the state on its website: 

www.mdot.state.ms.us. According to the site, there are five projects within the counties along the 

proposed Project route. The U.S. Highway 84 project is located in Wayne County, which is adjacent 

(north) to Greene County where the proposed SESH Project route is located. 

The largest road project in the SESH Project area is the Federal Highway Administration’s I-59 

S-Curve Project in Laurel, Mississippi. It involves the straightening of three-quarters of a mile of 

Interstate Highway in the city of Laurel. An environmental assessment was prepared for the project by the 

Federal Highway Administration and a Finding of No Significant Impact was issued in April 1988. 

Project construction began in October 2006 and is scheduled for completion in August 2009. A copy of 

the environmental assessment could not be obtained to evaluate the project’s potential impacts; however, 

the project is being constructed in areas characterized as residential and commercial/industrial. 

Four other projects are being constructed under the direction of the MSDOT. Three of the 

projects are on existing roads, and one is a new road (U.S Highway 45/State Route 57 Bypass). 

Construction is scheduled to be complete on three of the four projects during the beginning of 

construction of the SESH Project. Construction of the U.S. Highway 84 project will continue through the 

proposed SESH Project construction period (November 2007 to June 2008). Environmental 

documentation on these projects was not available; therefore, evaluations of environmental impacts could 

not be made. 

3.13.3 Potential Cumulative Impacts of the Proposed Action 

Impacts to wetlands, water bodies, vegetation, wildlife (including federally and state-listed 

endangered and threatened species), land use, and air quality and noise could contribute to larger 

cumulative impacts. See Tables 3.13-1 and 3.13-2 for a comparative summary of the proposed 

construction projects in the vicinity of the proposed Project. 

The FERC has no authority over the permitting, licensing, funding, construction, or operation of 

the projects listed in Section 3.13.2. Federal, state, and local agencies must review these projects for 

compliance with requirements for construction of facilities at sites or places where a governmental license 

or permit may be required. The expansion or construction of interstate 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 water bodies, vegetation and 

wildlife (including threatened and endangered species), land use, and air quality and noise. 

3.13.3.1 Wetlands and Waterbodies 

Construction and operation of the proposed SESH Project would result in both short-term and 

long-term impacts to water bodies 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 water bodies during operation of the proposed pipeline would be 

associated with routine right-of-way maintenance. All maintenance activities would comply with 

applicable federal regulations (see Section 2.6) and SESH’s Plan and Procedures, but would continue 

throughout the life of the proposed Project. 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 3-142 

If approved and constructed, the SESH Project and other reasonably foreseeable future projects 

would affect wetlands and would include the permanent loss or conversion of some existing wetlands (see 

Section 3.4). Elements of these projects that have the potential to affect wetlands and water bodies would 

be subject to review and approval under Section 404 of the CWA, as administered by the COE, as well as 

state and local wetland regulations (see Section 1.3). Any permanent or long-term impacts to wetlands 

and water bodies would require appropriate mitigation. Construction of the proposed Project would affect 

267 wetland areas resulting in a total of approximately 238.8 acres of wetland disturbance, including 

approximately 159.8 acres of forested wetland impacts. As noted in Section 3.4, SESH would fully 

comply with any mitigation conditions established in the permits, which could include off-site mitigation, 

conservation, enhancement, and on-site mitigation. Common off-site mitigation options include 

mitigation banking, conservation, and resource enhancement. Further, 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 SESH Project would result in 654 individual waterbody crossings. 

SESH proposes to cross 31 of these waterbodies using the HDD technique, including 10 major 

waterbodies, 9 NRI rivers, and 10 impaired rivers. The use of HDD would avoid direct impacts to 

waterbodies and minimize impacts to riparian vegetation at those crossings. We have also provided 

recommendations to evaluate further avoidance and minimization opportunities associated with HDD 

installations that would require extra workspace areas in forested wetlands (see Section 3.4). Though 

impacts to surface waters could occur during the HDD installation process, either through an inadvertent 

release of drilling fluids (frac-out) or through accidental fuel and chemical spills, the likelihood and 

potential damage associated with such events would be greatly reduced by the implementation of SESH’s 

HDD Contingency Plan and SPCC Plan, respectively. 

Because most of the projects listed in Table 3.13-1 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 water bodies. However, because the SESH Project would not 

involve construction of permanent diversions or dams, impacts to surface water quality would be 

temporary. 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 SESH’s 

Plan and Procedures and the recommendations included in this EIS. We conclude that the cumulative 

impacts of the SESH Project and the projects listed in Table 3.13-1 on wetlands and water bodies would 

be adequately minimized. 

3.13.3.2 Vegetation and Wildlife 

Construction of the proposed Project and other reasonably foreseeable future projects would have 

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 affect native vegetative 

communities including approximately 1,831.6 acres of forest and 341.3 acres of pine plantation. 

Cumulative impacts within a region, such as lost acreage of forestland, are additive. Further, 

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 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 3-143 

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 impacts associated with construction of the 

proposed Project and other future projects would be minimized by using existing maintained rights-ofway and other disturbed areas. SESH’s proposed route would parallel existing utility rights-of-way where 

possible, thereby minimizing impacts to previously undisturbed vegetation. The proposed pipeline route 

would parallel existing rights-of-way for approximately 58.5 miles, or about 22 percent of the proposed 

route. Additionally, approximately 36 percent of the proposed pipeline route would traverse agricultural 

and open lands that would typically experience rapid revegetation. Further, SESH would implement the 

mitigation measures outlined in its Plan and Procedures to encourage the regrowth of native vegetation 

and discourage the spread of exotic or noxious plant species. 

Thirty threatened, endangered, or special-status wildlife and plant species were identified as 

potentially occurring within the Project Area. As described in Section 3.7, with implementation of our 

recommendations for mitigation to avoid and minimize impacts, we have determined that the proposed 

Project would not be likely to affect, adversely, any federally listed or special-status species. However, if 

other reasonably foreseeable future projects were to affect the same habitats as the proposed Project, 

cumulative impacts to these listed species would occur. Because the protection of threatened, endangered, 

and other special-status species is considered as part of federal and state permitting processes, impacts to 

such species would likely be reduced or eliminated through conservation and mitigation measures 

identified during those relevant 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 SESH 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 4,021.2 acres of land during construction. Approximately 8 percent of 

that land would be pine plantation, 45 percent would be forested land, and 23 percent would be 

agricultural land. Open land, residential, commercial/industrial, and open-water land cover and uses 

would be affected. While most of these impacts would be temporary, construction of the proposed Project 

would result in some permanent land-use changes, including conversion of approximately 165.3 acres of 

pine plantation and 847.0 acres of forested lands to maintained utility right-of-way. The Southern Pines 

Energy Center Project has initially converted approximately 4.2 acres of pine plantation, 6.5 acres of 

forested uplands, and 0.5 acre of wetlands. 

Land-use impacts associated with the proposed ETM Expansion Project and Southeast Expansion 

Project include approximately 4,034 acres and 1,986 acres, respectively. However, land-use impacts 

associated with those projects would likely have a cumulative effect when considered in conjunction with 

the proposed Project. Because 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 the I-59 S-Curve Project in Mississippi, which would permanently convert hundreds 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 

condition 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 agricultural or 

open land would be short term and minor. Cleared forestland and pine plantation located outside of 

permanently maintained rights-of-way would take many years to return to preconstruction conditions, 

with the duration of recovery dependent on the types and ages of trees removed, resulting in long-term 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 3-144 

impacts. However, given the prevalence of these land uses and cover types within the affected counties 

and parishes, significant cumulative effects would not be anticipated. 

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 affect 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 

proposed SESH Project, the ETM Expansion and Southeast Expansion projects, and the Southern Pines 

Energy Center Expansion Project would all contribute 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 existing Columbia Gas Transmission Compressor Station and 

the proposed Gulf South Delhi Compressor Station. The proposed or planned roadway improvements 

might also contribute to increased levels of air emissions as a result of increased vehicular traffic. 

Because construction-related air emissions would be temporary and localized, they would be 

unlikely to contribute significantly to cumulative air quality impacts. Air emissions from operations of 

portions of the proposed Project and the other projects listed in Table 3.13.1-1, with compressor stations 

located in the same AQCR, could present a cumulative impact. This impact would be additive because the 

compressor stations would discharge 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 3.13.1-1. 

Initial screening modeling has been performed for the Delhi Compressor Station, and pollutant 

concentrations would be below thresholds requiring additional cumulative analysis. The counties and 

parishes in which the proposed Project would be constructed are in attainment for all NAAQS criteria 

pollutants. In addition, each of the projects listed in Table 3.13.1-1 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 3.13.1-1 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. Further, 

most construction activities would be limited to daylight hours, so few construction-related noise impacts 

would occur at night. Potential noise-related impacts during operation of the proposed Project and the 

other pipeline projects listed in Table 3.13.1-1 would be primarily 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, Gwinville, and Lucedale compressor stations and Collins and Petal booster stations 

would meet acceptable levels at the nearest NSA, but we are recommending monitoring to ensure no 

impacts occur. 

Noise emissions from compressor and booster 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 FERC standards for 

noise levels. A cumulative noise analysis is being performed at the NSAs in common for both compressor 

stations, which should identify any potential noise impacts at this location. 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 3-145 

3.13.4 Conclusions 

If the proposed Project and the ETM and Southeast Expansion Projects are certificated, along 

with the recently certificated Southern Pines Energy Center and Expansion and the recently constructed 

CenterPoint Carthage to Perryville Project , the projects would be constructed within the same general 

area, and the effects of these actions would overlap in time from 2006 to 2008. Additionally, the type of 

project, construction methods, and impacts would be similar. Although each of these unrelated projects 

would result in some temporary and minor effects during construction, each project would be designed to 

avoid or minimize impacts to wetlands, water bodies, 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 the avoidance or minimization of 

cumulative impacts. We, therefore, consider that the potential cumulative impacts of the three pipeline 

projects and one storage field project under our review have been or would be minimized. 

We believe that impacts associated with the proposed Project would be relatively minor, and we 

have included numerous recommendations in this EIS to further reduce the environmental impacts 

associated with the Project. The environmental impacts associated with the proposed Project would be 

minimized by careful project routing, use of HDD techniques to avoid and minimize impacts to some 

sensitive resources, and implementation of appropriate mitigation measures. Consequently, a small, but 

insignificant cumulative effect is anticipated when the impacts of the proposed Project are added to past, 

present, or reasonably foreseeable future projects in the area. 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 4-1 

4.0 ALTERNATIVES 

We evaluated alternatives to the proposed SESH Project to determine whether they would be 

reasonable and environmentally preferable to the proposed action. We considered the no action or 

postponed action alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, route variations, and 

aboveground facility site alternatives. Identification of alternatives to the proposed Project incorporated 

public comments and input received from federal, state, and local regulatory agencies. 

We used the following evaluation criteria to determine whether alternatives would be 

environmentally preferable: 

y whether the alternative would provide a significant environmental advantage over the 

proposed Project, 

y the ability of the alternative to meet the proposed Project objectives, and 

y whether the alternative was technically and economically feasible and practicable. 

SESH participated in FERC’s pre-filing process during the preliminary design stage for the 

proposed Project. This process emphasizes identification of potential stakeholder issues early in project 

development and identification and evaluation of alternatives that may avoid or minimize these issues. 

As SESH conducted preliminary analyses of possible routes, it identified issues of concern, and multiple 

stakeholders provided SESH and the FERC with comments as route planning progressed. 

4.1 NO ACTION OR POSTPONED ACTION ALTERNATIVE 

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 (no action 

alternative), or 3) postpone the action pending further study (postponed action alternative). 

SESH’s objective for the proposed Project is to provide a direct connection between growing 

onshore natural gas supplies and the growing Florida and southeastern markets. The proposed Project 

would enhance the energy reliability, flexibility, and security of the pipeline grid in the Gulf Coast region 

as well as in the northeastern and southern United States. The proposed Project would also increase 

access to supplies and markets, thereby increasing healthy competition via new firm transportation 

services. 

The proposed Project would provide access to diverse sources of natural gas including emerging 

basins of new supply such as the Barnett Shale, Bossier Sands, and Arkoma and Fayetteville shales, as 

well as providing access to traditional Gulf Coast supplies. Access to these diverse supply sources would 

provide additional reliability and flexibility to the growing markets. The proposed Project would be 

capable of moving approximately 1.14 Bcfd, with receipts from the Perryville Hub in northeastern 

Louisiana and delivery into Gulfstream Natural Gas System (Gulfstream), SONAT, Mobile Gas Services, 

and the FGT. In addition, the proposed Project would act as a virtual header system capable of receiving 

and delivering natural gas to the customers of Columbia Gulf Transmission (Columbia Gulf), CEGT, 

Gulf South, TETLP, SONAT, Transco, Tennessee Gas, FGT, Mobile Gas Services, and Gulfstream. The 

interconnections would also provide access to multiple high-deliverability storage projects. In the 

aggregate, the result would be increased competition in the market areas. 

SESH designed the proposed Project so that it would enhance the seasonal demand requirements 

of multiple regional markets. Depending on the season, the proposed Project, via its interconnections with 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 4-2 

multiple interstate transmission systems, would help to offset a portion of the declining supply from the 

shallow water Gulf of Mexico continental shelf while maintaining peak day deliveries to northeastern and 

southeastern customers. In addition, the SESH system would be a reliable source of supply to the Florida 

market during the summer, as SESH mainly sources its gas from the Perryville Hub which is not sensitive 

to inclement weather. Consequently, the proposed Project would provide multiple shippers with 

additional capacity and enhanced reliability and would provide consumers with increased opportunities 

for price competition. 

Absent this project, SESH would not be able to meet its customers' need for capacity and would 

not increase the flexibility and reliability of the pipeline grid and access to supplies and markets in the 

Gulf Coast region. As designed, the proposed pipeline would have a daily design capacity of 1,140 

million cubic feet (MMcf) per day from Delhi near the Perryville Hub in Louisiana, to Coden, Alabama. 

If the FERC denies SESH’s application to construct the proposed Project, the short-term and 

long-term environmental impacts identified in this EIS would not occur. If the Commission postpones 

action on the application, either the environmental impacts identified in this EIS would be delayed or the 

postponement could result in SESH deciding not to pursue the proposed Project and the impacts would 

not occur at all. However, if the FERC were to select the no action or postponed action alternatives, the 

objectives of the proposed Project would not be met and SESH would not be able to provide a new source 

of natural gas to markets that can be accessed through the pipeline interconnects. 

Although it would be purely speculative and beyond the scope of this analysis to attempt to 

predict what actions might be taken by policy makers or end users in response to the no action or 

postponed action alternatives, it is likely that potential end users would make other arrangements to obtain 

natural gas service (e.g., LNG-derived natural gas or non-LNG-derived natural gas from another project) 

or make use of alternative fossil-fuel energy sources (e.g., fuel, oil, or coal), other traditional long-term 

fuel source alternatives (e.g., nuclear power or hydro power), or renewable energy sources, such as wind 

power, to compensate for the reduced availability of natural gas that would be supplied by the proposed 

Project. It is also possible that energy conservation practices would be used to offset the demand for 

natural gas in the markets that would be supplied by the proposed Project. 

To the limited extent that other fuels could be used to serve the energy needs for the customers of 

the interconnecting pipelines, the use of oil, coal, or nuclear fuels has intrinsic environmental 

disadvantages when compared to natural gas. These disadvantages include the degradation of air quality 

and potential for spills or leaks. The use of solar, geothermal, or other alternative energy sources has not 

been developed such that these alternative sources would be viable options for replacing the natural gas 

supply provided by the proposed SESH Project. 

In light of the preceding analyses, we do not recommend the no action alternative or the 

postponed action alternative. 

4.2 SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES 

System alternatives are those alternatives that could replace all or part of the proposed Project by 

making use of existing natural gas pipeline facilities to meet the stated objectives of the proposed Project. 

Although a system alternative would make it unnecessary to construct all or part of the proposed Project, 

modifications or additions to an existing pipeline system or an entirely new system would be required to 

increase capacity and carry the proposed volumes as proposed in SESH’s application. These 

modifications or additions likely would result in environmental impacts that could be less than, similar to, 

or greater than those associated with construction of the proposed Project. The purpose of identifying and 

evaluating system alternatives is to determine whether potential environmental impacts associated with 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 4-3 

construction and operation of the proposed facilities would be avoided or reduced by using another 

pipeline system while still meeting the objectives of the proposed Project. 

The following analysis examines one existing and one proposed natural gas system that currently 

or would eventually serve the markets targeted by the proposed Project and considers whether those 

systems would meet the proposed Project objectives while offering an environmental advantage over the 

proposed Project. 

4.2.1 Gulf South System Alternative 

SESH presented one pipeline-system alternative using the existing Gulf South Pipeline system. 

Gulf South currently operates an interstate pipeline system in Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, 

and Florida. The Gulf South system is connected from the Perryville Hub to Coden through a single 

30-inch-diameter pipeline of relatively low pressure and smaller pipe diameter compared to the proposed 

SESH facilities. The Gulf South system spans several states for about 470 miles. Due to the smaller 

diameter pipe, the capacity of the Gulf South system is limited to approximately 400 to 500 MMcf per 

day. Currently, Gulf South has a commitment of at least 50 percent of that capacity for its existing 

customers, thus rendering only 200 to 250 MMcf per day to the incremental market at Coden. In addition, 

the interconnections with other pipelines are limited to receipt or delivery only; thus, the existing Gulf 

South system is unable to operate as a virtual pipeline header like the proposed SESH system. The 

existing Gulf South system cannot achieve the goals of reliability enhancement and market and supply 

flexibility. Based on these design considerations, we believe the existing Gulf South system would not 

meet the objectives of the proposal, and we eliminated it from further consideration. 

4.2.2 Gulf South System Alternative (Proposed East Texas to Mississippi Expansion Project) 

Gulf South has proposed to construct and operate a pipeline that would traverse Louisiana and 

southwestern Mississippi. As shown in Figure 4.2-1, the easternmost portion of this proposed pipeline 

would be located in the general vicinity of a portion of the proposed Project. We are currently evaluating 

the Gulf South ETM Expansion Project (Docket No. CP06-446-000). The Gulf South Project, as 

proposed, would include 242 miles of 42-inch-diameter pipeline from Keatchie in Desoto Parish, 

Louisiana, to Harrisonville in Simpson County, Mississippi, where it would tie into the existing 30-inchdiameter Gulf South pipeline system. Gas would be delivered into the 30-inch system at a relatively low 

MAOP of 680 to 935 psig, consistent with its limited capacity. For the proposed Gulf South ETM 

Expansion Project to deliver the volumes of gas proposed by SESH, we estimate that an additional 174 

miles of medium- to large-diameter, high-pressure pipeline would have to be built to extend delivery from 

the Harrisonville area to Coden, in Mobile County. In addition, Gulf South’s proposed expansion is 

designed to serve specific customers, and it is unlikely that Gulf South’s expansion could effectively 

serve SESH’s customers along with its own contractual commitments without the construction of 

additional looping, greenfield2

 pipeline, and compression. Even if Gulf South were to construct these 

facilities, SESH’s project objectives of reliability enhancement and market supply optionality would not 

be achieved. Therefore, we believe the proposed Gulf South expansion alone would not meet the project 

objectives, and we eliminated it from further consideration. 

 

2 Greenfield land is a term used to describe a piece of undeveloped land, either currently used for agriculture or just left to nature. 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 4-4 

NON-INTERNET PUBLIC 

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE PROPOSED SOUTHEAST 

SUPPLY HEADER PIPELINE PROJECT 

Docket Nos. CP07-44-000 and CP07-45-000 

Page 4-4 

Section 4.2 

Figure 4.2-1 

Proposed Gulf South System Alternative 

Public Access for the above information is available only through the Public Reference Room, or by 

e-mail at 

public.referenceroom@ferc.gov

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 4-5 

4.2.3 Transco System Alternatives 

Two system alternatives (Transco System Alternatives 1 and 2) were identified that would follow 

or use a portion of the Transco Mobile Bay lateral to transport gas in an attempt to minimize the amount 

of greenfield pipeline associated with SESH’s proposal. 

4.2.3.1 Transco Alternative 1 (Delhi to Butler to Coden) 

Transco System Alternative 1 deviates from the proposed Project at approximate MP 51.0, 

traveling due east from that point for approximately 150 miles to tie into the existing 30-inch-diameter 

Transco Mobile Bay Lateral (Transco line) at Compressor Station 85, near Butler in Choctaw County, 

Alabama (see Figure 4.2-2). From this point, SESH would use a 123.5-mile section of the Transco line to 

transport gas to Coden. Under this alternative, SESH would need a 15-mile loop of 36-inch pipeline (new 

right-of-way) near Compressor Station 85. According to SESH’s March 2007 FERC filing, the Transco 

System Alternative 1 would have the same operational flexibility and pipeline connectivity as the 

proposed Project. If built, it would potentially be able to meet SESHs’ current capacity requirements. 

As originally identified, this alternative would result in approximately 54 less miles of new 

greenfield right-of-way than the proposed Project (165 miles of new greenfield right-of-way versus 219 

miles under the proposed Project). Our review of the alternative route indicates the lands crossed contain 

a higher percentage of forested land on average per mile than the proposed Project. However, we 

calculate that forested land affected would be approximately 15 miles (or 227 acres) less than the 

proposed Project. The amount of forested land was calculated using the ratio of forested to nonforested 

land from the Gulf South Southeast Expansion Project DEIS (Docket No. CP07-32-000). 

The construction and operation of this alternative system would require additional pipeline loop 

and new compression. Based on the information that SESH has provided, the alternative would be 70.5 

miles longer than the proposed Project, and the last 123.5 miles of pipeline would be 30 inches in 

diameter. In addition, the operation of the pipeline would require 33,650 hp of additional compression at 

two new compressor stations and 47,000 hp added at three of Transco’s existing stations. The alternative 

would operate with five compressor stations compared to three for the proposed Project. The Delhi 

Compressor Station would remain at its current location, while the Gwinville Compressor Station would 

move to the new pipeline alignment. The Lucedale Compressor Station and Petal and Collins booster 

stations would be eliminated and three existing Transco Compressor Station sites (Stations 82, 83, and 

85) would be upgraded and used. It is likely that additional acreage would be acquired and would be 

permanently maintained at each of the three existing stations. 

SESH indicates that, over the life of the project, providing gas thru-put from Delhi to Coden 

equivalent to that of the proposal would require 65 percent greater fuel usage and an associated increase 

in air emissions. In addition, the need for more compression under the alternative renders it equipment 

heavy and subject to more frequent breakdowns. Consequently, SESH indicates the alternative would be 

less reliable than the proposed Project and would have higher operation and maintenance costs. 

Since the issuance of the DEIS, we have obtained additional information on Transco’s system and 

we have identified several engineering reasons why this system alternative is not a reasonable one. First, 

all of Transco’s firm capacity on its Mobile Bay Lateral from Station 85 to Coden, Alabama is fully 

subscribed meaning that, SESH would not be able to contract for capacity on this line. Instead SESH 

would at a minimum, have to loop the entire 123.5 mile Mobile Bay Lateral. However, the gas in the 

Mobile Bay Lateral now flows from the south to the north, where as SESH requires transportation from 

the north to the south. This means that SESH would actually have to build a parallel pipeline rather than 

a loop to transport the gas. The system alternative would require the construction of 324.5 miles of new 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 4-6 

NON-INTERNET PUBLIC 

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE PROPOSED SOUTHEAST 

SUPPLY HEADER PIPELINE PROJECT 

Docket Nos. CP07-44-000 and CP07-45-000 

Page 4-6 

Section 4.2 

Figure 4.2-2 

Transco System Alternative 1 

Delhi to Butler to Coden 

Public Access for the above information is available only through the Public Reference Room, or by 

e-mail at 

public.referenceroom@ferc.gov 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 4-7 

pipeline rather than the 269 miles of pipeline planned by SESH. It also means that even more 

compression may be required since SESH would not be able to make use of Transco existing compression 

which would be needed by Transco to transport its gas on the existing Mobile Bay Lateral. Therefore, we 

believe the use of this system alternative is not a reasonable alternative. 

4.2.3.2 Transco Alternative 2 (Delhi to Citronelle to Coden) 

Transco System Alternative 2 (Delhi to Citronelle to Coden) deviates from the proposed Project 

at approximate MP 193.0, traveling southeast from that point for approximately 30 miles to tie into the 

existing 30-inch-diameter Transco Mobile Bay lateral at its intersection with the FGT pipeline, at 

Compressor Station 83 near Citronelle in Mobile County, Alabama (see Figure 4.2-3). From this point, 

SESH would use the southernmost 53-mile section of the Transco line to transport gas to Coden. 

According to SESH’s March 2007 FERC filing, Transco System Alternative 2 would have the 

same operational flexibility and pipeline connectivity as the proposed Project, and both would be able to 

meet their current capacity requirements. 

This alternative would use approximately 47 less miles of new right-of-way corridor than the 

proposed Project (223 miles of new right-of-way versus 270 miles under the proposed Project). Our 

review of the alternative route indicates the lands crossed contain a higher percentage of forested land on 

average per mile than the proposed Project. We calculated that the forested land affected would be 

approximately 8 miles (or 121 acres) greater than the proposed Project. The amount of forested land was 

calculated using the ratio of forested to nonforested land (4:1) from the Southern Resources Southern 

Pines Energy Center and Expansion environmental assessments (Docket No. CP02-229-000). 

The construction and operation of this alternative system would require additional pipeline loop 

and compression. The alternative would be 7 miles longer than the proposed Project, and the last 53 

miles of Transco line pipeline is 30 inches in diameter. SESH points out that operation of the pipeline 

would require 16,040 hp of additional compression at one of two new compressor stations and 16,040 hp 

added at one existing compressor station (Transco Station 82) (for a total of four compared to three for the 

proposed Project). The Delhi and Gwinville Compressor Stations would remain at their current locations. 

The Lucedale Compressor Station would be eliminated, and two existing Transco Compressor Stations 

(Stations 82 and 83) would be upgraded and used. It is likely that additional acreage would have to be 

acquired and permanently maintained at both of these stations to provide the required increases in 

compression. Therefore, over the life of the project, providing gas thru-put from Delhi to Coden 

equivalent to that under the proposed Project would require 31 percent greater fuel usage and an 

associated increase in air emissions. 

Since the issuance of the DEIS, we have obtained additional information on Transco’s system and 

we have identified several engineering reasons why this system alternative is not a reasonable one. First, 

all of Transco’s firm capacity on its Mobile Bay Lateral from Station 85 to Coden, Alabama is fully 

subscribed meaning that, SESH would not be able to contract for capacity on this line. Instead SESH 

would at a minimum, have to loop the entire 123.5 mile Mobile Bay Lateral. However, the gas in the 

Mobile Bay Lateral now flows from the south to the north, where as SESH requires transportation from 

the north to the south. This means that SESH would actually have to build a parallel pipeline rather than 

a loop to transport the gas. The system alternative would require the construction of 324.5 miles of new 

pipeline rather than the 269 miles of pipeline planned by SESH. It also means that even more 

compression may be required since SESH would not be able to make use of Transco existing compression 

which would be needed by Transco to transport its gas and the existing Mobile Bay Lateral. Therefore, 

we believe the use of this system alternative is not a reasonable alternative. 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 4-8 

NON-INTERNET PUBLIC 

DRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE PROPOSED 

SOUTHEAST SUPPLY HEADER PIPELINE PROJECT 

Docket Nos. CP07-44-000 and CP07-45-000 

Page 4-8 

Section 4.2 

Figure 4.2-3 

Transco System Alternative 2 

Delhi to Citronelle to Coden 

Public Access for the above information is available only through the Public Reference Room, or by 

e-mail at 

public.referenceroom@ferc.gov 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 4-9 

4.3 PIPELINE ROUTE ALTERNATIVES 

Pipeline route alternatives are analyzed for their potential to avoid or significantly reduce impacts on 

environmentally sensitive resources, such as large population centers, scenic areas, conservation areas 

(such as Wildlife Refuges), wetlands, and waterways that would be crossed by the proposed pipeline. 

Shorter deviations from the proposed pipeline routes are discussed as route variations in Section 4.4. 

During the pre-filing process for this proposal, SESH initially planned its route by first drawing a 

straight line from the origin to the terminus for the project. The “straight line” route was modified to 

accommodate requested interconnects. Only the FGT interconnect required a deviation from the route. To 

access the FGT interconnect, the alignment was adjusted slightly northward from the Delhi Compressor 

Station to about MP 207, at which point it was oriented more to the south, continuing on this path through 

the FGT interconnect to Coden (see Figure 4.3-1). The comparison of the “straight line” route to the 

proposed Project is shown in Table 4.3-1. 

The “straight line” route results in a shorter length (243 miles versus 269 miles for the proposed 

Project). Significant issues with this route identified during the pre-filing process included: 

y identification of a feasible Mississippi River crossing location, 

y impact to sensitive federal and state lands, 

y adherence to NPS guidelines for the Natchez Trace Parkway crossing, 

y impact to developed urban areas, 

y impact to forest/forested wetland, 

y crossing of steeply sloping terrain, 

y lack of other utility rights-of-way in which to collocate, and 

y specific landowner requests. 

The “straight line” crossing of the Mississippi River was problematic. Early consultation with the 

COE indicated that the HDD would have to occur within the confines of the levees because of concerns 

related to levee integrity. The current crossing location of the Mississippi River now addresses the COE 

concerns. It offers the shortest crossing distance of all locations while still providing sufficient room 

within the levees to position the HDD working areas. 

The “straight line” route crossed sensitive federal and state lands, including the Tensas NWR, the 

DeSoto National Forest, and the Leaf River WMA. Avoiding these environmentally sensitive resources 

was a priority and was discussed among the agencies. If SESH had pursued the “straight line” as a 

proposed route, the responsible agencies could have imposed restrictions on the project that would have 

compromised one or more of its primary objectives. 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 4-10 

TABLE 4.3-1 

Comparison of “Straight Line” Route and Proposed Project As a Result of Pre-filinga

Comparative Category Unit Most Direct 

Route Preferred Route 

Land Requirementsb 

Total length miles 242.9 268.9 

Construction right-of-way acres 2,944.2 3,260.0 

Permanent right-of-way acres 1,472.1 1,630.0 

 

Environmental Considerations 

Stream crossingsc number 275 247 

Open water crossed c miles 6.3 10.6 

Federal lands crossed d miles 31.1 0.1 

State lands crossed e miles 0.0 0.0 

Municipalities miles 17.0 0.2 

Adjacency to existing rights-of-way f miles 0.0 35.0 

 

Notes: 

a Values reported are based on published data and mapping; therefore, the values shown may differ from actual 

values provided elsewhere in individual resource reports. b Land requirements reported assume a 100-ft-wide construction right-of-way and a 50-ft-wide permanent right-ofway. c Streams and Open Water source: National Hydrography Dataset based off of USGS topographic map symbology, 

includes marsh/swamp lands; Federal Lands source: United States National Atlas Federal Lands (640 acres or 

more). d Includes the Tensas NWR, Natchez Trace Parkway, and DeSoto National Forest e Includes the Leaf River WMA 

f Includes transmission line and pipeline rights-of-way 

ft = foot/feet 

NWR = National Wildlife Refuge 

WMA = Wildlife Management Area 

Early consultation with the NPS revealed that it would likely not approve the “straight line” 

crossing of the Natchez Trace Parkway. The route was modified (from MP 44.86 to MP 73.40, a distance 

of 28.5 miles) to accommodate NPS recommendations for the crossing. The reroute deviated a distance of 

over 3 miles from the “straight line” alignment. 

Several major routing adjustments were conducted to avoid major residential areas, such as the one in 

Covington County, Mississippi (from MP 145.9 to MP 153.06, a distance of 7.16 miles), where the 

reroute varied over 0.7 mile from the main alignment; and the one in Madison Parish, Louisiana (from 

MP 18.90 to MP 24.57, a distance of 5.67 miles), implemented to avoid residences and multiple stream 

crossings. A major reroute to avoid forested wetlands along the Bowie River in Covington County, 

Mississippi, was 5.8 miles long (MP 131.56 to MP 137.36) and varied from the “straight line” alignment 

by 845 ft. 

In an effort to avoid rough terrain, SESH implemented a 6.27-mile reroute in Copiah County, 

Mississippi (MP 74.90 to MP 81.17, Table 4.4-1), with the reroute diverging almost one-half mile from 

the “straight line” alignment. 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 4-11 

NON-INTERNET PUBLIC 

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE PROPOSED SOUTHEAST 

SUPPLY HEADER PIPELINE PROJECT 

Docket Nos. CP07-44-000 and CP07-45-000 

Page 4-11 

Section 4.3 

Figure 4.3-1 

Most Direct Route Alternative 

Delhi to Lucedale to Coden 

Public Access for the above information is available only through the Public Reference Room, or by 

e-mail at 

public.referenceroom@ferc.gov 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 4-12 

Some reroutes, like the one between MP 36.60 and MP 44.86 in Warren County, Mississippi 

(8.26 miles long), served multiple purposes, in this case avoiding residences, a pond, areas presenting 

constructability issues, hunting camps, and a lake. SESH also adjusted the “straight line” as needed to 

collocate, to the maximum extent practicable, with other utility rights-of-way, thereby reducing the 

amount of new pipeline corridor associated with the SESH Project. For example, in Perry County, 

Mississippi, between MPs 176.56 and MP 190.57, two such reroutes, totaling 4.98 miles in length, were 

implemented. While most landowner requests resulted in relatively minor variations in routing the 

pipeline (see route variations discussion below), the refusal of a landowner in Madison Parish, Louisiana 

to grant an easement to SESH resulted in a 5.14-mile route realignment of the proposed route (MP 7.16 to 

MP 12.30). 

In conclusion, because of the route planning done during the Commission’s pre-filing process, no 

other major route alternatives were identified because SESH attempted to avoid or significantly reduce 

impacts on sensitive resources in its initial planning and siting of its proposal. Accordingly, the proposed 

route is the preferred alternative. 

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, landowner requests, and terrain conditions. While route 

variations may be a few miles long, most are relatively short and in proximity to the proposed route. 

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

landowner comments. However, a variety of factors are considered in identifying and evaluating route 

variations including length, land requirements, and potential for reducing or minimizing impacts to 

natural resources. 

As part of its proposed Project development and route selection process, SESH identified over 

70 minor route variations to address landowner requests, avoid or minimize water body and wetland 

crossing, avoid cultural resource sites, parallel existing right-of-ways, and improve constructability (see 

Table 4.4-1). We have evaluated each of these minor route variations and considered their associated 

environmental impacts as part of our environmental analysis of the proposed Project. 

In addition to the route variations shown in Table 4.4-1, it is anticipated that minor alignment 

shifts would be required prior to and during construction to accommodate currently unforeseeable 

site-specific constraints related to engineering, landowner, and environmental concerns. All such 

alignment shifts would first be subject to post-Certificate review and approval by the FERC. 

Identified Route Variations 

We have identified and evaluated 12 additional route variations based on comments provided by 

the public, an agency and an organization. These variations affect a total of eighteen landowners. 

Table 4.4-2 below identifies the landowners, mileposts (MP) associated with the comments, and the 

comment identification number as it appears in Appendix K of the FEIS. 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 4-13 

TABLE 4.4-1 

Route Variations Adopted for the Proposed SESH Project 

Mileposts 

Start End 

Variationa

(Feet) County/Parish, State Reason for Adoption Land Use 

1.00 3.00 +530 Madison Parish, LA Landowner request Agricultural, forested 

4.20 5.87 +105 Madison Parish, LA Landowner request Agricultural, forested 

7.16 12.30 -260 Madison Parish, LA Landowner request Agricultural, open land, open water 

12.19 12.66 +105 Madison Parish, LA 

Extended away from 

waterbody to avoid sensitive 

site 

Agricultural 

17.43 18.90 -260 Madison Parish, LA Avoid paralleling bayou Agricultural, forested, industrial/ 

commercial, open water 

18.90 24.57 +790 Madison Parish, LA Avoid residences and multiple 

creek crossings 

Agricultural, forested, industrial/ 

commercial 

24.94 27.00 +530 Madison Parish, LA Avoid cultural site (Indian 

mound) and residences Agricultural 

32.24 33.98 0 Madison Parish, LA Avoid streams and parallel 

road Agricultural, open water 

34.00 35.06 -210 Madison Parish, LA Alignment for drill Forested, pine plantation 

35.16 36.63 +55 

Madison Parish, 

LA/Warren County, 

MS 

Straighten for HDD Forest, industrial/commercial 

36.60 42.85 +900 Warren County, MS 

Avoid residences and pond; 

constructability issues (better 

road crossing of US 61) 

Agricultural, forested, industrial/ 

commercial, open land, open water, 

residential 

42.86 44.86 +1,056 Warren County, MS Avoid hunting camps and 

lake 

Agricultural, forested, open land, open 

water 

47.93 48.40 -55 Claiborne County, MS Reroute to avoid multiple 

stream crossings Forest 

44.86 73.40 +16,470 Claiborne County, MS 

Rerouted to locate a suitable 

crossing within an existing 

easement across Natchez 

Trace 

Agricultural, forested, pine plantation, 

open land, open water, residential 

72.61 73.07 0 Copiah County, MS Straighten for HDD Open land, forest 

74.90 81.17 +2,430 Copiah County, MS Avoid rough terrain Agricultural, forested, pine plantation, 

industrial/ commercial, open land 

81.19 82.46 -105 Copiah County, MS HCA avoidance and 

landowner request Forest 

82.40 83.20 +4,224 Copiah County, MS Avoid pond Forested, Industrial/ Commercial, Open 

Water 

84.11 85.17 -105 Copiah County, MS Straighten alignment of route Forest 

86.54 88.18 +686 Copiah County, MS Avoid residences Agricultural, forested, industrial/ 

commercial, open land 

89.36 89.70 +210 Copiah County, MS Landowner request Forested, open land, residential 

96.53 97.12 -315 Copiah County, MS Landowner request Forest 

100.50 101.20 +125 Lawrence County, MS Environmental reroute Forested, open land, residential 

109.00 109.75 +610 Lawrence County, MS Environmental reroute and 

constructability issues Forested, pine plantation, open land 

109.75 110.36 +55 Lawrence County, MS Landowner request Forest 

112.30 112.90 +100 Lawrence County, MS Eliminate side cuts Forested, open land 

114.52 116.37 +315 Lawrence County, MS Relocation of Gwinville 

Compressor Station Forest, open land 

114.62 116.33 -370 Lawrence County, MS Landowner request Forested, pine plantation, industrial/ 

commercial, open land, residential 

115.54 115.73 +135 Lawrence County, MS Avoid residences Forested, industrial/ commercial, open 

land 

116.49 116.79 0 Jefferson Davis 

County, MS Reroute to avoid a pond Forest 

118.22 118.54 0 Jefferson Davis 

County, MS Reroute to avoid a pond Open land 

125.60 126.00 +180 Jefferson Davis 

County, MS Avoid residences Forested, residential 

130.31 130.48 -55 Covington County, 

MS Landowner request Forest 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 4-14 

TABLE 4.4-1 

Route Variations Adopted for the Proposed SESH Project 

Mileposts 

Start End 

Variationa

(Feet) County/Parish, State Reason for Adoption Land Use 

130.70 130.77 +55 Covington County, 

MS PI straightening Forest 

131.56 137.36 -845 Covington County, 

MS 

Avoid swamplands along 

Bowie River 

Agricultural, forested, pine plantation, 

open land, residential 

138.35 138.52 +100 Covington County, 

MS 

Avoid existing compressor 

station 

Forested, pine plantation, industrial/ 

commercial, residential 

142.80 144.66 +50 Covington County, 

MS Angle for road crossing Forested, pine plantation, open land 

150.73 151.04 0 Covington County, 

MS Straighten for HDD Forest 

152.63 152.71 0 Covington County, 

MS Reroute to avoid pond Forest 

145.90 153.06 +3,800 Covington County, 

MS Avoid major residential area 

Agricultural, forested, pine plantation, 

industrial/ commercial, open land, open 

water, residential 

153.30 153.84 -55 Jones County, MS Landowner request Open land 

155.60 161.02 -264 Jones County, MS Avoid proposed residential 

area 

Agricultural, forested, industrial/ 

commercial, open land, open water 

161.38 162.72 +316 Forrest County, MS Avoid residences Agricultural, forested, industrial/ 

commercial, residential 

162.28 163.16 -210 Forrest County, MS Avoid encroachment of 

transmission line easement Forest 

163.93 164.50 +100 Forrest County, MS Avoid residences Forested, residential 

164.52 166.39 +264 Forrest County, MS Avoid landfill and residences Agricultural, forested, industrial/ 

commercial, residential 

166.17 167.67 0 Forrest County, MS Relocation of Petal Booster 

Site Forest, open land 

169.07 169.44 +211 Perry County, MS Avoid residences and lake Forested, pine plantation, open land 

170.35 170.85 +105 Perry County, MS Straighten for HDD Forest 

171.50 171.22 +210 Perry County, MS Avoid residences Forested, pine plantation, residential 

172.84 174.70 +950 Perry County, MS Avoid cemetery, cell tower, 

pond, and residence Forested, pine plantation, open land 

176.56 178.29 -52 Perry County, MS Move to parallel existing rightof-way 

Forested, pine plantation, industrial/ 

commercial, open land 

179.25 179.67 -55 Perry County, MS Increase distance from barn Forest, agricultural 

181.57 181.75 -55 Perry County, MS Landowner request Forest 

187.32 190.57 +210 Perry County, MS Move to parallel existing rightof-way 

Agricultural, forested, pine plantation, 

industrial/ commercial, open land, open 

water 

190.50 190.93 +100 Perry County, MS Avoid residence Forested, industrial/ commercial, 

residential 

191.53 191.71 +150 Perry County, MS Avoid multiple crossings of a 

creek 

Forested, industrial/ commercial, open 

land 

191.85 192.25 +80 Perry County, MS Move to parallel existing rightof-way Forested, open land 

195.34 197.00 -160 Greene County, MS Avoid terrain (ravines) Forested, pine plantation, open land 

199.77 201.57 +1,267 Greene County, MS Avoid terrain (ravines) Forested, industrial/ commercial, open 

land 

201.68 202.28 +210 Greene County, MS Move to parallel existing rightof-way Forested, pine plantation, open land 

203.62 204.46 +260 Greene County, MS Avoid ponds and multiple 

creek crossings Forested, open land 

207.72 208.24 +75 Greene County, MS Avoid residence, water well, 

and septic system Forested, pine plantation 

208.03 208.84 +150 Greene County, MS 

Move to avoid area where 

insufficient space is available 

to construct between existing 

right-of-way and road 

Forested, industrial/ commercial, open 

land 

210.89 211.38 +300 George County, MS Avoid wetland and residence 

Agricultural, forested, industrial/ 

commercial, open land, open water, 

residential 

212.20 212.72 +270 George County, MS 

Reroute to interconnect to a 

more suitable site for 

proposed compressor station 

Forested, pine plantation, industrial/ 

commercial 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 4-15 

TABLE 4.4-1 

Route Variations Adopted for the Proposed SESH Project 

Mileposts 

Start End 

Variationa

(Feet) County/Parish, State Reason for Adoption Land Use 

213.77 214.05 -55 George County, MS 

Construction-reduced 

crossing length of foreign 

pipelines 

Forest, open land 

218.22 218.93 +55 George County, MS Avoid residence, landowner 

request Forest 

218.78 219.05 +100 George County, MS Avoid residence Agricultural, forested, industrial/ 

commercial, residential 

219.33 220.15 +86 George County, MS Avoid residence Agricultural, forested, industrial/ 

commercial, residential 

221.30 223.04 -1370 George County, MS Avoid residences and ponds Agricultural, forested, open land, open 

water 

223.07 223.84 -105 George County, MS Avoiding Pond Forest 

225.60 226.00 +60 George County, MS Avoid residences and ponds Agricultural, forested, open water 

227.57 227.84 +150 George County, MS Avoid residence Pine plantation, residential 

229.77 230.08 +90 George County, MS Avoid residences, barn, and 

orchard Agricultural, forested 

231.47 235.00 +475 George County, MS Avoid residences Agricultural, Forested, Open Land, 

Residential 

235.22 236.23 -55 George County, MS Straighten for HDD Forest 

235.00 238.29 +580 George County, MS Avoid residences and multiple 

crossings of a creek 

Agricultural, forested, open land, open 

water, residential 

243.07 246.37 +690 Mobile County, AL Avoid swamps and multiple 

creek crossings Agricultural, forested 

247.17 248.39 +370 Mobile County, AL Move to parallel existing rightof-way 

Agricultural, forested, pine plantation, 

open land, open water, residential 

249.96 252.87 -290 Mobile County, AL Avoid existing meter station 

and residences 

Agricultural, forested, open land, 

residential 

252.52 253.91 0 Mobile County, AL Reroute to avoid HCA Agricultural 

256.11 256.85 +75 Mobile County, AL Move to parallel Deb Busby 

Road Agricultural, forested, open land 

257.17 259.05 +210 Mobile County, AL Avoid residential 

development and barns 

Agricultural, forested, industrial/ 

commercial, open land 

260.80 262.53 -1,900 Mobile County, AL Avoid major wetlands Agricultural, forested, industrial/ 

commercial, open land, residential 

261.41 262.56 -210 Mobile County, AL Avoid landfill Open land, forest 

266.61 266.78 0 Mobile County, AL Straighten line Forest 

268.79 269.09 +790 Mobile County, AL Reroute to accommodate 

new Gulf South M&R location Forest 

_____________________________________________________________ 

a

This column refers to the amount the pipeline was lengthened (+) or shortened (-) by the incorporation of a reroute. 

HCA = high consequence area 

HDD = horizontal directional drill 

M&R = meter/regulator 

Each route variation was compared to the route of the proposed pipeline to determine if additional 

environmental benefits would be gained. The evaluation included consideration of landowner concerns, 

lengths of routes, number of landowners affected, construction and permanent impacts, as well as 

environmental impacts. The following pages address the comments and requests by each of the identified 

landowners and the disposition of any requested route variations. Tables 4.4.1-3 – 4.4.14-1 provide 

comparisons between landowner requested routes and the SESH Original Route. SESH indicated 

easement negotiations are not yet finalized for the variations; however, all adjacent landowners affected 

by a final route variation have also been contacted and have agreed to the proposed changes in the route. 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 4-16 

TABLE 4.4-2 

Landowner Route Variations for the Proposed SESH Project 

Landowner Mileposts (approximate) Appendix K Comment ID 

Myers MP 90.0 – 91.6 IND20 

Wyatt MP 93.4 – 95.7 IND19, IND8 

Beasley MP 96.5 – 97.1 PM1-3 

Herrin MP 141.7 – 143.6 IND4 

The Nature Conservancy MP 209.1 – 210.7 ORG1 

Whitehead – Leonard/ 

Seward/Middleton 

MP 236.0 – 241.8 IND13, IND14 

Springdale Stores MP 243.0 – 245.8 IND25

Brigham/McGowin/Hill MP 251.8 – 256.4 IND1, IND7, IND12, IND18 

Seignious MP 259.0 – 259.5 IND17 

Barnes MP 261.6 – 262.8 IND16 

Alabama Department of 

Transportation 

MP 263.8 – 266.3 No Comment 

Woolwine MP145.0 – 146.5 IND10 

4.4.1 Myers Route 

The Myers Route was suggested by landowners to avoid impact to a stream and wetland complex 

and the viewshed from their residence. It would diverge from the Original Route between MP 90.0 and 

MP 91.6 (See Figure 4.4.1 1). The Myers’ proposed route would increase the pipeline length by 0.1 mile, 

increase number of affected landowners by three, and require construction in a steep side hill area 

(Table 4.4.1-1). The route variation would reduce the number of stream crossings from 6 to 2 and the 

linear feet of wetland from 370 to 200. The route variation would eliminate impacts to the landowner by 

shifting the pipeline corridor south off the Myers property. Other landowners and a deer camp would be 

affected. 

SESH has suggested a different variation in this area, the Myers Route Variation. The Myers 

Route Variation that would diverge from the Original Route between MP 90.6 and MP 91.0. This route 

variation would reduce stream crossing by two, two more than would be crossed by the Myers Route. It 

would also impact the same amount of wetlands as the proposed route. It would shift the pipeline to the 

south on the Myers property, increasing distance between the pipeline and the stream when compared to 

the Original Route. 

We note that the Myers route would entail side hill construction but would eliminate some side 

hill construction on the Original Route. The Myers Route would affect more landowners, but would 

avoid impact to a wetland area, passing instead through a pine plantation. The route proposed by the 

Myers appears preferable. However, see staff conclusion regarding this route variation at the end of this 

section. 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 4-17 

NON-INTERNET PUBLIC 

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE PROPOSED SOUTHEAST 

SUPPLY HEADER PIPELINE PROJECT 

Docket Nos. CP07-44-000 and CP07-45-000 

Page 4-17 

Section 4.4.1 

Figure 4.4.1-1 

Myers Route and Myers Route Variation 

Public Access for the above information is available only through the Public Reference Room, or by 

e-mail at 

public.referenceroom@ferc.gov

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 4-18 

TABLE 4.4.1-1 

Comparison of the Myers Route Variation and the Myers Route to the Original Route 

Evaluation Criteria Original Route Myers Route Myers Route Variation

Total Length (miles) 1.5 1.6 1.5 

Landowners Affected (#) 2 5 2 

Construction Impacts 

(acres) 

22.73 24.24 22.73 

Permanent Easement 

(acres) 

9.90 9.70 9.09 

Paralleled Rights-of-Way 

(miles) 

0 0 0 

Stream Crossings (#) 6 2 4 

Wetland Impacts (linear 

feet) 

370 200 370 

Land Use Type Open land, Forested Open land, Forested Open land, Forested 

4.4.2 Wyatt Route Variation 

The Wyatt Route Variation was proposed by the landowner to reduce the number of impacted 

landowners, eliminate impacts to his hunting and fishing lodge operation, and to avoid impacts to a 44 

acre lake on the property. He also suggested several construction/design modifications to reduce these 

impacts. The Wyatt Route Variation diverges from the Original Route at MP 93.4 and runs north and east 

of the landowner’s tracts and rejoins the Original Route at MP 95.7 (See Figure 4.4.2 1). The variation 

traverses similar topography but would transfer associated impacts to adjacent landowners. 

The Wyatt Route Variation would increase the pipeline length by 0.1 mile and increase number of 

affected landowners by one. It would reduce the number of stream crossings by three (Table 4.4.2-1). No 

wetlands would be affected with either route and both route corridors would affect forested vegetation. 

SESH has indicated that it has agreed to several minor modifications to address the landowner’s concerns. 

Although the Wyatt Route Variation would alleviate the concerns raised by the landowner, by 

eliminating impacts to the Wyatt property, it would increase temporary and permanent land disturbance 

and the variation would affect eight new property owners, resulting in the transfer of alignment impacts to 

other landowners. For these reasons, we believe that adoption of the Wyatt Route Variation would not be 

preferable to the Original Route. 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 4-19 

NON-INTERNET PUBLIC 

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE PROPOSED SOUTHEAST 

SUPPLY HEADER PIPELINE PROJECT 

Docket Nos. CP07-44-000 and CP07-45-000 

Page 4-19 

Section 4.4.2 

Figure 4.4.2-1 

Wyatt Route Variation 

Public Access for the above information is available only through the Public Reference Room, or by 

e-mail at 

public.referenceroom@ferc.gov

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 4-20 

TABLE 4.4.2-1 

Comparison of the Wyatt Route Variation to the Original Route 

Evaluation Criteria Original Route Wyatt Route Variation 

Total Length (miles) 2.3 2.4 

Landowners Affected (#) 7 8 

Construction Impacts (acres) 34.85 36.36 

Permanent Easement (acres) 13.94 14.55 

Paralleled Rights-of-Way (miles) 0 0 

Stream Crossings (#) 5 2 

Wetland Impacts (linear feet) 0 0 

Land Use Type Forested Forested 

4.4.3 Beasley Route Variation 

Since the incorporation of the Beasley Route Variation, the landowner has requested that the 

pipeline be moved several thousand additional feet from their house (Figure 4.4.3-1). SESH believes that 

they have addressed the Beasley’s concerns with the incorporation of the Beasley Route Variation and 

that any further movement of the route would add additional length and additional impacts to adjacent 

landowners and environmental resources (Table 4.4.3-1). SESH is continuing to work with the 

landowners in an attempt to address their safety concerns pertaining to construction of the proposed 

Project across their property (See also our response to Carolyn Hudson, IND2 and 3 and Barbara Newell, 

PM1-3 in Appendix K). We agree with SESH that its proposed Beasley Route Variation is the preferred 

route. 

TABLE 4.4.3-1 

Comparison of the Beasley Route Variation to the Original Route 

Evaluation Criteria Original Route Beasley Route Variation 

Total Length (miles) 0.57 0.65 

Landowners Affected (#) 3 3 

Construction Impacts (acres) 8.6 9.9 

Permanent Easement (acres) 3.4 3.96 

Paralleled Rights-of-Way (miles) 0 0 

Stream Crossings (#) 3 2 

Wetland Impacts (linear feet) 380 0 

Land Use Type Forested Forested 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 4-21 

NON-INTERNET PUBLIC 

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE PROPOSED SOUTHEAST 

SUPPLY HEADER PIPELINE PROJECT 

Docket Nos. CP07-44-000 and CP07-45-000 

Page 4-21 

Section 4.4.3 

Figure 4.4.3-1 

Beasley Route Variation 

Public Access for the above information is available only through the Public Reference Room, or by 

e-mail at 

public.referenceroom@ferc.gov

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 4-22 

4.4.4 Herrin Route Variation 

The Herrin Route Variation was proposed by the landowner to minimize impacts to timber 

operations on his property. The Herrin Route Variation would diverge from the Original Route between 

MP 141.7 and MP 143.6 (See Figure 4.4.4 1). The variation would move the proposed pipeline corridor to 

the northern boundary of the property. 

The Herrin Route Variation would increase the total length of the pipeline by 0.2 mile and 

increase the construction right-of way and permanent easement land requirements by approximately 2.4 

acres and 1.2 acres, respectively compared to the Original Route (Table 4.4.4-1). The number of affected 

landowners would not change. The number of stream crossings would be reduced by two and there would 

be no wetlands impacted by either route. According to the landowner one less landowner is affected by 

the variation route. Although the Herrin Route Variation would impact slightly more right-of-way by 

length it would decrease the impact to two streams and one landowner. Further, the landowner proposed 

variation better accommodates the landowner’s timber management plans and a more perpendicular 

crossing of Highway 589 can be achieved with the variation. For these reasons, it appears that the Herrin 

Route Variation would be preferable to the Original Route. However, see staff conclusion regarding this 

route variation at the end of this section. 

TABLE 4.4.4-1 

Comparison of the Herrin Route Variation to the Original Route 

Evaluation Criteria Original Route Herrin Route Variation 

Total Length (miles) 1.9 2.1 

Landowners Affected (#) 4 3 

Construction Impacts (acres) 23.03 25.45 

Permanent Easement (acres) 11.52 12.73 

Paralleled Rights-of-Way (miles) 0 0 

Stream Crossings (#) 3 1 

Wetland Impacts (linear feet) 0 0 

Land Use Type Forested Open land, Forested (immature 

pine plantation) 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 4-23 

NON-INTERNET PUBLIC 

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE PROPOSED SOUTHEAST 

SUPPLY HEADER PIPELINE PROJECT 

Docket Nos. CP07-44-000 and CP07-45-000 

Page 4-23 

Section 4.4.4 

Figure 4.4.4-1 

Herrin Route Variation 

Public Access for the above information is available only through the Public Reference Room, or by 

e-mail at 

public.referenceroom@ferc.gov

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 4-24 

4.4.5 The Nature Conservancy Route Variation 

The Nature Conservancy Route Variation was developed in response to the landowners request to 

have the proposed pipeline avoid crossing the property. The Nature Conservancy Route Variation would 

follow an existing pipeline easement associated with the Destin Pipeline on the Conservancy’s managed 

lands between MP 209 and 210.6 (Figure 4.4.5-1). The variation would reduce the impacts to the 

property by paralleling an existing pipeline right-of-way. 

The Nature Conservancy originally requested that the proposed pipeline completely avoid 

crossing its lands. A reasonable variation around all of the multiple tracts of local Conservancy lands 

could not be identified. According to SESH the two parties have agreed in principle to The Nature 

Conservancy Route Variation. For these reasons, we believe that the adoption of The Nature Conservancy 

Route Variation would be preferable to a variation around the Conservancy’s managed lands in the area. 

4.4.6 Whitehead- Leonard, Seward, Middleton Route Variation 

The Original Route crossing the Seward, Middleton and Whitehead-Leonard properties has a 

pipeline length of 6.0 miles, much of which is farm land. In the course of discussions, review of maps, 

and aerial photographs with SESH and FERC staff, each landowner mapped out alternative routes to 

minimize impacts to their properties. Harry K. Seward and Steve Seward were concerned that the 

Original Route bisected their property and was too close to their home, office, shop, cattle facility and 

“agri-tainment” business. James H. Middleton was concerned that the Original Route divided his property 

in half and would reduce crop yields. Walt Whitehead and Dr. Lynne Leonard were concerned that the 

Original Route went through the heart of their property. 

The Whitehead-Leonard Route Variation diverges from the Original Route between MP 237.5 

and MP 238.8 (Figure 4.4.6-1). The variation traverses similar topography, would impact additional forest 

land but no wetlands. It would traverse the northeast corner of the Whitehead-Leonard land. This 

variation would follow the edge of the tree line and minimize impacts. The route would add 0.1 mile of 

pipeline length, increase land disturbance by 1 acre, and cross the same number of streams. There would 

be no change in number of affected landowners (Table 4.4.6-1). It would exit the Whitehead-Leonard 

property onto the Seward’s property near a residence. It is not acceptable to the Sewards. 

The Sewards asked that SESH implement the northern Seward/Middleton/Whitehead-Leonard 

Route 1 or (less optimally) the southern Seward/Middleton/Whitehead-Leonard Route 2 (Figure 4.4.6-1) 

instead of the Original Route. Route 1 avoids all three landowners’ properties and thus eliminates any 

impacts to their properties; however, the route would add 4.0 miles to the pipeline length and affect five 

additional landowners. Further, the route would increase land disturbance by approximately 24 acres and 

2,400 feet of wetlands. Route 1 would minimize impacts by paralleling an existing right-of-way for 3.4 

miles and the number of stream crossings would remain the same. 

Route 2 follows the western edge of the Whitehead-Leonard property and western and southern 

edge of the Seward property. It would affect five additional landowners, add 1.2 miles to the pipeline 

length, increase land disturbance by approximately 15 acres and 3,044 feet of wetlands, and cross five 

additional streams. Route 2 would avoid the Middletons, but the Whitehead-Leonard landowners are 

concerned about the effect to a forested part of their property. 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 4-25 

NON-INTERNET PUBLIC 

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE PROPOSED SOUTHEAST 

SUPPLY HEADER PIPELINE PROJECT 

Docket Nos. CP07-44-000 and CP07-45-000 

Page 4-25 

Section 4.5.1 

Figure 4.4.5-1 

The Nature Conservancy Route Variation 

Public Access for the above information is available only through the Public Reference Room, or by 

e-mail at 

public.referenceroom@ferc.gov

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 4-26 

 

TABLE 4.4.6-1 

Comparison of the Seward/Middleton/Whitehead- Leonard Route Variations to the Original Route

Evaluation 

Criteria 

Original 

Route 

Seward/ 

Middleton/ 

WhiteheadLeonard 

Route 1 

Seward/ 

Middleton/ 

WhiteheadLeonard 

Route 2 

Middleton 

Route 

WhiteheadLeonard 

Route 

Total Length 

(miles) 

6.0 8.0 7.2 6.9 6.1 

Landowners 

Affected (#) 

23 28 17 33 23 

Construction 

Impacts (acres) 

72.72 96.97 87.27 83.64 73.74 

Permanent 

Easement (acres) 

36.36 48.48 43.64 41.82 36.97 

Paralleled Rightsof-Way (miles) 0 3.45 0 0 0 

Stream Crossings 

(#) 

10 10 15 19 10 

Wetland Impacts 

(linear feet) 

441.1 2,680.8 3,485.6 2,035.8 0 

Land Use Type Forested, 

Open land 

Forested, 

Open land 

Forested, 

Open land 

Forested, 

Open land 

Forested, 

Open land 

The Middletons requested that SESH implement the Middleton Route instead of the Original 

Route. This route would affect 10 additional landowners, add 0.9 miles to the length, increase land 

disturbance by approximately 11.5 acres and 1,600 feet of wetlands, and cross nine additional streams. 

Each of the landowner requested routes result in additional pipeline lengths of 0.9 mile to 4.0 

miles over the Original Route. Each route evaluated would have additional environmental impacts except 

the Whitehead-Leonard Route (no wetland impacts). 

SESH would continue to work with the affected landowners to try to reasonably accommodate 

their concerns by adjusting the route, to the degree practical, to follow field boundaries, avoid stands of 

older trees, and be as far as possible from residences and structures. However, see staff conclusion 

regarding this route variation at the end of this section. 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 4-27 

NON-INTERNET PUBLIC 

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE PROPOSED SOUTHEAST 

SUPPLY HEADER PIPELINE PROJECT 

Docket Nos. CP07-44-000 and CP07-45-000 

Page 4-27 

Section 4.4.6 

Figure 4.4.6-1 

The Whitehead-Leonard Route Variation 

Public Access for the above information is available only through the Public Reference Room, or by 

e-mail at 

public.referenceroom@ferc.gov

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 4-28 

4.4.7 Springdale Stores Route Variation 

The Springdale Stores Variation was developed in response to the landowner’s request for the 

SESH pipeline to minimize impacts (crossing of Big Creek) and not bisect their property. The Springdale 

Stores Variation would diverge from the Original Route between MP 243.0 and MP 245.8 (See Figure 

4.4.7 1). The variation would co-locate the proposed pipeline adjacent to an existing pipeline easement. 

The Springdale Stores Variation would increase the pipeline length by 0.3 mile, add a stream 

crossing, increase the acreage impacted by 4.4 acres and impact 67 more linear feet of forested wetlands 

(Table 4.4.7-1). The pipeline route would be co-located with an existing pipeline corridor for 3.1 miles 

and no new landowners would be affected by the variation. 

Although the variation would slightly increase temporary and permanent land disturbance, the 

Springdale Stores Variation affects the same landowner and the pipeline would be co-located adjacent to 

an existing right-of-way, and is acceptable to the landowner. For these reasons we agree with SESH that 

the Springdale Stores Variation is preferable. 

TABLE 4.4.7-1 

Comparison of the Springdale Stores Route Variation to the Original Route 

Evaluation Criteria Original Route Springdale Stores Route 

Variation 

Total Length (miles) 2.8 3.1 

Landowners Affected (#) 1 1 

Construction Impacts (acres) 33.94 37.58 

Permanent Easement (acres) 16.97 18.79 

Paralleled Rights-of-Way (miles) 0 3.1 

Stream Crossings (#) 2 3 

Wetland Impacts (linear feet) 1,734.7 1,802.6 

Land Use Type Forested Forested 

4.4.8 Brigham/McGowin/Hill Route Variation 

The Brigham/McGowin/Hill Route Variation was developed in response to comments from three 

neighboring landowners requesting that an existing pipeline easement be followed by the proposed 

pipeline. The Brigham/McGowin/Hill Route Variation diverges from the Original Route between 

MP 251.3 and MP 256.5 (Figure 4.4.8-1). The variation traverses similar topography but would not 

impact wetlands. The landowners requested that the pipeline be buried as deep as the Gulf South pipeline 

to facilitate future crossing of the easement with roads and utilities. 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 4-29 

NON-INTERNET PUBLIC 

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE PROPOSED SOUTHEAST 

SUPPLY HEADER PIPELINE PROJECT 

Docket Nos. CP07-44-000 and CP07-45-000 

Page 4-29 

Section 4.4.7 

Figure 4.4.7-1 

The Springdale Stores Route Variation 

Public Access for the above information is available only through the Public Reference Room, or by 

e-mail at 

public.referenceroom@ferc.gov

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 4-30 

NON-INTERNET PUBLIC 

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE PROPOSED SOUTHEAST 

SUPPLY HEADER PIPELINE PROJECT 

Docket Nos. CP07-44-000 and CP07-45-000 

Page 4-30 

Section 4.4.8 

Figure 4.4.8-1 

The Brigham/McGowin/Hill Route Variation 

Public Access for the above information is available only through the Public Reference Room, or by 

e-mail at 

public.referenceroom@ferc.gov

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 4-31 

The Brigham/McGowin/Hill Route Variation would have the same length of pipe and amount of 

land disturbance and affect six fewer landowners when compared to the Original Route (Table 4.4.8-1). 

The route variation would also parallel 4.7 miles of existing right-of-way (Gulf South) and eliminate the 

impact to 1,840 feet of wetland (no wetland impacts) when compared to the Original Route. 

The Brigham/McGowin/Hill Route Variation would alleviate the routing concerns raised by the 

landowners by paralleling the existing Gulf South right-of-way easement and eliminates wetland impacts. 

The route variation reduces the number of landowners affected by six, but affects three new landowners. 

However, SESH has discussed the routing of the pipeline with the new landowners and they have agreed 

in principle to the route. For these reasons, we believe that the Brigham/McGowin/Hill Route Variation 

would be preferable to the Original Route. In addition, SESH committed to bury the pipeline with a 

minimum of four feet of cover on land with actively rotated crop. 

TABLE 4.4.8-1 

Comparison of the Brigham/McGowin/Hill Route Variation to the Original Route 

Evaluation Criteria Original Route Brigham/McGowin/Hill Route 

Variation 

Total Length (miles) 5.0 5.0 

Landowners Affected (#) 14 8 

Construction Impacts (acres) 60.61 60.61 

Permanent Easement (acres) 30.30 30.30 

Paralleled Rights-of-Way (miles) 0 4.7 

Stream Crossings (#) 1 2 

Wetland Impacts (linear feet) 1,840 0 

Land Use Type Agricultural, Open land, Forested Agricultural, Open land, 

Forested 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 4-32 

4.4.9 Seignious Route Variation 

SESH proposed the Seignious Route Variation in response to the landowner’s concern that the 

SESH pipeline would adversely impact future development of their property. The Seignious Route 

Variation deviates from the Original Route between MP 259.1 and MP 259.6 (See Figure 4.4.9-1). The 

variation would cross additional forested land and move the pipeline route to the north of the landowner’s 

property. 

The landowners proposed a route (Seignious Route) that would deviate from the Original Route 

between MP 258.4 and MP 260.8 (See Figure 4.4.9-1). The route would reduce the pipeline length by 0.2 

mile, reduce land disturbance by 3.2 acres, and parallel 1.8 miles of existing right-of-way compared to the 

Original Route (Table 4.4.9-1). The landowner proposed route would not impact any streams but would 

impact 408 feet of wetland. Ten additional landowners would be affected by the route compared to the 

Original Route. This route would cross residential and industrial lands and a highway clover leaf. 

The Seignious Route Variation would increase the length of the pipeline by less than 0.1 mile, 

increase the corresponding land disturbance by 0.3 acres and add a stream crossing compared to the 

Original Route. No wetlands would be impacted or existing right-of-way easements used. SESH 

indicates that the route is acceptable to the Seignious and the landowner to the north. We agree with 

SESH that the Seignious Route Variation would be the preferred route. 

TABLE 4.4.9-1 

Comparison of the Seignious Route Variation and the Seignious Route to the Original Route 

Evaluation Criteria Original Route Seignious Route 

(landowner)

Seignious Route 

Variation (SESH)

Total Length (miles) 2.47 2.2 2.5 

Landowners Affected 

(#) 

13 23 13 

Construction Impacts 

(acres) 

29.94 26.67 30.30 

Permanent Easement 

(acres) 

14.94 13.33 15.15 

Paralleled Rights-ofWay (miles) 0 1.87 0 

Stream Crossings (#) 0 0 1 

Wetland Impacts (linear 

feet) 

0 408.6 0 

Land Use Type Forested, Open land Open land, Residential, 

Industrial, Forested 

Forested, Open land 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 4-33 

NON-INTERNET PUBLIC 

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE PROPOSED SOUTHEAST 

SUPPLY HEADER PIPELINE PROJECT 

Docket Nos. CP07-44-000 and CP07-45-000 

Page 4-33 

Section 4.4.9 

Figure 4.4.9-1 

The Seignious Route Variation 

Public Access for the above information is available only through the Public Reference Room, or by 

e-mail at 

public.referenceroom@ferc.gov

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 4-34 

4.4.10 Barnes Route Variation 

The Barnes Route Variation was proposed by the landowner to remove the impact of the 

proposed Project from their commercial property. The Barnes Route Variation diverges from the Original 

Route between MP 261.9 and MP 262.0 (Figure 4.4.10-1). The variation would traverse some similar 

topography. 

The Barnes Route Variation and the Original Route would have similar pipeline lengths, affected 

landowners, and land disturbance acreages; however an approximately 400 additional feet of forest land 

would be impacted by the variation (Table 4.4.10-1). The variation would reduce one stream crossing and 

impact less wetlands (1,800 feet). The route would impact several hundred feet of the decommissioned 

Irvington Sanitary Municipal Landfill. SESH advises that the Alabama Department of Environmental 

Management (ADEM) have stated that they would have serious opposition to a subsurface pipeline within 

this capped landfill for safety reasons. 

Although the Barnes Route Variation would alleviate the landowner’s concerns, it would increase 

the temporary and permanent land disturbance, would affect an additional landowner, and cut into a 

decommissioned landfill. For these reasons, we believe that adoption of the Barnes Route Variation 

would not be preferable to the Original Route. 

TABLE 4.4.10-1 

Comparison of the Barnes Route Variation to the Original Route 

Evaluation Criteria Original Route Barnes Route Variation 

Total Length (miles) 0.2 0.2 

Landowners Affected (#) 4 4 

Construction Impacts (acres) 2.42 2.42 

Permanent Easement (acres) 1.21 1.21 

Paralleled Rights-of-Way (miles) 0 0 

Stream Crossings (#) 3 2 

Wetland Impacts (linear feet) 6,090 4,200 

Land Use Type Forested, Open land Forested, Open land 

4.4.11 Alabama Department of Transportation (DOT) Route Variation 

The Alabama DOT Route Variation was developed in response to a request from the managing 

state agency to move the Original Route to the western edge of its wetland mitigation property to 

minimize impacts. The Alabama DOT Route Variation diverges from the Original Route between MP 

263.8 and MP 266.3 (Figure 4.4.11-1). The Alabama DOT Route Variation would increase the total 

pipeline length by 0.1 mile and increase temporary and permanent land disturbance impacts by 1.2 acres 

and 0.6 acres, respectively. No additional landowners, wetlands or streams would be affected Table 

(4.4.11-1). We agree that the Alabama DOT Route Variation would be the preferred route. 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 4-35 

NON-INTERNET PUBLIC 

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE PROPOSED SOUTHEAST 

SUPPLY HEADER PIPELINE PROJECT 

Docket Nos. CP07-44-000 and CP07-45-000 

Page 4-35 

Section 4.4.10 

Figure 4.4.10-1 

The Barnes Route Variation 

Public Access for the above information is available only through the Public Reference Room, or by 

e-mail at 

public.referenceroom@ferc.gov

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 4-36 

NON-INTERNET PUBLIC 

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE PROPOSED SOUTHEAST 

SUPPLY HEADER PIPELINE PROJECT 

Docket Nos. CP07-44-000 and CP07-45-000 

Page 4-36 

Section 4.4.11 

Figure 4.4.11-1 

The Alabama Department of Transportation Route Variation 

Public Access for the above information is available only through the Public Reference Room, or by 

e-mail at 

public.referenceroom@ferc.gov

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 4-37 

TABLE 4.4.11-1 

Comparison of the Alabama DOT Variation to the Original Route 

Evaluation Criteria Original Route Alabama DOT Route Variation 

Total Length (miles) 2.5 2.6 

Landowners Affected (#) 3 3 

Construction Impacts (acres) 30.30 31.52 

Permanent Easement (acres) 15.15 15.75 

Paralleled Rights-of-Way (miles) 0 0 

Stream Crossings (#) 0 0 

Wetland Impacts (linear feet) 792 792 

Land Use Type Forested Forested 

4.4.12 Woolwine Variation 

The Woolwine Property is located between MP 145.0 and MP 146.5. The landowner commented 

on the COE notice of SESH’s COE permit application regarding the routing of the pipeline on the 

Woolwine’s property. According to the landowner, the property is the site of a future planned 

community. SESH would continue to work with the landowner to address their comments and ensure 

they are reasonably accommodated. However, see staff conclusion regarding this route variation at the 

end of this section. 

Staff Conclusions Regarding Route Variations 

After review of the 12 route variations that were received in response to the DEIS, we 

acknowledge that SESH has agreed to incorporate six of the route variations into its final alignment, and 

concur with their use; and we do not recommend use of two of the variations and prefer the proposed 

route. The remaining four route variations have not been fully analyzed partly because they were 

received late during the development of this FEIS, and have not had public involvement and additional 

environmental surveys may be required. Therefore, we are not recommending use of these remaining 

variations at this time; however, SESH can request use of these variations or others pursuant to 

environmental recommendation number 5 of this FEIS. 

In particular, SESH has agreed to incorporate the following route variations into its final 

alignment: Variations in Table 4.4-1 of this FEIS; Beasley, Nature Conservancy, Springdale Stores, 

Brigham/McGowin/Hill, Seignious Route Variation, and the Alabama DOT route variations. 

After our analysis, as described above (Section 4.4), we do not recommend use of the following 

four route variations, and prefer the proposed route: Myers, Herrin, Whitehead-Leonard/ 

Seward/Middleton, and Woolwine. 

Finally, for reasons described above (Section 4.4), we are not recommending use of four 

variations. SESH has indicated it would continue to work with its landowners to finalize its alignment for 

its pipeline. Therefore, in order to give SESH additional opportunity to resolve and investigate further its 

route alignment with affected property owners, we recommend that:

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 4-38 

• SESH should finalize its route alignment across the Myers (MP 90.0 to 91.6); Herrin 

(MP 141.7 to 143.6); Whitehead-Leonard/Seward/Middleton (MP 236.0 to 241.8); 

and Woolwine properties (MP 145.0 to 146.5) in consultation with the landowners. 

Final alignments shall be filed with SESH's Implementation Plan for the Project 

and shall include the status of landowner concurrences. 

4.5 ABOVEGROUND FACILITY ALTERNATIVES 

We evaluated the locations of the aboveground facilities in the proposed Project to determine 

whether environmental impacts would be reduced or mitigated by use of alternative 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 3 new mainline compressor 

stations, 2 booster stations, and 13 M&R stations. All pig launcher/receiver facilities would be located 

within the confines of the proposed compressor station and/or M&R station sites; therefore, we did not 

consider siting alternatives for those facilities. 

The proposed regional distribution of compressor and booster stations along the proposed Project 

alignment and their capacities were chosen based on the hydraulic requirements of the SESH system. The 

general location of each compression facility was largely dictated by the proposed interconnection with 

another gas system with which it was collocated (see Figure 4.5-1). These general locations optimally 

facilitate the receipt and delivery of gas at a wide range of operating pressures. 

SESH states that after identifying potential parcels in the immediate vicinity of the particular 

interconnect, it screened, evaluated, and selected the optimal compressor facility location by considering 

the following factors: 

y Proximity to alignment and interconnections: Sites were considered based on their proximity 

to the proposed pipeline alignment, as close proximity would best meet engineering design 

requirements and minimize the need for additional lateral pipeline connects and possible 

reroutes. 

y Parcel size and availability: Only those parcels that were large enough to accommodate the 

proposed facilities and were available for lease or purchase were considered. 

y Access: Parcels in close proximity to major access routes were considered first because 

available access would minimize construction and operational impacts. 

y Constructability: Where possible, difficult or steeply sloping topography was avoided. 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 4-39 

NON-INTERNET PUBLIC 

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE PROPOSED SOUTHEAST 

SUPPLY HEADER PIPELINE PROJECT 

Docket No. CP07-44-000 and CP07-45-000 

Page 4-39 

Section 4.5 

Figure 4.5-1 

Compression and Interconnect Facilities 

Public Access for the above information is available only through the Public Reference Room, or by 

e-mail at 

public.referenceroom@ferc.gov 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 4-40 

y Sensitive environmental resources: Parcels containing sensitive environmental resources 

(e.g., wetlands, water bodies, and cultural resources) were avoided wherever possible. 

y Noise-sensitive areas: Where possible, sites were considered based on their potential impact 

to NSAs. 

The following sections describe the implementation of SESH’s screening and evaluation process 

and our review of alternative sites for the proposed compressor stations. 

4.5.1 Delhi Compressor Station, Richland Parish, Louisiana 

4.5.1.1 Proposed Site 

The first mainline compressor station for the proposed Project must be located at the beginning of 

the pipeline (in the vicinity of MP 0.22) because CEGT would deliver gas to the SESH line at a relatively 

low MAOP (770 psig). Location of this facility anywhere else would require more compression, which 

would require greater fuel consumption and would increase operation and maintenance costs. 

The proposed Delhi Compressor Station site is situated on the eastern side of Highway 17 in 

Richland Parish, Louisiana. The site is 14.28 acres, located just south of an existing compressor station. 

The parcel is characterized by a mix of agricultural and residential land (one dwelling) and includes some 

forested land and a stream that flows into Bayou Macon. SESH has entered into an agreement with the 

resident/landowner to acquire the property including the residence at MP 0.26 through a purchase option 

contract. As shown on the plot plan in Appendix D of the FERC filing, the parcel is large enough to allow 

SESH to position the compressor station facilities away from the onsite stream. The nearest NSAs are 

residences located 0.35 mile west/southwest of the site. With the recommended mitigation measures 

proposed for this station (see Section 3.11), noise levels at the nearest NSA will be less than 55 dBA. The 

proposed site poses minimal environmental concerns and meets the engineering requirements of the 

Project. 

4.5.1.2 Alternative Sites 

Given the engineering requirements of the system, candidate parcels for the Delhi Compressor 

Station were limited in geographical scope. An alternative site, located in agricultural land just south of 

the preferred site, was evaluated and rejected on both engineering and environmental grounds. The site is 

located further from the existing pipeline facilities and its development would therefore require additional 

lateral construction with associated environmental impacts. Given these factors, we eliminated this site 

from further consideration. 

4.5.2 Gwinville Compressor Station, Jefferson Davis County, Mississippi 

4.5.2.1 Proposed Site 

The currently proposed site for the Gwinville Compressor Station was originally the alternative 

site. The site, 18.90 acres in size, is located on the east side of Parkman Cemetery Road approximately 

2,100 ft southwest of the proposed SESH pipeline alignment at MP 115.7. Approximately 1.85 miles of 

pipeline would have to be rerouted to accommodate the use of the site. The site is predominantly forested. 

Field surveys of the new preferred site revealed that no federally listed species or cultural resources are 

located on the property. The nearest NSA is located approximately 800 ft from the proposed compressor 

station location. SESH is conducting acoustical analyses to identify mitigation measures needed to ensure 

that noise levels at the nearest NSA will be less than 55 dBA. While this site fulfills proposed Project 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 4-41 

engineering requirements, SESH initially rejected it because it lies further from the proposed Project 

alignment and its development would result in increased impacts and cost associated with pipeline 

construction. However, it was adopted because of concerns with flooding of the alternate site as discussed 

below. 

4.5.2.2 Alternative Sites 

The alternative site is adjacent to the SESH pipeline alignment at MP 115.40 on the western side 

of Parkman Cemetery Road in Jefferson Davis County, Mississippi. The 37.67-acre site is bisected by the 

SESH line and is characterized as open land. Several pipeline rights-of-way, including the SONAT 

pipeline, cross the tract. This site was originally proposed for the Gwinville Compressor Station because 

it facilitates the interconnection between the proposed SESH header and the SONAT system, thereby 

allowing SESH to exchange gas with SONAT at a wide range of operating pressures. 

No sensitive environmental features were found on the property. The nearest NSA, a residence, is 

located approximately 0.25 mile east/southeast of the site. With the recommended mitigation measures 

proposed for this station (see Section 3.11), noise levels at the NSA would be less than 55 dBA. 

Additionally, a dense forested area lies between the site and the NSAs, providing a natural visual and 

acoustic buffer. A small pond lies within the site boundary; however, it would not be affected by station 

construction or operation (see plot plan in Appendix D of the FERC filing). In addition, although SESH 

has determined that this location is not within a designated 100-year floodplain, recent discussions with 

local landowners and subsequent SESH evaluation have revealed that the site is prone to flooding during 

heavy rains. Given this information, and after considering the construction constraints imposed by the 

several pipeline corridors that cross the property, SESH chose the currently proposed site. 

4.5.3 Collins Booster Station, Covington County, Mississippi 

4.5.3.1 Proposed Site 

SESH selected the proposed site for the Collins Booster Station because it minimizes 

environmental impacts and optimizes the interconnection between the proposed SESH header and the 

Transco system, thereby allowing SESH to exchange gas with Transco at a wide range of operating 

pressures. Any substantial deviation from this location would increase environmental disturbance and 

proposed Project costs because additional pipeline construction would be needed to manage the transfer 

of gas between SESH and Transco. 

The proposed Collins Booster Station site is located in Covington County, Mississippi, at 

MP 138.22. It is optimally located on the northwestern side of an existing utility corridor and due west of 

an existing meter station. The site, totaling 19.73 acres, is characterized as a mix of open land (including 

scrub-shrub vegetation) and forest. There are no known sensitive environmental resources on this site. 

The nearest NSA is located 0.2 mile to the southeast of the site. With our recommended mitigation 

measures proposed for this station, noise levels at the NSA would be less than 55 dBA. This site poses 

minimal environmental concerns and fully meets the engineering requirements of the project. 

4.5.3.2 Alternative Sites 

No other sites were identified in the general vicinity of the Transco interconnection that came 

close to providing the combination of engineering benefits and minimization of environmental concerns 

offered by the preferred site. Any other available parcels were located further from the alignment and 

their development would require construction of pipeline laterals that would increase both environmental 

impacts and costs. 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 4-42 

4.5.4 Petal Booster Station, Forrest County, Mississippi 

4.5.4.1 Proposed Site 

The currently proposed Petal Booster Station site was originally an alternative site. The site is 

located just south of Old Richton Road in Forrest County, Mississippi, approximately 800 ft north of the 

SESH pipeline alignment at MP 166.83. Rerouting of 1.39 miles of pipeline would be necessary to 

accommodate the use of this site. This 19.09-acre site is currently in agricultural use. There are no known 

sensitive environmental resources on the property. The nearest NSA is located 0.25 mile northeast of the 

alternative station location. SESH indicates that acoustical analyses are being conducted to identify 

mitigation measures needed to ensure that noise levels at the NSA do not exceed 55 dBA. Although this 

site fulfills system requirements, SESH initially rejected it because it lies further from the proposed 

Project alignment and its development would result in increased impacts and costs associated with 

pipeline construction. However, as noted below, the site avoids an impact to a forested wetland and 

provides more adequate space. 

4.5.4.2 Alternative Sites 

This alternative site is adjacent to the SESH pipeline alignment at MP 166.83. Situated at the 

intersection of the TGP pipeline and an aboveground utility corridor, the 8.42-acre site is optimally 

placed. This site was originally proposed for the Petal Booster Station because it facilitates the 

interconnection between the proposed SESH header and the TGP system, thereby allowing SESH to 

exchange gas with TGP at a wide range of operating pressures. 

The parcel is characterized by forest and open land. The nearest NSA is a residence located 

approximately 0.5 mile to the northeast of the proposed station location. While site screening revealed no 

sensitive environmental resources, detailed ecological field surveys identified that a portion of this parcel 

contains a forested wetland. While the preliminary station design indicates that impacts to this wetland 

could be avoided, development would be constrained by the relatively small amount of remaining 

available acreage. Because of the constraints of the property, we eliminated it from further consideration. 

4.5.5 Lucedale Compressor Station, George County, Mississippi 

4.5.5.1 Proposed Site 

The Lucedale Compressor Station site is located in George County, Mississippi, at MP 212.34. 

SESH selected this 22.28-acre parcel because it did not contain sensitive environmental resources and 

was located in proximity to the FGT pipeline corridor which minimizes construction impacts associated 

with transfer of gas between the proposed SESH header and the FGP interconnect. The site, which is 

largely forested, contains no sensitive environmental resources. The nearest NSA is a residence located 

0.5 mile southeast of the proposed site (see plot plan in Appendix D of the FERC filing). With the 

recommended mitigation measures proposed for this station (see Section 3.11), noise levels at the NSA 

would be less than 55 dBA. The site poses minimal environmental concerns and fully meets the 

engineering requirements of the proposed Project. 

4.5.5.2 Alternative Sites 

Our analysis identified no other available parcels in the general vicinity of the FGT 

interconnection. SESH indicates that no sites can provide the combination of engineering benefits and 

minimization of environmental concerns offered by the preferred site. All other available parcels were 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 4-43 

located further from the alignment, and their development would require construction of pipeline laterals 

that would increase both environmental impacts and costs. 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 5-1 

5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

5.1 SUMMARY OF THE STAFF’S ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS OF THE PROPOSED 

ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES 

With one exception, we have determined that construction and operation of the proposed SESH 

Project would result in limited adverse environmental impacts based on information provided by SESH; 

data developed from information requests, field investigations, literature research, alternatives analysis, 

comments from federal, state and local agencies, and input from public groups and individual citizens; 

and the mitigation measures recommended below. We have also determined that SESH’s proposal would 

have an adverse impact on forested wetlands, since the Project would result in a conversion of about 5 

acres of forested wetland. However we conclude that the impact on forested wetlands would be 

substantial, but not significant, and is environmentally acceptable. 

As part of our review, we developed specific mitigation measures to reduce the environmental 

impacts resulting from construction and operation of the proposed Project. We believe that if the 

proposed Project is constructed and operated in accordance with applicable laws and regulations, SESH’s 

proposed mitigation, and our additional, recommended mitigation measures, it would be an 

environmentally acceptable action. 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 is 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 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. We are recommending that SESH work with NRCS to develop specific construction plans 

for the areas of erosion-prone soil that characterize the Loess Hills region in western Mississippi (see 

discussion in Soils below). 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. Oil and natural gas extraction is common in the Project area, but 

construction and operation of the proposed Project would not negatively affect exploitable oil or natural 

gas resources. The proposed Project would cross one inactive quarry, which is currently crossed by 

another pipeline. SESH would obtain an easement that would avoid loss of access to this area. 

5.1.2 Soils 

The proposed Project would traverse a variety of soil types and conditions, including prime 

farmland and loess soils. Construction activities associated with the proposed Project, such as clearing, 

grading, trenching, and backfilling, could adversely affect soil resources. These effects could include 

erosion, compaction, and the loss of soil productivity and fertility caused by mixing topsoil and subsoil 

horizons and/or changing drainage patterns. Such effects would be of particular concern in agricultural 

areas. SESH would implement the mitigation measures contained in its Plan 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 topsoil stripping, 

compaction testing and treatment, and monitoring of crop yields to ensure that construction area yields 

were similar to yields in adjacent, undisturbed areas. Loess soils have a high susceptibility to erosion. To 

avoid or minimize impacts to unstable loess soils, we are recommending that SESH conduct additional 

consultations with NRCS to finalize the Loess Soil Management Plan submitted to NRCS on June 11, 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 5-2 

2007. Additionally, SESH would further limit potential impacts to soil resources by implementing its 

SPCC Plan and Contamination Contingency Plan and would develop location-specific restoration 

strategies based on additional consultations with NRCS. Based on SESH’s proposal, including 

implementation of its Plan and our recommended mitigation, we believe impacts to soils would not be 

significant. 

5.1.3 Water Resources 

Construction and operation of the proposed Project would be conducted in accordance with 

SESH’s Plan and Procedures. SESH would avoid impacts to groundwater resources including solesource aquifers, wellhead protection areas, drinking water wells, and springs by implementing the 

measures described in its Procedures and SPCC Plan. SESH has also committed to repair or replace wells 

damaged by construction. 

The proposed Project would cross 192 perennial streams, 462 intermittent streams, and 

17 ponds/lakes. As proposed, most minor and intermediate waterbody crossings would be accomplished 

using open-cut methods. Potential effects to major and/or sensitive waterbodies (including waterbodies 

with contaminated sediments) would be largely avoided through implementation of HDD installation 

techniques. Thirty-one waterbodies would be crossed using HDDs. 

Proposed HDDs would cross 9 major and/or navigable streams (Macon Bayou, Tensas River, 

Tallahala River, Mississippi River, Bayou Pierre, Pearl River, Chickasawhay River, Big Black River, and 

Escatawpa River), 7 NRI-listed streams (Big Black River, Bayou Pierre, Pearl River, Bowie Creek, 

Okatoma Creek, Leaf River and Chickasawhay River), several rivers likely to contain habitat for federally 

listed fish species (the Mississippi River, Bayou Pierre, Pearl River, Turkey Creek, and the Escatawpa 

River), and 10 impaired waterbodies that occur along the proposed Project route. We are recommending 

that SESH construct dry crossings and evaluate the feasibility of using HDD methods for the Choctaw, 

Crump, Dry, Gaines, Long, Shelton, and Thompson creeks, prior to constructing at each waterbody. 

These creeks are potential habitat for federally listed fish species and are known tributaries that feed into 

other waterbodies known to support federally listed, threatened and endangered species. 

All waterbody crossings would be accomplished in accordance with SESH’s Procedures and the 

terms of any applicable federal or state permits that may be granted for the Project. We are 

recommending that SESH prepare and file site-specific HDD contingency plans that describe the 

procedures that would be implemented to monitor for, contain, and clean up any inadvertent releases of 

drilling fluids during HDD operations. To further minimize the impacts of HDD failures, we are 

recommending that SESH prepare a site-specific construction plan prior to open-cutting any surface 

waters previously designated as HDD crossings. 

SESH 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 pipe at aboveground 

facility sites. SESH would avoid or adequately minimize potential effects to waterbodies resulting from 

hydrostatic testing by implementing SESH’s procedures and avoiding the use of potentially toxic test 

water additives. Additionally, hydrostatic test waters would be sampled and treated prior to discharge, as 

required by conditions of SESH’s state hydrostatic test water discharge permits. We are recommending 

SESH file a detailed report that would identify all sources, intake and discharge locations, for hydrostatic 

test waters. 

Based on SESH’s proposal, including implementation of its Plan and Procedures and our 

recommended mitigation, we believe impacts to water resources would be minimized and would not be 

significant. 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 5-3 

5.1.4 Wetlands 

Construction of the proposed Project would affect 267 wetland areas resulting in a total of 

approximately 238.8 acres of wetland disturbance, including approximately 159.8 acres of forested 

wetlands and approximately 78.9 acres of scrub-shrub or emergent wetlands. Sensitive wetland areas 

crossed include forested wetlands and potential pitcher plant bogs. 

Following construction, affected wetlands located outside the maintained portion of the 

permanent pipeline right-of-way would be allowed to revert to preconstruction conditions. Impacts to 

emergent and scrub-shrub wetlands would be minor because regeneration to preconstruction conditions 

would occur rapidly in these areas and maintenance of the permanent pipeline right-of-way would not 

result in a permanent conversion of emergent wetlands. Impacts to forested wetlands would be either 

permanent or long-term due to the slow regeneration time of forested areas. SESH identified one pine 

savanna wetland exhibiting characteristics of a pitcher plant bog. MDWFP and the ADCNR NHP both 

expressed concerns regarding potential impacts to pitcher plant bogs. Based on agency concerns 

regarding these unique wetland communities and the likely presence of additional pitcher plant bogs 

along the proposed pipeline route, we are recommending that SESH coordinate with the ADCNR NHP 

and MDWFP to develop a plan to minimize and mitigate impacts to any pitcher plant bog communities. 

The proposed project alignment would cross lands in the WRP. These lands are considered to be 

jurisdictional wetlands by the NRCS. SESH is continuing to work with NRCS to avoid WRP lands to the 

greatest extent possible. We are recommending that SESH file as part of its Implementation Plan the 

status of the subordination agreements with the NRCS. SESH is also coordinating its proposed project 

activities with the TNC and the FWS as discussed in Section 5.1.8. 

 Based on SESH’s proposal, including implementation of its Plan and Procedures and our 

recommended mitigation, we believe impacts on emergent and palustrine wetlands would not be 

significant. 

SESH proposes permanent fill in wetlands associated with the pig receiver/Gulfstream meter site, 

PAR-RRL1, and the Rock Road meter site at the end of the Rock Road lateral. Per our recommendation 

in the DEIS, SESH filed a site-specific plan to reduce the wetland impacts by collocating these 

aboveground facilities with other existing natural gas facilities which reduced the impacts of PFO 

wetlands converted to uplands from 6.6 acres to 5.49 acres. The siting of this facility is considered an 

alternate measure from Section VI.A.6 of our Procedures, however since: (1) the facility is collocated 

with another gas facility at the interconnection and is the termination of the lateral; and (2) SESH would 

minimize unavoidable wetland impacts by completing all wetland crossings in accordance with their 

Procedures and by complying with the terms and conditions of any Section 404 authorizations issued by 

the COE, including the provisions of any required wetland compensatory mitigation, we consider the 

impact to be substantial but not adverse and is environmentally acceptable. 

5.1.5 Vegetation 

Construction and operation of the proposed Project would affect four upland vegetative 

communities: upland forest, pine plantation, agricultural land, and open lands. Approximately 59 percent 

of the upland vegetation resources affected during construction would consist of pine plantation and 

upland forest, with agricultural and open lands making up the remainder. Several extensive forested 

tracts and areas containing exotic and/or invasive plant species would also be crossed by the proposed 

pipeline route. Vegetative communities of special concern would be crossed by the pipeline including 

long-leaf pine ecosystems in Mississippi and Alabama. We are recommending additional coordination 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 5-4 

with the MDWFP, ADCNR NHP, and the FWS to develop plans to minimize and mitigate impacts and 

to control exotic and invasive species. 

Based on federal and state agency comments, we are recommending that SESH prepare a plan to 

reduce the amount of riparian/tree clearing required at the East and West Prongs of Silver Creek. The plan 

would include measures such as reducing the amount of workspace, avoiding cutting of select large 

diameter trees, and the feasibility of using the HDD method to cross the waterbodies. The plans would be 

filed for the review and written and approval of the Director of OEP prior to constructing those 

waterbodies. 

SESH 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 would typically 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. However, impacts to forested areas, including large forested 

tracts, would be minimized by routing the proposed Project along existing right-of-ways and through 

other previously disturbed areas to the extent practical. Additionally, many of the large forested tracts 

crossed by the proposed Project are already subject to some disturbance associated with timber 

management programs. 

 

Based on SESH’s proposal, including implementation of its Plan and Procedures and our 

recommended mitigation, we believe impacts to vegetation would be adequately minimized, and would 

not be significant. 

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 upland and wetland herbaceous 

habitats would affect wildlife at or near the time of construction, but such effects would be largely 

temporary and many habitats would recover quickly. Upland and wetland forested habitats would be 

significantly affected due to the long-term conversion of wooded areas to successional stages in the 

temporary right-of-way and the permanent conversion to scrub-shrub or herbaceous conditions within the 

permanent right-of-way. A colonial nesting bird rookery is located near MP 18.19 on the proposed route. 

SESH proposes to construct outside of the sensitive time window (February 16 – September 1) and would 

avoid impacting the rookery. However in the event construction is not completed near MP 18.19 before 

February 16, 2008, we are recommending that SESH conduct a pre-construction survey to determine 

whether the rookery is in use, prior to constructing in that area. If colonial nesting birds are spotted at the 

site, SESH would contact the MDWFP to determine what measures may be prudent at that time. 

The waterbodies that would be traversed by the proposed Project provide habitat for a variety of 

aquatic species including warm water fish and freshwater 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 SESH’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 many waterbody crossings. Aquatic habitat impacts at other crossing locations would be 

largely temporary as most crossings would be completed in less than 48 hours. Additionally, intake 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 5-5 

screening to limit fish entrainment 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 

species would be minor. 

Based on SESH’s proposal, including implementation of its Plan and Procedures and our 

recommended mitigation, we believe impacts to wildlife and aquatic resources would be adequately 

minimized. 

5.1.7 Threatened, Endangered, and Special Status Species 

Based on consultations with the FWS, 14 federally listed T&E species and 2 candidate species 

occur or potentially occur near the proposed Project. 

We determined that construction and operation of the proposed Project may affect, is not 

likely to adversely affect 13 federally listed endangered or threatened species identified for this proposal. 

We also determined that project-related construction and operational impacts may affect the federally 

listed gopher tortoise. We also determined that the proposed Project would not significantly affect the 

two candidate species. 

The DEIS served as our biological assessment for the proposed Project. Based on this assessment, 

we requested formal consultation for the proposed Project with the FWS related to impacts on the gopher 

tortoise, and requested concurrence with our determinations of effect for the other species. The FWS 

acknowledged the receipt of the DEIS and accepted our request for formal consultation. A biological 

opinion was prepared and issued by the FWS on July 19, 2007. It concurred with our findings and 

offered conservation measures to be adopted by the applicant, which we have included as a 

recommendation. FWS further concluded that the project would not adversely modify designated critical 

habitat for the species. 

Based on consultation with the FWS to further reduce potential impacts on, and increase 

protection for, the eastern indigo snake, bald eagle, and interior least tern, we are recommending 

additional impact minimization and mitigation measures. Because 12 new route variations were not 

assessed in our DEIS, and to ensure that section 7 consultation is complete, we are recommending that 

SESH not begin construction of any of the 12 route variations, project modifications or construct on tracts 

of properties not previously surveyed due to landowner denied access until the staff completes section 7 

consultations with the FWS, and SESH has received notification in writing that construction may begin 

by the Director of OEP. 

In addition to federally listed species, other special-status species, including migratory bird 

species, colonial nesting water birds, and an additional 14 species listed as endangered, threatened, 

imperiled, or rare by the states of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama, were identified through 

consultations with the MDWFP, ADCNR, and the LDWF. To ensure that these species are adequately 

protected, we are recommending that SESH continue to coordinate with these state agencies and develop 

identify a plan to minimize or avoid potential impacts to state-listed or special-status species. 

With the implementation of SESH’s proposed mitigation, along with our recommended measures, 

we believe impacts on special-status species would be minimized. 

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

Construction of the proposed Project would affect approximately 4,021 acres of land, including 

3,355 acres for the pipeline construction right-of-way, 104 acres for the aboveground facilities and access 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 5-6 

roads, and 563 acres for extra work areas (extra workspaces and pipe storage and contractor yards). 

Approximately 45 percent (1,831.62 acres) of the land that would be affected by construction is forest, 23 

percent is agricultural, 20 percent is open land, and 8 percent is pine plantation. The remaining land-use 

categories (residential, industrial, and open water) make up less than 4 percent of the project area. 

Following construction, all affected areas outside the permanent pipeline right-of-way and aboveground 

facility sites would be restored and allowed to revert to preconstruction conditions and uses. During 

operation of the proposed Project, the permanent pipeline right-of-way, aboveground facilities, and 

permanent access roads would encumber approximately 1,697 acres. 

SESH proposes to use 125-foot-wide construction right-of-way for the entire length of its 42-

inch-diameter pipeline. Other similar projects in Mississippi and Alabama propose to use a 100-ft-wide 

right-of-way for 42-inch-diameter pipeline. To minimize land disturbance we are recommending that 

SESH limit its construction right-of-way width to 100 feet for the 42-inch diameter pipeline. In the 

alternative, SESH should file additional information justifying the need for additional workspace in 

specific areas where topsoil would be segregated and for two-tone construction areas for review and 

written approval of the Director of OEP. SESH also proposes a 10-foot-wide buffer between its 

permanent right-of-way and that of the other utility corridors that the project would parallel. To address 

concerns expressed by landowners and to further reduce the extent of construction-related disturbance, we 

are recommending that SESH eliminate its proposed buffer zone and overlap the construction corridor 

with existing utility easements for the purpose of temporary spoil storage during construction. 

Six residential structures exist within 50 feet of the proposed Project’s construction workspace. 

One mobile home would be acquired through a purchase option contract. SESH has entered into an 

agreement with the landowner to purchase one residential property (MP 0.26) that would be permanently 

converted from residential land to industrial/commercial land for construction and operation of the Delhi 

Compressor Station. Another mobile home would be avoided during the crossing of the Mississippi 

River by HDD. Three structures are located within the construction work space due the constraints of a 

former landfill on the west side of the right-of-way. We are recommending that site-specific construction 

plans be developed and filed prior to construction for these three structures at MP 261.9. 

Several electric power lines would be constructed to serve the three new compressor stations and 

the two new booster stations proposed by SESH. Although we consider these facilities to be outside the 

Commission’s jurisdiction, they are directly related to the Project. Therefore, to fully comply with NEPA 

requirements, we are recommending SESH not begin service to its project until staff receives 

documentation from the FWS and SHPO regarding agency clearances and/or copies of reports prepared 

for the proposed electric service lines and it receives written notification from the Director of OEP that 

service may begin. 

Although the Project would not directly cross the Tensas River NWR, SESH proposes to cross 

fee title land and conservation easements managed by the FWS and the Tensas River NWR. In addition, 

SESH would cross land adjacent to the Pascagoula WMA. We are recommending that SESH file as part 

of its Implementation Plan the status of the special use permits for each of these properties. Also, we are 

recommending that SESH file its plan for crossing the TLC properties prior to construction. The Project 

would also cross the Natchez Trace Parkway, which is managed by the NPS. A separate environmental 

analysis has been prepared to assess the potential impacts to the Parkway (Appendix G). The NPS 

concludes that, based on the selected route and crossing location of the Parkway; the resources present; 

potential impacts, including cumulative impacts; and mitigation measures, construction and operation of 

the proposed Project would not have a significant effect on the Natchez Trace Parkway. Highway 90 

(The Old Spanish Trail) in Mobile County, Alabama, would be crossed using a bore technique; no 

adverse impact would result from this crossing. 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 5-7 

SESH proposes to cross CRP and CREP lands and would continue to consult with the applicable 

agencies and landowners regarding potential Project-related effects to these lands. We are recommending 

that SESH consult with the FSA prior to construction to develop a plan that would avoid, minimize, 

and/or mitigate impacts on these lands. 

Coastal zone consistency statements would be required where the Project crosses designated 

coastal zone management areas in Alabama and Mississippi. SESH has submitted information to the 

agencies for evaluation, but has not yet received determination regarding the Project’s consistency with 

the state coastal management programs. We are recommending that SESH file a copy of the CZMA 

consistency determinations for Alabama and Mississippi prior to construction in those states. 

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. However, the impact is not 

expected to be significant. Existing and proposed vegetation would provide a visual screen of these 

facilities. 

Based on SESH’s proposal, along with our recommended measures to reduce impacts on specialinterest lands, land use, and land requirements, we believe impacts to land use, special-interest areas, and 

visual resources would be minimized, and would not be significant. 

5.1.9 Socioeconomics 

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 

effects would be offset by increased tax revenues to local governments. The proposed Project would have 

positive impacts on local spending, employment, and tax income during construction and operation, but 

such contributions would likely be minimal. 

5.1.10 Cultural Resources 

SESH conducted cultural resource surveys at the proposed pipeline, ATWS areas, associated 

aboveground facilities, access roads, and pipe yards and ware yards of the proposed Project route through 

Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama. In Louisiana, two previously identified archeological sites that 

meet the criteria to be listed on the NRHP would be avoided through modified construction techniques. 

Three newly identified archaeological sites potentially eligible for the NRHP are being tested further to 

verify their eligibility. In Mississippi, SESH identified three potentially eligible archaeological sites. 

These sites are also being tested further to verify their eligibility. Continued consultation with the SHPOs 

is necessary to verify the status of the potentially eligible sites. If significant historic properties cannot be 

avoided, treatment plans would be developed and implemented to ensure recovery of any information that 

might be lost to construction impacts. We are recommending that SESH defer construction until surveys 

and evaluations of areas not previously accessed or evaluated 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. 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 5-8 

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 compressor stations would emit air pollutants as a result of 

combustion of natural gas to drive the compressor units and the periodic operation of auxiliary generators. 

The air emissions associated with the operation of the Delhi, Gwinville, and Lucedale compressor stations 

would meet federal or state ambient air quality standards. The most recent screening modeling of the 

Collins and Petal booster stations also indicates that air emissions at facilities would not exceed federal 

ambient air quality standards. 

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. In its application, SESH stated it 

would perform noise analyses to determine potential impacts to NSAs from HDD activities. In response 

to the recommendation in the DEIS, SESH filed its HDD noise analysis for all finalized HDD entry and 

exit locations with NSAs within 0.5 mile. SESH has committed to employing mitigation measures at 

these locations to ensure noise levels are reduced to meet noise benchmarks. 

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 

is modeled to be below 55dBA would not result in significant effects on the NSAs nearest to those 

facilities. In addition, to verify that noise is limited as predicted we are including recommendations for 

completion of post-construction noise surveys and implementation of additional mitigation measures, if 

required, to ensure that actual noise levels resulting from Project operations would not exceed significant 

or existing levels. 

With the implementation of SESH’s proposed mitigation and our recommendations, we believe 

impacts on air quality and noise would be minimized. 

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. Several commenters expressed concerns 

related to pipeline safety expressing fear of a catastrophic failure similar to the natural gas pipeline 

rupture and fire near Carlsbad, New Mexico in 2000, and concerns about SESH’s application for a waiver 

to PHMSA requirement 49 CFR 192.111 to allow operation of the proposed pipeline with a specified 

minimum yield strength of 80 percent instead of the typical design factor of 72 percent in Class 1 

locations. We believe that an event like the Carlsbad incident is unlikely to occur with today’s corrosion 

monitoring and pipeline inspection requirements. No substandard pipe material (i.e., reduced wall 

thickness pipe) would be accepted as part of the proposed project’s design. SESH is proposing its waiver 

to operate its system at pressures 8 percent higher that the specified minimum yield strength of their Class 

1 pipe. Following construction, SESH would also initiate a pipeline integrity management plan to ensure 

public safety during operation. PHMSA is currently evaluating SESH’s waiver request. If the pipeline is 

constructed and FERC grants service at some time in the future, SESH would only be allowed to operate 

at the pressure currently allowed by regulation, unless PHMSA grants the waiver request. 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 5-9 

5.1.13 Cumulative Impacts 

We identified seven past, present and reasonably foreseeable future projects, all of which are 

natural gas transmission pipeline projects planned or proposed in Louisiana and Mississippi that would 

potentially result in a cumulative impact when considered with the proposed project. One of these is 

already approved by the Commission and has been constructed (Carthage to Perryville Project, CP06-85). 

A second, Gulf South's ETM Expansion Project (CP06-446), is approved for construction. Two others, 

the Gulf South's Southeast Expansion Project (CP07-32) and the Gulf Crossing Project (CP07-398) are 

currently filed at the Commission. The other three projects are being planned and are being reviewed by 

the Commission: Ozark East End Expansion Project (PF06-34), Fayetteville/Greenville Expansion 

Project (PF07-2), and Midcontinent Express Project (PF07-4). Construction of these projects is projected 

to occur between the years 2007 and 2009. 

Each of these projects would result in impact similar to those described for SESH, but each 

project would be designed to avoid or minimize impacts on the 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. Such mitigation generally leads to 

the avoidance or minimization of cumulative impacts. The impacts of the already constructed Carthage to 

Perryville Project and the currently under construction ETM Expansion Project have been minimized. 

Any of the other proposed or planned projects that would come before the Commission would also be the 

subject of our NEPA review to avoid or minimize impacts. 

We believe that impacts associated with the proposed Project would be relatively minor overall, 

and we have included recommendations in this EIS to further reduce the environmental impacts 

associated with the Project. Consequently, a small but insignificant cumulative effect is anticipated when 

the impacts of the proposed Project are added to past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future projects in 

the area. However, we consider those impacts have been and will be minimized to the extent possible. 

5.1.14 Alternatives 

As an alternative to the proposed action, we evaluated the no action or postponed action 

alternatives, system alternatives, route alternatives, route variations, and aboveground facility site 

alternatives. While the no 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 SESH 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. While two existing pipeline systems are located in the general 

vicinity of the proposed Project, none of these have sufficient available capacity to carry the gas volumes 

of the proposed Project without substantial system upgrades, such as new or increased compression, new 

pipeline looping, or greenfield pipeline. 

We evaluated two modified system alternatives that would involve new pipeline connection to the 

existing 30-inch-diameter Transco Line, which runs north to south for the length of Alabama (Transco 

Alternative 1 and Transco Alternative 2). The Transco alternatives offered some environmental 

advantages to reduce the amount of greenfield pipeline construction. These alternatives would require 

additional compression (a permanent environmental impact) and posed other engineering constraints. We 

evaluated additional information provided by SESH in response to our data request and additional 

information provided by Transco to further investigate whether a SESH-Transco combined system would 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 5-10 

be viable from an operational standpoint. FERC engineering staff confirmed that the Transco’s system 

alternatives were not viable because all of Transco’s firm capacity on its Mobile Bay Lateral from Station 

85 to Coden, Alabama is fully subscribed, and changing the flow direction on the Mobile Bay Lateral 

from south-to-north to north-to-south is not possible. Consequently, these alternatives were eliminated 

from further consideration. 

SESH attempted to avoid or significantly reduce impacts on sensitive resources in its initial 

planning and siting of its proposal. Additionally, route variations were analyzed to resolve or reduce 

construction impacts to localized, specific resources and to accommodate landowner requests through out 

our review process. More than 70 variations have been incorporated in the proposed route as a result of 

comments received during the NEPA process. After review of the 12 route variations that were received 

in response to the draft EIS, we acknowledge that SESH has agreed to incorporate six of the route 

variations into its final alignment, and concur with their use; and we do not recommend use of two of the 

variations and prefer the proposed route. The remaining four route variations have not been fully 

analyzed partly because they were received late during the development of this final EIS, and have not 

had public involvement and additional environmental surveys may be required. Therefore, we are not 

recommending use of these remaining variations at this time, however SESH can request use of these 

variations or others pursuant to environmental recommendation number 5 of this EIS. Due to the changes 

already made in the routing and the lack of significant resource impacts, no other major additional route 

variations or alternatives were identified. We anticipate that minor alignment shifts would be made prior 

to and during construction to accommodate other such site-specific circumstances and landowner 

concerns. 

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 location 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. Two 

alternative locations for aboveground facilities were ultimately selected by SESH to reduce impacts to the 

environment. We did not identify any alternative sites for the proposed M&R or mainline valve facilities 

that would offer a significant environmental advantage to the proposed sites. In conclusion, we have 

determined that the proposed SESH Project, as modified by our recommended mitigation measures is the 

preferred alternative. 

5.2 FERC STAFF’S RECOMMENDED MITIGATION 

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

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

further mitigate the environmental impacts associated with the construction and operation of the proposed 

Project. 

1. SESH 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. SESH 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 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 5-11 

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

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

protection of all environmental resources during construction and operation of the Project. This 

authority shall allow: 

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, SESH 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 EI’s 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 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, SESH shall file with the Secretary any revised 

detailed survey alignment maps/sheets at a scale not smaller than 1:6,000 with station positions for all 

facilities approved by the Order. All requests for modifications of environmental conditions of the 

Order or site-specific clearances must be written and must reference locations designated on these 

alignment maps/sheets. 

SESH’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. 

SESH’s right of eminent domain granted under NGA Section 7(h) does not authorize it to increase in 

the size of its natural gas pipeline to accommodate future needs or to acquire a right-of-way for a 

pipeline to transport a commodity other than natural gas. 

5. SESH 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, 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 which do not affect other landowners or sensitive environmental 

areas such as wetlands. 

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

changes resulting from the following: 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 5-12 

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, SESH shall file an 

initial Implementation Plan with the Secretary for review and written approval by the Director of OEP 

describing how SESH will implement the mitigation measures required by the Order. SESH must file 

revisions to the plan as schedules change. The plan shall identify: 

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

contracts (especially penalty clauses and specifications), and construction drawings so that 

the mitigation required at each site is clear to onsite construction and inspection personnel; 

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

personnel are available to implement the environmental mitigation; 

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

material; 

d. what training and instructions SESH will give to all personnel involved with construction and 

restoration (initial and refresher training as the Project progresses and personnel change) with 

the opportunity for OEP staff to participate in the training session; 

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

responsibility for compliance; 

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

occurs; and 

g. for each discrete facility a Gantt or Program Evaluation and Review Technique (PERT) chart 

(or similar project scheduling diagram) and dates for: 

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

(2) the mitigation training of onsite personnel; 

(3) the start of construction; and 

(4) the start and completion of restoration. 

7. SESH shall employ one or more EIs per construction spread. The EIs 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; 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 5-13 

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. SESH shall file updated status reports with the Secretary on a weekly basis until all constructionrelated 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 scheduling changes for stream crossings or work in other environmentally 

sensitive areas; 

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

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 

noncompliance, 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 SESH from other federal, state, or local permitting 

agencies concerning instances of noncompliance and SESH’s response. 

9. SESH 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, SESH shall file an affirmative 

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

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

continuing activities will be consistent with all applicable conditions; or 

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

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

measures were not properly implemented, if not previously identified in filed status reports, 

and the reason for noncompliance. 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 5-14 

11. SESH 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, SESH shall mail the complaint procedures to each landowner 

whose property would be crossed by the Project. 

a. In its letter to affected landowners, SESH 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 SESH’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 

SESH’s Hotline, they should contact the Commission’s Enforcement Hotline at (888) 

889-8030, or at hotline@ferc.gov. 

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

following information for each problem/concern: 

(1) the date of the call; 

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

property 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. SESH shall not begin service until: the staff receives documentation, including clearances and/or 

surveys required from the FWS and SHPO regarding the proposed electric service lines to compressor 

stations, and SESH has received written notification from the Director of OEP that service may begin.

(Section 1.0)

13. Prior to construction, SESH shall reduce the width of the construction right-of-way to 100 feet in 

width for its 42-inch diameter pipeline (MP 0.0 to MP 104). SESH shall identify on the revised 

alignment sheets, and provide a table listing by MP, all additional temporary workspaces beyond the 

100-foot nominal construction right-of-way for any area where SESH believes additional right-ofway is required due to site-specific circumstances. The work space table shall include justification 

for the extra work space (such as association with road, foreign utilities, waterbody, and wetland 

crossings, two-tone construction areas, or extensive top soil segregation) and must be approved in 

writing by the Director of OEP. (Section 2.2.1)

14. SESH shall modify its project right-of-way requirements and file with the Secretary revised figures 

and alignment sheets with the Implementation Plan to reflect removal of the proposed 10-foot buffer 

between the edge of the permanent right-of-way and foreign pipeline rights-of-way. SESH shall file 

site-specific justification by MP areas where SESH believes use of existing permanent right-of-way to 

be infeasible for spoil storage and receive written approval from the Director of OEP before use. 

(Section 2.2.1)

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 5-15 

15. SESH shall hire and fund a third-party contractor, to work under the direction of the Commission 

staff, for the sole purpose of monitoring compliance with the environmental conditions attached to the 

Order for the project, including all measures proposed by SESH. A draft monitoring program shall be 

developed by SESH and filed with the Commission for review and approval of the Director of OEP, 

along with a proposal from potential contractors that will be available to provide the monitoring and 

reporting services. The monitoring program shall include the following elements: 

a. the employment by the contractor of one to two full-time, on-site monitors per construction 

spread; 

b. the employment by the contractor of a full-time compliance manager to direct and coordinate 

with the monitors, manage the reporting systems, and provide technical support to the 

Commission staff; 

c. a systematic strategy for the review and approval by the contract compliance manager and 

monitors of variances to certain construction activities as may be required based on sitespecific field conditions; 

d. the development of an Internet web site for the posting of daily or weekly inspection reports 

submitted by both the third-party monitors and environmental inspectors; and 

e. a discussion of how the monitoring program could incorporate and/or be coordinated with the 

monitoring or reporting that may be required by other Federal and state agencies.

(Section 2.5)

16. Prior to construction between MP 39.5 to MP 60, SESH shall file with the Secretary a final Loess 

Soil Management Plan developed in consultation with the NRCS. This plan shall indicate any NRCS 

recommendations to minimize or mitigate impacts to loess soils and whether SESH would implement 

these recommendations and if not, explain why. (Section 3.2.2.8)

17. SESH shall use a dry crossing method to cross the Choctaw, Crump, Dry, Gaines, Long, Shelton, and 

Thompson Creeks, or as an alternate, SESH shall investigate the feasibility of crossing these creeks 

using the HDD method. SESH shall file site-specific crossing plans for its proposed dry crossing 

method, for review and written approval by the Director of OEP prior to construction at each 

waterbody. (Section 3.3.2.1)

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

Director of OEP, a detailed HDD Contingency Plan for the Project (e.g. alternative construction 

measures, agency and emergency contact information, required equipment and materials) the 

contingency plan shall address how SESH: 

a. will handle any inadvertent release of drilling mud into the waterbody or areas adjacent to the 

waterbody, including procedures to contain inadvertent releases; 

b. will seal the abandoned drill hole; and 

c. clean up any inadvertent releases. (Section 3.3.2.4)

19. SESH shall not begin an open-cut crossing of any of the waterbodies proposed to be crossed using 

HDD until the HDD attempt has failed and it files an amended crossing plan 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. SESH 

shall file the amended crossing plan concurrent with the appropriate state and federal applications 

required for implementation of the plan. (Section 3.3.2.4)

20. Prior to any hydrostatic testing SESH shall file for review and written approval by the Director of 

OEP, a detailed report of all water sources proposed for hydrostatic testing including the project 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 5-16 

component or facility to be tested, the corresponding water source, withdrawal and discharge 

locations by MP, and estimated volumes of withdrawal required. (Section 3.3.2.5)

21. Prior to construction, SESH shall develop a Pitcher Plant Bog Mitigation Plan for review and 

written approval by the Director of OEP, developed in consultation with the MDWFP and ADCNR 

NHP that describes how SESH would avoid pitcher plant bog communities during construction, and 

the measures, in addition to those in SESH’s Procedures, SESH would implement to minimize 

impacts to these areas. (Section 3.4.3.1)

22. Prior to construction, in the area between MPs 108.8 and 117.7, SESH shall file with the Secretary 

for review and written approval by the Director of OEP, a plan for crossing of the East and West 

Prongs of Silver Creek that minimizes or avoids the cutting of adjacent hardwood forest. The plan 

shall evaluate the feasibility of performing an HDD. (Section 3.5.2)

23. Prior to construction, SESH shall file for review and written approval by the Director of OEP, a 

Longleaf Pine Vegetative Community Plan, developed in consultation with the FWS that describes 

how SESH would identify longleaf pine vegetative communities during construction, and the 

measures, in addition to those in SESH’s Plan and Procedures, SESH would implement to minimize 

impacts to these areas. (Section 3.5.2)

24. Prior to construction, SESH shall file, for review and written approval by the Director of OEP, an 

Exotic and Invasive Species Control Plan developed in consultation with the FWS, LDWF, MDWFP, 

and ADCNR. This plan shall identify the specific measures that SESH would implement during 

construction and operation to control exotic and invasive plant species. (Section 3.5.3)

25. If construction is anticipated during the colonial nesting bird rookery time restrictions (February 16 to 

September 1), SESH shall perform a pre-construction survey to determine if the rookery at MP 18.19 

is occupied during the construction period. If colonial nesting birds are observed at the rookery, 

SESH shall contact the MDWFP to determine what measures would be prudent for use at the time of 

construction. (Section 3.6.1.5) 

26. SESH shall adhere to all non-discretionary terms and conditions as well as conservation 

recommendations 1, 2, and 3 as identified in the FWS Biological Opinion issued July 19, 2007 for the 

proposed Southeast Supply Header Project (Section 3.7.1.8)

27. SESH shall adhere to the following eastern indigo snake protection measures: 

a. 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. 

b. If the snake does not move away from the construction area, a state or federal snake expert 

will 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. 

c. If an eastern indigo snake is killed or found dead within the construction area, the snake shall 

be frozen and the FWS Jackson Field Office notified immediately for transport and 

evaluation. (Section 3.7.1.11) 

28. SESH shall immediately notify the FERC staff and the FWS if bald eagles or their nests are observed 

within 660 feet of work activities prior to or during construction and shall cease such construction 

activities until notified by FERC to proceed. (Section 3.7.1.13) 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 5-17 

29. SESH shall immediately notify the FERC staff and the FWS if interior least terns are observed within 

650 feet of proposed waterbody crossings prior to or during construction and shall cease crossing 

activity until notified by FERC to proceed. (Section 3.7.1.14)

30. SESH shall not begin construction of the newly identified variations and any tracts of land that have 

not been surveyed due to landowner denial of access activities until: 

a. the staff completes Section 7 consultations with the FWS; and 

b. SESH has received written notification from the Director of OEP that construction or use of 

mitigation may begin. (Section 3.7.1)

31. Prior to construction, SESH shall consult further with the LDWF, MDWFP and the ADCNR 

regarding the need for additional surveys or mitigation to further minimize or avoid potential impacts 

to state listed species. SESH shall file the results of its consultation, and indicate whether it would 

adopt any mitigation measures recommended by the agencies, and, as applicable, explain why 

measures were not adopted. (Section 3.7.2.4)

32. Prior to construction, SESH shall file a site-specific plan for the residences at MP 261.9. The plan 

shall include: 

a. a description of construction techniques to be used (such as reduced pipeline separation, 

centerline adjustment, use of stove-pipe or drag-section techniques, working over existing 

pipelines, pipeline crossover, bore, etc.), and include a dimensioned site plan that shows: 

i. the location of the residence in relation to the new pipeline and, where 

appropriate, the existing pipelines; 

ii. the edge of the construction work area; 

iii. the edge of the new permanent right-of-way; and 

iv. other nearby residences, structures, roads, or waterbodies 

b. a description of how SESH will ensure the trench is not excavated until the pipe is ready for 

installation and the trench is backfilled immediately after pipe installation; and 

c. evidence of landowner concurrence if the construction work area and fencing will be located 

within 10 feet of a residence. (Section 3.8.3.2)

33. SESH shall file the following with its Project Implementation Plan:

a. the plans developed in consultation with the FSA for crossing CRP and CREP lands. 

These plans shall indicate any avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures 

identified by the FSA (Section 3.8.5);

b. the status of the subordination agreements with the NRCS for WRP tracts crossed.

(Section 3.8.5);

c. the status of the special-use permit for the fee title and conservation easement lands 

crossed. (Section 3.8.5); and 

d. the plan, developed in consultation with The Nature Conservancy, to cross the 

property between MP 209.1 and MP 210.5. (Section 3.8.5).

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 5-18 

34. SESH shall file documentation of concurrence from the Mississippi Department of Marine Resources 

and the ADEM that the proposed Project is consistent with the Mississippi and Alabama Coastal 

Zone Management Plans prior to construction in each state (Section 3.8.5).

35. SESH 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 in areas not previously evaluated of where access was denied until: 

a. SESH files with the Secretary cultural resources survey and evaluation reports; any necessary 

treatment plans; and the Louisiana, 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 SESH 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.” (Section 3.10.4)

36. SESH shall make all reasonable efforts to assure its predicted noise levels from the Delhi Compressor 

Station, Petal Booster Station, and Lucedale Compressor Station are not exceeded at nearby (NSAs or 

noise-sensitive areas) and file noise surveys showing this with the Secretary no later than 60 days

after placing the Delhi Compressor Station, Petal Booster Station, and Lucedale Compressor Station 

in service. Also, SESH shall file noise surveys with the Secretary no later than 60 days after placing 

the Gwinville Compressor Station and Colllins Booster Station in service. If the noise attributable to 

the operation of the Delhi Compressor Station, Petal Booster Station, Lucedale Compressor Station, 

Gwinville Compressor Station or Colllins Booster Station at full load exceeds an Ldn of 55 dBA at 

any nearby NSAs, SESH shall file a report on what changes are needed and shall install additional 

noise controls to meet the level within 1 year of the in-service date. SESH shall confirm compliance 

with this requirement by filing a second noise survey with the Secretary no later than 60 days after it 

installs the additional noise controls. (Section 3.11.2.3)

37. SESH shall finalize its route alignment across the Myers (MP 90.0 to 91.6), Herrin (MP 141.7 to 

143.6); Whitehead-Leonard/Seward/Middleton (MP 236.0 to 241.8); and Woolwine properties 

(MP 145.0 to 146.5) in consultation with the landowners. Final alignments shall be filed with SESH's 

Implementation Plan for the Project and shall include the status of landowner concurrences. (Sections 

4.4.1, 4.4.4, 4.4.6, and 4.4.12). 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
APPENDIX A 

DISTRIBUTION LIST 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
A-1 

APPENDIX A 

DISTRIBUTION LIST 

Federal Government Agencies

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

Director of Cultural Resources 

Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) 

Juan Payne, AL, Mobile District 

Mike Miller, MS, Vicksburg District 

Office of the Chief of Army Engineers 

Department of Agriculture (USDA) 

Office of Finance and Management 

Natural Resources Conservation Services (NRCS) 

Gary Kobylski, AL, State Conservationist 

Donald Gohmert, LA, State Conservationist 

Ron Marcantel, LA, Assistant State Conservationist 

Al Garner, MS, Assistant State Conservationist 

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 

Habitat Conservation Division 

Mark Thompson 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

Karen Abrams, National EFH Coordinator 

National Geodetic Survey 

Brent Howe, Program Aanlyst 

Protected National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration 

Resources Division 

Eric Hawk 

Department of Defense 

Office of Undersecretary of Defense 

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 

Office of Environmental Compliance 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
A-2 

APPENDIX A 

DISTRIBUTION LIST 

Federal Government Agencies (continued)

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 

Gregory Hogue, 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 

D. Craig Stubblefield 

Pat Hooks, Southeast Region 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Daphne Ecological Service Field Office 

Bruce Porter 

Baton Rouge Field Office 

Brigette Firmin 

MS Ecological Services Field Office 

David Felder 

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 

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 

Kimberly Hughes, Executive Secretary 

Environmental Protection Agency 

Office of Federal Activities 

Region 4 

Greg Worley, (CAA) 

Roosevelt Childress, (CWA) 

Region 6 

Clay Chesney, (CAA) 

David Neleigh, (CAA) 

Claudia Hosch, (CWA) 

Cathy Gilmore, (CAA) 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
A-3 

APPENDIX A 

DISTRIBUTION LIST 

Federal Government Agencies (continued)

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 

J. Mark Robinson, Director 

Alisa Lykens, Chief Gas Branch 2 

Van Button, 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 

Greg Cwalina 

Patrick L. Hiland, Director, Division of Engineering 

State Government Agencies

Alabama 

Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources 

Division of Wildlife and Freshwater Fisheries 

James Cherry 

Alabama Department of Environmental Management 

Water Permits 

James McIndoe 

Coastal Section 

Allen Phelps 

Air Permit 

Ron Gore 

Alabama Historical Commission 

Stacye Hathorn 

John A. Neubauer 

Louisiana 

Louisiana Department of Culture, Recreation and Tourism 

Division of Archaeology 

Duke Rivet 

Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality 

Office of Environmental Services 

Linda Levy 

Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality 

Office of Environmental Assessment 

Celeste Bonnecaze 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
A-4 

APPENDIX A 

DISTRIBUTION LIST (CONTINUED) 

State Government Agencies (continued)

Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries 

Biologist Program Manager 

Michael Carloss 

Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries 

Louisiana Natural Heritage Program 

Kyle Balkum 

Mississippi 

Secretary of State's Office 

Mr. Bill Chaney 

Eric Clark 

Mississippi Department of Archives and History 

Tom Waggener 

Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality 

Maya Rao 

Florence Watson 

Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries and Parks 

Mississippi Natural Heritage Program 

Mississippi Museum of Natural Science 

Matt Hicks 

Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries and Parks 

Dennis Riecke 

Mississippi Department of Marine Resources 

Charles Robertson 

Federal Representative and Senators

Alabama 

The Honorable Jo Bonner, U.S. House of Representatives 

The Honorable Jeff Sessions, United States Senate 

The Honorable Richard Shelby, United States Senate 

Louisiana 

The Honorable Rodney Alexander, U.S. House of Representatives 

The Honorable David Vitter, United States Senate 

The Honorable Mary Landrieu, United States Senate 

Mississippi 

The Honorable Thad Cochran, United States Senate 

The Honorable Trent Lott, United States Senate 

The Honorable Charles "Chip" Pickering, U.S. House of Representatives 

The Honorable Gene Taylor, U.S. House of Representatives 

State Representative and Senators

Alabama 

The Honorable H.E. "Hap" Meyers, Alabama State Senate 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
A-5 

APPENDIX A 

DISTRIBUTION LIST (CONTINUED) 

State Representative and Senators (continued)

The Honorable Gary Tanner, Alabama State Senate 

The Honorable Spencer Collier, Alabama House of Representatives 

C/O Mobile County Legislative Delegation 

The Honorable Jim Barton, Alabama House of Representatives 

The Honorable Rusty Glover, Alabama House of Representatives 

The Honorable Victor Gaston, Alabama House of Representatives 

The Honorable Bob Riley, Governor of Alabama 

Louisiana 

The Honorable Francis Thompson, Louisiana House of Representatives 

The Honorable Joe R. Salter, Louisiana House of Representatives 

The Honorable Charles D. "C.D." Jones, Louisiana State Senate 

The Honorable Don Hines, Louisiana State Senate President 

The Honorable Kathleen B. Blanco, Governor of Louisiana 

Mississippi 

The Honorable Lynn Posey, Mississippi State Senate 

The Honorable Cindy Hyde-Smith, Mississippi State Senate 

The Honorable James (Shannon) Walley, Mississippi State Senate 

The Honorable Perry Lee, Mississippi State Senate 

The Honorable Thomas King, Jr., Mississippi State Senate 

The Honorable Mike Chaney, Mississippi State Senate 

The Honorable Tommy Robertson, Mississippi State Senate 

The Honorable Tommy Moffat, Mississippi State Senate 

The Honorable Bob Dearing, Mississippi State Senate 

The Honorable J. P. Compretta, Mississippi House of Representatives 

The Honorable America (Chuck) Middleton, Mississippi House of Representatives 

The Honorable Chester W. Masterson, M.D., Mississippi House of Representatives 

The Honorable Deryk Parker, Mississippi House of Representatives 

The Honorable Frank Hamilton, Mississippi House of Representatives 

The Honorable Gregory Holloway, Jr., Mississippi House of Representatives 

The Honorable Eric Robinson, Mississippi House of Representatives 

The Honorable Leonard Bentz, Mississippi Public Service Commission 

The Honorable Haley Barbour, Governor of Mississippi 

The Honorable Amy Tuck, Lieutenant Governor, State of Mississippi 

The Honorable Tom Weathersby, Mississippi House of Representatives 

The Honorable Joey E. Hudson, Mississippi House of Representatives 

The Honorable Joe L. Warren, Mississippi House of Representatives 

The Honorable Gary Staples, Mississippi House of Representatives 

The Honorable Clinton Rotenberry, Mississippi House of Representatives 

The Honorable J. Shannon Walley, Mississippi House of Representatives 

Local Government Agencies

Alabama 

Commissioner Juan Chastang, Mobile County Commission 

Commissioner Stephen Nodine, Mobile County Commission 

Commissioner Mike Dean, President, Mobile County Commission 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
A-6 

APPENDIX A 

DISTRIBUTION LIST (CONTINUED) 

Local Government Agencies (continued)

Louisisana 

The Honorable Paxton Branch, Sr,, President, Madison Parish Police Jury 

The Honorable Robert Fortenberry, Madison Parish Police Jury 

The Honorable Richard Skipper, Madison Parish Police Jury 

The Honorable Thomas J. Williams, Madison Parish Police Jury 

The Honorable Danny S. Guice, Madison Parish Police Jury 

The Honorable Althan Smith, President, Richland Parish Police Jury 

The Honorable W. A. Tatum, Madison Parish Police Jury 

The Honorable Tommy Burgess, Richland Parish Police Jury 

The Honorable Eva Taylor, Madison Parish Police Jury 

Mississippi 

Central Mississippi Planning & Development Department 

Planning Director 

Larry Smith 

Director of Economics and Development 

James Johnston 

Chamber of Commerce 

Marie Shoemake 

Community Development Association 

Bob Smira 

Economic Development and Chamber of Commerce 

Sue Wright, Executive Director 

Jackson County Planning Department 

Deborah Miller 

Perry County Chamber of Commerce 

Kilfred Walley 

Planning Department 

Kara Drane, County Planner 

The Honorable Earl Dixon, Copiah County Board of Supervisors 

The Honorable Terry Channell, Copiah County Board of Supervisors 

The Honorable Perry Hood, Copiah County Board of Supervisors 

The Honorable Manuel Welch, Copiah County Board of Supervisors 

The Honorable Jimmy Phillips, Copiah County Board of Supervisors 

The Honorable Charles Short, Claiborne County Board of Supervisors 

The Honorable Allen Burks, Claiborne County Board of Supervisors 

The Honorable Martha Lott, Claiborne County Board of Supervisors 

The Honorable Kelly Wright, George County Board of Supervisors 

The Honorable Sue Cochran, George County Board of Supervisors 

The Honorable Larry Havard, George County Board of Supervisors 

The Honorable Henry Cochran, George County Board of Supervisors 

The Honorable Manly Barton, Jackson County Board of Supervisors 

The Honorable Robert Norvell, Jackson County Board of Supervisors 

The Honorable Tim Broussard, Jackson County Board of Supervisors 

The Honorable Frank Leach, Jackson County Board of Supervisors 

The Honorable John McKay, Jackson County Board of Supervisors 

The Honorable Steve Garrett, Lawrence County Board of Supervisors 

The Honorable Billy Boutwell, Lawrence County Board of Supervisors 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
A-7 

APPENDIX A 

DISTRIBUTION LIST (CONTINUED) 

Local Government Agencies (continued)

The Honorable Calvin Rutland, Lawrence County Board of Supervisors 

The Honorable Glenn Grubbs, Lawrence County Board of Supervisors 

The Honorable Archie Ross, Lawrence County Board of Supervisors 

The Honorable David McDonald, Warren County Board of Supervisors 

The Honorable Larry Prentiss, Warren County Board of Supervisors 

The Honorable Charles Selmon, Warren County Board of Supervisors 

The Honorable Carl Flanders, Warren County Board of Supervisors 

The Honorable Richard George, Warren County Board of Supervisors 

The Honorable David Allen, Forrest County Board of Supervisors 

The Honorable Charles Marshall, Forrest County Board of Supervisors 

The Honorable Lynn Cartlidge, Forrest County Board of Supervisors 

The Honorable Roderick Woullard, Forrest County Board of Supervisors 

The Honorable Billy Hudson, Forrest County Board of Supervisors 

The Honorable Morris Hill, Greene County Board of Supervisors 

The Honorable Gary Dearman, Greene County Board of Supervisors 

The Honorable Earnest Holder, Greene County Board of Supervisors 

The Honorable Lee Lambert, Greene County Board of Supervisors 

The Honorable Marion Pierce, Greene County Board of Supervisors 

The Honorable John Anderson, Perry County Board of Supervisors 

The Honorable Bobby Bolton, Perry County Board of Supervisors 

The Honorable William Cooley, Perry County Board of Supervisors 

The Honorable Prentiss Garner, Perry County Board of Supervisors 

The Honorable John Thompson, Perry County Board of Supervisors 

The Honorable Henry Batte, Covington County Board of Supervisors 

The Honorable Arthur Keys, Covington County Board of Supervisors 

The Honorable Mason Stringer, Covington County Board of Supervisors 

The Honorable Marson Trigg, Covington Board of Supervisors 

The Honorable Jimmy White, Covington County Board of Supervisors 

The Honorable John Thompson, Jefferson Davis County Board of Supervisors 

The Honorable Harmon Broome, Jefferson Davis County Board of Supervisors 

The Honorable Bennie Polk, Jefferson Davis County Board of Supervisors 

The Honorable Charles Wayne Reid, Jefferson Davis County Board of Supervisors 

The Honorable Bobby Rushing, Jefferson n Davis County Board of Supervisors 

The Honorable Andy Dial, Jones County Board of Supervisors 

The Honorable Johnny Burnett, Jones County Board of Supervisors 

The Honorable Barry Saul, Jones County Board of Supervisors 

The Honorable Danny Roy Spradley, Jones County Board of Supervisors 

The Honorable Jerome Wyatt, Jones County Board of Supervisors 

The Honorable Natalie Harvison, Perry County Board of Supervisors 

The Honorable Jerome Wyatt, Jones County Board of Supervisors 

The Honorable Jimmy Baggett, Covington County Board of Supervisors 

The Honorable Kelly Wright, George County Board of Supervisors 

City of Collins 

Mayor 

V O Smith 

County Administrator 

Charles Miller 

City of Napier 

Jackie Panda 

Carroll Ingram 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
A-8 

APPENDIX A 

DISTRIBUTION LIST (CONTINUED) 

Libraries

Alabama 

Mobile Public Library 

Louisiana 

Bienville Parish Library 

Delhi Branch Library 

DeSoto Parish Library 

Jackson Parish Library 

Madison Parish Public Library 

Mangham Branch Library 

Ouachita Parish Public Library 

Red River Parish Library 

Richland Parish Public Library 

Saline Branch Library 

Stonewall Branch Library 

Mississippi 

Eudora Welty Library 

George W. Covington Memorial Library 

Mendenhall Public Library 

Warren County-Vicksburg Public Library 

Media

Alabama 

Business Alabama 

Press-Register (Mobile) 

Louisiana 

Bienville Democrat-Record 

KNOE-TV (CBS) 

KTVE-TV (NBC) 

Madison Journal 

Mansfield Enterprise Newspaper 

Richland Beacon News 

Ruston Daily Leader 

The Bastrop Daily Enterprise 

The Coushatta Citizen 

The Delhi Dispatch 

The Jackson Independent 

The News Star 

The Ouachita Citizen 

The Shreveport Times 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
A-9 

APPENDIX A 

DISTRIBUTION LIST (CONTINUED) 

Media (continued)

Mississippi 

Copiah County Courier 

Crystal Springs Weekly Meteor 

Jackson Clarion-Ledger 

Magee Courier 

Simpson County News 

The Vicksburg Post 

Native American Indians

Alabama Coushatta Tribe of Texas 

Mr. Ronnie Thomas, Chairman 

Caddo Nation 

Robert Cast 

Chitimacha Tribe of Louisiana 

Kimberly Walden, Cultural Director 

Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana 

Honorable Kevin Sickey, Chairman 

Jena Band of Choctaw Indians 

Honorable Christine Norris, Chief 

Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians 

Phillip Martin, Chief 

Muscogee (Creek) Nation of Oklahoma 

A.D. Ellis, Principal Chief 

Poarch Band of Creek Indians 

Fred McGhee, Chairman 

Quapaw Tribe of Oklahoma 

John Berrey, Chair 

Seminole Nation of Oklahoma 

Mr. Enoch Kelly Haney, Principal Chief 

Seminole Tribe of Florida 

Mitchell Cypress, Chairman 

Tunica-Biloxi Indian Tribe of Louisiana 

Earl J. Barbry, Sr. 

Intervenors

Alabama Municipal Distributors Group 

Mark Bussman 

Joshua L. Menter, Attorney 

Alabama Gas Corporation 

J. David Woodruff, General Counsel 

Amy Stewart, Vice President-Rates and Regulations 

Jeffrey D. Komarow, Attorney 

Atlanta Gas Light Company 

Shannon Omia Pierce 

Tiffany Callaway 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
A-10 

APPENDIX A 

DISTRIBUTION LIST (CONTINUED) 

Intervenors (Continued)

Atmos Energy Corporation 

Douglas C. Walther, Legal Department 

James H. Jeffries IV, Attorney 

Brian S. Heslin, Attorney 

Austell Gas System 

Rob Register, General Manager 

Joshua L. Menter, Attorney 

City of Vicksburg 

Timothy M. Smith, Assistant City Clerk 

J. Michel Marcoux, Attorney 

Dalton Utilities 

J. Don Cope, Chief Executive Officer 

John T. Miller, Jr., Attorney 

Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP 

Michael E. McMahon, Sr. Vice President and General Counsel 

J. Curtis Moffatt, Attorney 

Florida Power Corporation, Progress Energy Florida, Inc. 

Richard Rhodes, Gas and Transportation Acquisition Leader 

John Trimble, Long Term Gas Representative 

James H. Jeffries IV, Attorney 

Mobay Storage Hub LLC 

Edmund A Knolle, Chief Operating Officer 

John M. Hopper, President and Chief Executive Officer 

Mobile Gas Service Corporation 

G. Edgar Downing, Jr., Senior Vice President, Secretary, and General Counsel 

J. Harris Oswalt, Director of Gas Supply 

Municipal Gas Authority of Georgia 

Arthur C. Corbin, President and CEO 

Joshua L. Menter, Attorney 

SCANA Energy Marketing, Inc. and South Carolina Electric & Gas Company 

B. Craig Collins, Assistant General Counsel 

Robert C. Platt, Attorney 

SG Resources Mississippi, L.L.C. 

Mark D. Cook 

James F. Bowe, Jr., Attorney 

Southeast Alabama Gas District 

Greg Henderson, President and Chief Executive Officer 

Joshua L. Menter, Attorney 

Southern Company Services, Inc. 

Roy R. Robertson, Jr. 

Motion of Peoples Gas System, Division of Tampa Electric Company 

Wraye J. Grimard 

Peter C. Lesch, Attorney 

Willmut Gas Company 

Karl H. Ficken, President 

J. Michel Marcoux, Attorney 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
A-11 

APPENDIX A 

DISTRIBUTION LIST (CONTINUED) 

Organizations and Individuals

Alabama 

Battle, Bonnie Jean Dale & J. Mike 

AEM LLP 

c/o Austin L Rainwaters 

Allen, Darwin 

Ashley, Charles W. 

Atchison, David 

Atchison, James E. 

Barnes, Danny W. and Alice K. 

Bexley, Elbert Wayne 

Board of School Comm Mobile County 

Boulo, Tyler T 

Bowen, Johnny R. 

Brazell Clara L. 

Brigham, William H. 

Carney Stephen I. & Shana W. 

Carter John 

Champion, Thomas S. 

Chickasaw, LLC 

Clements, Christopher Allen 

Cohen, Sandra and Mitzi Hargrave 

Coley, Sean 

Conservation & Land Co., Inc. 

Daves Harriet Ann 

Davis, Eddie C. & Harriett E. 

Deadlake Land Company 

Deakle, Laverne W. & Grace S. 

Degraaf Jack J 

Driskell, Darrell A. 

Driskell Farms 

Dunnam, Ronald G. & Muriel 

Esfeller Construction Co 

Estes, Robert E. & Donna I. 

Flowerwood Nursery Inc 

Foster, Chad E. & Karinda K. 

Franklin, Jones W. 

Franklin, Myrtis T. 

Galloway, Robert M. 

Attorney at Law 

Gaston, Emmet C. 

Gaston, Floyd B. Jr. 

Hixann R Gaston 

Gaston, Henry Victor Jr. 

George Carroll Gaston 

Gaston. Emmett C. 

Edith Gaston Roberts 

Goodson, Bill 

Guidry, Bert & Maria 

Gutz, Debra R. & Melvin E. 

Hance Properties 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
A-12 

APPENDIX A 

DISTRIBUTION LIST (CONTINUED) 

Organizations and Individuals (continued)

Hance, E. E. Sr. & Nettie 

Hanchey, Julia Ann 

Hatchett, Alton E. Jr. 

Hatten, William Abner 

Juanita Jones Hatten 

Henderson James L. & Nancy J. 

Henderson Roosevelt Jr. 

Hill, Leroy 

Holloway, Harry D. 

Howard, Barbara 

Howard, George J. & Bonnie L. 

Huber, David L. & Bonnie R. Rose 

Hudson, Carolyn 

Hudson, Jr., Roosevelt & Lucille 

Jackson, Herman C. & Mary E. 

Jarrell, Pauline W. and Patsy 

Jemison, Irvin 

Jemison, Timothy M. Sr. 

Jenkins, Cynthia 

William Skipper & Clint Skipper, Leslie & Tonia Olive 

Johns David J. 

Johnson, Mary Nell 

Judge, Margie C. 

Kline, William 

Luce Packing Company 

Labrador LLC 

Lamp, Hazel B. 

Lazy P. Dude Ranch, LLC 

Lewis, Clarence & Dorothy M. 

Lewis, Madeline, Admin 

Estate Of Clarence Lewis 

Lipford, Daniel C. & Sharon W. 

Mattern, Victor R. III 

McConnell, LLC Norman Cox Jr. 

Mcgowin E Mason Jr, Mcgowin-Uhlhorn 

McGowin Properties Ltd 

Joe H. Little 

McGowin. Lillian C. 

Mckinney, Lisa H. 

Mcleod, Genell 

Middleton, James & Marita 

Miller, Michael C. 

Milne, Thomas A. & Marion 

Mobile County A Body 

Mobile County of ( Irvington Landfill ) 

Molaison, David P. 

Gaynell M. Molaison 

Morgan, Ellen F. 

Morgan, Stephen V. 

Newell, W.S., Inc. 

Phillip Turner 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
A-13 

APPENDIX A 

DISTRIBUTION LIST (CONTINUED) 

Organizations and Individuals (continued)

Nguyen, Hein Pham & Charlie 

Odom Larry A. & Judy R. 

Parden, A.V. 

Parker, Hubert H. IV & Pamela 

Parmer, Donald G. 

Peoples, Annie Belle 

Janice Marsh 

Phelps, Cline Allen 

Pitts, Raymond 

Rainwaters, Derek L. 

Red Mountain Timber Co. IV 

Regions Bank 

Jeffrey, Chris 

Reynolds, Carolyn 

Bruce Mikell 

Roberts, Craig & Carolyn Elizabeth Roberts 

Roberts, Earl L. 

Roberts, Mack 

S.P. Forests L.L.C. 

Schmidt, Mitzi Hargraves 

Schultz, Donald F. 

Secor Enterprises 

Seignious, Jr., Charles W. 

Christine S. Stinson, 

Seignious, John D. 

Cleola Eunice Seignious 

Sollie, Elsie Hamilton 

Sarah Eran Hamilton 

South Bend Development LLC 

South, George W. & Lena M. 

Springdale Stores Inc. 

Alabama Corporation 

State of Alabama 

Dept of Transportation 

Strader, Steven R. & Janie S. 

Thetford, Robin Brigham 

Estate of William H. Brigham 

Tillman, Kevin W. 

Toves, John D. & Deborah M. 

Vaughn, Kim & Linda 

W & L Properties LLC 

Wade, Montee Est 

Michael Wade 

Walding, Fred 

Waldrop John Eugene 

Walker Lavorn 

Washam, Jimmy & Barbara T. 

Washam, Jimmy, Jr. 

Watt, William B. & Vivian M. 

Webster, William Benson & Leta Gay 

Wheeler, William & Dale J. 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
A-14 

APPENDIX A 

DISTRIBUTION LIST (CONTINUED) 

Organizations and Individuals (continued)

White, Robert L. & Melissa B. 

Wilson, Jerry & Nell Deloris 

Woodham Van & Tracy 

Yates, James 

California 

Beacham, Ed & Martha 

c/o Valroide Lyons 

Bender, Singleton 

Cliburn, Alan 

Caroline J. Smith & Jacqueline Ellen Nimmons 

Collins, William W. & Esther H. 

Donald, Jo Ann 

Hill, Evelyn Vernell 

Howell, Robert T. & Karen 

Johnson, Odessa 

Payne, Ina B. 

c/o Trish A. P. Gibson 

Polk, Larry K. 

Smith, J. L. 

Florida 

Armstrong Jr., L. B. 

Deinnger, Sheila Brooks 

Dougherty, Robert I. 

Ezell, Charles T. & Colleen D. 

Trustees of the Ezell Family Trust 

Graves, Clyde Milton & Ina W. 

Holloway, Harrell E. Sr. 

Betty N. Trust 

Land Heritage Ltd 

Ludgood, Stokes T. 

Nicholson, Michael & Daniel 

Aline B. Nicholson 

Page, Edris Josephine D. 

Georgia 

Baldwin, Ronnie 

Barnes, Johnny Willie 

C2B Properties LLC 

Everett, Major 

Everett, Major D. 

Irvin, Shirley 

Jones, Connie Ashley 

Pace, Martin L. Jr. 

Phillips, Janet M. & Paul H. 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
A-15 

APPENDIX A 

DISTRIBUTION LIST (CONTINUED) 

Organizations and Individuals (continued)

Illinois 

Dinwiddie, Alfred W. 

Draper, Mavis P. 

Cynthia D. Hill 

Jackson, Willie Edward 

Jones, Clytee Mcswain 

McCallum, W. O. 

c/o White, Martha 

McSwain, Gilbert 

Simmons, Bessie L. 

Louisiana 

Anderson, Jesse L. Trust 

c/o Sandra Faught 

Arender, Billy Ray 

Ashley, Bryan 

Bar J & S Inc. 

Officers James and Loretta Seymour 

Black, Charles A. 

Blackmon, Lillian M Bounds 

Bloom, Inc. 

Broadway, Travis 

Brown, Charles R. 

Bullock, James F. & Jeanette 

Burdin, Clifton & Gayle 

c/o John J. Burdin 

Burks, William B. 

Burns, Billy 

Busby, Ted 

Byrd, Phil 

c/o Phyllis Barrios 

Carriere, Malcolm R. 

Collins, Claude T. 

Collins, Michael Dan 

Vicki C. Collins 

Craft, Robert 

Crescent Halter Corp. 

Cypress Bayou Farms 

c/o Dennis Grissom 

Danos, Horace M. 

Davis, Marion Raymond & Evelyn 

De Bessonet, Cornelia Page 

Dorsett, Excell Sr. & Will 

Everett, Bill F. 

Federick, Andrew 

Fisher Creek, LLC 

Gayle, Burdin and Clifton 

c/o John J. Burdin 

Gregory, Donald 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
A-16 

APPENDIX A 

DISTRIBUTION LIST (CONTINUED) 

Organizations and Individuals (continued)

Griffith, Franklin M. Jr. 

Gunn, Becky L. 

Guy, Narcissa 

c/o Golden Guy 

Hall, Robert B. 

c/o Troy Zar 

Hanlon, Jr., William M. 

Harrop, Paul H. 

Harrop, Paul Henry 

Ann Marie Harrop 

Karl William Harrop 

Hart, Charles A. 

Harvey, James F. 

Hodges, Mack 

Homar, Inc. 

c/o Ted Busby 

Honneycutt, John Edward 

c/o Elizabeth Honneycutt 

Hopkins, John C. & Teresa F. 

Hopkins, Richard 

Hough, Chester Doyle 

Jemison, Tim and Andrea 

Jessie L Anderson Trust 

c/o Sandra Fraught 

Jones, Frances J. 

Jones, Vondee L. 

Lane, Nelson G. 

Lefort, Leroy J. & Loretta D. 

Logan, Victoria G. 

Lusco & Lusco, LLC 

Maxwell Plantation, Inc. 

c/o Tommy Bishop 

McClodden, Otis 

Miles, Ester 

Morgan, Chad 

Morgan, Howard 

Neuman, Donald 

Nicey Fountain Winters 

Odom, Rex 

Oliver, Rebecca Green 

Palmer, John R. 

Paxton, James E. 

Bayou Mothiglam Hunting Club 

Perrin Revocable Living Trust 

John E Palmer 

Pipeline Construction Workers of Louisiana 

Local 692 

Price, Calvin & Lula M. 

c/o Edward Price 

Ryder Farms, Inc. 

c/o John Collins, Ted Busby 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
A-17 

APPENDIX A 

DISTRIBUTION LIST (CONTINUED) 

Organizations and Individuals (continued)

Scurria, Sarah Spencer Trust 

c/o Philip Joseph Scurria 

Sharp, Paula L. 

Taylor, Jr., Arthur 

Teer, Madeline 

c/o William Burks 

The 4 NGS Inc. 

Thompson, Francis C. 

Triple S. Farms 

U.S.A. Tensas Fish & Wildlife Refuge 

Varner, Jr., Jack M. 

Wesley, Charles 

White, E. J. 

White, Kenneth Don 

Wicks, Rosie, Charlie Cooper, James Cooper 

Joe Cooper Jr., Ennis Cooper, William Cooper, & Lizzie Mae Harrsion 

Williams, Edward W. 

Geneva R. Revocable Living Trust 

Yerger, Flora 

Mississippi 

A.C. Mckay Limited Liability 

Abercrombie I. H. & Katherine 

Adams, Delbert F. & Wesley P. 

Aden Brothers Inc. 

Ady, Katherine 

Allen, Gregory C. 

Amos, W. M. 

Anderson - Tully Co. 

Attn: Norman Davis 

Anderson, Michael E. & Connie 

Anderson, Ted L. & Della M. 

Anthony D. Ross 

Arinder, Lonnie & Bonnie 

Armstrong, Connie D. 

Armstrong, J. H. Sr. 

Jessie Armstrong Jr. Est 

Armstrong, James S, 

Betty A Lowry, & John T Armstrong Jr 

Armstrong, Jr., Jessie H. 

Ashley, Carroll Sr. 

Ashley, Floyd Jerry Jr. 

Jobeth Ashley 

Ashley, Ronald Frank & Charlotte 

Aultman, James Edward 

Aultman, Ronald G. 

Aultman, Troy 

AVC Land Company LLC 

Backstrom, Margaret 

Trustee Of Margaret Backstrom Revocalble Trust 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
A-18 

APPENDIX A 

DISTRIBUTION LIST (CONTINUED) 

Organizations and Individuals (continued)

Baggett ,Jimmie F. 

Bagley, W. L. Jr. & Shirley 

Baker, Edna Earl & Lawrence 

Baker, Lawrence 

Baker, William C. Jr. 

Ball, Wilbert R. & Eva Mae 

Banes, Rita H. 

Banks, Mary E. 

Sharlane Blackston 

Banta, Iva Terry 

c/o Webb Forestry Consultants 

Barker, Rhondale L. 

Barland, Thelma C. 

Barlow, Gene Staton 

Barnes, Barry S. 

Bass, Curtis Webb Jr. 

Bass, Edwin Louis 

Bauml, Siegfried Etux 

Baxter, John William 

Baxter, Melvin 

Beard, Vinson 

Beasley, Frances 

Beasley Family Trust 

Beck, Charles M. 

Bennett, Robert W. & Linda F. 

Bennett, Sharon T. 

Berry, Billy M. 

Berry, Genevieve Harris 

Berry, James D. 

Martha K. Goff 

Birdsong, Mona C. 

Birdsong, George & Stova 

Black Creek Planting Co. 

Blackledge, Daniel W. 

Bolton, Annie Laura 

c/o Mae E. Bolton 

Boone, Kenneth D. & Tracy N. 

Bounds, Danny Paul 

Bradley, Janie R. Travis 

Brantley, Pace & Ann 

Brantley, Richard & Patricia 

Breland, B. J. 

Breland, Curtis V. 

Breland, Deta T. 

Brewer, Bernard R. 

Brewer, Dwain 

Brewer, Ray and Patsy 

Bridges, Keith (James) 

Bristow, Clinton Jr. 

Brown, Fred 

Brown, J. O. 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
A-19 

APPENDIX A 

DISTRIBUTION LIST (CONTINUED) 

Organizations and Individuals (continued)

Brown, Joel A. & Tamie E. 

Brown, Lawrence S. & Flora 

Brown, Priscilla & Teresa Brown Coleman 

Brown, Randall F. & Amanda B. 

Brown, Randy 

Brown, Tom M. & Jean E. 

Bryant, Jerrie 

Bucholz, Edward E. 

Martha Bucholz & Debra Jessica Lee 

Buckley, Richard & Becky 

Bufkin, Robert A. Sr. & Charla C. 

Bush, Alma Taffy Hinton 

Bush, Hamilton C. Jr. & Deborah 

Bush, Mike & Laurel Hotmix 

Byrd, Allen & Charlotte 

Byrd, Freddie L. 

Byrd, Judith C. 

Byrnes, Burton O. 

Jonathan H. Byrnes 

Byrnes, Johathan H. & Frances A. 

Calhoun, Sylvia Elaine Magee & Gail Russell 

Calhoun, Thomas & Laura C. 

Thomas Calhoun & Laura Calhoun Family Trust 

Cammack, Ruth 

Campbell, Hazel Draugham 

Cannon, Theodore E. Jr. 

Carlisle, Verna Ashley 

Joy Annette C. Phillips 

Carlisle, William C. 

Carter, James A. 

Carter, Leroy & Joanne 

CBR Properties LLC 

Ceasar, Martha 

Gayle Peeler 

Chambliss, Will T. 

Chapman, Russell J. 

Charleen Wall DBA Liberty Development, L.L.C. 

Childress, Ronald 

Childress, Ronald T. 

Chisholm, Edna Lavon 

Christian Robert C. & Sandra 

Christian, Wayne R. 

Churchwell, Athelone 

Gavin Churchwell, Jr. 

Claiborne Co Farm LLC 

Clark, Larry A. Sr. 

Clark, Robert E. 

Clarke, Randolph Geoghegan 

Coates, Ira E. and Cindy S. 

Cochran, Kimble A. & Glenda H. 

Cochran, Maxine Overstreet 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
A-20 

APPENDIX A 

DISTRIBUTION LIST (CONTINUED) 

Organizations and Individuals (continued)

Cole, James Allen 

Cole, Milford & Euel Dene Cole 

Coleman, Booker T. & Tena M. 

c/o Ernest Coleman 

Coley, Carolyn K. 

Compton, Ruby (Brant) 

Conway, Andrew J. 

Conway, Donald 

Conway, Gwen 

c/o Donald Conway 

Conway, Rhonda & Donald Conway 

Cook, Myrtle Irene Smith 

Cooley Timberlands L.P. 

Cooley, David 

Cooley, Louise M. 

Cooley, Sharon Elizabeth 

Cooley, William A. 

Coulter, James Mark & Virginia M. 

Courtney, Herbert Don & Kimberly Ann S. 

Cousins, George Barrow 

Covington County Board of Education 

Mr. William G. Cheney Jr. 

Attorney for Secretary of State 16th Section Lands 

Cowart Prentiss W. 

Cowart, Linda D. 

Crawford, Melvin W. & Baira, Dawn 

Crawley, Aubrey Linwood Sr. & Carolyn 

Crawley, Michael Stanley & Bobbie Jean 

Crocker, David & Denise M. 

Cruse, Paul & Mildred P. Waldridge 

Cumbest, A. Scott 

Cumbest, Mark 

Dahmer, Wayne L. 

Vernon Dahmer Jr. 

Dale, George & James R. 

Danley, Annie 

Darden, Charles R. Sr. & Betty 

Daughdrill, Daniel Wade 

Daughdrill, Jackie Lee & Beverly Ann 

Davidson, James W. 

Davis Larry 

Davis, Arthur E. & Helen F. 

Davis, Charles B. 

Patsy Ruth 

Davis, Cynthia B. 

Harrison, Debora B. 

Davis, Edna 

Davis, Jason Blane 

Davis, John Est 

c/o Leless Davis 

Davis, Joseph B. & Carolyn V. 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
A-21 

APPENDIX A 

DISTRIBUTION LIST (CONTINUED) 

Organizations and Individuals (continued)

Davis, Kenneth G. & Kathia R. 

Davis, Scott Clifton 

Davis, Scott Clifton Toby 

Davis, Tony 

Davis, Troy W. 

Davis, Walter G. 

Deakle, John M. 

Dearman, Jesse W. 

Dees, Randall H. 

Denmark, Ernagene Howell 

Dickerson, Cecil O. 

Dickerson, L. Carroll 

Dickerson, Truman O. 

Dixon, Woodrow 

Donaldson, Mary Lou & J. G. 

Doty, Tamie 

Double A Firewood Inc. 

DBA Desoto Land & Timber 

Douglas, Emma S. 

Ducksworth, Curtis C. (Willie) 

Duckworth, Michael 

Aultman, Walter G (Helen) 

Dueitt, Bennie Lee & Maxine 

Dukes, James K. 

Durden, Suzette H. 

Dye, Alex Daniel 

Dye, Rufus D. & Laura J. 

Dykes Timber Company Inc. 

Easterling, Anthony 

c/o Dr. Roy Jefferson, Administrator of School 

Easterling, Ellen M. 

Edwards, James P. 

Edwards, Nora Ann 

Edwards, Paul 

Ehrhardt, Karl F. 

Ellis, Doyle E. & Billy W. 

Ellis, Earnest Lee 

Erkhart, Willie Franklin Jr. 

Eubanks, Russell Lee 

Eubanks, Virginia L. 

Evans, Yvonne 

Everett Farms LLC 

Everett, Bill 

F & J Land & Timber, LLC 

Fails, Phillip 

Fairley Construction Company, Inc. 

Ferris Farms Inc. 

Flowers, Robert 

c/o C. F. Arnold & L. D. Flowers 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
A-22 

APPENDIX A 

DISTRIBUTION LIST (CONTINUED) 

Organizations and Individuals (continued)

Forrest County Mississippi 

Petal Municipal Seperate School Board 

Foster, John M. & Marilyn P. 

Fox, Carolyn Deen 

Freeman, Therron R. 

Hilda Faye and Rayburn Freeman 

French, Marcus L. Felicia Y. 

Gaddis, Jimmie Lee 

Gardner, John D. 

Garner, Ernest C. 

Garner, Gerald 

Garrick Family Catastrophic Illness Trust 

Gartman. Paul Ross & Elizabeth H. 

Gatlin, W. H. 

c/o George Alsworth 

Geary, Robert A. 

Marylin R. Geary 

George County School District 

George, Jimmy 

Gibson, Billie Joe & Christine L. 

Gladden, Mildred M. 

Goff, Sherry Lynn 

Gordon, Janice T. 

Graham, David Eugene 

Graham, Sammy Curtis 

Granberry, Inez M. 

Granger, Johnnie Nelson & Joy A. 

Gray, R. A. III 

Attorney at Law 

Greer, Cecil W. 

Martha Louise Guthrie Greer 

Greer, David R. 

Greer, Russell 

Greer's Hunting Club 

Richton School Board of Education 

Guess, Richard C. 

Gunn, Lawrence C. Jr. 

Attorney at Law 

Gustavis, Royest 

Guthrie Land Co. LLC 

Guthrie, Douglas O. 

H & H Land Investment Co. 

Hall, Maggie 

c/o Luther Alexander 

Hall, Robert L. 

Hamilton, Jessie Eugene 

Harrell, Bonita H. 

Harris, Genevieve 

Harrison, Dwight W. 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
A-23 

APPENDIX A 

DISTRIBUTION LIST (CONTINUED) 

Organizations and Individuals (continued)

Harrison, Ronnie 

Hart, Charles Allen 

Peggy Hart Keyes 

Hart, Doris N. 

Hart, Charles A. 

Hartzog, George A.& Shelia A. 

Harwell, Fred R. Jr. 

Hathorn, Napoleon 

Hathorn, Robert L. 

Havard, Brian G. 

Havard, Ellis 

Havard, Gregory Steven 

Havard, Hildry Glenn, Est. 

Havard, Irma Lee 

Havard, Ralph 

Havard, Steve E. 

Hayes, Donna M. 

Hayford, Heath Tyson 

Kaleah Hayford" 

Hazlehurst Lumber Co., Inc. 

Hazlehurst School District 

c/o Nathaniel Armistad 

Head, Dorris Page & Everett 

Head, Ira Glenn & Cherry 

Hembree, Andrew L. & Wanda R. 

Hempstead, John Steven & Karen Rose 

Henley, Harris B 

Hensarling, Georgine 

Herrin, Sammy H. & Willine G. 

Hilbrooks LLC 

Hillman James Rodney 

Hillman, Mickey J. 

Hillman, Voncile Byrd 

Hinton, Doris 

Hinton, Gregory W. & Tammie M. 

Hinton, J. E. & Mrs. Louis (Vivan) Tricon, Mrs. Lucille Kolb, Mrs. Faye H. White Shelton and Mrs. Tom 

(Myrtle) Smullin 

Hinton, Joseph E. & Mildred 

Hinton, Lochlyn R 

Hinton, Maranda & Jeffery L.Hinton 

Hinton, Maranda F. 

Shirley H. Ledrew Drozda 

Hinton, Margaret T. (Thomas) 

Tranquility Bay LP 

Hinton, Odessa 

Durden,Cheryl S. 

Hinton, Ras Jr. 

Hinton, Thomas M. 

Hinton, Troy E. & Peggy P. 

Hobby, Jessie D. 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
A-24 

APPENDIX A 

DISTRIBUTION LIST (CONTINUED) 

Organizations and Individuals (continued)

Hogan T. Norman & Twyla B. 

Hogan, Gwendolyn R. 

c/o Ryan Nell 

Holland, Leslie Ray & Patricia J. 

Holland, Ronnie T. & Teresa C. 

Holliman, James Larry 

Holliman, Janice 

Hollimon, Melvin 

Eldridge Hollimon 

Holloway, Billy R. & Lanelle H. 

Holloway, Gaston 

c/o Perry Holloway 

Holloway, Hal 

Holmes, Paul H. 

James K. Dukes 

Hood Real Estate 

Hood, Arnold Robin Sr. Marital 

Hood, Harold 

Hood, Mildred G. Est 

Hood, W. E. & Sons Farm Inc. 

Hooker, James E. 

Horton, Alex J. & Penelope M. 

Hosie Bridges 

Chris Smith 

Howell, Charles T. Jr. & Faith 

Howell, Corliss 

Howell, Donnell J. 

Howell, Ernest L. 

Howell, Hollis & Mary Jo 

Howell, Jerry B. Mary Jan 

Howell, Lottie Brown 

Howell, Margarette 

Howell, Phillip Ross & Ann Howell Wilson 

Howell, Ronald W. & Eula G. 

Huckeby, Robert & Angie 

Hudnall, Marsha 

Hudson, Bobby Joe 

Hunter, Hervey Michael 

Hurt, Darryl A. 

Attorney at Law 

Hutcherson Billy W. & Janice S. 

ILH Timber Company 

Inabnet, Dorothy P. 

Jerry Inabnet Sr. 

Sandra I. Michalski 

International Paper Company 

Jackson, Leroy 

Jacobson, Richard C. 

Jarrell, Barbara 

Jennings, Susan Lucinda M. 

Johnson Marva Jean 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
A-25 

APPENDIX A 

DISTRIBUTION LIST (CONTINUED) 

Organizations and Individuals (continued)

Johnson, Gary M. & Yolanda T. 

Johnson, Richard A. & Joanna 

Johnson, S. M. 

c/o Dexter Walcott 

Jones, Carroll 

Jones, Henry 

Jones, Paul 

Jordan, L. N. 

Jordan, Sylvia 

Billy Wade Jordan 

Joshua Timberlands LLC 

c/o Molbus Timberlands 

Joshua, Edna Mae 

c/o Joe Joshua 

Joshua, Joe Lewis 

Kahl, Julia Victoria Prevost 

Karolyi, Donald Paul 

Karolyi, Willaim B. and Barbara J. 

Keene, Kathrine M. 

Doris K. Walker (William D. Keene) 

Kelley, Deborah D. 

Keyes, Roy L. & Sheila 

Keyes, Samuel Wayne Dr. 

Killingsworth, Robert L & Mary Ellen 

Kimble, Janet C. 

Ronald Frank Ashley 

King, Mattie Sue 

King, Patricia S. 

Knight, Carolyn Morse 

Knotts, Cassandra Lynn 

Alan Dale & Anthony Christian 

Koroly, Joey Michael 

Lancellotti, Linda 

Larry Havard Properties Inc. 

Raymond Parker 

Lee J. D. 

Irell Lee 

Lee Paul Thomas 

Lee, Carlton H. 

Lee, Carroll & Beverly 

Lee, Jackie 

Beverly Ann Daughdrill 

Lee, James M. 

Lee, Joe T. 

Lee, Lucion N. 

Linn, Sadie L. 

Little, Violet H. 

Loftin, Paulette 

Loftin, Ralph E. & Patricia F. 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
A-26 

APPENDIX A 

DISTRIBUTION LIST (CONTINUED) 

Organizations and Individuals (continued)

Lominick W. R. Jr. 

Robert G. Lackey, Heather L. Huetter & John G. Lackey 

Long, Michael & Jennifer S. 

c/o Nick Fokakis & Edna M.B. Fokakis, Trust 

Longino, Anthony F. 

Lott, Edmond 

Lott, Murray E. 

Lott, William Wayne Jr. 

Edmundson Lott Murray 

Lowe, Charles W. 

Lowery, James E. & Rachel N. 

Lowery, Ronald D. Sr. 

Luce Insurance & Horizon Investments 

Lumberland LLC 

Lynn, Sr., James E. 

Lyon, David M & Emma R. 

Madison, Paul J. & Winston C., Annie Ruth Sullivan 

c/o Winston Madison 

Magee, Gwyndetta Jones Edwards 

Magee, Jeremy Mack 

Dara Kylene Magee 

Magee, Larry W. 

Magee. J. D. 

c/o Clarence Magee Jr. 

Mallette, Robert S. & Joyce M. 

Mangum, Marilyn 

Gena Hood, Elaine Hood 

Marshall, Willie T. 

Martinolich, Mark F. 

Marx, George Ramsey 

Massa, Forrest W. Jr. & Pamela W. 

Matheny, Amanda P. 

Matheny, Jimmie Sue Thrash 

Mauldin, A. G. & Mary Nell 

Mauldin, Alice & Kimberly 

Mauldin, Charles & Bernice 

Mauldin, Charles S. & Donna 

Mauldin, Charles Steve 

Mauldin, John Adam 

Mauldin, John B. & Annette 

Mauldin, Loyed and Martha S. 

Mauldin, Russell D. 

Maxie, Helen J. 

Maxie, Leo C. Jr. 

Mayo, Charles J. 

Mcarthur Company LP 

c/o Mcarthur, Barry 

Mcarthur, J. W., Realtor 

Barry Mcarthur 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
A-27 

APPENDIX A 

DISTRIBUTION LIST (CONTINUED) 

Organizations and Individuals (continued)

McCardle, R. W. 

c/o Merly Hainon Miller 

McCardle, Robert Virgil & Sherry 

McCarthy, Richard F. Dr. 

McCool, Peggy 

McDonald, Herbert 

McDonald, Kevin C. 

McDuffey, Alvin D. and Alice W. 

McDuffey, Kelvin 

McDuffey, Tressie Lee 

McGowan, Bobby John & Rachel 

McGowen, Douglas & Barbara 

McGuffee, Joe 

Lawrence County School District 

McInnis, Michael Dewey 

McInnis, Phillip Lee 

Melvin Scott McInnis & Sharon Elizabeth (McInnis) Cooley 

Mckenzie, Johnny 

Mckinzie, Johnny Eli Jr. 

Mckissack, William B. 

Mckissack, Ashley L. 

Mckissick, Clifton R., Sr. 

McLendon, Lois 

Mcleod, Marline S. 

McManus, Kendall & Andrea 

McNeil, Brenda L. 

McRae, W. H. 

McSwain, Leighton A. & Sylvia C. 

Meacham, Sheila Diane 

Mendez, Rodolfo & Mirna 

Merritt, Donald K. & Rita A. 

Merritt, Vivian L. 

Miles, Edward L. Jr. 

Miller, James Brooks 

Miller, Wayne Jr. 

Miller, William C. 

Mitchell, H. Rodney & Ann T. 

Mixon, Kit 

Monticello Forest Products Corp 

Thomas A. Hill, President 

Moore, Eugene 

Moore, Jamie Polk 

Moore, L. T. Jr. & Jackie 

Morgan, John 

c/o Simmons Carmem Delk 

Morgan, Julian 

Katherine Elaine Morgan 

Morris, Glenn A. 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
A-28 

APPENDIX A 

DISTRIBUTION LIST (CONTINUED) 

Organizations and Individuals (continued)

Morrison, Gregory S. 

Lorraine P. Morrison 

Morrison, Johnnie & Lanell 

Gregory S. Morrison 

Morse, Kenneth Wayne 

Mott, Brenda Griggs 

Moye, Ellen 

Mt. Sinai Baptist Church 

Mullins, Fredna Collins 

Mullins, Gladys K. 

Mullins, III, Dan Lee 

my John Edward & Brenda Sue 

Myers, Don & Ruby L. 

Myers, Sam & Ruby Lynn 

Myrick, Ray & Geraldine 

Napier, Dewitt 

Napier, Jesse Ermon 

Napier, Joseph 

Nelson, Bryan P.A. 

Attorney at Law 

Nelson, John E. & Kareemie E. 

Newsom, Fred G. & Sylvia 

Newsom, John & Mildred 

Pamela Melzer 

Nicols, Alfred G. Jr. & Mary Cayce 

Nixon, Sharon B. 

Norris David T. and Elizabeth 

Norris, Carol B 

Oatis, Maurice 

Odom, Ester Ruth 

Floyd Gene Odom & Loyd James Odom 

Orman, Mary and Billy 

Overstreet, George & Clarice 

Owens, Barry & June 

Page, Frank D. 

Page, Ralph A. & Helen L. 

Palmer, Billy E. 

Palmer, James I. Jr. 

Palmer, Robert M. 

James R. Palmer 

Palmer, Robert W. & Regina 

Palmer, Robert W. Sr. 

Parker, Carlton C. 

Parker, Edwin G. & Barbara 

Parker, Harold C. Jr. & Dawn 

Parker, William M. 

Parnell, Percy H. Jr. 

Patrick, James Ellis 

Patterson, Richard Brian & Amanda Lee 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
A-29 

APPENDIX A 

DISTRIBUTION LIST (CONTINUED) 

Organizations and Individuals (continued)

Perrett, Lillie 

c/o Bill Perrett 

Perrin, Hershel L. & Tabitha 

Pessoney, George and Linda 

Petal Municipal Seperate School Board 

Phillips, James W & Joy C. 

Pierce, Michael & Pierce, Carol 

Pierce, Preston C. 

Pierce, Roma Faye Thrash 

Pierre Properties LP Bayou 

Drake J. T. Jr. 

Pipkins, John Q. Jr. & Nelda L. 

Polk, Alma R. 

Polk, Evelyn Dorsey 

Polk, John A. 

Pope, Andrew A. & Dana 

Pope, Chester Richard Sr. & Je 

Pope, J. E. & Sue Sumrall 

Pope, Mickel J. & Janice 

Porter, Samuel J. & Bonnie K. 

Powel, James 

Hudson, Mary F. 

Prescott, Linda D. & Albert M. 

Prevost, Allen Joseph 

Price, John M. & Nina A. 

Prine, Gary & Julie 

Purvis, Thomas H. 

Ranager, Joe H. 

Rita S. Carpenter 

Rath, Gloria Jean Harris 

Reed, Danny 

Reeves, Maurice L. & Maxine 

Reid, Gloria J. Travis 

Reves, Clyde W. Sr. & Allie H. 

Rich, Edward 

Rightmer, Tom & Karen 

Riley, Kitty G. 

Roberts, Edna Earl Baker 

Robinson, Fred H. and Dianne A. 

Robinson, Goldie 

Rodgers, Eula Annie Est 

c/o Celestine Ross 

Rogers, J. W. Est 

c/o Hattie Rogers Mclin 

Ross, Anthony D. 

Ross, Lewis D. III 

Rouse, Joe Lee 

Royce Jr., Cumbest L. 

Royston, Anna M . 

Troy V. Majure Jr. 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
A-30 

APPENDIX A 

DISTRIBUTION LIST (CONTINUED) 

Organizations and Individuals (continued)

Rushing, Larry D 

Rushing, Lovie R. 

Russell, James 

Greer, William V. 

Rutledge, Ovalton H. 

Elsie K. & Edward I. Rutledge 

Safari Plantation LLC 

Sanderson Farms Inc. 

Processing Division 

Sanford, Laura Bynum 

Sanford, Roger Wayne 

Scarbrough, Anna Hall 

Scott, Carsandra 

Seward, Harry & Rita 

Seward, Harry K. & Steven Seward 

Seward Farms 

Seward, Mary Aude 

Seward, Steve & Susan M. 

Shirley Mikell 

Shotts, Betty 

Billy Ray Shotts 

Shotts, W. G. 

Shows, Billy Ray 

Shows, Cynthia E. & Tom Shows 

Shows, Debra J. 

Shows, Donald E & Michael E. 

c/o Tom Shows 

Shows, Glenn M. 

Sigrest, J. E. 

William H. Sigrest 

Simmon, Vance 

Nicolene Rasmussen 

Simmons, Carmem Ruth 

Simon, Payne 

Slaughter, Martha A. 

Smith Jr., James 

Smith, Alger Neil 

Kathy Sue Miller Smith 

Smith, Dumas & Lorena 

Smith, Earnest Francis 

Petal Municipal Seperate School Board 

Smith, Floyd 

Smith, James & Jo Ann M. 

Smith, Lavelle 

c/o V. O. Smith 

Smith, Michael & Shawna 

Smith, Richard Keith 

Smith, Robert Frank 

Snell, Maxie J 

Sossaman, W. H. & Linda K. 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
A-31 

APPENDIX A 

DISTRIBUTION LIST (CONTINUED) 

Organizations and Individuals (continued)

Stapleton, James Robert Jr. & Donna Sue 

Starr, Michael L. Jr. 

Stevison, Howard E. & Doris L. 

Stewart, Dianne G. 

Stewart, Robert Clarke 

Strong, Jimmy D. & Ellen H. 

Strong, Phillip J. 

Sturdivant Woodyards Inc. 

Sullivan, Jennifer Shelley 

Sullivan, Glen & Jennifer 

Sullivan, Tony 

Summerour, Roger R. 

Summers, Albert & Jeanene 

Sustainable Forests LLC 

Sutton, Robert J. & Doris & Myrtle Sutton 

Tanner, Ida Eyrle 

Tanner, Jerry & Linda 

Tanner, Winfred D. & Reby C. 

Taylor, Betty 

Taylor, Edward B. Est. 

Taylor, Jerry E. & Eva D 

Taylor, Louella Est 

Templeton, Bobby T. 

Betty T. Mitchell 

Templeton, Mrs. Elaine 

Bobby Troy Templeton 

Thames, Craig W. 

The Nature Conservancy 

Thompson, Douglas 

Thompson, Horace Dean 

Thompson, T. O. Jr. & Donis 

Thompson, W. Douglas 

Thorne, Arneda Joyce 

Thrash, Scott Randall 

Thurman, George C. Jr. 

Tillman, Mary Est 

c/o Mozella Daniels 

Tingle, William C. 

Tisdale, Roy M. & Karen C. 

Tom Creek Hunting Club Leasee 

Tomicich, E. H. Jr. and Lucy F. 

Kelly C. & Richard E. Deaton 

Touchstone, R. L. Jr. 

Town of Wesson 

Mayor Alton Shaw 

Tranquility Bay LP 

Thomas Hinton 

Travis, Lee Allen 

Treadwell, Fred 

Tucker, Anthony S. 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
A-32 

APPENDIX A 

DISTRIBUTION LIST (CONTINUED) 

Organizations and Individuals (continued)

Tuggle, Loretta J. 

Turkey Haven Creek LLC. 

Woolwine, Richard 

Turnage, Jean Thurman 

Turnage, Virginia 

Ulmer, Geneva B. 

Venus, Joseph P. 

Vince, William R. 

Vincent, Glenn W. 

Mark Jubal & Craig Yonge 

Wade, Jerry M. 

Ann Wade Pierce 

Walcott, C Dewitt 

c/o Dexter Walcott 

Walk of Faith Church 

Walker Floyd A. & Amanda 

Walker, Vina Est 

Charles Lockhart 

Walters, Wade A. 

Walton, James L. & Mary W. 

Ward, Billy R. & Peggy J. 

Ward, James Lee 

Ward, Myrtle B. 

Warren, James Keith & Sandra C. 

Warren, Sandra C & Keith F/R 

Watkins, Curtis E. 

Watkins, Paul J. 

Weatherford, Steven R. 

Weathersby, Ora D. 

Weaver, Milford A. & Jo Ann 

Webb, Forrest Lands LLC 

West Farms, Inc. 

Weyerhaeuser Company 

William A. Powe Trust 

White Vonnie E. & Sue 

White, David Worrell 

White, Jeffrey Wayne 

White, Y. C. 

Whitehead, John W. 

Dr. Lynne M. Leonard 

Wiggins, Elnora 

Wiggins, George 

Eunice Lynch & Geneva W. Blackwell 

Wilks, Trevor 

Williams Family Trust 

Williams, L. M. 

Williams, Dawn & Deven 

Williams, Josie Norman & Norman David 

Williams, Mary G. 

Williamson, Joyce 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
A-33 

APPENDIX A 

DISTRIBUTION LIST (CONTINUED) 

Organizations and Individuals (continued)

Williamson, Kenneth Scott 

Wilson, Everett Lee 

Wilson, Everett Lee Oddis 

Tracy Little 

Wilson, Ramsey Earl 

Jewell Wilson 

Wilson, Woodie Jeff 

Wilson's Timberland Co. LLC 

Wood, Bobby J. & Virginia L. 

Wood, Gregory D. & Regina M. 

Woodard, John 

Woodward, Freeman 

Woolwine, Richard 

Wootton, Danny 

Woullard, Joe Earl 

Wyatt, Joe M. 

Wyatt & Wyatt LLC 

Yokena, Loosa LP 

John Leigh Hyland III 

Young, Robert 

c/o Annie Kyles 

Young, Sarah H. 

Texas 

Corr, Gail B. 

Demaree, Gary David Sr. 

Phillip Lavaster Demaree 

Destin Pipeline Co., L.L.C. 

c/o Property Tax 

Evans, Sharon A. 

Glenda Murff Todd & Hilda Freeman Hefner 

Gulfstream Natural Gas 

Hanes, Stephen III 

Keith L. & Donna J. Williams 

Jones, Serena & Heidel, Guthrie 

c/o Martha Gaddis 

Kilpatrick, Clyde 

Koch Gateway Pipeline Co. 

Lyles, Linda 

Pace, Jr., Dr. Robert E. 

Pruden, Roy 

Rowan Equipment Inc. 

Sibley, Henry 

Trustee for Mildred Louise D. Sibley 

Somich, Jewel Rounsaville & Robert T. 

Spectra Energy Corporation 

Spencer, Sherry Dickenhorst 

Stewardship Fund LP 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
A-34 

APPENDIX A 

DISTRIBUTION LIST (CONTINUED) 

Organizations and Individuals (continued)

Transcontinental Gas Pipeline 

Williams Transco Land Dept 

Wehmeyer-Alabama Partners, Ltd 

c/o Roy Pruden 

Other 

Adams, Glynn & Lawson 

Anderson-Tully Co. 

c/o Marye H. Owen P. 

Ashley, Thomas Sanders 

Margaret Rose Clymer 

Brown, Carrie L. & Rayfield 

c/o Carrie B. Williams 

Conway, Rachel F. 

Eschner, Laurel J. 

Everett, Davie Jr. 

Foster, Lela Mae 

Gabriel Hatten 

Hilliard, Missouri 

c/o Mildred White 

Hinton, James D. 

Holloway, Jr., Charles M. 

Keen, Cora Lay & Ann Kitchen 

King, Sara E. 

McLemore George S. & Sharon F. 

(Petal Municipal Seperate School Board) 

Middleton, Wanda J. 

Lillie F. Reeves 

Perine, Rena & Henry Sr. 

Plum Creek South Central Timberland 

Attn: Charlotte Miller 

Rea, Richard Wayne 

Reed, Jerry 

Reeder, Annie 

Santarella Jr., Joseph M. 

Weathersby, Eddie 

c/o Argussie Woodard 

Wiggins, Eddye V. 

Melvin H Davis 

Williamson, Elliott D. & Vera 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
APPENDIX B 

FACILITY LOCATION MAPS 

 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
NON-INTERNET PUBLIC 

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE PROPOSED SOUTHEAST 

SUPPLY HEADER PIPELINE PROJECT 

Docket No. CP07-44-000 and CP07-45-000 

Page B-1 to B-90 

Appendix B 

Facility Location Maps 

Public Access for the above information is available only through the Public Reference Room, or by 

e-mail at 

public.referenceroom@ferc.gov

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
APPENDIX C

SOIL ASSOCIATIONS CROSSED BY THE SESH PROJECT

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
C-1

TABLE C-1

Soil Associations Crossed by the SESH Project

County Soil Association

Cumulative

Length Cross

(miles)

Soil

Series/Phase

Erosion

Potential

Soil

Fertility

Prime

Farmland

Hydric

Soils

Compaction

Potential Revegetation

D

>

CalhounGrenada-level to

gently undulating

clayey soils and

loamy soils on

broad flats,

swales, ridges,croplands.

Richland 0.1 Calhoun (Ca) Low High Yes Yes High Good 

Parish, LA

Grenada (Gr) Low-Medium High Yes No Moderate Good 

Madison

Parish, LA

CommerceBruin-Tunica -

loamy soils on

natural levees,

bayous of

Mississippi River,

crops, pasture,

homes, light.

Industry.

10.6 Commerce

(Cm)

Low High Yes Yes Moderate Good 

Bruin (Ba) Low High Yes Yes Low Good 

Tunica (Tu) Low High Yes Yes High Good 

Dundee-SharkeyTunica - loamy

soils, clayey soils

on levees and

around bayous,

crops, woodland.

11.4 Dundee (Dd) Low Medium Yes No High Medium 

Sharkey (Sa) Low High Yes Yes High Good 

Tunica (Tu) Low High Yes Yes High Good 

Tensas-Sharkeygently undulating,

nearly level

clayey soils and

loamy soils,

woodland,

frequently

flooded.

6.8 Tensas (Ta) Low Medium Yes Yes High Medium 

Sharkey (Sa) Low High Yes Yes High Good 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
C-2

TABLE C-1

Soil Associations Crossed by the SESH Project

County Soil Association

Cumulative

Length Cross

(miles)

Soil

Series/Phase

Erosion

Potential

Soil

Fertility

Prime

Farmland

Hydric

Soils

Compaction

Potential Revegetation

D

>

Tensas-SharkeyDundee-gently

undulating to

level clayey soils,

woodland

frequently

flooded.

3.7 Tensas (Ta) Low Medium Yes Yes High Medium 

Sharkey (Sa) Low High Yes Yes High Good 

Dundee (Dd) Low Medium Yes No High Medium 

SharkeyCrevasse- level,

nearly level, andgently undulating,

poorly drained,

silt loam to fine

sandy soil, clayson broad flats,

frequently

flooded,woodland.

2.9 Sharkey (Sa) Low High Yes Yes High Good 

Crevasse (Cr) Low Low No No Low Low 

Warren

County, MS

CommerceRobinsonvilleCrevassemedium to

coarse alluvium,

nearly level,frequent flooding,

woodland,

agriculture.

0.9 Commerce

(Cm)

Low Moderate

to High

Yes Yes Moderate Good 

Robinsonville

(Ro)

Low High Yes Yes Low Good 

Crevasse (Cy) Low Low No Yes Low Low 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
C-3

TABLE C-1

Soil Associations Crossed by the SESH Project

County Soil Association

Cumulative

Length Cross

(miles)

Soil

Series/Phase

Erosion

Potential

Soil

Fertility

Prime

Farmland

Hydric

Soils

Compaction

Potential Revegetation

D

>

Sharkey-TunicaDowling-fine

slack water

alluvium, level,

frequently

flooded,woodland, crops,

or pasture.

1.5 Sharkey (Sc) Low High Yes Yes High Good 

Tunica (Tu) Low High Yes Yes High Good 

Dowling (Do) Low High No Yes High Medium 

MemphisNatchez-Adlersilty loam, hilly to

steep uplands

and narrow

ridges, woodland,small farms.

9.6 Memphis (Me) Low-High Moderate No No Moderate Medium 

Natchez (Nz) High Moderate No No Low Medium 

Adler (Ad) Low Moderate

to High

Yes Yes Low Good 

Claiborne

County, MS

SmithdaleLexingtonProvidencesloping to steep

loamy and siltyclayey soils,

woodland,

pasture where

slope not limiting.

5.2 Smithdale (Sm) High Low No No Low Low 

Lexington (Lx) High Low No No Low Low 

Providence (Pr) Low to High Low to

High

Yes No Low Medium 

MemphisNatchez-Adlersilty loam to silty

clay loam,

woodland, small

farms limited by

slope.

2.3 Memphis (Me) Low-High Moderate Yes No Moderate Good 

Natchez (Nz) High Moderate No No Low Medium 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
C-4

TABLE C-1

Soil Associations Crossed by the SESH Project

County Soil Association

Cumulative

Length Cross

(miles)

Soil

Series/Phase

Erosion

Potential

Soil

Fertility

Prime

Farmland

Hydric

Soils

Compaction

Potential Revegetation

D

>

Adler (Ad) Low Moderate

to High

Yes Yes Low Good 

BrunoOaklimeter-Ariellevel to nearly

level, silt loam,

woodland, some

pastures/crops.

2.8 Bruno (Br) Low to

Medium

Low No Yes Low Low 

Oaklimeter

(Ok)

Low Moderate No Yes Moderate Medium 

Ariel (Ae) Low High Yes Yes Low Good 

Copiah

County, MS

Bruno-CahabaLatonia-gently

sloping to nearly

level, loam,

loamy sand,

sandy loam tosandy clay loam,

agriculture.

8.1 Bruno (Br) Low to

Medium

Low No Yes Low Low 

Cahaba (Ca) Low to

Medium

Moderate

to High

Yes Yes Low Good 

Latonia (LaB) Low High Yes Yes Low Good 

GuytonColumbusArkabutla-nearly

level to level silty

soils, loamy soils

silty clay loam,

flood plains,

stream terraces,

depressions,woodland,

agriculture.

3.4 Guyton (Gu) Low Low Yes Yes Moderate Medium 

Columbus

(CuA)

Low High Yes Yes Moderate Good 

Arkabutla (Ar) Low Low Yes Yes High Medium 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
C-5

TABLE C-1

Soil Associations Crossed by the SESH Project

County Soil Association

Cumulative

Length Cross

(miles)

Soil

Series/Phase

Erosion

Potential

Soil

Fertility

Prime

Farmland

Hydric

Soils

Compaction

Potential Revegetation

D

>

GillsburgOaklimeter-Arielnearly level tolevel, silty to

clayey loamy

soils, flood plain,

flats, woodland,

agriculture.

1 Gillsburg (Gb) Low High Yes Yes Moderate Good 

Oaklimeter

(Ok)

Low Moderate Yes Yes Moderate Good 

Ariel (Ae) Low High Yes Yes Low Good 

KolinProvidenceSmithdale-gently

sloping tosloping, silty

clayey soils,

agriculture, some

wooded.

1.4 Kolin (Ko) High Moderate No No Low Low 

Providence (Pr) Low to High Low to

High

No No Low Medium 

Smithdale (Sm) High Low No No Low Low 

Loring-Callowaylevel to strongly

sloping, fragipanson uplands and

stream terraces,

silty clay soils,

agriculture, some

wooded.

13.3 Loring (Lo) Low to High Low to

High

Yes No Low Medium 

Calloway (CoA) Low High Yes Yes Moderate Good 

ProvidenceBude-nearly level

to strongly

sloping silty soils,

fragipans on

uplands and

stream terraces,

agriculture, some

woodland.

3.2 Providence

(PR)

Low to High Low to

High

Yes No Low Medium 

Bude (BuA) Low High Yes No Moderate Good 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
C-6

TABLE C-1

Soil Associations Crossed by the SESH Project

County Soil Association

Cumulative

Length Cross

(miles)

Soil

Series/Phase

Erosion

Potential

Soil

Fertility

Prime

Farmland

Hydric

Soils

Compaction

Potential Revegetation

D

>

ProvidenceSmithdale- nearly

level to stronglysloping, silty

sandy loam,

fragipans,

woodland,

agriculture.

0.5 Providence (Pr) Low to High Low to

High

No No Low Medium 

Smithdale (Sm) High Low No No Low Low 

ProvidenceSmithdaleSaffell-nearly

level to stronglysloping, silty to

sandy loamy and

gravelly soils onupland,

fragipans, sandy

clay loam,

woodland some

pasture.

1.2 Providence (Pr) Low to High Low to

High

No No Low Medium 

Smithdale (Sm) High Low No No Low Low 

Saffell (SaE) High Low No No Low Low 

LormanSmithdalestrongly sloping

to steep, loamy

soils on upland,

sandy to clayey

loam, clays,

woodland some

pasture.

5.4 Lorman (Lr) High Low No No Low Low 

Smithdale (Sm) High Low No No Low Low 

SmithdaleLexington-sloping

to steep loamy

soils, silty loam,

sandy clay loam,

woodland, some

pasture.

3.2 Smithdale (Sm) High Low No No Low Low 

Lexington (Lx) High Low No No Low Low 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
C-7

TABLE C-1

Soil Associations Crossed by the SESH Project

County Soil Association

Cumulative

Length Cross

(miles)

Soil

Series/Phase

Erosion

Potential

Soil

Fertility

Prime

Farmland

Hydric

Soils

Compaction

Potential Revegetation

D

>

Lawrence

County, MS

JenaRosebloomVelda-nearly

level, silt and

sandy loamy

soils, woodland,agriculture.

1.7 Jena (Je) Low High NYes Yes Low Good 

Rosebloom

(Ro)

Low Low No Yes Moderate Low 

Velda (Ve) Low Moderate Yes No Low Good 

CadevilleFalknerFreestonesloping to steep,

loamy soils with

clay, silt loam,

woodland.

2.9 Cadeville (Ca) Medium to

High

Not suited

for crops

No No Low Low 

Falkner (FaB) Low Moderate No No Moderate Medium 

Freestone (Fr) High Low No No Moderate Low 

ProvidenceSmithdaleRuston-gently to

moderately

sloping, loamy

soils, woodlands.

5.3 Providence (Pr) Low to high Low to

High

No No Low Medium 

Smithdale (Sm) High Low No No Low Low 

Ruston (Ru) Moderate High Yes No Low Good 

JeffersonDavis

County, MS

Kirkville-BibbMantachienearly level

loamy soils silts,

woodlands, someagriculture.

1.8 Kirkville (Kr) Low Low to

Moderate

No Yes Low Medium 

Bibb (Bb) Low Not suited

for crops

No Yes Moderate Low 

Mantachie(Mn) Low Low to

Moderate

No Yes Moderate Medium 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
C-8

TABLE C-1

Soil Associations Crossed by the SESH Project

County Soil Association

Cumulative

Length Cross

(miles)

Soil

Series/Phase

Erosion

Potential

Soil

Fertility

Prime

Farmland

Hydric

Soils

Compaction

Potential Revegetation

D

>

Jena-KirkvilleMantachie-nearly

level loamy soils

on floodplain,

agriculture,

frequent flooding.

3.3 Jena (Je) Low High Yes Yes Low Good 

Kirkville (Kr) Low Low to

Moderate

No Yes Low Medium 

Mantachie (Mn) Low Low to

Moderate

No Yes Moderate Medium 

SmithdaleRuston-Orasteep to gently

sloping, loamy

soils, some

fragipan,

woodland,

agriculture.

18.7 Smithdale (Sm) Very high Not suited

for crops

No No Low Low 

Ruston (Ru) Moderate to

High

High,

depending

on slope

Yes No Low Good 

Ora (Or) Low to

Moderate

High,

depending

on slope

Yes No Low Good 

FalknerCadevilleFreestone-gently

sloping to hilly,

loamy soils,

clays, woodland,

some agriculture.

4.1 Falkner (Fa) Moderate to

High

Moderate,

not suited

for crops

No No Moderate Low 

Cadeville (Ca) Moderate to

High

Not suited

for crops

No No Low Low 

Freestone (Fr) High Not suited

for crops

No No Moderate Low 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
C-9

TABLE C-1

Soil Associations Crossed by the SESH Project

County Soil Association

Cumulative

Length Cross

(miles)

Soil

Series/Phase

Erosion

Potential

Soil

Fertility

Prime

Farmland

Hydric

Soils

Compaction

Potential Revegetation

D

>

Covington

County, MS

Ruston-OraSavannah-rolling

and gently

sloping, loamy

soils, sandy to

clayey loam,

agriculture some

woodland.

12.4 Ruston (Ru) Low to High Low Yes No Low Medium 

Ora (Or) Low to High Moderate,

depending

on slope

Yes No Low Medium 

Savannah (Sb) Low to

Moderate

Low Yes No Low Medium 

ProvidenceBude-nearly level

and gentlysloping, silty

loam to silty

clayey loam,fragipan,agriculture,

woodland onsteeper slope.

2.3 Providence (Pr) Low to High High Yes No Low Good 

Bude (Bu) Low to

Moderate

Low Yes No High Medium 

JonesCounty, MS

SmithdaleMcLaurin-steep

to gently sloping,

sandy loam tosandy clay loam,

fragipan, some

agriculture.

5.3 Smithdale (Sm) Very high Not suited

for crops

No No Low Low 

McLaurin (Mb) Low to

Moderate

High Yes Yes Low Good 

Jena-Nugentfloodplain, sandy

loam, loamy

sand, sand,woodland,

frequent flooding.

0.8 Jena (Je) Low High Yes Yes Low Good 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
C-10

TABLE C-1

Soil Associations Crossed by the SESH Project

County Soil Association

Cumulative

Length Cross

(miles)

Soil

Series/Phase

Erosion

Potential

Soil

Fertility

Prime

Farmland

Hydric

Soils

Compaction

Potential Revegetation

D

>

Nugent (Nu) Low High, not

suited for

crops

No Yes Low Medium 

Forrest

County, MS

PrentissLucedale-nearly

level to gently

sloping, loamy

soil, marine

terraces,

agriculture.

1.7 Prentiss (Pt) Low to

Moderate

High Yes No Low Good 

Lucedale (Lu) Low High Yes No Low Good 

McLaurin-HeidelPrentiss-gently

sloping to steep,

sandy and loamy

soils, woodland.

7.3 McLaurin (Mb) Low to

Moderate

High Yes Yes Low Good 

Heidel (He) High Moderate,

depending

on slope

No No Low Medium 

Prentiss (Pt) Low to

Moderate

High Yes No Low Good 

PrentissBenndale-Phebalevel to gently

sloping, loamyand silty soils,

agriculture.

2.1 Prentiss (Pt) Low to

Moderate

High Yes No Low Good 

Benndale (Be) Low to

Moderate

Moderate

to high

Yes No Low Good 

Pheba (Ph) Low Moderate Yes No Moderate Medium 

BassfieldHarlestonStough-nearly

level, sandy to

sandy clay loam,

agriculture,

urban.

3.9 Bassfield (Ba) Low High Yes No Low Good 

Harleston (Ha) Low High Yes Yes Low Good 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
C-11

TABLE C-1

Soil Associations Crossed by the SESH Project

County Soil Association

Cumulative

Length Cross

(miles)

Soil

Series/Phase

Erosion

Potential

Soil

Fertility

Prime

Farmland

Hydric

Soils

Compaction

Potential Revegetation

D

>

Stough (St) Low High Yes Yes Moderate Good 

Perry

County, MS

McLaurin-HeidelPrentiss-gentlysloping to steep,sandy and loamy

soils, woodland.

5.8 McLaurin (Ml) Low to

Moderate

Moderate Yes Yes Low Good 

Heidel (He) High Moderate,

depending

on slope

No No Low Medium 

Prentiss (Pt) Low to

Moderate

Low Yes No Low Good 

McLaurinSavannahSusquehannanearly level to

moderately

steep, sandy to

sandy clay loam

with clay, some

agriculture.

9.1 McLaurin (Ml) Low to

Moderate

Moderate Yes Yes Low Good 

Savannah (Sb) Low to

Moderate

Low Yes No Low Medium 

Susquehanna

(Su)

Low to High Low No No Low Low 

Bibb-MantachieJena-nearly level,

sandy loam tosandy clay loam

and clay, some

agriculture

potential.

2 Bibb (Bb) Low Not suited

for crops

No Yes Moderate Low 

Mantachie (Mn) Low Low to

Moderate

No Yes Moderate Medium 

Jena (Je) Low High No Yes Low Good 

Jena-Nugentflood plain, sandyloam to loamy

sand and sand,

woodland,

flooding.

6.1 Jena (Je) Low High No Yes Low Good 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
C-12

TABLE C-1

Soil Associations Crossed by the SESH Project

County Soil Association

Cumulative

Length Cross

(miles)

Soil

Series/Phase

Erosion

Potential

Soil

Fertility

Prime

Farmland

Hydric

Soils

Compaction

Potential Revegetation

D

>

Nugent (Nu) Low High, not

suited for

crops

No Yes Low Medium 

Greene

County, MS

McLaurinSavannahSusquehannalevel to

moderately

steep, sandy

loam to sandyclay loam and

clay, some

agriculture.

8.4 McLaurin (Ml) Low to

Moderate

Moderate Yes Yes Low Good 

Savannah (Sb) Low to

Moderate

Low Yes No Low Medium 

Susquehanna

(Su)

Low to High Low No No Moderate Low 

Prentiss-HeidelBenndale-level to

gently sloping,loamy and silty

soils, agriculture.

0.6 Prentiss (Pt) Low to

Moderate

High Yes No Low Good 

Heidel (He) High Moderate,

depending

on slope

No No Low Medium 

Benndale (Be) Low to

Moderate

Moderate

to high

Yes No Low Good 

Bibb-MantachieJena-nearly level,

sandy loam tosandy clay loam

and clay, some

agriculture

potential.

5.2 Bibb (Bb) Low Not suited

for crops

No Yes Moderate Low 

Mantachie (Mn) Low Low to

Moderate

No Yes Moderate Medium 

Jena (Je) Low High No Yes Low Good 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
C-13

TABLE C-1

Soil Associations Crossed by the SESH Project

County Soil Association

Cumulative

Length Cross

(miles)

Soil

Series/Phase

Erosion

Potential

Soil

Fertility

Prime

Farmland

Hydric

Soils

Compaction

Potential Revegetation

D

>

George

County, MS

McLaurinBenndaleLucedale-nearly

level to stronglysloping, loam to

sandy loam,

sandy clay loam

to clay loam,

agriculture.

15.2 McLaurin (Ml) Low to

Moderate

Moderate Yes Yes Low Good 

Benndale (Be) Low to

Moderate

Limited by

elevation

and

erosion

Yes No Low Medium 

Lucedale (Lu) Low Moderate,

limited by

erosion

Yes No Low Good 

McLaurinSusquehannaAlaga-nearly

level to

moderately

steep, sandyloam, loamy

sand, and clay.

7.3 McLaurin (Ml) Low to

Moderate

Moderate Yes Yes Low Good 

Susquehanna

(Su)

Low to High Low No No Moderate Low 

Alaga (Ag) Low to High Moderate,

limited by

erosion

No No Low Low 

Harleston-LenoirAtmore-nearly

level floodplain,

sandy loam,

loam, and clay,

woodland some

agriculture.

2.3 Harleston (Ha) Low to

Moderate

High,

limited by

erosion

Yes Yes Low Medium 

Lenoir (Ln) Low Moderate No No High Medium 

Atmore (At) Low Low No Yes Moderate Low 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
C-14

TABLE C-1

Soil Associations Crossed by the SESH Project

County Soil Association

Cumulative

Length Cross

(miles)

Soil

Series/Phase

Erosion

Potential

Soil

Fertility

Prime

Farmland

Hydric

Soils

Compaction

Potential Revegetation

D

>

Leaf-Lenoirnearly level, silt,

silty clay, silty

loam, woodland,

frequently

flooded.

1.1 Leaf (Le) Low Moderate No Yes High Medium 

Lenoir (Ln) Low Moderate No No High Medium 

Jackson

County, MS

Troup-HeidelBama-upland,

loamy marine

sediment, clay,

pasture.

2.9 Troup (Tr) Low Moderate No No Low Good 

Heidel (He) High Moderate,

depending

on slope

No No Low Medium 

Bama (Bm) Low Moderate Yes Yes Low Good 

Mobile

County, AL

Troup-HeidelBama-upland,

loamy marine

sediment, clay,

pasture.

17.0 Troup (Tr) Low Moderate No No Low Good 

Heidel (He) Low Moderate,

depending

on slope

No No Low Good 

Bama (Bm) Low Moderate Yes No Low Good 

Notcher-SaucierMalbis-nearly

level to gently

undulating, fine

sandy loam,

mottled claysubsoil

6.2 Notcher (Nt) Low Moderate Yes No Low Good 

Saucier (Sau) Low High Yes No Low Good 

Malbis (Ma) Low High Yes No Low Good 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
C-15

TABLE C-1

Soil Associations Crossed by the SESH Project

County Soil Association

Cumulative

Length Cross

(miles)

Soil

Series/Phase

Erosion

Potential

Soil

Fertility

Prime

Farmland

Hydric

Soils

Compaction

Potential Revegetation

D

>

DorovanJohnston-Levywide level to

nearly level slackwater areas clays

with silty clay,

forest, flooding.

4.3 Dorovan (Do) Low Low No Yes High Low 

Johnston (Jn) Low Low No Yes High Low 

Levy (Le) Low Low No Yes High Low 

BayouEscambiaHarleston-nearly

level loamy soilson terraces and

uplands, fine

sandy loams and

loam, woodland.

1.9 Bayou (Ba) Low Moderate No Yes Low Medium 

Escambia (Es) Low Moderate No No Moderate Medium 

Harleston (Hr) Low to

Moderate

High,

limited by

erosion

Yes No Low Medium 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
APPENDIX D

WATERBODY CROSSINGS

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
D-1

Table D-1

Waterbodies Crossed by the Proposed SESH Project

County/

State MP Field ID Type

Crossing

Depth (ft)

Crossing

Width (ft)

FERC

Classification Name

State WQ

Classification

Clas

Richland/LA 0.24 P 2 10 Minor

UT to Macon

Bayou A,B,C 

Richland/LA 0.30 SA246 P 2 10 Minor

UT to Macon

Bayou A,B,C 

Madison/LA 0.32 SA239-2 P 10 150 Major Macon Bayou A,B,C Madison/LA 0.40 SA239-1 I 2* 3* Minor

UT to Macon

Bayou NA 

Madison/LA 1.74 SA245-1 P 4 40 Intermediate Joes Bayou A,B,C Madison/LA 2.63 SD103 I 2* 7* Minor

Unnamed Canal to

Joes Bayou NA 

Madison/LA 4.03 SA148-1 P 2 10 Minor Sutt Bayou A,B,C Madison/LA 4.60 SA157 I 1 3 Minor Mack Bayou NA Madison/LA 5.58 SA156 I 1* 4* Minor UT to Sutt Bayou NA Madison/LA 6.01 WRA155 P 3 30 Intermediate Canal NA Madison/LA 6.46 WRA154 P 4 20 Intermediate Canal/oxbow NA Madison/LA 7.05 I 2* 3* Minor UT to Tensas River NA Madison/LA 7.06 SA153 I 2* 3* Minor UT to Tensas River NA Madison/LA 8.11 SA159 I 1* 4* Minor

Unnamed Canal to

Tensas River NA 

Madison/LA 10.10 SA169 I 3* 5* Minor UT to Tensas River NA Madison/LA 10.21 SA171 I 1* 4* Minor UT to Tensas River NA Madison/LA 10.35 SA172 I 1 4 Minor UT to Tensas River NA Madison/LA 10.84 SA173 P 8 120 Major Tensas River A,B,C Madison/LA 12.12 WRA184 P 10 200 Major Despair Lake A, B, C Madison/LA 14.60 SA193 P 10 150 Major Mothiglam Bayou A,B,C Madison/LA 14.69 SA194 P 1 2 Minor

UT to Mothiglam

Bayou A,B,C 

Madison/LA 17.26 SA180 P 5 10 Minor Roundway Bayou A,B,C 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
D-2

Table D-1

Waterbodies Crossed by the Proposed SESH Project

Madison/LA 17.52 SA182 P 4 20 Intermediate UT to Roundway Bayou A,B,C Madison/LA 17.63 SA183 I 1* 3* Minor

UT to Roundway

Bayou NA 

Madison/LA 18.08 SA196-1 P 3 10 Minor

UT to Roundway

Bayou A,B,C 

Madison/LA 18.09

WRA196-

1 P 4 500 Major Oxbow lake A,B,C 

Madison/LA 18.23 SA213 P 5 25 Intermediate

UT to Roundway

Bayou A,B,C 

Madison/LA 18.38 SA202-1 I >1 >1 Minor

UT to Roundway

Bayou NA 

Madison/LA 18.54 SA203 I 1* 2* Minor

UT to Roundway

Bayou NA 

Madison/LA 18.64 WRA204 P 3 30 Intermediate Canal NA Madison/LA 23.73 SA208 P 2 7 Minor UT to Coon Bayou A,B,C Madison/LA 23.94 SA209 I 2 7 Minor UT to Coon Bayou NA Madison/LA 24.09 SA210 I 1 3 Minor UT to Coon Bayou NA Madison/LA 24.63 SA215 I 2* 5* Minor UT to Coon Bayou NA Madison/LA 29.04 SA225 I 2* 5* Minor

UT to Willow

Slough NA 

Madison/LA 29.04 SA226 P 4 10 Minor Willow Slough A,B,C Madison/LA 30.48 SA231 I 2* 4* Minor

UT to Harper

Bayou NA 

Madison/LA 31.69 SA236-1 P 3 15 Intermediate Harper Bayou A,B,C Madison/LA 32.12 SA237-1 P 5 10 Minor

Unnamed Canal to

Harper Bayou A,B,C 

Madison/LA 32.29

WRA237-

1 P 4 130 Major Pond NA 

Madison/LA 35.401 SA247 P 80 4000 Major Mississippi River A,B,C (LA); F&W (MS)

T&

(Lis

fo

le

st

Ala

bel

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
D-3

Table D-1

Waterbodies Crossed by the Proposed SESH Project

Warren/MS 37.37 SD180 I 1* 8* Minor

UT to Mississippi

River NA 

Warren/MS 37.89 SD181 P 2 12 Intermediate

UT to Big Bogue

Desha F&W 

Warren/MS 38.50 SA263-1 I <1* 1* Minor

UT to Big Bogue

Desha NA 

Warren/MS 38.52 SA263-2 I <1* 1* Minor

UT to Big Bogue

Desha NA 

Warren/MS 38.64 SA263-3 I 1* 5* Minor

UT to Big Bogue

Desha NA 

Warren/MS 38.67 SA263-4 I 1* 3* Minor

UT to Big Bogue

Desha NA 

Warren/MS 40.11 SA251 I 1 3 Minor

UT to Big Bogue

Desha NA 

Warren/MS 40.11 SA250 I 1* 2 Minor

UT to Big Bogue

Desha NA 

Warren/MS 40.58 SA249 I 1 1 Minor

UT to Big Bogue

Desha NA 

Warren/MS 40.94 SA254 I 1* 3* Minor

UT to Big Black

River NA 

Warren/MS 41.19 SA255 I 3* 8* Minor

UT to Big Black

River NA 

Warren/MS 41.22 SA256 I 1* 5* Minor

UT to Big Black

River NA 

Warren/MS 41.23 SA257 I 1* 3* Minor

UT to Big Black

River NA 

Warren/MS 41.33 SA258 I 1* 1* Minor

UT to Big Black

River NA 

Warren/MS 41.79 SA259 P 1 4 Minor

UT to Big Black

River F&W 

Warren/MS 42.23 SA295 I 2* 4* Minor

UT to Big Black

River NA 

Warren/MS 42.26 SA294 I 1* 4* Minor

UT to Big Black

River NA 

Warren/MS 42.58 SA293 I 4* 5* Minor

UT to Big Black

River NA 

Warren/MS 42.71 SA292 I 2* 2* Minor

UT to Big Black

River NA 

Warren/MS 42.79 SA291 I 2* 3* Minor

UT to Big Black

River NA 

Warren/MS 43.36 SA290 I 1* 4* Minor

UT to Campbell

Swamp NA 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
D-4

Table D-1

Waterbodies Crossed by the Proposed SESH Project

Warren/MS 43.66 SA296-1 I 2* 5* Minor

UT to Campbell

Swamp NA 

Warren/MS 44.35 WRP101 P 1 260 Major

Ponded water in

PFO NA 

Claiborne/MS 44.63 SA297-1 P 10 70 Intermediate Big Black River F&W NRClaiborne/MS 45.07 SA308 P 3* 25* Minor Gunns Bayou F&W Claiborne/MS 45.33 SA307 I 8* 2* Minor

UT to Gunns

Bayou NA 

Claiborne/MS 45.54 SA306 I 1* 3* Minor

UT to Gunns

Bayou NA 

Claiborne/MS 45.77 SA305 I 1* 4* Minor

UT to Gunns

Bayou NA 

Claiborne/MS 46.00 SA304 I 1* 3* Minor

UT to Gunns

Bayou NA 

Claiborne/MS 46.06 SA303 I 1* 3* Minor

UT to Gunns

Bayou NA 

Claiborne/MS 46.22 SA301 I 3* 5* Minor

UT to Gunns

Bayou NA 

Claiborne/MS 46.23 SA302 I 2* 4* Minor

UT to Gunns

Bayou NS 

Claiborne/MS 46.49 SA300 I 2* 3* Minor

UT to Gunns

Bayou NA 

Claiborne/MS 46.49 SA299 I 2* 2* Minor

UT to Gunns

Bayou NA 

Claiborne/MS 47.07 WRA310 P 2 20 Minor Pond NA Claiborne/MS 47.07 SA309 I 1* 3* Minor

UT to Gunns

Bayou NA 

Claiborne/MS 47.53 SA320 I 2* 7* Minor

UT to Gunns

Bayou NA 

Claiborne/MS 47.54 SA319 I 2* 8* Minor

UT to Gunns

Bayou NA 

Claiborne/MS 48.001 SA318 I 2* 8* Minor

UT to Gunns

Bayou NA 

Claiborne/MS 48.47 SA321 I 1* 3* Minor

UT to Kennison

Creek NA 

Claiborne/MS 48.69 SA322 I 1* 4* Minor

UT to Kennison

Creek NA 

Claiborne/MS 48.80 SA323 I <1 1 Minor

UT to Kennison

Creek NA 

Claiborne/MS 48.99 SA324 I 1* 3* Minor

UT to Kennison

Creek NA 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
D-5

Table D-1

Waterbodies Crossed by the Proposed SESH Project

Claiborne/MS 49.36 WRA325 P 1 20 Intermediate Pond NA Claiborne/MS 49.72 SA326 I 2* 8* Minor

UT to Kennison

Creek NA 

Claiborne/MS 49.76 SA327 I 2* 8* Minor Kennison Creek NA Claiborne/MS 49.87 SA328 I 1* 2* Minor

UT to Kennison

Creek NA 

Claiborne/MS 49.92 SA329 I 1* 4* Minor

UT to Kennison

Creek NA 

Claiborne/MS 50.09 SA339 I 1* 2* Minor UT to Norris Creek NA Claiborne/MS 50.55 SA340 I 1* 3* Minor UT to Norris Creek NA Claiborne/MS 50.60 SA341 I 1 1 Minor UT to Norris Creek NA Claiborne/MS 50.81 SA342 I 1* 7* Minor UT to Norris Creek NA Claiborne/MS 50.92 SA343 I 1* 2* Minor UT to Norris Creek NA Claiborne/MS 50.96 SA344 I 2* 6* Minor UT to Norris Creek NA Claiborne/MS 51.17 SA345 I 1* 6* Minor UT to Norris Creek NA Claiborne/MS 51.33 SA346 P 3 6 Minor Norris Creek F&W Claiborne/MS 51.56 SA347 I 1* 3* Minor UT to Norris Creek NA Claiborne/MS 51.81 SA348 I 1* 4* Minor UT to Norris Creek NA Claiborne/MS 52.241 SA267 P 1 10 Minor UT to Bayou Pierre F&W Claiborne/MS 52.34 SA266 I 1 1 Minor UT to Bayou Pierre NA Claiborne/MS 52.86 SA268 I 1 1 Minor UT to Bayou Pierre NA Claiborne/MS 53.30 SA271 I 1* 2* Minor UT to Bayou Pierre NA Claiborne/MS 53.37 SA272 I 1* 4* Minor UT to Bayou Pierre NA Claiborne/MS 53.67 SA274 I 1* 2* Minor UT to Bayou Pierre NA Claiborne/MS 54.31 SA279 I 1 3 Minor UT to Bayou Pierre NA Claiborne/MS 54.65 SA278 P 2 6 Minor UT to Bayou Pierre F&W Claiborne/MS 54.94 SA276 I 2* 6* Minor UT to Bayou Pierre NA Claiborne/MS 55.10 SA277 I 1 2 Minor UT to Bayou Pierre NA 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
D-6

Table D-1

Waterbodies Crossed by the Proposed SESH Project

Claiborne/MS 55.97 SD216 P 5 50 Intermediate Bayou Pierre REC, F&W

N

(Ba

lis

o

hab

Claiborne/MS 56.85 SD218 I 1* 2* Minor UT to Bayou Pierre NA Claiborne/MS 56.88 SD217 P 3 5 Minor UT to Bayou Pierre F&W Claiborne/MS 57.58 SA282 I 1* 4* Minor UT to Bayou Pierre NA Claiborne/MS 57.61 SA281 P 1 4 Minor UT to Bayou Pierre F&W Claiborne/MS 58.28 SD223 I 1* 2* Minor UT to Bayou Pierre NA Claiborne/MS 58.41 SD222 I 1* 4* Minor UT to Bayou Pierre NA Claiborne/MS 58.54 SD221 I 1* 2* Minor UT to Bayou Pierre NA Claiborne/MS 59.03 SA283 I 1 4 Minor

UT to Choctaw

Creek NA 

Claiborne/MS 59.33 SA284 I 1* 4* Minor

UT to Choctaw

Creek NA 

Claiborne/MS 59.42 SA285 I 1* 3* Minor

UT to Choctaw

Creek NA 

Claiborne/MS 59.81 SA287 P <1 10 Minor Choctaw Creek F&W 

Copiah/MS 59.97 SA288 I 1* 3* Minor

UT to Choctaw

Creek NA 

Copiah/MS 60.79 SA289 I 2* 3* Minor UT to Bayou Pierre NA Copiah/MS 61.33 SA361 I 1* 3* Minor UT to Bayou Pierre NA Copiah/MS 61.34 SA362 P 1 3 Minor UT to Bayou Pierre F&W Copiah/MS 61.78 I 1 2 Minor UT to Bayou Pierre NA Copiah/MS 61.78 I 1 2 Minor UT to Bayou Pierre NA Copiah/MS 61.79

SA363

I 1 2 Minor UT to Bayou Pierre NA 

Copiah/MS 61.81 SA364 I 1 2 Minor UT to Bayou Pierre NA Copiah/MS 61.93 SA365 I 1 2 Minor UT to Bayou Pierre NA 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
D-7

Table D-1

Waterbodies Crossed by the Proposed SESH Project

Copiah/MS 62.14 WRA366 P 6 120 Major Pond NA Copiah/MS 62.26 SA367 P 2 182 Intermediate Bayou Pierre F&W

N

(Ba

lis

o

hab

Copiah/MS 62.71 SA369 I 1* 6* Minor UT to Bayou Pierre NA Copiah/MS 63.19 SA368 I 1 2 Minor UT to Bayou Pierre NA Copiah/MS 63.83 SA330 P 4 15 Intermediate UT to Bayou Pierre F&W Copiah/MS 64.37 SD288 I 2* 5* Minor UT to Bayou Pierre NA Copiah/MS 64.38 SD289 I 2* 5* Minor UT to Bayou Pierre NA Copiah/MS 64.40 SD290 P <1 3 Minor UT to Bayou Pierre F&W Copiah/MS 64.63 SD291 P <1 2 Minor UT to Bayou Pierre F&W Copiah/MS 65.06 SD292-1 I <1* 2* Minor UT to Bayou Pierre NA Copiah/MS 65.09 SD292-2 I 1* 2* Minor UT to Bayou Pierre NA Copiah/MS 65.31 SD283 P <1 2 Minor UT to Bayou Pierre F&W Copiah/MS 65.54 SD282 I 1* 4* Minor UT to Bayou Pierre NA Copiah/MS 65.54 SD281 I 1* 3* Minor UT to Bayou Pierre NA Copiah/MS 65.72 SA333 I 1* 3* Minor UT to Bayou Pierre NA Copiah/MS 65.99 SA335 I 2* 5* Minor UT to Bayou Pierre NA Copiah/MS 66.14 SA336 I 2* 4* Minor UT to Bayou Pierre NA Copiah/MS 66.48 SA338 I 4* 7* Minor UT to Bayou Pierre NA Copiah/MS 67.37 SD280 P <1 1 Minor UT to Bayou Pierre F&W Copiah/MS 67.75 SD279 P 1 30 Intermediate Choctaw Creek F&W Copiah/MS 68.18 SD278 P <1* 2* Minor UT to Bayou Pierre F&W Copiah/MS 68.46 SD277 I 2* 10* Minor UT to Bayou Pierre NA Copiah/MS 68.67 SD276 I 1* 4* Minor UT to Bayou Pierre NA Copiah/MS 68.69 SD275 P 1* 1* Minor UT to Bayou Pierre F&W Copiah/MS 69.05 SD284 I 2* 5* Minor UT to Bayou Pierre NA Copiah/MS 69.25 SD285 I 2* 15* Minor UT to Bayou Pierre NA Copiah/MS 69.43 SD286 P <1 3 Minor King Branch F&W 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
D-8

Table D-1

Waterbodies Crossed by the Proposed SESH Project

Copiah/MS 69.84 SD287 I 1* 6* Minor UT to Bayou Pierre NA Copiah/MS 70.13 SA395 I 1* 2* Minor UT to Sugar Creek NA Copiah/MS 70.23 SA396 I 1 2 Minor Sugar Creek NA Copiah/MS 70.32 SA397 I 1* 1* Minor UT to Sugar Creek NA Copiah/MS 70.56 SA110 I 3* 8* Minor UT to Bayou Pierre NA Copiah/MS 70.72 SA111 I 1* 3* Minor UT to Bayou Pierre NA Copiah/MS 70.88 SA112 I 1* 8* Minor UT to Bayou Pierre NA Copiah/MS 71.45 SA116 P 1 3 Minor Dry Creek F&W Copiah/MS 71.69 I <1 2 Minor UT to Dry Creek NA Copiah/MS 71.71 I <1 2 Minor UT to Dry Creek NA Copiah/MS 71.71 SA117 I <1 2 Minor UT to Dry Creek NA Copiah/MS 72.44 SA120 I <1 2 Minor UT to Turkey Creek NA Copiah/MS 72.47 SA121 I 2* 5* Minor UT to Turkey Creek NA Copiah/MS 72.55 SA122 I 4* 8* Minor UT to Turkey Creek NA Copiah/MS 72.69 SA123 P 1 15 Minor Turkey Creek REC, F&W

T&

dar

and 

h

Copiah/MS 72.84 SA124 I 2* 7* Minor UT to Turkey Creek NA Copiah/MS 72.87 SA125 I 1* 6* Minor UT to Turkey Creek NA Copiah/MS 73.24 SH126 I 8* 6* Minor UT to Turkey Creek NA Copiah/MS 73.39 WRH125 P 2 30 Minor Pond NA Copiah/MS 73.48 SA126 I 2* 6* Minor UT to Bayou Pierre NA Copiah/MS 73.60 SA128 I 2* 2* Minor UT to Bayou Pierre NA Copiah/MS 73.73 SA349 I 1 1 Minor UT to Bayou Pierre NA Copiah/MS 73.90 SA350 I 1* 2* Minor UT to Bayou Pierre NA Copiah/MS 74.17 SA353-1 P 1 3 Minor UT to Bayou Pierre F&W Copiah/MS 74.58 SA357 I 1* 2* Minor UT to Long Creek NA Copiah/MS 75.22 I 1 6 Minor UT to Long Creek NA Copiah/MS 75.23 I 1 6 Minor UT to Long Creek NA Copiah/MS 75.25

SA358

I 1 6 Minor UT to Long Creek NA 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
D-9

Table D-1

Waterbodies Crossed by the Proposed SESH Project

Copiah/MS 76.09 SA385-1 P 4 9 Minor UT to Long Creek F&W Copiah/MS 76.27 SA384 I 1 2 Minor UT to Long Creek NA Copiah/MS 76.38 SA382 I <1 2 Minor UT to Long Creek NA Copiah/MS 76.73 SA377 I <1 2 Minor UT to Long Creek NA Copiah/MS 76.91 SA376 P 2 6 Minor UT to Long Creek F&W Copiah/MS 77.02 SA375 P 1 10 Minor Long Creek F&W Copiah/MS 77.30 SA134 I 1* 3* Minor UT to Long Creek NA Copiah/MS 77.77 SA133 P <1 2 Minor UT to Long Creek F&W Copiah/MS 77.81 P 1 5 Minor Long Creek F&W Copiah/MS 77.82 SA132 P 1 5 Minor Long Creek F&W Copiah/MS 78.17 SA131 P 1 2 Minor UT to Long Creek F&W Copiah/MS 78.38 SA129 I 2* 2* Minor UT to Long Creek NA Copiah/MS 78.64 SA372 I 1* 6* Minor UT to Long Creek NA Copiah/MS 78.66 SA373 P 1 10 Minor Long Creek F&W Copiah/MS 79.30 SA137 I 1* 3* Minor UT to Long Creek NA Copiah/MS 79.79 SA140 I 1* 2* Minor UT to Long Creek NA Copiah/MS 79.82 SA139 I 2* 2* Minor UT to Long Creek NA Copiah/MS 79.84 SA138 I 4* 12* Minor UT to Long Creek NA Copiah/MS 80.41 SA143 I 1* 1* Minor UT to Long Creek NA Copiah/MS 80.41 SA142 I 2* 3* Minor UT to Long Creek NA Copiah/MS 80.44 SA144 I 1* 1* Minor UT to Long Creek NA Copiah/MS 80.60 SA136 I 2* 5* Minor UT to Long Creek NA Copiah/MS 80.71 SA200 I 0.5 1 Minor UT to Long Creek NA Copiah/MS 80.74 SA199 I 2* 3* Minor UT to Long Creek NA Copiah/MS 81.04 SA197 I 1* 1* Minor UT to Long Creek NA Copiah/MS 82.37 SA360 I 1* 6* Minor

UT to Copiah

Creek NA 

Copiah/MS 82.64 SA359 P <1 2 Minor

UT to Copiah

Creek F&W 

Copiah/MS 83.23 SD168 I 1* 3* Minor

UT to Copiah

Creek NA 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
D-10

Table D-1

Waterbodies Crossed by the Proposed SESH Project

Copiah/MS 83.51 SD169 P 2 15 Intermediate

UT to Copiah

Creek F&W 

Copiah/MS 83.67 WRD150 P 3 250 Major Pond NA Copiah/MS 83.76 SD151 I 1* 3* Minor

UT to Copiah

Creek NA 

Copiah/MS 84.02 SD152 P 1 2 Minor

UT to Copiah

Creek F&W 

Copiah/MS 84.50 SD147 I 1* 2* Minor

UT to Copiah

Creek NA 

Copiah/MS 84.50 SD146 I 1* 3* Minor

UT to Copiah

Creek NA 

Copiah/MS 84.61 SD145 I 1* 2* Minor

UT to Copiah

Creek NA 

Copiah/MS 84.73 SD144 I 1* 5* Minor

UT to Copiah

Creek NA 

Copiah/MS 84.73 SD143 P <1 2 Minor

UT to Copiah

Creek F&W 

Copiah/MS 85.061 SX107 I <1 4 Minor

UT to Copiah

Creek NA 

Copiah/MS 85.121 SD175 I 1* 2* Minor

UT to Copiah

Creek NA 

Copiah/MS 85.27 SD173 P <1 1 Minor

UT to Copiah

Creek F&W 

Copiah/MS 85.50 I 1* 2* Minor

UT to Copiah

Creek NA 

Copiah/MS 85.511 I 1* 2* Minor

UT to Copiah

Creek NA 

Copiah/MS 85.52

SD171-1

I 1* 2* Minor

UT to Copiah

Creek NA 

Copiah/MS 85.76 WRD153 P 1* 30* Intermediate Pond NA Copiah/MS 85.87 SD154 I <1* 1* Minor

UT to Copiah

Creek NA 

Copiah/MS 86.06 SD155 I 1* 1* Minor

UT to Copiah

Creek NA 

Copiah/MS 86.07 SD156 I 1* 1* Minor

UT to Copiah

Creek NA 

Copiah/MS 86.10 SD157 I 1* 10* Minor

UT to Copiah

Creek NA 

Copiah/MS 86.15 SD158 P <1 2 Minor

UT to Copiah

Creek F&W 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
D-11

Table D-1

Waterbodies Crossed by the Proposed SESH Project

Copiah/MS 86.34 SD159 I 1* 2* Minor

UT to Copiah

Creek NA 

Copiah/MS 86.42 SD160 P <1 2 Minor

UT to Copiah

Creek F&W 

Copiah/MS 86.67 SD162 I <1* 1* Minor

UT to Copiah

Creek NA 

Copiah/MS 86.68 SD163 P <1 1 Minor

UT to Copiah

Creek F&W 

Copiah/MS 86.70 SD164 P <1 2 Minor

UT to Copiah

Creek F&W 

Copiah/MS 87.58 SD199 I <1 2* Minor

UT to Bahala

Creek NA 

Copiah/MS 87.89 SF103 I 1* 3* Minor

UT to Bahala

Creek NA 

Copiah/MS 88.15 SD197-1 P 1 2 Minor

UT to Bahala

Creek F&W 

Copiah/MS 88.27 SD196-1 I 1* 3* Minor

UT to Bahala

Creek NA 

Copiah/MS 88.51 SD195 I 1* 1* Minor

UT to Bahala

Creek NA 

Copiah/MS 88.56 SD194 I 1* 2* Minor

UT to Bahala

Creek NA 

Copiah/MS 88.86 SD212 I <1* 2* Minor UT to Lick Creek NA Copiah/MS 88.89 SD211 I <1* 2* Minor UT to Lick Creek NA Copiah/MS 89.07 SD210 I 1* 2* Minor UT to Lick Creek NA Copiah/MS 89.261 SX110 I 1* 3* Minor UT to Lick Creek NA Copiah/MS 89.401 SD208 I <1* 1* Minor UT to Lick Creek NA Copiah/MS 89.411 SH130 I 1* 4* Minor UT to Lick Creek NA Copiah/MS 89.77 SD204 I 1* 2* Minor UT to Lick Creek NA Copiah/MS 89.78 I 1* 2* Minor UT to Lick Creek NA Copiah/MS 89.79 I 1* 2* Minor UT to Lick Creek NA Copiah/MS 89.79

SD202

I 1* 2* Minor UT to Lick Creek NA 

Copiah/MS 89.86 SD203 I 1* 3* Minor UT to Lick Creek NA Copiah/MS 90.19 SD201 I 1* 2* Minor UT to Lick Creek NA Copiah/MS 90.30 SA371 I 1 2 Minor UT to Lick Creek NA 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
D-12

Table D-1

Waterbodies Crossed by the Proposed SESH Project

Copiah/MS 90.63 SH127-1 I 2* 5* Minor Lick Creek NA Copiah/MS 90.64 SH127-2 I 3* 7* Minor UT to Lick Creek NA Copiah/MS 90.69 SH128 I 4* 12* Minor UT to Lick Creek NA Copiah/MS 90.79 SH129 I 6* 4* Minor UT to Lick Creek NA Copiah/MS 91.11 SB317 P 1 6 Minor UT to Lick Creek F&W Copiah/MS 91.22 SB318 I 1* 2* Minor UT to Lick Creek NA Copiah/MS 91.46 SB319 I <1* 1* Minor UT to Lick Creek NA Copiah/MS 91.50 SB320 I <1* 1* Minor UT to Lick Creek NA Copiah/MS 91.56 SB321 I <1* 1* Minor UT to Lick Creek NA Copiah/MS 92.04 WRB271 P 1 75 Intermediate Pond NA Copiah/MS 92.31 SB266 I <1* 1* Minor UT to Indian Creek NA Copiah/MS 92.39 I 1* 3* Minor UT to Indian Creek NA Copiah/MS 92.42 I 1* 3* Minor UT to Indian Creek NA Copiah/MS 92.43 I 1* 3* Minor UT to Indian Creek NA Copiah/MS 92.44 SB267 I 1* 3* Minor UT to Indian Creek NA Copiah/MS 92.46 SB269 I <1* 1 Minor UT to Indian Creek NA Copiah/MS 92.57 SB270 I 3* 2* Minor UT to Indian Creek NA Copiah/MS 93.21 SD133 I 1* 5* Minor UT to Indian Creek NA Copiah/MS 93.88 SD134 I 1* 2* Minor UT to Indian Creek NA Copiah/MS 94.57 SD137 I 1* 2* Minor UT to Indian Creek NA Copiah/MS 94.66 SD138 I 1* 2* Minor UT to Indian Creek NA Copiah/MS 95.47 SB145 I 1* 1* Minor UT to Indian Creek NA Copiah/MS 95.59 SB144 I 1* 1* Minor UT to Indian Creek NA Copiah/MS 95.79 SB143 I 1* 2* Minor UT to Indian Creek NA Copiah/MS 96.50 SB142 I 1* 2* Minor UT to Indian Creek NA Copiah/MS 96.67 SY139 I <1 1 Minor UT to Indian Creek NA Copiah/MS 97.021 SB148 I 1* 2* Minor UT to Indian Creek NA Copiah/MS 97.93 SB151 P 1 2 Minor Indian Creek F&W Copiah/MS 97.94 SB152 I 2* 8* Minor UT to Indian Creek NA Copiah/MS 98.78 SB156 I 2* 6* Minor UT to Pearl River NA 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
D-13

Table D-1

Waterbodies Crossed by the Proposed SESH Project

Copiah/MS 99.53 SB160 P 1 6 Minor Pegies Creek F&W Copiah/MS 99.55 I 2* 8* Minor UT to Pegies Creek NA Copiah/MS 99.58 SB161 I 2* 8* Minor UT to Pegies Creek NA Copiah/MS 99.91 SB174 I 1* 3* Minor UT to Pegies Creek NA Copiah/MS 100.27 WRB171 P 3 70 Intermediate Pond NA Copiah/MS 100.70 SB169 I 2* 3* Minor UT to Pearl River NA Copiah/MS 101.12 SB168 I <1* 2* Minor UT to Pearl River NA Copiah/MS 101.17 SB166-1 P 1 2 Minor UT to Pearl River F&W Copiah/MS 101.21 SB165-1 I 1* 1* Minor UT to Pearl River NA Copiah/MS 101.40 SB164 P 6 200 Major Pearl River REC, F&W

NR

T&E 

sp

st

crys

fre

m

rin

Lawrence/MS 101.97 SB191-4 I 1* 2* Minor

UT to Crumps

Creek NA 

Lawrence/MS 102.14 P <1 6 Minor Crumps Creek F&W Lawrence/MS 102.16 P <1 6 Minor Crumps Creek F&W Lawrence/MS 102.24 SB189 P <1 6 Minor Crumps Creek F&W Lawrence/MS 103.48 SD192 I <1* 1* Minor

UT to Crumps

Creek NA 

Lawrence/MS 103.49 SD191 I <1* 1* Minor

UT to Crumps

Creek NA 

Lawrence/MS 103.88 SD190 I <1* 3* Minor

UT to Crumps

Creek NA 

Lawrence/MS 104.03 SD189 P 1 2 Minor Crumps Creek F&W Lawrence/MS 104.14 SD188 I <1* 2* Minor

UT to Crumps

Creek NA 

Lawrence/MS 104.32 SD187 I 1* 2* Minor

UT to Crumps

Creek NA 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
D-14

Table D-1

Waterbodies Crossed by the Proposed SESH Project

Lawrence/MS 104.37 SD186 I <1* 3* Minor

UT to Crumps

Creek NA 

Lawrence/MS 104.50 SD192 I 1* 3* Minor

UT to Crumps

Creek NA 

Lawrence/MS 104.86 SB193 I 3* 4* Minor UT to Price Creek NA Lawrence/MS 105.02 SB194 I 4 1 Minor UT to Price Creek NA Lawrence/MS 105.06 SB195 I <1 1 Minor UT to Price Creek NA Lawrence/MS 105.17 SB196 I <1 1 Minor UT to Price Creek NA Lawrence/MS 105.62 SB207 I <1 2 Minor

UT to Crooked

Creek NA 

Lawrence/MS 105.86 SB206 I 3* 10* Minor

UT to Crooked

Creek NA 

Lawrence/MS 105.88 SB205 I 1* 2* Minor

UT to Crooked

Creek NA 

Lawrence/MS 106.10 SB203 I 1* 3* Minor

UT to Crooked

Creek NA 

Lawrence/MS 106.12 SB202 I 1* 2* Minor

UT to Crooked

Creek NA 

Lawrence/MS 106.21 SB200 I 1* 3* Minor

UT to Crooked

Creek NA 

Lawrence/MS 106.22 SB201 I 2* 4* Minor Crooked Creek NA Lawrence/MS 106.25 SB199 I 1* 3* Minor

UT to Crooked

Creek NA 

Lawrence/MS 106.81 SB208 I 1* 10* Minor

UT to Crooked

Creek NA 

Lawrence/MS 106.98 SB209 I 1* 2* Minor

UT to Crooked

Creek NA 

Lawrence/MS 107.34 SB212 I 1* 2* Minor

UT to Crooked

Creek NA 

Lawrence/MS 107.88 SB213 I 4* 2* Minor

UT to Crooked

Creek NA 

Lawrence/MS 108.80 SB214 I 1* 3* Minor

UT to West Prong

Silver Creek NA 

Lawrence/MS 109.05 SH133 I 1* 3* Minor

UT to West Prong

Silver Creek NA 

Lawrence/MS 109.29 SH132 I 1* 2* Minor

UT to West Prong

Silver Creek NA 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
D-15

Table D-1

Waterbodies Crossed by the Proposed SESH Project

Lawrence/MS 109.56 SH131 I 2* 5* Minor

UT to West Prong

Silver Creek NA 

Lawrence/MS 109.78 SB219 I 1* 3* Minor

UT to West Prong

Silver Creek NA 

Lawrence/MS 110.67 P 4 2 Minor

UT to West Prong

Silver Creek F&W 

Lawrence/MS 110.70 SB315 P 4 2 Minor

UT to West Prong

Silver Creek F&W 

Lawrence/MS 110.71 SB316 P 1 2 Minor

UT to West Prong

Silver Creek F&W 

Lawrence/MS 110.72 SB315 P 4 2 Minor

UT to West Prong

Silver Creek F&W 

Lawrence/MS 110.77 SB314 P 4 2 Minor

UT to West Prong

Silver Creek F&W 

Lawrence/MS 110.82 SB313 P 3 20 Intermediate

West Prong Silver

Creek F&W 

Lawrence/MS 110.84 SB312 I 1 3 Minor

UT to West Prong

Silver Creek NA 

Jefferson

Davis/MS 111.73 SD114-1 P 1 6 Minor

UT to East Prong

Silver Creek F&W 

Jefferson

Davis/MS 111.83 SD115 P 2 25 Intermediate

East Prong Silver

Creek F&W 

Jefferson

Davis/MS 112.30 SD117 P <1* 1* Minor

UT to East Prong

Silver Creek F&W 

Jefferson

Davis/MS 112.81 SD118 I 1 2 Minor

UT to East Prong

Silver Creek NA 

Jefferson

Davis/MS 113.03 SD122 I 1* 3* Minor

UT to East Prong

Silver Creek NA 

Jefferson

Davis/MS 113.71 SD128 I 1* 3* Minor

UT to Hutchins

Branch NA 

Jefferson

Davis/MS 116.62 SD129 I 1* 5* Minor

UT to Hutchins

Branch NA 

Jefferson

Davis/MS 118.71 SB176 I 1* 3* Minor

UT to White Sand

Creek NA 

Jefferson

Davis/MS 119.10 SB131 P 3 15 Intermediate White Sand Creek F&W 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
D-16

Table D-1

Waterbodies Crossed by the Proposed SESH Project

Jefferson

Davis/MS 119.14 SB130-2 P 4 1 Minor

UT to White Sand

Creek F&W 

Jefferson

Davis/MS 119.52 SB133 I 1* 2* Minor

UT to White Sand

Creek NA 

Jefferson

Davis/MS 119.54 WRB134 P 3 100 Major Pond NA 

Jefferson

Davis/MS 119.56 SB135 I 1* 2* Minor

UT to White Sand

Creek NA 

Jefferson

Davis/MS 120.18 SB185 P 1 15 Minor Walker Branch NA 

Jefferson

Davis/MS 120.44 SB187 I 1* 3* Minor

UT to Walker

Branch NA 

Jefferson

Davis/MS 121.15 SB178 I 1* 8* Minor

UT to Jaybird

Creek NA 

Jefferson

Davis/MS 121.17 I 1* 2* Minor

UT to Jaybird

Creek NA 

Jefferson

Davis/MS 121.17 I 1* 2* Minor

UT to Jaybird

Creek NA 

Jefferson

Davis/MS 121.18 I 1* 2* Minor

UT to Jaybird

Creek NA 

Jefferson

Davis/MS 121.21

SB179-1

I 1* 2* Minor

UT to Jaybird

Creek NA 

Jefferson

Davis/MS 121.23 SB180 I 1* 2* Minor

UT to Jaybird

Creek NA 

Jefferson

Davis/MS 121.25 SB179-1 I 1* 2* Minor

UT to Jaybird

Creek NA 

Jefferson

Davis/MS 121.32 SB181 I 1* 3* Minor

UT to Jaybird

Creek NA 

Jefferson

Davis/MS 121.47 SB182 I 1* 4* Minor

UT to Jaybird

Creek NA 

Jefferson

Davis/MS 121.58 SB183 I 2* 3* Minor

UT to Jaybird

Creek NA 

Jefferson

Davis/MS 122.20 SB139 I 2* 8* Minor Jaybird Creek NA 

Jefferson

Davis/MS 123.18 SB198 I 1* 2* Minor

UT to Jaybird

Creek NA 

Jefferson

Davis/MS 123.31 SB197 I <1 1 Minor

UT to Jaybird

Creek NA 

Jefferson

Davis/MS 124.06 SB233-1 I 1* 3* Minor UT to Bowie Creek NA 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
D-17

Table D-1

Waterbodies Crossed by the Proposed SESH Project

Jefferson

Davis/MS 124.23 I 1* 3* Minor UT to Bowie Creek NA 

Jefferson

Davis/MS 124.44

SB232

I 1* 3* Minor UT to Bowie Creek NA 

Jefferson

Davis/MS 124.47 SB230 I 6* 2* Minor UT to Bowie Creek NA 

Jefferson

Davis/MS 124.54 SB229 P <1 3 Minor UT to Bowie Creek F&W 

Jefferson

Davis/MS 124.69 SB228 I 1* 3* Minor UT to Bowie Creek NA 

Jefferson

Davis/MS 124.85 SB226 I <1 2 Minor UT to Bowie Creek NA 

Jefferson

Davis/MS 125.12 SB225 I 1* 2* Minor UT to Bowie Creek NA 

Jefferson

Davis/MS 125.61 SB236 I 1* 1* Minor UT to Bowie Creek NA 

Jefferson

Davis/MS 125.75 SB237 I 1* 2* Minor UT to Bowie Creek NA 

Jefferson

Davis/MS 125.75 SB238 I <1 1 Minor UT to Bowie Creek NA 

Jefferson

Davis/MS 126.15 SB239 I 1* 2* Minor UT to Bowie Creek NA 

Covington/MS 126.48 SB240 I 1* 2* Minor UT to Bowie Creek NA Covington/MS 127.34 SF112 I 5* 12* Minor UT to Bowie Creek NA Covington/MS 127.61 SF113-1 P 4 18 Intermediate Bowie Creek REC, F&W NRCovington/MS 127.64 SF113-5 I 1 8 Minor UT to Bowie Creek NA Covington/MS 127.72 I 2* 10* Minor UT to Bowie Creek NA Covington/MS 127.76

SF113-4

I 2* 10* Minor UT to Bowie Creek NA 

Covington/MS 127.77 SF113-6 I 1 9 Minor UT to Bowie Creek NA Covington/MS 127.79 SF113-7 I 2 6 Minor UT to Bowie Creek NA Covington/MS 127.98 SB301 P 4 5 Minor Dry Creek F&W Covington/MS 129.59 SB299 I <1* 2* Minor UT to Bowie Creek NA Covington/MS 129.81 SB298 I 1* 2* Minor UT to Bowie Creek NA Covington/MS 129.85 SB297 I 1* 3* Minor UT to Bowie Creek NA Covington/MS 130.05 SB296 I <1* 1* Minor UT to Bowie Creek NA 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
D-18

Table D-1

Waterbodies Crossed by the Proposed SESH Project

Covington/MS 130.431 SB294 I 1* 3* Minor Colbert Branch NA Covington/MS 130.471 SA313 I 1* 3* Minor

UT to Colbert

Branch NA 

Covington/MS 130.80 SB290 P 1 3 Minor

UT to Colbert

Branch F&W 

Covington/MS 131.25 SB291-1 P <1 1 Minor

UT to Colbert

Branch F&W 

Covington/MS 131.80 SB292-1 P <1 1 Minor

UT to Hartley

Branch F&W 

Covington/MS 131.83 SB293 P <1 1 Minor Hartley Branch F&W Covington/MS 132.47 SB244 I <1* 1* Minor

UT to Hartley

Branch NA 

Covington/MS 133.05 SB245 I 1* 5* Minor

UT to Lake Mike

Connor NA 

Covington/MS 133.23 SB247 I <1* 1* Minor

UT to Lake Mike

Connor NA 

Covington/MS 133.32 SB248 I 1* 2* Minor

UT to Lake Mike

Connor NA 

Covington/MS 133.63 SB249 I 1* 1* Minor

UT to Lake Mike

Connor NA 

Covington/MS 134.57 SB250 I 1* 1* Minor

UT to Terrible

Creek NA 

Covington/MS 134.77 SB251 I 1* 2* Minor

UT to Terrible

Creek NA 

Covington/MS 135.43 SB252 I 2* 8* Minor

UT to Terrible

Creek NA 

Covington/MS 135.68 I 1* 1* Minor

UT to Terrible

Creek NA 

Covington/MS 135.68 I 1* 1* Minor

UT to Terrible

Creek NA 

Covington/MS 135.71

SB255

I 1* 1* Minor

UT to Terrible

Creek NA 

Covington/MS 137.50 SB262 I 1* 10* Minor

UT to Terrible

Creek NA 

Covington/MS 137.56 P 2 15 Intermediate Terrible Creek F&W Covington/MS 137.58 SB264 P 2 15 Intermediate Terrible Creek F&W Covington/MS 137.61 I 1* 5* Minor

UT to Terrible

Creek NA 

Covington/MS 137.63

SB286

I 1* 5* Minor

UT to Terrible

Creek NA 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
D-19

Table D-1

Waterbodies Crossed by the Proposed SESH Project

Covington/MS 137.63 SB287 I 1* 5* Minor

UT to Terrible

Creek NA 

Covington/MS 137.66 P 3 30 Minor Terrible Creek F&W Covington/MS 137.66 SB285 P 3 30 Minor Terrible Creek F&W Covington/MS 137.71 SB284 I 1* 3* Minor

UT to Terrible

Creek NA 

Covington/MS 137.72 SB283 P <1 5 Minor

UT to Terrible

Creek F&W 

Covington/MS 138.60 SB281 I <1* 2 Minor UT to Bowie Creek NA Covington/MS 138.82 SB280 I <1* 1* Minor UT to Bowie Creek NA Covington/MS 139.52 SB279 I 1* 3* Minor

UT to Cooks

Branch NA 

Covington/MS 139.87 P 1 5 Minor Cooks Branch F&W Covington/MS 139.91 P 1 5 Minor Cooks Branch F&W Covington/MS 139.93

SB278

P 1 5 Minor Cooks Branch F&W 

Covington/MS 140.05 SB277 I 1* 5* Minor

UT to Cooks

Branch NA 

Covington/MS 140.37 SB276 I 1* 3* Minor

UT to Cooks

Branch NA 

Covington/MS 140.67 SB275 I <1* 1* Minor

UT to Cooks

Branch NA 

Covington/MS 140.70 SB274 I 1* 3* Minor

UT to Cooks

Branch NA 

Covington/MS 141.21 SB304 I 1 2 Minor

UT to Cooks

Branch NA 

Covington/MS 141.21 SB305 I 1* 2* Minor

UT to Cooks

Branch NA 

Covington/MS 141.47 SB306 I 1* 8* Minor

UT to Cooks

Branch NA 

Covington/MS 141.57 SB307 I 1* 1* Minor

UT to Cooks

Branch NA 

Covington/MS 142.02 SB308 I 1 2 Minor UT to Bowie Creek NA Covington/MS 142.29 SB309 I 1* 2* Minor UT to Bowie Creek NA Covington/MS 142.43 SB310 I <1* 1 Minor UT to Bowie Creek NA Covington/MS 143.75 SB107-1 P 1 8 Minor Beaver Creek F&W Covington/MS 144.03 SB108-1 P 1 6 Minor Gabby Reed Break F&W Covington/MS 145.05 SB105-1 P <1 3 Minor UT to Bowie Creek F&W 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
D-20

Table D-1

Waterbodies Crossed by the Proposed SESH Project

Covington/MS 145.38 SB106-1 P <1 2 Minor UT to Bowie Creek F&W Covington/MS 145.79 SB109-1 P 1 3 Minor UT to Bowie Creek F&W Covington/MS 146.17 SB110 I 1* 2* Minor UT to Bowie Creek NA Covington/MS 146.38 SB111 I 1* 2* Minor UT to Bowie Creek NA Covington/MS 146.51 SB112 I 6* 2* Minor UT to Bowie Creek NA Covington/MS 146.68 SB102 I 6* 2* Minor UT to Bowie Creek NA Covington/MS 146.88 SB103 I 4* 7* Minor UT to Bowie Creek NA Covington/MS 146.91 SB104 I 2* 3* Minor UT to Bowie Creek NA Covington/MS 147.13 SB115 I 2* 6* Minor UT to Bowie Creek NA Covington/MS 148.01 SB116 I 2* 8* Minor UT to Bowie Creek NA Covington/MS 148.54 SB118 I 1* 2* Minor UT to Bowie Creek NA Covington/MS 149.15 SH117 I 1 2 Minor UT to Bowie Creek NA Covington/MS 149.71 SH114 I 1* 4* Minor

UT to Okatoma

Creek NA 

Covington/MS 149.76 SH113 I 1* 3* Minor

UT to Okatoma

Creek NA 

Covington/MS 150.10 SB123-1 I 1* 14* Minor

UT to Okatoma

Creek NA 

Covington/MS 150.52 SB124 I 2* 4* Minor

UT to Okatoma

Creek NA 

Covington/MS 150.84 SB128 I 1* 3* Minor

UT to Okatoma

Creek NA 

Covington/MS 150.89 SB129 P 3 60 Intermediate Okatoma Creek REC, F&W NRCovington/MS 151.66 I 5* 9* Minor

UT to Okatoma

Creek NA 

Covington/MS 151.67

SF104

I 5* 9* Minor

UT to Okatoma

Creek NA 

Covington/MS 151.73 SF106 P 2 8 Minor Shelton Creek F&W 

Jones/MS 152.13 SF107-1 P 1 1 Minor

UT to Shelton

Creek F&W 

Jones/MS 152.41 SF109 P 2* 4* Minor

UT to Shelton

Creek NA 

Jones/MS 155.76 SF116 I 3* 4* Minor UT to Leaf River NA 

Forrest/MS 157.94 SF117 P 4 80 Intermediate Leaf River F&W NRForrest/MS 159.65 SF123 I 1* 5* Minor

UT to Greans

Creek NA 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
D-21

Table D-1

Waterbodies Crossed by the Proposed SESH Project

Forrest/MS 159.66 SF124 P 1 5 Minor

UT to Greans

Creek NA 

Forrest/MS 159.82 SF126 I 1* 4* Minor

UT to Greans

Creek NA 

Forrest/MS 161.40 SF129 I 1* 2* Minor

UT to Greans

Creek NA 

Forrest/MS 162.22 SF131 I <1 3 Minor

UT to Greans

Creek NA 

Forrest/MS 162.401 SR114 P 1 10 Minor

UT to Greans

Creek F&W 

Forrest/MS 162.481 SR115 I <1 3.5 Minor

UT to Greans

Creek NA 

Forrest/MS 162.731 SR116 I 1 2 Minor

UT to Greans

Creek NA 

Forrest/MS 163.12 SF135 I 1* 3* Minor

UT to Greans

Creek NA 

Forrest/MS 163.17 SF134 I <1* 3* Minor

UT to Greans

Creek NA 

Forrest/MS 163.66 SF137 I 1* 3* Minor

UT to Greans

Creek NA 

Forrest/MS 163.71 SF138 I 1* 3* Minor

UT to Greans

Creek NA 

Forrest/MS 164.91 SF144 I <1* 3* Minor UT to Third Creek NA Forrest/MS 165.31 SF143 I 1* 6* Minor Third Creek NA Forrest/MS 165.39 SF146 I 1* 6* Minor Third Creek NA Forrest/MS 167.60 SH143-1 P 1.5 4 Minor Third Creek F&W Forrest/MS 168.19 SF149-1 P 1 6 Minor Third Creek F&W Forrest/MS 168.33 SF150 I 1* 4* Minor UT to Third Creek NA 

Perry/MS 168.86 SF152-1 P 1 8 Minor Third Creek F&W Perry/MS 168.86 SF152-2 P 1 8 Minor Third Creek F&W Perry/MS 169.99 SG164-1 I 0 0 Minor

UT to Buzzard

Branch NA 

Perry/MS 170.59 SG161 P 10 200 Major Tallahala River F&W Perry/MS 170.87 SC246 I 1 3 Minor

UT to Tallahala

River NA 

Perry/MS 171.18 SC245 I 2* 3* Minor

UT to Tallahala

River NA 

Perry/MS 174.19 SG147 I 1* 3* Minor

UT to Grapevine

Branch NA 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
D-22

Table D-1

Waterbodies Crossed by the Proposed SESH Project

Perry/MS 174.19 SG150 I 1* 1* Minor

UT to Grapevine

Branch NA 

Perry/MS 174.49 SG146 I 1* 2* Minor

UT to Grapevine

Branch NA 

Perry/MS 176.78 P 1 10 Minor Grapevine Branch F&W Perry/MS 176.79 SG137-1 P 1 10 Minor Grapevine Branch F&W Perry/MS 176.90 SG137-3 I <1 1 Minor

UT to Grapevine

Branch NA 

Perry/MS 177.87 SG141 P 5 100 Intermediate Bogue Homo River F&W Perry/MS 177.99 SG145 I 2* 25* Minor

UT to Bogue Homo

River NA 

Perry/MS 178.30 SG143 I 4* 15* Minor

UT to Bogue Homo

River NA 

Perry/MS 178.63 SG144 P 1 10 Minor

UT to Bogue Homo

River NA 

Perry/MS 179.33 SG136 P 1 6 Minor

UT to Nicholson

Branch NA 

Perry/MS 179.60 SG133 I 1* 3* Minor

UT to Nicholson

Branch NA 

Perry/MS 179.66 SG135-1 I 2* 4* Minor

UT to Nicholson

Branch NA 

Perry/MS 179.99 SG131-1 I 1 1 Minor

UT to Nicholson

Branch NA 

Perry/MS 180.09 SG132 I 1 2 Minor

UT to Nicholson

Branch NA 

Perry/MS 180.46 SG128-2 P 1 8 Minor Mill Creek F&W Perry/MS 180.96 SG152 P <1 2 Minor UT to Mill Creek F&W Perry/MS 181.08 I <1 2 Minor UT to Mill Creek NA Perry/MS 181.09 I <1 2 Minor UT to Mill Creek NA Perry/MS 181.11

SG151

I <1 2 Minor UT to Mill Creek NA 

Perry/MS 181.42 SG129-1 I 1* 3* Minor UT to Mill Creek NA Perry/MS 182.15 SC102-1 I 1* 2* Minor

UT to Thompson

Creek NA 

Perry/MS 182.35 SC103-1 I 1* 2* Minor

UT to Thompson

Creek NA 

Perry/MS 182.71 SC106 I 1* 2* Minor

UT to Thompson

Creek NA 

Perry/MS 183.40 SC105-1 I 3* 7* Minor

UT to Thompson

Creek NA 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
D-23

Table D-1

Waterbodies Crossed by the Proposed SESH Project

Perry/MS 186.53 SC107 I 20 30 Minor UT to Crane Creek NA Perry/MS 187.21 SC109 I 1* 1* Minor

UT to Thompson

Creek NA 

Perry/MS 187.86 SC116 I 2* 3* Minor

UT to Thompson

Creek NA 

Perry/MS 187.88 SC115 I 3* 7* Minor

UT to Thompson

Creek NA 

Perry/MS 187.90 I 1* 4* Minor

UT to Thompson

Creek NA 

Perry/MS 187.92

SC113

I 1* 4* Minor

UT to Thompson

Creek NA 

Perry/MS 187.92 SC112 P 2 30 Intermediate Thompson Creek F&W Perry/MS 187.98 SC114 I 4* 6* Minor

UT to Thompson

Creek NA 

Perry/MS 188.51 SC122 I 4* 10* Minor

UT to Thompson

Creek NA 

Perry/MS 188.67 SC123 I 1* 2* Minor

UT to Thompson

Creek NA 

Perry/MS 188.90 SC124-1 P 2 <1 Minor

UT to Thompson

Creek F&W 

Perry/MS 189.32 SC126-1 I 1* 1* Minor Pineland Branch NA Perry/MS 189.57 SC231-1 P 1 2 Minor

UT to Pineland

Branch F&W 

Perry/MS 189.87 SC229-1 I 2* 3* Minor

UT to Pineland

Branch NA 

Perry/MS 190.43 SC118-1 P 1 3 Minor

UT to Pineland

Branch F&W 

Perry/MS 190.99 SC120-1 P <1 1 Minor Allan Branch F&W Perry/MS 191.69 WRC130 P 1 60 Intermediate Pond NA Perry/MS 191.75 SC130-1 I 2* 1* Minor

UT to Gaines

Creek NA 

Perry/MS 191.79 SC130-2 I 2* 1* Minor

UT to Gaines

Creek NA 

Perry/MS 191.83 SC130-3 P 30* 20 Intermediate Gaines Creek F&W Perry/MS 191.97 SC228 I 10* 10* Minor

UT to Gaines

Creek NA 

Greene/MS 192.10 SC226-2 I 4* 6* Minor UT to Bee Branch NA Greene/MS 192.11 SC226-1 P 1 6 Minor Bee Branch F&W Greene/MS 192.75 SC223-1 P 1 1 Minor Bee Branch F&W 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
D-24

Table D-1

Waterbodies Crossed by the Proposed SESH Project

Greene/MS 192.78 SC223-2 I 2* 1* Minor UT to Bee Branch NA Greene/MS 193.60 SA239-1 I 3* 4* Minor Ivory Branch NA Greene/MS 193.73 SA239-1 I 1* 3* Minor Ivory Branch NA Greene/MS 194.13 SC236-1 I 1* 3* Minor UT to Ivory Branch NA Greene/MS 194.47 SC238-1 I 1* 3* Minor UT to Ivory Branch NA Greene/MS 194.59 SC238-2 I 1* 3* Minor UT to Ivory Branch NA Greene/MS 195.34 SG109 P 3 10 Minor Atkinson Creek F&W Greene/MS 195.40 SG110 I 1* 3* Minor

UT to Atkinson

Creek NA 

Greene/MS 195.45 SG112 I 1* 2* Minor

UT to Atkinson

Creek NA 

Greene/MS 195.45 SG111 I 1* 3* Minor

UT to Atkinson

Creek NA 

Greene/MS 195.54 SG113 I 1* 3* Minor

UT to Atkinson

Creek NA 

Greene/MS 195.77 SG115 I 1* 2* Minor

UT to Atkinson

Creek NA 

Greene/MS 195.86 SG116 I 1* 2* Minor

UT to Atkinson

Creek NA 

Greene/MS 195.91 P 2 10 Minor

UT to Atkinson

Creek F&W 

Greene/MS 195.92 P 2 10 Minor

UT to Atkinson

Creek F&W 

Greene/MS 195.92 P 2 10 Minor

UT to Atkinson

Creek F&W 

Greene/MS 195.96 P 2 10 Minor

UT to Atkinson

Creek F&W 

Greene/MS 195.97

SG117

P 2 10 Minor

UT to Atkinson

Creek F&W 

Greene/MS 196.08 I 2* 5* Minor UT to Skull Branch NA Greene/MS 196.16 SG124 I 2* 5* Minor UT to Skull Branch NA Greene/MS 196.18 SG125 I 1* 3* Minor

UT to Atkinson

Creek NA 

Greene/MS 196.29 SG123 I 1* 3* Minor

UT to Atkinson

Creek NA 

Greene/MS 196.31 SG122 P 1 10 Minor

UT to Atkinson

Creek F&W 

Greene/MS 196.43 SG121 I 1* 2* Minor Hurricane Branch NA 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
D-25

Table D-1

Waterbodies Crossed by the Proposed SESH Project

Greene/MS 196.51 SG126 I 1* 3* Minor

UT to Atkinson

Creek NA 

Greene/MS 196.68 SG127 I 1* 3* Minor

UT to Atkinson

Creek NA 

Greene/MS 197.03 SC131-1 I 1* 2* Minor UT to Bear Branch NA Greene/MS 197.29 SC132-1 P 1 5 Minor Bear Branch F&W Greene/MS 197.70 SC133-1 I 1* 3* Minor

UT to Atkinson

Creek NA 

Greene/MS 197.89 SC134-1 I 1* 3* Minor

UT to Atkinson

Creek NA 

Greene/MS 198.34 SC139-2 I 3 <1 Minor

UT to Atkinson

Creek NA 

Greene/MS 198.35 SC139-1 P 3 <1 Minor

UT to Atkinson

Creek F&W 

Greene/MS 198.41 SC138 I 3* 2* Minor

UT to Atkinson

Creek NA 

Greene/MS 198.44 SC137 I 2* 2* Minor

UT to Atkinson

Creek NA 

Greene/MS 198.75 SC136-1 I 1* 3* Minor

UT to Atkinson

Creek NA 

Greene/MS 198.82 SC135-1 I 1* 2* Minor

UT to Atkinson

Creek NA 

Greene/MS 199.78 I 1* 3* Minor UT to Leaf River NA Greene/MS 199.80 I 1* 3* Minor UT to Leaf River NA Greene/MS 199.81

SC147

I 1* 3* Minor UT to Leaf River NA 

Greene/MS 199.90 SC146 P 1 3 Minor UT to Leaf River F&W Greene/MS 199.91 SC145 I 1* 4* Minor UT to Leaf River NA Greene/MS 200.12 SC144 I 4* 5* Minor UT to Leaf River NA Greene/MS 200.23 SC143 I 1* 3* Minor UT to Leaf River NA Greene/MS 200.43 SC142 I 1* 3* Minor UT to Leaf River NA Greene/MS 200.78 SC141-1 I 1* 2* Minor UT to Leaf River NA Greene/MS 200.87 SC140-1 I 1* 0 Minor UT to Leaf River NA Greene/MS 200.91 I 1* 4* Minor UT to Leaf River NA Greene/MS 200.92

SC152-1

I 1* 4* Minor UT to Leaf River NA 

Greene/MS 201.99 SC233 I 3* 3* Minor UT to Big Oktibee NA Greene/MS 203.37 SC158-1 I 3* 3* Minor UT to Big Oktibee NA 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
D-26

Table D-1

Waterbodies Crossed by the Proposed SESH Project

Greene/MS 203.39 SC158-1 I 3* 3* Minor UT to Big Oktibee NA Greene/MS 203.77 SC201-1 P 2 15 Intermediate Big Oktibee F&W Greene/MS 205.17 SC166-1 P 2 20 Minor Holy Creek F&W Greene/MS 207.23 SC169-1 I 2* 4* Minor

UT to Waterhole

Branch NA 

Greene/MS 207.62 SC174-1 I 1* 1* Minor

UT to

Chickasawhay

River NA 

Greene/MS 207.73 SC174-2 I 1* 2* Minor

UT to

Chickasawhay

River NA 

Greene/MS 207.81 SC175-1 I 1* 1* Minor

UT to

Chickasawhay

River NA 

Greene/MS 207.96 SC176 I 1* 2* Minor

UT to

Chickasawhay

River NA 

Greene/MS 208.26 SH136 P 2 4 Minor

UT to

Chickasawhay

River F&W 

Greene/MS 209.06 SC235 P 15 300 Major

Chickasawhay

River F&W NR

George/MS 210.49 SH140-1 P 3 20 Minor UT to Toms Creek F&W George/MS 212.95 SC186-1 P 1 3 Minor UT to Toms Creek F&W George/MS 213.36 SC185-1 P 1 3 Minor UT to Toms Creek F&W George/MS 214.27 SC189-3 P 1 6 Minor UT to Pree Creek F&W George/MS 214.30 SC189-1 P 1 3 Minor UT to Pree Creek F&W George/MS 215.04 SC191-1 I 1* 3* Minor UT to Big Creek NA George/MS 215.26

WRC215-

1 P 2 200 Major Pond NA 

George/MS 215.29 SC215-1 I 3* 3* Minor UT to Big Creek NA George/MS 216.67 SC200-1 P 1 4 Minor UT to Big Creek F&W George/MS 216.80 SC198 P 2 30 Intermediate Big Creek F&W George/MSGeorge/MS 217.88 SC209-1 I 1* 3* Minor

UT to Tappley

Branch NA 

George/MS 218.38 SR107-1 P 1 2 Minor

UT to Tappley

Branch F&W 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
D-27

Table D-1

Waterbodies Crossed by the Proposed SESH Project

George/MS 221.49 WRD235 P 3 250 Major Pond NA George/MS 222.60 SD239-1 P 2 10 Minor White Creek NA George/MS 223.29 SD247-1 I 1* 5* Minor UT to Indian Creek NA George/MS 224.40 SD243-1 P 2 8 Minor Big Cedar Creek F&W George/MS 224.98 SD248-3 P 1 1 Minor

UT to Big Cedar

Creek F&W 

George/MS 225.06 SD248-1 P 0.5 1 Minor

UT to Big Cedar

Creek F&W 

George/MS 225.11 SD248-2 P 1 1 Minor

UT to Big Cedar

Creek F&W 

George/MS 226.33 SE140-1 I 1 4 Minor

UT to Big Cedar

Creek NA 

George/MS 227.47 SD251 P 2 10 Minor Little Cedar Creek F&W George/MS 228.31 SD254-1 P 1 3 Minor

UT to Little Cedar

Creek F&W 

George/MS 229.55 SD256-1 P 1 5 Minor

UT to Little Cedar

Creek F&W 

George/MS 230.96 SC204-1 P 0.5 3 Minor

UT to Little Cedar

Creek F&W 

George/MS 232.19 SD258-2 I 1* 2* Minor

UT to Escatawpa

River NA 

George/MS 232.25 SD258-1 P 1 2 Minor

UT to Escatawpa

River F&W 

George/MS 232.65 SC208 I 1* 3* Minor

UT to Escatawpa

River F&W 

George/MS 233.93 SC219-1 P 1 2 Minor

UT to Escatawpa

River F&W 

George/MS 235.26 SD262-11 I 2* 3* Minor

UT to Escatawpa

River NA 

George/MS 235.54 SR106-1 P 5 150 Major Escatawpa River F&W

303

(Ala

be

an

blo

tu

h

George/MS 236.01 I 1* 8* Minor

UT to Escatawpa

River NA 

George/MS 236.11

SD262-1

I 1* 8* Minor

UT to Escatawpa

River NA 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
D-28

Table D-1

Waterbodies Crossed by the Proposed SESH Project

Jackson/MS 237.59 SD264-1 P 2 10 Minor Flat Creek F&W Jackson/MS 237.89 SD265 I 1* 4* Minor UT to Flat Creek NA Jackson/MS 238.56 SE101 I 1* 10* Minor UT to Flat Creek NA Jackson/MS 239.28 SE103 I 1* 5* Minor UT to Page Creek NA 

Mobile/AL 241.48 SE104-1 I 1 3 Minor

UT to Pasture

Creek NA 

Mobile/AL 241.71 SE105 I 1* 2* Minor

UT to Pasture

Creek NA 

Mobile/AL 241.92 SE122-1 I 1* 2* Minor

UT to Pasture

Creek NA 

Mobile/AL 242.00 SE123-1 I 1 4 Minor

UT to Pasture

Creek F&W 

Mobile/AL 242.88 SE126-1 I 1 3 Minor

UT to Pasture

Creek NA 

Mobile/AL 244.39 SE111-1 P 3 50 Intermediate Big Creek F&W Mobile/AL 244.97 SE115-2 P 4 8 Minor Wolf Branch F&W Mobile/AL 247.95 SG104-1 P 1 4 Minor UT to Miller Creek F&W Mobile/AL 248.05 SG103-1 I <1* 2* Minor UT to Miller Creek NA Mobile/AL 250.85 WRH102 P 1 70 Intermediate Pond NA Mobile/AL 251.90 SH101-1 P 2 7 Minor

UT to Deacle

Creek F&W 

Mobile/AL 252.831 SR117 I <1 2 Minor

UT to Deacle

Creek NA 

Mobile/AL 252.861 SE110-1 I 1* 3* Minor

UT to Deacle

Creek NA 

Mobile/AL 256.25 SH138 I 1* 4* Minor

UT to Jackson

Creek NA 

Mobile/AL 258.21 SE136 I 1* 8* Minor

UT to Jackson

Creek NA 

Mobile/AL 259.83 SD271-2 P 3 10 Minor UT to Fowl River F&W Mobile/AL 259.89 SD271-1 P 1 3 Minor UT to Fowl River F&W 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
D-29

Table D-1

Waterbodies Crossed by the Proposed SESH Project

Mobile/AL 262.521 P 1 7 Minor UT to Fowl River F&W Mobile/AL 262.541 P 1 7 Minor UT to Fowl River F&W Mobile/AL 262.581

SE137-1

P 1 7 Minor UT to Fowl River F&W 

____________________________________________________________

* Indicates Ordinary High Water Mark width was used because stream was dry at time of survey.

F&W = Fish and Wildlife

REC = RecreationA = Primary Contact Recreation

B = Secondary Contact Recreation

C = Fish and Wildlife-- = nothing listed

NA = Not Applicable

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
APPENDIX E 

AFFECTED WETLANDS 

The acreage values presented have not changed from the Draft EIS. The Proposed changes in acreage 

and impacts were found to be minimal. 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 E-1 

Table E-1 

Wetland Resource Impacts for the Proposed SESH Project 

Acres Affected 

MP Constr. Operation Impacts(

County State Field ID 

NWI 

Classification Begin End 

Centerline 

Crossing 

Distance Impacts (ac)1/

PFO Conv. 

To 

PEM/PSS3/

PSS Conv. 

To PEM 5/ 

Madison LA WA239 PEM 0.35 0.38 0 0 - - Madison LA WA240 PSS 0.48 0.54 25 0.04 - 0.01 Madison LA WA241 PSS 0.59 0.65 333.75 0.57 - 0.08 Madison LA WA242 PSS 0.7 0.74 182.33 0.3 - 0.04 Madison LA WA243 PSS 0.75 0.79 179.71 0.3 - 0.04 Madison LA WA244 PSS 0.87 0.91 176.72 0.31 - 0.04 Madison LA WA245 PFO 1.69 1.73 0 0 0 - Madison LA WA148 PFO 4.02 4.07 0 0 0 - Madison LA WA148 PEM 4.06 4.09 101.74 0.17 - - Madison LA WA158 PEM 4.22 4.45 113.7 0.34 - - Madison LA WA151 PEM 7.19 7.22 36.73 0.1 - - Madison LA WA161 PEM 7.52 7.61 393.23 0.7 - - Madison LA WA160 PEM 7.77 7.79 0 0.07 - - Madison LA WA165 PEM 9.94 9.97 155.61 0.27 - - Madison LA WA195 PFO 14.63 14.64 0 0.006/ 0 - Madison LA WA196 PSS 18.07 18.21 99.61 0.24 - 0.02 Madison LA WA202 PFO 18.38 18.41 159.11 0.28 0.11 - Madison LA WA236 PFO 31.6 31.71 454.66 0.79 0.31 - Madison LA WA237 PSS 31.7 32.68 5,026.21 8.58 - 1.16 Madison LA WD178 PFO 33.17 35.38 11,414.59 20.53 7.88 - 

Warren MS WA248 PFO 36.25 36.38 0 0 0 - Warren MS WA262 PEM 38 38.02 0 0.05 - - Warren MS WA261 PEM 38.04 38.04 0 0.004/ - - Warren MS WA263 PFO 38.49 38.97 2,408.34 4.17 1.66 - Warren MS WA264 PFO 38.96 39.21 1,160.67 2.02 0.8 - 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 E-2 

Table E-1 

Wetland Resource Impacts for the Proposed SESH Project 

Acres Affected 

MP Constr. Operation Impacts(

County State Field ID 

NWI 

Classification Begin End 

Centerline 

Crossing 

Distance Impacts (ac)1/

PFO Conv. 

To 

PEM/PSS3/

PSS Conv. 

To PEM 5/ 

Warren MS WA296 PFO 43.65 43.71 214.37 0.18 0.04 - 

Claiborne MS WA297 PFO 44.31 44.35 188.52 0.22 0.13 - Claiborne MS WA297 PFO 44.4 44.63 0 0 0.84 - Claiborne MS WA297 PFO 44.68 44.69 0 0 0 - Claiborne MS WA269 PFO 53.13 53.15 53.12 0.09 0.04 - Claiborne MS WA270 PFO 53.22 53.28 58.79 0.11 0.04 - Claiborne MS WA275 PFO 53.69 53.8 397.5 0.78 0.28 - Claiborne MS WA280 PFO 54.02 54.11 430.89 0.75 0.3 - Claiborne MS WD215 PFO 55.82 55.88 0 0 0 - 

Copiah MS WD292 PFO 65.04 65.09 136.58 0.28 0.09 - Copiah MS WA337 PFO 66.45 66.46 52.66 0.1 0.04 - Copiah MS WA337 PEM 66.46 66.47 48.26 0.08 - - Copiah MS WA114 PEM 71.06 71.1 148.43 0.28 - - Copiah MS WA118 PEM 72.05 72.07 44.96 0.08 - - Copiah MS WA119 PEM 72.18 72.35 654 1.1 - - Copiah MS WA353 PFO 74.16 74.17 0 0.03 0 - Copiah MS WA354 PFO 74.23 74.36 312.23 0.51 0.21 - Copiah MS WA355 PFO 74.39 74.42 85.68 0.15 0.06 - Copiah MS WA356 PFO 74.47 74.5 87.7 0.16 0.06 - Copiah MS WA385 PFO 76.07 76.11 110.58 0.18 0.08 - Copiah MS WA381 PFO 76.48 76.54 183.16 0.33 0.13 - Copiah MS WA378 PFO 76.52 76.69 784.73 1.36 0.54 - Copiah MS WA374 PFO 77.21 77.24 89.64 0.14 0.06 - Copiah MS WA198 PFO 80.96 80.98 55.49 0.09 0.04 - Copiah MS WD171 PFO 85.52 85.56 106.56 0.15 0.07 - Copiah MS WD165 PFO 87.09 87.11 47.39 0.09 0.03 - 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 E-3 

Table E-1 

Wetland Resource Impacts for the Proposed SESH Project 

Acres Affected 

MP Constr. Operation Impacts(

County State Field ID 

NWI 

Classification Begin End 

Centerline 

Crossing 

Distance Impacts (ac)1/

PFO Conv. 

To 

PEM/PSS3/

PSS Conv. 

To PEM 5/ 

Copiah MS WD197 PFO 88.1 88.15 148.32 0.22 0.11 - Copiah MS WH127 PFO 90.64 90.66 28.16 0.07 0.02 - Copiah MS WB150 PFO 97.65 97.73 346.55 0.58 0.24 - Copiah MS WB155 PEM 98.45 98.48 40.53 0.05 - Copiah MS WB158 PFO 98.94 98.96 49.19 0.1 0.03 - Copiah MS WB166 PFO 101.16 101.18 46.14 0.09 0.03 - Copiah MS WB165 PFO 101.21 101.22 31.42 0.05 0.02 - 

Lawrence MS WB243 PFO 101.81 101.82 51.16 0.09 0.04 - Lawrence MS WB191 PFO 101.98 102.08 295.3 0.58 0.19 - Lawrence MS WB190 PFO 102.26 102.28 106.62 0.15 0.07 - Lawrence MS WB311 PFO 110.61 110.68 272.29 1.17 0.19 - 

Jefferson 

Davis MS WD114 PFO 111.71 111.74 113.84 0.19 0.08 - 

Jefferson 

Davis MS WD116 PFO 111.87 111.88 40.65 0.09 0.03 - 

Jefferson 

Davis MS WB177 PEM 118.83 119.04 798.1 1.45 - - 

Jefferson 

Davis MS WB130 PFO 119.12 119.15 150.92 0.24 0.1 - 

Jefferson 

Davis MS WB186 PFO 120.31 120.33 0 0.07 0 - 

Jefferson 

Davis MS WB179 PFO 121.2 121.3 452.87 0.66 0.31 - 

Jefferson 

Davis MS WB233 PFO 124.05 124.1 118.02 0.18 0.08 - 

Covington MS WF111 PFO 126.86 127.02 739.09 1.16 0.26 - Covington MS WF111 PEM 126.92 126.95 71.51 0.12 - - Covington MS WF113 PFO 127.41 127.91 750 1.29 0.52 - Covington MS WA314 PEM 130.39 130.43 128.21 0.03 - - Covington MS WA312 PFO 130.66 130.68 91.92 0.14 0.06 - Covington MS WB291 PFO 131.22 131.27 158.07 0.28 0.11 - 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 E-4 

Table E-1 

Wetland Resource Impacts for the Proposed SESH Project 

Acres Affected 

MP Constr. Operation Impacts(

County State Field ID 

NWI 

Classification Begin End 

Centerline 

Crossing 

Distance Impacts (ac)1/

PFO Conv. 

To 

PEM/PSS3/

PSS Conv. 

To PEM 5/ 

Covington MS WB292 PFO 131.79 131.83 108.02 0.17 0.07 - Covington MS WB254 PFO 135.59 135.68 264.2 0.49 0.19 - Covington MS WB256 PFO 136.14 136.17 26.63 0.07 0.03 - Covington MS WB259 PFO 137.03 137.08 87.36 0.11 0.06 - Covington MS WB260 PFO 137.09 137.15 150.45 0.16 0.08 - Covington MS WB261 PFO 137.17 137.28 386.13 0.58 0.27 - Covington MS WB282 PFO 137.82 137.88 120.62 0.26 0.1 - Covington MS WB107 PFO 143.72 143.87 752.53 1.28 0.52 - Covington MS WB108 PFO 143.99 144.11 595.58 1 0.41 - Covington MS WB105 PFO 145.03 145.08 187.08 0.33 0.13 - Covington MS WB106 PFO 145.36 145.41 253.64 0.45 0.18 - Covington MS WB109 PFO 145.72 145.91 478.28 0.89 0.34 - Covington MS WB123 PFO 150.07 150.11 172.78 0.31 0.12 - Covington MS WB125 PFO 150.5 150.51 0 0.01 0 - 

Jones MS WF107 PFO 152.13 152.14 52.45 0.08 0.02 - Jones MS WF115 PSS 154.57 154.69 541.98 0.93 - 0.12 

Forrest MS WF118 PEM 158.81 158.97 773.14 1.62 - - Forrest MS WF127 PFO 160.62 160.65 134.31 0.23 0.09 - Forrest MS WF128 PFO 161.25 161.27 41.82 0.06 0.03 - Forrest MS WH144 PFO 167.19* 167.21* 146.67 0.28 0.1 - Forrest MS WH143 PFO 167.55* 167.57* 141.98 0.27 0.1 - Forrest MS WF149 PFO 168 168.24 1,122.43 1.71 0.78 - 

Perry MS WF152 PFO 168.81 168.95 678.72 1.16 0.47 - Perry MS WF154 PEM 169.43 169.54 0 0.28 - - Perry MS WF155 PSS 169.59 169.61 0 0.01 - Perry MS WF157 PFO 169.8 169.95 562.14 1.04 0.39 - 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 E-5 

Table E-1 

Wetland Resource Impacts for the Proposed SESH Project 

Acres Affected 

MP Constr. Operation Impacts(

County State Field ID 

NWI 

Classification Begin End 

Centerline 

Crossing 

Distance Impacts (ac)1/

PFO Conv. 

To 

PEM/PSS3/

PSS Conv. 

To PEM 5/ 

Perry MS WG164 PFO 169.97 170.06 252.55 0.77 0.18 - Perry MS WG163 PFO 170.42 170.45 0 0 0 - Perry MS WG162 PFO 170.49 170.51 0 0 0 - Perry MS WG153 PFO 172.69 173.01 1,683.35 2.94 1.16 - Perry MS WG140 PFO 177.78 177.82 0 0 0 - Perry MS WG135 PSS 179.77 179.79 34.05 0.06 - 0.01 Perry MS WG130 PFO 179.9 179.92 50.99 0.08 0.03 - Perry MS WG131 PFO 179.98 180.01 84.87 0.17 0.06 - Perry MS WG128 PFO 180.3 180.46 209.86 0.53 0.15 - Perry MS WG128 PEM 180.42 180.48 203.28 0.25 - - Perry MS WG129 PFO 181.41 181.43 51.35 0.09 0.04 - Perry MS WR113 PFO 181.66* 181.68* 82.25 0.1 0.05 - Perry MS WC102 PFO 182.06 182.18 369.61 0.73 0.26 - Perry MS WC103 PFO 182.32 182.37 190.17 0.33 0.13 - Perry MS WC104 PEM 182.47 182.51 73.37 0.13 - - Perry MS WC105 PFO 183.4 183.51 469.3 0.81 0.32 - Perry MS WC106 PFO 184.06 184.12 220.78 0.34 0.15 - Perry MS WC106 PEM 184.11 184.12 0 0.01 - - Perry MS WC124 PFO 188.88 188.91 110.51 0.2 0.08 - Perry MS WC125 PFO 189.18 189.19 26.16 0.05 0.02 - Perry MS WC126 PFO 189.32 189.36 197.01 0.28 0.13 - Perry MS WC231 PFO 189.56 189.59 167.1 0.29 0.12 - Perry MS WC230 PFO 189.71 189.72 0 0.02 0 - Perry MS WC229 PFO 189.86 189.88 89.19 0.16 0.06 - Perry MS WC118 PFO 190.41 190.49 324.99 0.58 0.22 - Perry MS WC120 PFO 190.94 191.05 334.62 0.71 0.24 - 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 E-6 

Table E-1 

Wetland Resource Impacts for the Proposed SESH Project 

Acres Affected 

MP Constr. Operation Impacts(

County State Field ID 

NWI 

Classification Begin End 

Centerline 

Crossing 

Distance Impacts (ac)1/

PFO Conv. 

To 

PEM/PSS3/

PSS Conv. 

To PEM 5/ 

Perry MS WC127 PFO 191.23 191.27 152.46 0.26 0.11 - Perry MS WC128 PSS 191.41 191.44 107.2 0.19 - 0.02 Perry MS WC130 PFO 191.78 191.8 65.81 0.12 0.05 - Perry MS WC227 PFO 192.06 192.07 23.45 0.04 0.02 - 

Greene MS WC226 PFO 192.1 192.16 125 0.2 0.09 - Greene MS WC221 PFO 192.56 192.59 103.38 0.13 0.07 - Greene MS WC223 PFO 192.62 192.82 436.75 0.67 0.29 - Greene MS WC223 PEM 192.78 192.79 0 0.02 - - Greene MS WC224 PFO 193.06 193.11 183.84 0.29 0.13 - Greene MS WC225 PFO 193.37 193.39 48.93 0.08 0.03 - Greene MS WC239 PFO 193.49 194.01 1,922.4411/ 3.52 1.31 - Greene MS WC236 PFO 194.11 194.18 302.81 0.36 0.2 - Greene MS WC237 PFO 194.22 194.26 93.1 0.16 0.06 - Greene MS WC238 PFO 194.45 194.61 596.06 1.1 0.38 - Greene MS WC131 PFO 197.02 197.05 48.09 0.07 0.03 - Greene MS WC132 PFO 197.26 197.4 496.78 0.59 0.29 - Greene MS WC133 PFO 197.65 197.74 269.03 0.48 0.19 - Greene MS WC134 PFO 197.88 197.91 51.25 0.08 0.04 - Greene MS WC139 PFO 198.33 198.39 158.13 0.3 0.12 - Greene MS WC136 PFO 198.73 198.79 169.56 0.29 0.12 - Greene MS WC135 PFO 198.81 198.85 63.9 0.11 0.04 - Greene MS WC148 PFO 199.2 199.24 90 0.12 0.06 - Greene MS WC141 PFO 200.72 200.75 0 0.006/ 0 - Greene MS WC140 PFO 200.86 200.89 0 0.04 0 - Greene MS WH148 PEM 200.89 201.04 232.75 0.44 - - Greene MS WC155 PEM 201.73 201.84 0 0.09 - - 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 E-7 

Table E-1 

Wetland Resource Impacts for the Proposed SESH Project 

Acres Affected 

MP Constr. Operation Impacts(

County State Field ID 

NWI 

Classification Begin End 

Centerline 

Crossing 

Distance Impacts (ac)1/

PFO Conv. 

To 

PEM/PSS3/

PSS Conv. 

To PEM 5/ 

Greene MS WC233 PFO 201.98 202.02 97.6 0.17 0.07 - Greene MS WC232 PFO 202.47 202.51 92.65 0.17 0.06 - Greene MS WC156 PFO 202.71 203.24 2,320.27 4.13 1.6 - Greene MS WC157 PFO 203.24 203.27 82.78 0.08 0.05 - Greene MS WC158 PFO 203.36 203.43 239.34 0.38 0.17 - Greene MS WC160 PFO 203.54 203.63 361.09 0.64 0.25 - Greene MS WC201 PFO 203.75 203.94 490.78 0.88 0.34 - Greene MS WC162 PFO 204.63 205.06 2,183.61 3.67 1.51 - Greene MS WC162 PEM 204.65 204.83 0 0.11 - - Greene MS WC166 PEM 205.16 205.26 406.05 0.64 - - Greene MS WC166 PFO 205.17 205.24 0 0.11 0 - Greene MS WC167 PFO 205.5 205.51 0 0 0 - Greene MS WC168 PFO 205.55 205.7 388.28 0.74 0.27 - Greene MS WC168 PSS 205.68 206.57 2,972.799/ 5.37 - - Greene MS WC173 PFO 206.74 206.8 230.1 0.42 0.16 - Greene MS WC171 PFO 206.91 206.98 261.55 0.43 0.18 - Greene MS WC169 PFO 207.2 207.26 187.67 0.34 0.13 - Greene MS WC174 PFO 207.69 207.75 239.25 0.3 0.16 - Greene MS WC175 PFO 207.81 207.83 18.71 0.03 0.01 - Greene MS WC175 PEM 207.82 207.83 0 0.004/ - - Greene MS WH135 PFO 208.08 208.13 60.51 0.15 0.04 - Greene MS WC178 PFO 208.26 208.29 121.76 0.2 0.08 - Greene MS WC202 PEM 208.61 208.63 69.56 0.14 - - Greene MS WE139 PSS 208.91 208.94 102.09 0.18 - 0.02 Greene MS WE139 PEM 208.93 208.94 0 0 - - Greene MS WH142 PFO 209.58 209.63 213.09 0.38 0.15 - 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 E-8 

Table E-1 

Wetland Resource Impacts for the Proposed SESH Project 

Acres Affected 

MP Constr. Operation Impacts(

County State Field ID 

NWI 

Classification Begin End 

Centerline 

Crossing 

Distance Impacts (ac)1/

PFO Conv. 

To 

PEM/PSS3/

PSS Conv. 

To PEM 5/ 

George MS WH140 PFO 210.44 210.51 301.85 0.49 0.21 - George MS WC181 PFO 211.29 211.75 1,759.34 3.53 1.32 - George MS WC181 PEM 211.36 211.73 409.48 0.59 - - George MS WC218 PFO 212.04 212.11 250.4 0.41 0.17 - George MS WH139 PFO 212.61 212.66 172.51 0.33 0.12 - George MS WC186 PFO 212.79 213.14 1,300.42 2.49 0.91 - George MS WC186 PEM 212.81 212.85 0 0.05 - - George MS WC185 PFO 213.35 213.4 166.45 0.29 0.12 - George MS WC184 PFO 213.41 213.46 57.76 0.11 0.04 - George MS WC183 PFO 213.49 213.52 52.22 0.04 0.03 - George MS WC189 PFO 214.25 214.34 342.9 0.57 0.24 - George MS WC189 PEM 214.3 214.32 0 0 - - George MS WC188 PEM 214.52 214.54 0 0.01 - - George MS WC188 PFO 214.52 214.55 53.38 0.11 0.04 - George MS WC190 PEM 214.6 214.66 120.99 0.13 - - George MS WC187 PFO 214.86 214.9 58.76 0.1 0.04 - George MS WC187 PEM 214.87 214.9 0 0.01 - - George MS WC191 PFO 214.95 214.97 568.77 1.02 0.38 - George MS WC191 PEM 214.97 215 3.8 0.04 - - George MS WC215 PEM 215.28 215.32 101.46 0.08 - - George MS WC214 PFO 215.62 215.69 233.16 0.42 0.16 - George MS WC214 PEM 215.67 215.7 59.88 0.09 - - George MS WC213 PEM 215.73 215.77 56.44 0.1 - - George MS WC212 PEM 215.79 215.83 73.03 0.13 - - George MS WC211 PEM 215.87 215.93 185.82 0.33 - - George MS WC240 PFO 216.54 216.58 104.9 0.19 0.07 - 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 E-9 

Table E-1 

Wetland Resource Impacts for the Proposed SESH Project 

Acres Affected 

MP Constr. Operation Impacts(

County State Field ID 

NWI 

Classification Begin End 

Centerline 

Crossing 

Distance Impacts (ac)1/

PFO Conv. 

To 

PEM/PSS3/

PSS Conv. 

To PEM 5/ 

George MS WC200 PFO 216.67 216.7 78.45 0.1 0.05 - George MS WC199 PSS 216.74 216.74 0 0 - - George MS WC199 PEM 216.74 216.77 17.24 0.03 - - George MS WC199 PFO 216.74 216.75 0 0 0 - George MS WC197 PEM 216.86 217.05 311.49 0.64 - - George MS WC197 PFO 216.91 217.03 531.45 0.95 0.37 - George MS WC210 PFO 217.57 217.63 228.68 0.4 0.16 - George MS WC209 PFO 217.86 217.96 273.3 0.41 0.19 - George MS WR107 PFO 218.30* 218.51* 788.98 1.39 0.54 - George MS WR107 PEM 218.42* - 0 0.01 - - George MS WD238 PEM 220.46 220.54 241.62 0.32 - - George MS WD236 PFO 220.8 220.84 0 0.04 0 - George MS WD234 PEM 221.52 221.55 110.23 0.14 - - George MS WD243 PFO 224.25 224.44 972.96 1.68 0.67 - George MS WD242 PEM 224.48 224.52 168.64 0.19 - - George MS WD248 PFO 224.94 225.14 705.71 1.43 0.49 - George MS WE140 PSS 226.31 226.41 548.25 0.92 - 0.13 George MS WD255 PFO 227.09 227.3 943.69 1.59 0.63 - George MS WD253 PFO 228.19 228.23 93.61 0.15 0.06 - George MS WD254 PFO 228.28 228.36 34.05 0.1 0.03 - George MS WD254 PEM 228.3 228.35 157.46 0.21 - - George MS WD256 PFO 229.5 229.63 547.36 0.96 0.38 - George MS WC204 PFO 230.94 231.03 386.7 0.71 0.27 - George MS WC205 PFO 231.29 231.37 351.24 0.62 0.24 - George MS WD258 PFO 232.24 232.29 102.43 0.18 0.07 - George MS WC219 PFO 233.72 234.06 1,706.24 2.96 1.18 - 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 E-10 

Table E-1 

Wetland Resource Impacts for the Proposed SESH Project 

Acres Affected 

MP Constr. Operation Impacts(

County State Field ID 

NWI 

Classification Begin End 

Centerline 

Crossing 

Distance Impacts (ac)1/

PFO Conv. 

To 

PEM/PSS3/

PSS Conv. 

To PEM 5/ 

George MS WC219 PSS 234.04 234.69 3,208.04 5.47 - 0.74 George MS WC219 PEM 234.67 234.67 0 0.03 - - George MS WD262 PFO 235.10* 236.34* 3,395.359/ 7.72 2.81 - 

Jackson MS WD264 PFO 237.55 237.73 857.14 1.48 0.59 - 

Mobile AL WE104 PFO 241.47 241.55 370.84 0.64 0.26 - Mobile AL WE123 PFO 242 242.08 314.83 0.42 0.15 - Mobile AL WE123 PEM 242.07 242.08 0 0.13 - - Mobile AL WE126 PSS 242.86 242.92 242.69 0.34 - 0.06 Mobile AL WE126 PEM 242.87 242.92 0 0.07 - - Mobile AL WE127 PEM 243.06 243.11 120.88 0.17 - - Mobile AL WE111 PFO 244.31 244.43 547.43 0.94 0.38 - Mobile AL WE114 PFO 244.42 244.47 137.65 0.16 0.09 - Mobile AL WE115 PFO 244.8 245.03 928.75 0.5 0.64 - Mobile AL WG107 PEM 246.7 246.79 321.59 0.76 - - Mobile AL WG108 PFO 246.92 246.98 129.73 0.24 0.09 - Mobile AL WG106 PFO 247.31 247.36 200.49 0.26 0.14 - Mobile AL WG105 PFO 247.41 247.42 86.83 0.23 0.06 - Mobile AL WG104 PFO 247.93 247.99 267.93 0.44 0.19 - Mobile AL WG103 PFO 248.09 248.09 0 0 0 - Mobile AL WE128 PFO 248.12 248.16 154.09 0.22 0.11 - Mobile AL WH101 PFO 251.85 251.95 469.82 1.01 0.33 - Mobile AL WE110 PFO 252.86 252.88 77.76 - Mobile AL WE138 PSS 255.79 255.84 153.2 0.1 0.04 Mobile AL WE133 PSS 256.98 257.29 1,495.64 2.65 0.35 Mobile AL WD271 PFO 259.61 259.98 1,601.239/ 2.81 1.11 - Mobile AL WR105 PFO 261.68* 261.82* 756.81 1.37 0.52 - 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
 E-11 

Table E-1 

Wetland Resource Impacts for the Proposed SESH Project 

Acres Affected 

MP Constr. Operation Impacts(

County State Field ID 

NWI 

Classification Begin End 

Centerline 

Crossing 

Distance Impacts (ac)1/

PFO Conv. 

To 

PEM/PSS3/

PSS Conv. 

To PEM 5/ 

Mobile AL WR105 PEM 261.82* 261.84* 101.9 0.18 - - Mobile AL WR102 PSS 261.93* 261.98* 278.64 0.42 - 0.06 Mobile AL WR102 PFO 261.98* 262.06* 391.76 0.28 0.27 - Mobile AL WE137 PFO 262.42* 262.46* 453.3 1.15 0.31 - Mobile AL WE137 PSS 262.46 263.32 4,491.13 7.62 - 1.03 Mobile AL WE131 PSS 263.32 266.45 16,412.26 28.56 3.79 Mobile AL WE118 PSS 266.74 268.65 9871.38 17.44 - 2.3 Mobile AL WE119 PSS 268.77 269.01 737.79 1.48 - 0.17 Mobile AL WE124 PEM 269.02* 1.157/ 493.658/ 4.23 - - Mobile AL WE124 PFO 269.02* 1.157/ 6,184.708/ 15.35 4.78 - 

TOTAL 238.76 54.29 10.23 

____________________________________________________________ 1/ Construction impacts include all Project construction areas, which include TWS, PE, ATWS, and aboveground facilities. 

2/ Operation impacts includes the pipeline permanent easement and within fenceline of aboveground facilities. 3/ PFO conversion calculated based on a 30 foot strip centered over the pipeline centerline. No PFO conversion impacts are attributable to aboveground 4/ Impact area is less than 0.005 acre and therefore is listed as 0.00 due to rounding. 5/ PSS conversion calculated based on a 10 foot strip centered over the pipeline centerline maintained as PEM. 

6/ Wetlands designated as open cut will utilize crossing methods 1, 2 or 3 as described in Section 2.3.2. Exact crossing method will be determined at tim

site conditions. 7/ MP associated with Rock Road Lateral 8/ Crossing distance on SESH Centerline and Rock Road Lateral 9/ Crossing distance comprised of multiple centerline crossings of the same wetland. * Indicates a milepost within a rerouted area 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
APPENDIX F 

ADDITIONAL TEMPORARY WORKSPACE, ACCESS ROADS, AND PIPEYARDS 

AND WAREYARDS 

Appendix F-1 Additional Temporary Workspace for the Proposed SESH Project 

Appendix F-2 Access Roads for the Proposed SESH Project 

Appendix F-3 Pipeyards and Wareyards for the Proposed SESH Project 

The acreage values presented have not changed from the Draft EIS. The proposed changes in 

acreage and impacts were found to be minimal.

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
APPENDIX F-1 

ADDITIONAL TEMPORARY WORKSPACE 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
F-1 

TABLE F-1 

Additional Temporary Workspace Utilized for the Proposed SESH Project 

County, State Milepost Description Total Acres Existing Land Use 

Richland, LA 0.17 Stream Crossing 0.03 Agricultural 

Richland, LA 0.17 Stream Crossing 0.05 Agricultural 

Richland, LA 0.23 HDD of Stream 0.10 Agricultural, Forest 

Richland, LA 0.27 HDD of Stream 0.12 Agricultural 

Richland, LA 0.55 HDD of Wetland 0.09 Open Land 

Madison, LA 0.55 HDD of Wetland 0.17 Open Land 

Madison, LA 0.68 Wetland Crossing 0.09 Open Land 

Madison, LA 0.68 Wetland Crossing 0.17 Open Land 

Madison, LA 0.83 Wetland Crossing 0.09 Open Land 

Madison, LA 0.83 Wetland Crossing 0.17 Open Land 

Madison, LA 0.93 Wetland and Road Crossing 0.11 Agricultural 

Madison, LA 0.93 Wetland and Road Crossing 0.12 Agricultural 

Madison, LA 1.28 Road Crossing 0.12 Agricultural 

Madison, LA 1.29 Road Crossing 0.06 Agricultural 

Madison, LA 1.31 Road Crossing 0.06 Agricultural 

Madison, LA 1.31 Road Crossing 0.12 Agricultural 

Madison, LA 1.53 HDD of Stream 0.03 Agricultural 

Madison, LA 1.53 HDD of Stream 0.05 Agricultural 

Madison, LA 1.66 Road Crossing 0.10 Forest 

Madison, LA 1.69 Road Crossing 0.12 Forest 

Madison, LA 1.75 Stream Crossing 0.10 Agricultural, Forest 

Madison, LA 1.78 Stream Crossing 0.11 Agricultural, Forest 

Madison, LA 1.92 HDD of Stream 0.03 Agricultural 

Madison, LA 1.92 HDD of Stream 0.05 Agricultural 

Madison, LA 2.00 Road Crossing 0.12 Agricultural 

Madison, LA 2.00 Road Crossing 0.11 Agricultural 

Madison, LA 2.02 Road Crossing 0.11 Agricultural 

Madison, LA 2.64 Stream Crossing 0.03 Agricultural 

Madison, LA 2.71 Access Road 0.02 Agricultural 

Madison, LA 2.73 Access Road 0.06 Agricultural 

Madison, LA 3.04 Access Road 0.07 Agricultural 

Madison, LA 3.05 Access Road 0.06 Agricultural 

Madison, LA 3.19 Ditch Crossing 0.03 Agricultural 

Madison, LA 3.23 Ditch Crossing 0.03 Agricultural 

Madison, LA 3.75 Access Road 0.07 Agricultural 

Madison, LA 3.76 Access Road 0.06 Agricultural 

Madison, LA 3.83 HDD of Stream 0.05 Agricultural 

Madison, LA 3.83 HDD of Stream 0.07 Agricultural 

Madison, LA 4.10 Stream and Wetland Crossing 0.12 Agricultural 

Madison, LA 4.13 Stream and Wetland Crossing 0.10 Agricultural 

Madison, LA 4.18 Road Crossing 0.05 Agricultural 

Madison, LA 4.22 Road Crossing 0.08 Agricultural 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
F-2 

TABLE F-1 

Additional Temporary Workspace Utilized for the Proposed SESH Project 

County, State Milepost Description Total Acres Existing Land Use 

Madison, LA 4.22 Road Crossing 0.26 Agricultural 

Madison, LA 4.26 Wetland Crossing 0.24 Agricultural 

Madison, LA 4.32 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Agricultural 

Madison, LA 4.34 Wetland Crossing 0.22 Agricultural 

Madison, LA 4.43 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Agricultural 

Madison, LA 4.49 Wetland Crossing 0.11 Agricultural 

Madison, LA 4.60 Stream Crossing 0.03 Agricultural 

Madison, LA 4.64 Road Crossing 0.03 Agricultural 

Madison, LA 5.04 Road Crossing 0.06 Agricultural 

Madison, LA 5.06 Pipeline Crossing 0.06 Agricultural 

Madison, LA 5.50 Stream and Pipeline Crossing 0.03 Agricultural 

Madison, LA 5.57 Stream Crossing 0.30 Agricultural 

Madison, LA 5.58 Stream Crossing 0.03 Open Land 

Madison, LA 5.99 Road Crossing 0.12 Open Land 

Madison, LA 6.04 Road Crossing 0.11 Open Land 

Madison, LA 6.45 Waterbody Crossing 0.03 Open Land 

Madison, LA 6.49 Waterbody Crossing 0.03 Open Land 

Madison, LA 6.74 Road Crossing 0.07 Open Land 

Madison, LA 6.76 Road Crossing 0.07 Open Land 

Madison, LA 7.05 Stream Crossing 0.03 Open Land 

Madison, LA 7.08 Stream Crossing 0.03 Open Land 

Madison, LA 7.15 Wetland Crossing 0.03 Open Land 

Madison, LA 7.22 Wetland Crossing 0.03 Open Land 

Madison, LA 7.45 Road Crossing 0.08 Open Land 

Madison, LA 7.47 Road Crossing 0.08 Agricultural, Open Land 

Madison, LA 7.50 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Agricultural 

Madison, LA 7.50 Wetland Crossing 0.12 Agricultural 

Madison, LA 7.63 Wetland Crossing 0.11 Agricultural 

Madison, LA 7.64 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Agricultural 

Madison, LA 8.13 Stream and Road Crossing 0.03 Open Land 

Madison, LA 8.13 Stream and Road Crossing 0.03 Open Land 

Madison, LA 9.08 Road Crossing 0.12 Open Land 

Madison, LA 9.92 Wetland Crossing 0.12 Open Land 

Madison, LA 9.92 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Open Land 

Madison, LA 9.99 Wetland Crossing 0.11 Open Land 

Madison, LA 10.00 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Open Land 

Madison, LA 10.04 Road Crossing 0.11 Agricultural, Open Land 

Madison, LA 10.09 Stream Crossing 0.03 Agricultural, Open Land 

Madison, LA 10.12 Stream Crossing 0.03 Open Land 

Madison, LA 10.19 Stream Crossing 0.03 Open Land 

Madison, LA 10.23 Stream Crossing 0.03 Open Land 

Madison, LA 10.25 Access Road 0.06 Open Land 

Madison, LA 10.26 Access Road 0.06 Open Land 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
F-3 

TABLE F-1 

Additional Temporary Workspace Utilized for the Proposed SESH Project 

County, State Milepost Description Total Acres Existing Land Use 

Madison, LA 10.33 Stream Crossing 0.03 Open Land 

Madison, LA 10.36 Stream Crossing 0.03 Open Land 

Madison, LA 10.40 Access Road 0.06 Open Land 

Madison, LA 10.42 Access Road 0.07 Open Land 

Madison, LA 10.57 Access Road 0.12 Open Land 

Madison, LA 10.60 Access Road 0.12 Open Land 

Madison, LA 10.77 HDD of Stream 0.07 Open Land 

Madison, LA 10.77 HDD of Stream and Access 

Road 

0.16 Open Land 

Madison, LA 11.06 HDD of Stream 0.03 Agricultural 

Madison, LA 11.06 HDD of Stream 0.05 Agricultural 

Madison, LA 11.13 Road Crossing 0.15 Agricultural 

Madison, LA 11.17 Road Crossing 0.17 Agricultural 

Madison, LA 11.19 Road Crossing 0.07 Agricultural 

Madison, LA 11.97 HDD of Waterbody 0.07 Agricultural 

Madison, LA 11.97 HDD of Waterbody 0.05 Agricultural 

Madison, LA 12.09 Access Road 0.12 Agricultural 

Madison, LA 12.18 Access Road 0.12 Agricultural 

Madison, LA 12.29* HDD of Stream 0.05 Agricultural 

Madison, LA 12.29* HDD of Stream 0.07 Agricultural 

Madison, LA 12.69 Access Road 0.06 Agricultural 

Madison, LA 12.71 Access Road 0.08 Agricultural 

Madison, LA 12.95 Access Road 0.09 Agricultural 

Madison, LA 12.98 Access Road 0.07 Agricultural 

Madison, LA 13.21 Road Crossing 0.07 Agricultural 

Madison, LA 13.23 Road Crossing 0.07 Agricultural 

Madison, LA 13.54 Access Road 0.07 Agricultural 

Madison, LA 13.55 Access Road 0.07 Open Land 

Madison, LA 13.84 Access Road 0.06 Agricultural, Open Land 

Madison, LA 13.85 Access Road 0.06 Agricultural 

Madison, LA 14.31 Road Crossing 0.13 Agricultural 

Madison, LA 14.34 Road Crossing 0.12 Agricultural 

Madison, LA 14.54 Stream and Wetland Crossing 0.10 Agricultural 

Madison, LA 14.58 Stream and Wetland Crossing 0.11 Agricultural 

Madison, LA 14.71 Stream and Wetland Crossing 0.12 Open Land 

Madison, LA 14.72 Stream and Wetland Crossing 0.10 Open Land 

Madison, LA 15.49 Road Crossing 0.07 Agricultural, Industrial/Commercial 

Madison, LA 15.50 Road Crossing 0.07 Agricultural, Industrial/Commercial 

Madison, LA 16.00 Road Crossing 0.07 Agricultural, Industrial/Commercial 

Madison, LA 16.01 Road Crossing 0.07 Agricultural, Industrial/Commercial 

Madison, LA 16.51 Road Crossing 0.07 Agricultural, Industrial/Commercial 

Madison, LA 16.53 Road Crossing 0.07 Agricultural, Industrial/Commercial 

Madison, LA 16.92 Road Crossing 0.09 Agricultural, Industrial/Commercial 

Madison, LA 16.95 Road Crossing 0.14 Agricultural, Industrial/Commercial 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
F-4 

TABLE F-1 

Additional Temporary Workspace Utilized for the Proposed SESH Project 

County, State Milepost Description Total Acres Existing Land Use 

Madison, LA 17.19 Road Crossing 0.14 Agricultural 

Madison, LA 17.24 Road Crossing 0.07 Agricultural 

Madison, LA 17.25 Stream Crossing 0.03 Agricultural 

Madison, LA 17.41 Stream Crossing 0.58 Agricultural 

Madison, LA 17.51 Access Road 0.12 Agricultural 

Madison, LA 17.59 Stream Crossing 0.12 Agricultural 

Madison, LA 17.66 Stream Crossing 0.03 Agricultural 

Madison, LA 17.77 Road Crossing 0.04 Agricultural 

Madison, LA 17.77 Road Crossing 0.12 Agricultural 

Madison, LA 17.80 Road Crossing 0.05 Agricultural 

Madison, LA 17.80 Road Crossing 0.08 Agricultural 

Madison, LA 18.04 Wetland, Waterbody and 

Stream Crossing 

0.10 Agricultural 

Madison, LA 18.05 Wetland, Waterbody and 

Stream Crossing 

0.11 Industrial/Commercial 

Madison, LA 18.22 Access Road and Stream 

Crossing 

0.18 Agricultural 

Madison, LA 18.27 Road and Stream Crossing 0.11 Agricultural, Industrial/Commercial 

Madison, LA 18.30 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Agricultural 

Madison, LA 18.35 Wetland Crossing 0.11 Agricultural, Industrial/Commercial 

Madison, LA 18.36 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Agricultural 

Madison, LA 18.43 Wetland Crossing 0.11 Agricultural 

Madison, LA 18.44 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Agricultural 

Madison, LA 18.48 Stream Crossing 0.03 Agricultural 

Madison, LA 18.54 Stream Crossing and Access 

Road 

0.05 Agricultural 

Madison, LA 19.31 Road Crossing 0.06 Agricultural 

Madison, LA 19.32 Road Crossing 0.06 Agricultural 

Madison, LA 19.81 Road Crossing 0.07 Industrial/Commercial 

Madison, LA 19.83 Road Crossing 0.07 Industrial/Commercial 

Madison, LA 20.27 Road Crossing 0.13 Industrial/Commercial 

Madison, LA 20.30 Road Crossing 0.13 Industrial/Commercial 

Madison, LA 21.30 Access Road 0.14 Industrial/Commercial 

Madison, LA 21.58 Access Road 0.06 Agricultural, Industrial/Commercial 

Madison, LA 21.60 Access Road 0.06 Agricultural, Industrial/Commercial 

Madison, LA 21.62 Pipeline Crossing 0.19 Agricultural 

Madison, LA 21.79 Road Crossing 0.03 Agricultural 

Madison, LA 21.79 Road Crossing 0.10 Industrial/Commercial 

Madison, LA 21.82 Road Crossing 0.05 Agricultural 

Madison, LA 21.82 Road Crossing 0.08 Industrial/Commercial 

Madison, LA 21.88 Pipeline Crossing 0.07 Industrial/Commercial 

Madison, LA 21.91 Pipeline Crossing 0.06 Industrial/Commercial 

Madison, LA 21.94 Pipeline Crossing 0.18 Agricultural 

Madison, LA 22.27 Road Crossing 0.04 Agricultural, Industrial/Commercial 

Madison, LA 22.27 Road Crossing 0.14 Agricultural 

Madison, LA 22.30 Road Crossing 0.06 Agricultural, Industrial/Commercial 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
F-5 

TABLE F-1 

Additional Temporary Workspace Utilized for the Proposed SESH Project 

County, State Milepost Description Total Acres Existing Land Use 

Madison, LA 22.31 Road Crossing 0.09 Agricultural 

Madison, LA 22.57 Access Road 0.07 Agricultural 

Madison, LA 22.58 Access Road 0.08 Agricultural 

Madison, LA 23.29 Access Road 0.09 Agricultural 

Madison, LA 23.31 Access Road 0.08 Agricultural 

Madison, LA 23.40 Access Road 0.06 Agricultural 

Madison, LA 23.42 Access Road 0.06 Agricultural 

Madison, LA 23.70 Access Road 0.05 Agricultural 

Madison, LA 23.72 Stream Crossing 0.05 Agricultural 

Madison, LA 23.74 Stream Crossing 0.05 Agricultural 

Madison, LA 24.05 Stream and Road Crossing 0.03 Agricultural 

Madison, LA 24.10 Stream and Road Crossing 0.03 Agricultural 

Madison, LA 24.18 Access Road 0.06 Agricultural 

Madison, LA 24.19 Access Road 0.06 Agricultural 

Madison, LA 24.32 Access Road 0.06 Agricultural 

Madison, LA 24.34 Access Road 0.06 Agricultural 

Madison, LA 24.61 Stream Crossing 0.03 Agricultural 

Madison, LA 24.64 Stream Crossing 0.03 Agricultural 

Madison, LA 24.77 Access Road 0.06 Agricultural 

Madison, LA 24.79 Access Road 0.07 Agricultural 

Madison, LA 24.93 Access Road 0.07 Agricultural 

Madison, LA 24.94 Access Road 0.07 Agricultural 

Madison, LA 25.29 Road Crossing 0.11 Agricultural 

Madison, LA 25.29 Road Crossing 0.06 Agricultural 

Madison, LA 25.72 Road Crossing 0.09 Agricultural 

Madison, LA 26.17 Road and Utility Crossing 0.03 Agricultural 

Madison, LA 26.18 Road and Utility Crossing 0.16 Agricultural 

Madison, LA 26.21 Road and Utility Crossing 0.09 Agricultural 

Madison, LA 26.22 Road and Utility Crossing 0.09 Agricultural 

Madison, LA 26.98 Road Crossing 0.15 Agricultural 

Madison, LA 27.09 Road and Utility Crossing 0.09 Agricultural 

Madison, LA 27.14 Road and Utility Crossing 0.14 Agricultural 

Madison, LA 27.69 Access Road 0.08 Agricultural 

Madison, LA 27.71 Access Road 0.08 Agricultural 

Madison, LA 28.54 Road and Utility Crossing 0.14 Agricultural 

Madison, LA 28.58 Road and Utility Crossing 0.09 Agricultural 

Madison, LA 29.02 Stream Crossing 0.03 Agricultural 

Madison, LA 29.05 Stream Crossing 0.03 Agricultural 

Madison, LA 29.05 Stream Crossing 0.03 Agricultural 

Madison, LA 29.32 Road Crossing 0.09 Agricultural 

Madison, LA 29.33 Road Crossing 0.09 Agricultural 

Madison, LA 29.36 Road Crossing 0.18 Agricultural 

Madison, LA 29.37 Road Crossing 0.04 Agricultural 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
F-6 

TABLE F-1 

Additional Temporary Workspace Utilized for the Proposed SESH Project 

County, State Milepost Description Total Acres Existing Land Use 

Madison, LA 29.85 Access Road 0.09 Agricultural 

Madison, LA 29.88 Access Road 0.10 Agricultural 

Madison, LA 30.46 Stream Crossing 0.03 Agricultural 

Madison, LA 30.47 Stream Crossing 0.03 Agricultural 

Madison, LA 30.49 Stream Crossing 0.03 Agricultural 

Madison, LA 30.50 Stream Crossing 0.03 Agricultural 

Madison, LA 31.16 Road Crossing 0.03 Agricultural 

Madison, LA 31.18 Road Crossing 0.03 Agricultural 

Madison, LA 31.21 Road Crossing 0.03 Agricultural 

Madison, LA 31.24 Road Crossing 0.03 Agricultural 

Madison, LA 31.59 Road, Wetland and Stream 

Crossing 

0.21 Agricultural 

Madison, LA 32.68 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Agricultural 

Madison, LA 32.69 Wetland Crossing 0.12 Agricultural 

Madison, LA 32.75 Road Crossing 0.06 Agricultural 

Madison, LA 32.76 Road Crossing 0.06 Agricultural 

Madison, LA 33.11 Levee Crossing 3.89 Agricultural/Forest 

Madison, LA 33.11 Levee Crossing 4.11 Agricultural/Forest 

Madison, LA 35.13 Access Road 0.06 Forest 

Madison, LA 35.15 Access Road 0.06 Forest 

Madison, LA 35.32 HDD of Stream 0.11 Forest 

Madison, LA 35.32 HDD of Stream 0.23 Forest 

Warren, MS 36.37 HDD of Stream 0.11 Industrial/Commercial 

Warren, MS 36.37 HDD of Stream 0.23 Industrial/Commercial 

Warren, MS 36.46 HDD pull back 3.65 Open Land 

Warren, MS 36.67 Road and Utility Crossing 0.04 Open Land 

Warren, MS 36.70 Road and Utility Crossing 0.03 Agricultural 

Warren, MS 37.36 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Warren, MS 37.39 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Warren, MS 37.89 Access Road 0.07 Forest 

Warren, MS 37.91 Access Road 0.07 Forest 

Warren, MS 37.95 Wetland Crossing 0.12 Open Land 

Warren, MS 38.01 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Open Land 

Warren, MS 38.03 Wetland Crossing 0.12 Open Land 

Warren, MS 38.07 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Open Land 

Warren, MS 38.46 Wetland and Stream Crossing 0.10 Forest, Open Land 

Warren, MS 38.48 Wetland and Stream Crossing 0.12 Open Land 

Warren, MS 39.21 Wetland Crossing 0.12 Agricultural 

Warren, MS 39.24 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Agricultural 

Warren, MS 39.73 Road Crossing 0.07 Forest, Residential 

Warren, MS 39.74 Road Crossing 0.19 Forest, Residential 

Warren, MS 39.81 Road Crossing 0.28 Agricultural, Residential 

Warren, MS 39.82 Road Crossing 0.23 Agricultural, Residential 

Warren, MS 39.86 Access Road 0.06 Forest 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
F-7 

TABLE F-1 

Additional Temporary Workspace Utilized for the Proposed SESH Project 

County, State Milepost Description Total Acres Existing Land Use 

Warren, MS 39.87 Access Road 0.06 Forest 

Warren, MS 40.10 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Warren, MS 40.13 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Warren, MS 40.24 Pipe Bending 0.06 Forest 

Warren, MS 40.57 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Warren, MS 40.60 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Warren, MS 40.80 Access Road 0.07 Forest 

Warren, MS 40.81 Access Road 0.07 Forest 

Warren, MS 40.81 Access Road 0.08 Forest 

Warren, MS 40.94 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Warren, MS 40.97 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Warren, MS 41.16 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Warren, MS 41.20 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Warren, MS 41.23 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Warren, MS 41.25 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Warren, MS 41.32 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Warren, MS 41.35 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Warren, MS 41.52 Pipe Bending 0.06 Forest 

Warren, MS 41.79 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Warren, MS 41.82 Stream Crossing 0.03 Residential 

Warren, MS 41.88 Road Crossing 0.04 Residential 

Warren, MS 41.90 Road Crossing 0.17 Residential 

Warren, MS 41.92 Road Crossing 0.09 Forest 

Warren, MS 41.93 Road Crossing 0.10 Forest, Residential 

Warren, MS 41.98 Road Crossing 0.06 Forest 

Warren, MS 42.22 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Warren, MS 42.27 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Warren, MS 42.56 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Warren, MS 42.59 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Warren, MS 42.70 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Warren, MS 42.73 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Warren, MS 42.77 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Warren, MS 42.80 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Warren, MS 42.90 Access Road 0.16 Agricultural, Forest 

Warren, MS 42.93 Access Road 0.16 Agricultural 

Warren, MS 42.95 Access Road 0.16 Agricultural 

Warren, MS 42.98 Access Road 0.16 Agricultural 

Warren, MS 43.34 Stream Crossing 0.03 Agricultural 

Warren, MS 43.38 Stream Crossing 0.03 Agricultural 

Warren, MS 43.63 Wetland and Stream Crossing 0.10 Forest 

Warren, MS 43.64 Wetland and Stream Crossing 0.12 Forest 

Warren, MS 43.72 Wetland and Stream Crossing 0.10 Forest 

Warren, MS 43.72 Wetland and Stream Crossing 0.12 Forest 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
F-8 

TABLE F-1 

Additional Temporary Workspace Utilized for the Proposed SESH Project 

County, State Milepost Description Total Acres Existing Land Use 

Warren, MS 44.21 Access Road 0.10 Agricultural 

Warren, MS 44.22 Access Road 0.12 Agricultural 

Warren, MS 44.27 HDD of Stream and Wetland 0.07 Forest 

Warren, MS 44.27 HDD of Stream and Wetland 0.05 Forest 

Warren, MS 44.59 Access Road 0.17 Forest 

Claiborne, MS 44.79 HDD of Stream and Wetland 0.07 Forest 

Claiborne, MS 44.79 HDD of Stream and Wetland 0.05 Forest 

Claiborne, MS 44.92 Access Road 0.08 Agricultural 

Claiborne, MS 44.92 Access Road 0.04 Agricultural, Forest 

Claiborne, MS 44.95 Access Road 0.10 Agricultural 

Claiborne, MS 44.95 Access Road 0.04 Agricultural 

Claiborne, MS 45.04 Stream Crossing 0.03 Agricultural, Forest 

Claiborne, MS 45.08 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Claiborne, MS 45.31 Stream Crossing 0.06 Forest 

Claiborne, MS 45.32 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Claiborne, MS 45.35 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Claiborne, MS 45.43 Stream Crossing 0.12 Forest 

Claiborne, MS 45.63 Access Road 0.07 Forest 

Claiborne, MS 45.65 Access Road 0.05 Forest 

Claiborne, MS 45.76 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Claiborne, MS 45.79 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Claiborne, MS 45.84 Pipe Bending 0.06 Forest 

Claiborne, MS 45.88 Access Road 0.09 Forest 

Claiborne, MS 45.90 Access Road 0.08 Forest 

Claiborne, MS 45.97 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Claiborne, MS 46.00 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Claiborne, MS 46.05 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Claiborne, MS 46.09 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Claiborne, MS 46.21 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Claiborne, MS 46.24 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Claiborne, MS 46.37 Access Road 0.07 Forest 

Claiborne, MS 46.39 Access Road 0.05 Forest 

Claiborne, MS 46.42 Stream Crossing 0.06 Forest 

Claiborne, MS 46.48 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Claiborne, MS 46.51 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Claiborne, MS 46.61 Access Road 0.12 Forest 

Claiborne, MS 46.68 Access Road 0.11 Forest 

Claiborne, MS 46.79 Access Road 0.09 Forest, Open Land 

Claiborne, MS 46.80 Access Road 0.08 Open Land 

Claiborne, MS 46.82 Access Road 0.09 Forest, Open Land 

Claiborne, MS 46.83 Access Road 0.09 Open Land 

Claiborne, MS 46.95 Road Crossing 0.04 Open Land, Residential 

Claiborne, MS 46.97 Road Crossing 0.31 Forest, Open Land 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
F-9 

TABLE F-1 

Additional Temporary Workspace Utilized for the Proposed SESH Project 

County, State Milepost Description Total Acres Existing Land Use 

Claiborne, MS 47.00 Road Crossing 0.13 Forest 

Claiborne, MS 47.03 Road Crossing 0.10 Forest 

Claiborne, MS 47.07 Stream and Waterbody 

Crossing 

0.03 Forest 

Claiborne, MS 47.11 Stream and Waterbody 

Crossing 

0.03 Forest 

Claiborne, MS 47.22 Access Road 0.11 Forest 

Claiborne, MS 47.24 Access Road 0.12 Forest 

Claiborne, MS 47.38 Pipe Bending 0.06 Forest 

Claiborne, MS 47.49 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Claiborne, MS 47.52 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Claiborne, MS 47.55 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Claiborne, MS 47.55 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Claiborne, MS 47.98 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Claiborne, MS 48.00 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Claiborne, MS 48.36 Access Road 0.07 Forest 

Claiborne, MS 48.38 Access Road 0.08 Forest 

Claiborne, MS 48.39 Access Road 0.10 Forest 

Claiborne, MS 48.41 Access Road 0.08 Forest 

Claiborne, MS 48.45 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Claiborne, MS 48.48 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Claiborne, MS 48.51 Stream Crossing 0.06 Forest 

Claiborne, MS 48.69 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Claiborne, MS 48.70 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Claiborne, MS 48.80 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Claiborne, MS 48.80 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Claiborne, MS 48.96 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Claiborne, MS 49.00 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Claiborne, MS 49.34 Waterbody Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Claiborne, MS 49.39 Waterbody Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Claiborne, MS 49.72 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Claiborne, MS 49.77 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Claiborne, MS 49.86 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Claiborne, MS 49.89 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Claiborne, MS 49.90 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Claiborne, MS 49.93 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Claiborne, MS 50.04 Road Crossing 0.04 Forest 

Claiborne, MS 50.04 Road Crossing 0.08 Forest 

Claiborne, MS 50.07 Road Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Claiborne, MS 50.07 Road Crossing 0.13 Forest 

Claiborne, MS 50.11 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Claiborne, MS 50.51 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Claiborne, MS 50.54 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Claiborne, MS 50.58 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
F-10 

TABLE F-1 

Additional Temporary Workspace Utilized for the Proposed SESH Project 

County, State Milepost Description Total Acres Existing Land Use 

Claiborne, MS 50.62 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Claiborne, MS 50.69 Access Road 0.07 Forest 

Claiborne, MS 50.71 Access Road 0.07 Forest 

Claiborne, MS 50.80 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Claiborne, MS 50.84 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Claiborne, MS 50.89 Access Road 0.03 Forest 

Claiborne, MS 50.90 Access Road 0.05 Forest 

Claiborne, MS 50.92 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Claiborne, MS 50.92 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Claiborne, MS 50.94 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Claiborne, MS 50.98 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Claiborne, MS 50.98 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Claiborne, MS 51.15 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Claiborne, MS 51.16 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Claiborne, MS 51.18 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Claiborne, MS 51.25 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Claiborne, MS 51.29 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Claiborne, MS 51.33 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Claiborne, MS 51.34 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Claiborne, MS 51.36 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Claiborne, MS 51.53 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Claiborne, MS 51.55 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Claiborne, MS 51.57 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Claiborne, MS 51.58 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Claiborne, MS 51.78 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Claiborne, MS 51.81 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Claiborne, MS 51.82 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Claiborne, MS 51.84 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Claiborne, MS 51.99 Road Crossing 0.08 Forest 

Claiborne, MS 52.02 Road Crossing 0.04 Forest 

Claiborne, MS 52.20 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Claiborne, MS 52.20 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Claiborne, MS 52.23 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Claiborne, MS 52.24 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Claiborne, MS 52.32 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Claiborne, MS 52.36 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Claiborne, MS 52.36 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Claiborne, MS 52.45 Road Crossing 0.18 Forest 

Claiborne, MS 52.51 Road Crossing 0.11 Forest 

Claiborne, MS 52.84 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Claiborne, MS 52.88 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Claiborne, MS 52.89 Access Road 0.06 Forest 

Claiborne, MS 52.90 Access Road 0.06 Forest 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
F-11 

TABLE F-1 

Additional Temporary Workspace Utilized for the Proposed SESH Project 

County, State Milepost Description Total Acres Existing Land Use 

Claiborne, MS 53.10 Wetland Crossing 0.12 Forest 

Claiborne, MS 53.12 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Forest 

Claiborne, MS 53.16 Wetland Crossing 0.12 Forest 

Claiborne, MS 53.17 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Forest 

Claiborne, MS 53.20 Wetland Crossing 0.12 Forest 

Claiborne, MS 53.21 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Forest 

Claiborne, MS 53.25 Wetland Crossing 0.12 Forest 

Claiborne, MS 53.29 Stream and Wetland Crossing 0.06 Forest 

Claiborne, MS 53.31 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Claiborne, MS 53.35 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Claiborne, MS 53.38 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Claiborne, MS 53.65 Stream and Wetland Crossing 0.10 Agricultural, Forest 

Claiborne, MS 53.68 Stream and Wetland Crossing 0.11 Agricultural 

Claiborne, MS 53.83 Wetland and Road Crossing 0.17 Agricultural, Forest, Pine Plantation 

Claiborne, MS 53.86 Road Crossing 0.07 Pine Plantation 

Claiborne, MS 53.88 Road Crossing 0.10 Pine Plantation 

Claiborne, MS 53.95 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Pine Plantation 

Claiborne, MS 54.00 Wetland Crossing 0.11 Pine Plantation 

Claiborne, MS 54.12 Wetland Crossing 0.12 Pine Plantation 

Claiborne, MS 54.13 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Pine Plantation 

Claiborne, MS 54.26 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Claiborne, MS 54.30 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Claiborne, MS 54.31 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Claiborne, MS 54.61 Stream Crossing 0.03 Agricultural 

Claiborne, MS 54.66 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Claiborne, MS 54.66 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Claiborne, MS 54.92 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Claiborne, MS 54.96 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Claiborne, MS 55.08 Stream and Road Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Claiborne, MS 55.09 Stream and Road Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Claiborne, MS 55.12 Stream and Road Crossing 0.11 Agricultural 

Claiborne, MS 55.69 HDD of Stream 0.03 Agricultural 

Claiborne, MS 55.69 HDD of Stream 0.05 Agricultural 

Claiborne, MS 55.73 Road Crossing 0.08 Agricultural 

Claiborne, MS 55.73 Road Crossing 0.04 Agricultural 

Claiborne, MS 55.76 Road Crossing 0.09 Agricultural 

Claiborne, MS 55.76 Road Crossing 0.03 Agricultural 

Claiborne, MS 55.81 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Agricultural 

Claiborne, MS 55.81 Wetland Crossing 0.12 Agricultural 

Claiborne, MS 55.89 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Agricultural 

Claiborne, MS 55.90 Wetland Crossing 0.12 Agricultural 

Claiborne, MS 56.10 HDD of Stream 0.03 Forest 

Claiborne, MS 56.10 HDD of Stream 0.05 Forest 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
F-12 

TABLE F-1 

Additional Temporary Workspace Utilized for the Proposed SESH Project 

County, State Milepost Description Total Acres Existing Land Use 

Claiborne, MS 56.38 Road Crossing 0.06 Forest 

Claiborne, MS 56.39 Road Crossing 0.06 Forest 

Claiborne, MS 56.56 Road Crossing 0.06 Agricultural 

Claiborne, MS 56.57 Road Crossing 0.06 Agricultural 

Claiborne, MS 56.73 Road Crossing 0.06 Agricultural 

Claiborne, MS 56.74 Road Crossing 0.06 Agricultural 

Claiborne, MS 56.86 Stream Crossing 0.03 Agricultural 

Claiborne, MS 56.87 Stream Crossing 0.03 Agricultural 

Claiborne, MS 56.90 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Claiborne, MS 56.94 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Claiborne, MS 57.09 Access Road 0.12 Agricultural 

Claiborne, MS 57.11 Access Road 0.12 Agricultural 

Claiborne, MS 57.18 Access Road 0.12 Agricultural 

Claiborne, MS 57.55 Stream Crossing 0.03 Agricultural 

Claiborne, MS 57.64 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Claiborne, MS 57.98 Access Road 0.15 Agricultural 

Claiborne, MS 58.01 Access Road 0.15 Agricultural 

Claiborne, MS 58.27 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Claiborne, MS 58.27 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Claiborne, MS 58.30 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Claiborne, MS 58.39 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Claiborne, MS 58.40 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Claiborne, MS 58.43 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Claiborne, MS 58.52 Stream Crossing 0.03 Agricultural 

Claiborne, MS 58.53 Stream Crossing 0.03 Agricultural 

Claiborne, MS 58.56 Stream Crossing 0.03 Agricultural 

Claiborne, MS 58.88 Road Crossing 0.06 Agricultural 

Claiborne, MS 58.89 Road Crossing 0.08 Agricultural 

Claiborne, MS 58.91 Road Crossing 0.04 Agricultural, Forest 

Claiborne, MS 58.91 Road Crossing 0.08 Agricultural, Forest 

Claiborne, MS 58.98 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Claiborne, MS 59.01 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Claiborne, MS 59.03 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Claiborne, MS 59.32 Stream Crossing 0.03 Agricultural 

Claiborne, MS 59.33 Stream Crossing 0.03 Agricultural 

Claiborne, MS 59.36 Stream Crossing 0.03 Agricultural 

Claiborne, MS 59.40 Stream Crossing 0.03 Agricultural 

Claiborne, MS 59.41 Stream Crossing 0.03 Agricultural 

Claiborne, MS 59.44 Stream Crossing 0.03 Agricultural 

Claiborne, MS 59.67 Road Crossing 0.07 Agricultural 

Claiborne, MS 59.68 Road Crossing 0.07 Forest 

Claiborne, MS 59.78 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Claiborne, MS 59.81 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
F-13 

TABLE F-1 

Additional Temporary Workspace Utilized for the Proposed SESH Project 

County, State Milepost Description Total Acres Existing Land Use 

Claiborne, MS 59.96 Stream Crossing 0.06 Forest 

Copiah, MS 59.99 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Copiah, MS 60.18 Access Road 0.07 Forest 

Copiah, MS 60.19 Access Road 0.07 Forest 

Copiah, MS 60.54 Road Crossing 0.10 Forest 

Copiah, MS 60.56 Road Crossing 0.12 Forest 

Copiah, MS 60.59 Road Crossing 0.28 Forest 

Copiah, MS 60.61 Road Crossing 0.04 Forest 

Copiah, MS 60.78 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Copiah, MS 60.81 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Copiah, MS 61.27 Road Crossing 0.03 Agricultural 

Copiah, MS 61.27 Road Crossing 0.08 Agricultural 

Copiah, MS 61.29 Road Crossing 0.03 Agricultural 

Copiah, MS 61.29 Road Crossing 0.08 Agricultural 

Copiah, MS 61.32 Stream Crossing 0.03 Agricultural 

Copiah, MS 61.34 Stream Crossing 0.03 Agricultural 

Copiah, MS 61.76 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Copiah, MS 61.83 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Copiah, MS 61.93 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Copiah, MS 61.97 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Copiah, MS 62.01 HDD of Stream and Waterbody 0.05 Forest 

Copiah, MS 62.01 HDD of Stream and Waterbody 0.07 Forest 

Copiah, MS 62.39 HDD of Stream and Waterbody 0.07 Agricultural, Forest 

Copiah, MS 62.39 HDD of Stream and Waterbody 0.05 Forest 

Copiah, MS 62.68 Access Road 0.10 Agricultural, Forest 

Copiah, MS 62.69 Stream Crossing 0.03 Agricultural, Forest 

Copiah, MS 62.70 Access Road 0.11 Agricultural 

Copiah, MS 62.72 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Copiah, MS 62.94 Access Road 0.09 Forest 

Copiah, MS 62.96 Access Road 0.09 Agricultural 

Copiah, MS 63.17 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Copiah, MS 63.20 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Copiah, MS 63.75 Access Road 0.07 Agricultural 

Copiah, MS 63.77 Access Road 0.07 Agricultural 

Copiah, MS 63.77 Pipeline Crossing 0.06 Agricultural 

Copiah, MS 63.81 Stream Crossing 0.03 Agricultural 

Copiah, MS 63.84 Stream Crossing 0.03 Agricultural 

Copiah, MS 64.36 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Copiah, MS 64.42 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Copiah, MS 64.61 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Copiah, MS 64.65 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Copiah, MS 64.79 Road Crossing 0.06 Forest 

Copiah, MS 64.81 Road Crossing 0.06 Forest 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
F-14 

TABLE F-1 

Additional Temporary Workspace Utilized for the Proposed SESH Project 

County, State Milepost Description Total Acres Existing Land Use 

Copiah, MS 65.01 Wetland and Stream Crossing 0.10 Forest 

Copiah, MS 65.02 Wetland and Stream Crossing 0.12 Forest 

Copiah, MS 65.10 Wetland and Stream Crossing 0.10 Forest 

Copiah, MS 65.13 Wetland and Stream Crossing 0.12 Forest 

Copiah, MS 65.25 Road Crossing 0.08 Forest 

Copiah, MS 65.26 Road Crossing 0.08 Forest 

Copiah, MS 65.30 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Copiah, MS 65.34 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Copiah, MS 65.53 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Copiah, MS 65.57 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Copiah, MS 65.63 Road and Utility Crossing 0.09 Forest, Open Land 

Copiah, MS 65.65 Road and Utility Crossing 0.09 Open Land 

Copiah, MS 65.71 Stream Crossing 0.03 Open Land 

Copiah, MS 65.75 Stream Crossing 0.03 Open Land 

Copiah, MS 65.99 Stream Crossing 0.03 Open Land 

Copiah, MS 66.02 Stream Crossing 0.03 Open Land 

Copiah, MS 66.13 Stream Crossing 0.03 Open Land 

Copiah, MS 66.16 Stream Crossing 0.03 Open Land 

Copiah, MS 66.42 Wetland and Stream Crossing 0.11 Pine Plantation 

Copiah, MS 66.43 Wetland and Stream Crossing 0.10 Pine Plantation 

Copiah, MS 66.51 Wetland and Stream Crossing 0.10 Pine Plantation, Open Land 

Copiah, MS 66.52 Wetland and Stream Crossing 0.11 Open Land 

Copiah, MS 67.34 Stream Crossing 0.03 Pine Plantation 

Copiah, MS 67.38 Stream Crossing 0.03 Pine Plantation 

Copiah, MS 67.46 Road Crossing 0.09 Pine Plantation 

Copiah, MS 67.48 Road Crossing 0.07 Pine Plantation 

Copiah, MS 67.72 Stream Crossing 0.12 Forest 

Copiah, MS 67.73 Stream Crossing 0.17 Agricultural, Forest 

Copiah, MS 67.79 Stream Crossing 0.12 Agricultural 

Copiah, MS 67.80 Stream Crossing 0.17 Agricultural 

Copiah, MS 68.07 Access Road 0.11 Agricultural 

Copiah, MS 68.15 Stream Crossing 0.03 Agricultural 

Copiah, MS 68.20 Stream Crossing 0.03 Agricultural 

Copiah, MS 68.24 Access Road 0.11 Agricultural 

Copiah, MS 68.25 Access Road 0.08 Agricultural 

Copiah, MS 68.45 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Copiah, MS 68.48 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Copiah, MS 68.62 Access Road 0.07 Forest 

Copiah, MS 68.63 Access Road 0.07 Forest 

Copiah, MS 68.65 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Copiah, MS 68.69 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Copiah, MS 68.76 Access Road 0.04 Agricultural 

Copiah, MS 68.80 Access Road 0.15 Agricultural 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
F-15 

TABLE F-1 

Additional Temporary Workspace Utilized for the Proposed SESH Project 

County, State Milepost Description Total Acres Existing Land Use 

Copiah, MS 69.05 Stream Crossing 0.03 Agricultural 

Copiah, MS 69.08 Stream Crossing 0.03 Agricultural 

Copiah, MS 69.22 Stream Crossing 0.03 Agricultural 

Copiah, MS 69.25 Stream Crossing 0.03 Agricultural 

Copiah, MS 69.41 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Copiah, MS 69.45 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Copiah, MS 69.82 Stream Crossing 0.03 Agricultural 

Copiah, MS 69.86 Stream Crossing 0.03 Agricultural 

Copiah, MS 70.06 Road Crossing 0.03 Agricultural 

Copiah, MS 70.07 Road Crossing 0.09 Agricultural 

Copiah, MS 70.09 Road Crossing 0.04 Agricultural, Pine Plantation 

Copiah, MS 70.09 Road Crossing 0.08 Agricultural, Pine Plantation 

Copiah, MS 70.13 Stream Crossing 0.03 Pine Plantation 

Copiah, MS 70.17 Stream Crossing 0.03 Pine Plantation 

Copiah, MS 70.18 Road Crossing 0.06 Forest 

Copiah, MS 70.19 Road Crossing 0.06 Forest 

Copiah, MS 70.22 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Copiah, MS 70.25 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Copiah, MS 70.30 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Copiah, MS 70.34 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Copiah, MS 70.47 Road Crossing 0.06 Agricultural, Pine Plantation 

Copiah, MS 70.48 Road Crossing 0.06 Agricultural 

Copiah, MS 70.56 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Copiah, MS 70.60 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Copiah, MS 70.71 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Copiah, MS 70.75 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Copiah, MS 70.88 Stream Crossing 0.03 Agricultural 

Copiah, MS 70.92 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Copiah, MS 70.93 Road Crossing 0.06 Forest 

Copiah, MS 70.94 Road Crossing 0.07 Agricultural 

Copiah, MS 71.03 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Agricultural 

Copiah, MS 71.05 Wetland Crossing 0.12 Agricultural 

Copiah, MS 71.11 Wetland Crossing 0.12 Agricultural 

Copiah, MS 71.12 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Agricultural 

Copiah, MS 71.44 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Copiah, MS 71.44 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Copiah, MS 71.47 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Copiah, MS 71.48 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Copiah, MS 71.66 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Copiah, MS 71.69 Stream Crossing 0.03 Open Land 

Copiah, MS 71.89 Access Road 0.06 Open Land 

Copiah, MS 71.90 Access Road 0.06 Open Land 

Copiah, MS 72.02 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Agricultural 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
F-16 

TABLE F-1 

Additional Temporary Workspace Utilized for the Proposed SESH Project 

County, State Milepost Description Total Acres Existing Land Use 

Copiah, MS 72.03 Wetland Crossing 0.11 Agricultural 

Copiah, MS 72.08 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Agricultural 

Copiah, MS 72.09 Wetland Crossing 0.12 Agricultural 

Copiah, MS 72.16 Wetland Crossing 0.12 Agricultural 

Copiah, MS 72.17 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Agricultural 

Copiah, MS 72.33 Wetland and Road Crossing 0.37 Open Land 

Copiah, MS 72.36 Access Road 0.17 Open Land 

Copiah, MS 72.43 Stream Crossing 0.03 Open Land 

Copiah, MS 72.48 Stream Crossing 0.03 Open Land 

Copiah, MS 72.50 HDD Stream Crossing 0.14 Open Land 

Copiah,MS 72.50 HDD Stream Crossing 0.14 Open Land 

Copiah, MS 72.88 HDD Stream Crossing 0.11 Open Land 

Copiah, MS 72.88 HDD Stream Crossing 0.06 Open Land 

Copiah, MS 72.92 Access Road 0.08 Open Land 

Copiah, MS 72.98 Access Road 0.08 Open Land 

Copiah, MS 73.25 Road and Stream Crossing 0.27 Forest 

Copiah, MS 73.28 Road and Stream Crossing 0.12 Forest 

Copiah, MS 73.30 Road Crossing 0.10 Forest 

Copiah, MS 73.47 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Copiah, MS 73.50 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Copiah, MS 73.58 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Copiah, MS 73.61 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Copiah, MS 73.63 Pipeline and Road Crossing 0.06 Forest, Industrial/Commercial 

Copiah, MS 73.63 Pipeline and Road Crossing 0.06 Forest, Industrial/Commercial 

Copiah, MS 73.67 Road Crossing 0.06 Forest 

Copiah, MS 73.71 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Copiah, MS 73.75 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Copiah, MS 73.87 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Copiah, MS 73.91 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Copiah, MS 74.14 Stream and Wetland Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Copiah, MS 74.17 Stream and Wetland Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Copiah, MS 74.20 Stream and Wetland Crossing 0.08 Forest 

Copiah, MS 74.22 Stream and Wetland Crossing 0.07 Forest 

Copiah, MS 74.29 Wetland Crossing 0.08 Forest 

Copiah, MS 74.30 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Forest 

Copiah, MS 74.37 Wetland Crossing 0.14 Forest 

Copiah, MS 74.44 Wetland Crossing 0.14 Forest 

Copiah, MS 74.45 Wetland Crossing 0.14 Forest 

Copiah, MS 74.51 Wetland Crossing 0.11 Forest 

Copiah, MS 74.51 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Forest 

Copiah, MS 74.57 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Copiah, MS 74.61 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Copiah, MS 74.75 Road Crossing 0.07 Forest, Open Land 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
F-17 

TABLE F-1 

Additional Temporary Workspace Utilized for the Proposed SESH Project 

County, State Milepost Description Total Acres Existing Land Use 

Copiah, MS 74.76 Road Crossing 0.07 Open Land 

Copiah, MS 75.20 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Copiah, MS 75.24 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Copiah, MS 75.69 Road Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Copiah, MS 75.69 Road Crossing 0.09 Forest 

Copiah, MS 75.72 Road Crossing 0.04 Forest 

Copiah, MS 75.72 Road Crossing 0.08 Forest 

Copiah, MS 76.03 Wetland and Stream Crossing 0.11 Forest 

Copiah, MS 76.06 Wetland and Stream Crossing 0.10 Forest 

Copiah, MS 76.11 Wetland and Stream Crossing 0.12 Forest 

Copiah, MS 76.12 Wetland and Stream Crossing 0.10 Forest 

Copiah, MS 76.24 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Copiah, MS 76.39 Stream and Wetland Crossing 0.10 Forest 

Copiah, MS 76.47 Stream and Wetland Crossing 0.11 Forest, Open Land 

Copiah, MS 76.70 Stream and Wetland Crossing 0.06 Forest 

Copiah, MS 76.70 Stream and Wetland Crossing 0.11 Forest 

Copiah, MS 76.74 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Copiah, MS 76.89 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Copiah, MS 76.93 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Copiah, MS 76.99 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Copiah, MS 77.03 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Copiah, MS 77.19 Wetland and Road Crossing 0.10 Forest 

Copiah, MS 77.20 Wetland and Road Crossing 0.05 Forest 

Copiah, MS 77.25 Wetland and Road Crossing 0.05 Forest, Industrial/Commercial 

Copiah, MS 77.25 Wetland and Road Crossing 0.08 Forest, Industrial/Commercial 

Copiah, MS 77.30 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Copiah, MS 77.35 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Copiah, MS 77.76 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Copiah, MS 77.80 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Copiah, MS 77.84 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Copiah, MS 78.15 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Copiah, MS 78.18 Stream Crossing 0.03 Open Land 

Copiah, MS 78.57 Road Crossing 0.03 Open Land 

Copiah, MS 78.57 Road Crossing 0.12 Open Land 

Copiah, MS 78.60 Road and Stream Crossing 0.04 Forest 

Copiah, MS 78.61 Road and Stream Crossing 0.12 Forest, Open Land 

Copiah, MS 78.67 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Copiah, MS 79.03 Access Road 0.09 Forest 

Copiah, MS 79.04 Access Road 0.09 Forest 

Copiah, MS 79.12 Access Road 0.21 Forest 

Copiah, MS 79.28 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest, Open Land 

Copiah, MS 79.31 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Copiah, MS 79.54 Road Crossing 0.09 Forest 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
F-18 

TABLE F-1 

Additional Temporary Workspace Utilized for the Proposed SESH Project 

County, State Milepost Description Total Acres Existing Land Use 

Copiah, MS 79.54 Road Crossing 0.07 Forest 

Copiah, MS 79.57 Road Crossing 0.12 Forest 

Copiah, MS 79.57 Road Crossing 0.04 Forest 

Copiah, MS 79.79 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Copiah, MS 79.84 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Copiah, MS 80.34 Road Crossing 0.04 Forest 

Copiah, MS 80.34 Road Crossing 0.11 Forest 

Copiah, MS 80.37 Road Crossing 0.06 Forest 

Copiah, MS 80.37 Road Crossing 0.08 Forest 

Copiah, MS 80.40 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Copiah, MS 80.45 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Copiah, MS 80.58 Stream Crossing 0.06 Forest 

Copiah, MS 80.58 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Copiah, MS 80.62 Road Crossing 0.16 Forest, Industrial/Commercial 

Copiah, MS 80.62 Road Crossing 0.12 Forest, Industrial/Commercial 

Copiah, MS 80.68 Road Crossing 0.14 Industrial/Commercial, Open Land 

Copiah, MS 80.68 Road Crossing 0.07 Industrial/Commercial, Open Land 

Copiah, MS 80.72 Stream Crossing 0.03 Open Land 

Copiah, MS 80.74 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Copiah, MS 80.76 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Copiah, MS 80.94 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Forest 

Copiah, MS 80.95 Wetland Crossing 0.12 Forest 

Copiah, MS 81.00 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Forest 

Copiah, MS 81.01 Wetland Crossing 0.12 Forest 

Copiah, MS 81.03 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Copiah, MS 81.06 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Copiah, MS 81.12 Road Crossing 0.04 Forest 

Copiah, MS 81.12 Road Crossing 0.10 Forest 

Copiah, MS 81.14 Road Crossing 0.05 Forest 

Copiah, MS 81.15 Road Crossing 0.08 Forest 

Copiah, MS 81.29* Road Crossing 0.04 Forest 

Copiah, MS 81.30* Road Crossing 0.15 Forest 

Copiah, MS 81.33* Road Crossing 0.07 Forest 

Copiah, MS 81.33* Road Crossing 0.09 Forest 

Copiah, MS 81.39* Railroad Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Copiah, MS 81.39* Railroad Crossing 0.10 Forest 

Copiah, MS 81.41* Railroad Crossing 0.04 Forest 

Copiah, MS 81.42* Railroad Crossing 0.08 Forest 

Copiah, MS 81.85* Road Crossing 0.17 Forest 

Copiah, MS 81.90* Road Crossing 0.08 Forest 

Copiah, MS 81.90* Road Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Copiah, MS 81.94* Road Crossing 0.06 Forest 

Copiah, MS 82.36* Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
F-19 

TABLE F-1 

Additional Temporary Workspace Utilized for the Proposed SESH Project 

County, State Milepost Description Total Acres Existing Land Use 

Copiah, MS 82.39* Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Copiah, MS 82.62 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Copiah, MS 82.65 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Copiah, MS 82.79 Utility Crossing 0.12 Forest 

Copiah, MS 82.80 Utility Crossing 0.11 Forest, Industrial/Commercial 

Copiah, MS 83.09 Road Crossing 0.07 Forest 

Copiah, MS 83.11 Road Crossing 0.08 Forest 

Copiah, MS 83.20 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Copiah, MS 83.23 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Copiah, MS 83.49 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Copiah, MS 83.53 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Copiah, MS 83.74 Stream Crossing 0.03 Pine Plantation 

Copiah, MS 83.77 Stream Crossing 0.03 Open Land 

Copiah, MS 84.01 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest, Open Land 

Copiah, MS 84.04 Stream Crossing 0.03 Open Land 

Copiah, MS 84.08 Road Crossing 0.09 Open Land 

Copiah, MS 84.09 Road Crossing 0.06 Open Land 

Copiah, MS 84.11 Road Crossing 0.09 Agricultural 

Copiah, MS 84.12 Road Crossing 0.03 Agricultural 

Copiah, MS 84.47* Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Copiah, MS 84.52* Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Copiah, MS 84.60* Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Copiah, MS 84.63* Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Copiah, MS 84.70* Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Copiah, MS 84.76* Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Copiah, MS 84.95* Road Crossing 0.08 Forest 

Copiah, MS 84.96* Road Crossing 0.06 Forest 

Copiah, MS 85.00* Road Crossing 0.14 Forest 

Copiah, MS 85.03* Road Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Copiah, MS 85.12* Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Copiah, MS 85.16 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Copiah, MS 85.20 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Copiah, MS 85.27 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Copiah, MS 85.45 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Copiah, MS 85.50 Stream and Wetland Crossing 0.10 Forest 

Copiah, MS 85.50 Stream and Wetland Crossing 0.12 Forest 

Copiah, MS 85.56 Stream and Wetland Crossing 0.10 Forest, Open Land 

Copiah, MS 85.56 Stream and Wetland Crossing 0.11 Forest, Open Land 

Copiah, MS 85.59 Road Crossing 0.03 Open Land 

Copiah, MS 85.60 Road Crossing 0.09 Open Land 

Copiah, MS 85.62 Road Crossing 0.04 Forest 

Copiah, MS 85.62 Road Crossing 0.08 Forest 

Copiah, MS 85.82 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
F-20 

TABLE F-1 

Additional Temporary Workspace Utilized for the Proposed SESH Project 

County, State Milepost Description Total Acres Existing Land Use 

Copiah, MS 85.87 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Copiah, MS 86.02 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Copiah, MS 86.06 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Copiah, MS 86.08 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Copiah, MS 86.11 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Copiah, MS 86.13 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Copiah, MS 86.17 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Copiah, MS 86.33 Stream Crossing 0.03 Agricultural 

Copiah, MS 86.36 Stream Crossing 0.03 Agricultural 

Copiah, MS 86.41 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Copiah, MS 86.44 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest, Open Land 

Copiah, MS 86.61 Road Crossing 0.08 Forest, Open Land 

Copiah, MS 86.61 Road Crossing 0.05 Forest, Open Land 

Copiah, MS 86.63 Road Crossing 0.11 Forest 

Copiah, MS 86.64 Road Crossing 0.04 Forest 

Copiah, MS 86.68 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Copiah, MS 86.72 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Copiah, MS 87.06 Wetland Crossing 0.12 Forest 

Copiah, MS 87.07 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Forest 

Copiah, MS 87.11 Wetland Crossing 0.12 Forest, Open Land 

Copiah, MS 87.13 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Forest, Open Land 

Copiah, MS 87.33 Road Crossing 0.10 Agricultural, Forest 

Copiah, MS 87.34 Road Crossing 0.10 Agricultural, Forest 

Copiah, MS 87.37 Road Crossing 0.21 Forest 

Copiah, MS 87.39 Road Crossing 0.04 Forest 

Copiah, MS 87.57 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Copiah, MS 87.60 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Copiah, MS 88.08 Wetland and Stream Crossing 0.10 Forest 

Copiah, MS 88.08 Wetland and Stream Crossing 0.12 Forest 

Copiah, MS 88.17 Wetland and Stream Crossing 0.12 Forest 

Copiah, MS 88.19 Wetland and Stream Crossing 0.10 Forest 

Copiah, MS 88.25 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Copiah, MS 88.28 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Copiah, MS 88.50 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Copiah, MS 88.54 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Copiah, MS 88.57 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Copiah, MS 88.65 Road Crossing 0.08 Forest, Open Land 

Copiah, MS 88.65 Road Crossing 0.03 Open Land 

Copiah, MS 88.67 Road Crossing 0.04 Open Land 

Copiah, MS 88.67 Road Crossing 0.08 Open Land 

Copiah, MS 88.80 Road Crossing 0.08 Forest 

Copiah, MS 88.81 Road Crossing 0.08 Forest 

Copiah, MS 88.85 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
F-21 

TABLE F-1 

Additional Temporary Workspace Utilized for the Proposed SESH Project 

County, State Milepost Description Total Acres Existing Land Use 

Copiah, MS 88.89 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Copiah, MS 88.98 Access Road 0.08 Open Land 

Copiah, MS 89.00 Access Road 0.09 Open Land 

Copiah, MS 89.08 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Copiah, MS 89.08 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Copiah, MS 89.14 Stream Crossing 0.06 Forest 

Copiah, MS 89.25* Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Copiah, MS 89.31* Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Copiah, MS 89.34* Access Road 0.08 Forest 

Copiah, MS 89.39 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Copiah, MS 89.42 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Copiah, MS 89.66 Pipe Bending 0.06 Open Land 

Copiah, MS 89.71 Stream Crossing 0.03 Open Land 

Copiah, MS 89.75 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Copiah, MS 89.77 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Copiah, MS 89.79 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Copiah, MS 89.84 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Copiah, MS 89.88 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Copiah, MS 89.89 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Copiah, MS 90.18* Stream Crossing 0.03 Open Land 

Copiah, MS 90.19* Access Road 0.03 Open Land 

Copiah, MS 90.20* Stream Crossing 0.03 Open Land 

Copiah, MS 90.21* Stream Crossing 0.03 Open Land 

Copiah, MS 90.29 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Copiah, MS 90.33 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Copiah, MS 90.60 Stream and Wetland Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Copiah, MS 90.62 Stream and Wetland Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Copiah, MS 90.70 Stream and Wetland Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Copiah, MS 90.77 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest, Open Land 

Copiah, MS 90.81 Stream Crossing 0.03 Open Land 

Copiah, MS 90.84 Road Crossing 0.09 Open Land 

Copiah, MS 90.84 Road Crossing 0.05 Open Land 

Copiah, MS 90.87 Road Crossing 0.10 Open Land 

Copiah, MS 90.87 Road Crossing 0.04 Open Land 

Copiah, MS 91.10 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Copiah, MS 91.15 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest, Open Land 

Copiah, MS 91.20 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest, Open Land 

Copiah, MS 91.24 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Copiah, MS 91.44 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Copiah, MS 91.48 Stream Crossing 0.06 Forest 

Copiah, MS 91.52 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Copiah, MS 91.54 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Copiah, MS 91.57 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
F-22 

TABLE F-1 

Additional Temporary Workspace Utilized for the Proposed SESH Project 

County, State Milepost Description Total Acres Existing Land Use 

Copiah, MS 92.14 Road Crossing 0.03 Open Land 

Copiah, MS 92.14 Road Crossing 0.08 Open Land 

Copiah, MS 92.17 Road Crossing 0.04 Open Land 

Copiah, MS 92.17 Road Crossing 0.08 Open Land 

Copiah, MS 92.35 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Copiah, MS 92.38 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Copiah, MS 92.39 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Copiah, MS 92.44 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Copiah, MS 92.45 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Copiah, MS 92.48 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Copiah, MS 92.49 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Copiah, MS 92.55 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Copiah, MS 92.59 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Copiah, MS 92.96 Road Crossing 0.04 Forest 

Copiah, MS 92.97 Road Crossing 0.17 Forest 

Copiah, MS 92.99 Road Crossing 0.08 Forest 

Copiah, MS 93.00 Road Crossing 0.09 Forest 

Copiah, MS 93.20 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Copiah, MS 93.26 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Copiah, MS 93.76 Stream Crossing 0.06 Forest 

Copiah, MS 93.86 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Copiah, MS 93.89 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Copiah, MS 94.14 Access Road 0.08 Pine Plantation 

Copiah, MS 94.16 Access Road 0.07 Pine Plantation 

Copiah, MS 94.40 Access Road 0.07 Pine Plantation 

Copiah, MS 94.41 Access Road 0.08 Pine Plantation 

Copiah, MS 94.54 Access Road 0.09 Pine Plantation 

Copiah, MS 94.56 Access Road 0.09 Forest 

Copiah, MS 94.59 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Copiah, MS 94.65 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Copiah, MS 94.69 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Copiah, MS 95.00 Stream Crossing 0.06 Forest 

Copiah, MS 95.22 Stream Crossing 0.06 Forest 

Copiah, MS 95.37 Road Crossing 0.08 Forest 

Copiah, MS 95.38 Road Crossing 0.06 Forest 

Copiah, MS 95.47 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Copiah, MS 95.50 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Copiah, MS 95.56 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Copiah, MS 95.60 Stream Crossing 0.03 Open Land 

Copiah, MS 95.75 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest, Open Land 

Copiah, MS 95.79 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Copiah, MS 95.99 Access Road 0.07 Forest 

Copiah, MS 96.00 Access Road 0.07 Forest 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
F-23 

TABLE F-1 

Additional Temporary Workspace Utilized for the Proposed SESH Project 

County, State Milepost Description Total Acres Existing Land Use 

Copiah, MS 96.04 Road Crossing 0.09 Open Land 

Copiah, MS 96.05 Road Crossing 0.06 Forest 

Copiah, MS 96.07 Road Crossing 0.14 Open Land 

Copiah, MS 96.08 Road Crossing 0.03 Open Land 

Copiah, MS 96.33 Access Road 0.07 Forest, Open Land 

Copiah, MS 96.34 Access Road 0.08 Forest 

Copiah, MS 96.49 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Copiah, MS 96.53 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Copiah, MS 96.65* Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Copiah, MS 96.69* Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Copiah, MS 96.79* Road Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Copiah, MS 96.79* Road Crossing 0.09 Forest 

Copiah, MS 96.82* Road Crossing 0.04 Forest 

Copiah, MS 96.82* Road Crossing 0.08 Forest 

Copiah, MS 96.97* Stream and Pipeline Crossing 0.06 Forest 

Copiah, MS 97.01* Stream and Pipeline Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Copiah, MS 97.02* Stream and Pipeline Crossing 0.06 Forest 

Copiah, MS 97.03* Stream and Pipeline Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Copiah, MS 97.16 Pipe Bending 0.06 Forest 

Copiah, MS 97.53 Access Road 0.03 Forest 

Copiah, MS 97.55 Access Road 0.03 Forest 

Copiah, MS 97.59 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Forest 

Copiah, MS 97.61 Wetland Crossing 0.12 Forest 

Copiah, MS 97.73 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Forest, Pine Plantation 

Copiah, MS 97.74 Wetland Crossing 0.12 Forest 

Copiah, MS 97.90 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Copiah, MS 97.91 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Copiah, MS 97.96 Stream Crossing 0.03 Agricultural 

Copiah, MS 97.98 Stream Crossing 0.03 Agricultural 

Copiah, MS 98.43 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Pine Plantation 

Copiah, MS 98.43 Wetland Crossing 0.12 Pine Plantation 

Copiah, MS 98.48 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Pine Plantation 

Copiah, MS 98.49 Wetland Crossing 0.12 Pine Plantation 

Copiah, MS 98.57 Stream Crossing 0.03 Pine Plantation 

Copiah, MS 98.76 Stream Crossing 0.03 Pine Plantation 

Copiah, MS 98.80 Stream Crossing 0.03 Pine Plantation 

Copiah, MS 98.91 Wetland Crossing 0.12 Pine Plantation 

Copiah, MS 98.91 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Pine Plantation 

Copiah, MS 98.97 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Pine Plantation 

Copiah, MS 98.98 Wetland Crossing 0.12 Pine Plantation 

Copiah, MS 99.17 Road Crossing 0.07 Pine Plantation 

Copiah, MS 99.19 Road Crossing 0.08 Pine Plantation 

Copiah, MS 99.25 Pipe Bending 0.06 Open Land 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
F-24 

TABLE F-1 

Additional Temporary Workspace Utilized for the Proposed SESH Project 

County, State Milepost Description Total Acres Existing Land Use 

Copiah, MS 99.50 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Copiah, MS 99.52 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Copiah, MS 99.54 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Copiah, MS 99.59 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Copiah, MS 99.61 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Copiah, MS 99.71 Pipe Bending 0.06 Forest 

Copiah, MS 99.84 Road Crossing 0.10 Forest 

Copiah, MS 99.84 Road Crossing 0.05 Forest 

Copiah, MS 99.87 Road Crossing 0.11 Agricultural, Forest 

Copiah, MS 99.88 Road Crossing 0.05 Forest 

Copiah, MS 99.92 Road Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Copiah, MS 99.92 Road Crossing 0.12 Forest 

Copiah, MS 99.95 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Copiah, MS 100.15 Road Crossing 0.06 Open Land 

Copiah, MS 100.16 Road Crossing 0.06 Open Land 

Copiah, MS 100.70 Stream Crossing 0.03 Open Land 

Lawrence, MS 100.70 Stream Crossing 0.03 Open Land 

Lawrence, MS 100.80 Road Crossing 0.04 Open Land 

Lawrence, MS 100.80 Road Crossing 0.14 Open Land 

Lawrence, MS 100.83 Road Crossing 0.06 Open Land 

Lawrence, MS 100.83 Road Crossing 0.09 Open Land 

Lawrence, MS 101.10 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Open Land 

Lawrence, MS 101.15 Wetland Crossing 0.12 Forest 

Lawrence, MS 101.24 Wetland Crossing 0.11 Forest 

Lawrence, MS 101.26 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Open Land 

Lawrence, MS 101.30 HDD of Stream 0.03 Open Land 

Lawrence, MS 101.30 HDD of Stream 0.05 Open Land 

Lawrence, MS 101.34 Road Crossing 0.08 Open Land 

Lawrence, MS 101.35 Road Crossing 0.08 Open Land 

Lawrence, MS 101.68 HDD of Stream 0.03 Pine Plantation 

Lawrence, MS 101.68 HDD of Stream 0.05 Pine Plantation 

Lawrence, MS 101.76 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Forest, Open Land 

Lawrence, MS 101.79 Wetland Crossing 0.12 Forest, Open Land 

Lawrence, MS 101.84 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Forest 

Lawrence, MS 101.84 Wetland Crossing 0.12 Forest 

Lawrence, MS 101.93 Wetland and Stream Crossing 0.12 Forest 

Lawrence, MS 101.97 Wetland and Stream Crossing 0.10 Forest 

Lawrence, MS 102.10 Wetland and Stream Crossing 0.07 Forest 

Lawrence, MS 102.21 Road Crossing 0.06 Forest 

Lawrence, MS 102.22 Road Crossing 0.05 Forest 

Lawrence, MS 102.31 Wetland Crossing 0.12 Forest, Open Land 

Lawrence, MS 102.34 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Forest 

Lawrence, MS 102.40 Road Crossing 0.09 Open Land 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
F-25 

TABLE F-1 

Additional Temporary Workspace Utilized for the Proposed SESH Project 

County, State Milepost Description Total Acres Existing Land Use 

Lawrence, MS 102.41 Road Crossing 0.09 Open Land 

Lawrence, MS 102.90 Road Crossing 0.07 Forest 

Lawrence, MS 102.91 Road Crossing 0.07 Forest 

Lawrence, MS 103.05 Road Crossing 0.07 Forest 

Lawrence, MS 103.07 Road Crossing 0.06 Forest 

Lawrence, MS 103.35 Road Crossing 0.06 Forest 

Lawrence, MS 103.36 Road Crossing 0.06 Forest 

Lawrence, MS 103.46 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Lawrence, MS 103.50 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Lawrence, MS 103.53 Road Crossing 0.06 Forest 

Lawrence, MS 103.55 Road Crossing 0.06 Forest 

Lawrence, MS 103.79 Road Crossing 0.09 Forest 

Lawrence, MS 103.81 Road Crossing 0.09 Forest 

Lawrence, MS 103.87 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Lawrence, MS 103.91 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Lawrence, MS 103.96 Pipe Bending 0.06 Forest 

Lawrence, MS 104.01 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Lawrence, MS 104.04 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Lawrence, MS 104.15 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Lawrence, MS 104.17 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Lawrence, MS 104.31 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Lawrence, MS 104.36 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Lawrence, MS 104.37 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Lawrence, MS 104.43 Road Crossing 0.06 Forest, Open Land 

Lawrence, MS 104.51 Stream Crossing 0.03 Open Land 

Lawrence, MS 104.55 Road Crossing 0.09 Open Land 

Lawrence, MS 104.56 Road Crossing 0.08 Open Land 

Lawrence, MS 104.59 Road Crossing 0.15 Open Land 

Lawrence, MS 104.59 Road Crossing 0.04 Open Land 

Lawrence, MS 104.85 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Lawrence, MS 104.88 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Lawrence, MS 104.99 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Lawrence, MS 105.00 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Lawrence, MS 105.03 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Lawrence, MS 105.10 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Lawrence, MS 105.13 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Lawrence, MS 105.14 Stream Crossing 0.06 Industrial/Commercial 

Lawrence, MS 105.17 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Lawrence, MS 105.25 Road Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Lawrence, MS 105.25 Road Crossing 0.08 Forest 

Lawrence, MS 105.28 Road Crossing 0.03 Pine Plantation, Residential 

Lawrence, MS 105.28 Road Crossing 0.08 Forest, Residential 

Lawrence, MS 105.37 Road Crossing 0.07 Forest, Pine Plantation 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
F-26 

TABLE F-1 

Additional Temporary Workspace Utilized for the Proposed SESH Project 

County, State Milepost Description Total Acres Existing Land Use 

Lawrence, MS 105.38 Road Crossing 0.08 Forest, Pine Plantation 

Lawrence, MS 105.59 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Lawrence, MS 105.64 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Lawrence, MS 105.81 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Lawrence, MS 105.84 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Lawrence, MS 105.86 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Lawrence, MS 105.97 Pipe Bending 0.06 Forest 

Lawrence, MS 106.07 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Lawrence, MS 106.12 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Lawrence, MS 106.15 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Lawrence, MS 106.21 Stream Crossing 0.03 Open Land 

Lawrence, MS 106.23 Stream Crossing 0.04 Open Land 

Lawrence, MS 106.28 Stream Crossing 0.03 Open Land 

Lawrence, MS 106.35 Road Crossing 0.08 Open Land 

Lawrence, MS 106.36 Road Crossing 0.08 Forest, Open Land 

Lawrence, MS 106.51 Pipe Bending 0.06 Forest, Open Land 

Lawrence, MS 106.80 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Lawrence, MS 106.83 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Lawrence, MS 106.94 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Lawrence, MS 106.97 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Lawrence, MS 107.02 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Lawrence, MS 107.07 Road Crossing 0.08 Forest 

Lawrence, MS 107.07 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Lawrence, MS 107.08 Road Crossing 0.08 Open Land 

Lawrence, MS 107.19 Road Crossing 0.06 Open Land 

Lawrence, MS 107.21 Road Crossing 0.06 Open Land 

Lawrence, MS 107.31 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Lawrence, MS 107.34 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Lawrence, MS 107.48 Road Crossing 0.06 Forest 

Lawrence, MS 107.50 Road Crossing 0.06 Forest 

Lawrence, MS 107.78 Pipeline Crossing 0.12 Forest, Industrial/Commercial 

Lawrence, MS 107.80 Pipeline Crossing 0.12 Forest, Industrial/Commercial 

Lawrence, MS 107.86 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Lawrence, MS 107.90 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Lawrence, MS 108.04 Road Crossing 0.04 Open Land 

Lawrence, MS 108.06 Road Crossing 0.29 Forest 

Lawrence, MS 108.09 Road Crossing 0.15 Open Land 

Lawrence, MS 108.12 Road Crossing 0.12 Forest, Open Land 

Lawrence, MS 108.48 Road Crossing 0.09 Forest, Pine Plantation 

Lawrence, MS 108.48 Road Crossing 0.06 Forest, Pine Plantation 

Lawrence, MS 108.50 Road Crossing 0.13 Pine Plantation 

Lawrence, MS 108.51 Road Crossing 0.04 Pine Plantation 

Lawrence, MS 108.79 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
F-27 

TABLE F-1 

Additional Temporary Workspace Utilized for the Proposed SESH Project 

County, State Milepost Description Total Acres Existing Land Use 

Lawrence, MS 108.82 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Lawrence, MS 108.82 Road Crossing 0.08 Forest, Open Land 

Lawrence, MS 108.83 Road Crossing 0.08 Open Land 

Lawrence, MS 109.05 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Lawrence, MS 109.08 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Lawrence, MS 109.11 Access Road 0.08 Forest 

Lawrence, MS 109.13 Access Road 0.09 Forest 

Lawrence, MS 109.28 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Lawrence, MS 109.31 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Lawrence, MS 109.53 Stream Crossing 0.03 Open Land 

Lawrence, MS 109.56 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Lawrence, MS 109.64 Road Crossing 0.04 Forest 

Lawrence, MS 109.64 Road Crossing 0.12 Forest 

Lawrence, MS 109.67 Road Crossing 0.05 Forest 

Lawrence, MS 109.67 Road Crossing 0.09 Forest 

Lawrence, MS 109.77* Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Lawrence, MS 109.80* Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Lawrence, MS 110.37 Road Crossing 0.04 Forest, Open Land 

Lawrence, MS 110.37 Road Crossing 0.09 Forest, Open Land 

Lawrence, MS 110.39 Road Crossing 0.04 Forest 

Lawrence, MS 110.39 Road Crossing 0.08 Forest 

Lawrence, MS 110.58 Wetland Crossing 0.12 Forest 

Lawrence, MS 110.60 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Forest 

Lawrence, MS 110.69 Wetland Crossing 0.12 Forest 

Lawrence, MS 110.70 Wetland Crossing 0.09 Forest 

Lawrence, MS 110.73 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Lawrence, MS 110.74 Stream Crossing 0.06 Forest 

Lawrence, MS 110.78 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Lawrence, MS 110.80 Stream Crossing 0.06 Forest 

Lawrence, MS 110.80 Stream Crossing 0.06 Forest 

Lawrence, MS 110.86 Stream Crossing 0.06 Pine Plantation 

Lawrence, MS 110.86 Stream Crossing 0.06 Pine Plantation 

Jefferson Davis, MS 111.40 Road Crossing 0.05 Forest 

Jefferson Davis, MS 111.40 Road Crossing 0.07 Forest 

Jefferson Davis, MS 111.43 Road Crossing 0.04 Open Land 

Jefferson Davis, MS 111.43 Road Crossing 0.09 Open Land 

Jefferson Davis, MS 111.69 Wetland and Stream Crossing 0.06 Forest 

Jefferson Davis, MS 111.70 Wetland and Stream Crossing 0.06 Forest 

Jefferson Davis, MS 111.75 Wetland and Stream Crossing 0.06 Forest 

Jefferson Davis, MS 111.76 Wetland and Stream Crossing 0.06 Forest 

Jefferson Davis, MS 111.81 Wetland and Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Jefferson Davis, MS 111.83 Wetland and Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Jefferson Davis, MS 111.89 Wetland and Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
F-28 

TABLE F-1 

Additional Temporary Workspace Utilized for the Proposed SESH Project 

County, State Milepost Description Total Acres Existing Land Use 

Jefferson Davis, MS 111.89 Wetland and Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Jefferson Davis, MS 111.96 Access Road 0.04 Forest 

Jefferson Davis, MS 111.98 Access Road 0.04 Forest 

Jefferson Davis, MS 112.24 Road Crossing 0.10 Forest 

Jefferson Davis, MS 112.26 Road Crossing 0.08 Forest 

Jefferson Davis, MS 112.29 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Jefferson Davis, MS 112.33 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Jefferson Davis, MS 112.79 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Jefferson Davis, MS 112.82 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Jefferson Davis, MS 112.92 Road Crossing 0.09 Forest 

Jefferson Davis, MS 112.92 Road Crossing 0.05 Forest 

Jefferson Davis, MS 112.95 Road Crossing 0.12 Forest 

Jefferson Davis, MS 112.95 Road Crossing 0.04 Forest 

Jefferson Davis, MS 113.03 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Jefferson Davis, MS 113.07 Stream Crossing 0.03 Open Land 

Jefferson Davis, MS 113.37 Pipeline Crossing 0.06 Open Land 

Jefferson Davis, MS 113.38 Pipeline Crossing 0.10 Open Land 

Jefferson Davis, MS 113.40 Pipeline Crossing 0.11 Open Land 

Jefferson Davis, MS 113.41 Pipeline Crossing 0.06 Open Land 

Jefferson Davis, MS 113.46 Road Crossing 0.03 Open Land 

Jefferson Davis, MS 113.46 Road Crossing 0.08 Open Land 

Jefferson Davis, MS 113.49 Road and Utility Crossing 0.04 Forest 

Jefferson Davis, MS 113.49 Road and Utility Crossing 0.09 Forest 

Jefferson Davis, MS 113.69 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Jefferson Davis, MS 113.72 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Jefferson Davis, MS 113.80 Road and Utility Crossing 0.07 Forest 

Jefferson Davis, MS 113.82 Road and Utility Crossing 0.07 Forest 

Jefferson Davis, MS 113.89 Road Crossing 0.07 Forest 

Jefferson Davis, MS 113.91 Road Crossing 0.07 Forest 

Jefferson Davis, MS 114.36 Access Road 0.07 Forest 

Jefferson Davis, MS 114.37 Access Road 0.07 Forest 

Jefferson Davis, MS 114.57 Road Crossing 0.08 Forest 

Jefferson Davis, MS 114.59 Road Crossing 0.09 Forest 

Jefferson Davis, MS 114.72* Pipeline Crossing 0.16 Forest 

Jefferson Davis, MS 114.72* Pipeline Crossing 0.16 Forest 

Jefferson Davis, MS 115.12* Pipeline Crossing 0.16 Open Land 

Jefferson Davis, MS 115.12* Pipeline Crossing 0.16 Open Land 

Jefferson Davis, MS 115.26* Road Crossing 0.11 Forest 

Jefferson Davis, MS 115.27* Road Crossing 0.08 Forest 

Jefferson Davis, MS 115.30* Road Crossing 0.27 Forest 

Jefferson Davis, MS 115.33* Road Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Jefferson Davis, MS 115.56* Pipeline Crossing 0.14 Forest 

Jefferson Davis, MS 115.57* Pipeline Crossing 0.42 Forest 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
F-29 

TABLE F-1 

Additional Temporary Workspace Utilized for the Proposed SESH Project 

County, State Milepost Description Total Acres Existing Land Use 

Jefferson Davis, MS 116.40 Access Road 0.08 Forest 

Jefferson Davis, MS 116.42 Access Road 0.12 Forest, Open Land 

Jefferson Davis, MS 116.44 Access Road 0.08 Open Land 

Jefferson Davis, MS 116.61* Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Jefferson Davis, MS 116.65* Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Jefferson Davis, MS 116.96 Access Road 0.08 Open Land 

Jefferson Davis, MS 116.98 Access Road 0.06 Industrial/Commercial, Open Land 

Jefferson Davis, MS 117.01 Road Crossing 0.03 Industrial/Commercial, Open Land 

Jefferson Davis, MS 117.01 Road Crossing 0.11 Open Land 

Jefferson Davis, MS 117.03 Road Crossing 0.04 Open Land 

Jefferson Davis, MS 117.03 Road Crossing 0.10 Open Land 

Jefferson Davis, MS 117.86 Road Crossing 0.08 Forest 

Jefferson Davis, MS 117.88 Road Crossing 0.07 Forest 

Jefferson Davis, MS 118.03 Access Road 0.09 Forest 

Jefferson Davis, MS 118.05 Access Road 0.09 Forest 

Jefferson Davis, MS 118.56 Road Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Jefferson Davis, MS 118.56 Road Crossing 0.11 Forest 

Jefferson Davis, MS 118.59 Road Crossing 0.08 Forest, Industrial/Commercial 

Jefferson Davis, MS 118.59 Road Crossing 0.09 Forest, Industrial/Commercial 

Jefferson Davis, MS 118.74 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Jefferson Davis, MS 118.81 Stream and Wetland Crossing 0.06 Forest 

Jefferson Davis, MS 118.82 Wetland Crossing 0.12 Forest 

Jefferson Davis, MS 119.09 Stream and Wetland Crossing 0.10 Forest 

Jefferson Davis, MS 119.17 Stream and Wetland Crossing 0.10 Forest 

Jefferson Davis, MS 119.17 Stream and Wetland Crossing 0.12 Forest 

Jefferson Davis, MS 119.41 Road and Utility Crossing 0.09 Agricultural 

Jefferson Davis, MS 119.41 Road and Utility Crossing 0.06 Forest 

Jefferson Davis, MS 119.44 Road and Utility Crossing 0.09 Agricultural, Forest 

Jefferson Davis, MS 119.44 Road and Utility Crossing 0.04 Forest 

Jefferson Davis, MS 119.53 Stream and Waterbody 

Crossing 

0.03 Forest 

Jefferson Davis, MS 119.58 Stream and Waterbody 

Crossing 

0.03 Forest 

Jefferson Davis, MS 119.79 Road Crossing 0.03 Agricultural 

Jefferson Davis, MS 119.80 Road Crossing 0.08 Agricultural 

Jefferson Davis, MS 119.82 Road Crossing 0.08 Forest 

Jefferson Davis, MS 119.83 Road Crossing 0.04 Forest 

Jefferson Davis, MS 120.13 Road Crossing 0.07 Forest 

Jefferson Davis, MS 120.15 Road Crossing 0.07 Forest 

Jefferson Davis, MS 120.18 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Jefferson Davis, MS 120.22 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Jefferson Davis, MS 120.29 Wetland Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Jefferson Davis, MS 120.29 Wetland Crossing 0.03 Forest, Open Land 

Jefferson Davis, MS 120.45 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest, Open Land 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
F-30 

TABLE F-1 

Additional Temporary Workspace Utilized for the Proposed SESH Project 

County, State Milepost Description Total Acres Existing Land Use 

Jefferson Davis, MS 120.46 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Jefferson Davis, MS 120.86 Road Crossing 0.11 Open Land 

Jefferson Davis, MS 120.86 Road Crossing 0.03 Open Land 

Jefferson Davis, MS 120.88 Road Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Jefferson Davis, MS 120.88 Road Crossing 0.07 Pine Plantation 

Jefferson Davis, MS 121.09 Stream Crossing 0.12 Forest 

Jefferson Davis, MS 121.14 Stream Crossing 0.10 Forest 

Jefferson Davis, MS 121.18 Stream and Wetland Crossing 0.07 Forest 

Jefferson Davis, MS 121.34 Road and Stream Crossing 0.12 Open Land 

Jefferson Davis, MS 121.40 Stream Crossing 0.10 Forest, Open Land 

Jefferson Davis, MS 121.45 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Jefferson Davis, MS 121.52 Ditch Crossing 0.03 Open Land 

Jefferson Davis, MS 121.57 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Jefferson Davis, MS 121.61 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Jefferson Davis, MS 121.98 Road Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Jefferson Davis, MS 121.98 Road Crossing 0.10 Forest 

Jefferson Davis, MS 122.01 Road Crossing 0.04 Forest 

Jefferson Davis, MS 122.01 Road Crossing 0.08 Forest 

Jefferson Davis, MS 122.20 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Jefferson Davis, MS 122.24 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Jefferson Davis, MS 122.99 Road and Utility Crossing 0.08 Forest 

Jefferson Davis, MS 122.99 Road and Utility Crossing 0.16 Forest 

Jefferson Davis, MS 123.10 Road and Utility Crossing 0.07 Open Land 

Jefferson Davis, MS 123.10 Road and Utility Crossing 0.18 Open Land 

Jefferson Davis, MS 123.17 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Jefferson Davis, MS 123.20 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Jefferson Davis, MS 123.23 Road Crossing 0.04 Forest 

Jefferson Davis, MS 123.23 Road Crossing 0.14 Forest 

Jefferson Davis, MS 123.26 Road and Stream Crossing 0.10 Open Land 

Jefferson Davis, MS 123.26 Road and Stream Crossing 0.09 Open Land 

Jefferson Davis, MS 123.32 Stream Crossing 0.03 Open Land 

Jefferson Davis, MS 123.87 Road Crossing 0.04 Open Land 

Jefferson Davis, MS 123.87 Road Crossing 0.08 Open Land 

Jefferson Davis, MS 123.89 Road Crossing 0.04 Forest 

Jefferson Davis, MS 123.89 Road Crossing 0.08 Forest 

Jefferson Davis, MS 124.02 Wetland and Stream Crossing 0.12 Forest 

Jefferson Davis, MS 124.02 Wetland and Stream Crossing 0.10 Forest 

Jefferson Davis, MS 124.09 Wetland and Stream Crossing 0.10 Forest 

Jefferson Davis, MS 124.13 Wetland and Stream Crossing 0.12 Forest 

Jefferson Davis, MS 124.22 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Jefferson Davis, MS 124.26 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Jefferson Davis, MS 124.44 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Jefferson Davis, MS 124.45 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
F-31 

TABLE F-1 

Additional Temporary Workspace Utilized for the Proposed SESH Project 

County, State Milepost Description Total Acres Existing Land Use 

Jefferson Davis, MS 124.49 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Jefferson Davis, MS 124.50 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Jefferson Davis, MS 124.54 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Jefferson Davis, MS 124.68 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Jefferson Davis, MS 124.80 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Jefferson Davis, MS 124.84 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Jefferson Davis, MS 124.86 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Jefferson Davis, MS 124.90 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Jefferson Davis, MS 125.21 Road Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Jefferson Davis, MS 125.21 Road Crossing 0.09 Forest 

Jefferson Davis, MS 125.24 Road Crossing 0.09 Forest 

Jefferson Davis, MS 125.24 Road Crossing 0.06 Forest 

Jefferson Davis, MS 125.58 Road Crossing 0.08 Forest 

Jefferson Davis, MS 125.58 Road Crossing 0.04 Forest 

Jefferson Davis, MS 125.61 Road and Stream Crossing 0.04 Forest 

Jefferson Davis, MS 125.61 Road Crossing 0.11 Forest 

Jefferson Davis, MS 125.70 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Jefferson Davis, MS 125.71 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Jefferson Davis, MS 125.76 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Jefferson Davis, MS 125.78 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Covington, MS 126.46 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Covington, MS 126.49 Stream and Road Crossing 0.07 Forest, Industrial/Commercial 

Covington, MS 126.49 Stream and Road Crossing 0.02 Forest 

Covington, MS 126.52 Road Crossing 0.09 Forest, Industrial/Commercial 

Covington, MS 126.53 Road Crossing 0.03 Forest, Industrial/Commercial 

Covington, MS 126.83 Wetland Crossing 0.12 Forest 

Covington, MS 126.86 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Forest 

Covington, MS 127.03 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Forest 

Covington, MS 127.04 Wetland Crossing 0.12 Forest 

Covington, MS 127.29 Access Road 0.09 Agricultural 

Covington, MS 127.31 Stream Crossing 0.11 Agricultural 

Covington, MS 127.35 Stream Crossing 0.03 Agricultural 

Covington, MS 127.39 Stream and Wetland Crossing 0.12 Agricultural 

Covington, MS 127.40 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Agricultural 

Covington, MS 127.53 HDD of Stream 0.11 Forest 

Covington, MS 127.53 HDD of Stream 0.23 Forest 

Covington, MS 127.85 HDD of Stream 0.11 Forest 

Covington, MS 127.85 HDD of Stream 0.23 Forest 

Covington, MS 127.91 Wetland and Road Crossing 0.06 Forest 

Covington, MS 127.93 Road Crossing 0.04 Forest 

Covington, MS 127.93 Road Crossing 0.08 Forest 

Covington, MS 127.97 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Covington, MS 128.01 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
F-32 

TABLE F-1 

Additional Temporary Workspace Utilized for the Proposed SESH Project 

County, State Milepost Description Total Acres Existing Land Use 

Covington, MS 128.50 Road Crossing 0.07 Forest 

Covington, MS 128.52 Road Crossing 0.08 Forest 

Covington, MS 129.20 Road Crossing 0.03 Agricultural, Forest 

Covington, MS 129.20 Road Crossing 0.10 Agricultural 

Covington, MS 129.22 Road Crossing 0.04 Forest 

Covington, MS 129.23 Road Crossing 0.08 Forest 

Covington, MS 129.57 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Covington, MS 129.61 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Covington, MS 129.70 Road Crossing 0.06 Forest 

Covington, MS 129.80 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Covington, MS 129.84 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Covington, MS 129.85 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Covington, MS 129.88 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Covington, MS 130.01 Stream Crossing 0.03 Open Land 

Covington, MS 130.04 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Covington, MS 130.07 Road Crossing 0.04 Agricultural, Forest 

Covington, MS 130.08 Road Crossing 0.14 Agricultural 

Covington, MS 130.10 Road Crossing 0.07 Agricultural 

Covington, MS 130.11 Road Crossing 0.10 Agricultural, Forest 

Covington, MS 130.37* Wetland Crossing 0.11 Forest 

Covington, MS 130.41* Wetland Crossing 0.10 Forest 

Covington, MS 130.49 Stream Crossing 0.12 Forest 

Covington, MS 130.50 Stream Crossing 0.10 Forest 

Covington, MS 130.63 Wetland Crossing 0.11 Forest 

Covington, MS 130.64 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Forest 

Covington, MS 130.69 Wetland and Road Crossing 0.04 Forest 

Covington, MS 130.70 Wetland and Road Crossing 0.11 Forest 

Covington, MS 130.72 Road Crossing 0.08 Forest 

Covington, MS 130.72 Road Crossing 0.05 Forest 

Covington, MS 130.79 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Covington, MS 130.83 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Covington, MS 131.19 Wetland and Stream Crossing 0.10 Forest 

Covington, MS 131.20 Wetland and Stream Crossing 0.12 Forest 

Covington, MS 131.27 Wetland and Stream Crossing 0.10 Forest 

Covington, MS 131.28 Wetland and Stream Crossing 0.12 Forest 

Covington, MS 131.76 Wetland and Stream Crossing 0.12 Forest 

Covington, MS 131.78 Wetland and Stream Crossing 0.10 Forest 

Covington, MS 131.85 Wetland and Stream Crossing 0.12 Forest 

Covington, MS 131.87 Wetland and Stream Crossing 0.10 Forest 

Covington, MS 132.06 Road Crossing 0.09 Pine Plantation 

Covington, MS 132.08 Road Crossing 0.09 Forest, Pine Plantation 

Covington, MS 132.33 Road Crossing 0.07 Pine Plantation 

Covington, MS 132.35 Road Crossing 0.07 Pine Plantation 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
F-33 

TABLE F-1 

Additional Temporary Workspace Utilized for the Proposed SESH Project 

County, State Milepost Description Total Acres Existing Land Use 

Covington, MS 132.46 Stream Crossing 0.03 Pine Plantation 

Covington, MS 132.49 Stream Crossing 0.03 Pine Plantation 

Covington, MS 132.61 Road Crossing 0.07 Pine Plantation 

Covington, MS 132.62 Road Crossing 0.07 Pine Plantation 

Covington, MS 133.05 Road and Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Covington, MS 133.08 Road and Stream Crossing 0.06 Forest 

Covington, MS 133.13 Road and Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Covington, MS 133.30 Stream Crossing 0.03 Open Land 

Covington, MS 133.36 Stream Crossing 0.03 Open Land 

Covington, MS 133.44 Road Crossing 0.07 Open Land 

Covington, MS 133.46 Road Crossing 0.07 Open Land 

Covington, MS 133.61 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Covington, MS 133.64 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Covington, MS 133.99 Road Crossing 0.04 Forest 

Covington, MS 133.99 Road Crossing 0.10 Forest 

Covington, MS 134.02 Road Crossing 0.04 Pine Plantation 

Covington, MS 134.02 Road Crossing 0.08 Forest, Pine Plantation 

Covington, MS 134.22 Pipeline Crossing 0.12 Pine Plantation 

Covington, MS 134.24 Pipeline Crossing 0.12 Pine Plantation, Open Land 

Covington, MS 134.55 Pipeline Crossing 0.05 Pine Plantation, Industrial/Commercial 

Covington, MS 134.55 Pipeline and Stream Crossing 0.12 Pine Plantation, Industrial/Commercial 

Covington, MS 134.59 Stream Crossing 0.03 Pine Plantation 

Covington, MS 134.60 Stream Crossing 0.03 Pine Plantation 

Covington, MS 134.65 Road Crossing 0.07 Pine Plantation 

Covington, MS 134.67 Road Crossing 0.07 Pine Plantation 

Covington, MS 134.76 Stream Crossing 0.03 Pine Plantation 

Covington, MS 134.80 Stream Crossing 0.03 Pine Plantation 

Covington, MS 135.39 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Covington, MS 135.44 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Covington, MS 135.47 Road Crossing 0.06 Forest 

Covington, MS 135.48 Road Crossing 0.07 Forest, Residential 

Covington, MS 135.57 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Forest 

Covington, MS 135.58 Wetland Crossing 0.12 Forest 

Covington, MS 135.68 Wetland and Stream Crossing 0.10 Forest 

Covington, MS 135.69 Wetland and Stream Crossing 0.12 Forest 

Covington, MS 135.91 Road Crossing 0.06 Forest 

Covington, MS 135.93 Road Crossing 0.06 Forest 

Covington, MS 136.10 Wetland Crossing 0.11 Forest 

Covington, MS 136.12 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Forest 

Covington, MS 136.17 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Open Land 

Covington, MS 136.23 Wetland Crossing 0.13 Forest 

Covington, MS 136.37 Road and Pipeline Crossing 0.10 Forest 

Covington, MS 136.38 Road and Pipeline Crossing 0.12 Forest, Industrial/Commercial 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
F-34 

TABLE F-1 

Additional Temporary Workspace Utilized for the Proposed SESH Project 

County, State Milepost Description Total Acres Existing Land Use 

Covington, MS 136.39 Road and Pipeline Crossing 0.09 Forest 

Covington, MS 136.51 Road and Pipeline Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Covington, MS 136.51 Road Crossing 0.08 Forest 

Covington, MS 136.55 Road Crossing 0.09 Forest, Open Land 

Covington, MS 136.55 Road Crossing 0.03 Open Land 

Covington, MS 136.93 Road Crossing 0.07 Pine Plantation 

Covington, MS 136.95 Road Crossing 0.07 Pine Plantation 

Covington, MS 137.15 Wetland Crossing 0.12 Forest 

Covington, MS 137.16 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Forest 

Covington, MS 137.29 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Forest 

Covington, MS 137.29 Wetland Crossing 0.12 Forest 

Covington, MS 137.48 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Covington, MS 137.52 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Covington, MS 137.57 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Covington, MS 137.67 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Covington, MS 137.69 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Covington, MS 137.74 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Covington, MS 137.75 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Covington, MS 137.79 Wetland Crossing 0.11 Forest 

Covington, MS 137.81 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Forest 

Covington, MS 137.90 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Forest 

Covington, MS 137.90 Wetland Crossing 0.12 Forest 

Covington, MS 138.42 Road, Pipeline and Utility 

Crossing 

0.06 Forest 

Covington, MS 138.42 Road, Pipeline and Utility 

Crossing 

0.11 Forest 

Covington, MS 138.46 Road, Pipeline and Utility 

Crossing 

0.38 Forest, Industrial/Commercial 

Covington, MS 138.47 Road, Pipeline and Utility 

Crossing 

0.19 Forest, Industrial/Commercial 

Covington, MS 138.50 Road, Pipeline and Utility 

Crossing 

0.09 Forest 

Covington, MS 138.50 Road, Pipeline and Utility 

Crossing 

0.12 Forest 

Covington, MS 138.56 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest, Pine Plantation 

Covington, MS 138.60 Stream Crossing 0.03 Pine Plantation 

Covington, MS 138.81 Stream Crossing 0.03 Open Land 

Covington, MS 138.85 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest, Open Land 

Covington, MS 139.06 Road Crossing 0.08 Forest 

Covington, MS 139.08 Road Crossing 0.08 Forest 

Covington, MS 139.50 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Covington, MS 139.53 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Covington, MS 139.86 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Covington, MS 139.89 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Covington, MS 139.96 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Covington, MS 140.02 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Covington, MS 140.06 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
F-35 

TABLE F-1 

Additional Temporary Workspace Utilized for the Proposed SESH Project 

County, State Milepost Description Total Acres Existing Land Use 

Covington, MS 140.34 Stream Crossing 0.03 Open Land 

Covington, MS 140.38 Stream Crossing 0.03 Open Land 

Covington, MS 140.41 Pipeline Crossing 0.11 Forest 

Covington, MS 140.47 Access Road 0.12 Forest, Open Land 

Covington, MS 140.65 Stream Crossing 0.03 Open Land 

Covington, MS 140.70 Stream Crossing 0.03 Open Land 

Covington, MS 140.84 Access Road 0.07 Open Land 

Covington, MS 140.86 Access Road 0.07 Pine Plantation 

Covington, MS 140.95 Road Crossing 0.05 Pine Plantation 

Covington, MS 140.95 Road Crossing 0.08 Pine Plantation 

Covington, MS 140.98 Road Crossing 0.03 Pine Plantation 

Covington, MS 140.98 Road Crossing 0.08 Pine Plantation 

Covington, MS 141.19 Stream Crossing 0.03 Pine Plantation 

Covington, MS 141.23 Stream Crossing 0.03 Pine Plantation 

Covington, MS 141.46 Stream Crossing 0.03 Pine Plantation 

Covington, MS 141.49 Stream Crossing 0.03 Pine Plantation 

Covington, MS 141.54 Stream Crossing 0.03 Pine Plantation 

Covington, MS 141.57 Stream Crossing 0.03 Pine Plantation 

Covington, MS 142.00 Stream Crossing 0.03 Pine Plantation 

Covington, MS 142.04 Stream Crossing 0.03 Pine Plantation 

Covington, MS 142.13 Road Crossing 0.07 Forest 

Covington, MS 142.14 Road Crossing 0.08 Forest 

Covington, MS 142.27 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Covington, MS 142.30 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Covington, MS 142.42 Stream Crossing 0.03 Pine Plantation 

Covington, MS 142.46 Stream Crossing 0.03 Pine Plantation 

Covington, MS 142.85 Road Crossing 0.04 Forest 

Covington, MS 142.85 Road Crossing 0.13 Forest 

Covington, MS 142.90 Road Crossing 0.07 Open Land 

Covington, MS 142.90 Road Crossing 0.09 Open Land 

Covington, MS 143.36 Road Crossing 0.13 Open Land 

Covington, MS 143.69 Wetland and Road Crossing 0.12 Open Land 

Covington, MS 143.70 Wetland and Road Crossing 0.10 Open Land 

Covington, MS 143.88 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Forest 

Covington, MS 143.89 Wetland Crossing 0.12 Forest 

Covington, MS 143.97 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Forest 

Covington, MS 143.97 Wetland Crossing 0.12 Forest 

Covington, MS 144.11 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Forest 

Covington, MS 144.13 Wetland Crossing 0.12 Forest 

Covington, MS 144.64 Road Crossing 0.04 Pine Plantation 

Covington, MS 144.64 Road Crossing 0.10 Pine Plantation 

Covington, MS 144.66 Road Crossing 0.04 Pine Plantation, Open Land 

Covington, MS 144.66 Road Crossing 0.08 Pine Plantation, Open Land 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
F-36 

TABLE F-1 

Additional Temporary Workspace Utilized for the Proposed SESH Project 

County, State Milepost Description Total Acres Existing Land Use 

Covington, MS 144.90 Pipeline Crossing 0.12 Forest 

Covington, MS 144.90 Pipeline Crossing 0.12 Forest 

Covington, MS 145.01 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Forest 

Covington, MS 145.02 Wetland Crossing 0.12 Forest 

Covington, MS 145.09 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Forest, Open Land 

Covington, MS 145.10 Wetland Crossing 0.12 Forest, Open Land 

Covington, MS 145.26 Access Road 0.11 Open Land 

Covington, MS 145.33 Stream Crossing 0.10 Forest 

Covington, MS 145.33 Wetland and Stream Crossing 0.12 Forest 

Covington, MS 145.43 Wetland and Stream Crossing 0.10 Pine Plantation 

Covington, MS 145.43 Access Road 0.12 Pine Plantation 

Covington, MS 145.70 Wetland and Stream Crossing 0.10 Forest 

Covington, MS 145.72 Wetland and Stream Crossing 0.12 Forest 

Covington, MS 145.85 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Forest 

Covington, MS 145.96 Wetland Crossing 0.12 Forest 

Covington, MS 146.04 Road Crossing 0.10 Forest 

Covington, MS 146.11 Road Crossing 0.06 Forest 

Covington, MS 146.12 Road Crossing 0.06 Forest 

Covington, MS 146.16 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Covington, MS 146.19 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Covington, MS 146.38 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Covington, MS 146.41 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Covington, MS 146.55 Road Crossing 0.09 Forest 

Covington, MS 146.58 Road Crossing 0.09 Forest, Pine Plantation 

Covington, MS 146.65 Stream Crossing 0.03 Pine Plantation 

Covington, MS 146.69 Stream Crossing 0.03 Pine Plantation 

Covington, MS 146.84 Stream Crossing 0.03 Pine Plantation 

Covington, MS 146.93 Stream Crossing 0.03 Pine Plantation 

Covington, MS 146.95 Road Crossing 0.10 Pine Plantation 

Covington, MS 146.97 Road Crossing 0.10 Pine Plantation 

Covington, MS 147.12 Stream Crossing 0.03 Pine Plantation 

Covington, MS 147.15 Stream Crossing 0.03 Pine Plantation 

Covington, MS 147.42 Road Crossing 0.07 Pine Plantation 

Covington, MS 147.43 Road Crossing 0.07 Pine Plantation 

Covington, MS 147.95 Road Crossing 0.06 Pine Plantation 

Covington, MS 147.96 Road Crossing 0.06 Pine Plantation 

Covington, MS 147.99 Stream Crossing 0.03 Pine Plantation 

Covington, MS 148.04 Stream Crossing 0.03 Pine Plantation 

Covington, MS 148.35 Road Crossing 0.06 Pine Plantation 

Covington, MS 148.36 Road Crossing 0.06 Pine Plantation 

Covington, MS 148.54 Stream Crossing 0.03 Pine Plantation 

Covington, MS 148.58 Stream Crossing 0.03 Pine Plantation 

Covington, MS 149.10 Road Crossing 0.10 Forest 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
F-37 

TABLE F-1 

Additional Temporary Workspace Utilized for the Proposed SESH Project 

County, State Milepost Description Total Acres Existing Land Use 

Covington, MS 149.12 Road Crossing 0.10 Forest 

Covington, MS 149.17 Road Crossing 0.07 Forest 

Covington, MS 149.17 Road Crossing 0.16 Forest 

Covington, MS 149.26 Road Crossing 0.17 Forest, Industrial/Commercial 

Covington, MS 149.27 Road Crossing 0.09 Forest, Industrial/Commercial 

Covington, MS 149.45 Road Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Covington, MS 149.45 Road Crossing 0.09 Forest 

Covington, MS 149.47 Road Crossing 0.04 Forest 

Covington, MS 149.48 Road Crossing 0.08 Forest 

Covington, MS 149.79 Road Crossing 0.08 Forest 

Covington, MS 149.81 Road Crossing 0.08 Forest 

Covington, MS 150.04 Wetland and Stream Crossing 0.10 Forest 

Covington, MS 150.04 Wetland and Stream Crossing 0.12 Forest 

Covington, MS 150.12 Wetland and Stream Crossing 0.11 Forest 

Covington, MS 150.13 Wetland and Stream Crossing 0.09 Forest 

Covington, MS 150.52 Road Crossing 0.13 Forest 

Covington, MS 150.53 Road Crossing 0.02 Forest 

Covington, MS 150.55 Road Crossing 0.04 Forest 

Covington, MS 150.55 Road Crossing 0.10 Forest 

Covington, MS 150.72 HDD of Stream 0.18 Forest 

Covington, MS 150.72 HDD of Stream 0.14 Forest 

Covington, MS 151.00 HDD of Stream 0.21 Forest 

Covington, MS 151.00* HDD of Stream 0.14 Forest 

Covington, MS 151.10* Railroad and Road Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Covington, MS 151.10 Railroad and Road Crossing 0.09 Forest 

Covington, MS 151.13 Railroad and Road Crossing 0.08 Forest 

Covington, MS 151.13 Railroad and Road Crossing 0.05 Forest 

Covington, MS 151.58 Road Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Covington, MS 151.58 Road Crossing 0.08 Forest 

Covington, MS 151.60 Road Crossing 0.03 Open Land 

Covington, MS 151.60 Road Crossing 0.08 Open Land 

Jones, MS 151.84 Access Road 0.08 Forest 

Jones, MS 151.86 Access Road 0.08 Forest 

Jones, MS 152.10 Wetland and Stream Crossing 0.12 Forest 

Jones, MS 152.10 Wetland and Stream Crossing 0.10 Forest 

Jones, MS 152.17 Wetland and Stream Crossing 0.12 Forest 

Jones, MS 152.18 Wetland and Stream Crossing 0.10 Forest 

Jones, MS 152.40 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Jones, MS 152.44 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Jones, MS 153.01 Road Crossing 0.05 Forest 

Jones, MS 153.02 Road Crossing 0.09 Forest 

Jones, MS 153.04 Road Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Jones, MS 153.05 Road Crossing 0.10 Forest, Residential 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
F-38 

TABLE F-1 

Additional Temporary Workspace Utilized for the Proposed SESH Project 

County, State Milepost Description Total Acres Existing Land Use 

Jones, MS 153.07 Road Crossing 0.05 Forest 

Jones, MS 153.08 Road Crossing 0.10 Forest, Residential 

Jones, MS 153.77 Road Crossing 0.09 Forest 

Jones, MS 153.77 Road Crossing 0.04 Forest, Industrial/Commercial 

Jones, MS 153.80 Road Crossing 0.09 Forest 

Jones, MS 153.80 Road Crossing 0.04 Forest 

Jones, MS 153.97 Road Crossing 0.06 Forest 

Jones, MS 153.98 Road Crossing 0.06 Forest 

Jones, MS 154.35 Road Crossing 0.07 Forest, Pine Plantation 

Jones, MS 154.37 Road Crossing 0.07 Forest 

Jones, MS 154.55 Wetland Crossing 0.12 Forest 

Jones, MS 154.55 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Forest 

Jones, MS 154.70 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Forest 

Jones, MS 154.72 Wetland Crossing 0.12 Forest 

Jones, MS 154.90 Road Crossing 0.04 Forest, Open Land 

Jones, MS 154.91 Road Crossing 0.16 Forest, Open Land 

Jones, MS 154.94 Road Crossing 0.07 Forest 

Jones, MS 154.95 Road Crossing 0.09 Forest 

Jones, MS 155.76 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Jones, MS 155.81 Road Crossing 0.05 Forest 

Jones, MS 155.82 Road Crossing 0.20 Forest 

Jones, MS 155.85 Road Crossing 0.09 Forest 

Jones, MS 155.86 Road Crossing 0.12 Forest 

Jones, MS 156.72 Road Crossing 0.18 Forest 

Jones, MS 156.72 Road Crossing 0.07 Forest 

Jones, MS 156.82 Road Crossing 0.07 Open Land 

Jones, MS 156.82 Road Crossing 0.16 Open Land 

Forrest, MS 157.10 Road Crossing 0.22 Forest, Open Land 

Forrest, MS 157.10 Road Crossing 0.37 Forest, Open Land 

Forrest, MS 157.17 Road Crossing 0.24 Forest 

Forrest, MS 157.19 Road Crossing 0.04 Forest 

Forrest, MS 157.45 Road Crossing 0.03 Open Land 

Forrest, MS 157.45 Road Crossing 0.09 Open Land 

Forrest, MS 157.48 Road Crossing 0.04 Open Land 

Forrest, MS 157.48 Road Crossing 0.08 Open Land 

Forrest, MS 157.81 HDD of Stream 0.03 Forest 

Forrest, MS 157.81 HDD of Stream 0.14 Forest 

Forrest, MS 158.11 Access Road 0.06 Industrial/Commercial 

Forrest, MS 158.12 Access Road 0.06 Forest 

Forrest, MS 158.16 HDD of Stream 0.18 Forest 

Forrest, MS 158.16 HDD of Stream 0.05 Open Land 

Forest, MS 158.36 Access Road 0.09 Open Land 

Forest, MS 158.40 Access Road 0.08 Open Land 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
F-39 

TABLE F-1 

Additional Temporary Workspace Utilized for the Proposed SESH Project 

County, State Milepost Description Total Acres Existing Land Use 

Forest, MS 158.61 Access Road 0.17 Open Land 

Forest, MS 158.65 Access Road 0.16 Open Land 

Forrest, MS 158.76 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Open Land 

Forrest, MS 158.80 Wetland Crossing 0.12 Open Land 

Forrest, MS 158.96 Wetland and Road Crossing 0.28 Industrial/Commercial, Open Land 

Forrest, MS 158.96 Wetland and Road Crossing 0.12 Industrial/Commercial, Open Land 

Forrest, MS 159.06 Road Crossing 0.17 Forest 

Forrest, MS 159.07 Road Crossing 0.10 Forest 

Forrest, MS 159.62 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Forrest, MS 159.67 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Forrest, MS 159.81 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Forrest, MS 159.85 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Forrest, MS 160.27 Road Crossing 0.04 Forest 

Forrest, MS 160.28 Road Crossing 0.12 Forest 

Forrest, MS 160.32 Road Crossing 0.06 Forest 

Forrest, MS 160.32 Road Crossing 0.09 Forest 

Forrest, MS 160.59 Wetland Crossing 0.12 Forest 

Forrest, MS 160.61 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Forest 

Forrest, MS 160.67 Wetland Crossing 0.12 Forest 

Forrest, MS 160.67 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Forest 

Forrest, MS 160.98 Road Crossing 0.07 Forest 

Forrest, MS 161.00 Access Road 0.07 Forest 

Forrest, MS 161.23 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Forest 

Forrest, MS 161.23 Wetland Crossing 0.12 Forest 

Forrest, MS 161.27 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Forest 

Forrest, MS 161.28 Wetland Crossing 0.12 Forest 

Forrest, MS 161.40 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Forrest, MS 161.44 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Forrest, MS 161.59 Road Crossing 0.04 Agricultural 

Forrest, MS 161.61 Road Crossing 0.17 Agricultural, Forest 

Forrest, MS 161.64 Road Crossing 0.09 Agricultural, Forest 

Forrest, MS 161.65 Road Crossing 0.10 Forest 

Forrest, MS 161.71 Pipe Bending 0.06 Forest 

Forrest, MS 161.89 Road Crossing 0.09 Forest 

Forrest, MS 161.89 Road Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Forrest, MS 161.95 Road Crossing 0.18 Open Land 

Forrest, MS 161.96 Road Crossing 0.04 Open Land 

Forrest, MS 162.16 Stream Crossing 0.03 Open Land 

Forrest, MS 162.24 Stream Crossing 0.03 Open Land 

Forrest, MS 162.30 Access Road 0.14 Industrial/Commercial, Open Land 

Forrest, MS 162.31 Access Road 0.14 Industrial/Commercial 

Forest, MS 162.38 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Forest, MS 162.39 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
F-40 

TABLE F-1 

Additional Temporary Workspace Utilized for the Proposed SESH Project 

County, State Milepost Description Total Acres Existing Land Use 

Forrest, MS 162.42* Road Crossing 0.05 Open Land 

Forrest, MS 162.44* Road Crossing 0.02 Open Land 

Forest, MS 162.46* Road Crossing 0.09 Forest 

Forrest, MS 162.47* Road Crossing 0.10 Forest, Open Land 

Forrest, MS 162.48* Road Crossing 0.10 Open Land 

Forrest, MS 162.49* Road Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Forrest, MS 162.52* Road Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Forrest, MS 162.72* Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Forrest, MS 162.73* Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Forrest, MS 163.14 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Forrest, MS 163.18 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Forrest, MS 163.29 Pipeline Crossing 0.12 Forest 

Forrest, MS 163.30 Pipeline Crossing 0.12 Forest 

Forrest, MS 163.52 Road Crossing 0.09 Forest 

Forrest, MS 163.53 Road Crossing 0.08 Forest 

Forrest, MS 163.57 Road Crossing 0.18 Forest 

Forrest, MS 163.58 Road Crossing 0.04 Forest 

Forrest, MS 163.66 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Forrest, MS 163.69 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Forrest, MS 163.72 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Forrest, MS 164.12 Pipeline Crossing 0.37 Forest 

Forrest, MS 164.12 Pipeline Crossing 0.40 Forest 

Forrest, MS 164.17 Road Crossing 0.04 Forest 

Forrest, MS 164.18 Road Crossing 0.14 Forest 

Forrest, MS 164.22 Road Crossing 0.07 Forest 

Forrest, MS 164.22 Road Crossing 0.08 Forest 

Forrest, MS 164.47 Utility Crossing 0.15 Forest, Industrial/Commercial 

Forrest, MS 164.56 Pipeline Crossing 0.21 Forest, Industrial/Commercial 

Forrest, MS 164.57 Pipeline Crossing 0.15 Forest 

Forrest, MS 164.66 Pipeline Crossing 0.06 Forest 

Forrest, MS 164.82 Road Crossing 0.04 Forest 

Forrest, MS 164.83 Road Crossing 0.12 Forest 

Forrest, MS 164.85 Road Crossing 0.04 Forest 

Forrest, MS 164.86 Road Crossing 0.08 Forest 

Forrest, MS 164.89 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Forrest, MS 164.92 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Forrest, MS 165.26 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Forrest, MS 165.30 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Forrest, MS 165.35 Road Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Forrest, MS 165.35 Road Crossing 0.09 Forest 

Forrest, MS 165.38 Road Crossing 0.09 Forest 

Forrest, MS 165.38 Road Crossing 0.04 Forest 

Forrest, MS 165.46 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
F-41 

TABLE F-1 

Additional Temporary Workspace Utilized for the Proposed SESH Project 

County, State Milepost Description Total Acres Existing Land Use 

Forrest, MS 165.79 Stream Crossing 0.05 Forest 

Forrest, MS 166.11 Pipeline Crossing 0.25 Forest, Industrial/Commercial 

Forrest, MS 166.11 Pipeline Crossing 0.25 Forest, Industrial/Commercial 

Forrest, MS 166.65* Pipeline Crossing 0.49 Forest, Industrial/Commercial, Open Land 

Forrest, MS 166.70* Pipeline Crossing 0.14 Industrial/Commercial 

Forrest, MS 167.15* Wetland Crossing 0.13 Forest 

Forrest, MS 167.17* Wetland Crossing 0.14 Forest 

Forrest, MS 167.21* Wetland Crossing 0.14 Forest 

Forrest, MS 167.22* Wetland Crossing 0.12 Forest 

Forrest, MS 167.50* Wetland and Stream Crossing 0.10 Open Space 

Forrest, MS 167.52* Wetland and Stream Crossing 0.10 Open Space 

Forrest, MS 167.60* Wetland Crossing 0.10 Open Space 

Forrest, MS 167.66* Road Crossing 0.08 Open Land 

Forrest, MS 167.66* Road Crossing 0.03 Open Land 

Forrest, MS 167.69* Road Crossing 0.09 Forest, Open Land 

Forrest, MS 167.69* Road Crossing 0.03 Forest, Open Land 

Forrest, MS 167.91 Wetland Crossing 0.12 Forest 

Forrest, MS 167.98 Wetland Crossing 0.24 Forest, Industrial/Commercial 

Forrest, MS 168.25 Wetland Crossing 0.12 Industrial/Commercial 

Forrest, MS 168.28 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Forest 

Forrest, MS 168.76 Wetland Crossing 0.23 Industrial/Commercial 

Forrest, MS 168.77 Wetland Crossing 0.20 Forest 

Perry, MS 168.96 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Open Land 

Perry, MS 169.00 Wetland Crossing 0.12 Industrial/Commercial 

Perry, MS 169.27* Road Crossing 0.13 Pine Plantation, Industrial/Commercial 

Perry, MS 169.28* Road Crossing 0.08 Forest, Pine Plantation 

Perry, MS 169.31* Road Crossing 0.31 Industrial/Commercial 

Perry, MS 169.32* Road Crossing 0.03 Industrial/Commercial 

Perry, MS 169.76 Road Crossing 0.11 Industrial/Commercial 

Perry, MS 169.76 Road Crossing 0.15 Residential 

Perry, MS 169.79 Wetland and Road Crossing 0.12 Industrial/Commercial 

Perry, MS 169.94 Wetland Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Perry, MS 170.08 Wetland Crossing 0.24 Forest 

Perry, MS 170.27 Wetland Crossing 0.06 Pine Plantation 

Perry, MS 170.36 HDD of Stream 0.05 Pine Plantation 

Perry, MS 170.40 HDD of Stream 0.09 Forest, Pine Plantation 

Perry, MS 170.74 HDD of Stream 0.18 Forest 

Perry, MS 170.74 HDD of Stream 0.05 Industrial/Commercial 

Perry, MS 170.81 Access Road 0.06 Forest 

Perry, MS 170.86 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Perry, MS 170.90 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Perry, MS 171.15 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Perry, MS 171.19 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
F-42 

TABLE F-1 

Additional Temporary Workspace Utilized for the Proposed SESH Project 

County, State Milepost Description Total Acres Existing Land Use 

Perry, MS 171.31 Road Crossing 0.04 Forest, Pine Plantation 

Perry, MS 171.31 Road Crossing 0.11 Pine Plantation 

Perry, MS 171.34 Road Crossing 0.05 Pine Plantation 

Perry, MS 171.34 Road Crossing 0.09 Pine Plantation 

Perry, MS 171.57 Road Crossing 0.06 Open Land 

Perry, MS 171.83 Pipeline Crossing 0.23 Forest 

Perry, MS 171.88 Pipeline Crossing 0.29 Forest 

Perry, MS 172.04 Road Crossing 0.05 Forest 

Perry, MS 172.05 Road and Pipeline Crossing 0.17 Forest 

Perry, MS 172.08 Road Crossing 0.09 Open Land 

Perry, MS 172.09 Road Crossing 0.12 Open Land 

Perry, MS 172.27 Road Crossing 0.04 Open Land 

Perry, MS 172.27 Road Crossing 0.12 Open Land 

Perry, MS 172.30 Road Crossing 0.05 Agricultural, Open Land 

Perry, MS 172.30 Road Crossing 0.09 Open Land 

Perry, MS 172.63 Wetland Crossing 0.12 Forest 

Perry, MS 172.66 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Forest 

Perry, MS 173.03 Wetland Crossing 0.05 Forest 

Perry, MS 173.03 Wetland Crossing 0.09 Forest 

Perry, MS 173.06 Road and Wetland Crossing 0.10 Forest 

Perry, MS 173.06 Road and Wetland Crossing 0.04 Forest 

Perry, MS 173.41 Pipe Bending 0.06 Forest 

Perry, MS 173.82 Road Crossing 0.05 Forest, Open Land 

Perry, MS 173.82 Road Crossing 0.16 Forest, Open Land 

Perry, MS 173.86 Road Crossing 0.06 Open Land 

Perry, MS 173.86 Road Crossing 0.09 Open Land 

Perry, MS 174.16 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Perry, MS 174.21 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Perry, MS 174.48 Stream Crossing 0.03 Open Land 

Perry, MS 174.52 Stream Crossing 0.03 Open Land 

Perry, MS 175.18 Pipe Bending 0.06 Forest 

Perry, MS 175.62 Pipe Bending 0.06 Open Land 

Perry, MS 176.02 Road Crossing 0.04 Open Land 

Perry, MS 176.03 Road Crossing 0.12 Open Land 

Perry, MS 176.05 Road Crossing 0.05 Forest 

Perry, MS 176.05 Road Crossing 0.09 Forest 

Perry, MS 176.68 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Perry, MS 176.74 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest, Industrial/Commercial 

Perry, MS 176.81 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest, Industrial/Commercial 

Perry, MS 176.91 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Perry, MS 176.93 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest, Industrial/Commercial 

Perry, MS 177.29 Access Road 0.07 Forest 

Perry, MS 177.44 Access Road 0.06 Forest 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
F-43 

TABLE F-1 

Additional Temporary Workspace Utilized for the Proposed SESH Project 

County, State Milepost Description Total Acres Existing Land Use 

Perry, MS 177.45 Access Road 0.06 Forest 

Perry, MS 177.68 HDD of Stream 0.05 Forest 

Perry, MS 177.68 HDD of Stream 0.18 Forest, Industrial/Commercial 

Perry, MS 178.03 HDD of Stream 0.05 Forest 

Perry, MS 178.03 HDD of Stream 0.18 Forest, Industrial/Commercial 

Perry, MS 178.28 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Perry, MS 178.32 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Perry, MS 178.62 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Perry, MS 178.65 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Perry, MS 178.84 Pipe Bending 0.06 Forest 

Perry, MS 179.66 Stream Crossing 0.03 Agricultural 

Perry, MS 179.74 Stream and Wetland Crossing 0.10 Agricultural 

Perry, MS 179.80 Wetland Crossing 0.11 Agricultural 

Perry, MS 179.83 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Agricultural, Residential 

Perry, MS 179.87 Wetland Crossing 0.11 Forest, Residential 

Perry, MS 179.88 Road and Wetland Crossing 0.10 Forest, Residential 

Perry, MS 179.94 Road and Wetland Crossing 0.12 Forest 

Perry, MS 179.95 Wetland Crossing 0.12 Forest 

Perry, MS 180.02 Wetland Crossing 0.12 Forest 

Perry, MS 180.05 Stream Crossing 0.10 Forest 

Perry, MS 180.08 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Perry, MS 180.11 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Perry, MS 180.24 Road Crossing 0.12 Forest 

Perry, MS 180.24 Road Crossing 0.13 Forest 

Perry, MS 180.27 Road and Wetland Crossing 0.08 Forest 

Perry, MS 180.39 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Forest 

Perry, MS 180.49 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Forest, Industrial/Commercial 

Perry, MS 180.50 Wetland Crossing 0.12 Forest 

Perry, MS 180.52 Road Crossing 0.15 Industrial/Commercial 

Perry, MS 180.62 Stream Crossing 0.06 Forest 

Perry, MS 180.91 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Perry, MS 180.97 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Perry, MS 181.04 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Perry, MS 181.08 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Perry, MS 181.30 Access Road 0.11 Forest, Open Land 

Perry, MS 181.32 Access Road 0.12 Forest 

Perry, MS 181.39 Wetland and Stream Crossing 0.12 Forest 

Perry, MS 181.39 Wetland and Stream Crossing 0.10 Forest 

Perry, MS 181.44 Wetland and Stream Crossing 0.10 Forest 

Perry, MS 181.44 Wetland and Stream Crossing 0.12 Forest 

Perry, MS 181.55 Road Crossing 0.05 Forest 

Perry, MS 181.56 Road Crossing 0.15 Forest 

Perry, MS 181.58 Road Crossing 0.05 Forest 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
F-44 

TABLE F-1 

Additional Temporary Workspace Utilized for the Proposed SESH Project 

County, State Milepost Description Total Acres Existing Land Use 

Perry, MS 181.59 Road Crossing 0.06 Forest 

Perry, MS 181.62 Road Crossing 0.03 Pine Plantation 

Perry, MS 181.62 Road Crossing 0.09 Pine Plantation, Residential 

Perry, MS 182.01 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Pine Plantation 

Perry, MS 182.04 Wetland Crossing 0.12 Pine Plantation 

Perry, MS 182.18 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Pine Plantation 

Perry, MS 182.20 Wetland Crossing 0.12 Pine Plantation 

Perry, MS 182.29 Wetland Crossing 0.12 Pine Plantation 

Perry, MS 182.30 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Pine Plantation 

Perry, MS 182.38 Wetland Crossing 0.12 Open Land 

Perry, MS 182.43 Wetland Crossing 0.38 Open Land 

Perry, MS 182.45 Wetland and Stream Crossing 0.12 Industrial/Commercial, Open Land 

Perry, MS 182.51 Wetland and Stream Crossing 0.10 Open Land 

Perry, MS 182.52 Wetland Crossing 0.12 Industrial/Commercial, Open Land 

Perry, MS 182.69 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Perry, MS 182.72 Stream Crossing 0.06 Forest 

Perry, MS 183.37 Wetland and Stream Crossing 0.12 Industrial/Commercial 

Perry, MS 183.38 Wetland and Stream Crossing 0.10 Forest 

Perry, MS 183.50 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Forest 

Perry, MS 183.52 Wetland Crossing 0.12 Forest, Industrial/Commercial 

Perry, MS 183.75 Road Crossing 0.08 Forest 

Perry, MS 183.75 Road Crossing 0.04 Forest 

Perry, MS 183.77 Road Crossing 0.10 Forest 

Perry, MS 183.78 Road Crossing 0.04 Forest 

Perry, MS 184.03 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Agricultural 

Perry, MS 184.03 Wetland Crossing 0.12 Agricultural 

Perry, MS 184.11 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Agricultural 

Perry, MS 184.12 Wetland Crossing 0.11 Agricultural 

Perry, MS 184.32 Access Road 0.10 Agricultural, Industrial/Commercial 

Perry, MS 184.34 Road Crossing 0.11 Forest 

Perry, MS 184.35 Road Crossing 0.18 Agricultural, Forest, Industrial/Commercial 

Perry, MS 184.39 Road Crossing 0.26 Forest 

Perry, MS 184.41 Road Crossing 0.04 Forest 

Perry, MS 185.88 Road Crossing 0.11 Agricultural 

Perry, MS 185.90 Road Crossing 0.10 Agricultural 

Perry, MS 185.93 Road Crossing 0.22 Agricultural 

Perry, MS 185.95 Road Crossing 0.03 Agricultural 

Perry, MS 186.28 Pipe Bending 0.06 Open Land 

Perry, MS 186.50 Stream Crossing 0.03 Open Land 

Perry, MS 186.54 Stream Crossing 0.03 Open Land 

Perry, MS 186.71 Pipeline Crossing 0.13 Forest, Industrial/Commercial 

Perry, MS 186.72 Pipeline Crossing 0.15 Forest, Industrial/Commercial 

Perry, MS 186.79 Access Road 0.07 Forest 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
F-45 

TABLE F-1 

Additional Temporary Workspace Utilized for the Proposed SESH Project 

County, State Milepost Description Total Acres Existing Land Use 

Perry, MS 186.80 Access Road 0.07 Forest 

Perry, MS 187.17 Road Crossing 0.04 Agricultural 

Perry, MS 187.18 Road and Stream Crossing 0.11 Agricultural 

Perry, MS 187.21 Road Crossing 0.05 Agricultural 

Perry, MS 187.21 Road Crossing 0.09 Agricultural 

Perry, MS 187.46 Railroad Crossing 0.03 Agricultural 

Perry, MS 187.46 Railroad Crossing 0.12 Agricultural 

Perry, MS 187.48 Railroad Crossing 0.05 Agricultural 

Perry, MS 187.48 Railroad Crossing 0.09 Agricultural, Forest 

Perry, MS 187.89 Stream Crossing 0.09 Forest 

Perry, MS 187.96 Stream Crossing 0.12 Forest 

Perry, MS 188.01 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Perry, MS 188.47 Stream Crossing 0.03 Pine Plantation 

Perry, MS 188.52 Stream Crossing 0.03 Pine Plantation 

Perry, MS 188.62 Road Crossing 0.07 Pine Plantation 

Perry, MS 188.63 Road Crossing 0.07 Pine Plantation 

Perry, MS 188.86 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Open Land 

Perry, MS 188.87 Wetland Crossing 0.12 Pine Plantation, Industrial/Commercial, Open 

Land 

Perry, MS 188.93 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Pine Plantation 

Perry, MS 188.97 Wetland and Stream Crossing 0.12 Pine Plantation, Industrial/Commercial 

Perry, MS 189.15 Wetland Crossing 0.11 Industrial/Commercial 

Perry, MS 189.16 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Agricultural 

Perry, MS 189.22 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Agricultural 

Perry, MS 189.27 Wetland and Road Crossing 0.40 Agricultural, Pine Plantation, 

Industrial/Commercial 

Perry, MS 189.30 Wetland and Road Crossing 0.10 Pine Plantation 

Perry, MS 189.37 Wetland and Stream Crossing 0.12 Industrial/Commercial 

Perry, MS 189.38 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Pine Plantation 

Perry, MS 189.53 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Pine Plantation 

Perry, MS 189.53 Wetland Crossing 0.11 Pine Plantation, Industrial/Commercial 

Perry, MS 189.60 Wetland and Stream Crossing 0.11 Pine Plantation 

Perry, MS 189.61 Wetland and Stream Crossing 0.11 Pine Plantation, Industrial/Commercial 

Perry, MS 189.84 Wetland Crossing 0.11 Pine Plantation, Industrial/Commercial 

Perry, MS 189.84 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Pine Plantation 

Perry, MS 189.90 Wetland and Stream Crossing 0.11 Pine Plantation, Industrial/Commercial 

Perry, MS 189.91 Wetland and Stream Crossing 0.11 Pine Plantation 

Perry, MS 189.98 Road Crossing 0.08 Pine Plantation, Industrial/Commercial 

Perry, MS 190.00 Road Crossing 0.09 Pine Plantation, Industrial/Commercial 

Perry, MS 190.38 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Pine Plantation 

Perry, MS 190.39 Wetland Crossing 0.12 Pine Plantation, Industrial/Commercial 

Perry, MS 190.50 Wetland Crossing 0.11 Pine Plantation, Industrial/Commercial 

Perry, MS 190.53 Road Crossing 0.16 Pine Plantation, Residential 

Perry, MS 190.55 Road Crossing 0.11 Pine Plantation, Industrial/Commercial 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
F-46 

TABLE F-1 

Additional Temporary Workspace Utilized for the Proposed SESH Project 

County, State Milepost Description Total Acres Existing Land Use 

Perry, MS 190.59 Road Crossing 0.17 Forest 

Perry, MS 190.60 Road Crossing 0.04 Industrial/Commercial 

Perry, MS 190.92 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Forest 

Perry, MS 190.92 Wetland Crossing 0.11 Forest, Industrial/Commercial 

Perry, MS 191.06 Wetland Crossing 0.12 Forest, Industrial/Commercial 

Perry, MS 191.08 Wetland and Stream Crossing 0.10 Forest 

Perry, MS 191.20 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Forest 

Perry, MS 191.21 Wetland Crossing 0.12 Industrial/Commercial 

Perry, MS 191.28 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Forest, Open Land 

Perry, MS 191.29 Wetland Crossing 0.12 Industrial/Commercial 

Perry, MS 191.39 Wetland Crossing 0.12 Industrial/Commercial 

Perry, MS 191.39 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Open Land 

Perry, MS 191.45 Wetland Crossing 0.12 Industrial/Commercial 

Perry, MS 191.46 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Open Land 

Perry, MS 191.74 Wetland and Stream Crossing 0.10 Forest, Open Land 

Perry, MS 191.74 Wetland and Stream Crossing 0.12 Industrial/Commercial, Open Land 

Perry, MS 191.81 Wetland and Stream Crossing 0.10 Forest, Industrial/Commercial 

Perry, MS 191.83 Wetland and Stream Crossing 0.10 Forest 

Perry, MS 191.95 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Perry, MS 191.98 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Perry, MS 192.03 Wetland Crossing 0.20 Forest 

Greene, MS 192.04 Wetland Crossing 0.12 Forest, Industrial/Commercial 

Greene, MS 192.15 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Forest 

Greene, MS 192.18 Wetland Crossing 0.12 Industrial/Commercial 

Greene, MS 192.31 Road Crossing 0.04 Industrial/Commercial 

Greene, MS 192.31 Road Crossing 0.10 Forest 

Greene, MS 192.34 Road Crossing 0.05 Industrial/Commercial 

Greene, MS 192.34 Road Crossing 0.08 Forest 

Greene, MS 192.53 Wetland Crossing 0.12 Industrial/Commercial 

Greene, MS 192.55 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Forest 

Greene, MS 192.70 Wetland Crossing 0.06 Forest 

Greene, MS 192.82 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Forest 

Greene, MS 192.85 Wetland Crossing 0.12 Pine Plantation, Industrial/Commercial 

Greene, MS 192.98 Wetland Crossing 0.12 Pine Plantation, Industrial/Commercial 

Greene, MS 193.06 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Pine Plantation 

Greene, MS 193.13 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Pine Plantation 

Greene, MS 193.14 Wetland Crossing 0.12 Pine Plantation, Industrial/Commercial 

Greene, MS 193.31 Access Road 0.12 Forest, Pine Plantation 

Greene, MS 193.34 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Forest 

Greene, MS 193.35 Wetland Crossing 0.12 Forest, Industrial/Commercial 

Greene, MS 193.39 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Forest 

Greene, MS 193.41 Wetland Crossing 0.12 Forest, Industrial/Commercial 

Greene, MS 193.45 Wetland Crossing 0.12 Forest, Industrial/Commercial 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
F-47 

TABLE F-1 

Additional Temporary Workspace Utilized for the Proposed SESH Project 

County, State Milepost Description Total Acres Existing Land Use 

Greene, MS 193.47 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Forest 

Greene, MS 194.00 Wetland Crossing 0.12 Forest, Industrial/Commercial 

Greene, MS 194.06 Road Crossing 0.10 Forest 

Greene, MS 194.07 Road Crossing 0.12 Forest, Industrial/Commercial 

Greene, MS 194.12 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Forest 

Greene, MS 194.19 Wetland Crossing 0.14 Pine Plantation 

Greene, MS 194.20 Wetland Crossing 0.21 Pine Plantation, Industrial/Commercial 

Greene, MS 194.27 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Pine Plantation 

Greene, MS 194.27 Wetland Crossing 0.12 Industrial/Commercial 

Greene, MS 194.41 Wetland Crossing 0.12 Industrial/Commercial 

Greene, MS 194.43 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Pine Plantation 

Greene, MS 194.62 Wetland and Stream Crossing 0.12 Forest, Industrial/Commercial 

Greene, MS 194.63 Wetland and Stream Crossing 0.10 Forest 

Greene, MS 195.21 Road Crossing 0.12 Forest 

Greene, MS 195.23 Road Crossing 0.17 Forest 

Greene, MS 195.25 Road Crossing 0.09 Forest 

Greene, MS 195.26 Road Crossing 0.10 Forest 

Greene, MS 195.33 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Greene, MS 195.36 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Greene, MS 195.38 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Greene, MS 195.43 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Greene, MS 195.47 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Greene, MS 195.47 Stream Crossing 0.03 Industrial/Commercial 

Greene, MS 195.51 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Greene, MS 195.55 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Greene, MS 195.58 Stream Crossing 0.07 Industrial/Commercial 

Greene, MS 195.59 Stream Crossing 0.10 Forest 

Greene, MS 195.80 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Greene, MS 195.83 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Greene, MS 195.87 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Greene, MS 195.90 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Greene, MS 195.94 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Greene, MS 196.06 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Greene, MS 196.09 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Greene, MS 196.16 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Greene, MS 196.22 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Greene, MS 196.28 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Greene, MS 196.31 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Greene, MS 196.35 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Greene, MS 196.38 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Greene, MS 196.44 Stream Crossing 0.03 Open Land 

Greene, MS 196.49 Stream Crossing 0.03 Open Land 

Greene, MS 196.52 Stream Crossing 0.03 Open Land 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
F-48 

TABLE F-1 

Additional Temporary Workspace Utilized for the Proposed SESH Project 

County, State Milepost Description Total Acres Existing Land Use 

Greene, MS 196.66 Stream Crossing 0.03 Pine Plantation 

Greene, MS 196.71 Road Crossing 0.10 Pine Plantation 

Greene, MS 196.72 Road Crossing 0.10 Pine Plantation 

Greene, MS 196.75 Road Crossing 0.19 Pine Plantation 

Greene, MS 196.76 Road Crossing 0.04 Pine Plantation 

Greene, MS 196.99 Wetland and Stream Crossing 0.12 Pine Plantation 

Greene, MS 197.01 Wetland and Stream Crossing 0.10 Pine Plantation 

Greene, MS 197.05 Wetland and Stream Crossing 0.12 Pine Plantation 

Greene, MS 197.06 Wetland and Stream Crossing 0.10 Pine Plantation 

Greene, MS 197.23 Wetland Crossing 0.12 Forest 

Greene, MS 197.24 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Forest 

Greene, MS 197.40 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Open Land 

Greene, MS 197.44 Wetland Crossing 0.12 Open Land 

Greene, MS 197.61 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Open Land 

Greene, MS 197.65 Wetland Crossing 0.12 Open Land 

Greene, MS 197.73 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Open Land 

Greene, MS 197.74 Wetland Crossing 0.12 Open Land 

Greene, MS 197.86 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Open Land 

Greene, MS 197.86 Wetland Crossing 0.12 Open Land 

Greene, MS 197.91 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Open Land 

Greene, MS 197.92 Wetland Crossing 0.12 Open Land 

Greene, MS 198.25 Wetland and Stream Crossing 0.12 Forest 

Greene, MS 198.32 Wetland and Stream Crossing 0.10 Forest 

Greene, MS 198.38 Wetland and Stream Crossing 0.12 Forest 

Greene, MS 198.39 Wetland and Stream Crossing 0.09 Forest 

Greene, MS 198.45 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Greene, MS 198.70 Wetland and Stream Crossing 0.12 Forest 

Greene, MS 198.71 Wetland and Stream Crossing 0.10 Forest 

Greene, MS 198.87 Wetland and Stream Crossing 0.28 Forest 

Greene, MS 198.87 Wetland and Road Crossing 0.17 Forest 

Greene, MS 198.92 Wetland and Road Crossing 0.11 Forest 

Greene, MS 198.92 Road Crossing 0.04 Forest 

Greene, MS 199.18 Wetland Crossing 0.12 Forest 

Greene, MS 199.19 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Forest 

Greene, MS 199.24 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Forest 

Greene, MS 199.25 Wetland Crossing 0.12 Forest 

Greene, MS 199.78 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Greene, MS 199.83 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Greene, MS 199.84 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Greene, MS 199.88 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Greene, MS 199.92 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Greene, MS 200.11 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Greene, MS 200.15 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
F-49 

TABLE F-1 

Additional Temporary Workspace Utilized for the Proposed SESH Project 

County, State Milepost Description Total Acres Existing Land Use 

Greene, MS 200.20 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Greene, MS 200.24 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Greene, MS 200.39 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Greene, MS 200.43 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Greene, MS 200.48 Road Crossing 0.06 Forest 

Greene, MS 200.50 Road Crossing 0.07 Open Land 

Greene, MS 200.68 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Forest, Open Land 

Greene, MS 200.75 Wetland and Stream Crossing 0.10 Forest 

Greene, MS 200.84 Wetland and Stream Crossing 0.12 Forest 

Greene, MS 200.85 Wetland and Stream Crossing 0.09 Forest 

Greene, MS 200.90 Wetland, Stream and Road 

Crossing 

0.09 Forest 

Greene, MS 200.90 Wetland, Stream and Road 

Crossing 

0.04 Forest 

Greene, MS 200.95 Wetland Crossing 0.11 Forest 

Greene, MS 200.96 Wetland Crossing 0.11 Forest 

Greene, MS 201.43 Road Crossing 0.18 Industrial/Commercial, Open Land 

Greene, MS 201.44 Road Crossing 0.07 Industrial/Commercial, Open Land 

Greene, MS 201.54 Road Crossing 0.16 Forest 

Greene, MS 201.54 Road Crossing 0.07 Forest 

Greene, MS 201.64 Road Crossing 0.06 Forest 

Greene, MS 201.68 Wetland and Stream Crossing 0.10 Forest 

Greene, MS 201.85 Wetland and Stream Crossing 0.10 Forest 

Greene, MS 201.96 Wetland and Stream Crossing 0.12 Forest, Industrial/Commercial 

Greene, MS 201.96 Wetland and Stream Crossing 0.10 Forest 

Greene, MS 202.02 Wetland and Stream Crossing 0.12 Pine Plantation, Industrial/Commercial 

Greene, MS 202.03 Wetland and Stream Crossing 0.10 Forest, Pine Plantation 

Greene, MS 202.39 Wetland Crossing 0.12 Pine Plantation 

Greene, MS 202.45 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Forest 

Greene, MS 202.50 Wetland Crossing 0.12 Pine Plantation, Industrial/Commercial 

Greene, MS 202.52 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Pine Plantation 

Greene, MS 202.67 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Pine Plantation 

Greene, MS 202.70 Wetland Crossing 0.12 Pine Plantation, Industrial/Commercial 

Greene, MS 203.08 Wetland Crossing 0.15 Pine Plantation, Industrial/Commercial 

Greene, MS 203.27 Wetland and Road Crossing 0.10 Pine Plantation 

Greene, MS 203.28 Wetland and Road Crossing 0.12 Forest, Industrial/Commercial 

Greene, MS 203.32 Wetland Crossing 0.12 Forest, Industrial/Commercial 

Greene, MS 203.34 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Forest 

Greene, MS 203.43 Wetland and Stream Crossing 0.10 Forest 

Greene, MS 203.44 Wetland and Stream Crossing 0.12 Industrial/Commercial 

Greene, MS 203.51 Wetland and Stream Crossing 0.10 Forest 

Greene, MS 203.52 Wetland and Stream Crossing 0.12 Forest, Industrial/Commercial 

Greene, MS 203.63 Wetland Crossing 0.07 Forest 

Greene, MS 203.63 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Forest, Open Land 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
F-50 

TABLE F-1 

Additional Temporary Workspace Utilized for the Proposed SESH Project 

County, State Milepost Description Total Acres Existing Land Use 

Greene, MS 203.73 Wetland and Stream Crossing 0.12 Forest 

Greene, MS 203.73 Wetland and Stream Crossing 0.10 Forest, Open Land 

Greene, MS 203.94 Wetland Crossing 0.12 Forest 

Greene, MS 203.94 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Forest 

Greene, MS 204.23 Road Crossing 0.15 Open Land 

Greene, MS 204.27 Road Crossing 0.15 Open Land 

Greene, MS 204.58 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Forest 

Greene, MS 204.60 Wetland Crossing 0.12 Forest, Industrial/Commercial 

Greene, MS 205.09 Road Crossing 0.10 Forest 

Greene, MS 205.11 Wetland Crossing 0.14 Forest, Industrial/Commercial 

Greene, MS 205.14 Wetland and Stream Crossing 0.10 Forest 

Greene, MS 205.26 Wetland Crossing 0.12 Forest, Industrial/Commercial 

Greene, MS 205.27 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Forest 

Greene, MS 205.53 Wetland Crossing 0.12 Forest, Industrial/Commercial 

Greene, MS 205.53 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Forest 

Greene, MS 205.75 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Open Land 

Greene, MS 205.76 Wetland Crossing 0.12 Industrial/Commercial, Open Land 

Greene, MS 205.93 Wetland Crossing 0.12 Industrial/Commercial, Open Land 

Greene, MS 205.97 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Open Land 

Greene, MS 206.57 Wetland Crossing 0.12 Forest, Industrial/Commercial 

Greene, MS 206.61 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Forest 

Greene, MS 206.71 Wetland and Stream Crossing 0.12 Forest, Industrial/Commercial 

Greene, MS 206.72 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Forest 

Greene, MS 206.82 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Forest 

Greene, MS 206.84 Wetland Crossing 0.63 Forest, Industrial/Commercial 

Greene, MS 206.89 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Forest 

Greene, MS 206.97 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Forest 

Greene, MS 206.99 Wetland Crossing 0.12 Forest, Industrial/Commercial 

Greene, MS 207.16 Road Crossing 0.09 Forest 

Greene, MS 207.19 Road and Wetland Crossing 0.12 Forest, Industrial/Commercial 

Greene, MS 207.26 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Forest, Pine Plantation 

Greene, MS 207.27 Wetland Crossing 0.12 Forest 

Greene, MS 207.45 Road and Utility Crossong 0.13 Forest 

Greene, MS 207.48 Road and Utility Crossong 0.26 Forest, Pine Plantation 

Greene, MS 207.65 Wetland Crossing 0.12 Pine Plantation 

Greene, MS 207.67 Wetland Crossing 0.06 Pine Plantation 

Greene, MS 207.77 Wetland and Stream Crossing 0.27 Pine Plantation, Industrial/Commercial 

Greene, MS 207.77 Wetland and Stream Crossing 0.34 Pine Plantation 

Greene, MS 207.83 Wetland and Stream Crossing 0.12 Pine Plantation, Industrial/Commercial 

Greene, MS 207.84 Wetland and Stream Crossing 0.10 Pine Plantation 

Greene, MS 207.94 Stream Crossing 0.03 Pine Plantation 

Greene, MS 207.97 Stream Crossing 0.03 Pine Plantation 

Greene, MS 208.02 Road Crossing 0.14 Pine Plantation 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
F-51 

TABLE F-1 

Additional Temporary Workspace Utilized for the Proposed SESH Project 

County, State Milepost Description Total Acres Existing Land Use 

Greene, MS 208.13 Wetland Crossing 0.26 Forest, Pine Plantation, Industrial/Commercial 

Greene, MS 208.13 Wetland Crossing 0.20 Forest, Pine Plantation, Industrial/Commercial 

Greene, MS 208.23 Wetland and Stream Crossing 0.11 Forest 

Greene, MS 208.24 Wetland and Stream Crossing 0.10 Forest 

Greene, MS 208.30 Wetland and Stream Crossing 0.12 Forest 

Greene, MS 208.31 Wetland and Stream Crossing 0.10 Forest 

Greene, MS 208.58 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Forest 

Greene, MS 208.58 Wetland Crossing 0.11 Forest 

Greene, MS 208.64 Wetland Crossing 0.11 Forest, Open Land 

Greene, MS 208.68 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Open Land 

Greene, MS 208.88 Wetland Crossing 0.12 Forest 

Greene, MS 208.89 Wetland Crossing 0.13 Open Land 

Greene, MS 208.95* HDD of Stream 0.23 Forest 

Greene, MS 208.95* HDD of Stream 0.17 Forest, Industrial/Commercial 

Greene, MS 209.23* HDD of Stream 0.21 Forest 

Greene, MS 209.23* HDD of Stream 0.23 Open Land 

Greene, MS 209.54* Wetland Crossing 0.11 Forest 

Greene, MS 209.56* Wetland Crossing 0.10 Forest, Industrial/Commercial 

Greene, MS 209.64* Wetland Crossing 0.12 Forest, Industrial/Commercial 

Greene, MS 209.65* Wetland Crossing 0.10 Forest 

Greene, MS 209.78* Access Road 0.10 Forest 

Greene, MS 209.80* Access Road 0.09 Forest 

Greene, MS 210.14* Access Road 0.06 Forest 

Greene, MS 210.16* Access Road 0.05 Forest 

Greene, MS 210.41* Wetland Crossing 0.10 Forest 

Greene, MS 210.43* Wetland Crossing 0.12 Industrial/Commercial 

George, MS 210.51* Wetland Crossing 0.10 Forest 

George, MS 210.52 Wetland Crossing 0.12 Industrial/Commercial 

George, MS 210.85 Pipeline Crossing 0.12 Agricultural 

George, MS 210.88 Pipeline Crossing 0.26 Agricultural, Industrial/Commercial 

George, MS 211.06 Road Crossing 0.11 Forest 

George, MS 211.06 Road Crossing 0.04 Forest 

George, MS 211.10 Road Crossing 0.07 Open Land 

George, MS 211.10 Road Crossing 0.16 Open Land 

George, MS 211.25 Wetland Crossing 0.12 Forest, Open Land 

George, MS 211.27 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Forest 

George, MS 211.72 Railroad and Wetland Crossing 0.12 Open Land 

George, MS 211.72 Railroad and Wetland Crossing 0.06 Industrial/Commercial 

George, MS 211.74 Railroad Crossing 0.09 Open Land 

George, MS 211.75 Railroad Crossing 0.04 Industrial/Commercial 

George, MS 212.01 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Forest 

George, MS 212.02 Wetland Crossing 0.12 Forest, Industrial/Commercial 

George, MS 212.11 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Forest 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
F-52 

TABLE F-1 

Additional Temporary Workspace Utilized for the Proposed SESH Project 

County, State Milepost Description Total Acres Existing Land Use 

George, MS 212.14 Wetland Crossing 0.12 Forest, Industrial/Commercial 

George, MS 212.58 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Forest 

George, MS 212.59 Wetland Crossing 0.12 Forest 

George, MS 212.64 Road Crossing 0.22 Forest 

George, MS 212.70 Wetland Crossing 0.15 Forest 

George, MS 212.77 Wetland Crossing 0.14 Forest 

George, MS 212.77 Wetland Crossing 0.14 Industrial/Commercial 

George, MS 213.14 Wetland Crossing 0.11 Forest, Industrial/Commercial 

George, MS 213.15 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Forest 

George, MS 213.32 Wetland and Stream Crossing 0.12 Forest, Industrial/Commercial 

George, MS 213.32 Wetland and Stream Crossing 0.10 Forest 

George, MS 213.52 Wetland Crossing 0.12 Forest, Industrial/Commercial 

George, MS 213.52 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Forest 

George, MS 213.68 Road Crossing 0.10 Forest 

George, MS 213.69 Road Crossing 0.05 Forest 

George, MS 213.71 Road Crossing 0.10 Pine Plantation 

George, MS 213.71 Road Crossing 0.04 Pine Plantation 

George, MS 213.81* Road Crossing 0.09 Forest 

George, MS 213.83* Road Crossing 0.10 Industrial/Commercial 

George, MS 213.86* Road Crossing 0.26 Forest 

George, MS 213.88* Road Crossing 0.08 Industrial/Commercial 

George, MS 214.20 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Forest 

George, MS 214.23 Wetland Crossing 0.12 Industrial/Commercial 

George, MS 214.33 Wetland and Stream Crossing 0.12 Industrial/Commercial 

George, MS 214.34 Wetland and Stream Crossing 0.10 Forest 

George, MS 214.49 Wetland Crossing 0.12 Industrial/Commercial 

George, MS 214.49 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Forest 

George, MS 214.55 Wetland Crossing 0.20 Industrial/Commercial 

George, MS 214.56 Wetland Crossing 0.14 Forest 

George, MS 214.66 Wetland Crossing 0.12 Industrial/Commercial 

George, MS 214.68 Wetland and Road Crossing 0.31 Forest 

George, MS 214.70 Road Crossing 0.06 Industrial/Commercial 

George, MS 214.73 Road Crossing 0.19 Forest 

George, MS 214.79 Wetland Crossing 0.12 Industrial/Commercial 

George, MS 214.90 Wetland and Pipeline Crossing 0.13 Forest, Industrial/Commercial 

George, MS 214.93 Wetland Crossing 0.44 Forest, Industrial/Commercial 

George, MS 215.03 Wetland and Stream Crossing 0.10 Forest 

George, MS 215.13 Wetland Crossing 0.12 Forest, Industrial/Commercial 

George, MS 215.14 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Forest 

George, MS 215.22 Waterbody Crossing 0.10 Forest 

George, MS 215.26 Wetland and Waterbody 

Crossing 

0.11 Forest, Industrial/Commercial 

George, MS 215.32 Wetland and Waterbody 

Crossing 

0.10 Open Land 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
F-53 

TABLE F-1 

Additional Temporary Workspace Utilized for the Proposed SESH Project 

County, State Milepost Description Total Acres Existing Land Use 

George, MS 215.34 Wetland Crossing 0.11 Industrial/Commercial, Open Land 

George, MS 215.39 Road Crossing 0.04 Open Land 

George, MS 215.39 Road Crossing 0.10 Open Land 

George, MS 215.42 Road Crossing 0.04 Open Land 

George, MS 215.42 Road Crossing 0.07 Open Land 

George, MS 215.60 Wetland Crossing 0.11 Forest, Industrial/Commercial 

George, MS 215.60 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Forest 

George, MS 215.71 Wetland Crossing 0.14 Open Land 

George, MS 215.71 Wetland Crossing 0.14 Industrial/Commercial, Open Land 

George, MS 215.77 Wetland Crossing 0.12 Industrial/Commercial, Open Land 

George, MS 215.77 Wetland Crossing 0.14 Open Land 

George, MS 215.83 Wetland Crossing 0.14 Industrial/Commercial, Open Land 

George, MS 215.85 Wetland Crossing 0.14 Open Land 

George, MS 215.93 Wetland Crossing 0.11 Industrial/Commercial, Open Land 

George, MS 215.94 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Forest, Open Land 

George, MS 216.51 Wetland Crossing 0.12 Industrial/Commercial, Open Land 

George, MS 216.52 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Open Land 

George, MS 216.58 Wetland Crossing 0.11 Industrial/Commercial, Open Land 

George, MS 216.59 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Open Land 

George, MS 216.64 Wetland and Stream Crossing 0.11 Industrial/Commercial, Open Land 

George, MS 216.65 Road Crossing 0.10 Open Land 

George, MS 216.71 Wetland Crossing 0.14 Forest 

George, MS 216.77 Wetland and Road Crossing 0.11 Forest, Industrial/Commercial 

George, MS 216.77 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Forest 

George, MS 216.83 Road Crossing 0.09 Open Land 

George, MS 216.85 Road and Wetland Crossing 0.12 Industrial/Commercial, Open Land 

George, MS 217.02 Wetland and Railroad Crossing 0.08 Forest, Industrial/Commercial 

George, MS 217.02 Wetland and Railroad Crossing 0.04 Forest, Industrial/Commercial 

George, MS 217.06 Railroad Crossing 0.05 Pine Plantation, Industrial/Commercial 

George, MS 217.06 Railroad Crossing 0.01 Pine Plantation 

George, MS 217.55 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Pine Plantation 

George, MS 217.55 Wetland Crossing 0.12 Pine Plantation 

George, MS 217.64 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Pine Plantation 

George, MS 217.64 Wetland Crossing 0.12 Pine Plantation 

George, MS 217.84 Wetland Crossing 0.11 Pine Plantation 

George, MS 217.84 Wetland Crossing 0.12 Pine Plantation, Industrial/Commercial 

George, MS 217.91 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Pine Plantation 

George, MS 217.99 Wetland Crossing 0.11 Industrial/Commercial 

George, MS 218.25* Wetland Crossing 0.18 Forest 

George, MS 218.28* Wetland Crossing 0.03 Forest 

George, MS 218.55* Wetland Crossing 0.12 Forest 

George, MS 218.56* Wetland Crossing 0.13 Open Land 

George, MS 218.60* Road Crossing 0.08 Forest 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
F-54 

TABLE F-1 

Additional Temporary Workspace Utilized for the Proposed SESH Project 

County, State Milepost Description Total Acres Existing Land Use 

George, MS 218.60* Road Crossing 0.07 Open Land 

George, MS 218.62* Road Crossing 0.18 Forest 

George, MS 218.63* Road Crossing 0.03 Open Land 

George, MS 218.79* Road Crossing 0.32 Industrial/Commercial 

George, MS 218.80* Road Crossing 0.08 Open Land 

George, MS 218.84* Road Crossing 0.12 Open Land 

George, MS 218.85* Road Crossing 0.08 Industrial/Commercial 

George, MS 219.16 Road Crossing 0.08 Agricultural, Industrial/Commercial 

George, MS 219.16 Road Crossing 0.04 Agricultural 

George, MS 219.18 Road Crossing 0.03 Agricultural, Industrial/Commercial 

George, MS 219.18 Road Crossing 0.08 Industrial/Commercial 

George, MS 219.28 Pipeline Crossing 0.15 Forest 

George, MS 219.35 Pipeline Crossing 0.15 Agricultural 

George, MS 219.67 Road Crossing 0.03 Residential 

George, MS 219.67 Road Crossing 0.09 Residential 

George, MS 219.69 Road Crossing 0.04 Forest 

George, MS 219.69 Road Crossing 0.08 Forest 

George, MS 219.76 Road Crossing 0.10 Agricultural, Forest 

George, MS 219.78 Road Crossing 0.12 Industrial/Commercial 

George, MS 219.81 Road Crossing 0.24 Agricultural 

George, MS 219.83 Road Crossing 0.04 Industrial/Commercial 

George, MS 220.18 Road Crossing 0.04 Industrial/Commercial 

George, MS 220.19 Road Crossing 0.10 Agricultural, Forest 

George, MS 220.21 Road Crossing 0.05 Industrial/Commercial 

George, MS 220.21 Road Crossing 0.08 Agricultural 

George, MS 220.43 Wetland Crossing 0.12 Industrial/Commercial 

George, MS 220.44 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Forest 

George, MS 220.54 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Agricultural 

George, MS 220.54 Wetland Crossing 0.12 Industrial/Commercial 

George, MS 221.63 Road Crossing 0.03 Agricultural 

George, MS 221.63 Road Crossing 0.08 Agricultural 

George, MS 221.65 Road Crossing 0.08 Agricultural 

George, MS 221.65 Road Crossing 0.04 Agricultural, Forest 

George, MS 223.02 Road Crossing 0.09 Forest 

George, MS 223.03 Road Crossing 0.08 Forest 

George, MS 223.07 Road Crossing 0.04 Forest 

George, MS 223.07 Road Crossing 0.32 Forest 

George, MS 223.29* Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

George, MS 223.32* Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

George, MS 223.81* Road Crossing 0.29 Forest/Open Land 

George, MS 223.82* Road Crossing 0.30 Forest/Open Land 

George, MS 224.02 Road Crossing 0.07 Agricultural, Industrial/Commercial 

George, MS 224.02 Road Crossing 0.18 Agricultural, Industrial/Commercial 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
F-55 

TABLE F-1 

Additional Temporary Workspace Utilized for the Proposed SESH Project 

County, State Milepost Description Total Acres Existing Land Use 

George, MS 224.08 Road and Wetland Crossing 0.08 Forest, Industrial/Commercial 

George, MS 224.09 Road Crossing 0.16 Forest, Industrial/Commercial 

George, MS 224.21 Wetland Crossing 0.12 Industrial/Commercial 

George, MS 224.23 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Forest 

George, MS 224.45 Wetland Crossing 0.14 Forest 

George, MS 224.46 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Industrial/Commercial 

George, MS 224.54 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Residential 

George, MS 224.54 Wetland Crossing 0.12 Industrial/Commercial, Residential 

George, MS 224.75 Road Crossing 0.09 Forest 

George, MS 224.75 Road Crossing 0.07 Industrial/Commercial 

George, MS 224.79 Road Crossing 0.37 Residential 

George, MS 224.79 Road Crossing 0.04 Industrial/Commercial 

George, MS 224.90 Wetland Crossing 0.26 Forest 

George, MS 224.93 Wetland Crossing 0.12 Forest, Industrial/Commercial 

George, MS 225.18 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Pine Plantation 

George, MS 225.19 Wetland Crossing 0.12 Industrial/Commercial 

George, MS 225.57 Pipeline Crossing 0.47 Agricultural 

George, MS 225.58 Pipeline Crossing 0.45 Agricultural 

George, MS 225.85 Road Crossing 0.03 Agricultural 

George, MS 225.85 Road Crossing 0.13 Agricultural 

George, MS 225.88 Road Crossing 0.06 Agricultural 

George, MS 225.88 Road Crossing 0.09 Forest 

George, MS 225.97 Pipeline Crossing 0.34 Agricultural, Industrial/Commercial 

George, MS 225.97 Pipeline Crossing 0.37 Agricultural, Forest, Open Land 

George, MS 226.26 Wetland and Stream Crossing 0.12 Forest, Industrial/Commercial 

George, MS 226.29 Wetland and Stream Crossing 0.10 Forest 

George, MS 226.43 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Forest 

George, MS 226.43 Wetland Crossing 0.12 Industrial/Commercial, Open Land 

George, MS 226.50 Road Crossing 0.08 Forest 

George, MS 226.51 Road Crossing 0.04 Industrial/Commercial 

George, MS 226.53 Road Crossing 0.08 Forest 

George, MS 226.53 Road Crossing 0.04 Industrial/Commercial 

George, MS 227.06 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Forest 

George, MS 227.09 Wetland Crossing 0.11 Forest 

George, MS 227.30 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Forest, Pine Plantation 

George, MS 227.32 Wetland Crossing 0.12 Forest 

George, MS 227.45 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

George, MS 227.48 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

George, MS 228.16 Wetland Crossing 0.12 Pine Plantation 

George, MS 228.17 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Pine Plantation 

George, MS 228.23 Wetland Crossing 0.12 Pine Plantation 

George, MS 228.24 Wetland Crossing 0.14 Pine Plantation 

George, MS 228.28 Wetland and Stream Crossing 0.12 Forest, Pine Plantation 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
F-56 

TABLE F-1 

Additional Temporary Workspace Utilized for the Proposed SESH Project 

County, State Milepost Description Total Acres Existing Land Use 

George, MS 228.34 Wetland and Stream Crossing 0.10 Forest 

George, MS 228.43 Wetland Crossing 0.12 Forest 

George, MS 228.71 Road Crossing 0.04 Agricultural 

George, MS 228.74 Road Crossing 0.27 Agricultural 

George, MS 228.77 Road Crossing 0.12 Agricultural 

George, MS 228.79 Road Crossing 0.10 Agricultural 

George, MS 228.85 Road Crossing 0.09 Agricultural 

George, MS 228.85 Road Crossing 0.07 Agricultural 

George, MS 228.89 Road Crossing 0.16 Agricultural 

George, MS 228.89 Road Crossing 0.04 Agricultural 

George, MS 229.47 Road and Wetland Crossing 0.12 Forest, Residential 

George, MS 229.49 Road and Wetland Crossing 0.12 Residential 

George, MS 229.62 Wetland Crossing 0.12 Forest 

George, MS 229.64 Road Crossing 0.10 Forest 

George, MS 230.39 Road Crossing 0.04 Open Land 

George, MS 230.39 Road Crossing 0.13 Open Land 

George, MS 230.42 Road Crossing 0.08 Agricultural 

George, MS 230.42 Road Crossing 0.05 Agricultural 

George, MS 230.91 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Forest 

George, MS 230.92 Wetland Crossing 0.12 Forest 

George, MS 231.03 Wetland Crossing 0.11 Forest 

George, MS 231.06 Wetland and Waterbody 

Crossing 

0.10 Forest 

George, MS 231.25 Wetland Crossing 0.12 Forest, Open Land 

George, MS 231.27 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Forest 

George, MS 231.39 Wetland Crossing 0.12 Forest 

George, MS 231.39 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Forest 

George, MS 231.66 Road Crossing 0.07 Residential 

George, MS 231.66 Road Crossing 0.18 Residential 

George, MS 231.72 Road Crossing 0.17 Industrial/Commercial, Open Land 

George, MS 231.72 Road Crossing 0.07 Industrial/Commercial, Open Land 

George, MS 232.13 Stream Crossing 0.06 Forest 

George, MS 232.21 Wetland and Stream Crossing 0.12 Forest 

George, MS 232.23 Wetland and Stream Crossing 0.10 Forest, Open Land 

George, MS 232.28 Wetland and Stream Crossing 0.12 Forest 

George, MS 232.29 Wetland and Stream Crossing 0.10 Forest 

George, MS 233.52 Road Crossing 0.15 Forest 

George, MS 233.69 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Forest 

George, MS 233.70 Wetland Crossing 0.12 Forest 

George, MS 234.16 Wetland Crossing 0.11 Open Land 

George, MS 234.69 Wetland Crossing 0.12 Forest 

George, MS 234.80 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Forest 

George, MS 235.02 Wetland Crossing 0.06 Agricultural 

George, MS 235.07 Wetland Crossing 0.12 Agricultural, Forest 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
F-57 

TABLE F-1 

Additional Temporary Workspace Utilized for the Proposed SESH Project 

County, State Milepost Description Total Acres Existing Land Use 

George, MS 235.09 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Forest 

George, MS 235.36* HDD of Wetland and Stream 0.23 Forest 

George, MS 235.38* HDD of Wetland and Stream 0.11 Forest 

George, MS 235.72* HDD of Wetland and Stream 0.23 Forest 

George, MS 235.74* HDD of Wetland and Stream 0.18 Forest 

Jackson, MS 236.35 Wetland Crossing 0.12 Forest, Industrial/Commercial 

Jackson, MS 236.39 Wetland and Road Crossing 0.24 Agricultural, Forest 

Jackson, MS 236.39 Road Crossing 0.03 Agricultural, Forest 

Jackson, MS 236.43 Road Crossing 0.06 Agricultural 

Jackson, MS 236.44 Road Crossing 0.13 Agricultural 

Jackson, MS 237.02 Road Crossing 0.06 Industrial/Commercial 

Jackson, MS 237.14 Road Crossing 0.13 Agricultural 

Jackson, MS 237.52 Road and Wetland Crossing 0.10 Forest 

Jackson, MS 237.52 Road and Wetland Crossing 0.12 Forest 

Jackson, MS 237.72 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Forest 

Jackson, MS 237.74 Wetland Crossing 0.12 Forest 

Jackson, MS 237.86 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Jackson, MS 237.89 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Jackson, MS 238.14 Pipe Bending 0.06 Forest, Open Land 

Jackson, MS 238.52 Stream Crossing 0.03 Agricultural, Open Land 

Jackson, MS 238.59 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Jackson, MS 238.66 Road Crossing 0.04 Open Land 

Jackson, MS 238.67 Road Crossing 0.19 Open Land 

Jackson, MS 238.70 Road Crossing 0.08 Agricultural 

Jackson, MS 238.72 Road Crossing 0.09 Agricultural 

Jackson, MS 238.77 Road Crossing 0.09 Agricultural 

Jackson, MS 238.77 Road Crossing 0.06 Agricultural 

Jackson, MS 238.80 Road Crossing 0.12 Open Land 

Jackson, MS 238.81 Road Crossing 0.04 Open Land 

Jackson, MS 239.26 Stream Crossing 0.03 Open Land 

Jackson, MS 239.29 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Jackson, MS 239.41 Road Crossing 0.04 Agricultural 

Jackson, MS 239.41 Road Crossing 0.09 Agricultural 

Jackson, MS 239.44 Road Crossing 0.04 Agricultural 

Jackson, MS 239.44 Road Crossing 0.09 Agricultural 

Mobile, AL 240.43 Road Crossing 0.09 Agricultural 

Mobile, AL 240.44 Road Crossing 0.06 Agricultural 

Mobile, AL 240.47 Road Crossing 0.17 Agricultural 

Mobile, AL 240.48 Road Crossing 0.04 Agricultural 

Mobile, AL 240.63 Road Crossing 0.09 Agricultural 

Mobile, AL 241.44 Wetland Crossing 0.12 Forest 

Mobile, AL 241.45 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Forest 

Mobile, AL 241.56 Wetland Crossing 0.12 Forest 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
F-58 

TABLE F-1 

Additional Temporary Workspace Utilized for the Proposed SESH Project 

County, State Milepost Description Total Acres Existing Land Use 

Mobile, AL 241.56 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Forest 

Mobile, AL 241.71 Stream Crossing 0.03 Agricultural 

Mobile, AL 241.74 Stream Crossing 0.03 Agricultural 

Mobile, AL 241.89 Wetland and Stream Crossing 0.03 Agricultural 

Mobile, AL 241.93 Wetland and Stream Crossing 0.03 Residential 

Mobile, AL 241.98 Wetland and Stream Crossing 0.12 Residential 

Mobile, AL 241.98 Wetland and Stream Crossing 0.10 Residential 

Mobile, AL 242.08 Wetland Crossing 0.12 Forest, Residential 

Mobile, AL 242.09 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Residential 

Mobile, AL 242.19 Road Crossing 0.14 Agricultural, Residential 

Mobile, AL 242.25 Pipe Bending 0.06 Agricultural 

Mobile, AL 242.83 Wetland Crossing 0.12 Forest, Industrial/Commercial 

Mobile, AL 242.83 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Industrial/Commercial 

Mobile, AL 242.92 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Forest, Industrial/Commercial 

Mobile, AL 242.93 Wetland Crossing 0.12 Forest, Industrial/Commercial 

Mobile, AL 243.04 Wetland Crossing 0.11 Forest, Industrial/Commercial 

Mobile, AL 243.05 Wetland Crossing 0.11 Forest, Industrial/Commercial 

Mobile, AL 243.10 Wetland and Road Crossing 0.10 Forest 

Mobile, AL 243.12 Wetland and Road Crossing 0.12 Forest 

Mobile, AL 243.40 Road Crossing 0.06 Forest 

Mobile, AL 243.82 Wetland Crossing 0.06 Forest 

Mobile, AL 244.29 Wetland Crossing 0.12 Forest 

Mobile, AL 244.29 Wetland and Stream Crossing 0.10 Forest 

Mobile, AL 244.42 Wetland and Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Mobile, AL 244.43 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Forest 

Mobile, AL 244.48 Wetland Crossing 0.12 Forest 

Mobile, AL 244.68 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Forest 

Mobile, AL 244.71 Wetland Crossing 0.12 Forest 

Mobile, AL 245.02 Wetland Crossing 0.12 Forest 

Mobile, AL 245.03 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Forest 

Mobile, AL 245.12 Wetland Crossing 0.13 Forest, Industrial/Commercial 

Mobile, AL 245.13 Wetland Crossing 0.09 Forest, Industrial/Commercial 

Mobile, AL 245.81 Pipeline Crossing 0.05 Forest 

Mobile, AL 245.81 Pipeline and Wetland Crossing 0.09 Forest 

Mobile, AL 245.84 Road Crossing 0.10 Forest 

Mobile, AL 245.84 Road Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Mobile, AL 246.75 Wetland Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Mobile, AL 246.78 Wetland Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Mobile, AL 246.90 Wetland Crossing 0.12 Industrial/Commercial 

Mobile, AL 246.91 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Forest 

Mobile, AL 246.98 Wetland Crossing 0.11 Industrial/Commercial 

Mobile, AL 247.00 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Forest 

Mobile, AL 247.11 Road Crossing 0.14 Forest 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
F-59 

TABLE F-1 

Additional Temporary Workspace Utilized for the Proposed SESH Project 

County, State Milepost Description Total Acres Existing Land Use 

Mobile, AL 247.27 Wetland Crossing 0.16 Industrial/Commercial 

Mobile, AL 247.31 Wetland Crossing 0.25 Forest, Industrial/Commercial 

Mobile, AL 247.37 Wetland and Road Crossing 0.16 Forest, Industrial/Commercial 

Mobile, AL 247.42 Wetland Crossing 0.13 Agricultural, Forest, Industrial/Commercial 

Mobile, AL 247.45 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Agricultural 

Mobile, AL 247.45 Wetland and Stream Crossing 0.12 Agricultural 

Mobile, AL 247.90 Wetland Crossing 0.12 Forest, Industrial/Commercial 

Mobile, AL 247.90 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Forest 

Mobile, AL 248.00 Road Crossing 0.23 Agricultural, Forest 

Mobile, AL 248.02 Road Crossing 0.11 Forest, Industrial/Commercial 

Mobile, AL 248.10 Road and Wetland Crossing 0.08 Agricultural 

Mobile, AL 248.10 Road Crossing 0.04 Industrial/Commercial 

Mobile, AL 248.13 Wetland Crossing 0.13 Agricultural, Forest 

Mobile, AL 248.13 Wetland Crossing 0.06 Agricultural, Forest 

Mobile, AL 248.17 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Forest 

Mobile, AL 248.18 Wetland Crossing 0.12 Forest 

Mobile, AL 249.86 Road Crossing 0.08 Forest 

Mobile, AL 249.86 Road Crossing 0.04 Forest 

Mobile, AL 249.89 Road Crossing 0.04 Forest 

Mobile, AL 249.89 Road Crossing 0.16 Forest 

Mobile, AL 250.81 Road Crossing 0.08 Agricultural 

Mobile, AL 250.82 Road Crossing 0.07 Agricultural, Forest 

Mobile, AL 251.09 Road Crossing 0.09 Agricultural 

Mobile, AL 251.09 Road Crossing 0.05 Agricultural 

Mobile, AL 251.12 Road Crossing 0.11 Forest, Open Land 

Mobile, AL 251.13 Road Crossing 0.04 Open Land 

Mobile, AL 251.35 Pipeline Crossing 0.12 Open Land 

Mobile, AL 251.38 Pipeline Crossing 0.12 Open Land 

Mobile, AL 251.87 Wetland Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Mobile, AL 251.91 Wetland Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Mobile, AL 252.83* Wetland and Stream Crossing 0.10 Forest 

Mobile, AL 252.84* Wetland and Stream Crossing 0.12 Forest 

Mobile, AL 252.89* Wetland and Stream Crossing 0.10 Forest 

Mobile, AL 252.90* Wetland and Stream Crossing 0.12 Agricultural, Forest 

Mobile, AL 253.18* Road Crossing 0.12 Agricultural 

Mobile, AL 253.21* Road Crossing 0.11 Agricultural 

Mobile, AL 254.00 Road Crossing 0.09 Agricultural 

Mobile, AL 254.00 Road Crossing 0.07 Agricultural 

Mobile, AL 254.03 Road Crossing 0.10 Agricultural 

Mobile, AL 254.03 Road Crossing 0.04 Agricultural 

Mobile, AL 255.76 Wetland Crossing 0.12 Agricultural, Forest 

Mobile, AL 255.77 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Agricultural, Forest 

Mobile, AL 255.84 Wetland Crossing 0.12 Agricultural 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
F-60 

TABLE F-1 

Additional Temporary Workspace Utilized for the Proposed SESH Project 

County, State Milepost Description Total Acres Existing Land Use 

Mobile, AL 255.86 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Agricultural 

Mobile, AL 256.27 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Mobile, AL 256.32 Stream Crossing 0.03 Forest 

Mobile, AL 256.60 Road Crossing 0.04 Forest 

Mobile, AL 256.60 Road Crossing 0.13 Forest 

Mobile, AL 256.63 Road Crossing 0.06 Forest 

Mobile, AL 256.63 Road Crossing 0.09 Forest 

Mobile, AL 256.79 Pipeline Crossing 0.20 Forest 

Mobile, AL 256.79 Pipeline Crossing 0.24 Forest 

Mobile, AL 256.95 Wetland Crossing 0.12 Forest 

Mobile, AL 256.96 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Forest 

Mobile, AL 257.29 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Forest 

Mobile, AL 257.32 Wetland Crossing 0.12 Forest 

Mobile, AL 257.60 Road Crossing 0.07 Open Land 

Mobile, AL 257.60 Road Crossing 0.14 Open Land 

Mobile, AL 257.70 Road Crossing 0.07 Agricultural 

Mobile, AL 257.71 Road Crossing 0.19 Agricultural, Industrial/Commercial 

Mobile, AL 258.18 Stream Crossing 0.03 Agricultural 

Mobile, AL 258.22 Stream Crossing 0.03 Agricultural 

Mobile, AL 258.39 Road Crossing 0.10 Agricultural 

Mobile, AL 258.39 Road Crossing 0.04 Agricultural 

Mobile, AL 258.41 Road Crossing 0.04 Agricultural 

Mobile, AL 258.41 Road Crossing 0.08 Agricultural 

Mobile, AL 258.88 Road Crossing 0.17 Agricultural 

Mobile, AL 258.88 Road Crossing 0.07 Agricultural 

Mobile, AL 258.93 Road Crossing 0.05 Agricultural, Industrial/Commercial 

Mobile, AL 258.93 Road Crossing 0.16 Forest, Industrial/Commercial 

Mobile, AL 259.03 Road Crossing 0.18 Forest 

Mobile, AL 259.03 Road Crossing 0.13 Forest 

Mobile, AL 259.57 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Forest 

Mobile, AL 259.61 Wetland Crossing 0.12 Agricultural, Forest 

Mobile, AL 259.92 Wetland Crossing 0.12 Forest 

Mobile, AL 260.00 Wetland Crossing 0.07 Forest 

Mobile, AL 260.01 Wetland, Stream and Railroad 

Crossing 

0.31 Forest, Industrial/Commercial 

Mobile, AL 260.08 Road and Railroad Crossing 0.17 Industrial/Commercial, Open Land 

Mobile, AL 260.09 Road and Railroad Crossing 0.04 Industrial/Commercial, Open Land 

Mobile, AL 260.73 Road Crossing 0.12 Agricultural, Forest 

Mobile, AL 261.62* Wetland Crossing 0.10 Agricultural, Forest 

Mobile, AL 261.64* Wetland Crossing 0.12 Agricultural, Forest 

Mobile, AL 261.82* Road Crossing 0.32 Open Land 

Mobile, AL 261.89* Road Crossing 0.32 Open Land 

Mobile, AL 261.89* Road Crossing 0.09 Open Land 

Mobile, AL 262.06* Wetland Crossing 0.12 Forest 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
F-61 

TABLE F-1 

Additional Temporary Workspace Utilized for the Proposed SESH Project 

County, State Milepost Description Total Acres Existing Land Use 

Mobile, AL 262.08* Wetland Crossing 0.13 Forest 

Mobile, AL 262.44* Wetland and Road Crossing 0.11 Forest, Industrial/Commercial 

Mobile, AL 262.45* Wetland and Road Crossing 0.12 Forest 

Mobile, AL 262.46* Road and Wetland Crossing 0.11 Forest 

Mobile, AL 262.47* Road and Wetland Crossing 0.12 Forest 

Mobile, AL 266.44 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Pine Plantation 

Mobile, AL 266.45 Wetland Crossing 0.12 Pine Plantation 

Mobile, AL 266.60* Pipeline Crossing 0.06 Forest 

Mobile, AL 266.60* Pipeline Crossing 0.06 Forest 

Mobile, AL 266.63* Pipeline Crossing 1.14 Agricultural 

Mobile, AL 266.63* Pipeline Crossing 0.96 Agricultural 

Mobile, AL 266.75* Road Crossing 0.03 Open Land 

Mobile, AL 266.75* Road Crossing 0.10 Open Land 

Mobile, AL 268.65 Wetland Crossing 0.12 Open Land 

Mobile, AL 268.66 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Open Land 

Mobile, AL 268.75 Wetland Crossing 0.10 Open Land 

Mobile, AL 268.75 Wetland Crossing 0.12 Open Land 

Mobile, AL RRL 0.21 Pipeline Crossing 0.18 Forest 

Mobile, AL RRL 0.21 Pipeline Crossing 0.11 Forest 

Mobile, AL RRL 0.31 Pipeline Crossing 0.06 Forest 

Mobile, AL RRL 0.31 Pipeline Crossing 0.16 Forest 

Mobile, AL RRL 0.86 Pipeline Crossing 0.08 Forest 

Mobile, AL RRL 0.86 Pipeline Crossing 0.06 Forest 

Mobile, AL RRL 0.88 Pipeline Crossing 0.06 Forest 

Mobile, AL RRL 0.88 Pipeline Crossing 0.08 Forest 

Mobile, AL RRL 1.05 Pipeline Crossing 0.14 Forest 

Mobile, AL RRL 1.05 Pipeline Crossing 0.14 Forest 

___________________________________________________________________________________ 

*/ Indicates a milepost within a rerouted area. 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
APPENDIX F-2 

ACCESS ROADS FOR THE PROPOSED SESH PROJECT 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
TABLE F-2

Access Roads for the Proposed SESH Project 

Project Component Access Road Name County, State Milepost New/ Existing Temporary/ Permanent length (feet) width (feet) 

CEGT CP M&R Station PAR - - 0.03 Richland, LA -0.03 new permanent 85 50 

Gulf South Mississippi Expansion M&R 

Station PAR - - 0.03 Richland, LA -0.03 new permanent 97 50 

Delhi Compressor Station PAR - 0.26 Richland, LA 0.26 new permanent 1400 50 

Pipeline TAR - 0.91 Madison, LA 0.91 existing temporary 4457 12 IndusPipeline TAR - 1.3 Madison, LA 1.30 existing temporary 1285 12 IndusPipeline TAR - 1.67 Madison, LA 1.67 existing temporary 4568 12 IndusPipeline TAR - 2.72 Madison, LA 2.72 existing temporary 1041 12 IndusPipeline TAR - 3.05 Madison, LA 3.05 existing temporary 3274 12 IndusPipeline TAR - 3.76 Madison, LA 3.76 existing temporary 2252 10 IndusPipeline TAR - 5.05 Madison, LA 5.05 existing temporary 9730 12 IndusPipeline TAR - 6.03 Madison, LA 6.03 existing temporary 11009 12 IndusPipeline TAR - 6.75 Madison, LA 6.75 existing temporary 220 12 IndusPipeline TAR - 7.47 Madison, LA 7.47 existing temporary 5253 12 IndusPipeline TAR - 9.06 Madison, LA 9.06 existing temporary 1668 12 IndusPipeline TAR - 10.25 Madison, LA 10.25 existing temporary 21.5 12 IndusPipeline TAR - 10.40 Madison, LA 10.40 existing temporary 30 12 IndusPipeline TAR - 10.55 Madison, LA 10.55 existing temporary 2717 15 IndusPipeline TAR - 10.78 Madison, LA 10.78 existing temporary 1518 12 IndusPipeline TAR - 11.20 Madison, LA 11.20 existing temporary 5222 12 IndusPipeline TAR - 12.10b/ Madison, LA 12.10 existing temporary --- --- IndusPipeline TAR - 12.17 Madison, LA 12.17 existing temporary 4615 15 Indus

F-2-1 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
TABLE F-2

Access Roads for the Proposed SESH Project 

Project Component Access Road Name County, State Milepost New/ Existing Temporary/ Permanent length (feet) width (feet) 

Pipeline TAR - 12.48 Madison, LA 12.48 existing temporary 1820 12 IndusPipeline TAR - 12.70 b/ Madison, LA 12.70 existing temporary --- --- IndusPipeline TAR - 12.97 Madison, LA 12.97 existing temporary 3294 12 IndusPipeline TAR - 13.54 Madison, LA 13.54 existing temporary 4449 12 IndusPipeline TAR - 13.84 Madison, LA 13.84 existing temporary 141 12 IndusPipeline TAR - 15.50 Madison, LA 15.50 existing temporary 4756.5 12 IndusPipeline TAR - 16.01 Madison, LA 16.01 existing temporary 3604 12 IndusPipeline TAR - 16.52 Madison, LA 16.52 existing temporary 3399 12 IndusPipeline TAR - 16.92 Madison, LA 16.92 existing temporary 2350.5 12 IndusPipeline TAR - 17.32 Madison, LA 17.32 existing temporary 2388 12 IndusPipeline TAR - 17.52 b/ Madison, LA 17.52 existing temporary --- --- IndusPipeline TAR - 18.22 Madison, LA 18.22 existing temporary 2803 12 IndusPipeline TAR - 18.56 Madison, LA 18.56 existing temporary 4133 12 IndusPipeline TAR - 18.88 b/ Madison, LA 18.88 existing temporary --- --- IndusPipeline TAR - 19.32 Madison, LA 19.32 existing temporary 3179 12 IndusPipeline TAR - 19.82 Madison, LA 19.82 existing temporary N/A N/A IndusPipeline TAR - 20.24 Madison, LA 20.24 existing temporary 5025 12 IndusPipeline TAR - 21.30 Madison, LA 21.30 existing temporary 2295 12 IndusPipeline TAR - 21.59 Madison, LA 21.59 existing temporary 1318 10 IndusPipeline TAR - 22.57 Madison, LA 22.57 existing temporary 5720 12 IndusPipeline TAR - 23.30 Madison, LA 23.30 existing temporary 395 12 Indus

F-2-2 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
TABLE F-2

Access Roads for the Proposed SESH Project 

Project Component Access Road Name County, State Milepost New/ Existing Temporary/ Permanent length (feet) width (feet) 

Pipeline TAR - 23.41 Madison, LA 23.41 existing temporary 6186 12 IndusPipeline TAR - 23.72 b/ Madison, LA 23.72 existing temporary --- --- IndusPipeline TAR - 24.19 Madison, LA 24.19 existing temporary 3709 12 IndusPipeline TAR - 24.33 Madison, LA 24.33 existing temporary 362 12 IndusPipeline TAR - 24.46 Madison, LA 24.46 existing temporary 299 12 IndusPipeline TAR - 24.78 Madison, LA 24.78 existing temporary 5670 12 IndusPipeline TAR - 24.93 Madison, LA 24.93 existing temporary 9488 12 IndusPipeline TAR - 27.70 Madison, LA 27.70 existing temporary 5803 12 IndusPipeline TAR - 29.84 Madison, LA 29.84 existing temporary 5288 12 IndusPipeline TAR - 29.92 Madison, LA 29.92 existing temporary 145 12 IndusPipeline TAR - 31.70 Madison, LA 31.70 existing temporary 3459 12 IndusPipeline TAR - 32.13 Madison, LA 32.13 existing temporary 4548 12 IndusPipeline TAR - 32.76 Madison, LA 32.76 existing temporary 4817 12 IndusPipeline TAR - 33.51 Madison, LA 33.51 existing temporary 15315 12 IndusPipeline TAR - 33.75 Madison, LA 33.75 existing temporary 1206 12 IndusPipeline TAR - 34.65 Madison, LA 34.65 existing temporary 1601 12 IndusPipeline TAR - 35.14 Madison, LA 35.14 existing temporary 1312 12 IndusPipeline TAR - 37.90 Warren, MS 37.90 existing temporary 5638 12 IndusPipeline TAR - 38.47 Warren, MS 38.47 existing temporary 4620 12 IndusPipeline TAR - 39.87 Warren, MS 39.87 existing temporary 1877 12 IndusPipeline TAR - 40.81 Warren, MS 40.81 existing temporary 7144 12 IndusPipeline TAR - 42.94 Warren, MS 42.94 existing temporary 16237 12 Indus

F-2-3 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
TABLE F-2

Access Roads for the Proposed SESH Project 

Project Component Access Road Name County, State Milepost New/ Existing Temporary/ Permanent length (feet) width (feet) 

Pipeline TAR - 44.20 b/ Warren, MS 44.20 existing temporary --- --- IndusPipeline TAR - 44.59 b/ Warren, MS 44.59 existing temporary --- --- IndusPipeline TAR - 44.72 Claiborne, MS 44.72 existing temporary 379 12 IndusPipeline TAR - 44.85 Claiborne, MS 44.85 existing temporary 1401 12 IndusPipeline TAR - 44.94 Claiborne, MS 44.94 existing temporary 2619 12 IndusPipeline TAR - 45.64 Claiborne, MS 45.64 existing temporary 1548 12 IndusPipeline TAR - 45.90 Claiborne, MS 45.90 existing temporary 7801 12 IndusPipeline TAR - 46.38 Claiborne, MS 46.38 existing temporary 808 12 IndusPipeline TAR - 46.62 Claiborne, MS 46.62 existing temporary 710 12 IndusPipeline TAR - 46.81 Claiborne, MS 46.81 existing temporary 7789 10 IndusPipeline TAR - 47.23 Claiborne, MS 47.23 existing temporary 322 12 IndusPipeline TAR - 48.39 Claiborne, MS 48.39 existing temporary 6345 14 IndusPipeline TAR - 50.71 Claiborne, MS 50.71 existing temporary 2984 12 IndusPipeline TAR - 50.90 Claiborne, MS 50.90 existing temporary 2490 12 IndusPipeline TAR - 52.90 Claiborne, MS 52.90 existing temporary 2195 12 IndusPipeline TAR - 53.86 Claiborne, MS 53.86 existing temporary 4157 10 IndusPipeline TAR - 55.11 Claiborne, MS 55.11 existing temporary 5285 10 IndusPipeline TAR - 55.94 Claiborne, MS 55.94 existing temporary 3127 12 IndusPipeline TAR - 56.39 Claiborne, MS 56.39 existing temporary 1537 12 IndusPipeline TAR - 56.56 Claiborne, MS 56.56 existing temporary 14577 12 IndusPipeline TAR - 57.13 b/ Claiborne, MS 57.13 existing temporary --- --- IndusPipeline TAR - 57.17 b/ Claiborne, MS 57.17 existing temporary --- --- Indus

F-2-4 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
TABLE F-2

Access Roads for the Proposed SESH Project 

Project Component Access Road Name County, State Milepost New/ Existing Temporary/ Permanent length (feet) width (feet) 

Pipeline TAR - 57.97 Claiborne, MS 57.97 existing temporary 2771 15 IndusPipeline TAR - 59.66 Claiborne, MS 59.66 existing temporary 894 12 IndusPipeline TAR - 60.19 Copiah, MS 60.19 existing temporary 1035.5 10 IndusPipeline TAR - 60.21 Copiah, MS 60.21 existing temporary 266 10 IndusPipeline TAR - 62.07 Copiah, MS 62.07 existing temporary 3345 12 IndusPipeline TAR - 62.67 Copiah, MS 62.67 existing temporary 8152 8 IndusPipeline TAR - 62.93 Copiah, MS 62.93 existing temporary 1371 8 IndusPipeline TAR - 63.18 Copiah, MS 63.18 existing temporary 1629 12 IndusPipeline TAR - 63.76 Copiah, MS 63.76 existing temporary 3359 8 IndusPipeline TAR - 65.27 Copiah, MS 65.27 existing temporary 3064 12 IndusPipeline TAR - 65.65 Copiah, MS 65.65 existing temporary 2012.5 12 IndusPipeline TAR - 66.59 Copiah, MS 66.59 existing temporary 3297 12 IndusPipeline TAR - 67.46 Copiah, MS 67.46 existing temporary 1247 12 IndusPipeline TAR - 68.07 Copiah, MS 68.07 existing temporary 1037 12 IndusPipeline TAR - 68.23 Copiah, MS 68.23 existing temporary 1194 12 IndusPipeline TAR - 68.62 Copiah, MS 68.62 existing temporary 973 12 IndusPipeline TAR - 68.76 Copiah, MS 68.76 existing temporary 1118 12 IndusPipeline TAR - 68.94 Copiah, MS 68.94 existing temporary 1067 12 IndusPipeline TAR - 70.19 Copiah, MS 70.19 existing temporary 1435.5 12 IndusPipeline TAR - 70.47 Copiah, MS 70.47 existing temporary 1960 12 IndusPipeline TAR - 70.94 Copiah, MS 70.94 existing temporary 2178 12 IndusPipeline TAR - 71.20 Copiah, MS 71.20 existing temporary 1489 12 Indus

F-2-5 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
TABLE F-2

Access Roads for the Proposed SESH Project 

Project Component Access Road Name County, State Milepost New/ Existing Temporary/ Permanent length (feet) width (feet) 

Pipeline TAR - 71.89 Copiah, MS 71.89 existing temporary 2900 12 Indus

TETLP M&R Station PAR - 72.37 Copiah, MS 72.37 existing permanent 2950 50 

Pipeline TAR - 72.93 Copiah, MS 72.93 existing temporary 1191.5 12 IndusPipeline TAR - 74.76 Copiah, MS 74.76 existing temporary 2399 12 IndusPipeline TAR - 79.02 Copiah, MS 79.02 existing temporary 2719 12 IndusPipeline TAR - 79.42 b/ Copiah, MS 79.42 existing temporary --- --- IndusPipeline TAR - 83.11 Copiah, MS 83.11 existing temporary 2848 12 IndusPipeline TAR - 87.49 Copiah, MS 87.49 existing temporary 376 12 IndusPipeline TAR - 88.82 Copiah, MS 88.82 existing temporary 2309 12 IndusPipeline TAR - 89.35 Copiah, MS 89.35 existing temporary 2914 20 IndusPipeline TAR - 89.63 Copiah, MS 89.63 existing temporary 1048 14 IndusPipeline TAR - 90.20 Copiah, MS 90.20 existing temporary 703 14 IndusPipeline TAR - 91.15 Copiah, MS 91.15 existing temporary 1640.5 12 IndusPipeline TAR - 94.15 Copiah, MS 94.15 existing temporary 3335 12 IndusPipeline TAR - 94.40 Copiah, MS 94.40 existing temporary 1052 12 IndusPipeline TAR - 94.53 Copiah, MS 94.53 existing temporary 12215 10 IndusPipeline TAR - 95.40 Copiah, MS 95.40 existing temporary 3084 12 IndusPipeline TAR - 95.98 Copiah, MS 95.98 existing temporary 346 12 IndusPipeline TAR - 96.34 Copiah, MS 96.34 existing temporary 1498 10 IndusPipeline TAR - 97.54 Copiah, MS 97.54 existing temporary 1584 9 Indus

F-2-6 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
TABLE F-2

Access Roads for the Proposed SESH Project 

Project Component Access Road Name County, State Milepost New/ Existing Temporary/ Permanent length (feet) width (feet) 

Pipeline TAR - 98.60 Copiah, MS 98.60 existing temporary 4366 9 IndusPipeline TAR - 101.38 Lawrence, MS 101.38 existing temporary 4440 9 IndusPipeline TAR - 102.40 Lawrence, MS 102.40 existing temporary 2223 9 IndusPipeline TAR - 102.90 Lawrence, MS 102.90 existing temporary 620 9 IndusPipeline TAR - 103.06 Lawrence, MS 103.06 existing temporary 350 9 IndusPipeline TAR - 103.36 Lawrence, MS 103.36 existing temporary 10293 9 IndusPipeline TAR - 104.30 Lawrence, MS 104.30 existing temporary 817 9 IndusPipeline TAR - 105.39 Lawrence, MS 105.39 existing temporary 697 15 IndusPipeline TAR - 106.35 Lawrence, MS 106.35 existing temporary 2553 9 IndusPipeline TAR - 107.08 Lawrence, MS 107.08 existing temporary 3098 9 IndusPipeline TAR - 107.21 Lawrence, MS 107.21 existing temporary 1261 9 IndusPipeline TAR - 107.49 Lawrence, MS 107.49 existing temporary 7245 9 IndusPipeline TAR - 108.84 Lawrence, MS 108.84 existing temporary 665 10 IndusPipeline TAR - 109.11 Lawrence, MS 109.11 existing temporary 755 9 IndusPipeline TAR - 111.96 Jefferson Davis, MS 111.96 existing temporary 4830 12 IndusPipeline TAR - 112.21 b/ Jefferson Davis, MS 112.21 existing temporary --- --- IndusPipeline TAR - 113.77 Jefferson Davis, MS 113.77 existing temporary 4763.5 10 IndusPipeline TAR - 113.86 Jefferson Davis, MS 113.86 existing temporary 363 10 IndusPipeline TAR - 114.37 Jefferson Davis, 

MS

114.37 existing temporary 4828 12 Indus

Pipeline TAR - 116.40 Jefferson Davis, 

MS

116.40 existing temporary 1500 12 Indus

F-2-7 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
TABLE F-2

Access Roads for the Proposed SESH Project 

Project Component Access Road Name County, State Milepost New/ Existing Temporary/ Permanent length (feet) width (feet) 

Pipeline TAR - 116.96 Jefferson Davis, MS 116.96 existing temporary 669 15 IndusPipeline TAR - 117.83 Jefferson Davis, MS 117.83 existing temporary 836 9 IndusPipeline TAR - 118.06 Jefferson Davis, 

MS

118.06 existing temporary 3669 9 Indus

Pipeline TAR - 120.09 Jefferson Davis, 

MS

120.09 existing temporary 893 9 Indus

Pipeline TAR 121.80 Jefferson Davis, MS 121.80 existing temporary 779 12 IndusPipeline TAR - 127.30 Jefferson Davis, 

MS

127.30 existing temporary 2666 12 Indus

Pipeline TAR - 129.70 Covington, MS 129.70 existing temporary 1917 12 IndusPipeline TAR - 132.06 Covington, MS 132.06 existing temporary 3211 9 IndusPipeline TAR - 132.36 Covington, MS 132.36 existing temporary 3118 9 IndusPipeline TAR - 132.61 Covington, MS 132.61 existing temporary 3939 15 IndusPipeline TAR - 133.46 Covington, MS 133.46 existing temporary 1022 9 IndusPipeline TAR - 134.66 Covington, MS 134.66 existing temporary 5232.5 20 IndusPipeline TAR - 135.47 Covington, MS 135.47 existing temporary 3056 15 IndusPipeline TAR - 135.92 Covington, MS 135.92 existing temporary 2182 15 IndusPipeline TAR - 136.37 Covington, MS 136.37 existing temporary 813 14 IndusPipeline TAR - 136.94 Covington, MS 136.94 existing temporary 2172 15 IndusPipeline TAR - 138.10 Covington, MS 138.10 existing temporary 1869 12 Indus

Collins Booster Station PAR - 138.37 Covington, MS 138.37 new permanent 715 50 

Indus

Pipeline TAR - 140.45 Covington, MS 140.45 existing temporary 3889 9 Indus

F-2-8 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
TABLE F-2

Access Roads for the Proposed SESH Project 

Project Component Access Road Name County, State Milepost New/ Existing Temporary/ Permanent length (feet) width (feet) 

Pipeline TAR - 140.57 b/ Covington, MS 140.57 existing temporary --- --- IndusPipeline TAR - 140.68 b/ Covington, MS 140.68 existing temporary --- --- IndusPipeline TAR - 140.84 b/ Covington, MS 140.84 existing temporary --- --- IndusPipeline TAR - 142.15 Covington, MS 142.15 existing temporary 3612 12 IndusPipeline TAR - 143.37 Covington, MS 143.37 existing temporary 1295 9 IndusPipeline TAR - 143.40 Covington, MS 143.40 existing temporary 1948 9 IndusPipeline TAR - 145.25 Covington, MS 145.25 existing temporary 2714 12 IndusPipeline TAR - 145.46 Covington, MS 145.46 existing temporary 2367 10 IndusPipeline TAR - 146.11 Covington, MS 146.11 existing temporary 2156 10 IndusPipeline TAR - 146.55 Covington, MS 146.55 existing temporary 5436 10 IndusPipeline TAR - 146.97 Covington, MS 146.97 existing temporary 4334 9 IndusPipeline TAR - 147.43 Covington, MS 147.43 existing temporary 2990 12 IndusPipeline TAR - 147.95 Covington, MS 147.95 existing temporary 2994 10 IndusPipeline TAR - 148.36 Covington, MS 148.36 existing temporary 2922 10 IndusPipeline TAR - 149.08 Covington, MS 149.08 existing temporary 2187 12 IndusPipeline TAR - 149.83 Covington, MS 149.83 existing temporary 1628 10 IndusPipeline TAR - 151.07 Covington, MS 151.07 existing temporary 4161 9 IndusPipeline TAR - 151.12 Covington, MS 151.12 existing temporary 2301 10 IndusPipeline TAR - 151.87 Jones, MS 151.87 existing temporary 1454 9 IndusPipeline TAR - 158.11 Jones, MS 158.11 existing temporary 3076 9 IndusPipeline TAR - 15831 b/ Jones, MS 158.31 existing temporary --- --- Indus

F-2-9 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
TABLE F-2

Access Roads for the Proposed SESH Project 

Project Component Access Road Name County, State Milepost New/ Existing Temporary/ Permanent length (feet) width (feet) 

Pipeline TAR - 15838 b/ Jones, MS 158.38 existing temporary --- --- IndusPipeline TAR - 158.62 Forrest, MS 158.62 existing temporary 3220 9 IndusPipeline TAR - 160.98 Forrest, MS 160.98 existing temporary 1135 9 IndusPipeline TAR - 162.30 Forrest, MS 162.30 existing temporary 579 9 IndusPipeline TAR - 163.01 Forrest, MS 163.01 existing temporary 4941 8 IndusPipeline TAR - 163.32 b/ Forrest, MS 163.32 existing temporary --- --- Indus

Petal Booster Station PAR - 166.54 Forrest, MS 166.54 new permanent 2224 10 

Indus

Pipeline TAR - 169.42 Forrest, MS 169.42 existing temporary 701 12 IndusPipeline TAR - 170.08 Forrest, MS 170.08 existing temporary 93 9 IndusPipeline TAR - 170.40 Perry, MS 170.40 existing temporary 3934 9 IndusPipeline TAR - 170.65 Perry, MS 170.65 existing temporary 3911 12 IndusPipeline TAR - 170.81 Perry, MS 170.81 existing temporary 653 12 IndusPipeline TAR - 171.60 Perry, MS 171.60 existing temporary 1123 15 IndusPipeline TAR - 173.33 Perry, MS 173.33 existing temporary 1267 10 IndusPipeline TAR - 174.55 Perry, MS 174.55 existing temporary 403 10 IndusPipeline TAR - 174.73 Perry, MS 174.73 existing temporary 191 9 IndusPipeline TAR - 175.50 Perry, MS 175.50 existing temporary 4051 12 IndusPipeline TAR - 176.10 Perry, MS 176.10 existing temporary 347 15 IndusPipeline TAR - 177.29 Perry, MS 177.29 existing temporary 3522 10 IndusPipeline TAR - 177.45 Perry, MS 177.45 existing temporary 115 10 IndusPipeline TAR - 178.40 Perry, MS 178.40 existing temporary 596 12 Indus

F-2-10 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
TABLE F-2

Access Roads for the Proposed SESH Project 

Project Component Access Road Name County, State Milepost New/ Existing Temporary/ Permanent length (feet) width (feet) 

Pipeline TAR - 181.29 Perry, MS 181.29 existing temporary 1888 9 IndusPipeline TAR - 181.76 Perry, MS 181.76 existing temporary 874 12 IndusPipeline TAR - 182.50 Perry, MS 182.50 existing temporary 1918 12 IndusPipeline TAR - 182.90 Perry, MS 182.90 existing temporary 1970 12 IndusPipeline TAR - 183.01 Perry, MS 183.01 existing temporary 1830 12 IndusPipeline TAR - 184.31 Perry, MS 184.31 existing temporary 698 10 IndusPipeline TAR - 185.07 Perry, MS 185.07 existing temporary 3760 12 IndusPipeline TAR - 185.40 Perry, MS 185.40 existing temporary 2262 12 IndusPipeline TAR - 185.96 Perry, MS 185.96 existing temporary 181 12 IndusPipeline TAR - 186.47 Perry, MS 186.47 existing temporary 1217 12 IndusPipeline TAR - 186.62 Perry, MS 186.62 existing temporary 1591 12 IndusPipeline TAR - 186.80 Perry, MS 186.80 existing temporary 3932 12 IndusPipeline TAR - 189.41 Perry, MS 189.41 existing temporary 2228 12 IndusPipeline TAR - 192.89 Perry, MS 192.89 existing temporary 5101 12 IndusPipeline TAR - 193.30 Perry, MS 193.30 existing temporary 3823 12 IndusPipeline TAR - 194.07 Greene, MS 194.07 existing temporary 7618 10 IndusPipeline TAR - 194.69 Greene, MS 194.69 existing temporary 4563 12 IndusPipeline TAR - 195.23 Greene, MS 195.23 existing temporary 13835 12 IndusPipeline TAR - 197.50 Greene, MS 197.50 existing temporary 5685 12 IndusPipeline TAR - 200.50 Greene, MS 200.50 existing temporary 144 10 IndusPipeline TAR - 204.21 Greene, MS 204.21 existing temporary 3166 10 IndusPipeline TAR - 209.79 Greene, MS 209.79 existing temporary 192 10 Indus

F-2-11 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
TABLE F-2

Access Roads for the Proposed SESH Project 

Project Component Access Road Name County, State Milepost New/ Existing Temporary/ Permanent length (feet) width (feet) 

Pipeline TAR - 210.15 Greene, MS 210.15 existing temporary 3962 10 Indus

Lucedale Compressor Station PAR - 212.42 George, MS 212.42 new permanent 440 50 P

Pipeline TAR - 216.86 George, MS 216.86 existing temporary 3235 15 IndusPipeline TAR - 218.21 George, MS 218.21 existing temporary 1358 12 IndusPipeline TAR - 232.72 George, MS 232.72 existing temporary 2541 10 IndusPipeline TAR - 234.18 George, MS 234.18 existing temporary 1915 10 IndusPipeline TAR - 244.04 Mobile, AL 244.04 existing temporary 10371 10 IndusPipeline TAR - 247.45 Mobile, AL 247.45 existing temporary 295 15 IndusPipeline TAR - 248.40 Mobile, AL 248.40 existing temporary 1454 15 IndusPipeline TAR - 255.38 Mobile, AL 255.38 existing temporary 6166 10 IndusPipeline TAR - 264.83 Mobile, AL 264.83 existing temporary 11993 12 Indus

Rock Road Lateral PAR -RRL1 Mobile, AL 0.00 new permanent 1278 12 Rock Road Lateral PAR - RRL2 Mobile, AL 1.09 new permanent 767 15 

___________________________________________________________________a/ Land use for existing roads in Table 8.1-2 has been combined with adjacent land use. b/ This access road is a continuation of a previously listed access road. Length, width and acreages are captured in a prior listed access road. 

F-2-12 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
APPENDIX F-3 

PIPEYARDS AND WAREYARDS 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
TABLE F-3 

Pipeyards/Wareyards for the Proposed SESH Project 

Facility County/Parish Location

Land Requirements

during construction 

only (acres) 

Letourneau 

Warren, MS 

8 miles SW of the intersection of 

Highways 61 & 80, Near Vicksburg, 

MS, off Highway 61, near Simrall 

36.10 

Wesson Copiah, MS 0.4 miles NNE of Wesson, MS, E of 

Hwy 51 

3.35 

Georgetown

Copiah, MS 

1.1 miles NW of the intersection of 

Highways 27 & 28, near 

Georgetown, west of Highway 27 

66.18 

New Hebron Jefferson Davis, MS 1.4 miles SE of New Hebron (in 

Hebron), NE of Highway 42 

9.68 

Highway 11

Forrest, MS 

12.9 miles NE of intersection of 

Highways 39 & 11, near Hattiesburg, 

near Eastabouchie, E of Highway 11 

21.92 

Highway 98 Perry, MS 28 miles SE of Hattiesburg, near 

Little Creek, north of Highway 98 

6.24 

Lucedale 1 George, MS 3.4 miles SSW of Lucedale, west of 

Highway 63

35.01 

Lucedale 2 George, MS 4 miles S of Lucedale, west of

Highway 63

60.84 

Mobile Mobile, AL 24.4 miles NE of Pascagoula on 

Interstate 10, near Sky Ranch

39.85 

Tallulah Madison, LA 7 miles SSW of Tallulah, West of 

Highway 65

51.31 

 F3-1 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
APPENDIX G 

NATCHEZ TRACE PARKWAY CROSSING 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
G-1 

1.0 INTRODUCTION 

Southeast Supply Header (SESH) is proposing to construct a 269-mile natural gas pipeline from 

Delhi, Louisiana to Coden, Alabama (SESH Project) (see Figure 1 in Appendix A). A portion of the 

pipeline would cross the Natchez Trace Parkway (Parkway) in Claiborne, County Mississippi. The 

Parkway is a National Scenic Byway and All-American Road that extends 444 miles between Natchez, 

Mississippi and Nashville, Tennessee. The Parkway commemorates an ancient trail used by the Choctaw, 

Chickasaw, and other American Indian tribes to travel between southern portions of the Mississippi River 

floodplain and salt licks in what is today central Tennessee. The Parkway is owned and maintained by 

the National Park Service (NPS). 

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) is the lead Federal agency for the SESH 

Project and is responsible for assessing potential environmental impacts from construction and operation 

of the Project. At the request of the NPS, FERC has prepared this Draft Environmental Assessment 

(DEA) to assess potential impacts to the Parkway if construction of the Project is approved by FERC. 

This DEA was prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and 

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. 

1.1 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT 

SESH is proposing to construct a 42-inch diameter pipeline under the Parkway in Claiborne 

County, Mississippi. The proposed pipeline would be installed within an existing unpaved county 

roadway (Russell Road) where the road passes under the Parkway near Milepost 52.1. The proposed 

pipeline corridor enters the Parkway boundaries from the northwest at the intersection with Russell Road 

(see Figure 2 and 3). The pipeline follows Russell Road within the Parkway boundaries for 

approximately 620 feet and continues along Russell Road for another approximately 210 feet. For the 

entire 830 feet along Russell Road, SESH is proposing a 60-foot wide construction right-of-way with a 

50-foot permanent easement. No access to the Parkway would be required during construction. 

1.2 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT 

The primary purpose of the SESH Project is to provide needed new natural gas transportation 

capacity to enhance access to reliable, onshore gas supplies to serve growing demand in the Southeast for 

power generation, industrial and local gas distribution needs. The SESH Project would provide access to 

diverse sources of natural gas, including emerging basins of new supply such as Barnett Shale, Bossier 

Sands, Arkoma and Fayetteville Shale, as well as access to traditional Gulf Coast supplies. Access to 

these diverse supply sources would provide additional reliability and flexibility to the growing markets. 

The SESH Project would be capable of moving 1.14 billion cubic feet of gas per day. The proposed 

pipeline would extend from interconnects from existing interstate pipelines near Delhi in Richland Parish, 

Louisiana, to a terminus at the interconnects with three existing interstate pipelines located within the 

Gulfstream Meter/Regulator Station near Coden in Mobile County, Alabama. The interstate pipelines 

that would receive natural gas transported by the proposed SESH Project are operated by Gulfstream 

Natural Gas System (Gulfstream), Southern Natural Gas Company (SONAT), Mobile Gas Services, and 

Florida Gas Transmission (FGT) systems. In addition, the SESH Project would act as a virtual header 

system capable of receiving and/or delivering natural gas to the customers of Columbia Gulf 

Transmission (Columbia Gulf), CenterPoint Energy Gas Transmission (CEGT), Gulf South, Texas 

Eastern Transmission LP (TETLP), SONAT, Transco, Tennessee Gas, FGT, Mobile Gas Services, and 

Gulfstream. 

SESH designed the Project to enhance the seasonal demand requirements of multiple regional 

markets. Depending on the season, the Project via its interconnections with multiple interstate 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
G-2 

transmission systems would help to offset a portion of the declining supply from the shallow water Gulf 

of Mexico continental shelf while maintaining peak day deliveries to northeastern and southeastern 

customers. In addition, the system would be a reliable source of supply to the Florida market during the 

summer as SESH mainly sources its gas from the Perryville Hub, which is not sensitive to inclement 

weather. Consequently, the SESH Project would provide multiple shippers with additional capacity, 

enhanced reliability, and consumers with increased opportunities for price competition. 

2.0 ALTERNATIVES 

In order to construct the proposed pipeline to reach the intended markets in this region, the 

alignment must cross the Parkway. Only two alternatives were considered for crossing the Parkway: the 

No-Action Alternative and one Minor Route Variation. 

2.1 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE 

If the project were not constructed, there would be no impact to the Parkway. However, absent 

this project, SESH would not be able to meet its customers' need for capacity and would not increase the 

flexibility and reliability of the pipeline grid and access to supplies and markets in the Gulf coast region. 

2.2 MINOR ROUTE VARIATION 

SESH’s proposed original route across the Parkway followed Russell Road for approximately 

220 feet within the Parkway boundaries (see Figure 4 in Appendix A). The original route would have 

resulted in a larger open corridor through the forest within the Parkway boundaries, thus resulting in a 

potential negative affect to views from the Parkway. The currently proposed pipeline alignment follows 

Russell Road for the entire Parkway property crossing and beyond, thus preserving the forests 

immediately adjacent to the Parkway and significantly reducing potential impacts to the views from the 

Parkway. 

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS 

As part of this environmental analysis, FERC considered potential impacts to the existing 

resources located along the Parkway to determine if the proposed construction would result in adverse 

environmental effects. Following is a summary of these existing resources and the potential impacts from 

the proposed SESH Project. 

3.1 GEOLOGY 

The Project crosses the Parkway in the East Gulf Coastal Plain Section of the extensive Coastal 

Plain physiographic province. This physiographic section is located within the ancient and expansive 

Mississippi Embayment, a structural trough in which the underlying crust of the Earth forms a deep valley 

that plunges toward the Gulf of Mexico. Over time, massive deposits of sediments in the Mississippi 

Embayment have led to formation of sedimentary rocks, some of which have been reworked and 

deposited as more recent formations. 

A more detailed description of the East Gulf Coastal Plain is included in the Environmental 

Impact Statement (EIS) prepared by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) for the SESH 

Project. 

Since the Project will cross the Parkway within an existing roadway, and no blasting of bedrock 

will be required, no impacts to the geology in the Parkway area are anticipated. 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
G-3 

3.2 SOILS 

The portion of the Parkway that would be crossed by the pipeline contains Smithdale, Lexington, 

and Providence soils. This association consists of sloping to steep, well drained loamy soils and well 

drained silty soils on uplands and hilly landscapes. Detailed descriptions of this soil association are 

included in the EIS prepared by FERC for this Project. During construction, SESH would implement 

approved erosion and sediment control measures to minimize impacts to soils. Upon completion of 

construction, the road and adjacent areas would be returned to their pre-existing conditions. No impacts 

to soils in the Parkway area are anticipated. 

3.3 WATER RESOURCES 

3.3.1 Groundwater Resources 

The Coastal Lowlands aquifer system is located below the area where the SESH Project would 

cross the Parkway. This aquifer system consists of permeable sedimentary rocks of Holocene and Upper 

Pleistocene age deposits of interbedded sand and clay (United States Geological Survey [USGS], 1998). 

It is approximately 1,000 to 3,000 feet deep in the proposed SESH Project area. 

Groundwater quality would be impacted if construction of the proposed pipeline and its operation 

caused contamination of the groundwater. The top of the pipeline would be placed 3 feet below the 

ground surface. This placement is well above the major groundwater resources in all of the physiographic 

regions crossed by the proposed SESH Project. According to the Mississippi Department of 

Environmental Quality (MDEQ) Groundwater Assessment Report, public water supplies are largely 

obtained from confined aquifers which are not typically impacted by activities such as pipeline 

construction and operation (MDEQ, 2006b). 

To protect groundwater quality, mitigation measures would be employed during construction to 

minimize spills or leaks of hazardous liquids resulting from refueling of construction vehicles and storage 

of fuel, oil, and other fluids during construction. A Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure Plan 

(SPCC Plan) would be implemented during construction to prevent such contamination. 

y No impacts to the groundwater resources in the Parkway area are anticipated. 

3.3.2 Surface Water Resources 

No surface water resources are located within the Parkway boundaries crossed by the proposed 

SESH Project. 

3.4 VEGETATION 

SESH proposes to construct the pipeline entirely within the existing Russell Road easement. 

Immediately adjacent to the road surface is maintained roadside embankments consisting of grasses and 

other herbaceous plants. Outside the roadway easement are hardwood forests consisting of maples, 

hickories, and oaks. During construction, portions of the maintained roadside embankments would be 

temporarily disturbed, and overhanging tree branches would be removed. Following construction, the 

roadside embankments would be seeded and mulched and would return to pre-existing conditions. No 

impacts to vegetation in the Parkway area are anticipated. 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
G-4 

3.5 FISH AND WILDLIFE 

No waterbodies are located within the Parkway boundaries; therefore, no impacts to fish or 

aquatic species are anticipated. The wooded and open edge communities adjacent to Russell Road 

provide habitat for common wildlife species such as white-tailed deer, gray squirrels, striped skunks, 

nuthatches, woodpeckers, and turkeys. During construction, these species would temporarily relocate. 

There would be no permanent impact to the existing community types within the Parkway boundaries. 

No impact to wildlife is anticipated. 

3.6 ENDANGERED AND THREATENED PLANTS AND ANIMALS 

No plant species listed as either threatened or endangered were identified in Claiborne County; 

however, six animal species were identified for the county. The Pallid sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus albus) 

and Interior Lest Tern (Sterna antillarum) are listed as Federally Endangered. The Bayou Darter 

(Etheostoma rubrum) and Louisiana Black Bear (Ursus americanus luteolus) are both Federally 

Threatened and State Endangered. The Crystal Darter (Crystallaria asprella) is State Endangered. 

Lastly, the Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) is Federally Threatened and Proposed for Delisting. 

The habitats for all of these species are described in the EIS prepared by FERC for this Project. 

Habitats for the species listed do not exist in the portion of the Parkway that would be crossed by the 

Project. No impacts to threatened or endangered species are anticipated. 

3.7 LAND USE, RECREATION, AND VISUAL RESOURCES 

3.7.1 Land Use 

The proposed SESH Project would temporarily impact approximately 0.28 acres of existing road 

and approximately 0.55 acres of maintained road edge (open) within the Parkway boundaries. All areas 

would be returned to pre-existing conditions, and no impact to existing land use is anticipated. 

3.7.2 Recreation 

The Natchez Trace Parkway is a National Scenic Byway and an All-American Road which 

commemorates an ancient trail used by the Choctaw, Chickasaw, and other American Indian tribes to 

travel between southern portions of the Mississippi River floodplain and salt licks in what is today central 

Tennessee. From 1785 to 1820, the “Kaintuck” boatmen floated down the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers to 

access markets in Natchez and New Orleans, sold their cargo and boats, and made the trek back north. 

Today, visitors experience the Parkway by driving, hiking, biking, horseback riding, and camping. 

During construction, access along the Parkway would be maintained. Flagmen would be utilized 

when equipment is required to cross the Parkway surface. Upon completion of construction, the area 

would be returned to its previous use. There would be no adverse impact to recreation as a result of the 

SESH Project. 

3.7.3 Visual Resources 

One of the primary assets of the Parkway is the view for individuals traveling along the Parkway. 

At the location where SESH proposes to cross the Parkway, the view is dominated by dense forest 

vegetation. Removal of trees to create a pipeline corridor would significantly alter this view. Within the 

Parkway boundaries, SESH is proposing to construct the pipeline entirely within the Russell Road 

easement, thereby avoiding impact to the trees adjacent to the Parkway. Vegetation would be trimmed 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
G-5 

within the road easement. Since no changes to the vegetation would occur within the Parkway 

boundaries, no significant impacts to visual resources are anticipated. 

3.8 AIR QUALITY AND NOISE 

During construction, it is anticipated that there would be minor increases in fugitive dust. Use of 

Best Management Practices to control erosion and sedimentation, including use of chemical free dust 

suppressants, would minimize these temporary impacts to air quality. Minor increases in noise from 

construction equipment are anticipated. Construction would be limited to the daylight hours. After 

construction is complete, there would be no changes to the existing air quality and noise level. 

3.9 CULTURAL RESOURCES 

The Parkway is a National Scenic Byway and All-American Road that extends 444 miles between 

Natchez, Mississippi and Nashville, Tennessee. The Parkway commemorates an ancient trail used by the 

Choctaw, Chickasaw, and other American Indian tribes to travel between southern portions of the 

Mississippi River floodplain and salt licks in what is today central Tennessee. The Natchez Trace 

experienced its heaviest non-native use from 1785 to 1820. The “Kaintuck” boatmen floated down the 

Ohio and Mississippi Rivers to access markets in Natchez and New Orleans, sold their cargo and boats, 

and made the trek back north along the Natchez Trace. 

SESH is proposing to construct the pipeline within an existing roadway easement and would not 

alter the character of the Parkway. If any cultural resources are discovered during construction of the 

proposed Project, all work would be stopped and the Parkway Resource Management staff would be 

notified immediately. No impact to cultural resources is anticipated. 

3.10 RELIABILITY AND SAFETY 

The proposed facilities would be designed and constructed to meet or exceed the safety standards 

established by the U.S. Department of Transportation in 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 192. 

The regulations are intended to ensure adequate protection for the public and to prevent natural gas 

facility accidents and failures. The SESH Project would be built in accordance with regulations that 

govern material selection and qualification; minimum design requirements; location adjacent to roads and 

railroads; and protection from internal, external, and atmospheric corrosion. A more detailed description 

of the reliability and safety of the Project are included in the EIS prepared by FERC for this Project. By 

following the standards and practices described by SESH to ensure reliability and safety for the Project, 

no impacts to reliability and safety are anticipated. 

3.10.1 Visitor Safety 

During construction, an increase in vehicular traffic, including construction equipment, may pose 

an increased risk for visitors traveling along the Parkway whether by bicycle, motor vehicle, or 

horseback. SESH would provide appropriate signage and flagmen to warn visitors of construction 

activities and traffic control measures. During operation of the pipeline, no additional safety issues are 

anticipated from normal use of the Parkway by visitors. 

3.11 SECONDARY AND CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 

Secondary and cumulative impacts represent the incremental effects of a proposed action when 

added to other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless of what agency or person 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
G-6 

undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor, but collectively 

significant, actions taking place over a given period of time. 

Table 3.11-1 summarizes other proposed projects that would cross the Parkway. These proposed 

projects include the Gulf South’s East Texas to Mississippi Expansion Project and two projects proposed 

by Denbury Resources, Inc. Detailed information regarding the specific resources, potential impact, and 

mitigation in relation to the Parkway is currently lacking for the Denbury Resources projects. The Gulf 

South Project would utilize a Horizontal Directional Drill (HDD) technique to install the pipeline beneath 

the Parkway. Use of the HDD would avoid impacts to the Parkway. 

TABLE 3.11-1 

Proposed Projects that Would Cumulatively Impact the Natchez Trace Parkway 

Project Name Project Sponsor Project Type Natchez Trace 

Parkway Location

Denbury Resources, Inc. 

Pipeline Conversion 

Project 

Denbury Resources, Inc. Conversion of an existing 

natural gas pipeline to a 

carbon dioxide (CO2) 

pipeline 

Milepost (MP) 8.9 

East Texas to 

Mississippi Expansion 

Project 

Gulf South 42-inch diameter natural 

gas pipeline 

MP 73 

Denbury Resources, Inc. 

New Pipeline Project 

Denbury Resources Construction of a new 

CO2 pipeline 

MP 121.5 

FERC is aware of another possible project in development, the Fayetteville Shale to Barton 

Project, which is a 42-inch diameter natural gas pipeline considered by CEGT. The project would cross 

the Parkway in Tishomingo County, Mississippi. However, CEGT has not yet submitted this project to 

the FERC for a pre-filing analysis, nor has an application been filed, and its current status is uncertain. 

Except for the Gulf South project, the FERC has no authority over permitting, licensing, funding, 

construction, or operation of the projects listed in Table 3.11-1. Federal, state, and/or local agencies must 

review these 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 would require state or federal permits and approvals to ensure compliance with Section 7 of the 

Endangered Species Act; Sections 401, 402, and 404 of the Clean Water Act; and the Clean Air Act. 

Issuance of the necessary permits and approvals would reduce or avoid significant impacts from these 

facilities to environmental resources. 

Although each of these unrelated projects would likely result in temporary and minor effects to 

the Parkway and associated resources during construction, each project would be designed and routed in 

consultation with the NPS to avoid or minimize impacts to cultural and visual resources, wetlands, 

waterbodies, 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 

two proposed pipeline projects under our review, as well as the possible Fayetteville Shale to Barton 

Project, would be minimized. 

We believe that the impacts to the Parkway associated with the SESH Project would be relatively 

minor. Consequently, only a small cumulative effect is anticipated when the impacts of the proposed 

SESH Project are added to the other identified proposed projects that would affect the Parkway. 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
G-7 

4.0 CONCLUSIONS 

Based upon our review of the selected route and crossing location, the resources present, potential 

impacts including cumulative impacts, and mitigation measures, we conclude that the construction and 

operation of the proposed SESH Project would not have a significant effect on the Parkway. 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
G-8 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
G-9 

APPENDIX A 

FIGURES 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
G-10 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
G-11 

NON-INTERNET PUBLIC 

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE PROPOSED 

SOUTHEAST SUPPLY HEADER PIPELINE PROJECT 

Docket No. CP07-44-000 and CP07-45-000 

Page G-11 

Appendix G 

Figure 1 

Proposed SESH Project Overview Map 

Public Access for the above information is available only through the Public Reference 

Room, or by e-mail at 

public.referenceroom@ferc.gov

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
G-12 

NON-INTERNET PUBLIC 

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE PROPOSED 

SOUTHEAST SUPPLY HEADER PIPELINE PROJECT 

Docket No. CP07-44-000 and CP07-45-000 

Page G-12 

Appendix G 

Figure 2 

SESH Project Proposed Route 

Natchez Trace Parkway Crossing 

Public Access for the above information is available only through the Public Reference 

Room, or by e-mail at 

public.referenceroom@ferc.gov

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
G-13 

NON-INTERNET PUBLIC 

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE PROPOSED 

SOUTHEAST SUPPLY HEADER PIPELINE PROJECT 

Docket No. CP07-44-000 and CP07-45-000 

Page G-13 

Appendix G 

Figure 3 

SESH Project Proposed Route Cross Section 

Natchez Trace Parkway Crossing 

Public Access for the above information is available only through the Public Reference 

Room, or by e-mail at 

public.referenceroom@ferc.gov

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
G-14 

NON-INTERNET PUBLIC 

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE PROPOSED 

SOUTHEAST SUPPLY HEADER PIPELINE PROJECT 

Docket No. CP07-44-000 and CP07-45-000 

Page G-14 

Appendix G 

Figure 4 

SESH Project Original Crossing Route 

Natchez Trace Parkway Crossing 

Public Access for the above information is available only through the Public Reference 

Room, or by e-mail at 

public.referenceroom@ferc.gov

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
G-15 

APPENDIX B 

PHOTOGRAPHS 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
G-16 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
PUBLIC 

G-17 

SOUTHEAST SUPPLY HEADER 

CROSSING OF THE NATCHEZ TRACE PARKWAY 

Russell Road. 

Another view of Russell Road, Bridge of Natchez Trace Parkway over 

Russell Road can be seen in the background. 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
PUBLIC 

G-18 

Photograph of Russell taken from underneath the Natchez Trace Parkway 

Another View of Russell Road. 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007

File [Appendix_H_LiteratureCited.PDF] cannot be converted to PDF. (Error: File not found)
APPENDIX I 

LIST OF PREPARERS 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
I-1 

LIST OF PREPARERS 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Button, Van -Environmental Project Manager, Cultural resources, Socioeconomics

 M.A., Anthropology, 1976, University of Arizona 

 B.A., Anthropology, 1973, Reed College 

Manco, Magdalene - Air Noise Analysis

B.S., Environmental Systems Engineering, 2004, Pennsylvania State University 

Peconom, John –Water resources, Vegetation and Wildlife, Threatened and Endangered 

Species 

 B.S., Environmental Biology and Management, 2000, University of California at Davis 

Tetra Tech NUS, Inc.

Flickinger, Scott – Project Manager; Introduction, Proposed Action, Alternatives

 M.E.M., Natural Resource Economics and Policy, 1988, Duke University 

B.A., Biology/Political Science, 1985, Western Maryland College 

Cole, Brian – Land Use, Recreation and Special Interest Areas and Visual Resources 

 B.S., Environmental Biology, 1998, University of South Carolina 

Doub, Peyton – Wetlands 

 M.S., Botany, 1984, University of California at Davis 

 B.S., Plant Sciences, 1982, Cornell University 

Gonzales, Amy – Cumulative Impacts, Alternatives 

 M.A., Earth Science, 1983, The Johns Hopkins University 

 B.A., Geology, 1981, Colgate University 

Gunter, Gary – Geology, Soils 

 B.S., Geology, 1984, Clemson University 

 Graduate Courses in Geology, 1985-1987, Vanderbilt University 

Hill, Elizabeth – Socioeconomics 

 M.B.A., Business Administration, 1999, University of South Carolina 

 M.S., Earth and Environmental Resource Management, 2005, University of South 

Carolina 

 B.A., Psychology and Social Science, 1986, Purdue University 

Hoganson, Mary – Water Resources 

 M.S., Biology, 1989, Winthrop University 

B.S., Biology, 1984, Newberry College 

Lovell, Anne – Air Quality 

 B.S., Chemical and Petroleum Refining Engineering, 1985, Colorado School of Mines 

McRee, Emily – Facility Location Maps 

 B.S., Civil Engineering, 1996, Clemson University 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
I-2 

Roxlau, Katherine – Cultural Resources 

 M.A., Anthropology, 1991, Northern Arizona University 

 B.A., Anthropology, 1988, Colorado College 

Theisen, Daniel – Air Quality and Noise 

 B.S., Mechanical Engineering, 1988, Tennessee Technological University 

Heckmann, Elizabeth – Vegetation 

 B.S., Biological Sciences, 2006, Rowan University 

Whitten, Mike – Wildlife, Threatened, Endangered and Special Status Species 

 M.S., Environmental Science, 1990, Western Washington University 

 B.S., Mathematics, 1976, University of Montevallo 

Zimmerly, Jeff – Safety and Reliability 

 B.S., Health Physics, 1996, Francis Marion University 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
APPENDIX J

CONSERVATION STRATEGY FOR THE

GOPHER TORTOISE

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
1

1.0 CONSERVATION STRATEGY FOR THE GOPHER TORTOISE

The following conservation strategies are designed to minimize potential impacts to

gopher tortoises that occur in the vicinity of the proposed Southeast Supply Header (SESH)

Project (Project). The strategies detailed below are common to many of the projects which have

recently been approved by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the Federal Energy

Regulatory Commission (FERC).

SESH has determined the location of gopher tortoise burrows within and adjacent to the

construction right-of-way during field surveys. SESH will use this information as a baseline for

gopher tortoise occupation of the right-of-way.

1.1 Construction Personnel Education

All Project construction personnel will be provided comprehensive training regarding

gopher tortoise conservation efforts. This training will include gopher tortoise identification and

training on measures to be implemented in the event that an individual or burrow is encountered

during Project-related activities. The training will emphasize that any contact or handling of a

gopher tortoise is prohibited unless under the direction of a qualified biologist or that the

individual is in a position of imminent harm.

Training will include the following:

1. An overview of the basic natural history of the gopher tortoise (e.g., habitat, longevity,

reproductive success, etc.);

2. Reasons for the species decline and need for protection;

3. Protected status of the gopher tortoise in the project area;

4. Legal penalties for killing, injuring, harassing, or otherwise disturbing a gopher

tortoise or its burrow;

5. An overview of SESH’s conservation strategy and the penalties for noncompliance;

6. Procedures for coordinating with and contacting an available on-site biologist;

7. The prohibition that all personnel are strictly prohibited from harming any wildlife

species encountered during activities associated with pipeline construction.

1.2 Pre-Construction Surveys

Immediately prior to initiation of construction activities in areas where gopher tortoises

were identified during previous surveys, areas will be resurveyed to determine burrow status.

Although locations of burrows and colonies are already known, resurveying may locate new

burrows, or burrows that were missed in the baseline survey. The same methods will be

employed as used in initial surveys, except that burrow occupancy will be determined to the

extent possible with a subterranean video camera. Burrow occupancy drives the decision on

prescribing appropriate actions for avoiding or reducing the likelihood of potential harm.

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
2

Resurveying will be an ongoing aspect of on-site monitoring of the pipeline corridor.

During construction, the corridor will be surveyed daily for at least 0.5 miles from any clearing

and grading activity. Following the completion of the initial resurveys of the proposed right-ofway, a report documenting the results of the resurveys and identifying all tortoises requiring

capture and displacement will be provided to the FWS and Mississippi Department of Wildlife,

Fisheries and Parks (MDWFP), and the Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural

Resources (ADCNR).

Resurveying will include:

1. Surveys in areas where gopher tortoise burrows were originally found, and which may

require some actions to minimize or avoid potential harm by the project;

2. Surveys using the same methodology and experienced personnel;

3. Accurately mapping any previously unidentified gopher tortoise burrows using a global

positioning system device;

4. Examining all adult gopher tortoise burrows for tortoise occupancy using a remote

video system. All burrows that cannot be determined to be unoccupied will be treated as if

occupied;

5. Minimizing the possibility of disease transmission among burrows by disinfecting the

remote video system with a diluted clorox solution, alcohol, or antibacterial wipes following use

in each burrow;

6. Assigning all burrows a unique number to facilitate monitoring throughout the project;

7. Conclusively determining that all burrows in the construction corridor are unoccupied

by gopher tortoises when none are observed after two separate efforts with the video system,

and there is no sign of recent activity. Where these conditions are met, the burrows will be

collapsed to prevent reoccupation;

8. Clearly identifying all gopher tortoise burrows in nearby areas that are not subject to

direct effects of construction activities by yellow flagging and/or excluder/barrier fencing to

prevent accidental damage from heavy equipment use;

9. Resurveys daily during construction extending out at least 0.5 mile from any

construction activity on the pipeline corridor.

1.3 Collection and Relocation of Gopher Tortoises

The decision to capture/excavate will be made on an individual case basis, the justifying

criterion being that the burrow is in the path of construction, which subjects any occupying

tortoise to direct harm. In such cases, the tortoise will be captured, the burrow collapsed, and

the tortoise will be preferentially moved to an inactive or abandoned burrow nearby. This

means that the capture burrow and the recipient burrow are within the same “colony” (defined

as three or more active burrows within 200 meters [656 feet]).

Relocation of tortoises can result in adverse effects. Opposition from the scientific

community to relocating tortoises has been based on concerns about the mixing of locally

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
3

adapted gene pools, the loss of genetic variability, the potential for outbreeding depression

(reduced fertility), and reduced viability in future generations due to hybridization between

animals with different coadapted gene or chromosomal complexes. Relocation within an

existing population, which is the intent with SESH, should allay the fears of some scientists who

are concerned that relocation to other populations can introduce disease or parasites to host

populations. Thus, the SESH conservation strategy does not incorporate tortoise relocation per

se. Rather, it consists of capture and release within the same colony.

If recipient burrows are not available nearby, holding pens and starter holes will be

created; holding pens will enclose an area no less than 0.247 acre per tortoise. Starter holes

will be one meter deep and at roughly a 30 degree angle. Tortoises will be retained in holding

pens at least 90 days before release. If the 90 day holding period extends beyond September

15, the tortoises will be retained in the pens until the following spring. To accommodate this

requirement, pens should be in place no later than June 15. Since gopher tortoises become

active in early April, this limits the capture/excavation of tortoises to the period from early April to

mid-June.

Conditions for capturing/excavating and displacement or relocation of tortoises will be as

follows:

1. All personnel involved in the capture and handling of gopher tortoises will have

experience working with gopher tortoises and possess all necessary federal and state permits;

2. Capturing/excavation will occur only during April 1 to October 15;

3. Before displacement, all adult burrow aprons will be carefully examined for gopher

tortoise eggs. If eggs are found, they will be carefully excavated, carried without rotation, and

reburied in a suitable location in unimpacted adjacent habitat. Egg displacement sites will be

protected by a wire enclosure of two-inch mesh, size being such that hatchlings can escape, but

mammalian predators are excluded;

4. Following the capture of a tortoise from a burrow, the burrow will again be examined

with a remote video system to ensure that no other tortoise is present. If no additional tortoise is

present, the burrow will be collapsed with a backhoe to prevent reoccupation;

5. Shovels will be used to excavate small subadult and hatchling burrows. Before

excavation, a small, flexible tube will be inserted as far into the burrow as possible to ensure

that the burrow path is not obscured with loose dirt. Excavation will proceed cautiously, and the

small, flexible tube will be progressively inserted slowly and as far into the burrow as necessary.

Measurements shown on the tube will allow biologists that are excavating a burrow to know how

far from the end of the burrow/tortoise the excavation has continued. The last few inches of the

burrow will be excavated using only the hands or a small hand spade. Following removal of the

tortoise, the excavation will be backfilled;

6. Backhoes will be primarily used to excavate adult burrows. As with hand excavation,

a flexible tube with measurements indicated will be progressively inserted into each burrow as

the backhoe excavation proceeds to ensure that the burrow path is not lost. Throughout the

excavation process, the burrow will be frequently inspected to ensure that any resident tortoise

has not moved to a position within the burrow where it might be impacted by the backhoe. The

last one to two feet of the burrow will be excavated by hand or by using a small hand spade.

During active periods, trapping can be very effective and less costly than backhoe excavation.

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
4

In cases where appropriate, live traps may be used. Conditions on their use are found in item

14 below.

7. All captured gopher tortoises will be sexed (if mature), aged (if annuli discernible),

and permanently marked. Marking will be accomplished using a standard marginal scute

numbering scheme (Cagle 1944) in which small holes will be drilled or notched on a specific

combination of marginal scutes; or, for small subadult/hatchling tortoises, small notches will be

clipped in marginal scutes;

8. Each captured tortoise will be fixed with a radio transmitter to monitor its movements;

9. If an obviously sick or injured gopher tortoise is captured, the tortoise will be

transported in a suitable container, protected from overheating, to a local veterinarian for

treatment. If a tortoise is critically injured during the project, it will be euthanized. If a tortoise is

euthanized or found dead, it will be held on ice or frozen for inspection. Any gopher tortoise

injuries or mortalities will be reported immediately to the Jackson, Mississippi, FWS Office;

10. Any vertebrate species other than gopher tortoises found in burrows being

excavated will be relocated to the nearest available gopher tortoise burrow;

11. To minimize the risk of disease transmission among captured tortoises, the remote

video camera, traps, shovels, backhoe buckets, burrow tubes, measuring calipers, etc. will be

disinfected with a diluted bleach or alcohol solution after use at each individual burrow;

12. Captured gopher tortoises will be handled with disposable latex gloves that are

changed after handling each tortoise.

13. All captured tortoises will be examined for signs of upper Respiratory Disease

Syndrome (URDS), e.g. clogged nostrils, nasal exudate, closed or watery eyes, lethargy, etc.

Any symptomatic tortoises will be kept separate from other tortoises and reported to the FWS.

Blood samples may be extracted from tortoises captured and forwarded to the University of

Florida for URDS testing utilizing current approved methodology. Testing for URDS on tortoises

that are relocated within their own colony seems to serve no purpose in the avoidance of

disease transmission. However, it has been the policy of the MDWFP to make this a condition

of all permits that involve capturing and moving tortoises. If MDWFP makes this a permit

condition, the blood samples will be collected and sent to the University of Florida for testing;

14. In the event live traps are employed, traps will be of the Have-A-Heart, or

comparable type, and will be shaded by burlap or cloth that covers the top of the trap. Open

traps will be checked twice daily, once in the late morning and once in the late afternoon. Traps

will be closed at night.

1.4 Construction Monitoring

On-site qualified biologists familiar with the procedures included in this Conservation

Strategy will be on-site at all times to ensure compliance with all aspects of this plan and with all

necessary state and federal endangered species permits. The on-site biologists will be

available at all times during construction to handle any gopher tortoise issues as they arise.

The biologists will also provide continued training on listed species throughout construction to all

construction personnel as needed, and will maintain the necessary electronic communication

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
5

equipment to allow contact at any time during construction activity. Specific aspects of

construction monitoring are described below.

1.4.1 Burrows Adjacent to Construction Corridor

Gopher tortoise burrows that are located adjacent to and outside of the construction

corridor will be viewed during the resurvey phase of this plan by an on-site biologist, who will

determine and write a prescription identifying the necessary and appropriate actions to avoid or

minimize potential harm to gopher tortoises near construction zones. Excluder/barrier fencing

will be erected as needed to deter tortoise movements into construction zones. Such areas

may also be identified by signs or yellow flagging; and, if necessary, the areas can be

delineated as off-limits to any heavy equipment.

Any such areas will be examined at least once daily by an on-site biologist during all

active construction to ensure continued compliance with SESH’s conservation plan. Following

completion of final grading and revegetation of the construction corridor, any flagging, signs, or

protective fencing will be removed.

1.4.2 Access Roads

Roads identified for accessing the pipeline include some that are well maintained and

will require no tortoise-related activities, while others may be in an unimproved status and

require varying amounts of upgrading to facilitate their use for access.

When gopher tortoise burrows are within 50 feet of an access road, yellow flagging will

be placed to identify the area encompassing the burrows. Signs will be erected at the entrances

to any unimproved access roads that traverse tortoise colonies or burrows within 50 feet of the

road. The signs will restrict vehicle speed to a maximum of 10 MPH when within 1⁄4 mile of

identified burrows. Any access road along which a gopher tortoise burrow has been identified

and subsequently protected will be inspected daily during construction by an on-site biologist to

insure continued adherence to this plan.

Upgrading access roads (e.g., grading, widening, straightening, etc.) may be required.

In cases where such activities are near a gopher tortoise burrow, all efforts will be made to

minimize modifications that are within 25 feet of the burrow. Such efforts may include

redirecting the road. However, if site specific constraints (wetlands, topography, ownership,

etc.) do not allow redirecting the road, the burrow will be examined using video equipment, and

if unoccupied, it may be collapsed, thus obviating any need for the restriction. If the burrow is

occupied and the work cannot proceed without encroachment within 25 feet of the burrow, the

FWS Jackson, Mississippi, Endangered Species office will be contacted for specific guidance.

1.4.3 Right-of-Way Surveying Throughout Construction

In order to minimize impacts to gopher tortoises, regular surveys will be conducted

throughout the duration of construction as described below:

1. All areas within the right-of-way previously identified as potentially suitable gopher

tortoise habitat will be resurveyed for new burrows immediately before initial clearing and

grading operations;

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
6

2. Resurveys of the right-of-way will continue to be conducted as necessary throughout

construction to ensure that no new burrows are affected;

3. All open trenches within areas previously identified as potentially suitable gopher

tortoise habitat will be inspected daily for tortoises and other wildlife that may have been trapped

in the trenches. Any trapped tortoises will be removed and released into a nearby burrow, or

into adjacent suitable habitat, or as otherwise described herein, and will be handled only by

personnel following appropriate state and federal permits. Other wildlife species removed from

trenches will be released into habitat adjacent to the right-of-way;

4. All spoil piles within areas previously identified as potentially suitable gopher tortoise

habitat will be inspected daily by the on-site biologist for evidence of burrows prior to disturbing

the spoil piles. Any burrows found will be excavated under the direction of the on-site biologist,

who will be in possession of the necessary state and federal permits. Captured tortoises will be

released into a nearby burrow or into adjacent suitable habitat.

1.4.4 Monitoring of Construction Activities

On-site biologists will carry out required monitoring conditions of the BA. Specific

construction monitoring conditions include:

1. On-site biologists will be on the construction site during all phases of construction;

2. On-site biologists will attend daily pre-work meetings and interact with construction

personnel and project inspectors as necessary to ensure continued compliance with the SESH

conservation strategy;

3. On-site biologists will maintain electronic contact with project managers, appropriate

construction personnel, and project inspectors during construction activity;

4. If a gopher tortoise or suspected tortoise burrow is found by construction personnel

within the construction corridor, activity that might potentially affect the burrow or tortoise will

cease; and an on-site biologist will be called to the site to take appropriate action;

5. Except in case of emergency that might otherwise lead to the loss of a gopher

tortoise, no personnel other than an on-site biologist with appropriate state and federal permits

will handle a gopher tortoise or disturb a gopher tortoise burrow;

6. The on-site biologists will report violations of the conservation strategy immediately to

project management and, if warranted, to the FWS, Jackson, Mississippi, Endangered Species

Field Office;

7. During the active period for gopher tortoises (April 1-October 15) and until FWS

determines to cease monitoring, the pipeline rights-of way will be resurveyed to determine if the

pipeline is being reoccupied by gopher tortoises. This will be determined by radio-telemetry or

by capturing such tortoises. This information will be reported to the FWS, MDWFP, and

ADCNR.

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
7

1.5 Operation and Maintenance

When construction is ended, SESH will maintain a 50-foot permanent right-of-way. The

area will be planted to grasses that normally occupy such rights-of-ways and that are approved

by regulatory agencies. Specific aspects of operation and maintenance related to gopher

tortoises are described below.

1.5.1 Training

SESH will insure that mowing personnel are trained in how to identify gopher tortoises

and their burrows before initiating mowing operations. In addition, each operator will be

furnished with a map depicting the locations of all known gopher tortoise burrows on the SESH

line.

1.5.2 Reporting

The handling and displacement of gopher tortoises and all necessary reporting will be

carried out by ESACS, LLC of Brandon, Mississippi. All necessary permits will be in possession

prior to initiation of gopher tortoise conservation activities.

Any significant change to the proposed project or to the conservation strategy will be

coordinated with the Jackson, Mississippi, Endangered Species Field Office of the FWS,

MDWFP and ADCNR. These agencies are invited to visit and inspect the construction site and

to accompany on-site biologists during any phase of the gopher tortoise conservation effort.

Throughout the construction phase of the project, monthly progress reports documenting

the status and results of ongoing gopher tortoise conservation efforts will be prepared and

submitted to the FWS, Jackson, Mississippi office. Following completion of the radio-telemetry

monitoring, a final report summarizing the results of the entire project will be prepared.

1.5.3 Small Excavations and Maintenance

Any type of maintenance other than mowing will be restricted to areas beyond twentyfive feet from gopher tortoise burrows. Where this might not be possible, as in cases of valve

maintenance, centerline or milepost marker maintenance, etc., vehicle operators shall reduce

their speed and avoid the burrow apron, entrance, and the area immediately behind the

entrance.

Small excavations are routinely necessary for maintenance of underground structures,

replacing valves or sections of pipe, etc. When such excavations are required, and if such

activity is within fifty feet of gopher tortoise burrow(s), the burrow(s) will be marked with orange

barricade so they can be avoided. If the required excavation or maintenance activity requires

capture and displacement of gopher tortoises, SESH will contact its project biologist to trap or

excavate the burrow as necessary and to collect the same data, and generally follow the same

procedures as are being proposed herein for the initial displacements. However, in all such

cases, FWS will be contacted for guidance and approval of capture/excavation.

1.5.4 Right-of-Way Mowing

As mentioned above, SESH will maintain a 50-foot permanent right-of-way that will be

planted to grasses that normally occupy such rights-of-ways and that are approved by

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
8

regulatory agencies. These grasses, after establishment, will be maintained by mowing, which

will be limited to the time between October 15 and April 1(when gopher tortoises are normally

inactive and in their burrows). Mowing activity will be of sufficient rates to prevent pioneering of

the right-of-way by woody vegetation. No herbicides will be applied within 300 feet of any

tortoise burrows. Mowing will be prohibited across the burrow apron, burrow entrance, and the

area immediately behind the entrance.

1.5.5 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 gopher tortoises and their burrows. The SESH project biologist will be

contacted immediately to assess the potential effects of the situation on the tortoises, and every

effort will be made to minimize or avoid any potential adverse effects. Any such events will be

reported to the Jackson, Mississippi, FWS office of Endangered Species.

2.0 POST-CONSTRUCTION MONITORING, COORDINATION AND REPORTING

The pipeline right-of-way will be monitored for three years following the initial

displacement of tortoises. During the active periods of the year (April 1-October 15), if

transmitters are no longer effective, live traps will be used to determine if gopher tortoise

burrows on the corridor are occupied by the tortoises originally captured and displaced.

To assess the success of displacement efforts, all relocated gopher tortoises will have

their movements monitored as follows:

1. After displacement, efforts will be made to find all radio-tagged tortoises at least once

daily for a minimum of one month.

2. Following this initial monitoring period, and throughout the construction phase of the

project, efforts will be made to find all radio-tagged tortoises twice weekly during the active

season for tortoises (April 1 through October 15).

3. After completion of all construction activities, efforts will be made to find all radiotagged tortoises at least once every two weeks for one year, except during the dormant season

(October 15 through April 1).

4. Radio-telemetry monitoring of relocated gopher tortoises will be conducted only in

areas in which landowner’s permission has been received. If radio-tagged tortoises move onto

lands where landowner access is denied, efforts will still be made to learn approximate locations

and movements by triangulation from permitted lands or nearby public roads, powerline rightsof-way, etc.

5. When radio transmitters eventually fail, monitoring may include live trapping to

distinguish tortoises that were displaced from others that pioneered the corridor.

3.0 References

Cagle, F.R. 1944. Home range, homing behavior, and migration in turtles. Miscellaneous

Publications, Museum of Zoology, University of Michigan 61: 1-34.

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
APPENDIX K 

COMMENT RESPONSE 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
APPENDIX K-1 

FEDERAL AND STATE AGENCY COMMENTS 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
Federal Agency Comments 

 1 Fede

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
Federal Agency Comments 

 2 Fede

FA1-1 Thank you for your comment. The proposed P

determine if geodic control monuments fall in tto ground disturbance. FA1-1 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
Federal Agency Comments 

 3 Fede

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
Federal Agency Comments 

 4 Fede

FA2-1 The FERC welcomes NRCS participation as a 

proposed Project EIS. Section 3.8.5 discusses tWetland Reserve Program lands during the proof prime farmland is discussed in Section 3.2.2

FA2-1 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
Federal Agency Comments 

 5 Fede

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
Federal Agency Comments 

 6 Fede

FA3-1 FA3-2 FA3-3 FA3-4 

The FERC has documented the Department's Sthe Lafayette, LA and Jackson, MS field officefiling and post-filing EIS process. The FERC aassistance as a cooperating agency on the EIS pProject. The FERC certificate and associated conditions the Applicant as the proposed Project moves to implementation. The Applicant has committed post-certificated construction of the project witmonitoring staff. FERC will continue to consulmodifications outside previously reviewed areaThe Applicant filed additional data during the Dpresented plans for routing of the proposed ProReserve Program (WRP) lands. The Applicant with the NRCS regarding appropriate routes ancompensation. Section 3.8.5 discusses the Appcrossing WRP lands during the proposed Projecomment FA3-9 regarding black bear. The FEIS has conditioned SESH to prepare an Control Plan for approval by FERC prior to coninvasive species are addressed in Section 3.5.3 

FA3-1 FA3-2 

FA3-3 

FA3-4 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
Federal Agency Comments 

 7 Fede

FA3-5 FA3-6 FA3-7 FA3-8 FA3-9 

We recommend that SESH develop a plan to reforest and include evaluating the feasibility of cCreek by subsurface horizontal directional drillThank you for your comment. We continue to nominal 100-foot-wide construction ROW and 

foot-wide buffer for foreign ROWs (see conditSection 5). The correction has been made in the FEIS. The correction has been made in the FEIS. The FERC incorporated the additional data from 

Applicant has prepared a Louisiana Black Bear sent to the Louisiana Fish & Wildlife Service oand Alabama FWS concurred with the Plan on concurred on July 9, 2007. Louisiana Fish and contingent on the Applicant following the NRC

FA3-4 

FA3-5 FA3-6 

FA3-7 

FA3-8 

FA3-9 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
Federal Agency Comments 

 8 Fede

FA3-10 FA3-11 FA3-12 

We recommend that SESH file its status crossinnear Bayou Macon in its Project Implementatio

section 5). Refer to the Response to Comment FA3-9. Comment noted. We continue to recommend th

FA3-9 

FA3-10 FA3-11 FA3-12 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
Federal Agency Comments 

 9 Fede

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
Federal Agency Comments 

 10 Fede

FA4-1 FA4-2 

On May 7, 2007, the FWS issued its final Biolocompletion of the consultation was issued by FIn Section 3.4 of the FEIS, the FERC analyzed forested wetland on the project. The Applicant with the conditions established in its COE-issuoff-site mitigation, conservation, enhancement, Field surveys found that the proposed Project cexhibiting characteristics of a pitcher plant bog recommended a plan be developed to cross this in Section 3.5.2, MDWFP and the ADCNR NHplant bogs would be permitted like other wetlanAvoidance and minimization measures would bappropriate. 

FA4-1 

FA4-2 

FA4-2 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
Federal Agency Comments 

 11 Fede

FA4-3 FA4-4 FA4-5 

The Applicant has committed to comply with thits COE-issued permits, including any off-site m

enhancement, and on-site mitigation. The Applicant has committed to comply with thits COE-issued permits, including any off-site m

enhancement, and on-site mitigation. We have plant to cross The Nature Conservancy tracts. Refer to the Response to Comment FA3-4. 

FA4-3 

FA4-4 

FA4-5 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
Federal Agency Comments 

 12 Fede

FA5-1 The FERC appreciates EPA review and comme

FA5-1 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
Federal Agency Comments 

 13 Fede

FA5-2 FA5-3 FA5-4 FA5-5 FA5-6 

The typographical error has been corrected and been updated in Section 3.11.1.1. The FERC concurs that in some cases non-attaibased on counties or portions of counties. Howbe based on large metropolitan regions as descrAQCRs. Section 3.11.1.1 identifies the design

on counties or parishes. The EIS is a summary document of all of the inprovided by SESH and other agencies as well athe FERC staff, and it is not feasible to include in the FERC’s analysis in the document. As suestimated air emissions associated with the pro

in the EIS. The detailed supporting information operating rates, emission factors, and methodolfor the emission rates and impacts presented in for this project (as provided by the applicant in its filing to FERC) and is available in the Commroom or on the Commission’s Internet website 

the “eLibrary” link and the docket number (CPThe FERC concurs and the text has been modifThe FERC concurs that imported LNG source gheat content than domestic source gas and may oxide emissions. The proposed project would ithat potentially include both domestic source gsource gas. Due to the number of interconnectgas, the precise character of the natural gas in tknown. However, as suggested by the EPA’s cgas routed through the pipeline would be blendat the various interconnects which would mitigheat content LNG source gas. Text addressing 

FA5-2 

FA5-3 

FA5-4 FA5-5 

FA5-6 

FA5-7 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
Federal Agency Comments 

 14 Fede

Section 3.11.1.3. In response to the EPA’s other concern regardipotentially degrading pipeline seals resulting in Commission has examined this claim in two diupon the research and studies conducted by the proceedings, the Commission concluded that thLNG caused an increase in leaks in pipeline seaanalysis. The Commission also determined thevaporized LNG would have a detrimental effecproperly maintained. Further, the Commission tests, studies or actual experiences have demonthat meets the proposed interchangeability standistribution centers or their end users problemsextensive record developed in both proceedingthat the EPA’s concern about pipeline seals is nAdditional text addressing this concern has bee

FA5-7 The Applicant has committed to comply with th

its COE-issued permits, including any off-site m

enhancement, and on-site mitigation. The FERwill perform the functional assessment outlined 

FA5-7 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
SA1-1 

SA1-2 

Thank you for your comment. Thank you for your comment. 

SA1-1 SA1-2 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
SA2-1 

SA2-2 SA2-3 SA2-4 SA2-5 

Section 3.3.2 of the FEIS discusses surface watproposed Project and Appendix D of the FEIS waterbodies, their location by MP, width of croclassification, and proposed crossing method. wetland resources and their impacts. Appendix wetland crossing, specifically the locations, fiecrossing distances, FWS National Wetland Invclassifications, and construction and operation conversion and loss). Refer to the Response to Comment SA2-1. Section 2.3.2 of the FEIS discusses Specialized Procedures (best management practices) for wawetlands. In addition the proposed project's conimplemented under a set of FERC approved SEthat address best management practices for watSection 3.4 discusses wetland resources and thesummarizes each wetland crossing, specifically identification numbers, crossing distances, FWInventory (NWI) classifications, and constructi

(including wetlands conversion and loss). FERC understands that the Applicant has consudetermine all applicable permit requirements fofor the contact information. 

SA2-1 

SA2-2 SA2-3 

SA2-4 

SA2-5 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
SA3-1 Thank you for your notification of completenes

SA3-1 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
SA4-1 Thank you for your notification of concurrence

SA4-1 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
APPENDIX K-2 

INDIVIDUAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL COMMENTS 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
Individual Comments 

 1 

IND1-1 FERC encourages the Applicant to work with l

reasonable agreement for the location of pipelinSESH must demonstrate to FERC that landownreasonably accommodated. SESH has agreed t

proposed by Brigham, McGowin, and Hill to mBrigham and neighboring properties (see SectioSection 2.3.1.4 indicates SESH intends to bury feet below the ground surface. 

IND1-1 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
Individual Comments 

 2 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
Individual Comments 

 3 

IND2-1 

The U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOMaterials Safety Administration (PHMSA) is r

compliance with federal pipeline safety regulatpublic notice of SESH's request for a waiver on performing a rigorous review of the request. SSafety addresses DOT’s and FERC’s role regarsafety. The catastrophic failure of a pipeline near Carlwas attributed to a pipe dated to 1950 that couland monitored for corrosion. The proposed Proand constructed to enable cleaning, internal corcorrosion reduction systems. The USDOT (PHmanagement program for interstate pipelines to an accident. 

IND2-1 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
Individual Comments 

 4 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
Individual Comments 

 5 

IND3-1 The U.S. Department of Transportation (USDO

Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) is r

compliance with federal pipeline safety regulatpublic notice of SESH's request for a waiver on is performing a rigorous review of the request. and Safety addresses DOT’s and FERC’s role rand safety. The catastrophic failure of a pipeline near Carlwas attributed to a pipe dated to 1950 that couland monitored for corrosion. The proposed Proand constructed to enable cleaning, internal corcorrosion reduction systems. The USDOT (PHmanagement program for interstate pipelines to an accident. 

IND3-1 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
Individual Comments 

 6 

IND3-1 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
Individual Comments 

 7 

IND4-1 We evaluate the Herrin Variation in Section 4.4

recommend that SESH continue to work with Mfinal plan for crossing the Herrin property for simplementation plan. 

IND4-1 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
Individual Comments 

 8 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
Individual Comments 

 9 

IND5-1 IND5-2 

We recommend that SESH remove its proposed edge of its proposed permanent ROW easemeneasements (see Section 2.2.1 of this FEIS). In accordance with FERC's Wetland and WaterMitigation Procedures, applicants must limit thright-of-way in wetlands to 75 feet. SESH has the proposed Project as noted in Section 2.2.1 required if additional area is required where soicompressive strength that would result in excesdifficult to contain spoil piles. Where topsoil s(agricultural and residential lands), additional wseparate topsoil and subsoil piles. Saturated wetopsoil segregation. 

IND5-1 

IND5-2 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
Individual Comments 

 10 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
Individual Comments 

 11 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
Individual Comments 

 12 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
Individual Comments 

 13 

IND5-3 We recommend that SESH remove its proposed 

edge of its proposed permanent ROW easemeneasements (see Section 2.2.1 of this FEIS). 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
Individual Comments 

 14 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
Individual Comments 

 15 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
Individual Comments 

 16 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
Individual Comments 

 17 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
Individual Comments 

 18 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
Individual Comments 

 19 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
Individual Comments 

 20 

IND6 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
Individual Comments 

 21 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
Individual Comments 

 22 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
Individual Comments 

 23 

IND6-1 In response to Ms. Sullivan’s concerns FERC s

record question and answer session at the subseon May 24, 2007 in Gallman, Mississippi. MsGallman meeting and expressed satisfaction tharecord question and answer session was accomto Ms. Sullivan’s public meeting comments in 

IND6-1 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
Individual Comments 

 24 

IND7-1 IND7-2 

SESH has agreed to incorporate the variation pMcGowin, and Hill into its proposed route (see We recommend that SESH remove of its propothe edge of its proposed permanent ROW easemutility easements (see Section 2.2.1 of this FEIS Condition 14). Section 2.3.1.4 indicates SESH depth of 3 to 4 feet below the ground surface. Refer to IND7-1 (above). 

IND7-1 IND7-2 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
Individual Comments 

 25 

IND7-2 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
Individual Comments 

 26 

IND8-1 IND8-2 

These comments were provided by Mr. Marc W

We are recommending that SESH reduce the ninch pipe to 100 feet in width (See Section 5.2, workspace for two-tone construction, road and areas requiring full right-of-way topsoil segregwith appropriate justification from SESH. As discussed in Section 3.0 of the EIS, limited environmental effects of the proposed Project alength of the pipeline and are not disproportionminority/low-income populations. Much of the and Coden, AL is rural. As presented in Section the pipeline falls on many types of populationsencouraged pipelines to co-locate new pipelineexisting easements with the objectives of minimimpacts and avoiding the establishment of new extent possible. The pipeline was also routed tany kind where possible. Air quality effects from the proposed Gwinville Jefferson Davis County would be well within NQuality Standards (NAAQS) permissible value3.11.1 Although the project will not result in significajobs, some tax revenues will be provided to the improvements. Loss of property value is consisthe pipeline. Refer to Comment Response INDwaiver request to PHMSA. 

IND8-1 

IND8-2 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
Individual Comments 

 27 

IND8-3 IND8-4 IND8-5 IND8-6 

The location of FERC public meetings are typinumber of affected landowners and travel requlandowners. It is not based upon individual cou

public meetings in the western portion of proje

located in Copiah County which is adjacent to county away from Jefferson Davis County. Your comment is noted regarding the PHMSA SESH request for a waiver. FERC encourages the Applicant to work with l

reasonable agreement for the location of pipelinSESH must demonstrate to FERC that landown

reasonably accommodated. Section 3.9.5 of thvalues and the impact of a gas pipeline. The improject could have on the value of any land parfactors. As discussed in Section 3.0 of the EIS, limited environmental effects of the proposed Project alength of the pipeline and are not disproportionminority/low-income populations. See also coabove. Refer to the Comment Response to IND2-1 regwaiver from PHMSA. An explanation of the Scan be found in Section 3.12. 

IND8-2 

IND8-3 IND8-4 IND8-5 IND8-6 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
Individual Comments 

 28 

IND8-7 IND8-8 

Refer to the Comment Response to IND2-1 regregulation. The reference for the footnotes relaUSDOT 2006. 49 CFR Part 192, TransportatioGases by Pipeline. Minimum Federal Safety St

H Literature Cited The FERC evaluates the cumulative impacts of in Section 3.13 of the FEIS. The purpose and n

are discussed in Section 1.1. The purpose and discussed in the individual NEPA documents pare on file with FERC. Market conditions drivinterstate transport of natural gas. There are a nin siting a pipeline project including the purpospopulation density, environmental impacts and construction. The Applicant has collocated the adjacent to existing utility easements. 

IND8-7 

IND8-8 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
Individual Comments 

 29 

IND8-9 IND8-10 

Recommendation 4 in Section 5 of this FEIS speminent domain granted under NGA Section 7(increase the size of its natural gas pipeline to acto acquire a right-of-way for a pipeline to transthan natural gas. Regarding FERC's requiremeforeseeable impacts in a cumulative impact basSection 4.0 of the FEIS summarizes FERC’s enalternatives based upon detailed information prand evaluation by FERC Staff. Alternative enepotential effects of energy conservation are addPostpone Action. 

IND8-9 

IND8-10 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
Individual Comments 

 30 

IND9-1 IND9-2 

See comment response IND1-1 and also SectioThree scoping meetings were held during the pcomment hearings were held for the proposed P

24, 2007 and no additional public hearings are Comment Response IND8-2. 

IND9-1 

IND9-2 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
Individual Comments 

 31 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
Individual Comments 

 32 

IND10-1 IND10-2 

FERC encourages the Applicant to work with lreasonable agreement for the location of pipelinSESH must demonstrate to FERC that landownreasonably accommodated. We have recomme

variation on your property and submit it to FERImplementation Plan for our review and approvEnvironmental and economics impacts are discFEIS. The National Environmental Policy Act 

includes a comprehensive assessment of the resby the proposed Project. Measures intended to mitigate unavoidable impacts have been recomevaluated alternatives to the proposed Project, ialternative, system alternatives, route alternativThe analysis has been aided by the input of the federal agencies. Additionally, the Applicant mpermits and approvals before construction can bthe analysis has been sufficient to meet the requ

IND10-1 IND10-2 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
Individual Comments 

 33 

IND10-3 IND10-4 

FERC encourages the Applicant to work with lreasonable agreement for the location of pipelinSESH must demonstrate to FERC that landownreasonably accommodated. Your comment is noted. The FERC held three 

comment hearings were held for the proposed Ppublic hearings are scheduled. Refer to the CoIND10-1 regarding your request for a route var

Landowner requested variations are evaluated i

IND10-3 

IND10-4 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
Individual Comments 

 34 

IND11-1 IND11-2 

Refer to the Comment Response to IND2-1 regrelated to pipeline safety. In addition, Section the safety and reliability of the proposed Projecuse of existing right-of-ways and the proposed existing right-of-way for 58.51 miles and to the Section 4.0 addresses alternative routes using eof-ways considered in the Mobile area. The separate request you are referring to is a wfrom PHMSA to increase the operating pressurproposed Project. Section 3.12 and Table 3.12locations for the pipe on the proposed Project. required by PHMSA to monitor changes in poppipelines and to make appropriate modification

with different thickness pipe or reduce pressure

IND11-1 IND11-2 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
Individual Comments 

 35 

IND11-3 IND11-4 IND11-5 IND11-6 

FERC encourages the Applicant to work with lreasonable agreement for the location of pipelinSESH must demonstrate to FERC that landownreasonably accommodated. See response to IND11-1. Pipeline route alternbeen evaluated and summarized by FERC in SeSection 3.12 and Table 3.12.1-1 addresses the a

pipe on the proposed Project. Reliability and SFERC’s role regarding pipeline design and safe

to IND2-1. Refer to Comment Response IND11-3 regardinlandowner agreements. The FERC does not ovwith landowners. FERC encourages the Appliclandowners to negotiate a reasonable agreemenpipelines across their properties. In the future, abandon the pipeline by sale or take it out of sereceive FERC authorization to do so. 

IND11-3 

IND11-4 IND11-5 

IND11-6 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
Individual Comments 

 36 

IND12-1 See comment response IND1-1 and also Sectio

IND12-1 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
Individual Comments 

 37 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
Individual Comments 

 38 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
Individual Comments 

 39 

IND13-1 IND13-2 IND13-3 IND13-4 

In Section 4.4.6 of this FEIS we recommend thwith the affected landowners to try to reasonab

concerns by adjusting the route, to the degree p

boundaries, avoid stands of older trees, and be residences and structures. SESH would finalizSeward property and include it in its Project ImEnvironmental impacts for this route variation of the FEIS. Refer to Comment Response IND13-1 regardinproperty. Section 3.12 and Table 3.12.1-1 addresses the apipe on the proposed Project. Reliability and SFERC’s role regarding pipeline design and safe

IND13-1 IND13-2 

IND13-3 

IND13-4 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
Individual Comments 

 40 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
Individual Comments 

 41 

IND14-1 FERC encourages the Applicant to work with l

reasonable agreement for the location of pipelinSESH must demonstrate to FERC that landownreasonably accommodated. Section 4.4.6 of the evaluation performed on the proposed pipe rouproperty. We are recommending that SESH coand file a final crossing plan with its implemen

IND14-1 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
Individual Comments 

 42 

IND15-1 FERC encourages the Applicant to work with 

reasonable agreement for the location of pipelSection 4.4.6 of the FEIS addresses the evproposed pipe route on the Whitehead-Lerecommending that SESH file final plans environmental issues and reviews of the Leona

IND15-1 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
Individual Comments 

 43 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
Individual Comments 

 44 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
Individual Comments 

 45 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
Individual Comments 

 46 

IND16-1 FERC encourages the Applicant to work with l

reasonable agreement for the location of pipelinSection 4.4.10 of the FEIS addresses the evaluaproposed pipe route on the Barnes property. WRoute Variation for the proposed pipeline on thpreferable. SESH would continue to work with 

try to reasonably accommodate their concerns bdegree practical, to minimize impacts to the pro

IND16-1 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
Individual Comments 

 47 

IND17-1 Section 4.4.9 of the FEIS addresses the evalu

proposed pipe route on the Seignious propeincorporate the Seignious Route Variation into 

IND17-1 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
Individual Comments 

 48 

IND17-1 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
Individual Comments 

 49 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
Individual Comments 

 50 

IND17-2 Refer to Comment 17-1. FERC encourages t

landowners to negotiate a reasonable agrepipelines across their properties. SESH must landowner requests have been reasonably accothe FEIS addresses the evaluation of a variatioon the Seignious property. SESH indicates 

acceptable to the Seignious and the landowne

agree with the adoption of the Seignious Route 

IND17-2 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
Individual Comments 

 51 

IND18-1 

We believe that the route variation proposed bHill to minimize impacts to the Hill and neighpreferable (see Section 4.4.8 of this FEIS

IND18-1 incorporate this route in their final alignment. 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
Individual Comments 

 52 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
Individual Comments 

 53 

IND19-1 See discussion of the Wyatt Route Variation in 

IND19-1 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
Individual Comments 

 54 

IND19-2 IND19-3 IND19-4 

Refer to Comment Response to IND8-1 regardconstruction for the proposed Project. As indic

FEIS, SESH would acquire a 50 foot permanenis an industry standard for pipeline safety. Refer to the Comment Response to IND8-4 regrelated to landowner agreements. Section 2.3.1to bury the pipe to a depth of 3 to 4 feet below FERC encourages the Applicant to work with lreasonable agreement for the location of pipelinWe evaluated the Wyatt Route Variation as indResponse IND 19-1. See also Comment RespoSection 5.2, Recommendation 4 of the FEIS speminent domain granted under NGA Section 7(increase the size of its natural gas pipeline to acto acquire a right-of-way for a pipeline to transthan natural gas. 

IND19-2 

IND19-3 IND19-4 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
Individual Comments 

 55 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
Individual Comments 

 56 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
Individual Comments 

 57 

IND20 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
Individual Comments 

 58 

IND 20 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
Individual Comments 

 59 

IND20-1 IND20-2 

Section 4.4.1 of the FEIS presents an evaluatiopipeline routes on the Myers property. We are continue to consult with you and submit a final implementation plan. Individual landowners can request certain measagreements that would address concerns regardas livestock and construction timing. Waterbody crossing procedures are described iof erosion control devices that would be used to creek. 

IND20-1 

IND20-2 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
Individual Comments 

 60 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
Individual Comments 

 61 

IND20-3 IND20-4 

Refer to Comment Response IND20-1 regardinlandowner requests. Section 4.0 of the FEIS summarizes FERC’s enalternatives. Our conclusions are based upon deby the Applicant and evaluation by FERC Staff system as an alternative to the proposed projectSee our response to IND20-1 and IND20-2. 

IND20-3 

IND20-4 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
Individual Comments 

 62 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
Individual Comments 

 63 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
Individual Comments 

 64 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
Individual Comments 

 65 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
Individual Comments 

 66 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
Individual Comments 

 67 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
Individual Comments 

 68 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
Individual Comments 

 69 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
Individual Comments 

 70 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
Individual Comments 

 71 

IND21-1 FERC encourages the Applicant to work with l

reasonable agreement for the location of pipelinSESH must demonstrate to FERC that landownreasonably accommodated IND21-1 

IND21-2 

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007
Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007

File [Appendix_K_CommentResponse_Part-2.PDF] cannot be converted to PDF. (Error: File not found)
Document Content(s)

cover.PDF.................................................................1

SESH_FEIS_LettertoParties.PDF.............................................2

SESH_FEIS-TableofContents-with ACR and ABB.PDF ...........................4

SESH_FEIS_Executive_Summary.PDF..........................................19

SESH_FEIS_Section_1.0-Introduction.PDF...................................25

SESH_FEIS_Section_2.0-ProposedAction.PDF.................................36

SESH_FEIS_Section_3.0-Environmental Analysis.PDF ........................69

SESH_FEIS_Section_4.0-Alternatives.PDF..................................214

SESH_FEIS_Section_5 0-Conclusions.PDF...................................257

Appendix A Distribution List.PDF........................................275

Appendix_B_FacilityLocationMaps.PDF.....................................311

Appendix_C_SoilAssociations.PDF.........................................313

Appendix_D_WaterbodyCrossingTable.PDF...................................329

Appendix_E_AffectedWetlands.PDF.........................................359

Appendix_F_ATWS,AccessRoadsPipeyardsWareyards.PDF.......................371

Appendix_G_NatchezTraceParkwayEA.PDF ...................................450

Appendix_H_LiteratureCited.PDF..........................................469

Appendix_I_ListofPreparers.PDF..........................................470

Appendix_J_GopherTortoiseConservationStrategy.PDF.......................473

Appendix_K_CommentResponse_Part-1.PDF...................................482

Appendix_K_CommentResponse_Part-2.PDF...................................578

Document Accession #: 20070810-4002 Filed Date: 08/10/2007