Final Environmental Impact Statement 

East Texas to Mississippi 

Expansion Project 

Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP Docket Nos. CP06-446-000 

PF06-17-000 

PF06-23-000 

FERC EIS 0206D 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

Office of Energy Projects 

Washington, DC 20426 

May 2007 

Cooperating Agencies: 

U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers

U.S. Fish & Wildlife 

Service

National Park Service U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
East Texas to Mississippi Expansion Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Routing Code PJ 11.3 Washington, DC 20426 Official Business Penalty for Private Use 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20426

OFFICE OF ENERGY PROJECTS 

In Reply Refer To: 

OEP/DG2E/Gas Branch 2 

Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP 

Docket No. CP06-446-000, et al.

TO THE PARTY ADDRESSED: 

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

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

Pipeline Company, LP (Gulf South) under the above-referenced docket. Gulf South’s East Texas to 

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

northern Louisiana, and western Mississippi. 

This 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) 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. 

The general purpose of the proposed Project is to transport up to 1.7 billion cubic feet per day of 

natural gas from production fields in eastern Texas to markets in the Gulf Coast, Midwestern, Northeastern, 

and Southeastern regions of the United States. 

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

operation of the following facilities: 

• approximately 240.3 miles of 42-inch-diameter natural gas pipeline extending easterly from 

DeSoto Parish, Louisiana to Simpson County, Mississippi; 

• approximately 3.3 miles of 36-inch-diameter natural gas pipeline extending northward from Gulf 

South’s existing Carthage Junction Compressor Station in Panola County, Texas to interconnects 

with existing natural gas facilities within Panola County; 

• two new compressor stations, the Vixen and the Tallulah Compressor Stations, located in 

Ouachita and Madison Parishes, Louisiana, respectively; 

• modifications to three existing compressor stations, the Carthage Junction, Hall Summit, and 

McComb Compressor Stations in Panola, County, Texas, Bienville Parish, Louisiana and 

Walthall County, Mississippi, respectively; and 

• other ancillary facilities including, six meter and regulator (M/R) facilities, eleven mainline 

valves, nine side valves, and five pig launcher and/or receiver facilities. 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
Docket No. CP06-446-000, et al. - 2 -

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

operating the proposed Project in September 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 2A 

Washington, DC 20426 

(202) 502-8371 

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

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

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

American tribes; local libraries and newspapers; intervenors; and other individuals that expressed an interest 

in the proposed Project. Hard-copies of the Final EIS have also been mailed to those who requested that 

format during the scoping and comment periods for the proposed Project. 

In accordance with the Council on Environmental Quality’s (CEQ) regulations implementing NEPA, 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

availability. 

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

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

information via the FERC website click on the “eLibrary” link then click on “General Search” and enter 

the docket number (i.e., CP06-446) 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 signup for this service please go to www.ferc.gov/esubscribenow.htm. 

Kimberly D. Bose, 

Secretary 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
ES-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. 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

INTRODUCTION 

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

environmental impact statement (EIS) to fulfill requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act 

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

would likely result from the construction and operation of the proposed East Texas to Mississippi 

Expansion Project (Project). This EIS has been prepared in cooperation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (FWS), the National Park Service (NPS), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE), the U.S. 

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

PROJECT BACKGROUND 

On February 17, 2006, we1

 approved the Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP’s (Gulf South) 

request to use the Commission’s Pre-filing Review Process for the proposed East Texas Expansion 

Project. On April 13, 2006, we also approved Gulf South’s request to use the Commission’s Pre-filing 

Review Process for the proposed Mississippi Expansion Project. After reviewing these proposed projects, 

we decided to combine our pre-filing review of these projects and recommended to Gulf South that it 

combine the proposed East Texas and Mississippi Expansion Projects into one application to the 

Commission at the conclusion of the combined pre-filing review. 

On September 1, 2006 Gulf South filed an application with the Commission pursuant to 

Section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act and Part 157 of the Commission’s regulations for a Certificate of 

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

gas pipeline and associated ancillary and aboveground facilities, collectively known as the East Texas to 

Mississippi Expansion Project. We have prepared our analysis based on this application and subsequent 

filings by Gulf South. 

On February 9, 2007 we issued a Draft EIS for the proposed Project. 

PROPOSED ACTION 

In order to transport up to approximately 1.7 billion cubic feet per day of natural gas from 

production fields in eastern Texas to markets in the Gulf Coast, Midwestern, Northeastern, and 

Southeastern United States, Gulf South proposes to construct and operate approximately 243.6 miles of 

natural gas pipeline and associated ancillary facilities. Specifically, Gulf South proposes to construct and 

operate: 

• approximately 240.3 miles of 42-inch-diameter natural gas pipeline extending easterly from 

DeSoto Parish, Louisiana to Simpson County, Mississippi; 

 

1

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

Energy Projects. 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
ES-2

• approximately 3.3 miles of 36-inch-diameter natural gas pipeline extending northward from 

Gulf South’s existing Carthage Junction Compressor Station in Panola County, Texas to 

interconnect with existing natural gas facilities within Panola County; 

• two new compressor stations, the Vixen and the Tallulah Compressor Stations, located in 

Ouachita and Madison Parishes, Louisiana, respectively; 

• modifications to three existing compressor stations, the Carthage Junction, Hall Summit, and 

McComb Compressor Stations in Panola, County, Texas, Bienville Parish, Louisiana, and 

Walthall County, Mississippi, respectively; and 

• other ancillary facilities, including six meter and regulator (M/R) facilities, eleven mainline 

valves, nine side valves, and five pig launcher and/or receiver facilities. 

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

operating the proposed Project in September 2007. 

PUBLIC OUTREACH AND COMMENTS 

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

Statement, Request for Comments on Environmental Issues for the East Texas Expansion Project on 

March 28, 2006 followed by a Notice of Site Visit and Public Meetings to Receive Environmental 

Comments on June 7, 2006. We also issued a Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact 

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

Mississippi Expansion Project on May 23, 2006. These notices were published in the Federal Register 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

on February 16, 2007, establishing a 45-day comment period ending on March 27, 2007. During this 

period, we conducted public comment meetings in Minden and Monroe, Louisiana, and Vicksburg, 

Mississippi on February 26 and 27 and March 1, respectively. During this period and at the public 

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

the affects to land use, and safety and reliability. Specifically, we received comment letters from the 

FWS, NRCS, EPA, NPS, the Mississippi Secretary of State’s Office, the Texas Parks and Wildlife 

Department, and three potentially affected property owners. Comments received during this period were 

considered and addressed in this final EIS. Submitted comments and our responses to those comments 

are provided in the Appendix K of this document. As noted above, all changes made to the Draft EIS in 

response to comments, supplemental information and/or further analysis are indicated by the vertical bars 

that appear in the margins of this document. 

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

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

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
ES-3 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION 

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

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

resources, air and noise quality, and land use. 

Construction of the proposed pipeline would temporarily affect 889 surface waterbodies. 

Conventional open-cut waterbody construction techniques and horizontal directional drills (HDD) would 

be used to complete all waterbody crossings. Specifically, twenty-one major and/or navigable streams, 

two designated Louisiana Natural and Scenic Rivers (Black Lake Bayou and Saline Bayou), two 

Nationwide Rivers Inventory (NRI)-listed streams (the Big Black River and the Pearl River), the rivers 

most likely to contain habitat for federally-listed fish species (the Mississippi River, Red River, and Pearl 

River), and nine of the ten impaired waterbodies that occur along the proposed pipeline route would be 

crossed using HDDs. 

Construction of the proposed pipeline would affect 309 wetlands, disturbing approximately 

122.4 acres of wetlands. Special-status wetlands, including wetlands in the NRCS-administered Wetland 

Reserve Program (WRP), and several high-quality forested wetlands would be temporarily and 

permanently 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 and 

permanent conversion of forested wetlands. 

In consultation with the FWS, we identified ten federally-listed threatened and endangered 

species as well as one candidate species that could be affected by the proposed Project. Based on our 

review of these species, we have determined that construction and operation of the proposed Project may 

affect, but is not likely to adversely affect federally-listed threatened and endangered species and that the 

candidate species would not be significantly affected by the proposed Project. 

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

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

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

resources. 

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

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

interest areas. The proposed Project would cross or be located in the vicinity of several recreational and 

special interest areas including Conservation Reserve Program and WRP lands; the Ouachita Wildlife 

Management Area; the NRI-listed Pearl and Big Black Rivers; two Louisiana Natural and Scenic Rivers, 

Black Lake Bayou and Saline Bayou; the NPS-managed Natchez Trace Parkway; and the Tensas National 

Wildlife Refuge. 

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

Project, Gulf South 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); 

• Plan for the Unanticipated Discovery of Contaminated Media; 

• Loess Soils Management Plan; 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
ES-4

• Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasures Plan; 

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

Directional Drilled Wetland and Waterbody Crossings (HDD Contingency Plan); and 

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

Paleontological Evidence during Construction. 

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

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

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

implementation of these measures and plans, Gulf South would obtain other federal, state, and local 

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

impacts resulting from construction and operation of the proposed Project. 

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

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

minimize and mitigate impacts are included in Sections 2.0, 3.0, 4.0 and 5.0 of this document. 

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 

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

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

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

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

considered the potential impacts to environmental resources and land uses. We also evaluated 

alternatives that would avoid or minimize impacts to environmental resources such as wetlands and 

waterbodies, and land uses such as timber production and state- and federally-managed lands. None of 

the alternatives evaluated offered significant environmental benefits when compared to the proposed 

Project with our recommended mitigation measures. As such, we are not recommending the adoption of 

any of the alternatives evaluated. 

CONCLUSION 

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

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

operation of the proposed Project. We are recommending that these measures be attached as conditions to 

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

the public interest and is constructed and operated in accordance with Gulf South’s proposed 

minimization and mitigation measures and our recommended mitigation measures; the proposed facilities 

would result in limited adverse environmental impacts. In support of this conclusion, we offer the 

following: 

• The proposed Project would be collocated with existing utility rights-of-way for 

approximately 185 miles, or about 77 percent of the proposed route; 

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

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

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

50 feet; to use portions of existing, natural gas pipeline permanent rights-of-way during 

construction, if feasible; and to limit the width of its construction right-of-way in areas 

requiring two-tone construction techniques to further reduce impacts; 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
ES-5 

• Gulf South has developed site-specific crossing plans for WRP lands and significant wetland 

areas containing mature cypress and water tupelo trees, a wetland mitigation plan, and would 

compensate for all unavoidable wetland impacts; and 

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

would ensure compliance with all proposed and recommended mitigation measures. 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

East Texas to Mississippi Expansion Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

i

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

LIST OF APPENDICES ............................................................................................................. .vi 

LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................................................vii 

LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................................................... xi 

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS....................................................................................xii 

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-4

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

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

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

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

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

1.4 PUBLIC REVIEW AND COMMENT...............................................................1-8

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

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

2.2 LAND REQUIREMENTS .................................................................................2-6

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

2.2.2 Other Work Areas ...................................................................................2-13

2.2.2.1 Additional Temporary Work Spaces..........................................2-14

2.2.2.2 Pipe Storage and Contractor Yards............................................2-14

2.2.2.3 Access Roads .............................................................................2-14

2.3 CONSTRUCTION PROCEDURES.................................................................2-14

2.3.1 General Pipeline Construction Procedures..............................................2-15

2.3.2 Specialized Pipeline Construction Procedures........................................2-20

2.3.2.1 Waterbody Crossings .................................................................2-20

2.3.2.2 Wetland Crossings .....................................................................2-25

2.3.2.3 Road, Highway, and Railroad Crossings ...................................2-26

2.3.2.4 Agricultural Areas......................................................................2-26

2.3.2.5 Rugged Topography...................................................................2-27

2.3.2.6 Residential Areas .......................................................................2-29

2.3.3 Aboveground Facilities Construction Procedures...................................2-29

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 ...................................................2-32

2.8 NONJURISDICTIONAL FACILITIES ...........................................................2-32

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) 

ii

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

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

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

3.1.1.1 Topography ..................................................................................3-2

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

3.1.1.3 Impacts to the Geologic Setting ...................................................3-5

3.1.2 Mineral Resources.....................................................................................3-5

3.1.3 Paleontological Resources ........................................................................3-6

3.1.4 Geologic Hazards......................................................................................3-6

3.1.4.1 Seismicity and Faults ...................................................................3-7

3.1.4.2 Soil Liquefaction..........................................................................3-7

3.1.4.3 Slope Failures/Landslides ............................................................3-7

3.1.4.4 Ground Subsidence ......................................................................3-8

3.1.5 Conclusion Regarding Impacts to Geologic Resources ............................3-9

3.2 SOILS .................................................................................................................3-9

3.2.1 Existing Soils ............................................................................................3-9

3.2.2 Major Soil Characteristics.........................................................................3-9

3.2.2.1 Erosion Potential..........................................................................3-9

3.2.2.2 Drainage Class .............................................................................3-9

3.2.2.3 Presence of Hydric Soils............................................................3-10

3.2.2.4 Compaction Potential.................................................................3-10

3.2.2.5 Revegetation Potential ...............................................................3-10

3.2.3 Sensitive Soils.........................................................................................3-11

3.2.3.1 Loess Soils .................................................................................3-11

3.2.4 General Impacts and Mitigation..............................................................3-11

3.2.4.1 Erosion .......................................................................................3-12

3.2.4.2 Compaction Potential.................................................................3-13

3.2.4.3 Revegetation Potential ...............................................................3-13

3.2.4.4 Accidental Releases or Discovery of Contaminants ..................3-14

3.2.4.5 Drainage Systems and Drainage Patterns ..................................3-14

3.2.5 Prime Farmland.......................................................................................3-14

3.2.6 Conclusion ..............................................................................................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 .........................................3-23

3.3.1.4 Conclusion Regarding Groundwater Resources ........................3-24

3.3.2 Surface Water Resources ........................................................................3-24

3.3.2.1 Existing Surface Water Resources.............................................3-24

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

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

3.3.3 Conclusion Regarding Surface Water Resources....................................3-34

3.4 WETLANDS ....................................................................................................3-34

3.4.1 Existing Wetland Resources ...................................................................3-35

3.4.1.1 High-quality, Sensitive, or Special-status Wetlands ..................3-37

3.4.2 General Impacts and Mitigation..............................................................3-38

3.4.2.1 General Wetland Construction and Mitigation Procedures........3-39

3.4.2.2 Alternative Measures to Our Procedures ...................................3-40

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) 

iii

3.4.3 Site-specific Wetland Impacts and Mitigation........................................3-40

3.4.3.1 High-quality, Sensitive, or Special-status Wetlands ..................3-40

3.4.4 Wetland Restoration and Compensatory Mitigation...............................3-41

3.4.5 Conclusion Regarding Impacts to Wetlands ...........................................3-42

3.5 VEGETATION.................................................................................................3-42

3.5.1 Existing Vegetation Resources ...............................................................3-42

3.5.1.1 Vegetative Communities of Special Concern or Value .............3-44

3.5.1.2 Extensive Forested Tracts ..........................................................3-45

3.5.2 General Impacts and Mitigation..............................................................3-46

3.5.2.1 Impacts to Vegetation Communities of Special 

Concern or Value .......................................................................3-49

3.5.3 Exotic or Invasive Plant Communities....................................................3-50

3.6 WILDLIFE AND AQUATIC RESOURCES...................................................3-51

3.6.1 Wildlife ...................................................................................................3-51

3.6.1.1 Existing Wildlife Resources.......................................................3-51

3.6.1.2 Sensitive or Managed Wildlife Habitats ....................................3-53

3.6.1.3 Unique and Sensitive Wildlife Species......................................3-54

3.6.1.4 General Impacts and Mitigation.................................................3-55

3.6.1.5 Sensitive or Managed Wildlife Habitats and 

Species Effects and Mitigation ..................................................3-57

3.6.1.6 Conclusion Regarding Impacts to Wildlife 

Habitats and Species ..................................................................3-59

3.6.2 Aquatic Resources...................................................................................3-59

3.6.2.1 Existing Aquatic Resources .......................................................3-59

3.6.2.2 Conclusion Regarding Impacts to Aquatic 

Habitats and Species ..................................................................3-63

3.7 THREATENED, ENDANGERED, AND SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES ......3-63

3.7.1 Federally Listed Threatened and Endangered Species............................3-63

3.7.1.1 Bald Eagle..................................................................................3-65

3.7.1.2 Interior Least Tern .....................................................................3-66

3.7.1.3 Red-cockaded Woodpecker .......................................................3-67

3.7.1.4 Louisiana Black Bear .................................................................3-67

3.7.1.5 Ringed Map Turtle.....................................................................3-69

3.7.1.6 Bayou Darter..............................................................................3-69

3.7.1.7 Gulf Sturgeon.............................................................................3-70

3.7.1.8 Pallid Sturgeon...........................................................................3-70

3.7.1.9 Fat Pocketbook Mussel ..............................................................3-71

3.7.1.10 Inflated Heelsplitter....................................................................3-71

3.7.1.11 Louisiana Pine Snake.................................................................3-72

3.7.2 Special-status Species .............................................................................3-72

3.7.2.1 State-listed and Rare Species .....................................................3-72

3.8 LAND USE, RECREATION AND SPECIAL INTEREST 

AREAS, AND VISUAL RESOURCES ...........................................................3-76

3.8.1 General Land Use Types.........................................................................3-76

3.8.1.1 Land Types.................................................................................3-76

3.8.2 Land Ownership and Easement Requirements .......................................3-80

3.8.3 General Impacts and Mitigation..............................................................3-80

3.8.3.1 Land Use Type-Specific Impacts and Mitigation ......................3-81

3.8.4 Special Interest Areas Impacts and Mitigation .......................................3-84

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) 

iv

3.8.4.1 Specially Managed Lands Impacts and Mitigation....................3-85

3.8.5 Transportation .........................................................................................3-92

3.8.6 Visual Resources.....................................................................................3-94

3.8.6.1 Current Viewshed ......................................................................3-95

3.8.6.2 General Impacts and Mitigation.................................................3-95

3.8.7 Conclusion Regarding Impacts to Land Use, Recreation 

and Special Interest Areas, and Visual Resources ..................................3-98

3.9 SOCIOECONOMICS.......................................................................................3-98

3.9.1 Region of Influence.................................................................................3-98

3.9.2 Population ...............................................................................................3-98

3.9.3 Economy and Employment...................................................................3-100

3.9.4 Housing .................................................................................................3-101

3.9.5 Property Values.....................................................................................3-102

3.9.6 Government Revenue............................................................................3-102

3.9.7 Public Services......................................................................................3-103

3.9.8 Impacts on Specific Economic Sectors .................................................3-104

3.10 CULTURAL RESOURCES ...........................................................................3-105

3.10.1 Results of Cultural Resources Survey...................................................3-105

3.10.1.1 Texas........................................................................................3-105

3.10.1.2 Louisiana..................................................................................3-105

3.10.1.3 Mississippi ...............................................................................3-106

3.10.1.4 Natchez Trace Parkway ...........................................................3-107

3.10.2 Unanticipated Discoveries Plan ............................................................3-107

3.10.3 Native American Consultation..............................................................3-107

3.10.4 General Impacts and Mitigation............................................................3-108

3.11 AIR QUALITY AND NOISE ........................................................................3-108

3.11.1 Air Quality ............................................................................................3-108

3.11.1.1 Existing Air Quality.................................................................3-109

3.11.1.2 Regulatory Requirements.........................................................3-109

3.11.1.3 General Impacts and Mitigation...............................................3-115

3.11.2 Noise Quality ........................................................................................3-116

3.11.2.1 Regulatory Requirements.........................................................3-116

3.11.2.2 Existing Noise Levels ..............................................................3-117

3.11.2.3 General Impacts and Mitigation...............................................3-117

3.12 RELIABILITY AND SAFETY......................................................................3-122

3.12.1 Safety Standards....................................................................................3-123

3.12.2 Pipeline Accident Data..........................................................................3-126

3.12.3 Impact on Public Safety ........................................................................3-129

3.12.4 Additional Security and Safety Issues...................................................3-130

3.12.4.1 Terrorism..................................................................................3-130

3.12.4.2 Electric Transmission Lines and Facilities ..............................3-131

3.13 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS............................................................................3-131

3.13.1 Other Natural Gas Pipeline Projects .....................................................3-134

3.13.2 Unrelated Projects .................................................................................3-139

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

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) 

v

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

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

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

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

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

4.2.1 Existing Pipeline System Alternatives ......................................................4-3

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

4.2.1.2 CEGT Pipeline System Alternative .............................................4-7

4.2.2 New Pipeline System Alternatives............................................................4-7

4.2.2.1 Carthage to Perryville System Alternative...................................4-8

4.2.2.2 SESH Project System Alternative................................................4-8

4.2.2.3 Gulf Crossing System Alternative ...............................................4-8

4.2.2.4 Midcontinent Express System Alternative.................................4-11

4.3 ROUTE ALTERNATIVES ..............................................................................4-11

4.3.1 Northern Route Alternative.....................................................................4-11

4.3.2 Tallulah to Florence Route Alternatives .................................................4-12

4.4 ROUTE VARIATIONS....................................................................................4-14

4.4.1 Garner Route Variations .........................................................................4-18

4.4.2 Hoychick Route Variation.......................................................................4-21

4.4.3 Shelton Route Variation..........................................................................4-23

4.4.4 Withrow/Broadbent Route Variation ......................................................4-25

4.4.5 Barton Route Variation ...........................................................................4-27

4.4.6 Pearl River Route Variation....................................................................4-29

4.4.7 Pitre Route Variation ..............................................................................4-31

4.5 ABOVEGROUND FACILITY ALTERNATIVES..........................................4-33

4.5.1 Vixen Compressor Station Site Alternatives...........................................4-33

4.5.2 Tallulah Compressor Station Site Alternatives .......................................4-34

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

5.1 SUMMARY OF THE STAFF’S ENVIRONMENTAL 

ANALYSIS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES............5-1

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

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

5.1.3 Water Resources .......................................................................................5-1

5.1.4 Wetlands....................................................................................................5-2

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

5.1.6 Wildlife and Aquatic Resources................................................................5-3

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

5.1.8 Land Use, Recreation and Special Interest Areas, and Visual Resources.5-4

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

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

5.1.11 Air Quality and Noise ...............................................................................5-6

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

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

5.1.14 Alternatives ...............................................................................................5-7

5.2 STAFF’S RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................................5-8 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
LIST OF APPENDICES 

vi

APPENDIX A DISTRIBUTION LIST 

APPENDIX B FACILITY LOCATION MAPS 

APPENDIX C SOILS FOUND ALONG THE PROPOSED PROJECT 

APPENDIX D WATERBODY CROSSINGS 

APPENDIX E AFFECTED WETLANDS 

APPENDIX F EXTRA WORKSPACES, ACCESS ROADS, AND PIPE STORAGE 

AND CONTRACTOR YARDS 

APPENDIX G MINOR ROUTE VARIATION MAPS 

APPENDIX H NATCHEZ TRACE PARKWAY 

APPENDIX I LITERATURE CITED 

APPENDIX J LIST OF PREPARERS 

APPENDIX K RESPONSE TO COMMENTS 

APPENDIX L SUBJECT INDEX 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
LIST OF TABLES 

vii

Number Title Page

1.3-1 Summary of Major Permits, Approvals, and Consultations 

for the Proposed East Texas to Mississippi Expansion Project ..........................1-3

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

Process for the Proposed East Texas to Mississippi Expansion Project ............1-9

2.1-1 Pipeline Facilities for the Proposed East Texas to Mississippi 

Expansion Project ...............................................................................................2-3

2.1-2 Aboveground Facilities for the Proposed East Texas to Mississippi 

Expansion Project ...............................................................................................2-4

2.2-1 Locations and Land Requirements for the Proposed East Texas 

to Mississippi Expansion Project........................................................................2-7

2.2-2 Existing Utility Rights-of-Way That Would Parallel the Proposed 

East Texas to Mississippi Expansion Project....................................................2-13

2.3.2-1 Proposed Horizontal Directional Drill Locations for the Proposed 

East Texas to Mississippi Expansion Project....................................................2-24

2.3.2-2 Areas That Would Be Affected by Two-Tone Construction Techniques 

for the Proposed East Texas to Mississippi Expansion Project ........................2-27

3.1.1-1 Geologic Units Underlying the Proposed East Texas to Mississippi 

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

3.1.2-1 Mineral Resources within 0.25 Mile of the Proposed East Texas 

to Mississippi Expansion Project........................................................................3-5

3.3.1-1 Drinking Water Wellhead Protection Areas Crossed by the 

Proposed East Texas to Mississippi Expansion Project....................................3-18

3.3.1-2 Wells Located within 150 Feet of the Proposed East Texas 

to Mississippi Expansion Project......................................................................3-18

3.3.1-3 Potentially Contaminated Groundwater Sites Located within 0.25 

Mile of the Proposed East Texas to Mississippi Expansion Project 

Centerline..........................................................................................................3-20

3.3.2-1 Major and Navigable Waterbodies That Would Be Crossed by 

the Proposed East Texas to Mississippi Expansion Project..............................3-26

3.3.2-2 Impaired Waterbodies 1 Crossed by the Proposed East Texas to Mississippi 

Expansion Project .............................................................................................3-27

3.3.2-3 Summary of Hydrostatic Test Water Requirements for the 

Proposed East Texas to Mississippi Expansion Project....................................3-32

3.4.1-1 Summary of Wetlands Affected by the Proposed East Texas to 

Mississippi Expansion Project ..........................................................................3-36

3.4.1-2 Forested Wetlands with Mature Tupelo or Cypress Stands Occurring 

Along the Proposed East Texas to Mississippi Expansion Project..................3-37

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
LIST OF TABLES (CONTINUED) 

viii

Number Title Page

3.5-1 Upland Vegetation Communities Occurring along the Proposed 

East Texas to Mississippi Expansion Project....................................................3-43

3.5.1-2 Extensive Forested Tracts Crossed by the Proposed 

East Texas to Mississippi Expansion Project....................................................3-45

3.5.2-1 Vegetative Communities Affected by the Proposed East Texas 

to Mississippi Expansion Project......................................................................3-47

3.6.1-1 Common Wildlife Species That Occur along the Proposed 

East Texas to Mississippi Expansion Project....................................................3-52

3.6.2-1 Fish and Mussel Species Occurring in the Proposed East 

Texas to Mississippi Expansion Project Area...................................................3-60

3.7.1-1 Federally Listed Species Potentially Occurring in the Proposed 

East Texas to Mississippi Expansion Project Area...........................................3-64

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

East Texas to Mississippi Expansion Project Areaa

..........................................3-73

3.8.1-1 Acres Potentially Affected by the Proposed Project.........................................3-78

3.8.4-1 Sixteenth Section Lands Crossed by the Proposed East 

Texas to Mississippi Expansion Project ...........................................................3-86

3.8.4-2 Conservation Reserve Program Lands Crossed by the Proposed 

East Texas to Mississippi Expansion Project....................................................3-89

3.8.4-3 Wetland Reserve Program Lands Crossed by the Proposed 

East Texas to Mississippi Expansion Project....................................................3-90

3.8.5-1 Major Highway Road Crossings for the Proposed East 

Texas to Mississippi Expansion Project ...........................................................3-93

3.9.2-1 Existing Population and Demographics Conditions within the 

Region of Influence for the Proposed East Texas to Mississippi | 

Expansion Project .............................................................................................3-99

3.9.3-1 Existing Income and Employment Conditions within the Region 

of Influence for the Proposed East Texas to Mississippi Expansion 

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

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

for the Proposed East Texas to Mississippi Expansion Project ......................3-101

3.9.6-1 County Revenue and Estimated Annual Taxes for the Proposed 

East Texas to Mississippi Expansion Project..................................................3-103

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

Equivalents within the Region of Influence for the Proposed East Texas to 

Mississippi Expansion Projecta

.......................................................................3-104

3.11.1-1 National Ambient Air Quality Standards........................................................3-110

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
LIST OF TABLES (CONTINUED) 

ix

Number Title Page

3.11.1-2 Existing and Proposed Emissions for the Carthage Junction 

Compressor Station.........................................................................................3-112

3.11.1-3 Proposed Emissions for the Vixen Compressor Station .................................3-113

3.11.1-4 Proposed Emissions for the Tallulah Compressor Station..............................3-113

3.11.2-1 Locations with Predicted HDD Operation Noise Impacts 

Greater Than 55 dBA......................................................................................3-119

3.11.2-2 Predicted Noise Level Contribution of the Carthage Junction 

Compressor Station at NSAs ..........................................................................3-120

3.11.2-3 Predicted Noise Level Contribution of the Vixen Compressor 

Station at Nearby NSAs..................................................................................3-121

3.11.2-4 Predicted Noise Level Contribution of the Tallulah Compressor 

Station at Nearby NSAs..................................................................................3-122

3.12.2-1 Natural Gas Service Incidents by Causea........................................................3-127

3.12.2-2 Outside Forces Incidents by Cause (1970 through 1984)a..............................3-128

3.12.2-3 External Corrosion by Level of Control (1970 through June 1984) ...............3-128

3.12.3-1 Annual Average Fatalities for Natural Gas Transmission and 

Gathering Systems ..........................................................................................3-129

3.12.3-2 Nationwide Accidental Deaths .......................................................................3-130

3.13-1 Existing or Proposed Projects That Would Cumulatively Impact 

Resources in the East Texas to Mississippi Expansion Project Area..............3-132

3.13-2 Environmental Resources That Would Be Affected During 

Construction and Operation of Recent and Proposed Interstate 

Natural Gas Pipeline Projects in the Vicinity of the Proposed 

East Texas to Mississippi Expansion Project..................................................3-136

4.2-1 Comparison of the Gulf South System Alternative to the Proposed 

East Texas to Mississippi Expansion Project Route ...........................................4-6

4.3.2-1 Comparison of Tallulah to Florence Route Variations and the 

Proposed Route.................................................................................................4-12

4.4-1 Minor Route Variations Incorporated into the Proposed 

East Texas to Mississippi Expansion Project....................................................4-15

4.4-2 Summary of Route Variations Identified in Response to Public 

Comments Received for the Proposed East Texas to Mississippi 

Expansion Project .............................................................................................4-18

4.4.1-1 Comparison of Garner Route Variations and the Original Route.....................4-21

4.4.2-1 Comparison of the Hoychick Route Variation and the Original Route ............4-23

4.4.3-1 Comparison of the Shelton Route Variation and the Original Route................4-25

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
LIST OF TABLES (CONTINUED) 

x

Number Title Page

4.4.4-1 Comparison of the Withrow/Broadbent Route Variation and the 

Original Route...................................................................................................4-27

4.4.5-1 Comparison of the Barton East Route Variation and the 

Original Route...................................................................................................4-29

4.4.6-1 Comparison of the Pearl River Route Variation and the 

Original Route...................................................................................................4-31

4.4.7-1 Comparison of the Pitre Route Variation and the 

Original Route...................................................................................................4-31

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
LIST OF FIGURES 

xi

Number Title Page

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

2.2.1-1 Typical Right-of-Way Cross Sections Parallel to Existing 

Gulf South Pipelines ...........................................................................................2-9

2.2.1-2 Typical Right-of-Way Cross Sections Parallel to the proposed 

CenterPoint Pipeline .........................................................................................2-10

2.2.1-3 Typical Right-of-Way Cross Sections in Greenfield Areas..............................2-11

2.3.1-1 Typical Pipeline Construction Sequence ..........................................................2-16

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

2.3.2-2 Typical Two-Tone Construction Right-of-Way Cross Section ........................2-28

3.13.-1 Approximate Location of Interstate Natural Gas Pipeline Projects 

in Counties/Parishes Affected by the Proposed East Texas to 

Mississippi Expansion Project ........................................................................3-135

4.2.1-1 Gulf South System Alternative ...........................................................................4-4

4.2.1-2 CenterPoint Pipeline System Alternative............................................................4-5

4.2.2-1 Carthage to Perryville Project System Alternative .............................................4-9

4.2.2-2 Recently Proposed Project System Alternatives...............................................4-10

4.3.2-1 Tallulah to Florence Route Alternatives ...........................................................4-13

4.4.1-1a Garner Route Variation 1..................................................................................4-19

4.4.1-1b Garner Route Variation 2..................................................................................4-20

4.4.2-1 Hoychick Route Variation ................................................................................4-22

4.4.3-1 Shelton Route Variation....................................................................................4-24

4.4.4-1 Withrow/Broadbent Route Variation................................................................4-26

4.4.5-1 Barton Route Variation.....................................................................................4-28

4.4.6-1 Pearl River Route Variation..............................................................................4-30

4.4.7-1 Pitre Route Variation ........................................................................................4-32

4.5.1-1 Vixen Compressor Station Site Alternative......................................................4-35

4.5.2-1 Tallulah Compressor Station Site Alternative ..................................................4-36

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 

xii

ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

AMSL above mean sea level 

ANR ANR Pipeline Company 

APE area of potential effect 

AQCRs Air Quality Control Regions 

BA Biological Assessment 

BACT best available control technology 

Bcf/d billion cubic feet per day 

BMSL below mean sea level 

BOD biochemical oxygen demand 

BTU British thermal units 

CAA Clean Air Act 

CEGT CenterPoint Energy Gas Transmission Company 

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality 

Certificate Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CO carbon monoxide 

COE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

Columbia Gulf Columbia Gulf Transmission Company 

Contaminated Media Plan Plan for the Unanticipated Discovery of Contaminated 

Environmental Media 

CRP Conservation Reserve Program 

CWA Clean Water Act 

dBA decibels on the A-weighted scale 

DOT U.S. Department of Transportation 

Duke Duke Energy Gas Transmission 

ECMR Program 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 

Enbridge Enbridge Energy Partners, LP 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS (CONTINUED) 

xiii

Entergy Entergy Louisiana, Inc. 

Enterprise Enterprise Products Partners 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

ESA Endangered Species Act 

ESD emergency shut down 

FAA Federal Aviation Administration 

FERC or Commission Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

FHWA Federal Highway Administration 

FR Federal Register 

FWS U. S. Fish And Wildlife Service 

GIS Geographic Information System 

Gulf South or Applicant Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP 

HAP hazardous air pollutant 

HCA high consequence area 

HDD horizontal directional drill 

HDD Contingency Plan Plan for Containment of Inadvertent Release of Drilling Mud 

during Horizontal Directional Drilled Wetland and 

Waterbody Crossings 

HDD Noise Plan Comprehensive Plan for HDD Operations That Could Exceed 

55 dBA 

hp horsepower 

ka kilo annum 

kPa kilopascals 

LAC Louisiana Administrative Code 

Ld daytime sound level 

LDEQ Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality 

Ldn day-night sound level 

LDOT Louisiana Department of Transportation 

LDWF Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries 

Leq(24) 24-hour equivalent sound level 

Ln nighttime sound level 

LNG liquefied natural gas 

LSMP Loess Soil Management Plan 

M/R station meter/regulator station 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS (CONTINUED) 

xiv

m3 cubic meter 

Ma mega annum 

MACT maximum achievable control technology 

MAOP maximum allowable operating pressure 

MDEQ Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality 

MDOT Mississippi Department of Transportation 

MDWFP Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks 

mgd million gallons per day 

Mississippi SHPO Mississippi Department of Archives and History 

MLRA Major Land Resource Areas 

MLV mainline valve 

MP milepost 

MW megawatt 

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

NGA Natural Gas Act 

NGPSA Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act 

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act 

NNSR Non-attainment New Source Review 

NO2 nitrogen dioxide 

NOI Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact 

Statement, Request for Comments on Environmental Issues 

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 

O3 ozone 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS (CONTINUED) 

xv

OEP FERC Office of Energy Projects 

o

F degrees Farenheit 

OPS Office of Pipeline Safety 

PEM palustrine emergent 

PFO palustrine forested 

PHMSA Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 

Plan FERC’s Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation, and 

Maintenance Plan 

PM10 particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 

microns or less 

PM2.5 particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 

microns or less 

Procedures FERC’s Wetland and Waterbody Construction and 

Mitigation Procedures 

Project East Texas to Mississippi Expansion Project 

PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

psig pounds per square in gauge 

PSS palustrine scrub-shrub 

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 

RCW red-cockaded woodpecker 

Regency Regency Intrastate Gas, LLC 

Secretary Secretary of the Commission 

SESH Southeast Supply Header Project 

SHPO State Historic Preservation Office 

SO2 sulfur dioxide 

SPCC Spill Prevention, Containment, and Countermeasure (Plan) 

SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan 

TAC Texas Administrative Code 

TCEQ Texas Commission on Environmental Quality 

Tcf trillion cubic feet 

Texas Eastern Texas Eastern Transmission, LLC 

Texas Gas Texas Gas Transmission, LLC 

TIMED Transportation Infrastructure Model for Economic 

Development 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS (CONTINUED) 

xvi

TPWD Texas Parks and Wildlife Department 

tpy tons per year 

TTC Trans-Texas Corridor 

TxDOT Texas Department of Transportation 

USC United States Code 

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture 

USGS U.S. Geological Survey 

VOCs volatile organic compounds 

WMA Wildlife Management Area 

WRP Wetland Reserve Program 

μg Microgram 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
1-1

1.0 INTRODUCTION 

On September 1, 2006 the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) 

received an application from the Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP (Gulf South or Applicant) pursuant to 

Section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity 

(Certificate) to construct, operate and maintain several natural gas facilities. As modified by subsequent 

filings, Gulf South proposes to construct and operate: 

• approximately 240.3 miles of 42-inch-diameter natural gas pipeline extending easterly from 

DeSoto Parish, Louisiana to Simpson County, Mississippi; 

• approximately 3.3 miles of 36-inch-diameter natural gas pipeline extending northward from 

Gulf South’s existing Carthage Junction Compressor Station in Panola County, Texas to 

interconnects with existing natural gas facilities within Panola County; 

• two new compressor stations, the Vixen and the Tallulah Compressor Stations, located in 

Ouachita and Madison Parishes, Louisiana, respectively; 

• modifications to three existing compressor stations, the Carthage Junction, Hall Summit and 

McComb Compressor Stations in Panola, County, Texas, Bienville Parish, Louisiana and 

Walthall County, Mississippi, respectively; and 

• other ancillary facilities including six meter/regulator (M/R) facilities, eleven mainline valves 

(MLVs), nine side valves, and five pig launcher and/or receiver facilities. 

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

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

proposed facilities, collectively referred to as the East Texas to Mississippi Expansion Project (Project). 

1.1 PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED 

The purpose of this Project is to transport natural gas from production fields in eastern Texas to 

markets in the Gulf Coast, Midwestern, Northeastern, and Southeastern regions of the United States. 

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

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

According to the Energy Information Administration (EIA) total energy consumption in the 

United States will increase from 99.7 quadrillion British thermal units (BTU) per year in 2004 to 

127.0 quadrillion BTU per year in 2025 (EIA 2006a). To maintain pace with this growing energy 

demand, 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. The growth in natural gas demand is 

being driven primarily by the 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, 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
1-2

and coal bed methane) is expected to be a major contributor to that growth. The EIA (2006a) projects 

that 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 primary federal agency responsible for evaluating and authorizing the siting and 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Engineers (COE), the National Park Service (NPS), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

and the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) have cooperated in the development of this EIS. 

Our1 principal purposes in preparing this EIS are to: 

• identify and assess the potential impacts to the natural and human environment that would 

result from implementation of the proposed action; 

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

minimize adverse affects to the natural and human environment; 

• identify and recommend specific mitigation measures to minimize environmental impacts; 

and 

• encourage and facilitate public involvement in identifying significant environmental impacts. 

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

consequences of constructing and operating the proposed Project, compares the proposed Project’s 

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

measures. 

1.3 PERMITS, APPROVALS, AND REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

of state and local laws. 

 

1

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

Energy Projects. 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
1-3

TABLE 1.3-1 

Summary of Major Permits, Approvals, and Consultations for the Proposed East Texas to 

Mississippi Expansion Project 

Agency 

Permit/Approval/ 

Consultations Agency Action (Status) 

FEDERAL 

Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation 

Consultations under Section 

106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act (NHPA) 

Has the opportunity to comment on the 

undertaking. (Consultation pending) 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

Certificate of Public 

Convenience and Necessity 

under Section 7(c) of the 

Natural Gas Act 

Determine whether the construction 

and operation of the proposed natural 

gas pipeline is in the public interest. 

(Application submitted on September 

1, 2006) 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) Permits under Section 404 of 

the Clean Water Act (CWA) 

and Section 10 of the Rivers 

and Harbors Act of 1899 

Consider issuance of Section 404 

permits for the placement of dredge or 

fill material into all waters of the United 

States, including wetlands. Considers 

issuance of Section 10 permit for work 

in or affecting navigable waters of the 

United States. (Permit issued March 

14, 2007) 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Natural Resources Conservation 

Service 

Warranty Easement Deed 

Subordination Agreements 

Consider issuance of a permit for 

crossing of lands enrolled in the 

Wetlands Reserve Program, Prior 

Converted Wetlands, and related 

conservation easements. (Easement 

agreements submitted to NRCS in 

March 2007, approval pending) 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish 

and Wildlife Service 

Consultations under Section 7 

of the Endangered Species 

Act, the Migratory Bird Treaty 

Act, and the Fish and Wildlife 

Coordination Act 

Consult on endangered and threatened 

species and migratory birds; general 

consultation regarding conservation of 

fish and wildlife resources. 

(Consultation complete for proposed 

pipeline alignment and above ground 

facilities, and other areas filed prior to 

December 2006; Consultations 

ongoing for recent route modifications, 

temporary workspaces, and access 

roads additions) 

National Park Service Right-of-way permit for 

crossing the Natchez Trace 

Parkway; Consultation 

regarding crossing of 

Nationwide Rivers Inventory 

streams 

Review for impacts on the Natchez 

Trace Parkway crossing (Application 

submitted September 2006); 

Consultations regarding potential 

impacts to Nationwide Rivers Inventory 

streams (Request for comment 

submitted February 28, 2007, approval 

pending). 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Federal Highway Administration 

Encroachment permit Consider issuance of permit to work 

within road right-of-way. (Application 

pending) 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
1-4

TABLE 1.3-1 (continued) 

Summary of Major Permits, Approvals, and Consultations for the Proposed East Texas to 

Mississippi Expansion Project 

Agency 

Permit/Approval/ 

Consultations Agency Action (Status) 

FEDERAL (continued) 

U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency 

Compliance with Sections 401, 

402, and 404 of the CWA. 

Consider issuance of water use and 

crossing, National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System (NPDES) 

discharge, stormwater, and wetland 

dredge-and-fill permits. (Permitting 

authority delegated to the states) 

STATE 

Louisiana 

Louisiana Department of Culture, 

Recreation, and Tourism, Division of 

Archaeology and Historic 

Preservation 

Consultations under Section 

106 of the NHPA 

Review and comment on project 

activities potentially affecting cultural 

resources. (Concurrences received on 

or before March 14, 2007 for proposed 

pipeline route and above-ground 

facilities filed by December 2006; 

Consultations ongoing for recent route 

modifications, temporary workspaces, 

and access roads additions) 

Louisiana Department of 

Environmental Quality 

Water Quality Certification 

under Section 401 of the CWA 

Consider issuance of a permit for 

stream and wetland crossings in 

conjunction with COE Section 404 

permit. (Coordinated by COE through 

Section 404 process) 

 Hydrostatic Test Water 

Withdrawal and Discharge 

Permits 

Water withdrawal permit. Consider 

issuance of a Section 402 permit 

regulating discharge of hydrostatic test 

water from the construction work area. 

(Application submitted March, 2007) 

 Minor Source Air Permit Consider issuance of a permit to 

construct and operate facilities with the 

potential for air emissions. (Application 

submitted May 2006, permits received) 

Louisiana Department of 

Transportation 

Road Crossing Permits Consider issuance of permits to cross 

and work within the right-of-way of 

state highways. (Application submitted 

October 2006) 

Louisiana Department of Wildlife and 

Fisheries 

Consultations regarding 

special status species 

Review and comment on activities 

potentially affecting state-listed 

species. (Response to State’s 

concerns submitted March 5, 2007, 

consultation completed) 

 Special Use Permit Consider issuance of a permit for the 

proposed crossing of the Ouachita 

Wildlife Management Area. (permit 

approved February 26, 2007) 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
1-5

TABLE 1.3-1 (continued) 

Summary of Major Permits, Approvals, and Consultations for the Proposed East Texas to 

Mississippi Expansion Project 

Agency Permit/Approval/ 

Consultations Agency Action (Status) 

STATE 

Louisiana (continued) 

 Natural and Scenic Rivers 

Permit 

Consider issuance of a permit for 

proposed crossings of the Saline 

Bayou and Black Lake Bayou. (Permit 

request submitted January 9, 2007; 

Public notice expired March 9, 2007) 

Warm Water Fisheries 

Variance 

Approval to perform in-stream work 

during warm water fisheries time 

periods from December through May. 

(Approved February 21, 2007) 

Louisiana Levee Board Levee Crossing Permit Consider issuance of a permit for 

proposed crossings of the Red River, 

Mississippi River, and Ouachita River 

levees. (Approvals received January 

through March, 2007) 

Mississippi 

Mississippi Department of Wildlife, 

Fisheries, and Parks 

Threatened and Endangered 

Species Consultation 

Review and comment on activities 

potentially affecting state-listed 

species. (Response to State’s 

concerns submitted March 5, 2007, 

approved March 12, 2007) 

Warm Water Fisheries 

Variance 

Approval to perform in-stream work 

during warm water fisheries time 

periods from December through May. 

(Approved February 14, 2007) 

Mississippi Department of 

Environmental Quality 

Water Quality Certification 

under Section 401 of the CWA 

Consider issuance of a permit for 

stream and wetland crossings in 

conjunction with COE Section 404 

permit. (Coordinated by COE through 

the 404 process) 

Hydrostatic Test Water 

Withdrawal and Discharge 

Permits 

Water withdrawal permit. Consider 

issuance of a Section 402 permit 

regulating discharge of hydrostatic test 

water from the construction work area. 

(Application submitted March 2007) 

Mississippi Department of Archives 

and History 

Consultations under Section 

106 of the NHPA 

Review and comment on project 

activities potentially affecting cultural 

resources. (Concurrence for pipeline 

corridor filed by December 2006 

granted January 16, 2007, 

Consultations ongoing for recent route 

modifications, temporary workspaces, 

and access roads additions ) 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
1-6

TABLE 1.3-1 (continued) 

Summary of Major Permits, Approvals, and Consultations for the Proposed East Texas to 

Mississippi Expansion Project 

Agency Permit/Approval/ 

Consultations Agency Action (Status) 

STATE 

Texas 

Texas Commission on Environmental 

Quality 

Water Quality Certification 

under Section 401 of the CWA 

Consider issuance of a permit for 

stream and wetland crossings in 

conjunction with COE Section 404 

permit. (Coordinated by COE through 

the 404 process) 

 Minor Source Air Permit Consider issuance of a Permit by Rule 

authorizing construction and operation 

of facilities with the potential for air 

emissions. (Application submitted May 

2006; approvals granted in October 

2006 and February 2007) 

Railroad Commission of Texas Hydrostatic Test Water 

Discharge Permit 

Consider issuance of a Section 402 

permit regulating hydrostatic test water 

discharge, and construction dewatering 

to waters of the state. (Application 

submitted March 2007, approval 

pending) 

Texas Department of Transportation Road Crossing Permits Consider issuance of permits to cross 

and work within the right-of-way of 

state highways. (Application pending) 

Texas Historical Commission Consultations under Section 

106 of the NHPA 

Review and comment on project 

activities potentially affecting cultural 

resources. (Concurrence for most 

project components received August 

11, 2006; Consultations ongoing for 

aboveground facilities and access 

roads) 

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department Rare Resources Review Review and comment on activities 

potentially affecting state-listed 

species. (Response to State’s 

concerns submitted February 28, 2007; 

approval granted March 2007) 

 Sand and Gravel Permit Consider issuance of a permit for 

disturbance of state-owned streambed 

and/or removal of streambed materials. 

(Approval pending) 

Warm Water Fisheries 

Variance 

Approval to perform in-stream work 

during warm water fisheries time 

periods from December through May. 

(Approved December 18, 2006) 

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

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

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

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
1-7

Harbors Act of 1899, and the Clean Air Act (CAA) has also been taken into account in the preparation of 

this document. 

Section 7 of the ESA, as amended, states that any project authorized, funded, or conducted by a 

federal agency (for example, the FERC) should not “jeopardize the continued existence of any 

endangered species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of habitat of 

such species which is determined...to be critical” (16 United States Code (USC) § 1536[a][2]). The lead 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

undertakings on properties listed in, or eligible for listing in, the National Register of Historic Places 

(NRHP), including prehistoric or historic sites, districts, buildings, structures, objects, or properties of 

traditional religious or cultural importance, and to afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

(ACHP) an opportunity to comment on the undertaking. The FERC has requested that Gulf South, as a 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 analyses 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. 

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 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
1-8

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

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

regulations are discussed further in Section 3.11.1 of this EIS. 

1.4 PUBLIC REVIEW AND COMMENT 

On February 6, 2006 and March 31, 2006, Gulf South filed requests with the Commission to 

implement its Pre-filing Review Process for the East Texas Expansion and Mississippi Expansion 

Projects, respectively. We granted Gulf South’s request to use the Pre-filing Review Process for the 

proposed East Texas Expansion Project on February 17, 2006, and established a pre-filing docket number 

(PF06-17-000) to place information relevant to the proposed Project into the public record. On April 13, 

2006, the FERC also granted Gulf South’s request to use the Pre-filing Review Process and established a 

pre-filing docket number (PF06-23-000) for the proposed Mississippi Expansion Project, similarly 

creating a public record. The Pre-filing Review 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. 

As part of the Pre-filing Review Process, on March 28, 2006 and May 23, 2006, we issued a 

Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement, Request for Comments on Environmental 

Issues (NOI) for the proposed East Texas Expansion and Mississippi Expansion Projects, respectively. 

The NOIs were sent to affected landowners; federal, state, and local government agencies; elected 

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

newspapers; and other interested parties. The NOIs, which were published in the Federal Register, 

provided a summary of the proposed Projects, outlined our NEPA-required environmental review process, 

provided a list of the then currently identified environmental issues, and requested comments on the scope 

of the analysis for the EISs. The NOI for the proposed Mississippi Expansion Project also listed the 

locations, dates, and times of two public scoping meetings that were sponsored by the FERC to give the 

general public an opportunity to learn more about the proposed Project and to comment on environmental 

issues to be addressed in the EIS. The public scoping meetings for the proposed East Texas Expansion 

Project were publicly noticed through a separate FERC mailing on June 7, 2006. The Mississippi 

Expansion Project scoping meetings were held on June 12 and 13, 2006, in Raymond and Vicksburg, 

Mississippi, respectively. The scoping meetings for the proposed East Texas Expansion Project were 

held on June 21 and June 22, 2006, in Quitman and Delhi, Louisiana, respectively. The transcripts of all 

scoping meetings, as well as all written comments received before and after the scoping meetings, are part 

of the public record for the proposed Project and are available for viewing on the FERC Internet website 

(www.ferc.gov). During the pre-filing and scoping periods for the proposed Projects, we received a total 

of 22 written comment letters from members of the general public and federal state resource agencies. 

The issues and concerns identified by commentors during the public scoping process for the proposed 

Project are summarized in Table 1.4-1, which also identifies the EIS section in which these issues are 

addressed. 

After reviewing the proposed East Texas and Mississippi Expansion Projects, we determined 

based on their identified purposes that we would combine our pre-filing review of the two proposed 

Projects and recommended to Gulf South that it combine these two projects into one proposal and file an 

application for this combined project at the end of the pre-filing process. Upon receiving Gulf South’s 

combined application for the proposed East Texas to Mississippi Expansion Project, we established a new 

Docket Number CP06-446-000 which reflects this combined proposed Project. All comments received 

during the pre-filing period and since the submittal of Gulf South’s application are filed under Docket 

Nos. PF06-17-000, PF06-23-000, and CP06-446-000 and collectively are considered to be part of the 

record for the proposed East Texas to Mississippi Expansion Project. 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
1-9

TABLE 1.4-1 

Issues Identified and Comments Received During the Public Scoping Process 

for the Proposed East Texas to Mississippi Expansion Project 

Issue/Specific Comments 

EIS Section 

Addressing 

Comment 

General 

 Project purpose and need 1.1 

 Public notification requirements 1.3 

 Project timeline 2.4 

 Describe construction methods and land requirements 2.2, 2.3, 3.8 

 Maintenance procedures to be implemented during operation, including vegetation 

management and inspections 

2.5, 3.5, 3.12 

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

Geology and Soils 

 Impacts to soils, including compaction, drainage, possible contamination, and erosion 

potential following construction, and associated mitigation such as topsoil segregation 

3.2 

 Impacts to topography, including rugged topography 3.2 

 Impacts to prime farmland soils 3.2 

Water Resources 

 Use of Horizontal Directional Drilling at major water crossings 2.3 

 Impacts to waterbodies (rivers and streams), particularly those associated with crossings of 

major or state-designated scenic rivers; spills and contamination 

3.3, 3.8 

 Impacts to wells, groundwater, and drinking water 3.3 

Vegetation and Wetlands 

 Impacts to native vegetation and forested habitats 3.5 

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

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

maintenance activities; mitigation for Project-related effects 

3.4, 3.5 

Fish and Wildlife Resources 

 Impacts to fish and wildlife habitat 3.4, 3.5, 3.6 

Potential impacts to colonial, nesting waterbirds or migratory bird species 3.6, 3.7 

Threatened, Endangered, and Special Status Species 

 Potential impacts to state and federally protected species, including red-cockaded 

woodpecker, bald eagle, interior least tern, Louisiana black bear, pallid sturgeon, Louisiana 

pine snake, or their habitat 

3.7 

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

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

during operation 

3.8 

 Proximity of pipeline to occupied structures 3.8 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
1-10

TABLE 1.4-1 (continued) 

Issues Identified and Comments Received During the Public Scoping Process 

for the Proposed East Texas to Mississippi Expansion Project 

Issue/Specific Comments 

EIS Section 

Addressing 

Comment 

Land Use, Recreation and Special Interest Areas, and Visual Resources (continued)

 Reduced property access during construction activities 2.3, 3.8 

 Compatibility/potential conflicts with designated special use areas, including U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service conservation easements and lands within the Natural Resource 

Conservation Service’s Wetland Reserve and Conservation Reserve Programs 

3.4, 3.6, 3.8 

 Impacts of vegetation removal on visual resources 3.8 

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

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

Air Quality and Noise 

 Potential air emission impacts from compressor stations during operations 3.11 

 Potential noise impacts from compressor stations during operations 3.11 

Cultural Resources 

 Identification, evaluation, and protection of potentially affected cultural resources 3.10 

Socioeconomics 

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

 Potential effect on property values 3.9 

 Use of local employment 3.9 

 Impacts to development potential of property 3.9 

 General economic effects to agricultural operations and livestock 3.8, 3.9 

Reliability and Safety 

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

agricultural operations and equipment 

2.6, 3.12 

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

Cumulative Impacts 

 Cumulative impacts of similar proposed pipeline projects 3.13 

Alternatives 

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

 Analysis of alternative pipeline routes and aboveground facility locations, including 

alternative compressor station sites 

4.3, 4.4, 4.5 

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 June 21, 2006 in Shreveport, 

Louisiana, July 18, 2006 in Jackson, Mississippi, February 28, 2007 in Monroe, Louisiana, and March 1, 

2007 in Jackson, Mississippi to discuss the proposed Project and its environmental review process with 

other federal and state agencies. The agencies that participated in one or more of these meetings included 

the COE; FWS; NRCS, the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries (LDWF) NPS, Mississippi 

Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ), Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD), and 

Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks (MDWFP). 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
1-11

The FERC prepared a Draft EIS for the East Texas to Mississippi Expansion Project and issued a 

Notice of Availability (NOA) for the Draft EIS on February 9, 2007. The Draft EIS was also filed with 

the EPA, and a formal notice was published in the Federal Register (FR) on February 16, 2007 indicating 

that the Draft EIS was available and had been mailed to individuals and organizations on the distribution 

list prepared for the proposed Project (see Appendix A). In accordance with the CEQ regulations, the 

NOA and FR notice established a 45-day comment period ending on March 27, 2007; described 

procedures for filing comments on the Draft EIS; and announced the time, dates, and locations of public 

comment meetings held to receive comments on the Draft EIS. These announcements also described how 

additional Project information could be obtained from the Commission’s Office of External Affairs and 

on the FERC’s Internet website. 

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

and Monroe, Louisiana, and Vicksburg, Mississippi on February 26 and 27 and March 1, 2007, 

respectively. The meetings provided interested groups and individuals the opportunity to present oral 

comments on the FERC staff’s analysis of the environmental impacts of the proposed Project as described 

in the Draft EIS. Three individuals provided oral comments at the public meetings. In addition, we 

received written comments on the Draft EIS from four federal agencies, the FWS, NRCS, NPS, and EPA 

and two state agencies, TPWD and the Mississippi Secretary of State’s Office. The public comment 

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

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

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

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

issuance of the Draft EIS. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

availability. 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
2-1

2.0 PROPOSED ACTION 

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

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

Figure 2.1-1. 

2.1 PROPOSED FACILITIES 

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

extend from existing Gulf South pipeline facilities in DeSoto Parish, Louisiana approximately 240.3 miles 

east to existing Gulf South pipeline facilities in Simpson County, Mississippi. This 42-inch-diameter 

natural gas pipeline would interconnect with natural gas pipelines operated by Texas Gas Transmission, 

LLC (Texas Gas), Columbia Gulf Transmission Corporation (Columbia Gulf), and Texas Eastern 

Transmission, LLC (Texas Eastern). The proposed pipeline would have a maximum allowable operating 

pressure (MAOP) of 1,200 pounds per square inch gauge (psig) from the beginning of the proposed 

Project to the Tallulah Compressor Station and 1,300 pounds per square inch gauge psig from the 

Tallulah Compressor Station to the Project terminus. The proposed Project would be capable of 

receiving, transporting, and delivering up to 1.7 billion cubic feet per day (Bcf/d) of natural gas. 

The proposed Project would include the construction and operation of 3.3 miles of 

36-inch-diameter natural gas pipeline extending northward from Gulf South’s existing Carthage Junction 

Compressor Station in Panola County, Texas to interconnects with Enterprise Products Partners 

(Enterprise) and Enbridge Energy Partners (Enbridge) also in Panola County, Texas. 

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

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

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

identifications for several areas affected by route modifications adopted after the filing of the Application 

have been adjusted using MP equations for those particular areas only. The MPs for the remainder of the 

proposed route, constituting approximately 85 percent of the total length, have not been modified from 

the information included in the Application filing. 

In addition to the proposed pipelines, Gulf South would add compression to its existing Carthage 

Junction Compressor Station, construct and operate two new compressor stations: the Vixen and Tallulah 

Compressor Stations, modify facilities at its existing Hall Summit and McComb Compressor Stations, 

and add new M/R stations, mainline valves (MLVs), and pig1

 launcher/receiver facilities. Table 2.1-2 

identifies and describes the aboveground facilities associated with the proposed Project, and provides the 

location and other information for these facilities. 

Specifically, Gulf South would install an additional 40,302 horse power (hp) of compression 

provided by two Solar Mars 100-15000S compressor units and one Solar Taurus 70-10302S compressor 

unit at its existing Carthage Junction Compressor Station. The new Vixen Compressor Station would 

contain two Solar Mars 100-15000S compressor units that would provide 30,000 hp of compression. The 

new Tallulah Compressor Station would contain two Solar Mars 100-15000S compressor units and one 

Solar Taurus 70-10302S compressor unit that would provide 40,302 hp of compression. 

 

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

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
Non-Internet Public 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE 

PROPOSED EAST TEXAS TO MISSISSIPPI EXPANSION PROJECT 

Docket No. CP06-446-000 

Page 2-2 

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 #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
2-3

TABLE 2.1-1 

Pipeline Facilities for the Proposed East Texas to Mississippi Expansion Project 

 Milepost 

County/Parish Begin End Length (miles) 

Texas 

Panola County H0.0 H3.3 3.3 

Louisiana 

DeSoto Parish 0.0 22.2 22.2 

Red River Parish 22.2 36.1 13.9 

Bienville Parish 36.1 68.8 32.7 

Jackson Parish 68.8 97.4 28.7 

Ouachita Parish 97.4 115.5 18.0 

Richland Parish 115.5 149.4 35.0 

Madison Parish 149.4 183.7 34.7 

Mississippi 

Warren County 183.7 196.8 13.5 

Hinds County 196.8 229.5 32.9 

Copiah County 229.5 232.4 2.5 

Simpson County 232.4 238.6 6.2 

Total 243.6 

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

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

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

compressor station site where new compressor units would be installed. Additional facilities at the new 

or expanded compressor stations would include filter-separators, a fuel gas heater, and two station 

blow-down silencers. Most natural gas pipes at the facilities would be installed below grade, and the 

perimeter of the compressor stations would be fenced. Portions of these sites may be paved, covered with 

gravel, or landscaped, depending on facility operations and maintenance requirements. 

Metering and flow control for natural gas delivered to the Carthage Junction Compressor Station 

through the new 3.3-mile 36-inch-diameter pipeline would be accomplished via M/R facilities at the 

Enterprise and Enbridge M/R Stations. Similarly, facilities at the proposed M/R stations located at the 

interconnects with the Texas Gas, Columbia Gulf, Texas Eastern, and the existing Gulf South pipeline 

facilities would be used to meter the flow and adjust the pressure of natural gas delivered to those 

systems. Each M/R station would include separate buildings for metering and regulator equipment, 

flow/pressure control, and a customer facility housed within a fenced perimeter. 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
2-4

TABLE 2.1-2 

Aboveground Facilities for the Proposed East Texas to Mississippi Expansion Project 

Facility 

County/ 

Parish Milepost Description 

Compressor Stations 

Carthage Junction 

Compressor Station 

Panola, TX N/A Expand existing station with an additional 40,302 

hp of gas-turbine-driven compression 

Hall Summit Compressor 

Station 

Bienville, LA 38.4 Install pig launcher/receiver adjacent to the yard of 

Gulf South’s existing Hall Summit Compressor 

Station 

Vixen Compressor Station Ouachita, LA 99.4 Construct new station with 30,000 hp of gasturbine-driven compression 

Tallulah Compressor 

Station 

Madison, LA 167.6 Construct new station with 40,302 hp of gasturbine-driven compression 

McComb Compressor 

Station 

Walthall, MS N/A Install 350 feet of aboveground 26-inch-diameter 

pipe within the yard of Gulf South’s existing 

McComb Compressor Station 

Meter/Regulator (M/R) Stations 

Texas Gas M/R Station Ouachita, LA 112.4 Install M/R facilities and tie-in to Texas Gas 

Columbia Gulf M/R Station Richland, LA 149.4 Install M/R facilities and tie-in to Columbia Gulf 

Texas Eastern M/R Station Hinds, MS 219.7 Install M/R facilities and tie-in to Texas Eastern 

Gulf South Index 130 M/R 

Station 

Simpson, MS 238.6 Install M/R facilities and tie-in to Gulf South 

Enbridge M/R Station a Panola, TX H2.7 Install M/R facilities and tie-in to Enbridge 

Enterprise M/R Station a Panola, TX H3.3 Install M/R facilities and tie-in to Enterprise 

Mainline Valves (MLVs) 

MLV #1 DeSoto, LA 19.5 Install MLV within the permanent pipeline right-ofway 

MLV #2 Bienville, LA 56.4 Install MLV within the permanent pipeline right-ofway 

MLV #3 Jackson, LA 70.0 Install MLV within the permanent pipeline right-ofway 

MLV #4 Jackson, LA 84.6 Install MLV within the permanent pipeline right-ofway 

MLV #5 Ouachita, LA 112.4 Install MLV within the permanent pipeline right-ofway 

MLV #6 Richland, LA 129.8 Install MLV within the permanent pipeline right-ofway 

MLV #7 Richland, LA 149.4 Install MLV within the permanent pipeline right-ofway 

MLV #8 Madison, LA 182.1 Install MLV within the permanent pipeline right-ofway 

MLV #9 Warren, MS 191.6 Install MLV within the permanent pipeline right-ofway 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
2-5

TABLE 2.1-2 (continued) 

Aboveground Facilities for the Proposed East Texas to Mississippi Expansion Project 

Facility 

County/ 

Parish Milepost Description 

MLV #10 Hinds, MS 207.1 Install MLV within the permanent pipeline right-ofway 

MLV #11 Hinds, MS 225.3 Install MLV within the permanent pipeline right-ofway 

Pig Launchers/Receivers 

Hall Summit Pig 

Launcher/Receiver 

Bienville, LA 38.4 Install launcher/receiver adjacent to Gulf South’s 

existing Hall Summit Compressor Station 

Vixen Pig 

Launcher/Receiver 

Ouachita, LA 99.4 Install launcher/receiver within the yard of Gulf 

South’s proposed Vixen Compressor Station 

Tallulah Pig 

Launcher/Receiver 

Madison, LA 167.6 Install launcher/receiver within the yard of Gulf 

South’s proposed Tallulah Compressor Station 

Carthage Junction Pig 

Receiver a Panola, TX H0.0 Install receiver within Gulf South’s existing 

Carthage Junction Compressor Station 

Enterprise M/R Station Pig 

Launcher a Panola, TX H3.3 Install launcher within the yard of Gulf South’s 

proposed Enterprise M/R Station 

Side Valves 

Texas Gas Side Valve Ouachita, LA 112.4 Install a side valve for the interconnect with Texas 

Gas 

ANR Side Valve Richland, LA 141.4 Install a side valve for a possible future connection 

with ANR 

Columbia Gulf Side Valve Richland, LA 149.4 Install a side valve for the interconnect with 

Columbia Gulf 

Tennessee Gas Pipeline 

Side Valve 

Madison, LA 150.4 Install a side valve for a possible future 

interconnection with TGP 

Baxter Wilson Power Plant 

Side Valve 

Warren, MS 185.5 Install a side valve for a possible future connection 

to the Baxter Wilson Power Plant lateral 

Gulf South Side Valve Warren, MS 193.6 Install a side valve for a possible future connection 

to Gulf South pipeline 

Gulf South Learned Field 

Line Side Valve 

Hinds, MS 207.1 Install a side valve for a possible future 

interconnection with Gulf South Learned Field 

Pipeline 

Texas Eastern Side Valve Hinds, MS 219.7 Install a side valve for the interconnect with Texas 

Eastern 

Gulf South Side Valve Hinds, MS 227.9 Install a side valve for a possible future connection 

to Gulf South pipeline 

__________ 

Notes: 

LA = Louisiana 

MS = Mississippi 

TX = Texas 

a

 Indicates that facility is associated with the 36-inch-diameter pipeline supply lateral in Panola County, Texas. 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
2-6

Additionally, two of Gulf South’s existing compressor stations would be modified in association 

with the proposed Project, but new or additional compression would not be installed. A pig 

launcher/receiver and approximately 350 feet of aboveground 26-inch-diameter station and yard piping 

would be added to the Hall Summit and McComb Compressor Stations, respectively. 

Eleven MLVs (block valves) would be installed along the proposed pipeline to enable portions of 

the pipeline to be shut down or isolated, if necessary. These MLVs would be installed in areas that are 

easily accessible to operating personnel and at intervals specified in U.S. Department of Transportation 

(DOT) safety standards for natural gas pipelines. Each MLV assembly would consist of a 42-inch belowground valve and a 12-inch-diameter pipe extending aboveground for blowdowns and bypass. These sites 

would typically be enclosed with security fencing and a lockable gate around the aboveground piping and 

valves. The existing Hall Summit Compressor Station and proposed Vixen and Tallulah Compressor 

Stations would include new pig launcher and receiver facilities. Along the proposed 36-inch-diameter 

pipeline, a pig launcher facility would be built at the pipeline terminus (MP H3.3), and a pig receiver 

facility would be installed at the pipeline origin (MP H0.0). An existing pig launcher at the Carthage 

Junction Compressor Station would serve as the upstream facility for the pig receiver proposed for the 

Hall Summit Compressor Station. 

Gulf South would also install nine side valves, three of which would be for immediate 

interconnects with Texas Gas, Columbia Gulf, and Texas Eastern and six for possible future interconnects 

near the crossings of the ANR pipeline, Tennessee Gas pipeline, Baxter Wilson Power Plant, and three 

existing Gulf South pipelines. 

2.2 LAND REQUIREMENTS 

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

proposed pipeline and associated ancillary facilities, the proposed aboveground facilities, and other work 

areas, is summarized in Table 2.2-1. Approximately 3,763.4 acres of land would be required for use 

during construction of the proposed Project and approximately 1,564.3 acres of land would be required 

for use during operation of the proposed Project. Following construction, approximately 2,199.1 acres of 

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

2.2.1 Pipeline Facilities 

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

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

right-of-way to install the proposed pipeline. These construction rights-of-way widths include a proposed 

60-foot-wide permanent right-of-way positioned over the proposed pipeline and additional 40- and 

15-foot-wide temporary construction work area in upland and wetland areas, respectively. The 100-footwide nominal construction right-of-way may also be expanded by an additional 50 to 75 feet to account 

for activity in certain areas such as rugged terrain as discussed in Section 2.3.2. The typical proposed 

pipeline construction right-of-way requirements in upland and wetland areas are illustrated in 

Figure 2.2.1-1 (typical right-of-way parallel to existing Gulf South pipelines), Figure 2.2.1-2 (typical 

right-of-way parallel to the proposed CenterPoint pipeline), and Figure 2.2.1-3 (typical right-of-way in 

greenfield areas). 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
2-7

TABLE 2.2-1 

Locations and Land Requirements for the Proposed 

East Texas to Mississippi Expansion Project 

Facility 

Location – 

Parish/County 

Land Affected 

during Construction 

(acres) 

Land Affected 

during Operation 

(acres) 

Pipeline Facilitiesa 

DeSoto, LA 216.6 116.1 

Red River, LA 113.8 57.8 

Bienville, LA 339.5 188.1 

Jackson, LA 316.5 193.0 

Ouachita, LA 210.8 119.3 

Richland, LA 394.4 226.2 

Madison, LA 388.5 225.9 

Warren, MS 157.5 89.1 

Hinds, MS 383.3 226.1 

Copiah, MS 32.7 17.4 

Simpson, MS 74.8 43.4 

Panola, TXb 36.9 19.6 

Subtotal Pipeline Facilities 2,665.2 1,521.9 

Aboveground Facilities 

Compressor Stations 

Carthage Junction Compressor Station Panola, TX 0.0 0.0 

Vixen Compressor Station Ouachita, LA 8.0 6.0 

Tallulah Compressor Station Madison, LA 10.0 10.0 

McComb Compressor Station Walthall, MS 0.0 0.0 

Meter/Regulator (M/R) Stations 

Texas Gas M/R Station Ouachita, LA 4.0 3.3 

Columbia Gulf M/R Station Richland, LA 4.5 4.5 

Texas Eastern M/R Station Copiah, MS 1.5 1.0 

Gulf South M/R Station Simpson, MS 3.7 0.9 

Enbridge M/R Stationb Panola, TX 1.5 0.6 

Enterprise M/R Stationb Panola, TX 2.0 1.2 

Mainline Valvesc Various 0.0 0.0

Side Valvesc Various 0.0 0.0

Pig Launcher/Receiverd Various 0.8 0.8

Subtotal Aboveground Facilities 36.0 28.3 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
2-8

TABLE 2.2-1 (continued) 

Locations and Land Requirements for the Proposed 

East Texas to Mississippi Expansion Project 

Facility 

Location – 

Parish/County 

Land Affected 

during Construction 

(acres) 

Land Affected 

during Operation 

(acres) 

Extra Work Areas 

Extra Workspace Various 728.3 0.0 

Access Roads Various 103.8 14.1 

Contractor/staging yards Various 230.0 0.0 

Subtotal Extra Work Areas 1,061.5 14.1 

Total 3,763.4 1,564.3 

_______________ 

Notes: 

LA = Louisiana 

MS=Mississippi 

TX = Texas 

a

 Acreages reflect a nominal 100-foot-wide construction right-of-way in uplands, a 75-foot-wide construction right-of-way in 

wetlands, and a 60-foot-wide permanent easement that would be maintained along the entire pipeline following construction. 

(Note: we are recommending that Gulf South’s permanent right-of-way be limited to a width of 50 feet when federal eminent 

domain would be exercised) b

 Indicates that facility is associated with the 36-inch-diameter pipeline supply lateral in Panola County, Texas. 

c

 Minor land requirements associated with these facilities would be contained entirely within compressor station sites or the 

construction and/or permanent pipeline rights-of-way and are thus already included in the acreage estimates for those 

facilities. 

d All pig launcher/receiver facilities would be contained within the Project’s pipeline right-of-way or within existing above ground 

facility yards, except for a new pig launcher/ receiver facility that is proposed for the existing Hall Summit Compressor Station, 

which would affect land outside of the pipeline and existing facility easements . 

Some segments of the proposed pipeline would be installed using horizontal directional drill 

(HDD) or bored crossings (see Section 2.3.2). Generally, these segments would only require the use of 

the permanent 60-foot-wide right-of-way; however, additional temporary work spaces would most likely 

be required near these segments because of the need for additional space to accommodate these 

construction techniques. 

Land requirements for the pipeline construction right-of-way would total approximately 

2,665.2 acres (see Table 2.2-1). As indicated previously, following installation of the proposed pipeline 

and restoration of the construction right-of-way, Gulf South proposes to maintain a 60-foot-wide 

permanent right-of-way over the proposed pipeline. Maintenance of this permanent pipeline right-of-way 

would require the use of approximately 1,521.9 acres of land. 

Right-of-Way Considerations 

Gulf South proposes to maintain a 60-foot-wide permanent right-of-way. However, we believe 

that the permanent maintenance of a 60-foot-wide right-of-way is not necessary for operation of the 

proposed pipeline. Based on our experience and review of similar projects, as well as our understanding 

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

permanently maintained 50-foot-wide right-of-way is sufficient to safely and efficiently operate a 

42-inch-diameter pipeline. Additionally, we have received numerous requests and comments from 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
EAST TEXAS TO MISSISSIPPI EXPANSION

PROJECT

Typical Right-of-Way Cross Sections 

Parrallel to the Existing Gulf South Pipelines

DATE: April, 2007 FIGURE: 2.2.1-1

Not to Scale

TYPICAL WETLAND RIGHT-OF-WAY

Notes:

1. ROW CONFIGURATION UTILIZED WHEN PARALLELING EXISTING CENTERPOINT 

PIPELINE RIGHT-OF-WAS WHERE IDENTIFIED ON THE CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS.

2. CONSTRUCTION RIGHT-OF-WAY WILL TYPICALLY BE 100 FEET WIDE CONSISTING OF 

60 FEET PERMANENT EASEMENT, AND 40 FEET OF TEMPORARY WORKSPACE. 

EXTRA TEMPORARY WORK SPACE WILL BE NECESSARY AT MAJOR ROAD, RAIL, AND RIVER 

CROSSINGS AND OTHER SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES, AS REQUIRED. CERTAIN SITUATIONS MAY 

REQUIRE A NARROWER WIDTH.

Note: 

TYPICAL UPLAND RIGHT-OF-WAY

2-9

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
EAST TEXAS TO MISSISSIPPI EXPANSION

PROJECT

Typical Right-of-Way Cross Sections 

Parrallel to the Proposed CenterPoint Pipeline

DATE: April, 2007 FIGURE: 2.2.1-2

Not to Scale

Typical Wetland Right-of-Way Parallel to Proposed CenterPoint Pipeline

TYPICAL WETLAND RIGHT-OF-WAY

Notes:

1. ROW CONFIGURATION UTILIZED WHEN PARALLELING EXISTING CENTERPOINT 

PIPELINE RIGHT-OF-WAS WHERE IDENTIFIED ON THE CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS.

2. CONSTRUCTION RIGHT-OF-WAY WILL TYPICALLY BE 100 FEET WIDE CONSISTING OF 

60 FEET PERMANENT EASEMENT, AND 40 FEET OF TEMPORARY WORKSPACE. 

EXTRA TEMPORARY WORK SPACE WILL BE NECESSARY AT MAJOR ROAD, RAIL, AND RIVER 

CROSSINGS AND OTHER SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES, AS REQUIRED. CERTAIN SITUATIONS MAY 

REQUIRE A NARROWER WIDTH.

Note:

TYPICAL UPLAND RIGHT-OF-WAY

"NON-INTERNET PUBLIC"

2-10

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
EAST TEXAS TO MISSISSIPPI EXPANSION

PROJECT

Typical Right-of-Way Cross Sections 

in Greenfield Areas

DATE: April, 2007 FIGURE: 2.2.1-3

Not to Scale

TYPICAL WETLAND RIGHT-OF-WAY

Notes:

1. ROW CONFIGURATION UTILIZED WHEN PARALLELING EXISTING CENTERPOINT 

PIPELINE RIGHT-OF-WAS WHERE IDENTIFIED ON THE CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS.

2. CONSTRUCTION RIGHT-OF-WAY WILL TYPICALLY BE 100 FEET WIDE CONSISTING OF 

60 FEET PERMANENT EASEMENT, AND 40 FEET OF TEMPORARY WORKSPACE. 

EXTRA TEMPORARY WORK SPACE WILL BE NECESSARY AT MAJOR ROAD, RAIL, AND RIVER 

CROSSINGS AND OTHER SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES, AS REQUIRED. CERTAIN SITUATIONS MAY 

REQUIRE A NARROWER WIDTH.

Note:

TYPICAL UPLAND RIGHT-OF-WAY

"NON-INTERNET PUBLIC"

2-11

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
2-12

property owners, and federal and state agencies expressing an interest in minimizing permanent impacts 

associated with the operation of the proposed pipeline, particularly in the instances where multiple rightsof-way may occur within a common corridor. Therefore, based on our experience and understanding of 

pipeline operations, and in order to minimize permanent impacts associated with the operation of the 

proposed pipeline; we recommend that: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(e.g., pipeline, power line, road, or railroad) may be environmentally preferable to the installation of new 

pipeline on lands without adjacent existing cleared rights-of-way. Gulf South would parallel a significant 

portion of its construction right-of-way with existing utility rights-of-way. Approximately 181.0 miles 

(i.e., approximately 74 percent) of the proposed 42-inch-diameter pipeline and all 3.3 miles of the 

proposed 36-inch-diameter supply lateral would be collocated with existing utility corridors. Existing 

utility corridors that would be paralleled by the proposed Project are listed in Table 2.2-2. 

As illustrated above, Gulf South proposes to use a portion of its existing permanent right-of-way 

as part of the construction right-of-way for the proposed Project. We believe that Gulf South may also be 

able to use a portion of other existing permanent rights-of-way paralleled by the proposed pipeline; 

therefore, to further minimize environmental impacts, we recommend that:

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

approval by the Director of OEP, revised alignment sheets, plans, and associated 

agreements indicating the use of at least 10 feet of adjacent pipeline rights-of-way as 

part of its 100 foot-wide nominal construction right-of-way and for any additional 

temporary workspaces that are needed. Where this is not possible, Gulf South should 

identify the locations by milepost and provide site-specific justification explaining why 

the adjacent right-of-way cannot be used. 

Aboveground Facilities 

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

construction of the proposed aboveground facilities would require the use of approximately 36.0 acres of 

land. Operation of the proposed aboveground facilities would require the use of approximately 28.3 acres 

of land not previously required for use during the operation of the proposed pipeline. The land required 

for construction and operation of the MLVs and side valves would be contained within the area needed 

for operation of the proposed pipeline, thus these facilities would not require additional lands beyond 

those already accounted for by the proposed pipeline. Those aboveground facilities that would be located 

outside of or only partially contained within the permanent pipeline right-of-way or existing aboveground 

facilities would affect additional lands. 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
2-13

TABLE 2.2-2 

Existing Utility Rights-of-Way That Would Parallel the Proposed East Texas to Mississippi 

Expansion Project 

MP 

Begin MP End Type of Right-of-Way 

Easement 

Owner 

Width of 

Existing 

Right-ofWay (feet) 

Width Used for 

Permanent 

Right-of-Way 

(feet) 

Proposed 42-Inch-Diameter Mainline Pipeline 

0 49.2 Natural Gas Pipeline Gulf South 75 20 

49.2 70.1 Natural Gas Pipeline CenterPoint 60 0 

73.1 77.6 Natural Gas Pipeline CenterPoint 60 0 

77.6 78.5 Electrical Transmission Line Entergy 100 0 

78.5 84.9 Natural Gas Pipeline CenterPoint 60 0 

84.9 86.6 Natural Gas Pipeline Gulf South 50 20 

86.6 87.3 Natural Gas Pipeline CenterPoint 60 0 

88.0 148.6 Natural Gas Pipeline CenterPoint 60 0 

161.8 181.9 Electrical Transmission Line and 

Natural Gas Pipeline 

Entergy/Columbia 

Gulf Transmission 200 0 

186.3 196.2 Electrical Transmission Line Entergy 200 0 

197.2 198.0 Electrical Transmission Line Entergy 200 0 

199.1 204.1 Electrical Transmission Line Entergy 200 0 

Proposed 36-Inch-Diameter Supply Lateral Pipeline 

H0.0 H3.3 Natural Gas Pipelines Multiple owners 100 0 

_______________ 

Note: 

These areas include occasional minor deviations from collocation due to reroutes adopted to avoid specific resources as described 

in Section 4.4. 

The proposed expansion of Gulf South’s existing Carthage Junction Compressor Station, as well 

as installation of aboveground piping at the McComb Compressor Station, would occur on maintained 

lands within the stations’ fenced boundaries. Construction and operation of a new pig launcher/receiver 

at the Hall Summit Compressor Station would be partially contained within the existing facility bounds, 

but would require an additional 0.8 acres for construction and operation. Gulf South would purchase 

20 acres of land at the proposed Vixen Compressor Station site; however only 8 acres of land would be 

required for construction of the proposed station and only 6 acres would be required for operation of the 

proposed station. Similarly, Gulf South would purchase approximately 25 acres of land at the proposed 

Tallulah Compressor Station site; however, only 10 acres would be required for construction and 

operation of the proposed station. Construction and operational land requirements of the six M/R stations 

are listed in Table 2.2-1. 

2.2.2 Other Work Areas 

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

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

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
2-14

for additional temporary work spaces, contractor/staging yards, and access roads. These requirements are 

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

required to file a variance request with the Secretary of the Commission (Secretary) for review and 

approval prior to using or impacting new areas. 

2.2.2.1 Additional Temporary Work Spaces 

Additional temporary work spaces 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, open-cut waterbody crossings, and areas requiring side-slope construction. 

These additional temporary work spaces would be located adjacent to the construction right-of-way and 

could be used for spoil storage, staging, equipment movement, material stockpiles, and pull string 

assembly associated with HDD installation. Construction of the proposed Project would require 

approximately 1,501 additional temporary work spaces, ranging in size from 0.06 to 24.1 acres of land 

and totaling approximately 728.3 acres. Additional temporary work spaces would be returned to their 

preconstruction condition and former usage following completion of construction activities. Additional 

information on additional temporary work space areas is provided in Section 3.8. 

2.2.2.2 Pipe Storage and Contractor Yards 

The use of 11 offsite contractor/storage yards ranging in size from 10.0 to 60.0 acres and totaling 

approximately 230.0 acres would be required during construction of the proposed Project. Upon 

completion of construction activities, the proposed contractor/staging yards would be returned to their 

preconstruction condition and former usage. 

2.2.2.3 Access Roads 

Gulf South would use existing roads to the extent possible to facilitate equipment and material 

access along the proposed Project route. Gulf South has indicated that construction of the proposed 

pipeline and aboveground facilities would require the use of 179 access roads of varying lengths and 

construction. Gulf South reports that 74 of these access roads would be new roads or existing roads that 

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

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

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

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

of new roads or improvement of existing access roads could require widening to as much as 25 feet in 

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

access roads would affect approximately 103.8 acres. Following construction, 22 access roads would be 

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

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

revert to preconstruction uses following construction. Additional information on access roads is provided 

in Section 3.8, and the facility location maps provided as Appendix B of this EIS depict the general 

locations of these roads.

2.3 CONSTRUCTION PROCEDURES 

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

with 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. Collectively, these 

regulations specify pipeline material selection; minimum design requirements; protection from internal, 

external, and atmospheric corrosion; and qualification procedures for welders and operations personnel. 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
2-15

Gulf South would also comply with the siting and maintenance requirements in 18 CFR 380.15 and other 

applicable federal and state regulations. 

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

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

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

2.3.1 General Pipeline Construction Procedures 

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

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

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

construction spreads to complete installation of the proposed pipeline. 

Right-of-way Survey and Fence Crossings 

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

right-of-way, and additional temporary work spaces would be surveyed and staked. Gulf South would 

contact the appropriate state One-Call system so that existing underground utilities could be located, 

identified, and flagged to prevent accidental damage during pipeline construction. Other sensitive 

resources such as wetland boundaries, cultural resources, and any areas of protected species habitat would 

also be marked. 

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

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

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

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

would be installed, as necessary. 

Clearing and Grading 

The construction right-of-way and additional temporary work spaces would be cleared and 

graded, where necessary, to provide a relatively level surface for trench-excavating equipment and the 

movement of other construction equipment. Brush, trees, roots, and other obstructions such as large rocks 

would be cleared from all construction work areas. Where appropriate, stumps would be cut flush with 

the ground and left in place. Gulf South indicates that marketable timber could be cut and stacked at the 

edge of the right-of-way for landowner use or recovery of timber value. Tree stumps would be removed 

from within the permanent right-of-way. Cleared woody debris would be burned (in accordance with 

state and local burning requirements), chipped (except in wetlands), and distributed over the disturbed 

area as mulch or transported offsite to an appropriate disposal facility. As necessary, topsoil would be 

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

and other areas where requested by a land management agency or landowner. Topsoil would be removed 

to its actual depth, up to a maximum depth of 12 inches, and stockpiled separately from the subsoil 

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

ditch and the adjacent subsoil spoil storage area (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. 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
Not to Scale EAST TEXAS TO MISSISSIPPI EXPANSION

PROJECT

Typical Pipeline Construction Sequence

DATE: April, 2007 FIGURE: 2.3.1-1

"NON-INTERNET PUBLIC"

2-16

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
EAST TEXAS TO MISSISSIPPI EXPANSION

PROJECT

Typical Trench and Spoil Area 

Topsoil Stripping

DATE: April, 2007 FIGURE: 2.3.1-2

"NON-INTERNET PUBLIC" Not to Scale

2-17

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
2-18

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

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

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

Trenching 

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

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

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

be stored on the non-working side of the trench (Figure 2.3.1-2). 

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 typically would consist of either 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

safe crossing of a feature such as a road, highway, railroad, or waterbody. At crossings of utilities or 

foreign pipelines, the proposed pipeline would also generally be installed at a greater depth, to provide for 

a minimum clearance of 12 inches, or the depth that may be required by state or local regulations, 

whichever provides greater protection. 

Areas of bedrock that might be encountered along the proposed Project route should be easily 

workable with standard construction equipment and techniques, and Gulf South does not anticipate the 

need for blasting associated with trench excavation. 

Pipe Stringing, Bending, and Welding 

Sections of pipe up to 80 feet long would be delivered to the job site and temporarily placed or 

“strung” along the excavated pipeline trench, where they would be bent as necessary to follow the natural 

grade and direction changes of the right-of-way. Following stringing and bending, the ends of the 

pipeline would be carefully aligned and welded together. The welds would be visually and 

radiographically (i.e., x-ray) inspected to ensure structural integrity. Those welds that do not meet 

established specifications would be repaired or replaced. 

An external coating would cover and protect the delivered pipeline sections. Following welding, 

the previously uncoated ends of the pipe at all joints would be coated with material compatible with a 

factory-applied coating, as applicable, in preparation for installation. The coating on the remainder of the 

completed pipe section would be inspected for defects, and repairs would be made to any damaged areas 

prior to lowering the pipe into the trench. At some locations, it may be necessary to provide negative 

buoyancy in the form of concrete weights, a concrete coating, pipe sacks, and/or soil anchors. 

Lowering-in and Backfilling 

Prior to lowering the pipeline, the trench would be cleaned of debris and foreign material and 

would be dewatered as necessary. Trench dewatering, which would entail pumping accumulated 

groundwater or rainwater from the trench to stable upland areas, would be performed in accordance with 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
2-19

applicable local, state, and federal permitting requirements. In areas of rock, the bottom of the trench 

may be padded with sand, gravel, screened soils, sandbags, or support pillows to protect the pipe coating. 

However, topsoil would not be used as padding material. The pipeline then would be lowered into the 

trench by appropriately spaced sideboom tractors working in unison to avoid buckling of the pipe. 

Trench breakers would be installed at regular intervals where appropriate to prevent subsurface erosion 

and flow of water between the trench and crossed waterbodies, wetlands, and near-surface groundwater. 

After the pipeline is lowered into the trench and adequately protected, previously excavated 

materials would be used to backfill the trench. Any excess excavated materials or materials deemed 

unsuitable for backfill would be evenly spread over the right-of-way, or disposed of in accordance with 

applicable regulations and landowner requirements. Backfilling over the trenchline would occur to 

approximately 6 inches above the original elevation to accommodate future soil settlement. 

Hydrostatic Testing 

Once installation and backfilling are completed and before the Project begins operation, the 

pipeline would be hydrostatically pressure tested in accordance with DOT safety standards (49 CFR 

Part 192), to verify its integrity and to ensure its ability to withstand the MAOP. Hydrostatic testing 

consists of installing a hydrostatic test cap and manifold, filling the pipeline with water, pressurizing the 

pipeline to its MAOP, and maintaining that test pressure for a specified period of time. Any leaks 

detected during the test would be repaired, and the pipeline would be re-tested. 

Water used for hydrostatic testing would be obtained from surface water sources and municipal 

supplies, and no biocides or other hydrostatic test water additives would be added to the test water. After 

hydrostatic testing is completed, the test water either would be pumped to the next segment of pipeline to 

be tested or would be discharged. Additional information on hydrostatic testing is provided in 

Section 3.3. 

Once a segment of pipe has been successfully tested, it would be cleaned and dried using 

mechanical tools (pigs) moved through the pipeline with pressurized, dry air. The hydrostatic test cap and 

manifold then would be removed, and the pipe would be connected to the remainder of the pipeline, using 

the welding and inspection procedures describe above. 

Cleanup and Restoration 

Within 20 days (or as soon as possible) of completing the backfilling of the trench, all remaining 

trash, debris, surplus materials, and temporary structures would be removed from the right-of-way and 

disposed of in accordance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations. All disturbed areas would 

be finish-graded and restored as closely as possible to preconstruction contours. Permanent erosion 

control measures also would be installed. Topsoil previously segregated from the trench material in all 

agricultural and residential areas would be spread uniformly across the construction right-of-way, and the 

topsoil and subsoil in these areas would be tested for compaction along the disturbed corridor. 

Vegetation restoration would begin within 6 days of final grading. After the soil is readied for 

planting or seeding in areas where Gulf South and landowners have negotiated agreements, Gulf South 

would reseed or replant according to those agreements. To provide permanent erosion control along the 

right-of-way, all other upland areas disturbed by construction would be fertilized, limed, and seeded in 

accordance with the prescribed dates and seed mixes specified by the local soil conservation authorities or 

land management agencies. Wetland areas would not be fertilized, limed, or mulched unless Gulf South 

is directed to do so by state or local regulatory agencies. 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
2-20

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. 

Pipeline markers and/or warning signs would be installed along the pipeline centerline at 

specified intervals to identify the pipeline location, specify Gulf South as the operator of the pipeline, and 

provide telephone numbers for emergencies and inquiries. 

Minimization Measures 

To minimize construction-related effects, Gulf South proposes to implement an Upland Erosion 

Control, Revegetation, and Maintenance Plan (Plan) and Wetland and Waterbody Construction and 

Mitigation Procedures (Procedures) as described in Section 3.4. With the exception of a few alternative 

measures, Gulf South’s proposed Plan and Procedures are consistent with our guidance documents of the 

same name. The intent of Gulf South’s Plan is to outline baseline mitigation measures that minimize 

erosion and enhance revegetation in upland areas. The major components of this Plan are described in 

Section 3.2. The intent of Gulf South’s Procedures is to outline baseline mitigation measures that 

minimize the extent and duration of construction-related disturbances to wetlands and waterbodies. The 

major components of these Procedures are described in Sections 3.3 and 3.4. 

Gulf South has also developed several Project-specific plans to avoid or minimize environmental 

impacts during construction. Gulf South has prepared a Spill Prevention, Containment, and 

Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan, which describes the management of hazardous materials, such as fuels, 

lubricants, and coolants during construction and in the event they should be inadvertently released into the 

environment. Gulf South also has developed a Plan for the Containment of Inadvertent Release of 

Drilling Mud during Horizontal Directional Drilled Wetland and Waterbody Crossings, that describes the 

procedures that would be implemented to monitor for, contain, and clean up any inadvertent releases of 

drilling fluid during HDD operations; Noise Mitigation and Compliance Plan for HDD Operations; a Plan 

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

Evidence during Construction (Plan for Historic and Paleontological Resources and Human Remains); a 

Plan for the Unanticipated Discovery of Contaminated Environmental Media (Contaminated Media Plan); 

and Plan for Avoidance of Impacts to the Historic Natchez Trace Parkway by Boring the Pipeline 

(Natchez Trace Parkway Plan). Gulf South is also developing a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan 

(SWPPP), but this plan is not yet complete. These plans can be viewed on the internet using our 

eLibrary, which is found at www.ferc.gov.

2.3.2 Specialized Pipeline Construction Procedures 

2.3.2.1 Waterbody Crossings 

A total of 885 waterbodies would be crossed by the proposed Project’s pipeline. Gulf South 

proposes to use either open-cut or HDD techniques for all of these proposed crossings as described below. 

Construction of the proposed pipeline across these waterbodies would be accomplished in accordance 

with Gulf South’s Procedures and all applicable permits. 

Open-cut Crossing 

An open-cut waterbody crossing would be conducted using methods similar to conventional 

open-cut trenching. The open-cut construction method would involve excavation of the pipeline trench 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
2-21

across the waterbody, installation of a prefabricated segment of pipeline, and backfilling of the trench 

with native material. Excavation and backfilling of the trench would be accomplished using backhoes or 

other excavation equipment operating from one or both banks of the waterbody. The use of equipment 

operating in the waterbody would be limited to that needed for construction of the crossing. All other 

construction equipment would cross the waterbody using equipment bridges. 

During construction, Gulf South would implement mitigation measures to minimize impacts to 

the aquatic environment, as described in its Procedures. Construction would be scheduled so that the 

trench would be excavated immediately prior to pipelaying activities. The duration of construction across 

minor waterbodies would be limited to 24 hours for minor waterbodies (10 feet wide or less) and 48 hours 

for intermediate waterbodies (greater than 10-feet-wide but less than or equal to 100 feet in width). In 

accordance with Gulf South’s Procedures, excavated spoil would be stockpiled in the construction rightof-way at least 10 feet from the stream bank or in approved additional work areas and would be 

surrounded by sediment control devices to prevent sediment from returning to the waterbody. The 

waterbody banks would be returned to as near preconstruction conditions as possible within 24 hours of 

completing all open-cut crossings. 

Horizontal Directional Drill 

An HDD is a trenchless crossing method that may be used to avoid direct impacts to sensitive 

resources (such as waterbodies and wetlands) or infrastructure (such as roads and railways) by 

directionally drilling beneath them. HDD installation on the proposed Project would result in a pipeline 

that is installed beneath the ground surface by pulling the pipeline through a pre-drilled bore hole. HDD 

installation typically is carried out in three stages: (1) directional drilling of a small-diameter pilot hole; 

(2) enlarging the pilot hole to a sufficient diameter to accommodate the pipeline; and (3) pulling the 

prefabricated pipeline, or pull string, into the enlarged bore hole. Figure 2.3.2-1 illustrates a typical HDD 

installation process. 

The pilot hole would be approximately 12 inches in diameter, depending on drill head and soil 

characteristics, and would be drilled along a predetermined HDD bore. The drill head for the pilot hole 

would have a down-hole, hydraulic motor-powered drill bit attached to the drill string (pipe connecting 

the drill rig to the drill head). The hydraulic motor would convert hydraulic energy from drilling fluid, or 

drilling mud, pumped from the surface to mechanical energy at the drill head, allowing for bit rotation 

without drill string rotation. Drill string would be added as the pilot hole progressed. 

Gulf South proposes to use hand-laid electric-grid guide wires to assist guidance of the drill bit 

along the proposed route. A small pathway approximately 2- to 3-feet-wide may be cut, using hand tools 

in heavily vegetated areas such as wetlands in order to position these guide wires, resulting in minimal 

ground disturbance. No large trees would be cut as part of this process. The path of the drill head would 

be controlled using an electromagnetic steering tool positioned on the tip of the drill bit and would follow 

the electromagnetic field created by the guide wires. Additionally, drill bit positioning sensors may help 

guide the path of the drill. 

After completion of the pilot hole, the HDD bore would be progressively reamed to a diameter 

about 12 inches larger than the pipeline diameter. Drilling fluid would be pumped through the reaming 

tools to aid in cutting, support the bore hole, transport spoil back to the surface, and lubricate the trailing 

pipe. Upon completion of drilling and reaming, the drill string would extend from the entrance pit to the 

exit pit. Concurrent with reaming the bore, the pull string to be inserted in the HDD bore would be 

fabricated and laid out within the construction right-of-way or extra workspace areas extending from the 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
2-22

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
2-23

HDD exit pit. The pull string would be connected to the drill string and pulled back through the bore. 

The pipeline would be neutrally buoyant in the drilling fluid, allowing it to be pulled through the HDD 

bore hole. 

Drilling fluid circulated through the bore during the pilot hole drilling and reaming process would 

be collected at the surface and processed to remove spoils, allowing the fluid to be reused. Excess spoils 

and drilling fluid would be treated for disposal and disposed of at an approved location in accordance 

with regulatory requirements, agreements, and permit conditions. The proposed HDD drilling fluid 

would consist of water and bentonite. Bentonite is a mixture of non-toxic clays and rock particles 

consisting of about 85 percent montmorillonite clay; 10 percent quartz and feldspars; and 5 percent 

accessory materials, such as calcite and gypsum. 

A successful HDD would result in little or no impact to the waterbody being crossed. 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 bore hole and are forced through the subsurface substrate to 

the ground surface. Frac-outs occur most often in highly permeable soils during the entrance and exit 

phases of the pilot hole drill, as this is when the greatest pressures are exerted on the bore walls in shallow 

soils. Drilling fluid pressures in the bore hole and drilling fluid pumping and return flow rates would be 

monitored to detect the potential occurrence of a frac-out. If a frac-out does occur, Gulf South would 

immediately suspend drilling operations. These corrective measures would include determination and 

modification of the drilling technique to minimize or prevent further releases. Any surfaced drilling 

fluids would be contained, clean-up procedures would commence, and the appropriate agencies would be 

notified. A discussion of the potential impacts of HDD on waterbodies and wetlands is provided in 

Sections 3.3 and 3.4. 

Gulf South proposes to use 34 separate HDD crossings to accomplish pipeline installation across 

65 waterbodies, including 16 major waterbodies (greater than 100 feet in width), two Louisiana Natural 

and Scenic Rivers (Black Lake Bayou and Saline Bayou), and two streams listed in the Nationwide 

Rivers Inventory (NRI) (Big Black River and the Pearl River) (Table 2.3.2-1). Section 3.3 and 

Appendix D identify and describe the waterbodies that would be crossed using HDD techniques. In 

addition to waterbodies, Gulf South proposes to cross 14 wetlands, 8 roadways, a railroad line, and the 

Ouachita Wildlife Management Area (WMA) via HDD methods. 

The crossing of the Mississippi River would be the longest HDD associated with the proposed 

Project, extending to over 4,500 feet in length. Gulf South would install the pipeline over the levee on the 

west side of the Mississippi River due to restrictions regarding levee disturbance. The proposed crossing 

point at the levee is adjacent to an existing Columbia Gulf pipeline easement. Inside of the levee, the 

pipeline would be installed using open-cut methods until reaching the proposed HDD exit point just west 

of the Mississippi River. The HDD entry point would be located on the east side of the Mississippi River 

approximately 150 feet south of an existing Entergy Corporation (Entergy) electrical transmission power 

line crossing. The HDD exit point would be located on the west side of the Mississippi River 

approximately150 feet south of the existing Entergy electrical transmission power line. The pipeline pull 

string and associated extra workspace would be located on the west side of the River, parallel to the 

existing electrical transmission power line easement in a wetland area. Gulf South has not indicated that 

there are any special construction constraints or risks associated with the length of this HDD and 

considers drill failure unlikely. However, if the first HDD crossing did fail, Gulf South has proposed to 

acquire enough pipe for a second HDD crossing attempt, if needed. 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
2-24

TABLE 2.3.2-1 

Proposed Horizontal Directional Drill Locations for the Proposed 

East Texas to Mississippi Expansion Project 

Features Crossed Begin MP End MP 

Length 

(feet) 

Interstate 49 and one waterbody 14.5 14.8 1,664 

Bayou Pierre and three other waterbodies 22.0 22.4 1,854 

Prairie River and Cowpen Bayou 23.0 23.5 3,000 

Ash Bayou and two other waterbodies 24.0 24.4 1,676 

Powell Bayou and two other waterbodies 24.9 25.2 1,706 

Red River 27.0 27.3 1,815 

Loggy Bayou 29.6 29.9 1,855 

Black Lake Bayou and two wetlands 42.3 42.7 2,048 

Black Lake Bayou 42.9 43.4 2,692 

Saline Bayou and three wetlands 57.0 57.5 2,853 

Dugdemona River and three other waterbodies 71.5 72.2 3,390 

U.S. Highway 167 73.0 73.3 1,600 

Castor Creek, four other waterbodies, three wetlands, and Louisiana Highway 34 89.7 90.4 3,750 

Cutoff Bayou 108.9 109.2 1,631 

Ouachita River 110.6 111.0 2,157 

Bayou Lafourche, three other waterbodies, and the Ouachita Wildlife Management Area 115.3 115.7 1,745 

Steep Bayou 120.8 121.1 1,600 

Boeuf River and one wetland 122.1 122.4 1,631 

Bee Bayou and two wetlands 130.8 131.1 1,691 

Siphon Creek and one other waterbody 140.0 140.3 1,600 

Big Creek and one other waterbody 140.7 141.1 1,900 

Macon Bayou and one other waterbody 150.1 150.4 1,598 

Tensas River and two other waterbodies 159.9 160.2 1,650 

Despair Lake and one other waterbody 161.1 161.4 1,600 

Mothiglam Bayou and two other waterbodies 163.6 163.9 1,610 

Madison Parish Canal, one other waterbody, and one wetland 167.1 167.4 1,596 

Walnut Bayou and Louisiana Highway 602 172.8 173.1 1,600 

Walnut Bayou and Louisiana Highway 602 177.4 177.7 1,600 

Mississippi River 183.8 184.6 4,500 

U.S. Highway 61, three waterbodies, and one wetland 185.9 186.3 2,542 

Big Black River and one wetland 196.7 197.4 3,769 

Baker’s Creek 203.7 204.0 1,600 

Interstate Highway 55, Mississippi Highway 51, and railroad 227.0 227.3 1,604 

Pearl River and four other waterbodies 232.2 232.6 1,690 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
2-25

2.3.2.2 Wetland Crossings 

Construction of the proposed Project pipeline across wetlands would be conducted in accordance 

with applicable permits and Gulf South’s Procedures. Overall, the wetland crossing methods and 

mitigation measures identified in its Procedures are designed to minimize the extent and duration of 

construction-related disturbance within wetlands. Construction methods in wetlands would consist of the 

conventional lay method, push-float method, or HDD. Other than planned HDDs, the site-specific 

crossing procedures used to install the pipeline across wetlands would be determined based on conditions 

at the time of construction and would vary dependent on the level of soil stability and saturation 

encountered during construction. 

During the crossing of unsaturated wetlands (those wetlands without standing water or saturated 

soils), conventional lay method construction would be similar to the upland construction procedures 

described in Section 2.3.1, although timber mats may be used, passage through the wetland by equipment 

would be minimized, and the measures in Gulf South’s Procedures would be implemented. In conditions 

where the trench is inundated or saturated to the extent that soils cannot support heavy equipment, 

especially in large wetlands, a prefabricated floating pipeline segment may be pushed or pulled into 

position from outside the wetland, using the push-float method. The floats then would be removed and 

the pipeline segment would sink into the trench. Wetlands may also be crossed using HDD, which was 

described in detail above. Regardless of the installation technique used, implementation of Gulf South’s 

Procedures would reduce the potential for pipeline construction to affect wetland hydrology and soil 

structure. 

The construction right-of-way width through wetland areas would be reduced to 75 feet. Within 

the right-of-way, woody vegetation would be removed or cut off at ground level and would be removed 

from the wetlands, leaving the root systems intact. Pulling of tree stumps and grading activities would be 

limited to that area directly over the trenchline, unless it was determined that safety-related construction 

constraints required grading or removal of tree stumps from under the working side of the construction 

right-of-way. Temporary erosion control devices would be installed as necessary immediately after initial 

disturbance of wetlands or adjacent upland areas to prevent sediment flow into wetlands, and would be 

maintained until revegetation is complete. Trench plugs would be installed as necessary to maintain 

wetland hydrology. 

The construction equipment operating in wetland areas would be limited to that needed to clear 

the construction right-of-way, dig the trench, fabricate and install the pipeline, backfill the trench, and 

restore the construction right-of-way. If standing water or saturated soil conditions were present, or if 

construction equipment caused ruts or mixing of the topsoil and subsoil, construction equipment 

operating in wetland areas would be further limited to the use of low-ground-pressure equipment or 

normal equipment operating from timber riprap or prefabricated equipment mats. 

Topsoil would be stripped from the area directly over the trench line to a maximum depth of 

12 inches in unsaturated soils and would be stockpiled separately from the subsoil where practicable. The 

segregated topsoil would be restored to its original location immediately following installation of the pipe 

and backfill of the trench. Materials such as timber mats placed in wetlands during construction would be 

removed during final cleanup, and the preconstruction contours of the wetland would be restored. Any 

required permanent erosion control measures would then be installed, and disturbed areas within the 

wetland would be temporarily stabilized with appropriate vegetation to protect the wetland soils from 

erosion. 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
2-26

The wetlands that would be affected by construction of the proposed Project are described in 

Section 3.4. That section also provides further discussion of the wetland restoration and mitigation 

procedures that would be implemented by Gulf South. 

2.3.2.3 Road, Highway, and Railroad Crossings 

The proposed pipeline would cross numerous paved and unpaved roads, highways, and railroads 

along the proposed Project route. Construction across these features would be accomplished in 

accordance with Gulf South’s Plan and the requirements of all applicable crossing permits and approvals. 

During roadway construction, Gulf South would incorporate any safety precautions required by state and 

local transportation agencies. 

All railroads and approximately 190 major highways and paved roads would be crossed using 

HDD or subsurface boring techniques. The HDD crossing method is described in detail in Section 2.3.2.1 

and would be used at Interstates 49 and 55, U.S. Highways 167 and 61, Louisiana Highways 34 and 602 

(two crossings via HDD), and Mississippi Highway 51. Bores beneath these roads and railways would 

entail excavating pits on both sides of the feature and boring a horizontal hole equal to the diameter of the 

pipe (or casing, if required) at the depth of the pipeline installation. The pipeline section and/or casing 

then would be pushed through the bore. If additional pipeline sections were required, they would be 

welded to the first section of the pipeline in the bore pit before being pushed through the bore. There 

would likely be little disruption of traffic on roads and railways that are bored. Section 3.8 provides 

additional information on the proposed major road crossing locations. 

Pipeline crossings of lightly traveled and unimproved rural dirt roads typically would be crossed 

via open-cut installation. Such crossings would require the temporary closure of these roads and 

implementation of detours, where feasible. In the absence of a reasonable detour, construction across the 

roadway would be staged to allow at least one lane of traffic to remain open except for the limited periods 

required for installing the pipeline. Efforts would be made to schedule lane closures outside of peak 

traffic periods. Attempts would also be made to avoid peak-traffic periods on all road construction. All 

construction operations at these crossings, including repair and surface restoration, would typically be 

completed within 1 day. 

2.3.2.4 Agricultural Areas 

Agricultural areas along the proposed Project route include pasture areas used for livestock 

grazing, hayfields, fallow fields, and rotated croplands such as cotton and corn. In these areas, Gulf South 

would implement special procedures to minimize impacts on current agricultural uses. Unless the 

landowner or land management agency specifically approves otherwise, topsoil would be removed to its 

actual depth, up to a maximum of 12 inches, and would be stockpiled separately from the subsoil 

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

ditch and the adjacent subsoil spoil storage area (Figure 2.3.1-2), but 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 

stones or excess rock would be removed from at least the top 12 inches of soil. The topsoil and subsoil in 

all agricultural areas also would be tested for compaction at regular intervals, using penetrometers or 

other appropriate devices to conduct tests. Any severely compacted areas would be plowed with a 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
2-27

paraplow or other deep tillage device. In areas where the topsoil was segregated, the subsoil also would 

be plowed before replacing the segregated topsoil. 

Gulf South stated that the proposed Project would not cross any known drainage structures or 

irrigation facilities, but plans to contact landowners again to confirm this finding. Gulf South’s Plan 

requires working with property owners to identify locations of existing drainage structures and irrigation 

facilities that could be damaged during construction. Should any damage occur to these facilities, Gulf 

South would repair these systems with the input of the property owners. Gulf South also would work 

with landowners during easement negotiations to establish compensation agreements for crop damages 

and for loss of growing time, as applicable. Additional information on special procedures used in 

agricultural areas is presented in Sections 3.2 and 3.8. 

2.3.2.5 Rugged Topography 

Some portions of the proposed Project route traverse areas of side slopes and rolling terrain that 

would require specialized “two-tone” construction techniques to provide safe working conditions. The 

two-tone construction technique requires the uphill side of the construction right-of-way to be cut during 

grading. The material removed from the uphill side cut would be used to fill the downhill side of the 

construction right-of-way to provide a safe and level surface from which to operate heavy equipment. 

The pipeline trench would then be excavated along the newly graded right-of-way. Figure 2.3.2-2 

provides a typical cross section of the two-tone construction technique. The areas along the proposed 

Project that likely would be affected by two-tone construction techniques are listed in Table 2.3.2-2. 

TABLE 2.3.2-2 

Areas That Would Be Affected by Two-Tone Construction Techniques 

for the Proposed East Texas to Mississippi Expansion Project 

Milepost 

Length Affected 

(feet) 

Additional Workspace 

Requirement 

97.1 – 106.3 48,572 50-foot-wide additional temporary 

work space 

186.3 – 191.6 27,571 100-foot-wide additional temporary 

work space 

193.6 – 195.3 9,028 50-foot-wide additional temporary 

work space 

198.1 – 198.5 2,101 50-foot-wide additional temporary 

work space 

221.3 – 222.2 4,595 50-foot-wide additional temporary 

work space 

233.9 – 234.3 2,378 50-foot-wide additional temporary 

work space 

234.6 – 238.6 21,093 50-foot-wide additional temporary 

work space 

Total 115,338 

The two-tone construction technique would require extra workspace areas to accommodate the 

additional volumes of cut and fill material generated as described above and in Section 3.8. Following 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
EAST TEXAS TO MISSISSIPPI EXPANSION

PROJECT

Typical Two-Tone Construction Right-of-Way

Cross Section

DATE: April, 2007 FIGURE: 2.3.2-2

Not to Scale "NON-INTERNET PUBLIC"

2-28

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
2-29

pipeline installation and backfill of the trench, excavated material would be placed back in the cut and 

compacted to restore the approximate original contours. All disturbed areas would then be stabilized in 

accordance with Gulf South’s Plan. 

Gulf South proposes to use a 200-foot-wide construction right-of-way between MPs 186.3 and 

191.6. Based on our experience and the degree of rugged topography in this area, we believe that a 

200-foot-wide construction right-of-way is not needed. Therefore, to reduce impacts in this area we 

recommend that: 

• Gulf South should limit the width of its construction right-of-way to 175 feet between 

MP 186.3 and 191.6. 

2.3.2.6 Residential Areas 

Gulf South proposes to complete construction activities near residences as quickly as possible to 

minimize construction-related disturbances. Open access to residences would be maintained to the extent 

possible and coordination with landowners and would be conducted to minimize inconvenience regarding 

possible temporary loss of utility service or to address special landscaping issues. Safety fencing would 

also be used to prevent pedestrian access to the construction site. Additionally, Gulf South has developed 

site-specific construction plans for residences located with 50 feet of the construction right-of-way as 

discussed in more detail in Section 3.8.3. 

Section 3.11 provides additional information on noise abatement and emission control 

technology. 

2.3.3 Aboveground Facilities Construction Procedures 

The aboveground facilities would be constructed concurrent with pipeline installation, but 

construction would be conducted by special fabrication crews generally working separately from the 

pipeline construction spreads. Construction of the compressor stations would involve clearing, grading, 

and compacting the sites to the surveyed elevations, where necessary, for placement of concrete 

foundations for buildings and to support skid-mounted equipment. Prefabricated segments of pipe, 

valves, fittings, and flanges would be shop- or site-welded and assembled at the compressor station site. 

The compressor units and other large equipment would be mounted on their respective foundations, and 

the compressor enclosures would be erected around them. As necessary, electrical, domestic water and 

septic systems, and communications utilities would be installed. 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 local 

standards. Section 3.11 provides additional information on noise abatement and emission control 

technology. 

Facility piping, both aboveground and below ground, would be installed and hydrostatically 

tested before being placed in service. Controls and safety devices, such as the emergency shutdown 

system, relief valves, gas and fire detection facilities, and other protection and safety devices, also would 

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, MLVs, side valves, and pig launcher/receiver facilities not 

collocated with the compressor stations generally would be similar to that described above for compressor 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
2-30

station sites and would entail site clearing and grading, installation and erection of facilities, hydrostatic 

pressure testing, cleanup and stabilization, and installation of security fencing around the facilities. 

2.4 CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE 

Gulf South proposes to commence construction of the East Texas to Mississippi Expansion 

Project on May 1, 2007, pending Commission approval. The facilities, including installation of the 

proposed pipeline, compressor stations, and associated ancillary facilities, then would be completed in 

approximately 4 months and would be in-service by September 1, 2007. The actual start date of 

construction, if the proposed Project is certificated, would depend on the Commission’s environmental 

review process. 

2.5 ENVIRONMENTAL TRAINING AND MONITORING 

Gulf South has indicated that it would conduct environmental training for all company and 

construction contractor personnel prior to and during construction activities. Such training would focus 

on implementation of Gulf South’s Plan and Procedures, but also would address Project-specific permit 

requirements, company policy and commitments, any protection procedures and restrictions associated 

with cultural resources or sensitive species/habitats, and any other pertinent job-related information. 

During Project construction, Environmental Inspectors (EIs) would be responsible for monitoring 

and ensuring compliance with all environmental mitigation measures required by the FERC Certificate, if 

granted, and Gulf South’s Plan and Procedures as described in this EIS (see Section 3.4). The EIs would 

have the authority to stop activities that violate the environmental conditions of these authorizations, state 

and federal environmental permit conditions, or landowner requirements and to order appropriate 

corrective actions if needed. Gulf South would be represented by at least one EI per construction spread, 

consistent with its Plan. If the proposed Project is authorized, Gulf South would be required to develop 

and submit an Implementation Plan for our approval prior to construction. The Implementation Plan 

would be the specific guide to construction activities ensuring that the impact avoidance, minimization, 

and mitigation measures discussed in this EIS, as well as all other applicable regulations and permit 

conditions, would be adequately followed. During our review of the Implementation Plan, we would 

consider the absolute number and qualifications of the EI personnel proposed by Gulf South. 

In addition to the EI personnel specified above, we believe that Gulf South’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 Gulf South, 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 screening and processing variance requests during construction. Gulf South has 

requested that the FERC develop an agreement for third-party compliance monitoring for the proposed 

Project. Gulf South would fund the third-party EIs and support the ECMR Program in accordance with 

the FERC developed third-party agreement. 

The third-party compliance monitors also would be responsible for preparing and submitting 

status reports that would be filed with the FERC on a continuous basis until all construction-related 

activities, including restoration and initial permanent seeding, are complete. Due to the compressed 

construction schedule proposed by Gulf South, we consider that the additional level of environmental 

compliance screening provided by the ECMR Program, as well as the assistance to the FERC staff in 

processing of the variance requests that may arise, warrants the use of third-party compliance monitors. 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
2-31

To further ensure that environmental concerns are addressed during construction, Gulf South has 

established an Internet website (www.gulfsouthpl.com), toll-free telephone number (1-877-972-8533), 

and email address (easttexasexpansionproject@gulfsouthpl.com) to provide affected landowners and 

stakeholders with a venue for providing comments or requesting additional information about the 

proposed Project. 

2.6 OPERATION, MAINTENANCE, AND SAFETY CONTROLS 

As described previously, the proposed pipeline and aboveground facilities would be designed, 

constructed, operated, and maintained to meet or exceed all safety standards as set forth in the DOT’s 

Transportation of Natural and Other Gas By Pipeline: Minimum Federal Safety Standards (49 CFR 

Part 192). 

The pipeline would be constructed of welded carbon steel that meets or exceeds industry 

standards and would be covered with a protective coating to minimize rust and corrosion. To protect 

against damage from external forces, the proposed pipeline would be buried at a minimum depth of 3 feet 

below ground. All welds joining each section of pipe would be visually inspected and x-rayed to ensure 

the integrity of the welds. Prior to being placed in service, the pipeline would be hydrostatically tested to 

verify its integrity and to ensure its ability to withstand the designed MAOP. A cathodic protection 

system would be installed to protect all underground pipeline facilities constructed of metallic materials 

from external, internal, and atmospheric corrosion. Additional information regarding safety standards is 

presented in Section 3.12. 

During operations, Gulf South would conduct regular patrols of the pipeline right-of-way in 

accordance with the requirements of 49 CFR Part 192. The patrol program would include periodic aerial, 

vehicle, and/or pedestrian patrols of the pipeline facilities. These patrols would be conducted to survey 

surface conditions on and adjacent to the pipeline right-of-way for evidence of leaks, unauthorized 

excavation activities, erosion and wash-out areas, areas of sparse vegetation, damage to permanent 

erosion control devices, exposed pipe, and other conditions that might affect the safety or operation of the 

pipeline. The cathodic protection system would also be inspected periodically to ensure that it is 

functioning properly. In addition, intelligent pigs would regularly be sent through the pipeline to check 

for corrosion and irregularities in the pipe. Gulf South would keep detailed records of all inspections and 

supplement the corrosion protection system as necessary to meet the requirements of 49 CFR Part 192. 

Routine operation and maintenance would also be performed at all aboveground facilities by 

qualified personnel. Safety equipment, such as pressure relief devices, fire detection and suppression 

systems, and gas detection systems would be maintained throughout the life of each facility. Mainline 

valves also would be inspected, serviced, and tested to ensure proper functioning. 

Gulf South would establish and maintain a liaison with the appropriate fire, police, and public 

officials. This program would identify the available resources and responsibilities of each organization 

that may respond to a natural gas pipeline emergency and assist in developing coordination 

responsibilities. 

Pipeline markers would be placed and maintained along the right-of-way at roadway crossings, 

railroad crossings, and other highly visible places to alert those contemplating working in the vicinity of 

the location of the buried pipeline. The markers would identify Gulf South as the operator and display 

telephone numbers to call if any abnormal conditions are detected. 

Gulf South would also participate in the One-Call program. This program provides telephone 

numbers for excavation contractors to call prior to commencing any excavation activities. The One-Call 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
2-32

operator would notify excavation contractors of the existence of any underground utilities in the area and 

would notify Gulf South of any planned excavation in the vicinity of the pipeline so that Gulf South could 

flag the location of the pipeline and assign staff to monitor activities if required. 

Vegetation management procedures during operation would be performed in accordance with 

Gulf South’s proposed Plan and Procedures and would include regular mowing, cutting, and trimming 

along most of the proposed 60-foot-wide permanent pipeline right-of-way. In Section 2.2.1, we are 

recommending that Gulf South should limit the width of its permanent right-of-way to 50 feet. Routine 

vegetative maintenance clearing would not be performed more frequently than every 3 years, unless 

requested or approved by appropriate state and local agencies. However, a corridor not exceeding 10 feet 

in width centered on the pipeline could be maintained annually in an herbaceous state, as required to 

facilitate periodic corrosion and leak detection surveys. Vegetation management is discussed further in 

Section 3.5. 

2.7 FUTURE PLANS AND ABANDONMENT 

Gulf South currently has no plans for the expansion of the proposed facilities. If additional 

demand for natural gas supplies requires future expansion, Gulf South would seek the appropriate 

authorizations from the Commission. 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 approval of the Commission under 

Section 7(b) of the NGA and would comply with DOT regulations and specific agreements or stipulations 

made for the pipeline rights-of-way. An environmental review of any proposed abandonment would be 

conducted when the application is filed with the FERC. 

2.8 NONJURISDICTIONAL FACILITIES 

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

jurisdictional facilities, all facilities including 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 

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 typically include 

major power facilities, such as cogeneration plants, as well as less significant facilities, such as lateral 

pipeline connections. 

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

compressor stations. These facilities would be constructed and operated by Entergy and have been 

identified as nonjurisdictional facilities. 

We use a “four-factor test” to determine whether there is sufficient federal control and 

responsibility over a project as a whole to warrant environmental analysis of project-related 

nonjurisdictional facilities. These factors are: 

• whether the regulated activity comprises “merely a link” in a corridor-type project (e.g., a 

transportation or utility transmission project); 

• whether there are aspects of the nonjurisdictional facility in the immediate vicinity of the 

regulated activity that affect the location and configuration of the regulated activity; 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
2-33

• the extent to which the entire Project would be within the Commission’s jurisdiction; and 

• the extent of cumulative federal control and responsibility. 

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

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

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

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

examining the nonjurisdictional facilities. 

With regard to the second factor, the proposed Project would receive electricity from 

nonjurisdictional facilities, but the design and route of the proposed Project has not been uniquely 

influenced by the location or configuration of the nonjurisdictional facilities. The locations of the 

nonjurisdictional facilities have not been established, thus these facilities have had no effect on the 

location of the Expansion Project facility configuration. Thus, the second factor does not support 

examining the nonjurisdictional facilities. 

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

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

authority over the permitting, licensing, funding, construction, or operation of these nonjurisdictional 

facilities. Because the FERC has no authority over the nonjurisdictional facilities, this factor also weighs 

against extending the scope of the environmental review. 

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

nonjurisdictional facilities. Federal control is determined by the amount of federal financing, assistance, 

direction, regulation, or approval inherent in a project. The nonjurisdictional facilities are private 

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

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

expected to have either very limited or no involvement in the approval of the nonjurisdictional facilities. 

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

environmental review. 

We have applied the four factor test to the proposed East Texas to Mississippi Expansion Project 

and have determined that only one factor favors examining the identified nonjurisdictional facilities. 

Therefore, insufficient justification exists to warrant extension of the FERC’s environmental review to 

include the proposed electrical power lines. 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
3-1

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 

The environmental consequences of constructing and operating the proposed Project would vary 

in duration and significance based on construction method and affected resource. Four levels of impact 

duration were considered: temporary, short-term, long-term, and permanent. Temporary impacts 

generally occur during construction, with the resources returning to preconstruction conditions almost 

immediately afterward. Short-term impacts could continue for approximately 3 years following 

construction. Impacts were considered long-term if the resources would require more than 3 years to 

recover. Permanent impacts would occur as a result of activities that modify resources to the extent that 

they would not return to preconstruction conditions during the life of the proposed Project, such as with 

the construction of a compressor station. We considered an impact to be significant if it would result in a 

substantial adverse change in the physical environment. 

In this section, we discuss the affected environment, construction and operational impacts, and 

propose mitigation measures for each resource. We evaluated theses measures as well as proposed 

mitigation measures to determine whether or not additional steps would be necessary to further reduce 

impacts. Additional measures that we have identified appear as bulleted, boldface paragraphs in the text 

of the EIS. We recommend that these measures be included as specific conditions to the Certificate that 

may be issued to Gulf South for the proposed Project. 

Conclusions in this EIS are based on our analysis of environmental impacts and the following 

assumptions: 

• Gulf South would comply with all applicable laws and regulations; 

• the proposed facilities would be constructed as described in Section 2.0 of this EIS; and 

• Gulf South would implement the mitigation measures identified in its application and 

supplemental filings to the FERC. 

3.1 GEOLOGY 

3.1.1 Geological Setting 

The geologic history of eastern Texas, northern Louisiana, and southwestern Mississippi is 

dominated by alluvial, deltaic, and shallow marine sedimentary deposits. The proposed Project would be 

located in a geological feature known as the Mississippi Embayment. The Embayment began in the 

Precambrian (543 mega annum [Ma] and earlier) as a rift zone that left a depression in the crust. The 

depression acted to accumulate sediment eroding from the interior of the continent. The weight of 

accumulated sediments further depressed the crust, creating more accommodation space. As sea levels 

fluctuated, the ocean advanced into and retreated out of the Embayment, leaving alternating deposits of 

marine sediments and limestone, evaporites, delta sediments, and alluvial sediments. As more sediment 

was deposited, buried sediment lithified into rock and tilted to the south. At the end of the Last Glacial 

Maximum, during the Pleistocene (1.8 Ma to 10 kilo annum [ka]), outwash from melting glaciers 

deposited a huge volume of sediment in the Mississippi Embayment. More recently, in the Holocene 

(10 ka to Present), rivers have begun incising into the Pleistocene sediments, creating the modern 

topography. 

The proposed pipeline would cross approximately 77.6 miles of Holocene alluvial plains and 

alluvium associated with the Red, Ouachita, and Mississippi Rivers consisting of loam, sand, gravel, silt, 

and clay; 40.1 miles of Pleistocene terrace uplands consisting of sand, clay, silt, and gravel; 35.2 miles of 

Miocene (23.8 Ma to 5.3 Ma) upland and terrace deposits consisting of sand, sandstone, clay, gravel, 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
3-2

quartzite, and sandy limestone; 9.3 miles of Oligocene (33.7 Ma to 23.8 Ma) upland and terrace deposits 

consisting of limestone, sandy limestone, sand, and marl; 58.5 miles of Eocene (54.8 Ma to 33.7 Ma) silt, 

clay, marl, sand ironstone, lignite, and glauconite; and 22.4 miles of Paleocene (65 Ma to 54.8 Ma) and 

Eocene associated with the Wilcox Group consisting of sand, silt, lignite, limestone, and glauconite 

(Table 3.1.1-1). 

3.1.1.1 Topography 

Topography along the proposed pipeline route would range from flat to moderately hilly terrain. 

The elevation of the proposed pipeline route would vary from 200 to 260 feet above mean sea level 

(AMSL) in east Texas, 300 to 400 feet AMSL in western Louisiana upland areas, approximately 75 feet 

AMSL in the Mississippi River Alluvial Plain in Madison Parish, Louisiana, and 450 feet AMSL in 

Simpson County, Mississippi. The topography varies from mostly level floodplains, to gently sloping 

stream terraces, with rolling hills and some gently sloping to moderately steep uplands. 

Some areas of moderately rugged topography would be encountered along the proposed Project 

route, particularly in Ouachita Parish, Louisiana and Warren, Hinds, and Simpson Counties, Mississippi. 

As described in Section 2.3.2, Gulf South would use special “two-tone” construction techniques in these 

areas as listed in Table 2.3.2-2 to effectively work along these steeper slopes and all areas disturbed 

during pipeline construction would be finish-graded and restored as closely as possible to preconstruction 

contours during cleanup and restoration. Some of this steeper topography in Warren County, Mississippi 

is associated with thick deposits of loess soil found between MP 185.9 and 196.4, which are capable of 

supporting near vertical slopes when dry. Topography in this area often varies by 100 feet or more over 

relatively short distances. Loess soils are discussed in more detail in Section 3.2. 

3.1.1.2 Bedrock 

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) 

defines shallow bedrock as bedrock occurring in the upper 60-inches of the soil profile. A review of soil 

survey databases for the Project area indicate that shallow bedrock would not likely to be encountered 

along the proposed pipeline route. Additionally, Gulf South indicates that based on review of topographic 

maps, soil conditions, and geologic formations crossed, it would be unlikely that bedrock would be 

encountered within 5 to 7 feet below ground surface. Since no shallow bedrock has been identified and 

the shallow bedrock that could be encountered would consist of loosely consolidated, weathered 

sandstone and shale that should be easily workable with standard construction equipment and techniques; 

it is unlikely that bedrock blasting would be needed for the proposed Project. Should blasting become 

necessary, Gulf South would notify the FERC before blasting and would conduct all blasting and disposal 

of bedrock material in accordance with its Plan and Procedures and in compliance with applicable federal, 

state, and local laws, permits, and authorizations. Gulf South would use the minimum charge explosives 

necessary to excavate the trench and place mats over the blast area to keep rock from becoming airborne. 

Additionally, Gulf South would implement all appropriate safety precautions to prevent injury to workers, 

livestock and property, including safeguards such as flags, barricades, and warning signals. 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
3-3

TABLE 3.1.1-1 

Geologic Units Underlying the Proposed East Texas to Mississippi Expansion Project 

Cumulative 

Length 

Crossed 

(miles) 

Group/Formation/ 

Type Description 

40.9 Alluvium Loams, sand, gravel, and clay; mapped only in the Mississippi River Alluvial Plain 16.8 Braided Stream 

Terraces 

Light gray, tan, and brown fine to coarse sand, some clay, silt, and gravel. Glacial outwash of anc

Arkansas River. 

8.5 Braided Stream 

Terraces - Loess 

Tan to reddish brown massive silt with some clay and minor amounts of very fine sand. Stippled 

are those overlain by 1 to 9 meters of loess. 

3.0 Cane River 

Formation 

Brown silty clay with basal glauconitic, fossiliferous silts that may weather to ironstone locally. 

11.5 Catahoula - Loess Brown silty clay with basal glauconitic, fossiliferous silts that may weather to ironstone locally. 35.2 Catahoula-Loess Irregularly bedded gray sand and sandstone; mottled red and gray, green and chocolate-colored c

quartzite and some gravel; the Paynes Hammock sand; sandy limestone, cross-bedded fine gree

and thin-bedded sand and clay, is mapped with the underlying Chickasawhay limestone in easterMississippi. 

22.2 Cockfield Formation Brown lignitic clays, silts, and sands; some sideritic glauconite may weather to brown ironstone in 

4.4 Cook Mountain 

Formation 

Greenish gray sideritic, glauconitic clay in upper part may weather to brown ironstone; yellow to b

and fossiliferous marl in lower part may weather to black soil. Ironstone concretions near base. 

1.1 Deweyville Terrace Gray mixed with brown-to-red clay and silty clay; some sand and gravel locally. Topographically h

Holocene alluvium and lower than Prairie terraces. Found along streams of intermediate size. 

2.3 High Terraces Tan to orange clay, silt, and sand with a large amount of basal gravel. Surfaces are highly dissec

less continuous than lower terraces. Composed of terraces formerly designated as Willana, Citro

the highest Bentley. 

2.9 Intermediate 

Terraces 

Light gray to orange-brown clay, sandy clay, and silt; much sand and gravel locally. Surfaces shodissection and are topographically higher than the Prairie. Composed of terraces formerly design

Montgomery, Irene, and most of the Bentley. 

36.7 Natural Levees Gray and brown silt, silty clay, some very fine sand, reddish brown along the Red River. Shown o

and present courses of major streams. 

8.5 Prairie Terraces Light gray to light brown clay, sandy clay, silt, sand, and some gravel. Surfaces generally show lit

dissection and are topographically higher than the Deweyville. Three levels are recognized: two aalluvial valleys, the lower coalescing with its broad coastwise expression; the third, still lower foun

intermittently gulfward. 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
3-4

TABLE 3.1.1-1 (continued) 

Geologic Units Underlying the Proposed East Texas to Mississippi Expansion Project 

Cumulative 

Length 

Crossed 

(miles) 

Group/Formation/ 

Type Description 

17.4 Sparta Formation White to light gray massive sands with interbedded clays; some thin interbeds of lignite or lignitic s

shales. 

9.3 Vicksburg/Chickasa

whay - Loess 

Chickasawhay limestone, sandy limestone and sand, and overlying Paynes Hammock sand of Mipresent only in eastern Mississippi; Vicksburg Group, predominantly limestone and marl but contabentonite and near the top, chocolate-colored clay and some sand. 

22.4 Wilcox Group Gray to brown lignitic sands and silty to sandy lignitic clays, many seams of lignite, some limeston

glauconite. Includes small Carrizo Sand (Claiborne Group) outcrops. 

_______________ Source: Gulf South 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
3-5

3.1.1.3 Impacts to the Geologic Setting 

The primary effect of pipeline construction on geological resources would consist of disturbances 

to topographical features found along the construction right-of-way. These disturbances to topography 

would be most apparent in relatively steeper areas, such as the areas discussed above in Warren County, 

Mississippi. However, since all topographic features disturbed by pipeline construction would be 

finish-graded and restored as closely as possible to preconstruction contours during cleanup and 

restoration, and aboveground facilities have been sited in areas without any significant topography, 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 

Oil, gas, coal, salt, sulfur, sand, gravel and clay are all actively extracted in Texas, Louisiana, and 

Mississippi. Panola County, Texas produces construction sand and gravel. Louisiana produces salt, sand, 

gravel, crushed stone, lignite, sulfur, lime, gypsum, and common clay. Mississippi produces bentonite, 

fuller’s earth, ball clays and kaolin, lignite, sandstone, and limestone. Oil and natural gas extraction is 

common in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi and is an important economic resource in those areas. Gulf 

South has identified a total of 124 gas and oil wells within 0.25 mile of the proposed pipeline route. All 

of these wells were located in either eastern Texas or Louisiana. 

According to Gulf South, which used USGS topographic maps, Louisiana Department of Natural 

Resources’ (LDNR) SONRIS database, aerial photography, and field survey observations, three mineral 

resource sites exist within 0.25 mile of the proposed 42-inch-diameter mainline pipeline (Table 3.1.2-1) in 

Louisiana. Two of these sites are inactive and the third, an active sand pit in Jackson Parish, Louisiana, 

would be avoided because it is located approximately 600 feet south of the proposed pipeline. Given that 

there are few mineral resources located in the immediate vicinity of the proposed Project, and that known 

sites are inactive or would be avoided, we believe that no significant impacts to mineral resources would 

occur. 

TABLE 3.1.2-1 

Mineral Resources within 0.25 Mile of the Proposed East Texas 

to Mississippi Expansion Project 

Milepost 

(MP) 

Parish/ 

County, 

State 

Mineral 

Resource 

Distance 

from 

Construction 

Work Area 

(feet) 

Direction 

from 

Construction 

Work Area Evaluation of Impacts 

12.1 DeSoto, LA Inactive 

gravel pit 

Crossed Not available No impacts anticipated, the site is 

inactive 

64.6 Bienville, 

LA 

Inactive 

gravel pit 

Crossed Not available No impacts anticipated, the site is 

inactive 

68.7 Jackson, 

LA 

Active sand 

pit 

600 South The proposed pipeline would be 

adjacent to existing utility and pipeline 

corridors, which would prevent the 

further development of mineral 

resources. No further impact is 

anticipated. 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
3-6

In addition to the identified mineral sites, Gulf South indicates that construction and operation of 

the proposed Project could possibly affect 10 exploitable oil and natural gas wells, but that potential 

impacts to these wells would be addressed through easement negotiations with landowners. An active oil 

and gas lease would be crossed by the proposed Project at MP 20.9 in DeSoto Parish, Louisiana. The 

nearest well would be located approximately 150 feet away from the proposed pipeline and an existing 

right-of-way prevents expansion of activity at this site, so impacts from the proposed Project are not 

anticipated. Excavation of the pipeline trench would typically extend to a depth of approximately 7 feet 

below the ground surface, and none of the proposed HDD crossings would exceed a depth greater than 

100 feet below the ground surface. 

Because there would be little to no overlap regarding the depth of oil and gas operations and 

construction activity, affected oil and gas well operators would be compensated, if necessary, and new 

drilling operations would be conducted outside of the permanent right-of-way, we believe that 

construction and operation of the proposed Project would not impact existing and/or future mineral sites 

or oil and gas field development. 

3.1.3 Paleontological Resources 

Paleontological resources are the fossilized remains of prehistoric plants and animals, as well as 

the impressions left in rock or other materials of the forms and activities of such organisms. Eocene 

deposits underlying the western portion of the proposed Project route associated with the Cane River and 

Cook Mountain formations (which are described in Table 3.1.1-1) and Holocene deposits underlying the 

eastern portion of the proposed Project route associated with the Mississippi River Alluvial Plain are the 

only formations likely to contain fossilized remains. The proposed pipeline route would cross potentially 

fossil-bearing units associated with the fossiliferous silts of the Cane River Formation (MP 43.8 to 46.0, 

MP 46.7 to 46.8, MP 46.9 to 47.3, and MP 47.4 to 47.7) and the fossiliferous marl of the Cook Mountain 

Formation (MP 69.3 to 70.2, MP 71.0 to 74.3, MP 75.8 to 76.0, and the MLV facility at MP 70.0). The 

proposed pipeline route would also cross sand and gravel bars within the floodplain of the Mississippi, 

which potentially contain fossils. Though the possibility of encountering fossilized remains exists, no 

paleontological resources have been identified within the proposed Project area. 

Due to the limited exposure of fossil-bearing rock units crossed by the proposed Project and the 

general instability of Paleocene and Eocene fossils at shallow depth, we believe it is unlikely that 

trenching and excavation activities associated with construction of the proposed Project would adversely 

impact paleontological resources. However, if paleontological resources were discovered during the 

course of pipeline construction, Gulf South would follow the measures identified in its Plan for the 

Unanticipated Discovery of Historical Properties, Human Remains or Potential Paleontological Evidence 

during Construction. 

Based on the low probability of encountering these resources and Gulf South’s adherence to its 

plans as necessary, we believe that construction and operation of the proposed Project would not 

significantly affect paleontological resources. 

3.1.4 Geologic Hazards 

Geologic hazards are defined by the American Geological Institute (Bates and Jackson 1984) as 

“geologic conditions or phenomena that present a risk or are a potential danger to life and property, either 

naturally occurring or man-made.” Geologic hazards potentially occurring in the vicinity of the proposed 

Project area include seismicity and faults, soil liquefaction, slope failures/landslides, and ground 

subsidence. Geologic hazards such as volcanism are not relevant to the proposed Project area and are 

excluded from further consideration. 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
3-7

3.1.4.1 Seismicity and Faults 

The USGS defines seismicity as “the geographic and historical distribution of earthquakes” 

(USGS 2006a). Faults are fractures in rock that are evidence of geologic movement. Hazards associated 

with seismicity and faulting include ground shaking, surface rupture of faults, and offset along normal, 

reverse, or strike-slip faults. Faulting is especially hazardous to linear, rigid structures, such as pipelines, 

in which the ground is not moving the same distance or direction. 

Gulf-parallel, normal faults border the Gulf of Mexico and run through Texas, Louisiana, 

Mississippi, and Alabama. These faults were created by a wedge of sediments thickening until they 

collapsed under their own weight. These faults are shallow at depth and are not attached to the crust. 

Because the stress field of the underlying crust is not known, seismic potential is difficult to determine. 

However, historically recorded seismicity in the area traversed by the proposed Project has not been 

significant. 

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. This release of stress causes seismic energy 

to radiate from the fault causing the ground to shake. Gulf South indicates that there is no evidence of 

active faulting in the last 10,000 years in the proposed Project area and indicates that the proposed Project 

would be located in a region of low seismic risk. 

Based on the historical record and absence of fault activity over the last 10,000 years, we believe 

that the potential for seismicity and faulting does not represent a significant risk to the stability or safety 

of the proposed Project. 

3.1.4.2 Soil Liquefaction 

Soil liquefaction is a condition that occurs when loose, cohesionless, saturated soil (usually 

well-sorted sand) is subjected to vibration or shock waves. During liquefaction, pore water inhibits 

grain-to-grain contact, and the strength of the soil is greatly reduced such that the soil may act like a 

viscous liquid with the ability to move and flow. Soil liquefaction can lead to landslides and earthflows, 

movement or failure of foundations and footings, and mobility of buried objects. 

Soils along the proposed pipeline route are poorly drained to very poorly drained in some 

locations as discussed in Section 3.2. Saturated soil conditions increase the risk of liquefaction. 

However, because soil liquefaction risk is closely related to seismic risk, which was previously described 

as low within the proposed Project area; we believe that the potential for soil liquefaction is similarly low. 

Further, the pipeline and associated facilities would be designed and constructed in accordance with the 

standards specified in 49 CFR Part 192, Minimum Federal Safety Standards for the Transportation of 

Natural and Other Gas by Pipeline, which should adequately address the low potential for soil 

liquefaction. Given the low seismic risk in the area and the methods that would be used to construct the 

proposed pipeline and associated facilities, we believe that soil liquefaction does not represent a 

significant risk to the stability or safety of the proposed Project. 

3.1.4.3 Slope Failures/Landslides 

Several factors contribute to slope failures and subsequent landslides including the degree of 

slope or tilt of geologic materials, the composition of the materials, the amount of man-made disturbance 

of the materials, proximity to seismic activity, and the amount of rainfall exposure. Generally, flat areas 

were selected for the location of the proposed compressor and meter station sites; therefore, slope failure 

is not expected at aboveground facility locations. However, slope failures and landslides represent a 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
3-8

potential hazard along portions of the proposed Project route that would traverse areas of side slopes and 

rolling terrain. Factors that would increase the potential for slope failures along slopes and rolling terrain 

include cutting along slopes, the weight of construction equipment, and unusually high precipitation. 

Past incidences of “high” landslide activity (greater than 15 percent of area involved in landslide 

processes) are located in areas between proposed MP 174.1 and 182.3 in Louisiana and between proposed 

MP 189.4 and 202.0 in Mississippi. Although the area in Louisiana exhibits past landslide activity, the 

area has eroded and is now mainly flat terrain with an overall low landslide potential. The location of 

high landslide activity in Mississippi coincides with upland terraces and loess deposits at elevations above 

the alluvial plain. 

Areas where susceptibility to future landslides was rated as high are located between proposed 

MP 162.5 and 174.2 in Louisiana and between proposed MP 182.3 and 185.9 in Mississippi. Areas 

where susceptibility to future landslides was rated as moderate are located in Hinds, Copiah, and Simpson 

Counties, Mississippi between proposed MP 201.9 and 238.2. 

Construction of the pipeline would be accomplished in accordance with Gulf South’s Plan, which 

includes measures to control runoff and erosion that would minimize the potential for slope failures. In 

addition, pre- and post-construction inspections would identify areas of risk, and continued monitoring 

along slopes would likely identify any significant landslide hazards before they develop. Gulf South 

would also implement specialized two-tone construction techniques as described in Section 2.3.2 to 

provide for safe working conditions in steeper areas potentially susceptible to slope failures. Based on the 

characteristics of the proposed Project area and Gulf South’s adherence to its identified construction and 

monitoring measures, we believe that potential impacts from slope failures and landslides would be 

prevented or effectively minimized. 

3.1.4.4 Ground Subsidence 

Ground subsidence is a lowering of the land-surface elevation that results from changes that take 

place underground. Common causes of land subsidence include dissolution of limestone in areas of karst 

terrain; collapse of underground mines; and pumping of water, oil, and gas from underground reservoirs. 

Gulf South identified two areas of karst terrain located along the proposed Project between MP 184.2 and 

184.4 in Warren County, Mississippi and MP 195.1 and 204.1 in Warren and Hinds Counties, 

Mississippi. These locations are located within either Vicksburg or Chickasawhay Limestone. These 

areas are not identified as occurring in areas where dissolution of limestone will occur and therefore likely 

would not contribute to an increased potential for ground subsidence. Gulf South has not identified any 

underground mines along the proposed pipeline route. 

As described in Section 3.1.2, the proposed Project would traverse areas in eastern Texas, western 

Louisiana, and Mississippi where oil and natural gas extraction is common. Extraction of oil and gas 

from sources underlying the proposed Project facilities has the potential to cause ground subsidence 

(USGS 2006b, USGS 2006c). Further, unconsolidated sediments, which are abundant in the Mississippi 

Embayment, are susceptible to compaction and subsidence. 

Ground subsidence can affect pipelines and aboveground facilities by causing a loss of support 

that would result in bending or rupture of pipelines and weaken the foundations of aboveground facilities. 

However, the proposed Project facilities would be designed and constructed to meet or exceed the federal 

safety standards set forth in 49 CFR Part 192, which should ensure integrity of the Project facilities and 

minimize the potential for any pipe failures due to ground subsidence. Additionally, Gulf South would 

conduct regular patrols of the pipeline right-of-way during operations to identify conditions, including 

any areas of ground subsidence that might affect the safety or operation of the pipeline. We believe that 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
3-9

use of the appropriate construction methods, as well as post-construction 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 proposed pipeline route. However, Gulf South has plans in place to 

address these issues should the need arise. Potential impacts to mineral sites and oil and gas-producing 

areas would be largely avoided due to routing and through negotiations with affected parties, as 

applicable. The largest potential for effects would be related to alteration of topography, especially in 

steep or moderately rugged terrain. These potential effects would be effectively mitigated through use of 

special construction techniques and restoration of contours. Geologic hazards, such as seismic activity 

and liquefaction would not likely cause a significant threat to construction or operation of the proposed 

facilities. The potential for other hazards, such as slope failure and subsidence, would be minimized 

through the use of special construction techniques, restoration, and post-construction monitoring. Given 

the resources, level of impacts, and impact avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures described 

above, we believe that the proposed Project would not have a significant impact on geological resources 

nor would there be more than a negligible risk to the proposed pipeline from geologic hazards. 

3.2 SOILS 

3.2.1 Existing Soils 

Numerous soil types and soil associations would be crossed by the proposed Project. These soil 

associations, along with a description of their major characteristics, are listed in Appendix C (Table C-1). 

Soils found at the location of the proposed aboveground facilities and their descriptions are listed in 

Appendix C (Table C-2). 

3.2.2 Major Soil Characteristics 

The characteristics of the various soil associations crossed by the proposed pipeline and located at 

the proposed aboveground facilities are identified in Appendix C and are discussed below. 

3.2.2.1 Erosion Potential 

Soils crossed by the proposed Project have severe, moderate and low erosion potentials. 

Specifically, a majority of the soils traversed by the proposed Project have low (85 percent) to moderate 

(10 percent) erosion potentials (see Appendix C). However, approximately 4 percent of the soils crossed 

by the proposed Project, located specifically between proposed MP 103.9 and 104.0; MP 149.4 and 

149.5; and in many areas between MP 186.0 and 196.2, have a severe erosion potential. The area 

occurring between MP 103.9 and 104.0 is located in Ouachita Parish, Louisiana and consists of terrace 

escarpments composed of the Ruston-Lucy-Alaga soil association. The soils found in the area between 

MP 149.4 and 149.5 in Madison Parish, Louisiana, consist of fluvial deposits composed of the DundeeSharkey-Tensas soil association. The area occurring between MP 186.0 and 196.2 is located in Warren 

County, Mississippi and consists of loess bluffs composed of the Memphis-Natchez-Collins soil 

association. 

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 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
3-10

high wetness. Differences in drainage classes are typically attributed to grain size and sorting. 

Well-sorted or coarse-grained soils have more pore space and are typically better drained. Poorly sorted 

or fine-grained soils have less pore space and are typically poorly drained. The NRCS recognizes seven 

classes of drainage: very poorly drained, poorly drained, somewhat poorly drained, moderately well 

drained, well drained, somewhat excessively drained, and excessively drained. 

No soils classified as very poorly drained would be crossed by the proposed pipeline. 

Approximately 55.0 miles of the soils that would be crossed by the proposed pipeline route are poorly 

drained and approximately 20.9 miles that would be crossed are somewhat poorly drained. These areas 

are scattered along most of the length of the proposed pipeline route.

3.2.2.3 Presence of Hydric Soils 

Hydric soils are defined as “soils that are formed under conditions of saturation, flooding or 

ponding long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions” (NRCS 2006d). Soils 

that formed under hydric conditions in their unaltered state are still considered hydric when artificially 

drained or altered for such purposes as agricultural use. Hydric soils are typically poorly drained, and the 

presence of hydric soils is one of the criteria used for defining wetlands (NRCS 2006d). Hydric soils may 

also be prone to compaction and rutting. About 32 percent of the soils that would be crossed by the 

proposed pipeline are classified as hydric (see Appendix C), with large amounts of hydric soils occurring 

along the proposed route in Richland and Madison Parishes, Louisiana. However, much of the land 

crossed by the proposed pipeline would be agricultural land or would be associated with floodplains that 

are now protected by levees. Consequently, some of the hydric soils crossed by the proposed pipeline 

route likely have been altered from their undisturbed state. 

3.2.2.4 Compaction Potential 

The compaction of soils results from the decreasing of pore space and water-retention capacity. 

Susceptibility of soils to compaction varies based on moisture content, composition, grain size, and 

density of the soil. Poorly drained and fine-grained silt and clay soils are the most likely soils to 

experience compaction. 

Severe compaction potential typically affects soils with clay loam or finer textures and somewhat 

poor to very poor drainage characteristics. Approximately 20 percent, or 48 miles, of the soil associations 

that would be traversed by the proposed pipeline are classified as having severe compaction potential (see 

Appendix C, Table C-1). Although areas susceptible to severe compaction potential are scattered along 

much of the proposed 42-inch-diameter pipeline route from MP 21.9 to 185.8, relatively large, contiguous 

areas occur in Madison Parish Louisiana from MP 149.3 to 183.2. Additionally, about 64 percent of the 

proposed 36-inch-diameter pipeline route in Panola County, Texas is subject to severe compaction 

potential. 

3.2.2.5 Revegetation Potential 

Revegetation potential is a rating of the ability of a soil to support revegetation efforts following 

construction-related disturbance. Gulf South evaluated the potential for revegetation of each soil 

association that would be affected by construction of the proposed pipeline by averaging the vegetation 

suitability for grain and seed crops, grasses and legumes, wild herbaceous plants, hardwood trees, and 

coniferous plants. Taking these factors into account, Gulf South identified four general classes of 

revegetation potential: good, fair, poor, and very poor. The revegetation potential of soils that would be 

affected by the proposed Project were classified as good (39 percent), fair (54 percent), poor (6 percent) 

and very poor (1 percent). 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
3-11

Approximately 8.8 miles of the soils that would be crossed by the 42-inch mainline pipeline 

between MP 96.2 and 193.6 and 0.9 mile of the soils that would be crossed by the 36-inch supply lateral 

pipeline between MP H1.5 and H3.0 were defined as having poor or very poor revegetation potential. 

3.2.3 Sensitive Soils 

3.2.3.1 Loess Soils 

Loess soils are composed of fine, tightly packed, wind-blown sediments, which 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. A deposit of loess soils (loess bluffs) occurs in Warren 

County, Mississippi between proposed MP 185.9 and 196.4. 

The loess soils found in Warren County, Mississippi are particularly sensitive due primarily to 

their severe erosion potential, but also because of associated or other soil limitations, characteristics, or 

designations occurring in the area including the presence of hydric soils, poor revegetation potential, 

moderately steep topography, compaction potential, and prime farmland. The majority of the 

construction area containing loess soils would be crossed using two-tone construction techniques as 

described in Section 2.3.2.5. In order to minimize impacts to loess soils, Gulf South developed in 

consultation with the NRCS a Loess Soil Management Plan (LSMP) that would specifically guide the 

construction through and restoration of loess soils. Specifically, the LSMP 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, along with use of a berm or 

other obstacle to prevent water from entering the open trench; 

• Use of both cool and warm season species for re-seeding, 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 Gulf South’s LSMP and its Plan as described below would effectively 

minimize impacts to loess soils. 

3.2.4 General Impacts and Mitigation 

Construction activities associated with the proposed Project, such as clearing, grading, trenching, 

backfilling, and restoration would affect the characteristics of each identified soil type and soil association 

as described below. Impacts to hydric soils are addressed along with wetlands in Section 3.4. 

With appropriate stabilization and revegetation, long-term or permanent impacts to soils would 

not occur during operation of the proposed Project except for loss of function under constructed 

impermeable structures such as buildings associated with compressor stations and M/R stations. 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
3-12

To minimize and mitigate impacts to soils as well as other resources, Gulf South developed its 

Plan which includes the following soils-related measures: 

• the deployment of at least one EI for each construction spread; the EI would have peer status 

with the other inspectors and would have the authority to stop activities that violate the 

environmental conditions of the FERC Certificate or other authorizations and order corrective 

action(s); 

• limiting Project-related ground disturbance to the construction right-of-way, additional 

temporary workspaces, pipe storage yards, borrow and disposal areas, access roads, and other 

areas approved in the Certificate; 

• minimizing the mixing of topsoil with subsoil by stripping topsoil from either the full work 

area or from the trench and subsoil storage area in actively cultivated or rotated croplands and 

pastures, residential areas, hayfields, wetlands and other areas at the landowner’s or land 

management agency’s request; 

• installing temporary erosion controls immediately after the initial disturbance of soil. Erosion 

controls would be properly maintained throughout construction and repaired within 24 hours, 

if found ineffective. Mulch, which can consist of straw, hay, or erosion control fabric, would 

be used to stabilize the soil surface; 

• installing sediment barriers (such as silt fences and/or staked hay or straw bales, or sand bags) 

at the base of slopes adjacent to road crossings, to prevent siltation into waterbodies or 

wetlands crossed by or near the construction work area. These barriers would remain in place 

until revegetation is successful; 

• testing topsoil and subsoil for compaction at regular intervals in areas disturbed by 

construction activities. If either the subsoil or topsoil is severely compacted, a paraplow or 

other deep tillage device would be used to break up the soils. In areas where the topsoil was 

segregated, the subsoil also would be plowed before replacing the segregated topsoil; 

• revegetating or stabilizing areas disturbed by Project-related activities in accordance with 

written recommendations from local soil conservation authorities or the request of the 

landowner or land management agency; and 

• confirming revegetation efforts through post-construction monitoring of all disturbed areas. 

3.2.4.1 Erosion 

Although the majority of soils that would be crossed by the proposed Project have a low erosion 

potential, the construction of the proposed Project would disturb soils and result in increased erosion. 

Additionally, erosion and the potential for erosion would significantly increase in areas of side slopes and 

rolling terrain found in Ouachita Parish, Louisiana and Warren, Hinds, and Simpson Counties, 

Mississippi. Soil erosion would impact a soils ability to maintain its structure and support vegetation 

which would affect several other resources including wildlife and land use. 

To minimize the impacts of soil erosion, Gulf South would implement several erosion control 

(e.g., slope breakers, silt fencing, and mulch) measures described in its Plan, which would control runoff 

and reduce the duration of soil disturbance. 

In addition to adhering to its Plan, Gulf South would develop and implement a Stormwater 

Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The SWPPP would incorporate the requirements for minimizing 

and mitigating upland erosion and revegetation described in its Plan, and would further detail the erosion 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
3-13

control structural best management practices, inspection procedures, and reporting protocols to be 

implemented during construction of the proposed Project. 

3.2.4.2 Compaction Potential 

Compaction damages the structure of a soil and restricts the transport of air and water to plant 

roots. As a result, soil productivity and plant growth rates may be reduced. In general, about 20 percent 

of the soils that would be crossed by the proposed pipeline are considered prone to compaction due to the 

prevalence of hydric soils and poor drainage. Use of the construction right-of-way, additional temporary 

workspaces, and access roads by heavy construction equipment would result in soil compaction. The 

degree of compaction would depend on the composition, grain size, density, and moisture content of the 

soils at the time of construction. 

As described in Gulf South’s Plan and Procedures, measures such as restricting vehicular traffic, 

reducing loads, employing lower ground-pressure equipment, and rescheduling certain activities may be 

used when soil moisture is high to avoid and minimize compaction and rutting. 

3.2.4.3 Revegetation Potential 

Because the majority of soils that would be disturbed during construction have fair to good 

revegetation potential, restoring vegetation in accordance with its Plan should not be of significant 

concern across most of the proposed pipeline route. However, about 7 percent of the soils that would be 

disturbed during construction are characterized as having poor or very poor revegetation potential. 

Revegetation is necessary for stabilization and restoration of the soils in the construction right-of-way, 

additional temporary workspaces, and areas adjacent to access roads. Revegetation potential may be 

inhibited by soil erosion; loss of soil productivity through soil compaction; damage to soil structure; loss 

of soil fertility; damage to drainage systems; and unsuitable seed selection, methods, or planting 

conditions. 

To avoid or minimize these conditions, and as described above and in Section 2.3.1, Gulf South 

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 de-compact soils and 

spread topsoil on the right-of-way during final cleanup, repair any damaged drainage systems, place soil 

nutrients and lime in upland areas, and seed all disturbed areas. Further, Gulf South has consulted with 

NRCS and various agencies regarding the appropriate seed mixtures for stabilization and permanent 

erosion control. We are recommending in Section 3.5 that Gulf South consult further with TPWD 

regarding seeding mixtures and revegetation in Panola County, Texas. 

Gulf South would be responsible for successful revegetation of all disturbed areas, and it would 

follow its Plan to ensure that all mitigation is sufficient. Gulf South 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 its 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 if there were excessive noxious weeds after two 

full growing seasons, a professional agronomist would determine the need for additional restoration 

measurements. In agricultural areas, revegetation would be considered successful if crop yields in areas 

affected by construction were similar to that in adjacent, undisturbed areas. 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
3-14

3.2.4.4 Accidental Releases or Discovery of Contaminants 

The accidental release of equipment-related fuels and/or fluids or other hazardous materials, as 

well as the discovery of contaminated soils during construction could result in additional impacts to soils. 

To minimize these impacts, Gulf South would implement its general Spill Prevention, Control, and 

Countermeasures (SPCC) Plan to prevent and contain, if necessary, accidental spills of any material that 

may contaminate soils, and to ensure that inadvertent spills of fuels, lubricants, or solvents are contained 

and cleaned up in an appropriate manner. This SPCC Plan has been prepared by Gulf South in 

compliance with Title 40 CFR, Part 112, which describes the management of hazardous materials, such as 

fuels, lubricants, and coolants, that would be used during construction. 

If contaminated soils were encountered during construction, Gulf South would implement 

procedures to identify and properly manage the contamination. Gulf South prepared its Plan for the 

Unanticipated Discovery of Contaminated Environmental Media which identifies the procedures that 

would be implemented during construction to identify, test, treat, and dispose of such materials in 

accordance with the appropriate state and federal regulations. 

3.2.4.5 Drainage Systems and Drainage Patterns 

Heavy equipment traffic and trenching along the construction right-of-way, as well as the 

removal of vegetation, could damage existing drainage systems or affect existing drainage patterns, 

thereby affecting farm management by causing wet, unworkable soil conditions. Future crop production 

would likely be reduced if such damage were not corrected. Gulf South indicates that no known drainage 

structures would be crossed by the proposed Project. However, Gulf South would continue to work with 

property owners to identify locations of existing drainage structures that could be damaged during 

construction. If active drainage tiles, culverts, or other drainage facilities were damaged during 

construction, Gulf South would replace or repair them to a condition that is equal to or better than their 

preconstruction condition. Additionally, Gulf South would be responsible for ensuring that all areas 

affected by construction activities were 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 Gulf South would avoid or minimize any 

long-term impacts. 

3.2.5 Prime Farmland 

The NRCS defines prime farmland as “land that has the best combination of physical and 

chemical characteristics for producing food, feed, forage, fiber, and oilseed crops and that is available for 

these uses” (NRCS 2006e). Soils classified as prime farmland have few or no rocks, a dependable water 

supply, and a favorable growing season; they are not saturated for long periods, typically do not flood 

during the growing season, and are permeable to air and water. Prime farmland is an important resource 

because it provides the highest crop yield per unit of energy expended. The NRCS determines the prime 

farmland status of all soil associations that have been surveyed; therefore, this information is available 

directly from the soil survey databases. Approximately 65 percent of the soils that would be affected by 

the proposed pipeline and additional temporary workspaces are classified as prime farmland. Designated 

prime farmland is scattered along virtually the entire proposed route, but over 30 miles of prime farmland 

would be crossed in each of three parishes/counties: Richland and Madison Parishes, Louisiana, and 

Hinds County, Mississippi. 

Gulf South would implement the measures included in its Plan to minimize and mitigate any 

impacts to prime farmland soils. Virtually all impacts to prime farmland soils resulting from construction 

and operation of the proposed pipeline would be temporary because the proposed pipeline would be 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
3-15

buried, and disturbed areas within the construction and permanent rights-of-way would largely revert to 

their preconstruction uses following restoration. However, the footprint of aboveground facilities would 

permanently affect some prime farmlands. Operation of the Tallulah Compressor Station would affect 

about 10 acres of prime farmland. In addition, designated prime farmland located at the Columbia Gulf, 

Texas Eastern, Enbridge, and Enterprise M/R Stations, as well as at various valves and other minor 

facilities, would be lost as these areas would be converted to an industrial/commercial land use. 

Farmland Conversion Impact Rating documentation would not be required for the proposed 

Project since it would not be completed by or with assistance from a federal agency, as specified by the 

Farmland Protection Policy Act. Given the prevalence of prime farmland soils within the affected 

counties and parishes, the permanent impacts to prime farmland soils associated with construction and 

operation of the proposed Project aboveground facilities would be less than significant. 

3.2.6 Conclusion 

Construction of the proposed Project would result in several effects to soils. However, Gulf 

South would be required to control erosion, test and mitigate for compacted soils, protect topsoil, repair 

any damaged drainage systems, and revegetate disturbed areas. Further, Gulf South would implement its 

SPCC Plan and manage contaminated soils should they be encountered. Although a small amount of 

prime farmland would be permanently affected at the proposed aboveground facilities, these impacts 

would be minor overall and potential impacts to prime farmland along the proposed pipeline route would 

be minor and temporary. Given the impact minimization and mitigation measures described above, we 

believe that soils would not be significantly affected by construction and operation of the proposed 

Project. 

3.3 WATER RESOURCES 

3.3.1 Groundwater 

3.3.1.1 Existing Groundwater Resources 

Along the proposed Project route, groundwater is a significant source of drinking water in 

selected areas and is used for irrigation, aquaculture, and industrial purposes. Although depth to 

groundwater is variable along the proposed pipeline route, groundwater is often found at or near the 

ground surface and the proposed Project would encounter groundwater during construction activities. 

Major aquifers underlying the proposed Project include the Carrizo-Wilcox, Red River Alluvial, 

Sparta, Cockfield, Mississippi River Alluvial, and the Coastal Lowlands aquifers. Although all of these 

aquifers are utilized, the aquifers contributing major drinking water supplies in the proposed Project area 

are the Sparta and Coastal Lowlands Aquifers, and to a much smaller extent, the Carrizo-Wilcox, 

Cockfield, and Mississippi River Alluvial Aquifers (Southern Regional Water Program 2006a). 

Additional information on these aquifers as well as sole-source aquifers, wellhead protection areas, wells, 

springs, and contaminated groundwater is presented below. 

Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifer 

The portion of the proposed Project route traversing Panola County in Texas and DeSoto, Red 

River, Caddo, and Bienville Parishes in Louisiana is underlain by the Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifer. Well 

yields typically are restricted in this aquifer due to relatively thin water-bearing sand beds. The maximum 

depths to groundwater range from 200 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) to 1,100 feet below mean sea 

level (BMSL). The aquifer is considered to be of good quality, and approximately 14.6 million gallons 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
3-16

per day (mgd) of water are withdrawn for public supply, rural, domestic, and general irrigation uses 

(LDEQ 2003, Sargent 2002). 

Red River Alluvial Aquifer 

The portion of the proposed Project route traversing DeSoto and Red River Parishes in Louisiana 

is underlain by the Red River Alluvial Aquifer. The Red River Aquifer is hydraulically related to the Red 

River and its major tributaries. Groundwater for this aquifer is typically encountered within 30 to 40 feet 

of the ground surface. Approximately 7.5 mgd are withdrawn from this aquifer (Sargent 2002) for 

irrigation and aquaculture uses. Water from this aquifer is not used as a drinking water supply source due 

to poor quality in relation to taste, odor, and appearance. 

Sparta Aquifer 

The portion of the proposed Project route traversing Bienville, Ouachita, and Jackson Parishes in 

Louisiana is underlain by the Sparta Aquifer. This aquifer receives inflow from the Carrizo-Wilcox and 

Cockfield Aquifers, as well as from overlying terrace and alluvial deposits. The maximum depths to 

groundwater range from 200 feet AMSL to 1,700 feet BMSL. This aquifer is considered to be of fair to 

good quality, and approximately 68.3 mgd are withdrawn for public water supply and industrial uses 

(LDEQ 2003, Sargent 2002). 

Cockfield Aquifer 

The portion of the proposed Project route traversing Jackson, Ouachita, and Richland Parishes in 

Louisiana is underlain by the Cockfield Aquifer. This aquifer is recharged by direct infiltration, 

movement through alluvial and terrace deposits, and by upward movement from the Sparta Aquifer. The 

maximum depths to groundwater range from 200 feet AMSL to 2,150 feet BMSL. This aquifer is 

considered to be of fair quality and approximately 7.4 mgd are withdrawn for public water supply use 

(LDEQ 2003, Sargent 2002). 

Mississippi River Alluvial Aquifer 

The portion of the proposed Project route traversing Ouachita, Richland, and Madison Parishes in 

Louisiana is underlain by the Mississippi River Alluvial Aquifer. The Mississippi River Alluvial Aquifer 

is hydraulically related to the Mississippi River and its major tributaries; it is recharged by infiltration of 

rainfall through the overlying silt and clay layers, lateral and upward movement of water from adjacent 

and underlying aquifers, and overbank stream flooding. Groundwater typically is encountered within 30 

to 40 feet of the ground surface. The quality of water from this aquifer is considered relatively poor due 

to the presence of arsenic and poor taste and odor qualities, but approximately 353.6 mgd are withdrawn 

for irrigation and industrial uses (LDEQ 2003, Sargent 2002). 

Coastal Lowlands Aquifer 

The portion of the proposed Project route traversing Warren, Hinds, Copiah, and Simpson 

Counties in Mississippi, in addition to Gulf South’s existing McComb Compressor Station in Walthall 

County, Mississippi, is underlain by the Coastal Lowlands Aquifer. This aquifer system merges with the 

Mississippi River Alluvial Aquifer near the proposed Project area in Copiah and Simpson Counties; 

however, the Vicksburg-Jackson geologic confining unit separates the two aquifer systems. The Coastal 

Lowlands Aquifer system is a gulfward-thickening, heterogeneous, unconsolidated wedge of 

discontinuous beds of sand, silt and clay (USGS 2006d). The Coastal Lowlands Aquifer system is 

hydraulically related to the Mississippi, Pearl and Red Rivers, and is recharged by precipitation. The 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
3-17

aquifer is divided into five permeable zones and its yield is utilized for agricultural, public supply, 

commercial, and industrial uses. The majority of groundwater withdrawals from the Coastal Lowlands 

Aquifer occur in Louisiana near New Orleans, Baton Rouge, and the southwestern portion of the State. 

Sole-source Aquifers 

Sole-source or principal-source aquifers are defined by the EPA as those that supply a minimum 

of 50 percent of the drinking water used in the area overlying the aquifer. The areas served by these 

aquifers may not have readily available alternate water sources. The Southern Hills Aquifer in 

Mississippi is the only sole-source aquifer located in the proposed Project (EPA 2006) area. This aquifer 

is part of the larger Coastal Lowlands Aquifer and is comprised of a collection of smaller aquifers such as 

the Chicot equivalent, Evangeline equivalent, Jasper equivalent, and Catahoula equivalent. The Southern 

Hills Aquifer extends from north-central Mississippi to coastal areas of Mississippi and Louisiana and 

intersects the proposed Project right-of-way between in the general area between MP 183 through 193 

and MP 205 through 233. The Southern Hills regional aquifer system is the primary source of public and 

domestic water supplies in 10 parishes of southeastern Louisiana and areas of southwestern Mississippi, 

serving over 1,000,000 persons. 

Aquifer Protection Programs 

Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi have state or regional aquifer protection programs in place. The 

State of Texas has instituted Groundwater Conservation Districts; Louisiana has designated “areas of 

ground water concern” based upon water quantity levels, and the State of Mississippi participates in the 

Mississippi, Arkansas, and Tennessee Regional Aquifer Study (MATRAS) to develop groundwater rules, 

regulations, and/or conservation programs for their respective states. The proposed Project would not 

cross any aquifers protected by either the Texas or Mississippi programs; however, the proposed Project 

would cross one aquifer in Louisiana, the Sparta aquifer (described above) which has “areas of 

groundwater concern.” Specifically, the State of Louisiana has designated the Jonesboro-Hodge area as 

an area of groundwater concern. However, proposed activities in this area would involve relatively 

shallow trenching and construction disturbance that would not contact the deeper aquifer. 

Wellhead Protection Areas 

Gulf South consulted with Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), Louisiana 

Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ), and MDEQ regarding the location of wellhead protection 

areas, which are designated to protect the drinking water supplies obtained from municipal or community 

wells. The TCEQ did not identify any wellhead protection areas, the LDEQ identified 12 wellhead 

protection areas, and the MDEQ identified one wellhead protection area located within the proposed 

pipeline construction right-of-way. The locations of the wellhead protection areas crossed by the 

proposed Project are listed in Table 3.3.1-1. 

Wells and Springs 

Based on consultation with the TCEQ, Louisiana Department of Transportation (LDOT), and 

MDEQ, Gulf South has identified 24 wells located within 150 feet of the proposed construction right-ofway and aboveground facility boundaries. The identified wells included two industrial wells, four 

irrigation wells, five observation wells, four domestic water supply wells, four public domestic water 

supply wells, one rig supply well, and four wells that have been plugged and abandoned. These wells and 

their location relative to the proposed Project are listed in Table 3.3.1-2. 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
3-18

TABLE 3.3.1-1 

Drinking Water Wellhead Protection Areas Crossed by the Proposed 

East Texas to Mississippi Expansion Project 

Identifier County/Parish Begin Milepost End Milepost 

LA1081009 Bienville, LA 39.9 41.0 

LA1013006 Bienville, LA 43.3 45.2 

LA1049001 Jackson, LA 70.5 72.4 

LA1049012 Jackson, LA 71.5 73.7 

LA1049017 Jackson, LA 72.0 73.7 

LA1049008 Jackson, LA 72.1 73.5 

LA1049006 Jackson, LA 72.4 73.7 

LA1049026 Jackson, LA 82.0 83.7 

LA1049024 Jackson, LA 87.6 87.2 

LA1049004 Jackson, LA 88.5 90.8 

LA1073047 Ouachita, LA 101.7 103.6 

LA1021004 Ouachita, LA 110.2 112.4 

MS61004003 Simpson, MS 235.2 236.1 

TABLE 3.3.1-2 

Wells Located within 150 Feet of the Proposed East Texas 

to Mississippi Expansion Projecta

Well Type County/Parish 

Approximate 

Milepost 

Approximate 

Well Depth (feet) 

Approximate 

Distance from 

Centerline (feet) 

Approximate 

Distance 

from 

Construction 

Work Area 

(feet) 

Domestic DeSoto, LA 1.9 110 185 135 

Domestic DeSoto, LA 6.6 320 169 119 

Plugged and 

abandoned 

DeSoto, LA 7.4 270 160 70 

Domestic DeSoto, LA 11.2 285 161 110 

Public 

domestic 

Red River, LA 26.8 25 271 61 

Public 

domestic 

Red River, LA 26.8 25 272 62 

Plugged and 

abandoned 

Red River, LA 26.8 25 270 60 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
3-19

TABLE 3.3.1-2 (continued) 

Wells Located within 150 Feet of the Proposed East Texas 

to Mississippi Expansion Projecta

Well Type County/Parish 

Approximate 

Milepost 

Approximate 

Well Depth (feet) 

Approximate 

Distance from 

Centerline (feet) 

Approximate 

Distance 

from 

Construction 

Work Area 

(feet) 

Rig supply Bienville, LA 54.9 160 10 0 

Public 

observation 

Bienville, LA 62.6 348 100 50 

Plugged and 

abandoned 

Bienville, LA 63.2 376 110 55 

Industrial Bienville, LA 63.6 410 183 130 

Plugged and 

abandoned 

Bienville, LA 63.9 410 200 144 

Observation Bienville, LA 64.5 336 200 135 

Observation Bienville, LA 67.0 482 26 0 

Observation Bienville, LA 67.0 488 26 0 

Industrial Bienville, LA 67.0 490 82 48 

Observation Jackson, LA 78.2 629 70 17 

Irrigation Richland, LA 120.3 100 540 130 

Private 

irrigation 

Richland, LA 124.2 70 141 91 

Private 

irrigation 

Richland, LA 149.1 100 5 0 

Irrigation Richland, LA 150.5 629 20 0 

Private 

domestic 

Hinds, MS 199.4 29.0 191 141 

Public 

domestic 

Hinds, MS 207.2 228.0 132 82 

Public 

domestic 

Hinds, MS 226.7 570.0 21 0 

_______________ 

Notes: 

a

 Actual well locations may vary by as much as 100 feet due to the level of accuracy associated with well coordinate data. Gulf

South would confirm the actual location of the wells prior to construction. 

Because the locations of wells listed in the agencies’ databases are not exact, Gulf South would 

confirm their actual location in the field prior to construction. Based on agency consultations and field 

surveys conducted by Gulf South, no springs have been identified within 150 feet of the proposed 

construction right-of-way and aboveground facility boundaries. 

Contaminated Groundwater 

Based on agency consultations and a review of databases, Gulf South has identified 18 sites with 

potential contaminated groundwater within a 0.25-mile radius of the proposed Project facilities. These 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
3-20

sites are identified and described in Table 3.3.1-3. Many of these sites are associated with underground 

storage tanks or have been subject to previous regulatory action. 

TABLE 3.3.1-3 

Potentially Contaminated Groundwater Sites Located within 0.25 Mile 

of the Proposed East Texas to Mississippi 

Expansion Project Centerline 

Milepost County/Parish Name Type Distance/ Direction Location 

38.6 Bienville, LA Madden Contracting 

Co. Inc. 

Mines Less than 0.25 mile 

(~360 feet) north of 

centerline 

Address unknown. On 

centerline just north of 

Layfield Road 

70.0 Bienville, LA Brewton Chipmill, Inc. FINDS Less than 0.25 mile 

(~300 feet) south of 

centerline 

Brewton Chipmill, Inc., 

420 Arcadia Highway 

Jonesboro, LA 71251 

State Highway 147, near 

Jackson Parish 

111.2 Ouachita, LA K.K. Anderson UST Less than 0.25 mile 

(~925 feet) from 

centerline 

810 Mansfield Road, 

Monroe, LA 71202 

111.7 Ouachita, LA Ke-Ro Mini Mart UST Less than 0.25 mile 

(~330 feet) from 

centerline 

5200 Hwy 165 South, 

Monroe, LA 71202. 

East of River near Hwy 

165 

125.1 Richland, LA Bend of the River UST Less than 0.25 mile 

(~800 feet) from 

centerline on State 

Highway 135 

Hwy 15 Alto, LA 71216 

143.6 Richland, LA Stratus Corp FINDS Less than 0.25 mile 

(~800 feet) from 

centerline 

Near intersection of 

Cooper Road and Cook 

Rd 

181.4 Madison, MS Interstate Stations # 7 UST Less than 0.25 mile 

(~925 feet) north of 

centerline 

I-20 Delta exit, Delta, LA 

71233 

184.8 Warren, MS Baxter Wilson Steam 

Electric Station 

UST Less than 0.25 mile 

(~1,060 feet) north of 

centerline 

Highway 61 South, 

Vicksburg, MS 39810 

184.8 Warren, MS Mississippi State 

Highway Department 

UST Less than 0.25 mile 

(~1,060 feet) north of 

centerline 

Highway 80, Vicksburg, 

MS 39180 

184.8 Warren, MS Baxter Wilson Steam 

Electric Station 

ERNS Less than 0.25 mile 

(~1,060 feet) north 

of the centerline 

770 Kemp Bottom Road, 

Vicksburg, MS 39180 

184.8 Warren, MS Warren Power LLC 

Warren 184.2 

Peaking 

FINDS Less than 0.25 mile 

(~1,060 feet) north of 

centerline 

770 Kemp Bottom Road, 

Vicksburg, MS 39180 

184.8 Warren, MS Entergy RCRA/ 

FINDS/ 

CERC 

Less than 0.25 mile 

(~1,060 feet) north of 

centerline 

770 Kemp Bottom Road, 

Vicksburg, MS 39180 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
3-21

TABLE 3.3.1-3 (continued) 

Potential Contaminated Groundwater Sites Located within 0.25 Mile 

of the Proposed East Texas to Mississippi 

Expansion Project Centerline 

Milepost County/Parish Name Type Distance/ Direction Location 

185.3 Warren, MS Mid Continent Marine 

Terminal 

FINDS Less than 0.25 mile 

(~330 feet) north of 

centerline 

4106 Warrenton Road, 

Vicksburg, MS 39180 

185.3 Warren, MS Corp Headquarters 

(Former) 

UST Less than 0.25 mile 

(~330 feet) north of 

centerline 

4111 Warrenton Road, 

Vicksburg, MS 39180 

185.3 Warren, MS Vicksburg Terminal FINDS Less than 0.25 mile 

(~330 feet) north of 

centerline 

4212 Warrenton Road, 

Vicksburg, MS 39180 

185.3 Warren, MS Jett Elementary 

School 

LUST/ 

UST 

Less than 0.25 mile 

(~330 feet) north of 

centerline 

4212 Warrenton Road, 

Vicksburg, MS 39180 

186.8 Warren, MS Dana Road 

Elementary 

FINDS 0.25 mile (~330 feet) 

north of centerline 

1247 Dana Road, 

Vicksburg, MS 39180 

186.8 Warren, MS Vicksburg 

Intermediate 

FINDS 0.25 mile (~330 feet) 

north of centerline 

1245 Dana Road, 

Vicksburg, MS 39180 

_______________ 

Notes: 

FINDS = Facility Index System (permit compliance) 

ERNS = Emergency Response Notification System 

LUST = Leaking Underground Storage Tank 

NPDES = National Pollution Discharge Elimination System 

RCRA = Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 

SHWS = Inactive Hazardous Sites Inventory 

UST = Underground Storage Tank 

3.3.1.2 General Impacts and Mitigation 

In general, the potential for temporary and permanent impacts to groundwater resulting from 

construction and operation of the proposed Project depends upon whether the proposed Project facilities 

would cause localized changes to existing groundwater flow paths. Most aquifers underlying the 

proposed Project area would not be impacted due to their depth and the generally shallow nature of 

trenching and disturbance. The proposed Project generally would not affect changes in the overall 

quantity of groundwater, which is determined by the quantity of recharge to the aquifer, except to the 

extent that clearing of vegetation reduces evapotranspiration (movement of water from soil to air through 

vegetation) and pipeline trenching increases the potential for infiltration of rainfall in specific locations. 

In porous soils, an open trench could provide a more direct pathway for infiltration compared to 

undisturbed land. Increased infiltration and reduced evapotranspiration could result in increased recharge 

to groundwater, thus increasing groundwater storage. However, given the localized nature of the pipeline 

trench relative to the surrounding area, such increased recharge would likely not be significant and may 

even be offset given the increased potential for runoff from cleared areas. Soil compaction could also 

increase runoff and affect groundwater recharge. 

Backfill placed within the pipeline trench would typically be somewhat more permeable than the 

surrounding soil and rock units; consequently, the trench would act as a preferential pathway for 

groundwater flow in areas where it intersects the water table. Thus, the pipeline trench would potentially 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
3-22

alter the existing groundwater flow patterns within shallow saturated zones. However, this alteration 

would not be significant overall. 

Permanent impacts to groundwater recharge could also occur from development of impervious 

surfaces and structures at the proposed aboveground facility sites. However, these impacts would likely 

be minor considering the relatively small area of the aboveground facility structures relative to the total 

potential recharge area. 

Excavation of the pipeline trench could also alter the quantity and quality of groundwater that 

flows to specific points of discharge, such as a well or spring, by altering groundwater flow paths. 

Altered groundwater flow paths, in turn, could result in changes to the quality of groundwater at specific 

locations. Temporary impacts to groundwater flow paths would most likely be in the shallow aquifers, 

such as the Red River Alluvial and Mississippi River Alluvial Aquifers, but would not likely be 

permanent after construction and restoration. All wells except one identified as being located within 

0.25 mile of the proposed Project are screened deeper than 60 feet and many are much deeper. Given the 

depths of these wells, impacts resulting from the proposed construction activity would be unlikely. 

Dewatering of the pipeline trench during construction would be necessary where shallow 

groundwater is encountered. Dewatering would temporarily depress groundwater levels in the immediate 

vicinity of the trench. However, because trenching typically proceeds at a relatively rapid rate, the 

depression of the water table around the trench would be expected to recover rapidly once the trench is 

backfilled. Therefore, dewatering would temporarily affect flow patterns in nearby springs and shallow 

wells if present, but such impacts would likely be minor and brief. 

Accidental spills and leaks of hazardous materials could impact groundwater resources through 

introduction of contaminants, especially in highly permeable areas near wells. Gulf South would 

implement the spill prevention and control measures included in its Procedures to minimize these 

impacts. Additionally, Gulf South developed a Project-specific SPCC Plan, which describes management 

of the hazardous materials, such as fuels, lubricants, and coolants, that would be used during construction. 

Given the adoption of the measures in its Procedures and Gulf South’s implementation of an SPCC Plan, 

the risk of accidental spills or other introductions of hazardous materials to groundwater would be 

effectively minimized. 

Gulf South indicates that it does not anticipate encountering any contaminated groundwater 

plumes during construction or operation of the proposed Project. If contaminated groundwater was 

encountered, construction activities could cause it to be dispersed to other groundwater resources, surface 

water resources, or adjacent land. In the event that hazardous materials were discovered during 

construction of the proposed Project, Gulf South would stop work, notify the appropriate state and federal 

agencies, and proceed in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations. Additionally, Gulf South 

would follow the procedures outlined its Plan for the Unanticipated Discovery of Contaminated 

Environmental Media to ensure that any hazardous materials encountered during construction are 

properly identified, tested, and disposed of in accordance with the appropriate state and federal 

regulations. We have reviewed this plan and find it acceptable. 

In order to minimize potential impacts to groundwater, Gulf South would implement the 

measures identified in its Plan, which include: 

• testing and, as applicable, mitigation for compacted soils (see Section 3.2 for additional 

discussion); 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
3-23

• install trench breakers at specified intervals to reduce the potential for the trench to act as a 

preferential groundwater flow path. Trench breakers would reduce the ability of the trench to 

convey groundwater, and no long-term impacts to the water table or groundwater migration 

patterns would be anticipated as a result of the proposed Project; 

• measures to reduce the impacts resulting from trench dewatering including discharging the 

pumped water to well vegetated areas or properly constructed temporary retention structures 

that would promote infiltration and minimize or eliminate runoff; and 

• installation of trench plugs to prevent parallel flow in the trenches. 

Based on the anticipated impacts to groundwater, Gulf South’s stated construction methods, and 

the implementation of its Plan, we believe that construction and operation of the proposed Project would 

not change regional flow paths, groundwater recharge or discharge conditions, or groundwater quality. 

These features are largely determined by larger-scale geologic features that form the hydrogeologic 

setting and deeper aquifers are overlain by other aquifers with separating layers would not be directly 

affected because their upper margin would be located well below the depth of the pipeline trench. We 

also believe that construction and operation of the proposed Project would not significantly affect 

groundwater through accidental spills or unanticipated contact with contaminated sites, given Gulf 

South’s adherence to its Plan and Project-specific SPCC Plan. 

3.3.1.3 Site-specific Impacts and Mitigation 

The route of the proposed Project would cross the Southern Hills Aquifer, a designated solesource aquifer, for approximately 37.3 miles between MP 183.1 to 192.6 and MP 205.3 to 233.1. 

However, the relatively deep aquifer system would not be directly affected by trenching and construction 

activities because its upper margin would be located well below the 7-foot depth of the pipeline trench. 

Additionally, potential impacts to this aquifer or other groundwater sources are expected to be minimal 

due to the limited area used for pipeline construction and implementation of mitigation protocols in 

concert with Gulf South’s SPCC Plan, Plan and Procedures. No other regional or state-protected aquifers, 

including the Jonesboro-Hodge designated area within the Sparta aquifer in Louisiana, would be disturbed 

or affected by the proposed Project given their absence from the proposed Project area or their depth 

relative to construction activity. 

Wellhead protection areas were identified in multiple areas within and along the proposed 

pipeline route, as identified in Table 3.3.1-1. These areas would potentially be affected by the general 

impacts described above, thereby possibly impacting public water supplies through impaired quality, 

decreased yield, or other disruptions of service. However, potential impacts to wellhead protection areas 

would likely be avoided or minimized by the measures described above to prevent impacts to 

groundwater resources. 

In order to mitigate for potential effects to wells, at the request of the landowner Gulf South 

would test the wells of landowners located in close proximity to construction of the proposed Project. 

The scope of the requested pre- or post-construction monitoring would be negotiated on an individual 

basis with the landowners. Several private wells, including wells used for domestic supply, are located 

within 150 feet of the proposed route (see Table 3.3.1-2) and would be subject to potential impacts. To 

ensure that these resources are adequately protected, we recommend that:

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

approval by the Director of OEP, a final well monitoring and mitigation plan that 

describes standard testing procedures, and the measures that would be taken should a 

well be impacted such that it is no longer operable or that it becomes impaired. Gulf 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
3-24

South should also file a report with the Secretary, within 30 days of placing its pipeline 

facilities in service, identifying all private or domestic water wells or systems damaged 

by construction and describing how they were repaired. The report should include a 

discussion of any complaints concerning well yield or quality and how each problem 

was resolved. 

3.3.1.4 Conclusion Regarding Groundwater Resources 

Aquifers typically would not be impacted by the proposed Project given their depth and the 

relatively shallow nature of construction activity. Impacts to more shallow aquifers and groundwater 

resources would be adequately avoided or minimized through Gulf South’s implementation of its Plan 

and Procedures, Project-specific plans, and our recommendation. Given these measures, we believe that 

construction and operation of the proposed Project would not significantly affect groundwater resources. 

3.3.2 Surface Water Resources 

3.3.2.1 Existing Surface Water Resources 

Waterbody Crossings 

Approximately 885 waterbodies would be crossed by construction and operation of the proposed 

pipeline and an additional four waterbodies would be crossed by access roads. Specifically, the proposed 

Project would cross 200 perennial streams, 682 intermittent streams, and 7 ponds. A table identifying 

these waterbodies, as well as their widths, locations along the proposed Project route, state waterbody 

classifications, and proposed crossing methods, is included as Appendix D of this EIS. 

As identified in Appendix D, each affected surface waterbody has been assigned a designated use, 

which characterizes the best intended uses of that waterbody. Designated uses for waterbodies in Texas 

include aquatic life, recreation, general, fish consumption, public water supply, and oyster waters. 

Designated uses for waterbodies in Louisiana include primary contact recreation (swimming), secondary 

contact recreation (boating), fish and wildlife propagation, drinking water supply, oyster propagation, 

agriculture, and outstanding natural resource waters. The designated uses for waterbodies in Mississippi 

include fish and wildlife, public water supply, recreation, public water supply and recreation, shellfish 

harvesting, recreation and shellfish harvesting, and ephemeral (suitable for secondary contact recreation, 

fish and wildlife, and recreation). 

Construction and operation of the proposed Project would require the crossing of five 

waterbodies in Texas, all of which are designated for aquatic life. In Louisiana, 627 waterbodies would 

be crossed, all of which have designated uses of primary contact recreation, secondary contact recreation, 

and fish and wildlife propagation. In addition to this basic suite of designated uses, several waterbodies 

have additional classifications. These include: 

• Bayou Pierre located near MP 22.2 (agriculture); 

• Red River near MP 27.0 (agriculture); 

• Loggy Bayou located near MP 29.7 (agriculture); 

• Black Lake Bayou located near MP 42.4 (agriculture and outstanding natural resource 

waters); and 

• Saline Bayou located near MP 57.1 (agriculture and outstanding natural resource waters). 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
3-25

In Mississippi, the construction and operation of the proposed Project would require the crossing 

of 257 waterbodies. All 257 waterbodies have designated uses of fish and wildlife, public water supply, 

and recreation. 

No waterbodies occur at the proposed aboveground facility sites or pipe storage and contractor 

yards, but several additional temporary workspaces would be located within 50 feet of waterbodies 

(Appendix E-2). Construction of the proposed pipeline would require the temporary use of new and/or 

improved access roads (see Section 3.8 for additional discussion of access road requirements). Gulf 

South proposes to use a temporary bridge to cross Cowpen Bayou (MP 23.6) to access an HDD 

workspace area. Gulf South also proposes to install culverts across waterbodies at MPs 112.2, 185.5, and 

219.7 in order to construct access roads. Potential impacts to these waterbodies would be minimized with 

implementation of Gulf South’s Procedures and mitigation would be provided as part of the COE permit 

for the proposed Project. 

Major and Navigable Waters 

The major waterbodies (greater than 100-feet-wide) and navigable waterbodies as defined by 

33 CFR Part 329 that would be crossed by the proposed Project are listed in Table 3.3.2-1. The proposed 

Project would cross 22 major waterbodies and 15 navigable waterbodies. 

Sensitive Waterbodies 

Sensitive waterbodies include those streams designated as one or more of the following: having 

special status by federal or state resource agencies, providing habitats for threatened and endangered 

species, having potable water intakes within 3 miles downstream of the proposed pipeline crossing, or not 

attaining specified water quality uses. No state or locally designated surface water protection areas or 

surface water intakes located within 3 miles downstream of the proposed Project waterbody crossings 

would be affected by the proposed Project. 

Two streams, Black Lake Bayou (MP 42.3) and Saline Bayou (MP 57.0), have been designated as 

Louisiana Natural and Scenic Rivers, pursuant to the Louisiana Scenic Rivers Act. These streams are 

recognized as having unique and diverse characteristics, and are protected through management by 

LDWF (LDWF 2006c). 

The Big Black River (MP 196.7) and the Pearl River (MP 232.2) in Mississippi are designated by 

the National Park Service (NPS) as being listed on the Nationwide Rivers Inventory (NRI). Streams 

included in the NRI are considered to possess “outstandingly remarkable natural or cultural values judged 

to be of more than local or regional significance” (NPS 2006a). The NPS (2006b) described the 

designated Big Black River as an unaltered stream in a bottomland hardwood setting and the Pearl River 

as a scenic example of a large Gulf Coast river with adjacent swampland. 

The federally endangered pallid sturgeon inhabits the Mississippi River and Red River. The 

federally threatened Gulf sturgeon inhabits the Pearl River, which is also designated as critical habitat for 

the species. The MDWFP and Mississippi Museum of Natural Science identified the Big Black River, 

Baker’s Creek (MP 203.8), Turkey Creek (MP 208.0), Fourteenmile Creek (MP 211.4), Tallahalla Creek 

(217.2), and the Pearl River as waterbodies containing rare aquatic species. Additional discussion of 

endangered, threatened, and special-status species and their habitats is provided in Section 3.7. 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
3-26

TABLE 3.3.2-1 

Major and Navigable Waterbodies That Would Be Crossed by the 

Proposed East Texas to Mississippi Expansion Project 

Waterbody County/Parish 

Length of 

Crossing 

(feet) 

Major 

Waterbody 

Navigable 

Waterbody 

Proposed 

Crossing 

Method 

Unnamed pond DeSoto, LA 114 X Open-cut 

Bayou Pierre DeSoto, LA 88 X HDD 

Cowpen Bayou Red River, LA 111 X HDD 

Ash Bayou Red River, LA 150 X HDD 

Red River Red River, LA 716 X X HDD 

Loggy Bayou Red River, LA 200 X X HDD 

Grand Bayou Tributary Bienville, LA 115 X Open-cut 

Black Lake Bayou Bienville, LA 103 X X HDD 

Saline Bayou Bienville, LA 58 X HDD 

Coulee Creek Jackson, LA 112 X Open-cut 

Coulee Creek Jackson, LA 123 X Open-cut 

Dugdemona River Jackson, LA 54 X HDD 

Castor Creek Jackson, LA 34 X HDD 

Castor Creek Tributary Jackson, LA 108 X Open-cut 

Ouachita River Ouachita, LA 746 X X HDD 

Bayou Lafourche Richland, LA 262 X X HDD 

Boeuf River Richland, LA 140 X X HDD 

Bayou Macon Richland, LA 163 X X HDD 

Tensas River Madison, LA 90 X HDD 

Despair Lake Madison, LA 181 X HDD 

Mothiglam Bayou Madison, LA 169 X HDD 

Walnut Bayou Madison, LA 336 X HDD 

Walnut Bayou Madison, LA 197 X HDD 

Mississippi River Madison, LA 4,182 X X HDD 

Big Black River Warren, MS 193 X X HDD 

Pearl River Simpson, MS 238 X X HDD 

Hoggs Bayou Panola, TX 137 X Open-cut 

The proposed Project would cross six waterbodies in Louisiana and four waterbodies in 

Mississippi that are listed as impaired waterbodies by each state’s respective 303(d) lists (Table 3.3.2-2). 

No impaired waterbodies in Texas were found along the Project route. The location of these waterbodies 

and causes of impairment are listed in Table 3.3.2-2. Contaminated sediments are not known to occur 

along the proposed Project route. 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
3-27

TABLE 3.3.2-2 

Impaired Waterbodies 1 Crossed by the Proposed East Texas 

to Mississippi Expansion Project 

Waterbody County/Parish Pollutant Cause 

Bayou Pierre DeSoto / Red River, LA Organic enrichment/low dissolved oxygen (DO) 

Red River Red River, LA Color from an upstream source, sulfates 

Black Lake Bayou Bienville, LA Low DO 

Boeuf River Richland, LA Mercury 

Big Creek2 Richland, LA Fecal coliform bacteria 

Bayou Macon Richland / Madison, LA Low DO/ nutrients 

Big Black River Warren, MS Sediment/siltation, nutrients, organic enrichment, low 

DO, and pesticides 

Fourteenmile Creek Hinds, MS Nutrients, organic enrichment/low DO, pesticides, 

and sedimentation/siltation 

Bakers Creek Hinds, MS Biological impairment, pathogens, nutrients, organic 

enrichment, and low DO 

Pearl River Simpson, MS Nutrients, organic enrichment/low DO, pesticides, 

sediment/siltation 

____________ 

Notes: 

1

 List of impaired waterbodies is based on the 2004 EPA-approved 303(d) lists for Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi. 2

 Unspecified tributaries to Big Creek are also listed as impaired due to fecal coliform bacteria. 

3.3.2.2 General Impacts and Mitigation 

Waterbody crossings as identified in Appendix D would be accomplished using either open-cut or 

HDD methods, as described below and in Section 2.3.2. As proposed, approximately 92 percent of all 

waterbody crossings would be accomplished using open-cut methods. Gulf South proposes to cross 16 of 

the 22 major waterbody crossings via HDD. The major waterbodies that would be crossed using open-cut 

methods include an unnamed pond, Grand Bayou Tributary, Coulee Creek (two crossings), Castor Creek 

Tributary, and Hoggs Bayou. Gulf South proposes to cross all navigable waterbodies via HDD (see 

Table 3.3.2-1).

Gulf South’s proposed Procedures would minimize impacts associated with waterbody crossings. 

These measures include, but are not limited to: 

• requirement to obtain all necessary permits from the COE and state agencies prior to 

construction, and notify applicable state agencies at least 48 hours before commencing with 

instream trenching; 

• use of EIs during construction; 

• route the proposed pipeline as close to perpendicular to the axis of the waterbody as 

practicable and minimize the number of individual crossings where waterbodies meander or 

have multiple channels; 

• limit the use of equipment within the waterbody to that necessary to construct the crossing, 

and utilize equipment bridges for passage of other construction equipment; 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
3-28

• placement of spoil at least 10 feet away from the water’s edge, with installation of sediment 

barriers to prevent the flow of spoil or silt-laden water to the waterbody; 

• completion of all instream construction activity, including stabilization and re-contouring of 

banks, within 24 hours for minor waterbody crossings (less than 10-feet-wide) and 48 hours 

for intermediate waterbody crossings (10- to 100-feet-wide); 

• use of temporary erosion and sediment control measures such as sediment barriers and trench 

plugs; and 

• restoration activities, including restoration of preconstruction bank contours, installation of 

slope breakers, and revegetation of disturbed riparian areas. 

Gulf South indicates that it would construct the proposed Project during the period of May 1 

through September 1, 2007, pending the Commission’s approval of the Project. However, this proposed 

schedule for construction would result in construction partially outside the time window for warmwater 

fisheries specified in Gulf South’s Procedures (i.e., June 1 through November 30). The TPWD indicated 

in their correspondence dated December 12, 2006 that Gulf South’s proposed schedule for construction in 

warmwater streams in Texas was acceptable. Additionally, in correspondence dated February 6, 2007 

and February 21, 2007, the MDWFP and the LDWF, respectively, granted authorization for Gulf South to 

perform construction activities outside the specified window. 

General impacts to waterbodies, including sensitive waterbodies, potentially resulting from 

pipeline construction, accidental spills, and construction of aboveground facilities are discussed in more 

detail below. 

Pipeline Construction 

Construction of the proposed pipeline through waterbodies using open-cut methods would result 

in several temporary effects to water quality and instream habitat. The clearing and grading of stream 

banks, instream trenching, trench dewatering, and backfilling of the instream trench would affect water 

quality and instream habitat by increasing turbidity, sedimentation, water temperature, modifying aquatic 

habitat and decreasing dissolved oxygen (DO) levels. The use of heavy equipment or other vehicles in 

and near surface waterbodies could also introduce chemical contaminants, such as fuels and lubricants, 

into surface waters or may result in accidental spills during construction. 

The extent of the potential impacts resulting from increased sedimentation and turbidity would 

depend on the amount of material disturbed, the sediment grain size, stream velocity, and channel 

stability. These factors would determine the amount of suspended sediment and the downstream distance 

that the suspended sediment is transported. In general, where the streambed consists of fine materials 

such as sand and silt, as is likely along the proposed Project route, the increase in turbidity and suspended 

sediments would be relatively greater when compared to locations where the streambed consists of 

coarser materials such as gravel and cobble. However, stream gradients tend to be relatively low in the 

area of the proposed Project; thus, stream velocities would also tend to be low, indicating that suspended 

sediments within these streams typically would be transported over short distances. 

Increased turbidity can reduce light penetration into the water and thereby reduce photosynthetic 

activity and levels of DO in the water column. Organic materials suspended in the water can further 

reduce DO by increasing the biochemical oxygen demand (BOD). Resuspension of sediments can also 

introduce contaminants, metals, and nutrients bound to the sediments into the water column. However, 

because there are no known contaminated sediments located along the proposed Project route, adverse 

impacts resulting from resuspension of contaminants would be unlikely. If contaminated soils were 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
3-29

encountered during construction, Gulf South would implement procedures in its Contaminated Media 

Plan to identify and properly manage the contamination. 

Removal of vegetation from riparian areas would cause an increase in surface runoff and erosion 

from the pipeline corridor. However, as specified in Gulf South’s Procedures, the use of temporary and 

permanent sediment controls (e.g., silt fence and slope breakers) would minimize this impact by directing 

surface runoff to well vegetated areas along the sides of the construction right-of-way. Removal of 

riparian vegetation and the loss of associated shading at waterbody crossings would result in elevated 

water temperatures, but potential impacts would not be expected to be significant because of the limited 

amount of streambank canopy that would be cleared. 

Gulf South’s Procedures include measures regarding spill prevention, containment, and 

minimization near waterbodies. These measures include the overall structuring of operations to reduce 

the risk of accidental spills, proper training of employees, regular inspection of all equipment, preparation 

to contain and recover spilled materials, and storage of hazardous materials and refueling of equipment at 

least 100 feet from any waterbody or in an upland area at least 100 feet from any wetland. These 

measures were identified as part of Gulf South’s SPCC Plan, which describes the management of 

hazardous materials, such as fuels, lubricants, and coolants, that would be used during construction. 

Aboveground Facilities 

Construction of the proposed aboveground facilities would not directly affect any waterbodies. 

To minimize indirect impacts to waterbodies, Gulf South would implement the erosion control measures 

described in its Plan. These measures 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 (see Section 3.2.3). 

Conclusion Regarding General Impacts to Surface Water 

The proposed Project would impact surface waters along the pipeline route through increased 

sedimentation and turbidity caused by instream trenching, bank disturbance, and runoff from cleared 

areas. However, these impacts would be minimized and mitigated through implementation of Gulf 

South’s Procedures, which include measures for sediment and erosion control and require rapid crossings 

of minor and intermediate streams. Most major waterbodies would be crossed via HDD, thereby avoiding 

impacts with successful completion of the procedure. Frac-out or other problems associated with an 

unsuccessful HDD would be addressed by Gulf South’s HDD Contingency Plan. The potential for 

impacts to water quality resulting from accidental spills would be minimized by implementation of Gulf 

South’s SPCC Plan and its Procedures. Given the measures described above to avoid and minimize 

impacts, we believe that construction and operation of the proposed Project would not significantly affect 

surface waters. 

3.3.2.3 Site-specific Impacts and Mitigation 

Sensitive Waterbodies 

Gulf South proposes to cross 9 of the 10 impaired waterbodies identified in Table 3.3.2-2 using 

HDD methods. Use of the HDD method to cross these waterbodies would significantly minimize 

potential impacts to these resources; however, should the HDD fail or a frac-out occur, Gulf South would 

implement its HDD Contingency Plan as discussed below. Fourteenmile Creek in Hinds County, 

Mississippi would be crossed using open-cut methods. Construction-related disturbances and impacts to 

this waterbody should be adequately minimized through the implementation of Gulf South’s Procedures. 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
3-30

Gulf South proposes to cross Black Lake Bayou and Saline Bayou (Louisiana Natural and Scenic Rivers), 

as well as the Big Black River and the Pearl River (NRI streams) using HDD methods (Table 2.3.2-1). 

 Construction-related disturbances and impacts to these waterbodies would be avoided with a 

successful HDD. There are no state or locally designated surface water protection areas or surface water 

intakes located within 3 miles downstream of the proposed Project waterbody crossings; therefore, these 

resources would not be affected by the proposed Project. 

Given the use of HDD methods to cross most sensitive waterbodies, Gulf South’s HDD 

Contingency Plan, and the implementation of its Procedures, we believe that impacts to sensitive 

waterbodies would not be significant. 

Horizontal Directional Drill Crossings 

Gulf South proposes to use HDD crossings to install the proposed pipeline across 65 waterbodies, 

including 16 of the 22 major waterbodies and all navigable streams, both Louisiana Natural and Scenic 

Rivers-designated streams, both NRI-designated streams, and all streams containing potential habitat for 

listed threatened or endangered species (Table 2.3.2-1). As described in Section 2.3.2, HDD is a 

trenchless crossing method that avoids direct impacts to sensitive resources, such as waterbodies, by 

directionally drilling beneath them. A successful HDD results in little or no impact to the waterbody 

being crossed. 

The feasibility of each proposed HDD would be evaluated based on site-specific geotechnical 

data collected at each of the proposed HDD sites. The results of these geotechnical analyses would be 

provided to us for our review prior to construction. In the event of HDD failure, Gulf South could 

attempt to re-drill the crossing using a different location or profile, change the drilling procedures, or 

employ alternate crossing methods such as open-cut. We do not believe that the HDD methods are likely 

to fail; however, if the planned geotechnical analyses indicated that any proposed HDD crossing is not 

feasible or if HDD methods fail, Gulf South would be required to obtain approval from the FERC’s 

Director of OEP before they could begin an open-cut crossing of any waterbody proposed to be crossed 

using HDD. 

The use of a HDD, with the exception of a potential frac-out, would not result in any impacts to 

waterbodies. A frac-out, which is an inadvertent release of drilling fluids into a waterbody, would result 

in increased turbidity and sedimentation. Increased turbidity and sedimentation would result in decreased 

water and habitat quality. However, Gulf South’s HDD Contingency Plan which describes the procedures 

that would be implemented to monitor for, contain, and clean up any potential releases of drilling fluid 

during HDD operations and would reduce the impacts of a frac-out. 

The crossing of Black Lake Bayou and Saline Bayou, as well as the proposed withdrawal of 

hydrostatic test water from each of these sources, would require approval from LDWF. Gulf South has 

submitted Louisiana Natural and Scenic Rivers permit applications to LDWF for both proposed activities 

and would have to obtain these permits before construction at these sites could begin. Additionally, Gulf 

South would be required to comply with any conditions included in the LDWF’s permit, if authorized. 

The proposed Project would cross the NRI-listed Big Black River and Pearl River and would also 

require the withdrawal of hydrostatic test water from both waterbodies. Gulf South has initiated 

consultation with the NPS regarding the proposed Project. Although this consultation has not been 

concluded, the NPS indicated that potential visual effects and erosion control were their most significant 

concerns and that HDD would be an appropriate crossing method. The Big Black River and the Pearl 

River would be crossed using HDD methods. In the event of a frac-out, Gulf South would implement its 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
3-31

HDD Contingency Plan to avoid or minimize impacts. The proposed crossing location for the Big Black 

River is adjacent to an existing maintained electrical transmission line right-of-way, and the HDD entry 

and exit points would be located 150 feet and 750 feet away from the stream’s edge, respectively. The 

HDD entry and exit points at the proposed Pearl River crossing location would be located at least 300 feet 

away from the stream’s edge. Given the previously disturbed nature of the area at the proposed crossing 

of the Big Black River and the distance between the proposed HDD work areas and both streams’ edges, 

impacts to riparian areas and visual resources would be minimized. Furthermore, all work would be 

conducted in accordance with Gulf South’s Plan and Procedures, including protective measures regarding 

erosion and sedimentation control and withdrawal and discharge of hydrostatic test waters. Gulf South 

indicated that the NPS had no significant concerns over the potential temporary effects caused by 

withdrawal of hydrostatic test water. However, because Gulf South has not yet completed consultations 

with the NPS regarding potential Project-related effects to designated NRI-listed streams, we recommend 

that: 

• Prior to construction, Gulf South should complete consultation with the NPS regarding 

its proposed HDD crossings of, and hydrostatic test water withdrawals from, the NRIlisted Big Black and Pearl Rivers, and file copies of those consultations with the 

Secretary. If applicable, Gulf South should also file plans to address any additional 

mitigation measures recommended by the NPS. 

As noted above, the MDWFP identified the Big Black River, Baker’s Creek, Fourteenmile Creek, 

Turkey Creek, Tallahalla Creek, and the Pearl River as waterbodies potentially containing rare aquatic 

species, and originally recommended that Gulf South cross these streams via HDD in order to avoid 

potential impacts to these species. Gulf South initially proposed to cross the Big Black River and the 

Pearl River using HDD methods, and after additional agency consultation following issuance of the Draft 

EIS, Gulf South proposed to also cross Baker’s Creek via HDD. Gulf South would cross Fourteenmile 

Creek, Turkey Creek, Tallahalla Creek using open-cut methods. At the point of the proposed crossing, 

Gulf South indicates that Fourteenmile Creek is a small perennial stream approximately 3 feet-wide and 

that Turkey Creek is an intermittent stream approximately 10 feet-wide. Tallahalla Creek is 

approximately 13 feet wide. Based on additional consultations with Gulf South, MDWFP indicated that 

the proposed crossings of Fourteenmile Creek, Turkey Creek, Tallahalla Creek using open-cut methods 

were acceptable and we agree with the MDWFP’s conclusion. 

Hydrostatic Testing 

Gulf South would withdraw water from streams or obtain it from municipal sources as described 

in Table 3.3.2-3. Withdrawal of large amounts of water for hydrostatic testing of pipeline segments could 

result in several effects to waterbodies. Specifically, water supply, recreation, and aquatic habitat could 

be affected by hydrostatic test water withdrawals that could reduce the quantity of water in the subject 

streams. Other potential impacts could include increased water temperatures, reduced levels of DO, 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. Gulf South 

would avoid or adequately minimize potential impacts to waterbodies resulting from hydrostatic testing 

by implementing its Procedures, which include, but are not limited to, the following measures: 

• obtain and comply with all applicable water withdrawal permits and special-status stream 

permits; 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
3-32

• address the operation and fueling of any pumps located within 100 feet of waterbodies or 

wetlands in the proposed Project-specific SPCC Plan; 

• maintain adequate flow rates in all source waterbodies to protect aquatic life and to provide 

for all downstream uses; 

• screen all hydrostatic test water withdrawal intakes to prevent entrainment of fish and aquatic 

organisms; and 

• regulate the discharge of hydrostatic test waters using energy dissipation devices to prevent 

erosion, scour, turbidity, or excessive streamflow. 

TABLE 3.3.2-3 

Summary of Hydrostatic Test Water Requirements for the 

Proposed East Texas to Mississippi Expansion Project 

Project Component / Facility Water Source 

Withdrawal 

Location (MP) 

Approximate 

Volume 

(gallons) 

Discharge 

Location 

(MP) 

42-inch-Diameter Mainline Pipeline

Construction Spread 1 Powell Bayou 25.1 9,053,000 25.1 

 Powell Bayou 25.1 761,000 25.1 

 Loggy Bayou 29.7 9,850,000 29.7 

 Loggy Bayou 29.7 12,820,000 29.7 

Construction Spread 2 Ouachita River 110.8 17,562,000 110.8 

 Ouachita River 110.8 1,702,000 110.8 

 Bayou Lafourche 115.5 1,702,000 115.5 

 Bayou Lafourche 115.5 1,702,000 115.5 

Construction Spread 3 Boeuf River 122.3 690,000 122.3 

 Boeuf River 122.3 6,700,000 122.3 

 Big Creek 140.9 6,700,000 140.9 

 Big Creek 140.9 6,844,000 140.9 

 Tensas River 159.9 6,844,000 159.9 

 Tensas River 159.9 6,301,000 159.9 

Construction Spread 4 Mississippi River 183.7 2,463,000 183.7 

 Mississippi River 183.7 4,639,000 183.7 

 Big Black River 196.9 4,639,000 196.9 

 Big Black River 196.9 12,855,000 196.9 

 Pearl River 232.4 12,855,000 232.4 

 Pearl River 232.4 2,209,000 232.4 

Horizontal Directional Drill

Interstate 49 Municipal supply Not applicable 666,000 14.7 

Bayou Pierre Bayou Pierre 22.2 744,000 22.2 

Prairie Bayou/ Cowpen Bayou Cowpen Bayou 23.5 1,206,000 23.5 

Ash Bayou Ash Bayou 24.2 672,000 24.2 

Powell Bayou Powell Bayou 25.1 684,000 25.1 

Red River Red River 27.1 732,000 27.1 

Loggy Bayou Loggy Bayou 29.7 744,000 29.7 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
3-33

TABLE 3.3.2-3 (continued) 

Summary of Hydrostatic Test Water Requirements for the 

Proposed East Texas to Mississippi Expansion Project 

Project Component / Facility Water Source 

Withdrawal 

Location (MP) 

Approximate 

Volume 

(gallons) 

Discharge 

Location 

(MP) 

Black Lake Bayou Municipal water 

supply 

Not applicable 822,000 42.7 

Black Lake Bayou Municipal water 

supply 

Not applicable 1,086,000 42.9 

Saline Bayou Municipal water 

supply 

Not applicable 1,146,000 57.0 

Dugdemona River Dugdemona River 71.6 1,362,000 71.6 

State Highway 167 Municipal water 

supply 

Not applicable 642,000 73.1 

Castor Creek & LA Highway 34 Castor Creek 89.8 1,512,000 89.8 

Cutoff Bayou Cutoff Bayou 109.1 654,000 109.1 

Ouachita River Ouachita River 110.8 930,000 110.8 

Bayou Lafourche Bayou Lafourche 115.5 702,000 115.5 

Steep Bayou Steep Bayou 120.9 642,000 120.9 

Boeuf River Boeuf River 122.3 654,000 122.3 

Bee Bayou Bee Bayou 130.9 642,000 130.9 

Siphon Creek Siphon Creek 140.1 642,000 140.1 

Big Creek Big Creek 140.9 762,000 140.9 

Bayou Macon Bayou Macon 149.8 1,206,000 149.4 

Tensas River Tensas River 159.9 666,000 159.9 

Despair Lake Despair Lake 161.2 642,000 159.9 

Mothiglam Bayou Mothiglam Bayou 163.7 648,000 163.7 

Madison Parish Canal Madison Parish Canal 166.7 642,000 166.7 

Walnut Bayou Walnut Bayou 172.9 642,000 172.9 

Walnut Bayou Walnut Bayou 177.5 642,000 177.5 

Mississippi River Mississippi River 184.0 1,806,000 183.7 

Highway 61 Municipal water 

supply 

Not Applicable 904,000 185.3 

Big Black River Big Black River 196.9 1,083,000 196.9 

Baker’s Creek Baker’s Creek 203.9 642,000 203.9 

Interstate Highway 55 Municipal water 

supply 

Not Applicable 501,000 227.0 

Pearl River Pearl River 232.4 517,000 232.4 

Aboveground Facilities

Carthage Junction Compressor 

Station 

Industrial supply Not applicable 33,500 0.00 

Hall Summit Launcher and 

Receiver 

Municipal supply Not applicable 6,000 38.4 

Vixen Compressor Station Municipal supply Not applicable 33,500 99.4 

Texas Gas Trans. M/R Municipal supply Not applicable 6,000 112.4 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
3-34

TABLE 3.3.2-3 (continued) 

Summary of Hydrostatic Test Water Requirements for the 

Proposed East Texas to Mississippi Expansion Project 

Project Component / Facility Water Source 

Withdrawal 

Location (MP) 

Approximate 

Volume 

(gallons) 

Discharge 

Location 

(MP) 

Columbia Gulf M/R Municipal supply Not applicable 6,000 149.1 

Tallulah Compressor Station Municipal supply Not applicable 33,500 167.6 

Texas Eastern M/R Municipal supply Not applicable 6,000 219.7 

Gulf South M/R Municipal supply Not applicable 6,000 238.6 

36-inch-Diameter Pipeline

Pipeline Lateral Municipal supply Not applicable 900,000 H0.0 

Enbridge M/R Municipal supply Not applicable 6,000 H2.7 

Enterprise M/R Municipal supply Not applicable 6,000 H3.3 

Additionally, Gulf South indicates that biocides, chemical de-watering agents, and other 

potentially toxic hydrostatic test water additives would not be used during hydrostatic testing. Gulf South 

would obtain appropriate NPDES discharge permits prior to conducting hydrostatic testing; would sample 

all test water according to the permit to determine its suitability; and would implement treatment 

measures, if needed, prior to discharge. 

Given Gulf South’s proposed measures and Procedures, and our requirement to address any 

additional mitigation measures that may result from continuing agency consultations, we believe that 

impacts to waterbodies resulting from hydrostatic testing would be adequately minimized. 

3.3.3 Conclusion Regarding Surface Water Resources 

The proposed Project would cross numerous waterbodies, but potential impacts to these 

waterbodies would be minimized or mitigated through the implementation of Gulf South’s Procedures. 

Most minor and intermediate streams would be crossed using open-cut methods, but they would be 

crossed in less than 48 hours and restored and stabilized rapidly. Most major or sensitive waterbodies and 

all designated Natural and Scenic, NRI, and navigable rivers, would be crossed by HDD, avoiding 

impacts to these waterbodies. In the event of HDD frac-out, Gulf South would implement its HDD 

Contingency Plan. Given the measures described above and our recommendations, we believe that 

construction and operation of the proposed Project would not significantly affect surface water resources. 

3.4 WETLANDS 

Wetlands are areas that are inundated or saturated with surface water or groundwater at a 

frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a 

prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally 

include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas (Environmental Laboratory 1987). Wetlands perform a 

number of valuable functions including flood flow attenuation, peak storm water flow filtration and 

attenuation, sediment and nutrient retention, groundwater recharge and discharge, wildlife habitat, 

recreational opportunities, and erosion control. 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
3-35

Section 404 of the CWA of 1972 established standards to minimize impacts to wetlands under the 

regulatory jurisdiction of the COE. These standards require the avoidance of impacts to wetlands where 

possible and minimization of disturbance where impacts are unavoidable, to the degree practical. Any 

unavoidable crossings would be subject to review and approval by the Vicksburg District of the COE, 

who has primary jurisdiction for wetlands permitting for the proposed Project along with the Fort Worth 

District of the COE. The COE would determine the provisions of any required wetland compensatory 

mitigation. 

3.4.1 Existing Wetland Resources 

Gulf South conducted field surveys and reviewed available data to determine wetland presence 

within the proposed Project area. Gulf South field investigators delineated wetland boundaries using 

Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987) and U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service’s Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats in the United States (Cowardin et 

al. 1979) methods. The COE is responsible for approving wetland delineations, and Gulf South’s 

jurisdictional determinations for the proposed Project have been approved by the COE. 

Using the Cowardin et al. (1979) wetland classification system, field investigators identified four 

wetland types within the proposed Project area: 

• palustrine forested (PFO); 

• palustrine scrub-shrub (PSS); 

• palustrine emergent (PEM); and 

• palustrine open-water (POW). 

The majority of the 309 wetlands that would be crossed by the proposed Project are located in 

Louisiana (approximately 88 percent of the total number), with the remainder occurring in Mississippi 

(10 percent) and Texas (2 percent). The location, classification, crossing length, and affected acreage for 

each impacted wetland is listed in Appendix E-1. A summary of the wetland types affected by the 

proposed Project is provided in Table 3.4.1-1. Aboveground facilities, pipe storage and contractor yards 

would not affect any wetlands; therefore, these facilities are not considered further in this section. 

Palustrine Forested Wetlands 

PFO wetlands are dominated by woody vegetation that is at least 20-feet-tall (Cowardin et al. 

1979). These wetlands provide a diverse assemblage of vegetation and an abundance of food and water 

for wildlife. These areas often contain extensive bottomland hardwoods. Common tree species in the 

PFO wetlands observed within the proposed Project right-of-way include willow oak (Quercus phellos), 

water oak (Quercus nigra), laurel oak (Quercus laurifolia), nuttall oak (Quercus nuttallii), swamp chestnut 

oak (Quercus michauxii), chinquapin oak (Quercus muhlenburgii), red maple (Acer rubrum), sweet gum 

(Liquidambar styraciflua), green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), water tupelo (Nyssa aquatica), and 

cypress (Taxodium distichum). 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
3-36

TABLE 3.4.1-1 

Summary of Wetlands Affected by the Proposed East Texas 

to Mississippi Expansion Project 

Wetland Type a

Number of 

Wetlands 

Crossed 

Permanent 

Operation 

Impact, 10-footwide Corridor 

(acres) b

Permanent 

Operation 

Impact, 30-footwide Corridor 

(acres) c

Temporary 

Construction 

Impact (acres) d

Estimated 

Crossing 

Length (feet)e

PEM 108 3.2 9.3 25.5 19,396 

PFO 152 10.5 31.0 84.2 43,531 

PSS 41 1.3 4.3 11.3 6,900 

POW 8 0.2 0.4 1.4 306 

Totald 309 15.2 45.0 122.4 70,133 

_______________ 

Notes: 

a

 Wetland Type 

PEM = Palustrine emergent 

PFO = Palustrine forested 

PSS = Palustrine scrub-shrub 

POW = Palustrine open-water b

 Operational impacts for the pipeline facilities were based on a 10-foot-wide, mowed permanent right-of-way. c

 Operational impacts for the pipeline facilities were based on a 30-foot-wide permanent right-of-way that includes a 10-footwide mowed corridor and an additional width of 20 feet where selective removal of trees greater than 15 feet tall is allowed. d

 Temporary Wetland impact calculations were based on a 75-foot-wide construction right-of-way. e

 Totals may differ slightly from data presented in Appendix E-1 due to rounding. 

Palustrine Scrub-shrub Wetlands 

PSS wetlands include all wetlands dominated by woody vegetation less than 20 feet tall 

(Cowardin et al. 1979). PSS wetlands are typically not as structurally diverse as forested wetlands due to 

the lack of trees comprising the canopy. As in the PFO wetlands, PSS wetlands supply an abundance of 

food and cover resources for mammals and birds. Common shrub species in the PSS wetlands observed 

within the proposed Project right-of-way include wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera), button bush 

(Cephalanthus occidentalis), along with saplings of sweet gum and red maple. 

Palustrine Emergent Wetlands 

PEM wetlands are characterized by erect, rooted, herbaceous hydrophytes, excluding mosses and 

lichens (Cowardin et al. 1979). Wildlife species use these areas for nesting and feeding, and during 

migratory periods. Common herbaceous plants in the PEM wetlands traversed by the proposed Project 

right-of-way include narrow leaf cattail (Typha angustifolia), duck potato (Sagittaria lancifolia), lizard 

tail (Saururus cernuus), sedges (including the genera Carex, Cyperus, Eleocharis, Scirpus, and 

Rynchospora), and spike rush (Eleocharis spp.). 

Palustrine Open-Water Wetlands 

POW wetlands rarely occur along the proposed Project route. These wetlands are often shallow 

beaver or manmade ponds, but typically do not contain emergent wetland vegetation. 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
3-37

3.4.1.1 High-quality, Sensitive, or Special-status Wetlands 

Several areas of higher quality forested wetlands occur along the proposed Project. These areas 

include forested wetlands associated with Black Lake Bayou (MP 42.3), Saline Bayou (MP 57.0), 

Dugdemona River (MP 71.5), and Castor Creek (MP 89.7). Additionally, wetlands with significant 

tupelo and cypress trees occur along the proposed route and may comprise a component of relatively 

higher quality forested wetlands, especially when the specimen trees are mature and large; these areas are 

identified in Table 3.4.1-2. 

TABLE 3.4.1-2 

Forested Wetlands with Mature Tupelo or Cypress Stands Occurring Along the 

Proposed East Texas to Mississippi Expansion Project 

Milepost 

Approximate Distance Crossed 

(feet) Description 

17.5 to 17.6 78 Cypress, red maple 

17.8 to 17.9 714 Cypress, red maple, water oak 

42.2 to 42.3 112 Cypress, willow oak 

51.1 to 51.2 219 Cypress, willow oak 

66.0 to 66.2 205 Cypress, cedar elm 

89.6 to 89.7 205 Cypress, water hickory 

232.8 to 233.2 328 Cypress and tupelo 

Wetlands Reserve Program Lands and Prior Converted Wetlands 

Gulf South identified lands in the NRCS Wetland Reserve Program (WRP) and the associated 

Prior Converted Wetlands along the proposed route. The NRCS administers the WRP, which is a 

voluntary program that offers landowners the opportunity to protect, restore, and enhance wetlands 

located on their property (NRCS 2006f). The private owner retains title to the lands in the WRP, but the 

NRCS controls a protective easement over the properties. The program attempts to restore wetland 

function and wildlife habitat, and to promote long-term conservation through technical and financial 

assistance. Prior Converted (cropland and farmed wet pasture) wetlands are wetlands converted to 

agriculture that are targeted for voluntary restoration. 

Gulf South identified 17 WRP lands and 4 Prior Converted Wetlands managed by the NRCS that 

are proposed to be crossed by the Project. Based on available mapping and coordination with the NRCS, 

Gulf South indicates that WRP lands would be crossed by the proposed pipeline route in Red River, 

Ouachita, Richland, and Madison Parishes in Louisiana. Prior Converted Wetlands would be crossed in 

Red River and Madison Parishes, Louisiana. The location, size, and characteristics of these WRP lands 

and Prior Converted Wetlands are discussed in more detail in Section 3.8.4. 

Sabine River Water Oak-Willow Oak Community 

The TPWD indicated that the proposed Project would cross a portion of a Water Oak-Willow 

Oak Series Community in Panola County, Texas that is associated with the Sabine River. The proposed 

Project would not cross the Sabine River. In general, this bottomland hardwood community contains 

ecologically diverse plant species and provides habitat for a variety of wildlife. The proposed route in 

this area would be collocated with an existing right-of-way. Based on consultation with TPWD, Gulf 

South further evaluated the quality of the affected Water Oak-Willow Oak Series Community and 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
3-38

assessed potential impacts. The results of the evaluation indicated that Water Oak-Willow Oak Series 

Community would be crossed at MPs H1.3 and H1.9, but that these areas did not contain mature, highquality forest. 

3.4.2 General Impacts and Mitigation 

As shown in Table 3.4.1-1, construction of the proposed Project would affect 309 wetland areas, 

resulting in a total of approximately 122.4 acres of wetland disturbance during construction. These 

impacts would include approximately 84.2 acres of PFO wetlands and an additional 38.2 acres of PSS, 

POW, and PEM wetlands. 

In the short term, construction activities would diminish the recreational and aesthetic value of 

wetlands through clearing, trenching, spoil placement, vehicle traffic, and related construction 

disturbances. Wetland functions such as erosion control, buffering and flood flow attenuation, and 

sediment and nutrient retention would also be affected by construction. These effects typically would be 

greatest during and immediately following construction. Clearing of wetland vegetation would result in 

both short- and long-term loss of wetland wildlife habitat and some wetland functions, with the duration 

of the impact varying by habitat type. 

Excavation of the pipeline trench during open-cut construction, installation of the pipe, and 

backfill of the trench would affect the rate and direction of water movement within wetlands. In addition, 

excavation activities could alter perched water tables by disturbing impermeable soil layers. This would 

adversely affect wetland hydrology and revegetation by creating soil conditions that might not support 

wetland communities and hydric vegetation at preconstruction levels. Failure to properly segregate soils 

during construction would result in mixed soil layers, which would alter biological components of the 

wetland and affect the reestablishment of native wetland vegetation. Temporary stockpiling of soil and 

the movement of heavy machinery across wetlands would also lead to inadvertent compaction and 

furrowing of soils, which would alter natural hydrologic patterns, inhibit seed germination, and increase 

seedling mortality. Altered surface drainage patterns, storm water runoff, runoff from the trench, 

accidental spills, and discharge of hydrostatic test water would also negatively affect water quality by 

increasing the potential for siltation and turbidity resulting from construction activities. 

Impacts to PSS wetlands would be mostly short term, as regeneration likely would occur within 

2 to 4 years. PEM and POW wetlands, which can regenerate more rapidly, typically would be affected 

only temporarily as they may become reestablished in one or two growing seasons. Due to the relatively 

long period required for PFO wetlands to regenerate, up to 30 years or more, impacts to these wetland 

types would be long term. Operation of the proposed Project would permanently affect approximately 

31.0 acres of PFO wetlands and 14.0 acres of PSS, POW, and PEM wetlands. 

During operation of the proposed Project, Gulf South’s Procedures allow for annual maintenance 

of a 10-foot-wide strip centered over the pipeline. Additionally, trees that are within 15 feet of the 

pipeline and greater than 15 feet in height may be cut and removed. These activities would not affect 

PEM wetlands, as these herbaceous areas typically would not be maintained or mowed. However, 

mowing, clearing, and tree removal would affect PSS and PFO wetlands along the permanent 

right-of-way. Functions associated with these wetland types would be altered as forested or scrub-shrub 

wetlands within the maintained portion of the permanent pipeline right-of-way would be permanently 

converted to an herbaceous state. However, the overall acreage of wetlands would not be significantly 

reduced. 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
3-39

3.4.2.1 General Wetland Construction and Mitigation Procedures 

The COE requires that all appropriate and practicable actions be taken to avoid or minimize 

wetland impacts, pursuant to its Section 404(b)(1) guidelines, which restrict discharges of dredged or fill 

material where a less environmentally damaging and practicable alternative exists. All wetland crossings 

would be subject to review by the COE to ensure that wetland impacts are fully identified and that 

appropriate wetland restoration and mitigation measures are identified. Gulf South would also comply 

with all conditions of the Section 404 permit authorizations that were issued by the COE on 

March 14, 2007. Additional discussion of compensatory mitigation requirements is provided in 

Section 3.4.4. 

Gulf South avoids or minimizes impacts to wetlands through reductions in the nominal 

construction right-of-way width in wetlands to 75 feet, selective routing, and the use of its Procedures. 

Gulf South’s proposed route would be collocated with or would parallel existing pipeline or utility rightsof-way for approximately 181 miles or 76 percent of the proposed route, thereby reducing impacts to 

previously undisturbed wetlands. Additionally, Gulf South avoids wetlands in the vicinity of the 

Dugdemona River.

Section 2.3.2 describes the specialized pipeline construction procedures that Gulf South would 

implement to minimize impacts to wetlands. Within the construction right-of-way, Gulf South would 

leave existing root systems intact where possible; would install erosion control devices to minimize 

sediment flow into the wetland; and could use special seed mixes during restoration, as may be 

recommended by local agencies. 

Gulf South would use the minimum construction equipment necessary within wetlands for 

clearing, trench excavation, pipe fabrication and installation, trench backfilling, and restoration activities. 

If standing water or saturated soil conditions were present, or if construction equipment caused ruts or 

mixing of the topsoil and subsoil, construction equipment operating in wetland areas would be further 

limited to the use of low-ground-pressure equipment or normal equipment operating from timber riprap or 

prefabricated equipment mats. Gulf South would also minimize impacts to wetlands by implementing the 

measures identified in its Procedures. These measures include, but are not limited to: 

• clear marking of wetland boundaries and buffers in the field until construction is complete; 

• limitation of tree stump removal and grading to the area directly over the pipeline, unless it 

was determined that safety-related construction constraints required grading or removal of 

tree stumps from under the working side of the construction right-of-way; 

• stripping of topsoil from the area directly over the trench line to a maximum depth of 

12 inches in unsaturated soils; 

• minimization of the amount of time that topsoil is segregated and the trench is open; 

• use of sediment barriers to prevent sediment flow into a wetland; 

• de-watering of trenches in a way that does not cause sedimentation in a wetland; 

• use of trench breakers to ensure maintenance of the original wetland hydrology; 

• prohibition of the storage of hazardous materials and re-fueling within 100 feet of a wetland; 

and 

• restoration of preconstruction contours, vegetative restoration, and monitoring. 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
3-40

3.4.2.2 Alternative Measures to Our Procedures 

Gulf South proposes alternative measures from those described in sections V.B.2.a and VI.B.1.a 

of our Procedures. Sections V.B.2.a and VI.B.1.a. states that all extra work areas, such as staging areas 

and access roads, should be located at least 50 feet outside of identified waterbody and wetland 

boundaries, respectively, except where the adjacent upland consists of actively cultivated or rotated 

cropland or other disturbed land. The locations and basis for each identified alternative measure are 

identified in Appendix E-2. 

Based on our review, we determine that the proposed alternative measures to our Procedures 

(including those that would affect PFO wetlands), as described in Appendix E-2, appear reasonable and 

adequately justified. Our Procedures require that Gulf South file a site-specific construction plan for each 

additional temporary workspace that would not be located at least 50 feet outside of a waterbody or 

wetland boundary. Although Gulf South provided draft site-specific drawings for the proposed additional 

temporary workspaces in or near waterbodies and wetlands, the required site-specific explanations of the 

conditions that will not permit a 50-foot setback have not been submitted. In accordance with its 

Procedures, Gulf South would be required to file these site-specific explanations and receive approval 

regarding its site-specific construction plans before construction could begin. 

Gulf South would be required to implement the other wetland protective measures included in our 

Procedures in the areas relevant to the proposed alternative measures. Gulf South’s Procedures also 

require that the Director of OEP approve any access road improvements or new access roads in wetlands, 

including the one proposed alternative measure, which involves the construction of an access road 

through a wetland to a MLV at MP 112.4 (as listed in Appendix E). Gulf South would complete all 

wetland permitting and compensatory mitigation consultations with the COE before commencing 

construction at any additional temporary workspaces or any access roads located within wetlands, as 

discussed above. 

3.4.3 Site-specific Wetland Impacts and Mitigation 

Although impacts to forested wetlands would be considerable, Gulf South attempts to minimize 

these impacts through avoidance, selective routing, and the use of HDD methods. Gulf South would use 

HDD methods to cross wetlands associated with Black Lake Bayou, Saline Bayou, Castor Creek, Boeuf 

River (MP 122.1), Bee Bayou (MP 130.8), Big Creek (MP 140.9), the Big Black River (MP 196.7) and 

the Dugdemona River. 

Based on Gulf South’s proposed wetlands crossing methods, measures described in its 

Procedures, and the development of site-specific wetland crossing plans (see Section 3.4.3.1), we believe 

that impacts to PFO wetlands would be sufficiently minimized.

3.4.3.1 High-quality, Sensitive, or Special-status Wetlands 

Gulf South indicates that old-growth cypress and/or tupelo trees occur within the proposed 

Project right-of-way at or adjacent to seven wetland locations as listed in Table 3.4.1-2. As recommended 

in the Draft EIS, Gulf South re-surveyed these areas for trees larger than 24 inches diameter at breast 

height (dbh) and developed site-specific crossing plans including measures to minimize impacts to these 

mature trees. Selective routing and positioning of additional temporary workspaces would result in 

avoidance of at least 40 mature trees located immediately adjacent to the proposed construction areas. No 

mature trees were found within the areas that would be impacted by construction in three locations 

(MPs 17.3, 107.7, and 124.3) and mature trees in a fourth area (MP 89.6) would be completely avoided 

via use of a HDD. 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
3-41

Gulf South proposes to use a tree buffer zone in the outer 10 feet of the spoil side of the pipeline 

construction right-of-way in order to minimize impacts to mature trees, where feasible. Mature trees in 

this buffer zone would not be cut, rather they would be avoided and spoil would be placed around them. 

Trees in this buffer zone would be marked and Gulf South would avoid or minimize impacts to the trees, 

their bark, and associated soils. Utilization of this tree buffer zone would preserve one mature tree at 

MP 17.8 and seven mature trees near MP 232.8. Construction would impact 17 other mature trees located 

within the construction right-of-way at MP 17.8 and 232.8, along with all 20 of the mature trees located 

within the construction right-of-way at the other four locations (MPs 17.5, 42.2, 51.1, and 66.0), which 

can not be avoided and would be cut. 

Given Gulf South’s avoidance of mature trees where possible during routing, and utilization of a 

buffer zone to protect a portion of the mature trees located within or adjacent to these wetlands, we 

believe that impacts have been adequately minimized and that effects to these resources would not be 

significant. 

Wetlands Reserve Program Lands and Prior Converted Wetlands 

Based on available mapping and coordination with the NRCS, Gulf South indicates that 17 WRP 

lands and four Prior Converted Wetlands would be crossed by the proposed pipeline route in Red River, 

Ouachita, and Madison Parishes in Louisiana. Based on consultations with the NRCS, Gulf South would 

be required to obtain Compatible Use Permits and subordination agreements from the NRCS authorizing 

the crossing of any WRP lands or Prior Converted Wetlands. It is the position of the NRCS that all WRP 

lands are wetlands, although Gulf South indicates that not all lands enrolled in the WRP and Prior 

Converted Wetlands would be classified as wetlands using COE wetland delineation methods. Further 

consideration of potential Project-related effects to WRP lands and Prior Converted Wetlands is provided 

in our analysis of impacts to special interest areas, which is included in Section 3.8. In that section, we 

are recommending Gulf South consult further prior to construction with the NRCS in order to finalize 

plans that include measures to minimize or mitigate impacts to these areas. 

Sabine River Water Oak-Willow Oak Community 

Potential impacts to the Water Oak-Willow Oak Series Community would total less than one acre 

and would be confined to areas that did not contain mature, high-quality forest. Potential impacts to this 

area would be minimized through selective routing in this area, including collocation with existing rightof-way to prevent clearing of undisturbed areas and habitat fragmentation. Gulf South’s implementation 

of its Procedures, as described above, would also minimize impacts to this area. Further, Gulf South 

proposes to mitigate unavoidable impacts to this community by treating affected wetlands as high-quality 

wetlands and by providing wetland mitigation in accordance with that designation. Given the selective 

routing, collocation with existing right-of-way, implementation of Gulf South’s Procedures, and 

mitigation for unavoidable impacts, we believe that impacts to the Water Oak-Willow Oak Series 

Community would be adequately minimized and mitigated. 

3.4.4 Wetland Restoration and Compensatory Mitigation 

For temporary and short-term wetland impacts, Gulf South would restore wetlands in accordance 

with its Procedures. The requirements for wetland restoration measures identified in Gulf South’s 

Procedures include: 

• consultation with appropriate land management or state agencies to develop a Project-specific 

restoration plan that includes measures for reestablishing herbaceous and woody species; 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
3-42

• prohibition of the use of herbicides or pesticides within 100 feet of a wetland, except as 

allowed by the appropriate agencies; and 

• monitoring of the success of wetland revegetation annually for the first 3 years after 

construction or until wetland revegetation is considered successful. 

Revegetation would be considered successful if the cover of herbaceous and/or woody species is 

at least 80 percent of the type, density, and distribution of the vegetation in adjacent wetland areas that 

were not disturbed by construction. If revegetation is not successful at the end of 3 years, a remedial 

revegetation plan would be developed and implemented in consultation with a professional wetland 

ecologist. The remedial revegetation plan would serve as a guide to actively revegetate the wetland with 

native wetland herbaceous and woody plant species. Revegetation efforts would be continued until 

revegetation is successful. 

As noted above, Gulf South has completed wetland permitting, including the development of 

draft measures for compensatory mitigation for all wetland impacts, in consultation with the COE. Based 

on the results of the consultations, Gulf South proposes to compensate for wetland impacts in Texas 

through purchase of wetland mitigation bank credits. Mitigation banking is an approved alternative to onsite mitigation and often provides for greater likelihood of success in replacement of wetland function and 

long-term management of restored wetland areas. In Louisiana and Mississippi, appropriate wetland 

mitigation bank credits were unavailable and Gulf South, in consultation with the COE, proposes to 

provide mitigation on two private properties that are not associated with wetland mitigation banks. The 

mitigation involves restoration of bottomland hardwood wetland habitat to areas that were previously 

used for agriculture or as pasture. Both properties have previously been approved by the COE to provide 

mitigation for wetland impacts resulting from other projects. The two properties include the Pintail Brake 

Mitigation Property in Madison Parish, Louisiana and the Whitten/Culpepper tract in Leake County, 

Mississippi. Monitoring, and as necessary replanting, would ensure that the reforestation is successful. 

The properties would be placed in a mitigation covenant per COE guidelines. In order to ensure that the 

appropriate agencies are allowed adequate input on the draft plan for wetland mitigation, we recommend 

that: 

• Prior to construction, Gulf South should file with the Secretary, its final Wetland 

Mitigation Plan. 

3.4.5 Conclusion Regarding Impacts to Wetlands 

The proposed Project would impact a number of wetlands, including forested wetlands that would 

be affected over the long-term or permanently. However, wetland impacts would be minimized by the 

collocation of the proposed pipeline with existing rights-of-way, the use of HDD methods, and the 

implementation of Gulf South’s Procedures. Additionally, Gulf South has proposed measures to 

minimize impacts to mature wetland cypress or tupelo communities and we are recommending that Gulf 

South complete consultation regarding measures to minimize or mitigate impacts to, WRPs and Prior 

Converted Wetland areas. Given these measures, along with Gulf South’s wetland mitigation plan, we 

believe that impacts to wetlands would be adequately minimized and mitigated. 

3.5 VEGETATION 

3.5.1 Existing Vegetation Resources 

Construction and operation of the proposed Project would affect six upland vegetative 

communities: agricultural areas, pasture, loblolly pine-hardwood forest, hardwood slope forest, pine 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
3-43

plantation, and open lands. The vegetative communities crossed by the proposed Project and 

representative species are described and listed in Table 3.5-1. Riparian forested areas associated with 

waterways are included in the respective forest vegetation community listed above. In addition to the 

upland vegetation communities listed above, the proposed Project would cross forested, scrub-shrub, and 

emergent wetlands. Wetland vegetation resources, impacts, restoration, and mitigation are discussed in 

detail in Section 3.4. Additionally, potential impacts of the proposed Project on agricultural areas are 

discussed in more detail in Sections 3.2 and 3.8. 

TABLE 3.5-1 

Upland Vegetation Communities Occurring along the Proposed 

East Texas to Mississippi Expansion Project 

Vegetation Community General Description Common Species 

Agricultural Areas under active farming, 

including field crops 

Cotton (Gossypium spp.), soybeans 

(Glycine spp.), corn (Zea spp.), wheat 

(Triticum spp.), rice (Oryza sativa); 

orchards, and vineyards 

Pasture Areas used for livestock grazing 

or hay production 

Primarily bermuda grass (Cynodon 

dactylon) and crabgrasses (Digitaria 

spp.), with lesser amounts of 

broomsedge species (Andropogon 

spp.), bluegrass species (Poa spp.), 

and bahiagrass (Paspalum notatum) 

Loblolly pine - hardwood forest Loblolly pine typically comprises 

up to 20 percent of the canopy, 

with the remainder in hardwoods 

depending on slope, soil type, 

and moisture conditions 

In drier areas - Southern red oak 

(Quercus falcate), red maple (Acer 

rubrum), cherrybark oak (Quercus 

pagoda), mockernut hickory (Carya 

tomentosa), winged elm (Ulmus alata, 

and white oak (Quercus alba); in 

wetter locations, laurel oak (Quercus 

laurifolia), southern magnolia 

(Magnolia grandifolia), and water oak 

(Quercus nigra) 

Hardwood slope forest Typically found in stream 

floodplains and within the loblolly 

pine-hardwood forest 

communities 

Similar species as found in the 

loblolly pine - hardwood forest; also 

white oak (Quercus michauxii), nuttall 

oak (Quercus nuttallii), willow oak 

(Quercus phellos), American elm 

(Ulmus americana), American beech 

(Fagus grandifolia), pecan (Carya 

illinoensis), and yellow poplar 

(Liriodendron tulipifera) 

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 stryaciflua), McCartney 

rose (Rosa bracteata), blackberry 

(Rubus spp.), green briar (Smilax 

spp.), Carolina jasmine (Gelsemium 

sempervirens), yaupon holly (Ilex 

vomitoria),and wax myrtle (Myrica 

cerifera) 

Open lands Scrub/shrub areas, low lying 

vegetation with saplings, and 

other areas such as maintained 

rights-of-way 

Greenbriar, dewberries (Rubus spp.), 

peppervine (Ampelopsis arborea), 

and yaupon holly 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
3-44

Pipeline Facilities 

Relatively large areas of pine plantation, agricultural land, loblolly pine-hardwood forest, and 

slope hardwood forest would be crossed by construction of the proposed pipeline and associated 

additional temporary workspaces. Approximately 52 percent of the 3,393.5 acres that would be contained 

within the pipeline construction right-of-way and additional temporary workspaces consists of forested 

areas including pine plantation (23 percent), loblolly pine-hardwood forest (16 percent), and slope 

hardwood (14 percent). Agricultural areas (28 percent), pasture (11 percent), and open lands (4 percent) 

account for most of the remaining areas that would be crossed. 

Temporary storage and contractor yards that would be used to support construction of the 

proposed Project would temporarily encumber approximately 230 acres. Of this area needed for storage 

facilities and contractor yards, approximately 79 percent would occur at existing commercial/industrial 

areas, where vegetation is typically lacking. The remaining area encompassed by the pipe storage and 

contractor yards consists of pasture and agricultural lands. 

Aboveground Facilities 

The proposed aboveground facilities include modifications to three existing compressor stations, 

as well as the construction of two new compressor stations, M/R facilities, pig launchers and receivers, 

valves, and other ancillary facilities. Pine plantation and agricultural areas are the dominant existing 

vegetation communities at the proposed Vixen Compressor Station and Tallulah Compressor Station, 

respectively. Modifications to the Carthage Junction, Hall Summit, and McComb Compressor Stations 

would not occur outside of the existing fenced facilities that already have industrial/commercial uses, and 

would not impact vegetative communities. All pig launchers and receivers, MLVs, and side valve 

facilities 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 

Gulf South indicates that construction of the proposed pipeline and aboveground facilities would 

require the use of 179 access roads of varying lengths and construction activity. Gulf South reports that 

74 of these access roads would be new roads or existing roads that would require upgrades to support 

construction-related traffic. Approximately 86 percent of the 103.8 acres encompassing new or modified 

access roads would be within the open land vegetation community or within industrial/commercial areas 

where vegetation is maintained or generally lacking. The remainder of the vegetation communities 

affected by access roads would be comprised of agriculture (6 percent) and forested areas (6 percent). 

3.5.1.1 Vegetative Communities of Special Concern or Value 

Gulf South reviewed maps and other available information, conducted field surveys, and 

consulted with resources agencies to identify several areas containing vegetation of special concern or 

value. Gulf South also identified easement lands held in the Farm Service Agency (FSA) Conservation 

Reserve Program (CRP), the Ouachita Wildlife Management Area (WMA), and the Loess Hills Forest. 

As described further in Section 3.8, the FSA-administered CRP is a voluntary program that 

allows owners of agricultural tracts to conserve environmentally sensitive lands with financial assistance 

from the federal government (USDA 2006). Through the planting of native grasses, trees, and other 

cover, these easements are designed to reduce soil erosion 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 #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
3-45

The proposed Project would also cross approximately 1,000 feet of the LDWF’s Ouachita WMA 

which is managed for hunting and has been the focus of extensive efforts to restore hardwood forests to 

provide additional wildlife habitat (LDWF 2006c). Additional information regarding the Ouachita WMA 

can be found in Sections 3.6 and 3.8. 

The Loess Hills forest sub-type is a division of the hardwood slope forest community that is 

located along the proposed route from MP 185.9 to 196.4. The plant communities found in this area are 

similar to those found in the hardwood slope forest, but may include increased species diversity and 

higher tree stand quality due to the higher fertility of the soil. As described in Section 3.2, the loess soil 

type present in this forested area is highly erodible in the absence of a stabilizing vegetative cover. 

3.5.1.2 Extensive Forested Tracts 

Based on a review of aerial photographs and field surveys conducted by Gulf South, several areas 

of large, relatively non-fragmented forested tracts that would be crossed by the proposed pipeline were 

identified. The location of these tracts and the length of the associated crossings are identified in 

Table 3.5.1-2. Although these areas are relatively non-fragmented, Gulf South indicates that many of 

these tracts are disturbed by periodic harvest and/or thinning. 

TABLE 3.5.1-2 

Extensive Forested Tracts Crossed by the Proposed East 

Texas to Mississippi Expansion Project 

County/Parish Begin Milepost End Milepost 

Length 

(miles) 

DeSoto, LA 12.2 18.0 5.8 

DeSoto, LA 18.2 19.9 1.7 

DeSoto, LA 20.2 21.5 1.3 

Red River, LA 29.7 33.9 4.2 

Bienville, LA 36.1 37.6 1.5 

Bienville, LA 38.6 40.0 1.4 

Bienville, LA 41.9 44.4 2.5 

Bienville, LA 45.3 46.4 1.1 

Bienville, LA 46.9 52.8 5.9 

Bienville, LA 57.0 65.1 8.1 

Bienville, LA 65.9 67.7 1.8 

Jackson, LA 68.7 72.2 3.5 

Jackson, LA 73.6 75.5 1.9 

Jackson, LA 78.2 87.1 8.9 

Jackson, Ouachita, LA 91.9 100.5 8.6 

Warren, MS 185.4 195.1 9.7 

Hinds, MS 196.8 198.2 1.4 

Copiah, Simpson, MS 232.0 238.2 6.2 

Panola, TX H0.2 H1.8 1.6 

Total 77.1 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
3-46

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 preconstruction vegetative conditions. 

In those areas where a HDD would be used to cross special features such as waterbodies, 

wetlands, roads, Gulf South proposes to use hand-laid electric-grid guide wires to assist guidance of the 

drill bit along the proposed route. A small pathway approximately 2- to 3-feet-wide may be cut, using 

hand tools in heavily vegetated areas, in order to position these guide wires. This activity would result in 

minimal disturbance to vegetation along the path of the HDD and no large trees would be cut as part of 

this process. 

The proposed 60-foot wide permanent right-of-way would be mowed or otherwise maintained 

every 3 years and a 10-foot-wide corridor over the pipeline centerline would be maintained annually in an 

herbaceous state. We are recommending in Section 2.0 that Gulf South’s permanent right-of-way should 

be limited to a width of 50 feet in cases where eminent domain authority would be exercised. 

Periodic maintenance of the permanent pipeline right-of-way would prevent the regrowth of 

forested vegetative communities and would result in regular disturbance of vegetation. Construction of 

the aboveground facility sites would result in permanent conversion of some vegetated areas to a 

non-vegetated industrial/commercial use, either as standing structures or associated facilities such as 

parking and storage areas. 

The severity of the impacts described above would depend on the type of vegetation impacted, 

the size of the area cleared, and the time required for vegetation to become reestablished. General 

impacts to vegetation communities are described in further detail below. 

Community-specific Impacts 

The proposed Project would impact approximately 3,304.9 acres of upland vegetation during 

construction. Vegetated areas would be primarily impacted by the proposed pipeline and extra work 

areas. The anticipated impacts to vegetation communities associated with specific Project components 

are listed and enumerated in Table 3.5.2-1. Relatively large amounts of agricultural and forested land, 

along with lesser amounts of pasture 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 pipe storage and contractor yards. 

Most impacts to agricultural and open lands would be short term, as these areas typically would 

return to their herbaceous or shrub status within 1 to 2 years following construction, cleanup, and 

restoration. Areas planted with field crops are typically disturbed by periodic agricultural practices and 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
3-47

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 Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi. 

Impacts to pine plantations and upland forests within the temporary construction right-of-way 

would be long term, as regrowth to preconstruction condition would take 30 years or more. Impacts to 

forested areas, including pine plantations, mixed hardwood-loblolly pine forests, and sloped hardwood 

forests, resulting from construction and operation of the proposed Project would include a change in 

vegetative strata, appearance, conversion of community type, and loss of habitat. 

TABLE 3.5.2-1 

Vegetative Communities Affected by the Proposed 

East Texas to Mississippi Expansion Project 

Pipeline Facilitiesa Aboveground Facilities Access Roads 

Vegetation 

Community 

Temporary 

Construction 

Impact 

(acres) 

Permanent 

Operations 

Impact 

(acres) 

Temporary 

Construction 

Impact 

(acres) 

Permanent 

Operations 

Impact 

(acres) 

Temporary 

Construction 

Impact 

(acres) 

Permanent 

Operations 

Impact 

(acres) 

Agricultural b 962.8 458.0 15.0 15.0 c 6.5 3.3 

Pasture b 374.2 176.8 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 

Loblolly pine 

– hardwood 

forest 

526.6 235.7 0.0 0.0 1.4 1.4 

Hardwood 

slope forest 

462.3 192.8 2.5 1.5 c 2.4 2.4 

Pine 

plantation 

764.2 346.9 15.2 8.7 c 2.6 2.1 

Open land 121.7 66.1 2.8 2.8 c 43.8 1.8 

Total 3,211.8 1,476.1 35.5 28.0 57.6 11.0 

_______________ 

Notes: 

a

 Acreages reflect a nominal 100-foot-wide construction right-of-way and a 60-foot-wide permanent easement that would be 

maintained in upland areas following construction, and additional temporary workspaces. However, we are recommending 

that Gulf South’s permanent right-of-way be limited to a width of 50 feet in cases where eminent domain authority would be 

exercised. b

 An additional 50 acres of pasture lands and 50 acres of agricultural lands would be affected by pipe storage and contractor 

yards during construction, but none would be affected during operation. c The footprint of certain aboveground facilities extends beyond the permanent pipeline right-of-way, but construction impacts 

may be wholly contained within the pipeline construction right-of-way and are counted there. 

Maintenance of the permanent right-of-way would have a much greater impact on the area’s 

forest vegetation than on agricultural areas, pasture, and open lands. Pine plantation and upland forest 

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. 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
3-48

Mitigation 

To minimize Project-related effects to vegetative communities, Gulf South would implement 

measures in its Plan, which include baseline mitigation measures 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 BMPs 

identified in Gulf South’s Plan include the following: 

• use of at least one EI per construction spread, who would ensure compliance with the Plan, 

Procedures, and other required conditions; 

• segregation of topsoil; 

• installation of temporary erosion control measures, such as slope breakers, sediment barriers, 

and mulch; 

• commencement of cleanup immediately after backfilling and completion of restoration within 

20 days; 

• installation of permanent erosion control devices, such as trench breakers, and slope breakers; 

• testing and mitigation for soil compaction; 

• revegetation in accordance with the recommendations of the local soil conservation authority, 

other land management agencies, or the affected landowner; 

• provision of barriers to control off-road vehicle activities; and 

• 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. Gulf South consulted with state and federal agencies regarding 

seeding mixtures, and developed a revegetation plan based on the results of this coordination. The FWS, 

LDWF, and MDWFP deferred to the recommendations of the NRCS regarding re-seeding, which 

included use of both warm season cover (bahia and bermuda grasses) and cool season species (rye and 

wheat). To promote spring germination of warm season grass seeds that may be broadcast in the fall 

season, unhulled warm season grass seeds would be used to minimize seed decay. Should construction 

and re-seeding continue past the Fall of 2007, Gulf South indicated that it would initiate additional 

consultations with the NRCS. Additionally, Gulf South would modify its general revegetation plan to 

address site-specific agency issues, such as coordination with the FWS regarding the area near the Tensas 

River National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) in Madison Parish, Louisiana. 

The TPWD filed comments on the Draft EIS including several recommendations for reseeding 

that were not reflected in Gulf South’s plan for revegetation. These recommendations included a 

preference for re-seeding using native species, allowing individual landowners to choose among native or 

non-native species during reseeding, and a preference for Bermuda grass over bahia grass should nonnative species be selected. In order to ensure that TPWD’s input regarding revegetation is fully 

considered, we recommend that: 

• Prior to construction, Gulf South should finalize its revegetation procedures based 

on comments provided by the TPWD, and file these procedures with the Secretary 

for review and approval by the Director of OEP. 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
3-49

Project impacts to vegetative communities would vary depending upon disturbance duration, 

magnitude, and vegetation community. As described above, approximately 52 percent of the disturbed 

vegetation would be forested. Due to the nature of forest regrowth, the clearing of these areas may result 

in long-term to permanent effects in these areas. These long-term and permanent impacts to forested 

areas would be minimized by the measures described above. Additionally, Gulf South avoids forested 

areas to the extent possible through selective routing and minimizes impacts to vegetation through 

extensive collocation with existing rights-of-way. Impacts to agricultural, open-land, or pasture lands 

would be minimal and limited primarily to the construction phase. We believe that impacts to general 

vegetative communities would be minimized based on Gulf South’s proposed measures to avoid and 

minimize impacts to forested areas, the relatively minor impacts to agricultural areas, pastures, and open 

lands, and the implementation of Gulf South’s Plan. 

3.5.2.1 Impacts to Vegetation Communities of Special Concern or Value 

Most of the general construction impacts described above are applicable to specially designated 

vegetation communities or conservation programs depending on the vegetation present. These specially 

designated areas include CRP lands, which may be grassed or forested, and forested WMA lands, the 

Loess Hills Forest type, and large forested tracts. 

Approximately 91.1 acres of CRP lands containing protected vegetative covers such as hardwood 

and pine forests and native grasses would be affected by the Project. Impacts and mitigation for 

vegetation in CRP lands would be similar to those described above, depending on whether or not each site 

was forested. Impacts to CRP lands are discussed in more detail in Section 3.8. 

Gulf South avoids impacts to the Ouachita WMA by using a HDD to cross the WMA and the 

adjacent Bayou LaFourche. As discussed in Section 3.3, in the event of a frac-out or HDD failure, Gulf 

South would implement its HDD Contingency Plan. Impacts to the Ouachita WMA are also further 

described in Section 3.8. 

The Loess Hills Forest type would be affected by the proposed route from MP 185.9 to 196.4. 

Construction and operation of the Project would have a similar impact on the Loess Hills Forest 

community as those described above for upland forests. Upland tree species would be permanently 

cleared from the maintained right-of-way and reestablishment in the temporary right-of-way would take 

up to 30 or more years. Due to the vegetation in this area’s higher species diversity, quality, and erosion 

control properties, removal of vegetation in this location may cause localized increases in erosion and a 

localized decrease in vegetation species diversity. Gulf South has developed a plan regarding 

management of loess soils based on consultation with NRCS and we believe that specific plan, as well as 

implementation of its Plan, would minimize impacts to the Loess Hills Forest type. 

The large forested tracts present along the proposed route would be affected by clearing of the 

nominal 100-foot-wide construction right-of-way and routine mowing, cutting, and trimming along the 

proposed 60-foot-wide permanent pipeline right-of-way. We are recommending in Section 2.0 that Gulf 

South’s permanent right-of-way should be limited to a width of 50 feet in cases where eminent domain 

authority would be exercised. 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 proposed 60-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 

periodic tree harvest or thinning, thereby reducing their overall quality. Through selective routing and 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
3-50

collocation with other rights-of-way, Gulf South minimizes impacts related to fragmentation and 

disturbance of large forested 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 Gulf South’s Plan, selective 

routing, and collocation with existing rights-of-way, and avoidance of some sensitive vegetative 

communities through the use of HDD would further minimize potential Project impacts to vegetation in 

specially designated areas. Consequently, 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 invasive plant 

species have been observed along the proposed pipeline, including Chinese tallow tree (Sapium 

sebiferum), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), and Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense). Chinese 

tallow tree is a deciduous tree reaching up to 60 feet in height that is fast growing, can thrive in both wet 

and dry sites, can displace native vegetation, and is able to successfully invade undisturbed forests 

(Invasive. Org 2006). Japanese honeysuckle is an evergreen, woody vine that can climb up to 80 feet and 

invades all forested habitats, particularly areas along forested margins and rights-of-way (Invasive. Org 

2003a). Chinese privet is a large, evergreen shrub that forms dense thickets primarily in bottom-land 

forests, often gaining access to these habitats via open fields, fence lines, or rights-of-way (Invasive. Org 

2003b). All three species are spread through seed dispersal by wildlife. Japanese honeysuckle and 

Chinese privet also spread through rooting vine nodes and root sprouts, respectively. 

The FWS and NRCS have also identified purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) and cogon grass 

(Imperata cylindrica) as invasive species of potential concern in the general vicinity of the proposed 

Project. Purple loosestrife is a perennial herb that invades both disturbed and undisturbed wetlands, 

where it can out-compete native plant species (NPS 2006c). This species produces seeds for dispersal and 

also spreads via underground stems. Cogon grass is a perennial grass that spreads through wind-blown 

seeds and forms dense infestations by branching underground rhizomes, a thick system of mat-forming 

roots that sprout. Cogon grass competes with hardwood species for light, water, and nutrients and can 

grow so extensively that it decreases growth and increases mortality of young trees (Matlack 2002). 

Cogon grass can also spur fires that are more frequent and intense than would otherwise occur 

(NPS 2006d). 

In order to minimize the impacts of exotic and invasive species, Gulf South would implement its 

Plan, which includes measures to reduce erosion such as topsoil stripping and specific vegetation 

restoration measures. Further, as described above, use of seed mixes developed in consultation with the 

NRCS and other agencies and post-construction monitoring measures would be implemented to further 

minimize the spread of exotics to and within the Project area. 

Gulf South indicates that it would continue to coordinate with federal and state resource agencies 

to identify appropriate control measures for invasive and exotic plant species. Because those 

consultations are not yet complete, we recommend that: 

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

approval by the Director of OEP, a final Exotic and Invasive Species Control Plan 

developed in consultation with the FWS, TPWD, LDWF, and the MDWFP. This plan 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
3-51

should identify the specific measures that Gulf South would implement during 

construction and operation to control exotic and invasive plant species. Following 

approval, Gulf South should also submit copies of the Exotic and Invasive Species 

Control Plan to the above-listed agencies. 

The temporary removal of vegetation may result in increased opportunities for invasive and 

exotic species to establish themselves in Project rights-of-way and additional temporary workspaces. 

Adherence to its Plan in conjunction with consultations with local and state agencies would minimize the 

potential for the introduction or establishment of nuisance and exotic species within the Project area. 

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 further 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 species discussed below, Section 3.7 describes federal and state-listed threatened 

and endangered species occurring in the Project area. 

Upland Forest 

Mixed hardwood-loblolly pine forest, pine plantation, and slope hardwood upland forest provide 

wildlife species with a variety of foraging, rearing, nesting, and cover habitat(s). The canopy of mixed 

hardwood-loblolly pine forest is typically composed up 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-loblolly 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 wildlife species life stage, season, and 

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. 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
3-52

TABLE 3.6.1-1 

Common Wildlife Species That Occur along the Proposed East Texas to Mississippi Expansion Project 

Upland Forest Wetlands 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Mixed 

Loblolly/ 

Hardwood 

Forests 

Slope 

Hardwood 

Forest 

Pine 

Plantation 

Forested (PFO) 

AND ScrubShrub 

Wetlands 

Emergent 

Wetlands 

(PEM) 

Pine warbler Dendroica pinus X X X Brown-headed nuthatch Sitta pusilla X X X Red-headed woodpecker Melanerpes erythrocephalus X X Wild turkey Meleagris gallopavo X X X Mourning dove Zenaida macroura X X Northern bobwhite Colinus virginianus X X Wood duck Aix sponsa X X Louisiana waterthrush Seiurus motacilla X Green heron Butorides virescens X X Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis X X X Mississippi kite Ictinia mississippiensis X X X X Red-winged blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus X X White-tailed Deer Odocoileus virginianus X X X X X Cottontail rabbit Sylvilagus spp. X X White-footed mouse Peromyscus leucopus X X X Hispid cotton rat Sigmodon hispidus X X X Opossum Didelphidae X X X Raccoon Procyon spp. X X X X X Gray squirrel Sciurus carolinensis X X Nine-banded armadillo Dasypus novemcinctus X X X River otter Lutra canadensis X X Nutria Myocastor coypus X X Three-toed box turtle Terrapene carolina triunguis X X Western cottonmouth Agkistrodon piscivorus leucostoma X X Bullfrog Rana catesbeiana X X Southern leopard frog Rana sphenocephala X X Green tree frog Hyla cinerea X X 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
3-53

Pasture 

Pastures are areas that are primarily used for livestock grazing or for 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. 

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-feet-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, reptiles, amphibians, and mammals. 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 include various herbaceous species, which are described in 

Section 3.4. 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 

The proposed Project would cross the Ouachita WMA, FWS-managed lands associated with the 

Tensas River NWR, WRP and CRP lands, and large forested tracts. 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
3-54

Wildlife Management Areas 

The proposed Project would cross approximately 1,000 feet of the southeastern portion of the 

Ouachita WMA near MP 115. The Ouachita WMA is a 9,641-acre area located in Ouachita Parish, 

Louisiana, managed by the LDWF primarily for hunting and fishing. In addition to hunting, opportunities 

exist for camping, fishing, trapping, and wildlife viewing in the WMA. The WMA contains a series of 

waterfowl management impoundments totaling approximately 1,700 acres, as well as three reservoirs 

managed for recreational fishing. The impoundments are heavily utilized by waterfowl and non-game 

birds. Several areas within the WMA have been the focus of hardwood forest habitat restoration efforts. 

Game species found within the WMA include deer, squirrel, rabbit, snipe, dove, waterfowl, raccoon, 

mink, nutria, muskrat, opossum, beaver, coyote, and bobcat for trapping; and largemouth bass, crappie, 

and bluegill for fishing (LDWF 2005a.). The Bayou Pierre WMA is also located within the vicinity of 

the proposed Project; however, no Project facilities would cross or be located within 0.25 mile of the 

WMA. 

USDA-managed Lands 

The proposed Project would cross 17 WRP easements and 16 CRP easements, managed by the 

USDA. These programs are voluntary and promote the conservation and enhancement of various wetland 

and upland habitats including forested areas, although CRP easements may also include herbaceous open 

lands. WRP and CRP lands are described in further detail in Sections 3.4 and 3.8. 

Large Forested Tracts 

Several large forested tracts used primarily for silviculture would be crossed by the proposed 

Project. These tracts are discussed in Section 3.5, with the tract locations and crossing mileposts shown 

in Table 3.5.1-2. Due to their use for timber production, the quality of many of these tracts as undisturbed 

forest habitat has been reduced. These large forested areas are often crossed by existing roads, 

rights-of-way, and railroads, but typically 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 areas 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 

waterbirds, may be found within the vicinity of the proposed Project. 

Colonial Nesting Waterbirds and Migratory Birds 

“Colonial nesting waterbirds” is a collective term used to refer to a variety of bird species that 

obtain all or most of their food from aquatic and wetland environments and gather in large colonies, or 

rookeries, during their respective nesting seasons. Colonial nesting waterbirds concentrate in these 

rookeries on sandbars and islands within or along the riparian zones of major waterways, including the 

Mississippi and Red Rivers. Based on consultations with FWS, LDWF, TDWF, and the Mississippi 

Museum of Natural Science, the proposed Project would be located in an area where colonial nesting 

waterbirds, including herons, egrets, night-herons, ibises, spoonbills, anhingas, cormorants, terns, gulls, 

skimmers, and pelicans, would be present. 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
3-55

Additionally, LDWF indicated that colonial nesting waterbirds are known to occur in the 

proposed Project’s vicinity and that any active or inactive nests identified within 1,312 feet of a proposed 

Project work area would require coordination with that agency. 

Gulf South conducted field surveys from March through December 2006 to determine the 

presence of any colonial waterbird rookeries, or areas of concentrated nesting of birds that obtain all or 

most of their food from aquatic and wetland environments. During the survey, one rookery was 

encountered approximately 1 mile east of the Pearl River in Simpson County, Mississippi, adjacent to the 

proposed pipeline right-of-way at MP 233.3. The location contained four yellow-crowned night heron 

nests within a forested wetland dominated by bald cypress trees.

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act regulates the taking of or impacts to migratory birds, including 

their nests. Numerous migratory bird species, including waterfowl, would potentially occur within the 

vicinity of proposed Project facilities. Migratory birds would occur as transients within the proposed 

Project area throughout most of the year. 

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, edge 

effects, and species displacement. As discussed in Sections 3.5 and 3.8, a total of 3,763.4 acres of land 

would be temporarily disturbed and 1,564.3 acres of land would be permanently affected by the proposed 

Project. We are recommending in Section 2.0 that Gulf South’s permanent right-of-way should be 

limited to a width of 50 feet in cases where eminent domain authority would be exercised. Impacts to 

wildlife habitats are also described in Sections 3.4 and 3.5. 

Pipeline Facilities 

Pipeline construction would result in temporary and long-term impacts to wildlife and their 

habitats. As described previously, construction of the proposed pipeline would require the clearing of 

vegetation within the construction right-of-way, temporarily reducing the quality of cover, nesting, and 

foraging habitat for wildlife. Additionally, impacts to wildlife habitat due to construction would be more 

long-term, primarily depending upon the recovery rates of the vegetation comprising the habitat, 

particularly for forested areas. 

As stated in Section 3.8, the construction of pipeline facilities would temporarily require the 

disturbance of approximately 3,393.5 acres of land. Of this total amount, approximately 52 percent 

would consist of pine plantation and forest with the remainder consisting mostly of agricultural areas, 

pasture, or open lands. The loss and reduction in the quality of wildlife habitat would result in the 

temporary displacement and avoidance by wildlife. 

The temporary displacement of wildlife would result in increased stress and the potential for 

injury and/or mortality to wildlife. Wildlife avoiding construction activities would also experience 

temporary increase in stress, injury, and the potential for mortality. However, Gulf South has proposed a 

“no take” policy for wildlife species during construction. 

Construction of the proposed Project is proposed to occur between May 1 and September 1, 2007. 

Hunting seasons for common species such as deer, waterfowl, wild turkey, and small game are generally 

between the fall and spring seasons and may be affected by construction. 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
3-56

Effects to wildlife using forest habitats would be more severe than those to wildlife inhabiting 

other habitat types, as vegetative strata in forested areas would undergo a more measurable change. 

Impacts to upland forest, pine plantation, and forested wetland habitats resulting from proposed 

construction activities would be long-term; however, they would also be localized. Disturbed 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, also representing a long-term 

impact. Non-forested habitats (including agricultural areas, pastures, open lands, scrub-shrub, emergent 

wetlands, and open water) would be affected by Project construction, but due to the relatively short time 

required for regrowth of non-forested vegetation, these habitats would recover more quickly from 

construction-related disturbances. 

Operation and maintenance of the permanent pipeline right-of-way would result in effects similar 

to those described for Project construction. Habitat impacted by vegetation maintenance along the 

permanent pipeline right-of-way would be maintained as herbaceous or scrub-shrub habitat. This 

maintenance would represent a conversion of habitat and would be most significant in previously forested 

upland and wetland habitats. Forest interior species would avoid cleared areas and edge habitats, which 

could potentially impact migratory patterns. However, those species that depend upon a forest-open land 

interface for feeding opportunities may actually benefit from edge-effects associated with right-of-way 

maintenance. 

Project impacts to wildlife communities and habitat would vary depending upon disturbance 

duration, magnitude, and vegetation cover type. The potential for direct mortality and displacement due 

to construction activities would last for a relatively short duration. Due to the nature of vegetation 

regrowth, the clearing of forested areas may result in long-term to permanent alterations to wildlife 

habitat. Any impacts to wildlife habitat associated with agricultural, open land, or pasture lands would be 

minimal and limited primarily to the construction phase or within one growing season. Despite the 

potential long-term impacts associated with Project construction and operation, avoidance and mitigation 

measures described below would ensure that wildlife habitat impacts would be minimized. 

Aboveground Facilities, Access Roads, and Pipe Storage and Contractor Yards 

As described in Section 3.5 and Table 3.5.2-1, the construction of aboveground facilities and 

access roads would impact a total of approximately 93 acres of wildlife habitat. The construction of 

aboveground facilities would impact approximately equal portions of agricultural and pine plantation 

habitats and the construction of new or modified access roads would primarily impact agricultural or open 

land habitats. Additionally, the use of storage and contractor yards would impact a total of approximately 

15 acres of agricultural and open land habitats. 

All areas disturbed by construction of the aboveground facilities not containing infrastructure, 

such as buildings and other enclosures, would be finish-graded and seeded or covered with gravel, as 

appropriate. As a result of this conversion, wildlife habitats would be lost or diminished in value. Lands 

permanently converted due to operation of aboveground facilities would affect only 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 

result in the loss and permanent conversion of some existing wildlife habitat into potentially nonvegetated industrial/commercial uses. 

Construction impacts to agricultural areas and open land habitats would be short-term, as they 

would be restored within one to three years after construction. 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
3-57

Due to the small quantity of land required for aboveground facilities and the generally low value 

of habitats present in these areas, the loss of habitat and disturbance to wildlife species would be localized 

and minor. Any direct impacts to wildlife species or to their habitat, as described above, would be 

minimized through the implementation of avoidance and mitigation measures described below. 

Impact Minimization and Mitigation Measures 

Gulf South would minimize impacts to wildlife and wildlife habitats through selective routing, 

collocation with existing rights-of-way, and other measures described in its Plan and Procedures. 

The proposed Project would avoid high-value wildlife habitats, including forested areas, to the 

extent practical. Collocation with existing utility rights-of-way would minimize impacts to previously 

undisturbed wildlife habitats and would substantially reduce the amount of wildlife habitat clearing 

required as compared to construction in greenfield areas. As described in Section 3.5, non-forested areas 

would generally be restored within one growing season for herbaceous habitats and within three years 

after construction for scrub-shrub habitats found in open lands. Gulf South would further reduce impacts 

to aquatic and riparian habitats used by terrestrial wildlife by crossing 64 streams using HDD methods. 

Due to the rapid pace of pipeline installation and the vegetation restoration measures included in 

Gulf South’s Plan and Procedures, we believe that impacts to wildlife species would be minimal. 

Measures included in Gulf South’s Plan and Procedures are described in detail in Sections 3.4 and 3.5. 

Additionally, Gulf South consulted with the NRCS, FWS, and wildlife management agencies to develop a 

reseeding plan appropriate for Louisiana and Mississippi, and we are recommending in Section 3.5 that 

Gulf South consult further with TPWD regarding seeding mixes and revegetation for Panola County, 

Texas. 

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 Gulf South’s Plan and Procedures. Due to these measures, we believe that due to these measures, 

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 

Wildlife Management Areas 

Gulf South proposes to cross the Ouachita WMA using a HDD. The use of a HDD would avoid 

surface impacts to the WMA; therefore construction and operation of the proposed Project would not 

significantly affect the Ouachita WMA. In the event of a frac-out or HDD failure, Gulf South would 

implement the measures described in its HDD Contingency Plan to prevent or minimize any impacts. 

Although no significant impacts to WMAs would be expected from construction and operation of 

the proposed Project, construction activities within the vicinity of WMAs would result in the 

displacement of wildlife and avoidance of construction activities by wildlife. This displacement and 

avoidance may lead to an increased use of the WMAs resulting in a temporary increase in competition for 

habitat and resources. While the proposed Project may cause temporary increases in wildlife populations 

and noise levels within the WMAs, direct impacts would be avoided by use of the HDD. Therefore, we 

believe that construction and operation of the proposed Project would not significantly affect WMAs. 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
3-58

USDA-managed Lands 

Many of the WRP and CRP easements that would be crossed by the proposed Project are 

forested. Construction across these lands would result in the long-term or permanent removal of trees 

which would result in impacts to wildlife and wildlife habitat similar to those discussed above. We are 

recommending in Section 3.8 that Gulf South complete ongoing consultations with the NRCS and 

develop an approved plan regarding the crossing of WRP lands. We also are recommending that Gulf 

South consult with the FSA regarding revegetation at affected CRP lands. We believe the results of these 

consultations, which would include discussions of routing, right-of-way width, construction methods, 

restoration, and mitigation, would adequately minimize impacts to wildlife habitats managed by the 

USDA. 

Extensive Forested Tracts 

As discussed above and in Section 3.5, approximately 77.1 miles of the proposed pipeline route 

would traverse large areas of relatively unfragmented forested areas. As indicated above, many of these 

forested tracts are subject to periodic harvesting and/or thinning, thereby reducing their wildlife habitat 

value. 

Construction and operation of the proposed Project in large forested tracts would result in several 

temporary and long-term impacts to wildlife species and habitats. These impacts would include loss of 

forest interior habitat and displacement of wildlife; increased stress and mortality, leading to reduced 

reproduction and recruitment; increased rates of predation, parasitism, or inter-specific competition; 

increased destruction of habitat of understory species by browsing species; inhibition of migration, 

dispersal, foraging, and other movements of forest interior species that are hesitant to cross openings; and 

increased expansion of non-native or invasive plant or animal species. 

Although fragmentation can cause long-term and adverse effects to wildlife that use large 

forested tracts, the proposed Project would be collocated for approximately 76 percent of its length in 

order 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 that 

utilize forest edge and open habitats, such as white-tailed deer, wild turkey, certain raptors, and foxes. 

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. 

Colonial Nesting Waterbirds and Migratory Birds 

Colonial nesting waterbirds could be impacted by construction if their habitats or nests were 

damaged or disturbed during construction. In its comments on the proposed Project, the FWS 

recommended that any construction activity within 1,000 feet of a colonial nesting waterbird rookery 

should be restricted to the non-nesting period (i.e., September 1 through February 15) to minimize 

disturbance to colonial nesting waterbirds. Should construction be required during the nesting season, 

FWS recommended that a qualified biologist inspect the proposed Project work area for the presence of 

potentially undocumented nesting colonies and that on-site contractors be informed of the need to identify 

and avoid colonial nesting waterbirds and their nests. 

Gulf South proposes to construct the proposed Project between May and September 2007, 

pending Commission approval, when the identified rookery or other rookeries may be active. As 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
3-59

recommended by the FWS, Gulf South proposes that a qualified biologist would survey the appropriate 

habitats prior to construction. Should active rookeries be discovered, Gulf South would then consult with 

the appropriate agencies to determine the methods and procedures to avoid or minimize disruption of 

these habitats. While construction could result in a disturbance to colonial nesting waterbird nesting 

habitat, we believe that resulting impacts would be adequately minimized by Gulf South’s proposed 

measures. Additionally, the completion of any surveys and further consultations associated with 

construction activities near suitable habitat and active nesting sites would further minimize any impacts. 

Operation of the proposed Project would not significantly affect nesting activities of colonial nesting 

waterbirds nesting activities.

Migratory birds could also be impacted by construction if their habitats or nests were damaged or 

disturbed during construction. As discussed above, the proposed Project would be constructed between 

May and September, pending Commission approval, which would avoid the normal migratory period for 

most of these species, including migratory waterfowl. Most neotropical migrants that nest farther north 

likely would have already left the vicinity of the proposed Project by the start of construction. The 

proposed Project could disrupt nesting activity of locally nesting neotropical migrants, such as red-eyed 

vireo (Vireo olivaceus), Swainson’s warbler (Limnothlypis swainsonii), and summer tanager (Piranga 

rubra), but these potential impacts would be relatively minor and short-term. Additionally, Gulf South 

would not conduct routine vegetative maintenance of the full pipeline right-of-way more frequently than 

once every 3 years, except along a corridor not exceeding 10 feet in width centered on the pipeline, which 

would be maintained annually in an herbaceous state to facilitate periodic corrosion and leak detection 

surveys. Furthermore, Gulf South would not conduct routine vegetative maintenance clearing between 

April 15 and August 1 of any year, which would minimize the potential for Project-related disturbance of 

migratory bird nesting periods. The potential exists for Project-related construction activities to affect 

migratory bird species in the proposed Project area, but the anticipated construction schedule and 

implementation of Gulf South’s Plan would adequately minimize population-level impacts if they did 

occur. 

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 temporary, long-term and permanent. Specifically, wildlife would be displaced, 

injured, or killed by construction activities, but these impacts would be minor on a population level. 

Based on the characteristics of identified wildlife and wildlife habitats, anticipated impacts to them, and 

measures proposed by Gulf South to avoid or minimize these impacts, we believe that construction and 

operation of the proposed Project would not significantly impact wildlife or wildlife habitats. 

3.6.2 Aquatic Resources 

3.6.2.1 Existing Aquatic Resources 

As described in Section 3.3, the proposed pipeline would cross a total of 885 waterbodies and an 

additional four waterbodies would be crossed by access roads. These waterbodies support numerous 

aquatic species, including fishes and mussels. Each waterbody that would be crossed is classified as 

having fish and wildlife propagation uses and provides aquatic habitat, food, resting, reproductive 

opportunity, and/or travel corridors to aquatic species. Table 3.6.2-1 lists warmwater fish and mussel 

species commonly found in waterbodies affected by the proposed Project. 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
3-60

TABLE 3.6.2-1 

Fish and Mussel Species Occurring in the Proposed 

East Texas to Mississippi Expansion Project Area 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Fish Species

Alligator gar Atractosteus spatula 

Bigmouth buffalo Ictiobus cyprinellus 

Black crappie Poxomis nigromaculatus 

Blue catfish Ictalurus furcatus 

Bluegill sunfish Lepomis macrochirus 

Channel catfish Ictalurus punctatus 

Flathead catfish Pylodictis olivaris 

Largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides 

Long-eared sunfish Lepomis megalotis 

Longnose gar Lepisosteus osseus

Paddlefish Polydon spathula 

Red-eared sunfish Lepomis microlophus 

Shortnose gar Lepisosteus platostomus 

Smallmouth buffalo Ictiobus bubalus 

Spotted gar Lepisosteus oculatus 

White bass Morone chrysops 

White crappie Poxomis annularis 

Mussel Species

Round pearlshell Glebula rotundata 

Bankclimber Plectomerus dombeyanus 

Bleufer Potamilus pupuratus 

Mapleleaf Quadrula quadrula 

Southern mapleleaf Quadrula apiculata 

Texas liliput Toxolasma texasensis 

Tapered pondhorn Uniomerus declivus 

Three ridge Amlema plicata 

Flat floater Anodonta suborbiculata 

Pondmussel Ligumia subrostrata 

Giant floater Pygandon grandis 

Pondhorn Uniomerus tetralasmus 

Paper pondshell Utterbackia imbecillis 

Louisiana fatmucket Lampsilis hydriana 

No essential fish habitat (EFH), as managed by the National Marine Fisheries Service, is located 

within the proposed Project area. The Pearl River provides critical habitat for the Gulf sturgeon, a 

federally threatened anadromous fish. The Gulf sturgeon is addressed in Section 3.7. There are no 

known significant spawning or rearing areas for recreationally or commercially important fish species, 

that would be crossed or in the vicinity of the proposed Project. 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
3-61

Fisheries of Special Concern 

Fisheries of special concern would include areas containing exceptional recreational or 

commercial fisheries, specially designated streams or rivers, and waterbodies supporting threatened or 

endangered aquatic species. The proposed Project would cross seven waterbodies containing fisheries of 

special concern. These include the Red River (MP 27.0), Black Lake Bayou (MP 42.4), Saline Bayou 

(MP 57.1), and the Ouachita River (MP 110.7) in Louisiana; the Mississippi River (MP 183.8) on the 

border of Louisiana and Mississippi; and the Big Black River (MP 196.7) and Pearl River (MP 232.2) in 

Mississippi. The Ouachita and Mississippi Rivers also support valuable commercial fisheries, including 

catfish and buffalo. The Red River (pallid sturgeon) and the Pearl River (Gulf sturgeon, inflated 

heelsplitter) are potential habitats for federally protected species, which are addressed in Section 3.7. 

Additionally, the Pearl and Big Black Rivers are listed on the NPS’s NRI and the Black Lake 

Bayou and Saline Bayou are listed by LDWF as Natural and Scenic Rivers. These rivers are listed not 

only for their scenic and recreational value, but also for their fish and wildlife habitat. Additional 

information for these waterbodies is provided in Section 3.3. 

General Impacts and Mitigation 

Gulf South’s proposed waterbody crossing methods are identified in Appendix D of this EIS. 

Waterbody crossings would be accomplished using either the open-cut or the HDD method, as described 

in detail Sections 2.3.2 and 3.3.2. 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 from a frac-out, the use 

of the HDD crossing method would result in the avoidance of impacts to aquatic resources. Additionally, 

the withdrawal of hydrostatic test water from the source waterbodies listed in Table 3.3.2-3 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. 

Impacts to water quality and aquatic habitats 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 DO, and the introduction of 

contaminants. 

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, may be buried under accumulated sediments along with 

fish spawning sites. In addition to altering fish habitat and food sources, sedimentation can affect mussel 

species by eliminating habitat or causing direct mortality through burial by sediments. 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 be transported only 

over short distances and would likely have a limited impact on aquatic species and their associated 

habitats. Further, reduced levels of DO, arising from increased turbidity can 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 a HDD would significantly minimize impacts to 

waterbodies and aquatic species. However, HDD methods are not without risk. A frac-out would cause 

increased turbidity and sedimentation and would result in impacts to aquatic habitats similar to those 

described above. 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
3-62

Overhanging vegetation in riparian and adjacent wetland areas, undercut banks, logs and other 

streamside features provide cover for fish. These types of cover and instream habitats would be disturbed 

by clearing and open-cut trenching during construction, resulting in decreased shading, increased water 

temperatures, and displacement of fish from disturbed areas. However, streamside clearing would be 

localized and would occur immediately adjacent to the construction right-of-way. Overall, these impacts 

would be relatively minor, as they would affect a relatively small length of a much longer linear stream 

feature. 

Introduction of pollutants into waterbodies and aquatic habitats would occur through disturbance 

of contaminated soils or sediments, accidental spills, and inadvertent releases of drilling fluids during 

HDD 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 resuspension of contaminated soils and 

sediments would result in adverse impacts to water quality and instream habitat. However, there are no 

known contaminated sediments along the proposed Project route. Further, implementation of Gulf 

South’s Plan and Procedures as described in Section 3.2 would be used to 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 Gulf South’s 

Plan, the risk to water quality and aquatic species from contaminated soils and sediments is low. 

Pollutants can also be introduced during discharge of hydrostatic test waters. However, Gulf 

South states that biocides and other potentially toxic hydrostatic test water additives would not be used 

during hydrostatic testing for the proposed Project. 

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 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 impact in-stream 

conditions, but would be localized and relatively minor over the length of the waterbody. The 

introduction of contaminants to aquatic habitats is relatively unlikely due to implementation of Gulf 

South’s SPCC Plan and its Procedures. Operation of the proposed Project would not significantly affect 

aquatic species and habitats. 

Minimization and Mitigation Measures 

Gulf South indicates that it would construct the proposed Project during the period of May 1 

through September 1, 2007, pending the Commission’s approval of the Project. The proposed schedule 

for construction is partially outside the standard period for construction in waterbodies containing 

warmwater fisheries (i.e., June 1 through November 30). Gulf South’s proposed Procedures require sitespecific, written approval by the appropriate state agencies before construction can occur in waterbodies 

outside the specified window. The TPWD, LDWF, and MDWFP have approved Gulf South’s proposed 

schedule for construction in relation to waterbody crossings. As described above and in accordance with 

its Procedures, erosion and sediment control BMPs would be implemented at all waterbody crossings 

during construction to reduce impacts to affected waterbodies. 

Gulf South’s proposed SPCC Plan describes the management of hazardous materials such as fuels 

that would be used during construction, in order to prevent spills or to minimize their impacts and to 

prevent contamination of surface water. Gulf South developed a HDD Contingency Plan that describes 

the procedures that would be implemented to monitor for, contain, and clean up any potential releases of 

drilling fluid during HDD operations. Given the measures described in its Procedures and SPCC Plan, 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
3-63

the risk of accidental spills or other introductions of hazardous materials to waterbodies and their effects 

on aquatic life would be effectively minimized. 

Entrainment of fish eggs and larvae associated with hydrostatic testing would be minimized by 

the implementation of Gulf South’s Procedures. These measures include screening to limit entrainment 

of fishes and maintenance of adequate flow rates to protect aquatic life during withdrawals for hydrostatic 

testing. Although it is possible that fish eggs and larvae would be entrained through the screens, such 

impacts would most likely be minor overall. 

3.6.2.2 Conclusion Regarding Impacts to Aquatic Habitats and Species 

The proposed Project would result in minor, largely temporary impacts to aquatic habitats and 

species; however, the measures proposed by Gulf South, including the use of HDD methods to cross 

many streams would significantly limit impacts to aquatic species and habitat. Given these measures and 

the temporary and localized nature of impacts, we believe that the proposed Project would result in only 

minor impacts to aquatic habitat and species. 

3.7 THREATENED, ENDANGERED, AND SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES 

3.7.1 Federally Listed Threatened and Endangered Species 

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (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 endangered or threatened species, or result in the destruction or adverse modification of 

the designated critical habitat for any federally listed species. The FERC, as lead agency in the review of 

the proposed Project, is required to consult with the FWS to determine whether federally listed species or 

their designated critical habitat may occur in the Project area, and to determine the proposed action’s 

potential effects on these species and critical habitats. For actions involving major construction activities 

with the potential to affect listed species or designated critical habitats, the FERC must report its findings 

to FWS in a Biological Assessment (BA). 

To assist the FERC in meeting our Section 7 requirements, Gulf South as a non-federal 

representative, conducted informal consultation with FWS. FWS field offices located in Arlington, 

Texas, Lafayette, Louisiana, and Jackson, Mississippi are responsible for ESA review and clearances for 

the proposed Project. In addition, Gulf South contacted state fish and wildlife agencies with expertise 

regarding sensitive species, reviewed database information related to endangered and threatened species, 

and conducted field surveys of the proposed pipeline route and aboveground facility sites from 

March 2006 into early 2007. No threatened or endangered species were observed during the field studies 

of the proposed pipeline route survey corridor. We have reviewed the information submitted by Gulf 

South, performed our own research, and consulted directly with the FWS. Our analysis of the potential 

for Project-related effects to federally listed species and their designated critical habitats is provided in 

this EIS. Based on Gulf South’s consultation with the FWS (FWS 2006a, FWS 2006b, FWS 2006c, 

FWS 2006d, FWS 2006e) and our review of existing records, 11 federally listed endangered, threatened, 

or candidate species could occur within the vicinity of the proposed Project. These species and their 

management status are listed in Table 3.7.1-1. 

Gulf South initiated consultations with the FWS regarding impacts to federally listed species, and 

these consultations are now largely complete. The FWS Lafayette, Louisiana office concurred with Gulf 

South’s determination that the proposed Project would affect, but would be not likely to adversely affect 

the listed species (except for the Louisiana black bear) in correspondence dated November 9, 2006 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
3-64

TABLE 3.7.1-1 

Federally Listed Species Potentially Occurring in the Proposed 

East Texas to Mississippi Expansion Project Area 

Species 

Federal 

Status 

Texas 

Status 

Louisiana 

Status 

Mississippi 

Status 

County/Parish 

(Portion of Potential 

Range Crossed by 

the Proposed Project) 

Birds 

Bald eagle (Haliaeetus 

leucocephalus) 

T T T T Panola County, TX; DeSoto, 

Jackson, Ouachita, and Richland, 

Parishes, LA; Warren County, MS 

Interior least tern (Sterna 

antillarum athalasos) 

E E E E Madison and Red River Parishes, 

LA; Warren County, MS 

Red-cockaded 

woodpecker (Picoides 

borealis)

E E E E DeSoto, Bienville, Jackson, and 

Ouachita Parishes, LA 

Mammals 

Louisiana black bear 

(Ursus americanus 

luteolus) 

T T T T Panola County, TX; Madison and 

Richland Parishes, LA; Copiah, 

Hinds, Simpson, and Warren 

Counties, MS 

Reptiles 

Ringed map turtle 

(Graptemys oculifera) 

T -- T T Copiah, Hinds, and Simpson 

Counties, MS 

Fishes 

Bayou darter 

(Etheostoma rubrum) 

T -- -- T Copiah and Hinds County, MS 

Gulf sturgeon (Acipenser 

oxyrinchus desotoi) 

T -- T T Simpson, Hinds, and Copiah 

Counties, MS 

Pallid sturgeon 

(Scaphyrhynchus albus) 

E -- E E Madison and Red River Parishes, 

LA; Warren County, MS 

Invertebrates 

Fat pocketbook pearly 

mussel (Potamilus 

capax)

E -- -- E Copiah, Hinds, Simpson, and 

Warren Counties, MS 

Inflated heelsplitter 

(Potamilus inflatus)

T -- T T Hinds County, MS 

Candidate Species 

Louisiana pine snake 

(Pituophis ruthveni)

C -- -- -- Bienville Parish, LA 

_______________ 

Notes: 

C = Candidate for listing 

E = Endangered 

T = Threatened 

(FWS 2006d). Subsequently, Gulf South received notification from FWS that the proposed Project would 

be not likely to adversely affect the Louisiana black bear in correspondence dated February 26, 2007. On 

March 22, 2007, the FWS stated that no further ESA consultation with the Lafayette, Louisiana Field 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
3-65

Office will be required. The FWS Jackson, Mississippi office also concurred with a determination that 

the proposed Project would affect, but would be not likely to adversely affect the listed species under its 

purview in correspondence dated November 16, 2006 (FWS 2006e). The FWS Arlington, Texas office 

indicated in its letter dated July 17, 2006 that given Gulf South’s determination that the proposed Project 

would not affect listed species in Texas, no further consultation with the FWS would be necessary. We 

concur with these findings. Since the filing of those letters, Gulf South has modified its proposed route 

and identified new access roads and additional temporary workspaces. Gulf South has compiled 

additional information on species occurrence and habitat based on new surveys that were not reviewed 

previously by the FWS; therefore, to ensure that the entire proposed Project area is properly reviewed for 

the presence or absence of federally listed species and their habitats, we recommend that: 

• Gulf South should not begin construction activities until: 

a. the staff completes Section 7 consultations with the FWS; and 

b. Gulf South has received written notification from the Director of OEP that 

construction or use of mitigation may begin. 

The preferred habitats, potential for occurrence within the Project vicinity, and our assessment of 

potential Project effects to federally listed threatened or endangered species are discussed further below. 

3.7.1.1 Bald Eagle 

The bald eagle, a federally listed threatened species, is a large carnivorous bird whose range 

covers virtually all of North America. Its preferred habitat consists of areas near waterbodies, such as 

coasts, bays, lakes, rivers, and forested wetlands. Bald eagles are opportunistic feeders and will both hunt 

and scavenge. Primary food sources are fish, waterfowl, and seabirds, though bald eagles are also known 

to feed on carcasses of large animals (NatureServe 2006). Mixed conifer and hardwood forests and 

woodlands with large, accessible trees are used for roosting and nesting. Threats to the bald eagle include 

loss of habitat, human disturbance, environmental contamination (particularly dichloro-diphenyltrichloroethane) affecting food supply, and illegal shooting (NatureServe 2006). Consistent disturbance 

caused by human activity will provoke bald eagles to abandon otherwise suitable habitat. 

Bald eagles build substantial nests in the tops of large trees, typically in riparian areas near rivers, 

lakes, marshes, and wetland areas. Once the eagles establish a suitable breeding territory, they will return 

to the same area year after year, often using several nests within the territory during different years. 

Bald eagles nest in the winter and are known to occasionally nest near suitable waterbodies in the 

vicinity of the proposed Project from October to mid-May. The FWS (2006a) has identified large 

numbers of nests in southern portions of Louisiana, but indicated that bald eagles also winter and 

infrequently nest in northern Louisiana and western Mississippi. They are also known to winter along the 

lakes and major waterways in northern and central Louisiana. Bald eagles are also found in Panola 

County, Texas as winter residents and spring and fall migrants (TPWD 2006b). 

Field surveys of the proposed Project route conducted by Gulf South identified very little suitable 

bald eagle habitat. Although several large waterbodies that may potentially be used as foraging habitat 

would be crossed by the proposed Project, disturbance to foraging activities would be avoided via HDD. 

Additionally, no bald eagles or bald eagle nests were observed during Gulf South’s field surveys and 

construction-related disturbance of nesting activity is not anticipated. The FWS (2006d) indicated that 

consultation should be reinitiated if bald eagles were observed along the proposed route prior to or during 

construction. To ensure that the necessary measures to protect the bald eagle would be implemented, we 

recommend that: 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
3-66

• Gulf South should file with the Secretary as part of the final Implementation Plan a 

description of measures, developed in consultation with the FWS, to train construction 

workers regarding awareness of bald eagles and nesting activity. Gulf South should 

immediately notify the FERC staff and the FWS if bald eagles or their nests are 

observed within 1,500 feet of the proposed Project’s facilities prior to or during 

construction. 

Based on the results of field surveys conducted by Gulf South, the absence of bald eagle 

sightings, and our recommendation, we determine that construction and operation of the proposed Project 

may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the bald eagle. 

3.7.1.2 Interior Least Tern 

The interior least tern, a federally listed endangered species, is a small migratory shorebird that is 

found throughout much of the United States. Breeding, nesting, and rearing occur on non-vegetated 

portions of sandbars and islands in various rivers, including the Mississippi and Red River systems. On 

the lower Mississippi River, the population of this species is concentrated within approximately 500 miles 

between Cairo, Illinois and Vicksburg, Mississippi. Few birds have been observed in Louisiana along the 

Mississippi River in recent surveys; however, several nesting colonies recently have been found along the 

Red River in northwestern Louisiana. Major threats to this species include habitat loss and human 

disturbance of nesting colonies (FWS 2006a). 

Gulf South avoids suitable habitat for the interior least tern, such as sandbars found along the 

western bank of the Mississippi River, by using an HDD. Suitable habitat was not found at either of the 

proposed Red River or Mississippi River HDD entry or exit points. The LDWF states that their database 

had a 1996 record of an interior least tern present within one mile of the proposed Project (LDWF 2006); 

however, no interior least terns were observed by Gulf South during its field surveys. 

The nesting season for interior least terns extends from May 15 through August 31. Gulf South 

proposes to construct the proposed Project during this general timeframe, but potential impacts to nesting 

habitats would be avoided by positioning the HDD entry and exit points away from non-vegetated 

sandbars and islands. In the event of a frac-out, Gulf South’s HDD Contingency Plan would be 

implemented to minimize potential impacts. 

Should the proposed HDD crossing fail or geotechnical investigations indicate that the proposed 

HDD is not feasible, Gulf South would be required to obtain approval from the FERC before 

implementing any alternative crossing plans. A site-specific plan would be developed and approved prior 

to initiating any instream construction activities at the Red River, and it is anticipated that the required 

agency consultations would identify any appropriate measures to avoid and minimize potential adverse 

effects to the interior least tern. 

The FWS recommended that the absence of nesting activity for this species should be confirmed 

in suitable habitats located along the Red River in areas affected by construction if such activity occurred 

during the nesting season. To ensure that the FWS concern is addressed and that necessary measures to 

protect the interior least tern would be implemented during construction, we recommend that: 

• Gulf South should file with the Secretary as part of the final Implementation Plan a 

description of measures, developed in consultation with the FWS, to train construction 

workers in the identification of interior least terns and their nesting habitat in the 

vicinity of the Red and Mississippi River crossings. Gulf South should immediately 

notify the FERC staff and the FWS if interior least terns are observed within 650 feet of 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
3-67

proposed waterbody crossings in the Red and Mississippi River basins prior to or 

during construction. 

Based on the results of field surveys performed by Gulf South, the use of HDD crossings to avoid 

potential effects to habitat, and our recommendation, we determine that construction and operation of the 

proposed Project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the interior least tern. 

3.7.1.3 Red-cockaded Woodpecker 

The red-cockaded woodpecker, a federally listed endangered species, excavates cavities in mature 

(greater than 60 years old) pine trees found in open, park-like stands with little or no understory or 

midstory (FWS 2006a). Generally, red-cockaded woodpeckers are intolerant of dense hardwood 

midstories resulting from fire suppression. An aggregate of suitable cavity trees is called a cluster and 

may include one to 20 or more cavity trees on tracts from 3 to 60 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 (FWS 2006a). 

Field surveys conducted by Gulf South determined that most of the pine forests traversed by the 

proposed pipeline route contain pine trees too small or young to be used as cavity trees by red-cockaded 

woodpeckers; when larger and older pine trees were observed, the dense understory and midstory 

indicated that the area was not suitable as habitat. However, Gulf South encountered 15 areas containing 

large pines that were determined to be potentially suitable habitat for red-cockaded woodpecker foraging. 

All of these areas were examined for the presence of red-cockaded woodpeckers, including observations 

for specimens, bark scaling, and cavities, as well as listening for vocalizations. No signs of red-cockaded 

woodpeckers were recorded. Based on consultation with the FWS and the evaluation of aerial 

photography and understory composition and density, Gulf South determined that nine of these sites were 

unsuitable habitat. The remaining six sites could not be adequately assessed with existing data and were 

evaluated through direct contact with the landowners to assess the age of the pine stands. The results of 

this assessment indicate that none of the remaining pine stands were older than 30 years and that the areas 

were unsuitable as red-cockaded woodpecker habitat. Therefore, construction-related impacts to cavity 

trees and foraging habitat are not anticipated. 

Based on the surveys conducted by Gulf South and the lack of suitable habitat, we determine that 

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

3.7.1.4 Louisiana Black Bear 

The Louisiana black bear, a federally listed threatened species, is one of 16 recognized subspecies 

of the American black bear. Louisiana black bear populations are listed in Panola County, Texas, 

Richland and Madison Parishes, Louisiana; and in Copiah, Hinds, Simpson, and Warren Counties, 

Mississippi. Although individuals are known to occur in Mississippi, whether any breeding populations 

occur outside of Louisiana is unknown (FWS 2006f). Black bear habitat is primarily associated with 

forested wetlands; however, bears may utilize a variety of habitat types including marsh, spoil banks, and 

upland forests. In upland forests, black bears utilize 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 (FWS 2006a). The 

FWS also noted that bears may become habituated to human food sources, especially garbage, when 

activities encroach on their habitat (FWS 2006a). Such habituation can cause nuisance behavior by black 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
3-68

bears, which can be very difficult to control and may require removal of the animal or euthanasia, thereby 

impacting 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 

(FWS 2006a). 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 located along a waterbody. 

No black bears or actual den trees were observed during field surveys conducted by Gulf South; 

however, an area of candidate den trees was noted in a cypress-tupelo swamp located east of the Pearl 

River in Simpson County, Mississippi. The area contained eight tupelo candidate trees with visible 

hollows at the bases and with diameters at breast height of up to 60 inches. Construction of the proposed 

Project would take place between May and September, outside the denning period for the black bears. 

The proposed route would also cross an area in Madison Parish, Louisiana proposed by the FWS 

as critical habitat for the Louisiana black bear, although the critical habitat designation has not been 

approved. The primary constituent elements of the proposed critical habitat in this area include forested 

tracts. The proposed pipeline route in Madison Parish, Louisiana avoids most forested areas and would 

be primarily located in agricultural areas. Gulf South has consulted with the FWS regarding the proposed 

pipeline route near the Tensas River NWR in Madison Parish, Louisiana. The FWS has expended 

considerable effort in establishing and maintaining forested corridors to allow bear movement and to 

promote habitat connectivity. Based on consultations with the FWS, Gulf South has agreed to modify its 

proposed route and avoid two areas managed by the FWS’ Tensas River NWR complex including one 

U.S. Government fee-owned property managed by the FWS located east of Bayou Macon and an FWS 

easement associated with the Tensas River NWR. The proposed Project would not cross the Tensas River 

NWR proper due to selective routing in Madison Parish, Louisiana. 

In addition, Gulf South has developed a series of measures in consultation with the FWS to 

minimize potential impacts and to maintain bear habitat connectivity on a WRP tract located near 

MP 155. The area is located in a corridor between the northern and southern portions of the Tensas River 

NWR. Measures to be used in this area during construction and restoration include: 

• allowing stumps and roots to remain in place in cleared areas, thereby promoting resprouting; 

• replanting of trees in disturbed areas outside of the 30-foot-wide permanent right-of-way; 

• replanting of shrubs within the 30-foot-wide permanent right-of-way, except for a 10-footwide corridor centered over the pipeline that would be planted in native grasses or small 

shrubs; 

• restoration of preconstruction surface contours; and 

• limitation of construction to the non-denning season of May through September. 

Following construction, Gulf South proposes to allow the section of permanent right-of-way 

approximately 5,160 feet long that would be located between the northern and southern portions of the 

Tensas River NWR to remain “virtually un-maintained”. The shrub or other species used to revegetate 

this area have not yet been determined. During operations, Gulf South would mow and maintain only a 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
3-69

small all-terrain vehicle path approximately 6-feet-wide located over the pipeline to facilitate pipeline 

inspections. Gulf South also would monitor this area to ascertain the success of revegetation efforts. 

Gulf South proposes to re-examine the areas containing candidate den trees prior to construction 

as well as implement any other agency recommended measures for the protection of the Louisiana black 

bears. To ensure that all necessary measures to protect the Louisiana black bear would be implemented 

for the proposed Project, we recommend that: 

• Gulf South should file with the Secretary as part of the final Implementation Plan a 

description of measures, developed in consultation with the FWS, to revegetate the bear 

management corridor located near the Tensas River NWR, and in accordance with 

FWS recommendations train construction workers regarding the elimination of 

activities that may serve as attractants to the Louisiana black bear, and to protect 

candidate denning trees. 

Based on the results of surveys conducted by Gulf South, the anticipated proposed Project 

construction timeframe, our recommendation, and Gulf South’s commitment to implement agencyrecommended measures to mitigate potential impacts, we determine that construction and operation of the 

proposed Project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the Louisiana black bear. 

3.7.1.5 Ringed Map Turtle 

The ringed map turtle, a federally listed threatened species, occurs in the main channel of the 

Pearl River from near its mouth upstream to Neshoba County in Mississippi. The ringed map turtle's 

habitat is typically riverine, with a moderate current and numerous basking logs for adequate sunning. 

Nesting habitat for this species consists of large, sand and gravel bars adjacent to rivers and streams. The 

decline of this species is attributed primarily to habitat alteration due to channel modification for flood 

control, navigation, and impoundment, as well as water quality degradation from sedimentation and 

pollution. 

No ringed map turtles were observed by Gulf South during its field surveys, either along the Pearl 

River or at any other location. Gulf South notes the presence of suitable habitat, including basking logs, 

for the ringed map turtle at the proposed crossing point of the Pearl River; however, crossing at this 

location would be accomplished by an HDD, thereby avoiding impacts to potential habitat. Gulf South’s 

planned preconstruction geotechnical investigations, HDD Contingency Plan, and commitment not to use 

toxic drilling additives, as well as our recommendation regarding review and approval of alternate 

methods in the unlikely event that the HDD should fail, would provide additional protective measures for 

this species. 

Based on the results of surveys conducted by Gulf South, the proposed crossing methods of the 

Pearl River and Gulf South’s HDD Contingency Plan, we determine that construction and operation of 

the proposed Project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the ringed map turtle. 

3.7.1.6 Bayou Darter 

The bayou darter, a federally listed threatened species, is a small fish endemic to Bayou Pierre 

and the lower reaches of its tributaries: White Oak Creek, Foster Creek, and Turkey Creek, which are 

located in Claiborne, Copiah, and Hinds Counties, Mississippi. The best habitat for the bayou darter 

occurs in shallow, meandering sections of Bayou Pierre downstream of headcut areas where stable gravel 

riffles or sandstone exposures are present and moderate to swift flows occur. Major threats to the Bayou 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
3-70

darter are habitat alteration from floodplain and channel modification, petroleum exploration, 

transportation, farming, and silviculture (FWS 2006h). 

The proposed Project would not cross Bayou Pierre, White Oak Creek, or Foster Creek in 

Mississippi. A different, but identically named Bayou Pierre, located in DeSoto Parish, Louisiana, would 

be crossed by the proposed Project, but the species does not occur there. The proposed Project would 

cross Turkey Creek and some of its tributaries in Hinds County, Mississippi, but these streams are small 

and intermittent, and do not contain the appropriate habitat to support the occurrence of the bayou darter. 

Based on the lack of suitable habitat for the bayou darter, we determine that construction and 

operation of the proposed Project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the bayou darter. 

3.7.1.7 Gulf Sturgeon 

The Gulf sturgeon, a federally listed threatened species, is an anadromous fish that inhabits the 

Gulf of Mexico and its drainages, primarily from the Mississippi River east to the Suwannee River. This 

species may also occur sporadically as far west as Texas and in marine waters in Florida. Adult Gulf 

sturgeon tend to congregate in the deeper waters of rivers with moderate currents and sand and rocky 

bottoms (FWS 2006i). Spawning adults move upstream in the spring to spawn over coarse substrates 

such as bedrock, cobble, and gravel in water up to 26 feet deep. Spawning in the upstream reaches of 

rivers is typically followed by downstream migrations. Juveniles (less than 2 years of age) are not known 

to migrate out of rivers and estuaries. The species is threatened by habitat destruction and degradation, 

and by construction of dams that have prevented access to historical migration routes and spawning areas 

(FWS 2006i). 

The historical range of the Gulf sturgeon included the Mississippi and Pearl Rivers, which would 

be crossed by the proposed Project route, as well as some larger tributaries. Additionally, the entire Pearl 

River downstream of Ross Barnett Dam is currently designated as critical habitat for the Gulf sturgeon, 

including the area of the proposed Project crossing at the border of Copiah and Simpson Counties. 

Primary constituent elements of the critical habitat include abundant food items, riverine spawning sites, 

holding areas, flows, water quality, sediment quality, and unobstructed migratory pathways. Both the 

Mississippi and Pearl Rivers would be crossed by HDD methods, avoiding impacts to the habitat and 

species. Gulf South’s planned preconstruction geotechnical investigations, HDD Contingency Plan, 

commitment not to use toxic drilling additives, as well as our recommendation regarding review and 

approval of alternate methods in the unlikely event that an HDD should fail, would provide additional 

protective measures for this species. 

Based on the avoidance of habitat in the Mississippi and Pearl Rivers by HDD methods, the HDD 

Contingency Plan, and our recommendation, we determine that construction and operation of the 

proposed Project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the Gulf sturgeon. 

3.7.1.8 Pallid Sturgeon 

The pallid sturgeon, a federally listed endangered species, is a large, freshwater fish that lives in 

large, free flowing, turbid rivers with low to medium gradients. This species could occur in the 

Mississippi River and the Red River. Spawning is thought to occur in Louisiana, but detailed habitat 

requirements are not known. Threats to this species include habitat loss through river channelization and 

placement of dams (FWS 2006i). 

The potential occurrence of the pallid sturgeon within the proposed Project area is limited to large 

rivers such as the Red River and Mississippi Rivers, both of which would be crossed by HDD methods. 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
3-71

As noted above, Gulf South’s planned preconstruction geotechnical investigations, HDD Contingency 

Plan, commitment not to use toxic drilling additives, as well as our recommendation regarding review and 

approval of alternate methods in the unlikely event that an HDD should fail, all provide additional 

protective measures for this species. 

Based on the avoidance of habitat in the Mississippi and Red Rivers by HDD crossings, the HDD 

Contingency Plan, and our recommendation, we determine that construction and operation of the 

proposed Project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the pallid sturgeon. 

3.7.1.9 Fat Pocketbook Mussel 

The fat pocketbook mussel, a federally listed endangered species, is a large freshwater mussel 

that is typically found in larger river systems. This species was once widely distributed in the Mississippi 

River drainage system, but it currently exists only in an approximate 200-mile stretch of the St. Francis 

River system in Arkansas, the lower Wabash River in Indiana, the mouth of the Cumberland River in 

Kentucky, and the Mississippi River in Missouri (NatureServe 2006). The species is listed in Mississippi 

due to the re-introduction of the species in the upper Mississippi River in 1989, although a study in 1992 

found that recruitment at the introduction sites was unsuccessful (Koch 1993). The fat pocketbook 

mussel is apparently extirpated from the rivers that would be crossed by the proposed Project. 

Gulf South proposes to cross the larger rivers in Mississippi (Mississippi, Big Black, and Pearl 

Rivers) via HDD, thereby avoiding impacts to this species’ potential habitat. Gulf South further 

evaluated potential mussel habitat adjacent to the Mississippi River in August 2006. Side channels in 

these areas would not be crossed by HDD methods, rather they would be crossed using open-cut methods. 

Gulf South examined these areas with representatives of the FWS and LDWF and concluded that they 

were not suitable habitat for the fat pocketbook mussel and that potential impacts to this species would be 

avoided. As noted above, Gulf South’s planned preconstruction geotechnical investigations, HDD 

Contingency Plan, commitment not to use toxic drilling additives, as well as our recommendation 

regarding review and approval of alternate methods in the unlikely event that an HDD should fail, would 

provide additional protective measures for this species. 

Based on the apparent extirpation of the fat pocketbook mussel from rivers affected by the 

proposed Project, the proposed use of HDD methods to cross large rivers, the HDD Contingency Plan, 

and our recommendation, we determine that construction and operation of the proposed Project may 

affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the fat pocketbook mussel. 

3.7.1.10 Inflated Heelsplitter 

The inflated heelsplitter, also known as the Alabama heelsplitter, a federally listed threatened 

species, is a large freshwater mussel known to occur in the Amite River in Louisiana and five sites in the 

Tombigbee and Black Warrior Rivers in Alabama (Stern 1976, Hartfield 1988). The species was 

historically present in the Pearl River, but has not been observed there in almost 100 years and is believed 

to be extirpated. The preferred habitat of this species is soft, stable substrate in slow to moderate currents 

(Stern 1976), but it has been found in sand, mud, silt and sandy gravel (Hartfield 1988). 

Although the current range of this species is apparently outside of the proposed Project area, the 

Pearl River would be crossed via HDD. As noted above, Gulf South’s planned preconstruction 

geotechnical investigations, HDD Contingency Plan, and commitment not to use toxic drilling additives, 

as well as our recommendation regarding review and approval of alternate methods in the unlikely event 

that an HDD should fail, would provide additional protective measures for this species. 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
3-72

Based on the apparent absence of this species from rivers crossed by the proposed Project, the 

proposed HDD crossing method for the Pearl River, the HDD Contingency Plan, and our 

recommendation, we determine that construction and operation of the proposed Project may affect, but is 

not likely to adversely affect the inflated heelsplitter. 

3.7.1.11 Louisiana Pine Snake 

At this time, the Louisiana pine snake is not federally listed as endangered or threatened and the 

FWS does not require consultation regarding impacts to this species. Because it is a candidate species, 

the FWS encourages avoidance of activities that may negatively impact the species due to its sensitive 

status and in the event that it becomes listed in the future. 

The Louisiana pine snake was historically found in portions of west-central Louisiana and 

extreme east-central Texas (FWS 2006a). Habitat for the Louisiana pine snake consists of longleaf pine 

savannah with sandy, well-drained soils and substantial herbaceous ground cover (Reichling 1990, 

Rudolph and Burgdorf 1997). Pocket gophers are an essential component of suitable Louisiana pine 

snake habitat because they create burrow systems where the snakes are most frequently found and they 

also serve as a major source of food for the species (Rudolph and Conner 1996). Movement patterns of 

pine snakes typically involve migration from one pocket gopher burrow system to another (FWS 2006a). 

The greatest threats to the species are habitat destruction and degradation due to logging, grazing, shortrotation silviculture, and fire-suppression (FWS 2006a). 

Gulf South’s field surveys focused on potential habitat existing along the proposed pipeline route, 

including the presence of pocket gopher burrows. This habitat type was encountered near MP 60.3 to 

60.7 in Bienville Parish, Louisiana, although no Louisiana pine snakes were observed. The area 

contained large pine trees, a sparse understory, and grassy areas containing pocket gopher mounds. Gulf 

South notes that an adjacent area containing pocket gopher mounds was observed at MP 59.7 to 60.3, but 

that the trees in this area apparently had been recently clear cut. 

Gulf South has consulted with the FWS regarding the Louisiana pine snake and has developed a 

draft training module for construction workers to inform them regarding this species. Gulf South has also 

proposed a “no take” policy for all wildlife species during construction. However, given the occurrence 

of potentially favorable habitat for the Louisiana pine snake along the proposed route, its sensitive status, 

the draft nature of Gulf South’s plans, and the possibility that it may become federally listed in the future, 

we recommend that: 

• Prior to construction, Gulf South should file with the Secretary its final plan for 

avoiding or minimizing impacts to the Louisiana pine snake. 

Based on the lack of observation of this species along the proposed route during field surveys and 

our recommendation, we determine that construction and operation of the proposed Project may affect, 

but is not likely to adversely affect the Louisiana pine snake. 

3.7.2 Special-status Species 

3.7.2.1 State-listed and Rare Species 

In addition to federally listed species, other special status species may occur within the vicinity of 

the proposed Project facilities. Special-status species include state-listed endangered, threatened, and 

species of concern identified through consultations with the TPWD, LDWF, and MDWFP. 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
3-73

Based on our research and consultation with the TPWD, LDWF and MDWFP, we have 

determined that 27 state-listed or rare species in addition to those discussed above as federally listed could 

occur within the vicinity of the proposed Project. These species, their status, and preferred habitat are 

presented in Table 3.7.2-1. 

In general terms, impacts to state listed species would be similar to those described for federally 

listed species. Birds could be affected by the loss of nesting or foraging habitat during clearing for the 

proposed Project and they could also be disturbed by human activity. Fish and aquatic invertebrates 

could be affected by open-cut construction methods through the alteration of stream habitats, along with 

associated increases of turbidity and sediment load. Although larger streams and rivers would typically 

be crossed by HDD methods that would avoid the impacts associated with open-cut crossings, frac-outs 

could occur resulting in turbidity and the deposition of drilling mud. Terrestrial wildlife, such as 

mammals and reptiles, could be subject to mortality or displacement during clearing and could lose 

habitats along the right-of-way. 

TABLE 3.7.2-1 

State-listed and Rare Species Potentially Occurring in the Proposed 

East Texas to Mississippi Expansion Project Areaa 

Species 

Texas 

Status/

Rankb, c, 

d 

Louisiana 

Status/ 

Rankb 

Mississippi 

Status/ 

Rankb Habitat 

Birds 

Bachman’s sparrow 

(Aimophila aestivalis) 

T S3 -- Fire-maintained mature to old pine woodland. 

Well-developed grass and herb groundcover 

with limited shrub and hardwood midstory. 

Able to colonize recent clearcuts, but such 

habitat is suitable only for a short time. Dry 

open pine with an undercover of grasses and 

shrubs, hillsides with patchy brushy areas, 

overgrown fields with thickets and brambles, 

grassy orchards, and large clear-cuts. 

Peregrine falcon/Arctic 

Peregrine falcon (Falco 

peregrinus / tundrius) 

E / T -- -- Mountain ranges, river valleys, and seacoasts. 

Nest on high cliffs or tall buildings. 

Wood stork (Mycteria 

americana) 

T -- -- Swamps and marshes. 

Fish 

Crystal darter 

(Crystallaria asprella)

-- -- E / S1 Raceways of larger creeks and rivers with 

water depths greater than 60 centimeters and 

gravel and sand substrates. Moderate to 

strong currents. 

Frecklebelly madtom 

(Noturus munitus) 

-- -- E /S2 Firm, stable gravel or rubble riffles with swift 

currents in main river channels and larger 

tributaries. Often associated with instream 

cover. 

Creek chubsucker 

(Erimyzon oblongus)

T -- -- Creeks and small rivers. River mouths sand 

and gravel bottom pools, riffles, and lake 

outlets 

Paddlefish 

(Polyodon spathula)

T -- S3 Slow water in medium and large rivers. 

Channels, oxbows, backwaters, and 

impoundments. 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
3-74

TABLE 3.7.2-1 (continued) 

State-listed and Rare Species Potentially Occurring in the Proposed 

East Texas to Mississippi Expansion Project Areaa 

Species 

Texas 

Status/

Rankbcd 

Louisiana 

Status/ 

Rankb 

Mississippi 

Status/ 

Rankb Habitat 

Fish (continued) 

Pearl darter 

(Percina aurora) 

-- -- E / S1 Rapids or riffles over gravel or bedrock 

substrate in slow to moderate currents. 

Sicklefin chub 

(Macrhybopsis meeki)

-- -- SA Large rivers with swift currents and sandy 

bottoms. 

Invertebrates 

Ouachita fencing 

crawfish 

(Faxonella creaseri) 

-- S2 -- Temporary pools in roadside ditches. 

Round hickorynut 

(Obovaria subrotunda) 

-- -- S2 Medium and large rivers with sand and gravel 

substrates 

Plain pocketbook 

(Lampsilis cardium) 

-- -- S3 / S4 Streams with soft, stable substrate and slow or 

moderate currents 

Pyramid pigtoe 

(Pleurobema rubrum) 

-- -- E / S1 Large and medium sized rivers; riffles and 

shoals, shallow water with coarse-particle 

substrates, sand bars, or in deep water (>4 

meters) with mud and sand bottoms. 

Moderate to swift currents. 

Rabbitsfoot 

(Quadrula cylindrica)

-- -- E / S1 Large to medium rivers with moderate to swift 

currents. Riffle areas with stable bottoms 

composed of sandy gravel, or gavel and 

cobble. 

Wartyback 

(Quadrula nodulata)

-- -- S3 Large to medium rivers with sand or fine gravel 

substrate. 

Mammals 

Rafinesque’s big-eared 

bat 

(Corynorhinus 

rafinesquii)

T -- -- Shallow caves or rock shelters, hollow trees, 

abandoned buildings, and girder bridges for 

nesting and roosting. Mature upland and 

lowland forest. 

Red wolf 

(Canis rufus) 

E -- -- Brushy and forested areas, apparently now 

extinct in Texas. 

Plants 

Fire pink 

(Silene virginica)

-- S2 -- Northern Louisiana; hardwood slope forests, 

mixed pine/hardwood forests, mesic sites. 

Helianthus silphioides -- S2 / S3 -- Disturbed upland forests along roads and tall 

grass prairies. 

Northern burmannia 

(Burmannia biflora)

-- S2 -- Bayhead swamps, forested wetlands, forested 

seeps, and lower slopes. Very conspicuous 

during flowering, flowering peaks in October. 

Nodding clubmoss 

(Lycopodiella cernua)

-- S2 -- Hillside seepage bogs and wetland longleaf 

pine savannahs, and is known from ditches 

and pond margins that are wet and acidic. 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
3-75

TABLE 3.7.2-1 (continued) 

State-listed and Rare Species Potentially Occurring in the Proposed 

East Texas to Mississippi Expansion Project Areaa 

Species 

Texas 

Status/

Rankbcd 

Louisiana 

Status/ 

Rankb 

Mississippi 

Status/ 

Rankb Habitat 

Plants (continued) 

Smooth twistflower 

(Streptanthus 

hyacinthoides)

-- S2 -- Northwest Louisiana; deep, xeric, sandy loam 

soil, found on roadsides and fields that are 

regularly cleared. 

Crested fringed orchid 

(Platanthera cristata) 

-- -- S3 Moist meadows and open woods 

Reptiles 

Alligator snapping turtle 

(Macrochelys temminckii)

T -- -- Slow, deep water of rivers, sloughs, oxbows, 

canals, swamps, bayous, ponds, and shallow 

creeks. 

Northern scarlet snake 

(Cemophora coccinea 

copei) 

T -- -- Well drained soils, scrubby pines or oaks, 

found under logs or debris 

Texas horned lizard 

(Phrynosoma cornutum) 

T -- -- Open areas with sparse vegetation in sandy to 

rocky soils, likes to burrow 

Timber (canebrake) 

rattlesnake (Crotalus 

horridus)

T -- -- Hardwood forests in river bottoms, swampy 

areas, floodplains, wet pine flatwoods, and 

hydric hammocks. 

_______________ 

Notes: 

a

 Sources: LDWF 2005, LDFW 2006, MDWFP 2006a, MDWFP 2006b, TPWD 2006, NatureServe 2006, Crandall et al. 2001, 

Kirkpatrick 1993. b

 C = Candidate for listing, E = Endangered, T = Threatened, R = Rare, -- = Not Listed, S1 = Critically imperiled in state, S2 =

Imperiled in state, S3 = Rare or uncommon in state, S4 = Apparently secure in the state, S5 = Demonstrably secure in state, 

SC = Species of concern, SH = Historically occurred, SA = Accidental occurrence in state. c

 Texas Parks and Wildlife Division does not designate species rank for rare or sensitive species. d

 Species are listed as rare or imperiled in Texas, but Texas Parks and Wildlife Division have yet to identify species potentially 

affected by the proposed Project. e

 Species is listed as rare or imperiled in Louisiana, but the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries did not identify the 

species as potentially affected by the proposed Project in its letter dated April 27, 2006. f

 Species is listed as rare or imperiled in Mississippi, but the Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks did not 

identify the species as potentially affected by the proposed Project in its letter dated September 11, 2006. 

The impacts described above would largely be avoided or minimized by the implementation of 

Gulf South’s proposed measures and our recommendations. Based on our recommendation in the Draft 

EIS, Gulf South consulted further with the TPWD, LDWF, and MDWFP regarding state-listed and rare 

species. These agencies indicated that additional surveys or mitigation regarding potential impacts to 

state-listed species would not be required. Gulf South has also proposed to train construction personnel 

regarding special-status species and not to disturb such species during construction. Based on our 

consultations with TPWD, LDWF, and the MDWFP, we believe that construction and operations of the 

proposed Project would not significantly affect state listed threatened, endangered or species of special 

concern. 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
3-76

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

RESOURCES 

3.8.1 General Land Use Types 

In this section, we further quantify the land requirements for construction and operation of the 

proposed Project, describe the current land use types, and evaluate the significance of Project-related 

impacts to those lands. We also address specially designated areas, transportation corridors, possible 

visual effects, and the potential to contact hazardous waste sites. The proposed crossing for the specially 

designated Natchez Trace Parkway is discussed and evaluated in Appendix H. 

3.8.1.1 Land Types 

Eleven general land use types would be affected by the proposed Project: agricultural, pine 

plantation, slope hardwood forest, loblolly pine-hardwood forest, pasture, open land, open water, 

residential, industrial/commercial, wetlands, and other. Table 3.8.1-1 identifies the amount of acreage by 

general land use type that would be affected by construction and operation of the proposed Project. 

Construction of the proposed Project would affect approximately 3,763.4 acres of land. 

Approximately 91 percent of that acreage would be contained within the pipeline construction 

right-of-way and construction areas associated with the proposed aboveground facilities. Approximately 

21 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction is characterized as pine plantation, 

27 percent is agricultural land, 26 percent is combined forestland other than pine plantation, and 8 percent 

is commercial/industrial land. The remaining land use types reported in Table 3.8.1-1 each represent less 

than 10 percent of the proposed construction acreage. Following construction, lands temporarily used for 

pipe storage and contractor yards, additional temporary workspace, and most construction access roads 

would be allowed to revert to their original use and land use type. 

As described in Section 2.0, the proposed Project would be collocated with existing pipeline and 

utility rights-of-way for approximately 181 miles (approximately 76 percent) of its length. Gulf South’s 

proposed construction right-of-way would typically overlap with 20 feet of its own existing permanent 

right-of-way for approximately 50 miles and would abut the proposed CenterPoint Project’s permanent 

right-of-way for approximately 91 miles. The proposed pipeline also would be collocated with other 

natural gas pipelines and electrical transmission lines for approximately 40 miles. 

During operation of the proposed Project, the permanent pipeline right-of-way, additional 

temporary workspaces, aboveground facilities, pipe storage and contractor yards, and permanent access 

roads would affect approximately 1,564.3 acres. About 30 percent of the land that would be affected 

during operation is currently classified as agricultural land, 28 percent is slope hardwood or loblolly pinehardwood forest, 23 percent is pine plantation, and 11 percent is pasture. The remaining land use types 

each represent less than 10 percent of the acreage required during operation. We are recommending in 

Section 2.0 that Gulf South’s permanent right-of-way should be limited to a width of 50 feet in cases 

where eminent domain authority would be exercised. 

Pipeline Facilities 

Approximately 3,393.5 acres of land would be impacted by construction of the proposed pipeline 

and associated additional temporary workspaces. As shown in Table 3.8.1-1, approximately 29 percent of 

the land that would be affected during construction of the proposed pipeline is currently classified as 

agricultural land, 30 percent as either slope hardwood or loblolly pine-hardwood forest, 23 percent as pine 

plantation, and 11 percent as pasture. The remaining land use types each represent less than 10 percent of 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
3-77

the acreage required during construction. Following construction of the proposed pipeline, additional 

temporary workspaces would be allowed to revert to their original land use. 

Operation of the proposed pipeline would permanently affect approximately 1,521.9 acres of 

land. Similar to the construction right-of-way requirements, approximately 29 percent of the land that 

would be affected during operation is currently classified as agricultural land, 28 percent is slope 

hardwood or loblolly pine-hardwood forest, 23 percent is pine plantation, and 11 percent is pasture. The 

remaining land use types each represent less than 10 percent of the acreage required during operation. 

We are recommending in Section 2.0 that Gulf South’s permanent right-of-way should be limited to a 

width of 50 feet in cases where eminent domain authority would be exercised. 

Aboveground Facilities 

In addition to lands affected by construction of the proposed pipeline, construction of the 

proposed aboveground facilities would affect approximately 36 acres of land. Specifically, construction 

activities at the compressor stations would impact approximately 10 acres of agricultural lands and 

approximately 8 acres of pine plantation. Construction of the six M/R stations would extend beyond the 

proposed pipeline’s permanent right-of-way, and would affect 17.2 acres during construction and 

11.5 acres during operation. Each of the two M/R stations located in Panola County, Texas would affect 

approximately two acres of pine plantation land use types. Construction and operation of pig 

launcher/receiver facilities would result in land requirements of approximately 0.8 acre during 

construction. In total, aboveground facilities would affect approximately 28.3 acres of land during 

operation. 

Access Roads 

As described in Section 2.2.3.3, construction of the proposed pipeline right-of-way would require 

use of existing public and private roadways, to gain access during construction and operation of the 

proposed Project. Gulf South indicates that only the newly constructed or upgraded access roads 

associated with the aboveground facilities described above would be permanently maintained during 

operations. The remaining access roads would be allowed to revert to their preconstruction uses. 

Construction of the proposed pipeline would require the use of 179 access roads of varying lengths and 

construction, of which 157 would be for temporary use, while 22 would be for permanent use 

(Appendix F-2). Of the 179 access roads, 105 would be unmodified existing roads and 74 (comprising 

approximately 38.1 miles of road) would be new or upgraded roads. Access road improvements would 

temporarily affect 103.8 acres of land during construction and permanently affect 14.1 acres of land 

during operation. Approximately 42 percent of the permanently affected land would be pine plantation 

and upland forest, 36 percent would be agricultural land or open space, and the remaining areas would be 

comprised of industrial/commercial uses. 

Pipe Storage and Contractor Yards 

Gulf South proposes to use 11 storage and staging yards during construction, temporarily 

affecting approximately 230 acres of land (Table 3.8.1-1). These facilities are further described in 

Section 2.2.3.2. Approximately 85 percent of the area that would be used for pipe storage and contractor 

yards consists of commercial or industrial uses, with an additional seven and nine percent consisting of 

agricultural and pasture land uses, respectively. 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
TABLE 3.8.1-1 

Acres Potentially Affected by the Proposed East Texas to Mississippi Expansion Project 

Agricultural Pine Plantation Slope Hardwood 

Loblolly Pine/ 

Hardwood Forest Pasture Open Land 

Facility or Parish/County Temp Perm Temp Perm Temp Perm Temp Perm Temp Perm Temp Perm 

42-INCH MAINLINE PIPELINE 

Pipeline Facilities (includes pipeline right-of-way and additional temporary workspace) 

DeSoto Parish, LA 4.3 1.8 44.9 16.3 15.9 6.6 90.9 37.2 73.9 32.1 29.4 18.3 

Red River Parish, LA 64.5 23.8 6.2 2.1 21.1 7.0 26.3 10.1 10.7 4.7 18.0 8.5 

Bienville Parish, LA 4.1 1.6 245.5 116.3 20.3 9.1 99.4 41.5 13.4 5.6 12.2 6.5 

Jackson Parish, LA 0.0 0.0 246.2 121.7 34.9 18.1 46.5 22.6 31.0 15.3 18.1 10.3 

Ouachita Parish, LA 73.9 32.5 168.5 67.7 17.0 7.8 20.4 8.4 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.6 

Richland Parish, LA 349.0 167.3 18.7 9.4 52.3 26.5 2.1 1.0 14.9 7.8 14.4 7.3 

Madison Parish, LA 416.2 207.4 0.0 0.0 7.2 4.8 1.3 0.5 7.6 3.7 4.2 2.7 

Warren, MS County, MS 3.8 0.7 0.0 0.0 172.2 57.4 27.2 11.1 24.3 12.4 4.2 2.2 

Hinds County, MS 46.9 22.9 12.1 5.6 83.1 39.9 123.4 63.8 169.3 84.0 12.8 5.5 

Copiah County, MS 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.7 1.6 11.5 5.9 22.1 9.8 0.0 0.0 

Simpson County, MS 0.0 0.0 17.8 6.1 33.6 13.9 49.5 20.2 7.1 1.3 0.8 0.1 

Subtotal Aboveground Facilities 962.8 458.0 759.8 345.1 462.3 192.8 498.5 222.2 374.2 176.8 115.5 62.0 

Aboveground Facilities

Carthage Junction Compressor Station 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Vixen Compressor Station 0.0 0.0 8.0 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Tallulah Compressor Station 10.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

McComb Compressor Station 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Texas Gas M&R Station 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.8 2.8 

Columbia Gulf M&R Station 4.5 4.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Texas Eastern M&R Station 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Gulf South M&R Station 0.0 0.0 3.7 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Hall Summit Pig Launcher/Receiver 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Subtotal Aboveground Facilities 15.0 15.0 11.7 6.9 2.5 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.8 2.8 

Extra Work Areas 

Pipe Storage and Contractor Yards 15.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Access Roads 6.5 3.3 2.6 2.1 2.4 2.4 1.4 1.4 0.9 0.0 43.8 1.8 

Subtotal Extra Work Areas 21.5 3.3 2.6 2.1 2.4 2.4 1.4 1.4 20.9 0.0 43.8 1.8 

Subtotal 42-inch Mainline Pipeline 999.3 476.3 774.1 354.1 467.2 196.7 499.9 223.6 1 395.1 76.8 162.1 66.6 

36-INCH SUPPLY LATERAL PIPELINE 

Pipeline Facilities (includes pipeline right-of-way and additional temporary workspace) 

Panola County, TX 0.0 0.0 4.4 1.8 0.0 0.0 28.1 13.4 0.0 0.0 6.3 4.1 

Subtotal Pipeline Facilities 0.0 0.0 4.4 1.8 0.0 0.0 28.1 13.4 0.0 0.0 6.3 4.1 

Aboveground Facilities 

Enbridge M&R Station 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Enterprise M&R Station 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Subtotal Aboveground Facilities 0.0 0.0 3.5 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Extra Work Areas 

Pipe Storage and Contractor Yards 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Access Roads 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Subtotal Extra Work Areas 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Subtotal 36-inch Supply Lateral 0.0 0.0 7.9 3.6 0.0 0.0 28.1 13.4 0.0 0.0 6.3 4.1 

TOTAL PROJECT 999.3 476.3 782.0 357.7 467.2 196.7 528.0 237.1 395.1 176.8 168.3 70.7 

3-78

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
TABLE 3.8.1-1 (continued) 

Acres Potentially Affected by the Proposed East Texas to Mississippi Expansion Project 

Open Water Residential 

Industrial/ 

Commercial Wetlands Other TOTAL 

Facility or Parish/County Temp. Perm. Temp. Perm. Temp. Perm. Temp. Perm. Temp. Perm. Temp. Perm. 

42-INCH MAINLINE PIPELINE 

Pipeline Facilities (includes pipeline right-of-way and additional temporary workspace) 

DeSoto Parish, LA 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.2 3.3 2.1 1.1 0.2 2.8 1.2 267.4 116.1 

Red River Parish, LA 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.2 1.5 0.7 4.1 0.8 0.0 0.0 152.7 57.8 

Bienville Parish, LA 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.4 4.0 22.3 3.4 0.0 0.0 424.7 188.1 

Jackson Parish, LA 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 7.0 3.8 7.6 0.8 0.1 0.1 391.8 193.0 

Ouachita Parish, LA 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.6 1.3 7.8 1.0 0.0 0.0 292.5 119.3 

Richland Parish, LA 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.2 4.0 2.7 25.2 3.2 0.9 0.7 482.2 226.2 

Madison Parish, LA 3.2 2.3 0.0 0.0 4.3 0.7 38.0 3.9 0.0 0.0 482.0 225.9 

Warren, MS County, MS 7.3 4.0 0.0 0.0 1.9 1.1 1.9 0.2 0.0 0.0 242.6 89.1 

Hinds County, MS 0.5 0.3 0.0 0.0 5.2 3.1 11.5 1.0 0.0 0.0 464.7 226.1 

Copiah County, MS 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 38.3 17.4 

Simpson County, MS 0.0 0.0 2.2 1.3 1.6 0.5 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.0 113.0 43.4 

Subtotal Aboveground Facilities 11.4 6.8 4.2 1.9 39.7 20.1 119.7 14.7 3.9 2.1 3351.9 1502.4 

Aboveground Facilities

Carthage Junction Compressor Station 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Vixen Compressor Station 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.0 6.0 

Tallulah Compressor Station 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 10.0 

McComb Compressor Station 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Texas Gas M&R Station 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 3.3 

Columbia Gulf M&R Station 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.5 4.5 

Texas Eastern M&R Station 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 1.0 

Gulf South M&R Station 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.7 0.9 

Hall Summit Pig Launcher/Receiver 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.8 

Subtotal Aboveground Facilities 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 32.5 26.5 

Extra Work Areas 

Pipe Storage and Contractor Yards 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 115 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 150.0 0.0 

Access Roads 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 45.8 2.7 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.0 103.8 14.1 

Subtotal Extra Work Areas 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 160.8 2.7 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.0 253.8 14.1 

Subtotal 42-inch Mainline Pipeline 11.4 6.8 4.2 1.9 200.8 23.1 120.3 15.1 3.9 2.1 3638.2 1543.0 

36-INCH SUPPLY LATERAL PIPELINE 

Pipeline Facilities (includes pipeline right-of-way and additional temporary workspace) 

Panola County, TX 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.1 2.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 41.7 19.6 

Subtotal Pipeline Facilities 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.1 2.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 41.7 19.6 

Aboveground Facilities 

Enbridge M&R Station 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.6 

Enterprise M&R Station 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.2 

Subtotal Aboveground Facilities 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.5 1.8 

Extra Work Areas 

Pipe Storage and Contractor Yards 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 80.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 80.0 0.0 

Access Roads 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Subtotal Extra Work Areas 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 80.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 80.0 0.0 

Subtotal 36-inch Supply Lateral 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 80.7 0.1 2.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 125.2 21.4 

TOTAL PROJECT 11.4 6.8 4.2 1.9 281.5 23.2 122.4 15.2 3.9 2.1 3763.4 1564.3 

3-79

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
3-80

3.8.2 Land Ownership and Easement Requirements 

Prior to initiating construction, Gulf South would secure an easement to convey both temporary 

(for construction) and permanent (for operation) rights-of-way. The easement acquisition process is 

designed to provide fair compensation to the landowners for the right to use the property for pipeline 

construction and operation. During the easement acquisition process, Gulf South would compensate 

landowners for loss of value to specific parcels. The easement agreement between the company and 

landowner typically specifies compensation for loss of use during construction, loss of nonrenewable or 

other resources, damage to property during construction, and allowable uses of the permanent 

right-of-way after construction. During negotiations, Gulf South and affected landowners would address 

the following: 

• allowable uses within the right-of-way; 

• mechanisms required to allow the pipeline to be traversed by heavy equipment such as log 

skidders; and 

• minor route adjustments to accommodate landowner needs (provided that the route 

adjustments do not affect environmentally sensitive areas or other non-consenting 

landowners). 

If an easement cannot be negotiated with a landowner and the proposed Project has been 

certificated by the FERC, Gulf South could use the right of eminent domain granted to it under 

Section 7(h) of the NGA and the procedure set forth under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 

(Rule 71A) to obtain the right-of-way and additional temporary workspaces. Although Gulf South would 

compensate the landowner for the right-of-way and for any damages incurred during construction, a court 

would determine the level of compensation if a Certificate was 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. 

3.8.3 General Impacts and Mitigation 

An area’s current use and dominant vegetative community typically determine an area’s land use 

type. Thus, Project impacts that alter land use types do so by either removing defining vegetative 

communities (such as forested vegetation) or by changing the use of the land (such as converting land 

from an agricultural use to an industrial use). General impacts to land use type associated with Project 

construction and operation can be a function of the alteration of one or both of these attributes. The 

magnitude of land use type conversion depends upon multiple factors including the pre-existing 

vegetation community recovery time, post-construction restoration methods, preconstruction land use, 

and allowed post-construction land use. Section 2.3 provides a detailed discussion of the proposed 

construction methods and post-construction restoration actions for the proposed Project that would dictate 

the rate of land use type conversion and recovery. 

Construction

Following construction, areas outside of the permanent pipeline right-of-way and aboveground 

facilities would be graded, seeded, or otherwise restored and would be allowed to revert to approximate 

existing conditions, except where individual landowner agreements negotiated during the easement 

acquisition process dictate other acceptable restoration measures. As a result, land use type impacts to 

these areas impacted only by construction would be temporary. Because non-woody vegetation would be 

expected to return to preconstruction conditions within one to two growing seasons, impacts to lands 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
3-81

currently classified as agricultural, pasture, commercial/industrial, or open land located outside the 

permanent pipeline right-of-way would be short term and minor. 

Forested areas cleared within the construction right-of-way and extra work areas not located 

within the permanent right-of-way would be allowed to revert to preconstruction conditions and in some 

cases trees may be replanted. Re-growth of mature trees would take many years, with the duration of 

recovery dependent on the types and ages of trees removed. As a result, impacts to areas classified as 

forest and pine plantation lands that are located outside the permanent right-of-way would be long-term. 

Sections 2.0 and 4.0 discuss Gulf South’s measures to avoid and minimize effects to sensitive 

land use types through route selection, collocation, and the minimization of construction rights-of-way. 

Additional discussion of measures that would be implemented to minimize or mitigate impacts to 

wetlands and vegetation are provided in Sections 3.4 and 3.5, respectively. Despite these minimization 

measures, proposed Project construction would still result in some long-term impacts in forested areas 

due to variations in vegetative regrowth rates. Due to the prevalence of these land use types in the 

affected counties, we believe such impacts would not be significant. 

Operation 

Permanent land use type changes would occur to those lands contained within the permanent 

pipeline right-of-way where reversion to the preconstruction land use 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; below-ground construction; and the growth, planting, or 

cultivation of trees. Forested and pine plantation land use types therefore would be precluded from the 

permanent pipeline right-of-way. Allowable land uses generally permitted within the permanent 

right-of-way would include agriculture, including the use of farming equipment and cultivation of row 

crops, and pastureland. Permanent changes to land use types would also be associated with the proposed 

aboveground facilities and those access roads maintained during operations, as acreage required for these 

facilities would be converted to a commercial/industrial land use type for the life of the proposed Project. 

Permanent maintenance of rights-of-way relative to converted land uses and aboveground 

facilities would have a permanent, lasting affect for at least the life of the Project. Overall, despite the 

permanent conversion of some land use types in the permanent rights-of-way and at aboveground 

facilities, we believe the overall Project impact would not be significant given the limited acreage 

involved. 

3.8.3.1 Land Use Type-Specific Impacts and Mitigation 

Land use types including open land, open water, industrial/commercial lands, and other lands 

would not be converted by construction or operation of the proposed Project. Wetlands would be affected 

by the proposed Project, and these impacts are discussed in detail in Section 3.4. Other land use types, 

including agriculture, forested areas, pastures, and residential lands would be subject to impacts or 

conversion of land use and are discussed in more detail below. 

Agricultural, Timber, and Pasture Lands 

Construction of the proposed Project could affect the productivity of agricultural, timber, and 

pasture lands within the construction and permanent pipeline rights-of-way. During the pre-filing and 

scoping periods, we received comments expressing concern for potential proposed Project-related effects 

to farming, as well as pasture and timber lands. Gulf South proposes to accomplish pipeline construction 

between May and September 2007, which encompasses the typical growing season. Thus, proposed 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
3-82

Project-related crop losses would occur. As applicable, Gulf South would work with landowners prior to 

construction to establish compensation agreements for crop damages and for loss of growing time. In 

accordance with its Plan, Gulf South would implement construction procedures in agricultural areas to 

minimize potential impacts and restore the right-of-way to approximate preconstruction conditions (see 

Sections 2.3 and 3.2). Gulf South’s Plan requires it to conduct follow up inspections of the disturbed 

areas after the first and second growing seasons to determine if revegetation was successful. In 

agricultural areas, revegetation would be considered successful if crop yields are similar to adjacent 

undisturbed portions of the same field (see Section 3.2). 

Gulf South would implement its construction and monitoring procedures in agricultural lands, 

including pastureland, to minimize adverse effects and ensure proper restoration. However, pastureland 

disturbed by construction could take several years to return to preconstruction levels of production. In 

addition, construction through pastureland could temporarily affect some livestock operations, and some 

landowners could incur additional costs for supplemental livestock feed. Compensation for such losses 

would be accomplished through the easement negotiation process. To ensure the safety of livestock 

during construction, Gulf South would either construct temporary fencing to keep livestock away from 

construction areas or develop a grazing deferment plan to minimize impacts to pastureland during 

construction and restoration activities in accordance with its Plan. 

As discussed above, impacts to forested lands and pine plantation would range from long-term in 

areas outside the permanent pipeline right-of-way to permanent for areas within the permanent pipeline 

right-of-way. As such, timber production within the construction and permanent rights-of-way would be 

temporarily reduced or permanently precluded, respectively. Gulf South would negotiate with affected 

landowners to obtain an easement agreement that eliminates timber production within the permanent 

pipeline right-of-way. Compensation for any losses or limitations on future timber production values 

within the construction and permanent pipeline rights-of-way would be addressed during those easement 

negotiations. Prescribed burns are often used in the vicinity of the proposed Project to manage planted 

pines, and pipeline rights-of-way may in some cases serve as fire breaks. Gulf South has committed to 

coordinating with landowners to mitigate any potential impact to prescribed burning activity caused by 

the proposed Project. 

Appropriate landowner settlements, special construction measures, restoration, and postconstruction monitoring would ensure that landowners are able to resume pre-Project activities in 

construction easements or that such impacts would be mitigated. Further, settlement negotiations would 

ensure that property owners are fairly compensated for any loss of revenue associated with the 

construction or operation of the Project. 

Existing Residences and Planned Developments 

The proposed pipeline would traverse primarily rural, unincorporated areas, thereby avoiding 

most residences. Four residential structures (at MP 35.3, 40.6, 170.8, and 188.3) would be located within 

50 feet of proposed construction work areas. The residential structure at MP 35.3 is within the 

construction right-of-way; however, it is abandoned and not considered habitable, and would be 

demolished prior to construction. Approximately 4.2 acres of land classified as residential would be 

contained within the construction right-of-way or additional temporary workspaces, and 1.9 of those acres 

would be retained for the permanent right-of-way. During the planning stages for the proposed Project, 

Gulf South consulted with county and parish planning agencies and reviewed development plans to 

identify currently filed proposals for residential or commercial developments within 0.25 mile of the 

proposed construction right-of-way or associated aboveground facilities. No such developments were 

identified.

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
3-83

General Construction and Operational Impacts to Residences 

The general impacts of construction and operation of the proposed Project on residences would 

result from construction-related disturbances, limitation of land use type within the permanent pipeline 

right-of-way, and alteration of future development patterns. Specifically, potential construction-related 

disturbances include inconvenience caused by increased congestion and the noise and dust generated by 

construction; locally increased traffic; effects on landscaping (including alteration and loss of plantings), 

wells, and septic systems; and removal of objects such as sheds and trailers from the construction 

right-of-way. Uses and structures that would be precluded from the permanent pipeline right-of-way 

include construction of aboveground structures not associated with the proposed Project, construction of 

septic system leach fields, and planting or cultivation of trees or orchards. 

To minimize disruptions to residential areas near construction work areas, Gulf South would 

attempt to coordinate construction work schedules with affected landowners prior to starting construction. 

To further minimize impacts to residential areas within the vicinity of construction work areas, Gulf 

South would implement the following measures on an as-needed basis: 

• maintain access to all residences except for brief periods essential to pipe-laying activities; 

• where necessary, install temporary safety fencing to control access and minimize the hazards 

associated with an open trench; 

• notify affected landowners in advance of any scheduled disruption of household utilities and 

limit the duration of any interruption to the smallest time possible; 

• repair any damages to residential property that result from construction activities or provide 

compensation at fair market value; and 

• restore all areas disturbed by construction work areas to “as before or better” conditions. 

In general, Gulf South sought to avoid residences because construction activities could 

inconvenience residents, remove or damage shade trees, disrupt landscaping and gardens, and potentially 

damage structures. For example, operation of large construction equipment in the immediate vicinity of 

homes can create dust, noise, and/or muddy conditions. Precautions also must be taken to protect pets 

and small children. As described in Section 2.5, EIs would be responsible for monitoring and ensuring 

compliance with all environmental mitigation measures required by the FERC Certificate, if granted, 

including those residential mitigation measures identified above. Additionally, we are interested in 

ensuring that landowner issues are resolved in an effective and timely manner. Therefore, Gulf South 

would be required to develop and implement an environmental complaint resolution procedure that 

provides landowners with clear and simple directions for identifying and resolving their environmental 

mitigation problems/concerns during construction of the Project and restoration of the right-of-way (see 

Section 5.2). 

We received comments during the pre-filing and scoping periods indicating that the proposed 

Project route could interfere with plans for construction of homes or other structures. In Section 4.4, we 

evaluate several route variations that were identified in response to specific landowner requests. During 

the easement negotiation process, minor reroutes to the proposed Project’s pipeline alignment also could 

be made in accordance with landowner needs and requirements if they do not impact significant 

environmental resources or other landowners. Prior to construction, Gulf South would consult with the 

owners of all structures located within the construction work area, as part of the easement negotiation 

process, to develop a route or mitigation plan that would minimize impacts to those structures. If a minor 

reroute could not fully avoid the structures, Gulf South would relocate or replace the structures, or 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
3-84

otherwise compensate the affected landowner per the terms of the agreement negotiated during the 

easement acquisition process. 

3.8.4 Special Interest Areas Impacts and Mitigation 

Delhi Municipal Airport 

The proposed pipeline route would be located approximately 1,070 feet north of the Delhi 

Municipal Airport runway (MP 148.2) in Richland Parish, Louisiana. The proposed pipeline would 

parallel existing natural gas pipelines through this area. The airport has plans for a 2,000-foot runway 

expansion in the future. Gulf South is consulting with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the 

airport, and the City of Delhi to determine if the proposed Project would interfere with aircraft operations, 

the runway safety area, or the runway object-free area. Should the Delhi Municipal Airport runway be 

extended at some time in the future, Gulf South would work with airport authorities and the FAA to 

ensure that the proposed Project would comply with all applicable safety regulations. Based on 

consultation with the City of Delhi following publication of the Draft EIS, Gulf South indicated that 

future expansion of the Delhi Airport, if approved, would occur at least one year after completion of the 

East Texas to Mississippi Expansion Project. Furthermore, at the request of City of Delhi officials, Gulf 

South has agreed to bury the proposed pipeline at an increased depth, with at least seven feet of cover, in 

order to accommodate possible future grading requirements at the airport. 

We believe that the consultations and construction plans described above would prevent adverse 

impacts to the Delhi Municipal Airport. 

Levee Crossings 

The proposed Project would cross levees associated with the Red River (MP 27.0), Ouachita 

River (MP 110.7), and Mississippi River (MP 183.8) in Red River, Ouachita, and Madison Parishes, 

Louisiana and in Warren County, Mississippi, respectively. These levees provide flood control and 

augment Louisiana and Mississippi’s system of waterborne recreation and transportation. 

To determine applicable levee crossing requirements, Gulf South has consulted with the Red 

River Levee and Drainage District, Fifth Louisiana Levee District, Tensas Basin Levee District, Bossier 

Levee District, Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development, and the COE. These agencies 

have reviewed and approved Gulf South’s levee crossing plans. 

We believe that by Gulf South completing this consultation with the appropriate agencies and by 

complying with the permitting requirements, that the proposed Project would not negatively impact any 

levees along the proposed route. 

Hazardous Waste Sites 

Gulf South used Environmental Data Resources database reviews to identify any known 

hazardous waste sites within one mile of the proposed Project right-of-way, and identified 37 sites. 

Seventeen of these sites are located within 0.25 mile of the proposed route. Three Resource Conservation 

and Recovery Act (RCRA) sites were identified near the proposed Project. The Texas Eastern 

Transmission Corporation Castor site is located at MP 42.2, approximately 0.4 mile north of the proposed 

pipeline. This facility is considered a large-quantity waste generator, producing more than 1,000 kg of 

hazardous or 1 kg of acutely hazardous waste per month. Entergy’s Baxter Wilson plant is located near 

MP 184, approximately 0.7 mile west of the proposed pipeline. This facility is considered a smallquantity waste generator, producing between 100 and 1,000 kg of hazardous waste per month. Vicksburg 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
3-85

Marine is located at MP 185.3, approximately 0.4 mile south of the proposed pipeline. This facility is 

considered a small-quantity waste generator, producing between 100 and 1,000 kg of hazardous waste per 

month. The Vicksburg Marine site is identified in the RCRA database; however, MDEQ has no record of 

contamination there. 

In addition to the 37 known hazardous waste site locations, 18 other hazardous waste sites would 

be located in the proposed Project area for which exact locations are not known (i.e., orphan sites). Eight 

of these 18 sites are RCRA sites; however, they are believed to be at least one mile from the proposed 

pipeline. Furthermore, hazardous waste sites typically are associated with existing buildings, which the 

proposed route has avoided. 

In the event that a hazardous waste site is discovered during construction of the proposed Project, 

Gulf South indicates that it would stop work; notify the appropriate state and federal agencies; and 

proceed in accordance with local, state, and federal regulations. Gulf South has developed a 

Contaminated Media Plan that identifies the procedures that would be implemented during construction to 

identify, test, treat, and dispose of such materials in accordance with the appropriate state and federal 

regulations. 

Recreational Areas 

Recreational areas along the route of the proposed Project consist of natural areas used for 

hunting, fishing, wildlife viewing, hiking, boating and canoeing, and other outdoor activities. These areas 

include NRI streams, designated Natural and Scenic streams, WMAs, and national wildlife refuges. 

These areas are discussed in detail below. 

3.8.4.1 Specially Managed Lands Impacts and Mitigation 

Specially managed lands are areas administered by federal, state, county, or local agencies; lands 

of historic or cultural significance; designated environmentally sensitive areas; national or state scenic 

rivers; and designated scenic areas or roads. This section quantifies potential land use type conversions 

and recreational impacts at the special interest areas that would be traversed by the proposed Project 

route. 

Sixteenth Section Lands 

The Mississippi Secretary of State and the Vicksburg Warren School District informed the FERC 

about the proposed Project’s potential effects on Sixteenth Section Lands in Mississippi. Title for 

Sixteenth Section Lands is held by the State of Mississippi in trust to support public education 

(Mississippi Secretary of State 2006). Sixteenth Section Lands provide income to local school districts 

through the use or lease of lands for silviculture, agriculture, residential, commercial, and industrial uses, 

and/or hunting activities. 

The Mississippi Secretary of State’s Office, as the designated supervisory trustee for these Lands, 

indicated a desire to minimize pipeline crossings of Sixteenth Section Properties to the extent practical. 

Impacts to these properties from pipeline crossings would result in a loss of land use flexibility, 

preventing certain future property uses within permanent easements. Unlike properties held by private 

individuals or companies, any settlement received through easement settlements for Sixteenth Section 

Lands would be required to be invested in federally secured investments, thereby potentially limiting or 

decreasing future revenue generation from these lands. The State requested that if it were deemed that 

these properties could not be avoided, that crossings occur near parcel boundaries to prevent land use 

fragmentation on these lands. 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
3-86

The proposed Project would cross four Sixteenth Section Lands in Warren and Hinds County, 

Mississippi (Table 3.8.4-1). Due to these tracts’ extensive size and the Project’s collocation with existing 

power lines crossing the properties, avoidance of Sixteenth Section Lands would not be feasible. 

Deviation from the proposed Project alignment through these parcels would result in the clearing of new 

corridors, resulting in increased wildlife habitat and vegetation fragmentation. Additionally, Gulf South 

indicates that it had reached agreement or closed easement agreements with both of the property owners 

and proposes to cross a portion of one of the properties (MP 196.8 to 197.7) using HDD, thereby avoiding 

impacts to the ground surface. Gulf South would implement its HDD Contingency Plan in the event of 

frac-out or HDD failure. Given Gulf South’s agreements with landowners, our examination of route 

alternatives, and attempts to minimize impacts through use of HDD methods, we believe that impacts to 

Sixteenth Section Lands have been adequately minimized. 

TABLE 3.8.4-1 

Sixteenth Section Lands Crossed by the Proposed East Texas to Mississippi Expansion Project 

Mileposts 

Begin End Landowner Routing and Crossing Information 

185.7 186.7 Warren County Board of Education Gulf South’s proposed pipeline would be adjacent to the 

Entergy power line easement through this property. Any 

alternative route would not be collocated. The only 

alternatives to the proposed crossing would involve noncollocated routes that would create a new cleared corridor 

through the property. 

190.7 191.7 Warren County Board of Education Gulf South’s proposed pipeline would be adjacent to the 

Entergy power line easement through this property. Any 

alternative route would not be collocated. The only 

alternatives to the proposed crossing would involve noncollocated routes that would create a new cleared corridor 

through the property. 

196.8 197.7 Hinds County Board of Education Property from MP 196.8 to 197.4 would be crossed by 

horizontal directional drill with no surface impacts. From 

MP 197.4 to 197.7, Gulf South’s pipeline would be 

adjacent to the south side of Entergy’s power line 

easement. The only alternatives to the proposed crossing 

would involve non-collocated routes that would create a 

new cleared corridor through the property. 

202.7 203.8 Hinds County Board of Education Gulf South’s proposed pipeline would be adjacent to the 

Entergy power line easement through this property. Any 

alternative route would not be collocated. T he power line 

traverses the southern portion of the property and a route 

alternative to the north would cut through the center of the 

property. A route alternative to the south would impact 

residential land southwest of this property. 

Nationwide Rivers Inventory 

Streams included in the NRI are considered to possess “outstandingly remarkable natural or 

cultural values judged to be of more than local or regional significance” (NPS 2006f). The proposed 

Project would cross the Big Black River at about MP 196.7 in Warren and Hinds Counties in Mississippi, 

and the Pearl River at about MP 232.2 in Copiah and Simpson Counties in Mississippi. 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
3-87

The NRI-listed reach of the Big Black River extends from its confluence with the Mississippi 

River upstream approximately 234 miles. The Big Black River is an unaltered stream in bottomland 

hardwood habitat that has been recognized for outstanding scenery, recreation, fish, wildlife, history, and 

cultural values. 

The NRI-listed reach of the Pearl River extends from the Gulf of Mexico upstream approximately 

152 miles. The Pearl River has been recognized for outstanding scenery, recreation, and wildlife values. 

Habitat types found along the river include swampland, marsh, and cypress tupelo forest, which provide 

habitat to a variety of wildlife species. 

As described in Sections 2.0 and 3.3, Gulf South would use HDD installation techniques to avoid 

and minimize impacts to the NRI-designated waterbodies and adjacent riparian areas. As proposed, 

additional temporary workspaces associated with the Big Black River and Pearl River HDD crossings 

would result in some impacts to forested areas near these rivers. However, we believe these impacts 

would be relatively minor as the additional temporary workspaces would be located at least 150 feet from 

the edge of these streams. We also included a recommendation in Section 3.3 for Gulf South to complete 

consultations with the NPS regarding these crossings and withdrawal of hydrostatic test waters, and to file 

plans for additional mitigation measures, if needed. Gulf South’s Procedures also include measures to 

prevent or minimize impacts resulting from the withdrawal or discharge of hydrostatic test waters. 

Given the avoidance and minimization measures that would be implemented by Gulf South, as 

well as the recommended consultation with the NPS, we believe that construction of the proposed Project 

would not result in a significant impact to the NRI-listed Big Black and Pearl Rivers. 

Louisiana Natural and Scenic Rivers 

Two streams that would be crossed by the proposed Project, Black Lake Bayou (MP 42.3) and 

Saline Bayou (MP 57.0), have been designated as Louisiana Natural and Scenic Rivers, pursuant to the 

Louisiana Scenic Rivers Act. These streams are recognized as having unique and diverse characteristics, 

and are protected through management by LDWF (LDWF 2006b). Black Lake Bayou offers hiking, 

boating, fishing, and wildlife viewing opportunities (Recreation.gov 2006). Saline Bayou offers 

canoeing, floating, and fishing opportunities (NPS 2006g). 

As described in Section 3.3, Gulf South would use HDD installation techniques, in accordance 

with its Procedures, to further avoid and minimize direct impacts at each of these crossings. The 

proposed crossing of Black Lake Bayou and Saline Bayou, as well as the proposed discharge of 

hydrostatic test water from each of these sources, would also require approval from LDWF. Gulf South is 

consulting with LDWF for both of the proposed waterbody crossings, has submitted permit applications, 

and would be required to complete all agency consultations and receive all approvals and permits prior to 

the start of construction. 

Given the avoidance and minimization measures that would be implemented by Gulf South, as 

well as those additional mitigation measures that may result from LDWF approval and permitting, we 

believe that construction of the proposed Project would not result in a significant impact to any designated 

Louisiana Natural and Scenic River. 

Wildlife Management Areas 

As described in Section 3.6, the Ouachita WMA is located in Ouachita Parish, Louisiana, and 

consists of a 9,641-acre site managed by the LDWF. The proposed pipeline route would cross the 

Ouachita WMA for a distance of approximately 1,000 feet, just west of Bayou Lafourche (MP 115.4). 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
3-88

Impacts to forested lands along all of that distance would be avoided, as the crossing of the Ouachita 

WMA would be combined with the HDD crossing of Bayou Lafourche. The use of a successful HDD 

would prevent impacts to the Ouachita WMA and in the event of HDD frac-out or drill failure, Gulf 

South would implement its HDD Contingency Plan to minimize any potential impacts. 

The proposed Project also would pass within 0.25 mile of the Bayou Pierre WMA (approximate 

MP 22.0 to 23.0) in DeSoto and Red River Parishes, Louisiana. This 2,212-acre WMA, also owned by 

the LDWF, is bisected by Bayou Pierre and provides waterfowl and upland hunting opportunities. No 

lands within the Bayou Pierre WMA would be contained within the proposed construction right-of-way, 

and no impacts to land use would be anticipated during operation of the proposed Project. 

We believe that construction and operation of the proposed Project would not result in significant 

impacts to either the Ouachita or Bayou Pierre WMA. In addition, use of WMA lands and access roads 

would require prior approval by LDWF. We believe that construction and operation of the proposed 

Project would not result in significant impacts to the Bayou Pierre WMA; and that use of an HDD would 

minimize impacts to the Ouachita WMA. 

FWS-managed Lands and Easements 

The FWS works with private landowners that voluntarily restore wetlands or other valuable 

wildlife habitats on their property by providing financial assistance from the federal government. One 

such area is located along the proposed pipeline route near MP 123.2, just east of the Boeuf River in 

Richland Parish, Louisiana. However, Gulf South has adopted a minor route variation (as described in 

Section 4.0) that would route the proposed pipeline to the north of the FWS easement. This adopted route 

variation eliminates any impacts to this particular FWS easement. As discussed in Section 3.7, Gulf 

South has agreed to modify its proposed route and avoid two areas managed by the FWS’ Tensas River 

NWR complex based on consultations with the FWS. These areas include one U.S. Government feeowned property managed by the FWS east of Bayou Macon (near MP 150.2) and an FWS easement 

associated with the Tensas River NWR (near MP 154.0) located in Madison Parish, Louisiana. The 

proposed Project would not cross the Tensas River NWR proper due to selective routing in Madison 

Parish, Louisiana. 

USDA-managed Lands 

The CRP, WRP, and Prior Converted Wetlands are voluntary programs managed by the USDA. 

The CRP, administered by the FSA, allows owners of agricultural land to conserve those lands through 

planting of native grasses, trees, and other cover, with financial assistance from the federal government 

(NRCS 2006a). Typically, these easements retire croplands with erodable soils or otherwise sensitive 

croplands from production for a period of 10 to 15 years. The WRP and Prior Converted Wetlands are 

administered by the NRCS. The WRP offers landowners the opportunity to protect, restore, and enhance 

wetlands located on their property (NRCS 2006a). The program attempts to restore wetland function and 

wildlife habitat, and to promote long-term conservation through technical and financial assistance. Prior 

Converted Wetlands are former wetlands converted for agricultural use that are targeted for voluntary 

restoration under direction of the NRCS and its WRP. After restoration, Prior Converted Wetlands are 

placed in a permanent, protective easement in exchange for compensation and cost-share assistance. 

Gulf South indicates that 16 CRP lands and 17 WRP lands would be crossed by the proposed 

pipeline route in Red River, Ouachita, Richland, and Madison Parishes, Louisiana; and in Warren and 

Hinds Counties, Mississippi. Locations of CRP and WRP lands and other information for these sites are 

summarized in Tables 3.8.4-2 and 3.8.4-3, respectively. The area impacted by the proposed Project 

would be 91.1 and 132.1 acres for CRP and WRP sites, respectively. The proposed Project would cross 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
3-89

four Prior Converted Wetlands, three located in Red River Parish, Louisiana (MP 24.2, 25.4, and 27.6) 

and one located in Madison Parish, Louisiana (MP 153.2). Construction of the proposed Project would 

affect approximately 42.2 acres of Prior Converted Wetlands. 

TABLE 3.8.4-2 

Conservation Reserve Program Lands Crossed by the Proposed 

East Texas to Mississippi Expansion Project 

Enter MP Exit MP Parish/County Acreage Impacted 

23.1 24.2 Red River Parish, LA 6.1 

31.5 31.9 Red River Parish, LA 4.2 

151.6 151.7 Madison Parish, LA 2.6 

158.2 158.9 Madison Parish, LA 25.1 

184.9 184.9 Warren County, MS 0.7 

193.3 193.4 Hinds County, MS 1.3 

198.2 199.1 Hinds County, MS 12.6 

201.8 202.0 Hinds County, MS 2.4 

206.7 208.0 Hinds County, MS 18.4 

215.3 215.5 Hinds County, MS 2.5 

216.5 216.7 Hinds County, MS 1.4 

216.8 216.8 Hinds County, MS 0.4 

216.9 216.9 Hinds County, MS 1.1 

217.0 217.1 Hinds County, MS 2.2 

217.2 217.2 Hinds County, MS 0.2 

226.3 226.7 Hinds County, MS 4.9 

Total 91.1 

The proposed pipeline route is collocated with other existing rights-of-way in many places where 

USDA-managed lands would be crossed. Collocation tends to reduce environmental impacts overall, by 

reducing the need for clearing of entirely new corridors in greenfield areas. Most of the WRP sites that 

would be crossed by the proposed Project are located in Madison Parish, Louisiana, which has a high 

density of these sites thus rendering avoidance impractical. Further, Gulf South proposes a route in 

Madison Parish that avoids the Tensas River NWR. 

As a result of the disturbance caused by the construction of the proposed Project as well as 

operations, landowners may no longer be eligible to participate in the CRP or to receive the payments that 

they currently obtain from the FSA due to modified land use or modified vegetation type or strata. Since 

lands included in the construction or permanent pipeline rights-of-way would potentially be no longer 

eligible for inclusion in the CRP program, affected landowners could experience an associated financial 

loss. Gulf South has settled easement agreements with all affected landowners that have tracts enrolled in 

the CRP. As part of the right-of-way procurement process, Gulf South would have negotiated with the 

affected landowners to address compensation for any losses or limitations associated with CRP lands. 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
3-90

TABLE 3.8.4-3 

Wetland Reserve Program Lands Crossed by the Proposed 

East Texas to Mississippi Expansion Project 

Enter 

MP 

Exit 

MP Parish/ County 

Acreage 

Impacted 

Impact Avoidance / 

Minimization Measures 

30.2 30.5 Red River Parish, LA 4.3 - collocate with Gulf South’s 

existing pipeline 

- minimize construction area 

- restore per NRCS guidance 

- minimize maintained area 

- segregate topsoil 

112.9 113.2 Ouachita Parish, LA 3.2 - collocate with existing 

pipeline 

- minimize construction area 

- restore per NRCS guidance 

- minimize maintained area 

131.0 131.8 Richland Parish, LA 0.0 - avoid impact via HDD 

152.1 153.3 Madison Parish, LA 12.7 - minimize construction area 

- move staging area 

- restore per NRCS guidance 

- minimize maintained area 

- segregate topsoil 

153.3 155.1 Madison Parish, LA 10.7 - minimize construction area 

- restore per NRCS guidance 

- minimize maintained area 

- segregate topsoil 

154.4 155.2 Madison Parish, LA 5.1 - minimize construction area 

- restore per NRCS guidance 

- minimize maintained area 

- segregate topsoil 

155.2 156.9 Madison Parish, LA 23.6 - minimize construction area 

- restore per NRCS guidance 

- minimize maintained area 

- segregate topsoil 

156.9 157.3 Madison Parish, LA 5.5 - minimize construction area 

- restore per NRCS guidance 

- minimize maintained area 

- segregate topsoil 

157.3 158.2 Madison Parish, LA 11.9 - minimize construction area 

- restore per NRCS guidance 

- minimize maintained area 

- segregate topsoil 

163.7 164.0 Madison Parish, LA 2.7 - move HDD exit point to avoid 

WRP 

- minimize construction area 

- restore per NRCS guidance 

- minimize maintained area 

- segregate topsoil 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
3-91

TABLE 3.8.4-3 (continued) 

Wetland Reserve Program Lands Crossed by the Proposed 

East Texas to Mississippi Expansion Project 

Enter 

MP 

Exit 

MP Parish/ County 

Acreage 

Impacted 

Impact Avoidance / 

Minimization Measures 

166.8 168.0 Madison Parish, LA 8.9 - modify route to avoid large 

trees 

- minimize construction area 

- restore per NRCS guidance 

- minimize maintained area 

- segregate topsoil 

171.8 172.1 Madison Parish, LA 4.9 - re-route per NRCS guidance 

to minimize impact 

- restore per NRCS guidance 

- minimize maintained area 

- segregate topsoil 

174.5 174.6 Madison Parish, LA 1.2 - re-route closer to existing 

powerline to minimize impact 

to large trees 

- restore per NRCS guidance 

- minimize maintained area 

- segregate topsoil 

174.7 174.9 Madison Parish, LA 3.1 - re-route closer to existing 

powerline to minimize impact 

to large trees 

- restore per NRCS guidance 

- minimize maintained area 

- segregate topsoil 

175.1 175.8 Madison Parish, LA 9.2 - re-route closer to existing 

powerline to minimize impact 

to large trees 

- restore per NRCS guidance 

- minimize maintained area 

- segregate topsoil 

175.8 177.1 Madison Parish, LA 17.5 - cross existing powerline 

farther east as requested by 

NRCS 

- minimize construction area 

- restore per NRCS guidance 

- minimize maintained area 

- segregate topsoil 

178.1 178.6 Madison Parish, LA 7.6 - minimize construction area 

- restore per NRCS guidance 

- minimize maintained area 

- segregate topsoil 

Total 132.1 

Native grasses, trees, and other vegetative cover within CRP lands would be altered by 

construction and operation of the proposed Project. Gulf South indicated that it would utilize its 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
3-92

revegetation plan as discussed in Section 3.5, as well as its Plan and Procedures, to restore and revegetate 

impacted CRP lands. Gulf South has not completed consultations with the FSA regarding restoration of 

these areas. To ensure that impacts are adequately mitigated, we recommend that: 

• Prior to construction, Gulf South should consult with the FSA to determine 

appropriate seed mixes and/or revegetation efforts that should be implemented on 

CRP lands to minimize and mitigate construction and operations impacts. Gulf 

South should also retain and have available for inspection any records of 

consultation(s) with the FSA indicating specific measures agreed upon by Gulf 

South and the FSA that would be implemented on CRP lands. 

Construction of the Project would temporarily disturb hydric soils and affect wetland and nonwetland vegetation within the WRP easements and Prior Converted Wetland sites. Construction and 

operation of the proposed Project would affect forested and wetland areas in a similar manner as 

described above and in Sections 3.4 and 3.5. The greatest and longest-lasting impacts would be to 

forested areas, which would be long-term to allow for regrowth or permanent in the maintained 

right-of-way. 

Gulf South continues to consult with NRCS regarding the crossing of WRP lands and Prior 

Converted Wetlands, as well as considerations for routing, construction methods, revegetation, and other 

impact minimization measures. Based on the results of these ongoing consultations with NRCS, Gulf 

South developed a series of impact minimization or mitigation measures for WRP lands. In general, 

impact minimization measures proposed by Gulf South include reduction of the construction footprint, 

restoration of contours and revegetation per NRCS guidance, minimization of the permanently maintained 

right-of-way, and topsoil segregation (Table 3.8.4-3). Specific impact avoidance or minimization 

measures proposed by Gulf South (Table 3.8.4-3) includes the movement of HDD workspace to entirely 

avoid and minimize impacts at two WRP sites (MPs 149.7 and 163.7, respectively), use of HDD to avoid 

surface impacts (MP 131.0), adjustment of the location of a staging area (MP 152.1), and modification of 

the proposed route, primarily to avoid large trees (MPs 166.8, 171.8, 174.5, 174.7, 175.1, and 175.8). 

Additionally, Gulf South developed other special construction and operational measures in consultation 

with NRCS to minimize impacts to the WRP site located near the Tensas River NWR that are associated 

with habitat for the Louisiana black bear (see Section 3.7.1.4). We believe that these impact avoidance, 

minimization, and mitigation measures are appropriate. However, consultations between Gulf South and 

NRCS have not been finalized and Warranty Easement Deed Subordination Agreements have not yet 

been completed. Since consultations with the NRCS are not complete, we recommend that: 

• Prior to construction, Gulf South should file with the Secretary, its final site-specific 

plans for WRP crossings. 

Based on the characteristics of USDA-managed lands, Gulf South’s proposed construction 

measures, additional measures to avoid and minimize impacts to WRP lands, and our above 

recommendations, we believe that impacts to USDA-managed lands would be adequately minimized. 

3.8.5 Transportation 

Construction of the proposed Project would result in temporary and minor traffic delays related to 

road closures and lane blockages. The proposed Project area is predominately comprised of low-density, 

rural areas. As such, existing transportation infrastructure in the area traversed by the proposed Project 

route includes mostly rural roads and highways. In addition, Gulf South reports that the majority of 

construction-related traffic would occur in the early morning and late evening, outside the normal times of 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
3-93

expected peak traffic. As such, we believe that congestion-related delays would not occur in association 

with construction of the proposed Project. 

The proposed pipeline route would cross approximately 42 major U.S. or state and interstate 

highways (Table 3.8.5-1), including Interstate 49 and Interstate 55, as well as numerous railroads and 

lightly traveled paved and unimproved, unpaved rural roads. As described in Section 2.3, all railroads, 

major highways, and interstates would be crossed using subsurface boring techniques to avoid road and 

lane closures. Most major road crossings would be bored; however crossings at Interstate 49 (MP 14.7), 

U.S. Highway 167 (MP 73.0), State Highway 34 (MP 90.0), State Highway 602 (MP 172.9 and 177.6), 

U.S. Highway 61 (MP 185.3), and Interstate 55/Highway 51 (MP 227.1) would be accomplished via 

HDD methods. Often associated with the crossing of adjacent waterbody features, HDD crossings also 

would avoid closure of those roadways. Pipeline crossings of more lightly traveled paved and 

unimproved, unpaved rural roads typically would be accomplished via open-cut installation, which could 

require temporary lane blockages and closures and implementation of detours, where feasible. In the 

absence of a reasonable detour, construction across the roadway would be staged to allow at least one lane 

of traffic to remain open except for the limited periods required for installing the pipeline. Efforts also 

would be made to schedule lane closures outside of peak traffic periods. 

Construction across all roadway features would be accomplished in accordance with Gulf South’s 

Plan and the requirements of all applicable crossing permits and approvals. Therefore, any effects to local 

transportation patterns or infrastructure would be temporary and minor. As periodic maintenance and 

inspection activities along the proposed pipeline route would involve only infrequent light vehicle 

movement, we believe that no impacts to transportation would be expected during operation of the 

proposed Project. 

TABLE 3.8.5-1 

Major Highway Road Crossings for the Proposed 

East Texas to Mississippi Expansion Projecta 

Facility/Road Name Parish/County Milepost 

US Highway 171 DeSoto Parish, LA 4.5 

State Highway 175 DeSoto Parish, LA 12.2 

Interstate 49 DeSoto Parish, LA 14.7 

State Highway 1 Red River Parish, 

LA 

26.0 

State Highway 515 Red River Parish, 

LA 

28.4 

U.S. Highway 71 Red River Parish, 

LA 

30.7 

State Highway 783 Red River Parish, 

LA 

35.9 

U.S. Highway 371 / State Highway 7 Bienville Parish, LA 38.5 

State Highway 4 Bienville Parish, LA 41.9 

State Highway 792 Bienville Parish, LA 44.6 

State Highway 507 / Kepler Road Bienville Parish, LA 45.7 

State Highway 9 Bienville Parish, LA 56.4 

State Highway 155 Bienville Parish, LA 62.6 

State Highway 147 / Arcadia Hwy Jackson Parish, LA 70.2 

U.S. Highway 167 Jackson Parish, LA 73.0 

State Highway 542 / Beech Springs Road Jackson Parish, LA 76.5 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
3-94

TABLE 3.8.5-1 (continued) 

Major Highway Road Crossings for the Proposed 

East Texas to Mississippi Expansion Projecta 

Facility/Road Name Parish/County Milepost 

State Highway 811 / Gladway Road Jackson Parish, LA 78.2 

State Highway 146 Jackson Parish, LA 87.8 

State Highway 34 Jackson Parish, LA 90.0 

State Highway 548 Jackson Parish, LA 90.8 

State Highway 548 Jackson Parish, LA 96.1 

State Highway 557 Ouachita Parish, LA 101.5 

State Highway 846 Ouachita Parish, LA 102.7 

State Highway 165 Ouachita Parish, LA 111.4 

State Highway 133 Richland Parish, LA 120.5 

State Highway 135 Richland Parish, LA 124.9 

State Highway 15 Richland Parish, LA 128.8 

State Highway 137 Richland Parish, LA 130.2 

State Highway 584 / Burke Road Richland Parish, LA 137.1 

State Highway 2263 / Mengel Road Richland Parish, LA 138.0 

State Highway 609 Richland Parish, LA 142.5 

State Highway 17 Richland Parish, LA 149.0 

State Highway 577 Madison Parish, LA 153.3 

Highway 603 Madison Parish, LA 166.1 

US Highway 65 Madison Parish, LA 166.8 

State Highway 602 Madison Parish, LA 172.9 

State Highway 602 Madison Parish, LA 177.6 

US Highway 61 Warren County, MS 185.3 

State Highway 27 Warren County, MS 193.6 

Highway 18 Hinds County, MS 213.4 

Interstate 55 / State Highway 51 Hinds County, MS 227.1 

Highway 473 Hinds County, MS 230.3 

_______________ 

Notes: 

a

 All major roads would be crossed using subsurface boring or drilling techniques. 

3.8.6 Visual Resources 

Visual resources refer to the composite of basic terrain, geologic features, hydrologic features, 

vegetative patterns, and anthropogenic features that influence the visual appeal of an area for residents or 

visitors. The proposed Project could alter existing visual resources in three ways: (1) construction 

activity and equipment may temporarily alter viewscapes, (2) construction and right-of-way maintenance 

would alter existing vegetation patterns, and (3) aboveground facilities would represent permanent 

alterations to the viewscape. The significance of these visual impacts primarily would depend on the 

quality of the current viewshed, the degree of alteration of that view, the number of potential viewers, and 

the perspective of the viewer. 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
3-95

3.8.6.1 Current Viewshed 

Most of the proposed Project would extend through rural areas that consist of pine plantations, 

forested lands, pastures, and agricultural lands with scattered residences. Most areas along the route do 

not provide long-range unobstructed views, in part because of the topography and in part because much of 

the land adjacent to the proposed route is forested. However, public viewpoints are present along some of 

the roadways in the Project area. 

3.8.6.2 General Impacts and Mitigation 

Pipeline Facilities 

During construction, there would be temporary impacts to visual quality for viewers in the 

vicinity of the construction right-of-way due to the presence of construction equipment, work crews, and 

construction activities. This temporary alteration to the views likely would 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 Project 

area. 

After completion of construction, the temporary right-of-way would be restored to approximately 

preconstruction contours and would be allowed to revert to preconstruction uses and land use type. About 

42 percent of the proposed pipeline route would traverse agricultural, pasture, 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, affected 

forested areas outside the permanent pipeline right-of-way could take many years to recover, and forested 

land within the permanent right-of-way would be maintained in a condition free of woody vegetation for 

the life of the Project. To reduce visual impacts related to the permanent pipeline corridor, Gulf South’s 

proposed route would be collocated with or parallel existing utility rights-of-way where possible, thereby 

minimizing impacts to previously undisturbed vegetation. In these areas where the proposed pipeline 

would be collocated with existing rights-of-way, the visual impacts of the proposed Project would be 

minor because widening of the existing corridor would not significantly alter existing visual resources. 

The long-term visual impacts resulting from views of the corridor in existing forested areas where the 

proposed route would not be collocated with existing rights-of-way generally would be limited to a 

relatively small number of individuals, or brief observations afforded in areas where the corridor 

intersects roadways. As a result, we believe the visual impact of the permanent pipeline corridor would 

be minor. 

Gulf South avoids crossing state and federally managed lands to the extent possible and also has 

avoided most scenic vistas. As described above, however, the proposed Project route would cross two 

NRI-listed rivers and two Louisiana State Natural and Scenic Rivers, all of which have been noted for 

their visual character, as well as the Ouachita WMA. The crossing of all of these resources would be 

accomplished via HDD, and the crossings of the two Natural and Scenic Rivers would be located in 

proximity to an existing, open utility right-of-way crossing. Therefore, construction and operation of the 

proposed Project would not result in creation or expansion of an existing corridor, and we believe 

long-term visual impacts to these features would be minimal. 

Aboveground Facilities 

The proposed Project would include installation of additional compression at one compressor 

station and construction and operation of two new compressor stations, six M/R stations, 11 MLVs, nine 

side valves, and five pig launcher/receiver facilities. Most of the aboveground facilities would either be 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
3-96

constructed in areas where existing viewsheds contain similar features or where views would be occluded 

by existing vegetation or topography. Given the limited visibility of these sites, screening provided by 

existing vegetation or landscaping, and frequent collocation with existing utility rights-of-way or 

industrial facilities, the aboveground facilities as a group would represent a minor visual alteration that 

would persist for the life of the Project. The potential site-specific visual impacts of each aboveground 

facility are described below. 

Compressor Stations 

The proposed compressor station sites would typically contain several buildings, including those 

housing compressor units and other associated equipment. Aboveground features outside the 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 existing Carthage Junction Compressor Station is located at MP H0.0 of the 36-inch-pipeline 

supply lateral in Panola County, Texas. Additional compression would be added within this existing 

compressor station. Thus, any visual impacts from new aboveground facilities would be consistent with 

the existing visual setting. 

The McComb Compressor Station is located in Walthall County, Mississippi, approximately 

48 miles south of the terminus of the proposed pipeline. Approximately 350 feet of new 26-inch-diameter 

yard and station piping would be installed within the yard of this existing station. Given the existing 

industrial setting of this area, no new visual impacts would occur at this station. Similarly, new pig 

launching and receiving facilities would be installed within the yard of the existing Hall Summit 

Compressor Station, but no visual impacts are anticipated. 

The proposed Vixen Compressor Station would be located at MP 99.4 in Ouachita Parish, 

Louisiana in an area dominated by managed pine plantation. Gulf South would purchase approximately 

20 acres in this area, but would disturb only about 8 acres, and would permanently maintain only about 

6 acres. The undisturbed 12 acres would remain as pine forest, and 2 acres would be allowed to revert to 

natural conditions. The proposed site is completely surrounded by planted pine trees, which would 

visually screen the compressor station. No existing residences or businesses would be within view of the 

Vixen Compressor Station. 

The Tallulah Compressor Station would be located at MP 167.6 in Madison Parish, Louisiana. 

Gulf South proposes to purchase approximately 25 acres in this location. The proposed compressor 

station site would consist of approximately 10 acres of agricultural land, all of which would be 

permanently impacted. Although the Tallulah Compressor Station would be located in an agricultural 

field, it would be visually screened on the east, south, and west sides by existing forested vegetation. The 

proposed compressor station may be visible to one residence and one non-residential structure, both 

located approximately 3,700 feet to the northeast of the Tallulah Compressor Station. However, given the 

distance between the proposed Tallulah Compressor Station and the structures, adverse visual impacts 

would be unlikely. 

Overall, we believe that the change in visual quality in the vicinity of the compressor stations 

would affect few viewers and would result in a minor long-term impact. 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
3-97

MLV, Side Valve, and M/R Sites 

MLV sites would consist of a 50- by 50-foot area surrounded by a chain-link fence within the 

confines of the permanent pipeline right-of-way. Aboveground elements of each MLV site would include 

12-inch-diameter piping, with valving extending aboveground for blowoffs and bypass. 

Based on review of aerial alignment sheets and information provided by Gulf South, it is likely 

that a MLV would be visible from nearby residences in one location (MP 129.8). The MLV at MP 129.8 

would be located in an agricultural field currently lacking existing vegetation. This facility would be 

visible to a residence located approximately 500 feet to the south of this proposed facility. To reduce the 

potential for visual impacts to residences, Gulf South proposes to add a vegetative buffer at the proposed 

MLV at MP 129.8. The other proposed MLVs and side valves appear to be either located adjacent to 

other aboveground facilities or would not be generally visible to nearby residents or the public due to 

existing vegetation or other visual screens. Each of the visible MLVs would appear as a small fenced 

area within a cleared right-of-way corridor unless the valve is located in an open field. Although this 

would result in a long-term effect on visual quality, the significance of the impact would vary with the 

viewer. Our intent is to screen these facilities from nearby residents when needed, particularly for those 

who may not own the land that the aboveground facility is placed on. Since one residence is located 

within sight of one of the above-mentioned facilities and a detailed screening plan has not been provided, 

we recommend that: 

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

approval by the Director of OEP, a final site screening plan for the proposed MLV at 

MP 129.8. 

M/R stations would be constructed adjacent to the cleared pipeline right-of-way at each of the 

proposed Project receipt and interconnect points to meter the flow and adjust the pressure of natural gas 

received from or delivered to those systems. Each M/R station would include meter and regulator 

equipment, flow pressure control equipment, and a customer facility housed within a fenced perimeter. 

The Enterprise (MP H3.3) M/R Stations also would include a pig launcher. Sizes of the proposed M/R 

stations would vary from 1.0 to 4.0 acres. 

The Columbia Gulf (149.4), Texas Eastern (MP 219.7), Gulf South (MP 238.6), Enterprise 

(MP H3.3), and Enbridge (MP H2.7) M/R Stations would be constructed in areas lacking nearby 

residences. Additionally, these stations would be constructed wholly or partially within, and largely 

screened by, pine plantation or forested land, further limiting the visual impact of these facilities. The 

location of the Texas Gas (MP 112.3) M/R Station was modified after publication of the Draft EIS and 

would be located approximately 600 feet southeast of an existing residence near the edge of a forested 

area. Gulf South has proposed to retain existing trees to provide a visual buffer and to add vegetative 

buffers where needed to mitigate potential visual intrusion. Given these measures, we believe any 

potential visual impacts resulting from the modified location of the Texas Gas M/R Station would be 

adequately minimized. 

With the placement of a vegetative screen around the MLV located at MP 129.8, combined with 

the lack of proximate residences to other above ground facilities, we believe that the proposed Project 

would not result any significant impact on local viewsheds. 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
3-98

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

Visual Resources 

The proposed Project would affect multiple land use types, with long-term or permanent impacts 

to forested areas. However, these impacts would not be significant overall given the amount of forested 

lands in the vicinity of the proposed Project. Additionally, most of the impacts to other land use types 

would not result in a permanent conversion of use. Several special interest areas and specially managed 

lands would also be affected by the proposed Project, but based on Gulf South’s proposed measures and 

plans, ongoing consultations with managing authorities, and our recommendations, we believe that 

potential impacts would be adequately minimized. Visual resources would generally not be affected by 

the proposed Project, and we have included a recommendation that would minimize impacts in one 

location. 

3.9 SOCIOECONOMICS 

3.9.1 Region of Influence 

The proposed Project would consist of approximately 240.3 miles of 42-inch-diameter interstate 

natural gas pipeline, 3.3 miles of 36-inch-diameter pipe supply laterals, compression upgrades at an 

existing compressor station, two new compressor stations, and associated ancillary facilities, as described 

in Section 2.1. The proposed pipelines and associated facilities would be located in one county in Texas 

(Panola), seven parishes in Louisiana (DeSoto, Red River, Bienville, Jackson, Ouachita, Richland, and 

Madison), and five counties in Mississippi (Warren, Hinds, Copiah, Simpson, and Walthall). For the 

purposes of our socioeconomic analysis, we define these counties and parishes as the proposed Project’s 

region of influence. 

If the proposed Project was constructed, several potential socioeconomic effects could manifest 

themselves within the region of influence. Construction-related effects could include alteration of 

population levels or local demographics, increased demand for housing or public services, and increased 

employment opportunities. In addition, construction would result in increased government revenue 

associated with sales and payroll taxes. Potential socioeconomic impacts associated with operation of the 

proposed Project would include employment opportunities, ongoing local expenditures by the operating 

company, an increased tax base, and an increase in the demand for provision of public services. 

3.9.2 Population 

Table 3.9.2-1 reports populations and selected demographic characteristics in the states, counties, 

and parishes that would be traversed by the proposed Project. Based on census data for the year 2000 

(U.S. Bureau of the Census 2006a), the total population in these counties and parishes is 642,244. 

Populations in the area were relatively stable between 1990 and 2000; only Simpson County and Madison 

Parish had more than a 5.6-percent change in population over the 10-year period. 

Population densities in the region of influence range from a low of 19.4 persons per square mile 

in Bienville Parish to a high of 285.9 persons per square mile in Hinds County. These densities are 

consistent with rural areas and with averages reported for their respective states. 

The number of residents within the region of influence would increase temporarily during 

construction. Construction is scheduled for between May and September 2007; the peak construction 

workforce would be 2,800 workers, of which about 98 percent (2,744) would be non-local. Assuming 

that 0.8 family members (FERC 2003) would accompany each non-local worker, total 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
3-99

TABLE 3.9.2-1 

Existing Population and Demographics Conditions within the 

Region of Influence for the Proposed East Texas to Mississippi Expansion Projecta

County/Parish 

2004 

Population 

Population 

Change 

since 1990 

(%) 

Population 

Density 

White, 

Non 

Hispanic 

(%) 

Black or 

African 

American 

(%) 

Hispanic 

(%) 

Asian 

(%) 

Native 

American 

(%) 

Texas 20,490,022 22.8 79.6 52.4 11.5 32.0 2.7 0.6 

Panola County 22,756 3.3 28.4 77.5 17.7 3.5 0.2 0.4 

Louisiana 4,515,770 5.9 102.6 62.5 32.5 2.4 1.2 0.6 

DeSoto Parish 25,494 -0.7 29.1 55.3 42.2 1.6 0.1 0.5 

Red River Parish 9,622 1.0 24.7 57.6 40.9 1.0 0.1 0.3 

Bienville Parish 15,752 -3.0 19.4 54.6 43.8 0.9 0.2 0.3 

Jackson Parish 15,397 -2.9 27.0 70.7 27.9 0.6 0.2 0.3 

Ouachita Parish 147,250 3.6 241.2 63.8 33.6 1.2 0.6 0.2 

Richland Parish 20,981 1.7 37.6 60.4 38.0 1.1 0.2 0.1 

Madison Parish 12,996 10.2 22.0 37.1 60.3 2.1 0.2 0.2 

Mississippi 2,844,658 2.7 60.6 59.9 36.8 1.7 0.7 0.5 

Warren County 49,644 -1.0 80.2 52.2 45.1 1.2 0.8 0.2 

Hinds County 250,800 -1.4 285.9 33.7 64.3 0.9 0.6 0.1 

Copiah County 28,757 4.2 36.9 47.9 50.2 1.3 0.2 0.1 

Simpson County 27,639 15.4 46.8 63.3 34.8 1.4 0.1 0.1 

Walthall County 15,156 5.6 37.5 54.1 44.5 1.3 0.3 0.2 

____________ 

Note: 

a Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census 2006a. 

construction-related immigration would be approximately 4,939 persons. This population impact would 

be significant if all non-local workers, accompanied by 0.8 family members, were contained in one 

county or parish. However, the Applicant indicates that construction of the pipeline would entail the 

simultaneous activity of four individual construction spreads over the proposed Project route. Additional 

work crews also would be employed for specialty installation procedures, such as HDD crossings. As 

such, these workers would be distributed along the length of proposed Project route and throughout the 

region of influence, thereby minimizing the potential population level and demographic effects 

experienced by any individual county or parish. 

As described above, construction-related immigration would be spread across the length of the 

proposed pipeline. Based on the miles of pipeline in each county, population impacts associated with 

non-local workers and their families are expected to range from 3.2 to 0.1 percent, on average. This 

would represent a minor, temporary population increase that would be confined to the period of Project 

construction. The FERC does not believe that the demographic profile of the workforce would 

significantly differ from that observed within the region of influence. As such, changes to local 

demographics would not be anticipated. 

During operation, the Applicant estimates that the proposed Project would employ approximately 

12 full-time workers. This would represent a negligible, long-term population and demographic 

alteration. 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
3-100

3.9.3 Economy and Employment 

The civilian labor force within the region of influence includes about 291,519 individuals. The 

major employment sector is educational, health, and social services. On average, the counties and 

parishes within the region of influence report unemployment rates similar to rates prevailing in their 

respective states. However, 10 of the 13 counties and parishes report income somewhat below the state 

average (Table 3.9.3-1). 

TABLE 3.9.3-1 

Existing Income and Employment Conditions within the 

Region of Influence for the Proposed East Texas to Mississippi Expansion Projecta

County/Parish 

Per Capita 

Income 

($) 

1999 

Population 

below 

Poverty 

Level 

(%) 

Civilian 

Labor 

Force 

Unemployment 

Rate 

(%)b Major Industry 

Texas $19,617 15.4 9,830,559 5.3 Educational, health, and 

social services 

Panola County $15,439 14.1 9,692 4.9 Educational, health, and 

social services 

Louisiana $16,912 19.6 1,997,995 7.1 Educational, health, and 

social services 

DeSoto Parish $13,606 25.1 10,563 6.8 Educational, health, and 

social services 

Red River 

Parish 

$12,119 29.9 3,563 8.9 Educational, health, and 

social services 

Bienville Parish $12,471 26.1 5,939 7.3 Educational, health, and 

social services 

Jackson Parish $15,354 19.8 6,504 6.0 Manufacturing 

Ouachita 

Parish 

$17,084 20.7 69,818 6.1 Educational, health, and 

social services 

Richland 

Parish 

$12,479 27.9 8,258 7.8 Educational, health, and 

social services 

Madison Parish $10,114 28.5 4,883 9.7 Educational, health, and 

social services 

Mississippi $15,853 19.9 1,267,092 7.9 Educational, health, and 

social services 

Warren County $17,527 18.7 23,641 7.6 Educational, health, and 

social services 

Hinds County $17,785 19.9 118,908 6.9 Educational, health, and 

social services 

Copiah County $12,408 25.1 12,149 8.4 Educational, health, and 

social services 

Simpson 

County 

$13,444 21.6 11,324 6.5 Educational, health, and 

social services 

Walthall 

County 

$12,563 27.8 6,277 9.8 Manufacturing 

_______________ 

Notes: 

a Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2006a. b Annual average of 2005 Local Area Unemployment Statistics (Bureau of Labor Statistics 2006). 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
3-101

Construction of the proposed Project would result in hiring approximately 56 local workers. 

Additional jobs also would be created from secondary activity 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, minor 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 employment opportunities. 

3.9.4 Housing 

Table 3.9.4-1 reports selected housing statistics for the region of influence. Within this region, 

there are approximately 8,485 vacant rental units and an additional 4,033 units used for seasonal, 

recreational, or occasional use. Approximately 9,339 hotel or motel rooms supplement this potential 

housing stock. 

TABLE 3.9.4-1 

Temporary Housing Units Available within the 

Region of Influence for the Proposed East Texas to Mississippi Expansion Project 

County/Parish 

Vacant Rental 

Unitsa

Units for Seasonal, 

Recreational, or 

Occasional Usea

Number of 

Hotel/Motel 

Rooms Total Units 

Texas 294,240 151,919 N/A 446,159 

Panola County 227 414 125b 766 

Louisiana 54,185 30,333 N/A 84,518 

DeSoto Parish 231 327 129c 687 

Red River Parish 67 59 58c 184 

Bienville Parish 128 693 90c 911 

Jackson Parish 195 491 24d 710 

Ouachita Parish 1,969 395 1,215e,f 3,579 

Richland Parish 159 246 160f 565 

Madison Parish 104 167 34 e 305 

Mississippi 29,486 21,845 N/A 51,331 

Warren County 822 199 1,672 2,693 

Hinds County 4,154 421 5,597 10,172 

Copiah County 191 176 145 512 

Simpson County 161 202 60 423 

Walthall County 77 243 30 350 

Total 8,485 4,033 9,339 21,857 

_______________ 

Notes: 

a Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census 2006b. b

 Source: Texas Economic Development 2006. 

c

 Source: The Coordinating & Development Corporation 2006. 

d

 Source: Jonesboro Budget Inn 2006. 

e

 Source: ePodunk 2006. 

f

 Source: Hotel-Rates.com 2006. 

g Source: Mississippi Hotel Guides 2006. 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
3-102

At its peak, construction of the proposed Project would require about 2,744 non-local workers, as 

described in Section 3.9.2. If each worker required his or her own housing unit, the non-local work force 

would occupy about 3 percent of the temporary housing within the region of influence. Thus, the 

temporary housing appears capable of meeting the temporary and moderately increased housing demand 

that would result from construction of the proposed Project. The housing demands of the 12 individuals 

employed during operation of the proposed Project would represent a negligible increase in housing 

demand. 

3.9.5 Property Values 

The FERC frequently receives comments regarding Project impacts on property values. These 

concerns generally center on four topics: devaluation of property if encumbered by a pipeline easement, 

identification of the party responsible for property taxes within a pipeline easement, the potential for 

Project effects on landowner insurance premiums, and the potential for reduced property values 

associated with lost timber and agricultural production. 

The impact that a natural gas project may have on the value of any land parcel depends on many 

factors. These include the size of the parcel, the parcel’s current value and land use, and the value of 

other nearby properties. 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 a potential purchaser may not acquire the parcel. However, each potential purchaser has 

differing criteria and means. 

Landowners are responsible for all property taxes levied against parcels, and this responsibility 

would be independent of the existence of any Project-related pipeline easement. However, if a landowner 

felt that the proposed Project, should it be constructed, reduced the value of their property, he or she 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 on an 

appraisal that directly incorporated the easement. 

As described in Section 3.8, construction and operation of the proposed Project would result in a 

temporary loss of timber and agricultural productivity and a permanent conversion of some lands 

currently used for forestry operations to a maintained utility right-of-way. During easement negotiations, 

compensation for any loss of current or future agricultural and timber production would be considered. 

3.9.6 Government Revenue 

During construction, a portion of the estimated $130-million Project construction payroll would 

be spent locally for the purchase of housing, food, gasoline, and entertainment. The exact amount would 

be dependent on the proportion of the workforce that was local, the behavior of individual workers, and 

the duration of their stay. The majority of those construction-related expenditures would be subject to 

Texas’ state sales tax of 6.25 percent, Louisiana’s state sales tax of 4 percent, or Mississippi’s 7 percent 

rate. This increase in sales tax revenues would represent a minor, short-term increase in government 

revenues. 

Table 3.9.6-1 contains the Applicant’s estimate 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 approximately 2.0 percent of each individual county’s total revenues. Thus, operation of the 

proposed Project would provide a permanent, minor increase in government revenues. 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
3-103

TABLE 3.9.6-1 

County Revenue and Estimated Annual Taxes 

for the Proposed East Texas to Mississippi Expansion Project 

County/Parish Total Revenuea Estimated Annual 

Taxes Percent Change 

Texas 

Panola County $64,292,000 $518,053 0.8 

Louisiana 

DeSoto Parish $61,044,000 $907,604 1.5 

Red River Parish $16,467,000 $618,821 3.8 

Bienville Parish $30,496,000 $1,361,406 4.5 

Jackson Parish $22,833,000 $1,155,132 5.1 

Ouachita Parish $296,142,000 $660,075 0.2 

Richland Parish $55,064,000 $1,526,424 2.8 

Madison Parish $21,135,000 $1,361,406 6.4 

Mississippi 

Warren County $108,653,000 $553,382 0.4 

Hinds County $553,902,000 $899,247 0.2 

Copiah County $50,163,000 $276,691 0.2 

Simpson County $39,764,000 $103,759 0.5 

Walthall County $26,813,000 $2,001 0.1 

Total $1,346,768,000 $9,942,000 2.0 

_______________ 

Note: 

a

 Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census 2006c. 

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 642,244 people (Table 3.9.1-1). 

Construction of the proposed Project would temporarily increase demand for medical, police, and 

fire protection services. The Applicant has consulted with the counties and parishes in the region of 

influence and believes that sufficient public services exist to meet Project-related needs. Further, the 

Applicant would work with local law enforcement and emergency response agencies to coordinate 

effective emergency response for the proposed Project during construction and operation (see 

Section 3.12.1). 

We note that construction of the proposed Project would occur during a portion of the school 

year, and a significant influx of students would place considerable strain on the region’s approximately 

17,931 education workers. However, due to the nature of the proposed construction and its relatively 

short duration (4 to 6 months), non-local workers are not expected to be accompanied by substantive 

numbers of children. Thus, any impact would be minor and temporary. 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
3-104

TABLE 3.9.7-1 

Existing Educational, Medical, Police, and Fire Full-time Equivalents 

within the Region of Influence for the Proposed East Texas to Mississippi Expansion Projecta

County/Parish Education 

Health and 

Hospitals 

Police 

Protection 

Fire 

Protection 

Total Health, 

Fire, and Police 

Texas 539,530 62,160 52,718 18,680 133,558 

Panola County 780 140 44 3 187 

Louisiana 101,050 13,675 11,791 4,280 29,746 

DeSoto Parish 673 0 47 9 56 

Red River Parish 338 0 43 0 43 

Bienville Parish 430 0 38 0 38 

Jackson Parish 421 178 41 5 224 

Ouachita Parish 3,657 24 442 374 840 

Richland Parish 600 403 21 4 428 

Madison Parish 386 0 1 0 387 

Mississippi 69,336 17,855 7,094 3,164 28,113 

Warren County 1,122 1 165 150 316 

Hinds County 7,412 0 1,194 446 1,640 

Copiah County 791 141 58 15 214 

Simpson County 655 53 51 0 104 

Walthall County 366 152 18 3 539 

Total 17,631 1,092 2,163 1,009 11,915 

_______________ 

Note: 

a

 Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census 2005. 

During operation, workers filling the 12 full-time positions and their associated family members 

would represent a minor, permanent increase in the demand for provision of public services. However, 

this increased demand would be offset by the Project-related increase in government revenues associated 

with operation. 

3.9.8 Impacts on Specific Economic Sectors 

Below, we consider the potential for the proposed Project to result in significant effects to the 

agriculture and forestry economic sectors. These sectors are defined to include activities associated with 

harvested crops, timber production, livestock pasturing, and dairy production. This analysis focuses on 

the effects of potential land use changes (i.e., incorporation of agricultural lands into the construction or 

permanent rights-of-way) on regional economic sectors. Additional discussion of the potential for sitespecific effects to agricultural or forestry lands that would be crossed by the proposed pipeline route is in 

Sections 3.2 and 3.8. 

Approximately 57 percent of Texas is described as rangeland. Texas cover types also include 

cropland (16 percent), pastureland (10 percent), and forested land (6 percent). Approximately 47 percent 

of Louisiana is described as forested land, 21 percent is cropland, 9 percent is pastureland; and less than 

1 percent is rangeland. Mississippi is 55 percent forested land, 18 percent cropland, 12 percent 

pastureland, and less than 1 percent rangeland (NRCS 2006g). Cropland in the region of influence is 

primarily concentrated between the Ouachita and Mississippi Rivers (Ouachita and Richland Parishes) 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
3-105

and along the Red River (Red River Parish). Rangeland is dispersed relatively evenly throughout the 

region of influence, with forested land generally abundant west of the Ouachita River. 

As described in Section 3.8, construction and operation of the proposed Project would 

permanently affect approximately 476.3 acres of agricultural land and 357.7 acres of lands currently 

utilized for commercial forestry practices, as these areas would be contained within the permanent 

pipeline right-of-way. As discussed throughout this EIS, agricultural operations within the vast majority 

of permanent pipeline right-of-way would not be precluded during operations. As affected agricultural 

lands would largely return to their preconstruction condition and use, no significant effect to that 

economic sector would be anticipated in association with construction and operation of the proposed 

Project. Commercial forestry practices would be permanently precluded within the permanent pipeline 

right-of-way. However, given the magnitude of the land potentially affected relative to the total amount 

of land dedicated to sector production, no quantifiable impacts to the forestry economic sector would be 

expected. 

3.10 CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Section 106 of the NHPA, as amended, requires the FERC to take into account the effect of its 

undertakings (including the issuance of Certificates) on any properties listed in, or eligible for listing in, 

the NRHP and to provide the ACHP an opportunity to comment on the undertaking. Gulf South, as a 

non-federal party, is assisting the FERC in meeting its obligation under Section 106 of the NHPA by 

conducting the field surveys and evaluations required by ACHP regulations in 36 CFR 800. 

3.10.1 Results of Cultural Resources Survey 

Gulf South conducted cultural resources surveys from March 2006 through March 2007 for the 

proposed pipeline, compressor station sites, associated aboveground ancillary facilities, and access roads 

for the proposed Project within Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi. The survey of the proposed pipeline 

was conducted within a 200-foot-wide survey corridor centered on the proposed pipeline route. The 

proposed Project includes a 3.3-mile section located in Panola County, Texas, as well as a 240.3-mile 

proposed pipeline route, extending from Keatchie, Louisiana to Harrisville, Mississippi. Gulf South has 

completed cultural resources surveys for all of the proposed Project area except for the specific areas 

described for each state below. 

3.10.1.1 Texas 

The survey within the Texas portion of the proposed Project associated with the pipeline 

identified no cultural resources within the proposed Project area. The cultural resources survey report 

dated July 28, 2006 was submitted to the Texas SHPO, who concurred with the consultant’s 

recommendations. We also concur. Gulf South has not yet completed surveys for all access roads or for 

the Enterprise and Enbridge M/R Stations in Panola County, Texas. Gulf South anticipates that cultural 

resources surveys would be completed and reports would be submitted to the FERC and the Texas SHPO 

by Spring 2007. 

3.10.1.2 Louisiana 

The survey within the Louisiana portion of the proposed Project identified five previously 

unrecorded prehistoric sites. One of those sites is potentially eligible for listing in the NRHP, but would 

not be affected by the proposed Project. The remaining four prehistoric sites are not considered eligible 

for listing in the NRHP, and we are not recommending any additional work. There are six previously 

recorded prehistoric sites in the Louisiana portion of the proposed Project. One of those sites is 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
3-106

potentially eligible for listing in the NRHP, but would not be affected by the proposed Project. The 

remaining five previously recorded prehistoric sites are not eligible for listing in the NRHP, and we are 

not recommending any additional work. 

Gulf South identified 15 previously unrecorded historic sites in the Louisiana portion of the 

proposed Project. None of the sites are eligible for listing in the NRHP, and we are not recommending 

any additional work. Gulf South identified five previously recorded historic sites located in or near the 

Louisiana portion of the proposed Project, including two historic material scatters and three historic 

structures. The two historic material scatters are not eligible for listing in the NRHP, and we are not 

recommending any additional work. The three historic structures were determined to be located outside 

the proposed Project corridor, would be screened by vegetation and terrain, and no visual effects would 

occur. 

Six historic cemeteries are located near the proposed Project route in Louisiana. However, each 

of these cemeteries would be entirely avoided by the proposed pipeline route, and no effect to any of 

these resources is anticipated in association with construction of the proposed Project. 

On November 13, 2006, Gulf South submitted the cultural resources survey report to the 

Louisiana Department of Culture, Recreation & Tourism, Divisions of Archaeology and Historic 

Preservation, which functions as the State Historic Preservation Office in Louisiana, and requested 

concurrence with these findings. An addendum survey report addressing route modifications was 

submitted on November 15, 2006. Gulf South has filed several addenda survey reports between 

December 2006 and March 2007 addressing new route modifications and access roads. One standing 

structure was identified in these surveys, which is not eligible for listing in the NRHP. A response from 

the Louisiana SHPO, concurring with Gulf South consultant’s findings and recommendations was 

received on March 14, 2007. We have not yet received comments from the Louisiana SHPO for a March 

2007 cultural resources survey report associated with proposed modified routes in Red River, Bienville, 

Jackson, Ouachita, Richland, and Madison Parishes. Additionally, Gulf South has not yet completed 

surveys for access roads, contractor yards, and an additional temporary workspace associated with the 

Bayou Pierre HDD. It is anticipated that these surveys would be completed and surveys submitted to the 

FERC and the Louisiana SHPO by Spring 2007. 

3.10.1.3 Mississippi 

The survey within the Mississippi portion of the proposed Project identified two previously 

unrecorded prehistoric sites. The sites are not considered eligible for listing in the NRHP, and we are not 

recommending any additional work. There are two previously recorded prehistoric sites in the 

Mississippi portion of the proposed Project. One of the sites is potentially eligible for listing in the 

NRHP, but would not be affected by the proposed Project. 

Gulf South identified four previously unrecorded historic sites in the Mississippi portion of the 

proposed Project. Three of these sites are not eligible for listing in the NRHP, and we are not 

recommending any additional work. The other site is a historic structure that is potentially eligible for 

listing in the NRHP but would not be affected by the proposed Project. No previously recorded historic 

sites are located in the Mississippi portion of the proposed Project. 

Two historic cemeteries are located near the proposed Project in Mississippi. However, both of 

these cemeteries would be avoided by the proposed pipeline route, and no effect to either of these 

resources is anticipated in association with construction of the proposed Project. 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
3-107

Gulf South submitted the cultural resources survey report to the Mississippi Department of 

Archives and History on November 10, 2006, and requested concurrence with their findings. An 

addendum survey report addressing route modifications was submitted on November 20, 2006. Gulf 

South has filed several addenda survey reports between December 2006 and March 2007 addressing new 

route modifications and access roads. Three isolated artifacts were identified by the surveys, none of 

which are eligible for listing in the NRHP. A response from the Mississippi SHPO, concurring with 

several of Gulf South consultant’s submittals, was received on January 16, 2007. However, we have not 

yet received comments from the Mississippi SHPO for a March 2007 cultural resources survey report 

associated with proposed modified routes in Claiborne, Hinds, Rankin, and Simpson Counties. 

Additionally, Gulf South has not yet completed surveys for access roads, contractor yards, and an 

additional temporary workspace associated with the Baker’s Creek HDD. It is anticipated that these 

surveys would be completed and reports submitted to the FERC and the Mississippi SHPO by 

Spring 2007. 

3.10.1.4 Natchez Trace Parkway 

The Natchez Trace Parkway is a 444-mile-long road in Mississippi, Alabama, and Tennessee that 

commemorates the historic Natchez Trace. The Parkway, which is managed by the NPS, is also a 

National Scenic Byway and All-American Road. As such, the NPS must issue a right-of-way permit 

before Gulf South can cross the Parkway. The National Scenic Byway and All-American Road 

designations are given to roads that exhibit significant archeological, cultural, historic, natural, 

recreational, and scenic qualities. The Parkway connects Natchez, Mississippi, and Nashville, Tennessee 

and has been used for centuries by Native Americans, traders, and early settlers. A detailed discussion of 

potential impacts to the Natchez Trace Parkway is presented in Appendix H. 

Gulf South submitted a cultural resources survey report to the FERC, the National Park Service, 

and the Mississippi Department of Archives and History regarding the Natchez Trace Parkway crossing. 

The National Park Service responded on February 5, 2007 and stated that the report met the reporting 

requirements of the National Park Service. The Mississippi Department of Archives and History 

responded on February 21, 2007 and concurred with the consultants’ findings. 

3.10.2 Unanticipated Discoveries Plan 

Gulf South filed an Unanticipated Discoveries Plan that outlines the procedures that would be 

followed in the event that unanticipated cultural resources or human remains were encountered during 

construction of the proposed Project. The Unanticipated Discoveries Plan has also been filed with the 

Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi SHPOs. Copies of the plan would be kept onsite during construction, 

and construction management and environmental inspectors would be trained on its contents. 

3.10.3 Native American Consultation 

Gulf South contacted six Native American groups regarding the proposed Project. The groups 

contacted include the Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas, the Caddo Nation of Oklahoma, the Coushatta 

Tribe of Louisiana, the Jena Band of Choctaw Indians, the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, and the 

Tunica-Biloxi Indian Tribe. Consultation letters were sent to representatives of each of these tribes in 

March and July 2006, requesting comments on the proposed Project and identification of any cultural or 

religious sites significant to the tribe. Response letters were received from the Caddo Nation, requesting 

Project documentation relating to cultural resources. Gulf South submitted a copy of the cultural 

resources report to Robert Cast, of the Caddo Nation of Oklahoma, on October 6, 2006. 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
3-108

3.10.4 General Impacts and Mitigation 

Consultation with the Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi SHPOs for all of the proposed Project’s 

components is not yet complete. To ensure that required cultural resources studies and consultation are 

completed for all proposed Project components and that the FERC’s responsibilities under Section 106 of 

the NHPA are met, we recommend that: 

• Gulf South should defer implementation of any treatment plans/measures (including 

archaeological data recovery); construction of facilities; and use of all staging, storage, 

or temporary work areas and new or to-be-improved access roads until: 

a. Gulf South files with the Secretary cultural resources survey and evaluation 

reports; any necessary treatment plans; and the Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi 

SHPO comments on the reports and plans; and 

b. The Director of OEP reviews and approves all cultural resources survey reports and 

plans, and notifies Gulf South in writing that treatment plans/procedures may be 

implemented and/or construction may proceed. 

All material filed with the Secretary containing location, character, and ownership 

information about cultural resources must have the cover and any relevant pages 

therein clearly labeled in bold lettering: “CONTAINS PRIVILEGED INFORMATION 

– DO NOT RELEASE.”

3.11 AIR QUALITY AND NOISE 

3.11.1 Air Quality 

Air quality would be affected by construction and operation of the proposed Project. Though air 

emissions would be generated by operation of equipment during construction of the pipeline and 

aboveground facilities proposed by Gulf South, most air emissions associated with the proposed Project 

would result from the long-term operation of the proposed and modified compressor stations. 

Gulf South proposes to construct the Vixen Compressor Station near Luna in Ouachita Parish, 

Louisiana; to construct the Tallulah Compressor Station near Tallulah in Madison Parish, Louisiana; and 

to expand the existing Carthage Junction Compressor Station near Carthage in Panola County, Texas. 

At the Vixen Compressor Station, Gulf South proposes to install two Solar Mars 100 gas turbines 

rated at 15,000 horsepower (hp) each, one natural gas burning auxiliary generator engine rated at 810 hp, 

an 8,800-gallon condensate tank, truck loading equipment, and a piping blowdown stack. 

At the Tallulah Compressor Station, Gulf South proposes to install two Solar Mars 100 gas 

turbines rated at 15,000 hp each, one Solar Taurus 70 gas turbine rated at 10,311 hp, one natural gas 

burning auxiliary generator engine rated at 810 hp, an 8,800-gallon condensate tank, truck loading 

equipment, and a piping blowdown stack. 

At the Carthage Junction Compressor Station, Gulf South proposes to add two Solar Mars 

100 gas turbines rated at 15,000 hp each, one Solar Taurus 70 gas turbine rated at 10,311 hp, one natural 

gas burning emergency generator engine rated at 810 hp, an 1.25-million btu/hour fuel gas heater, and 

piping components. 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
3-109

3.11.1.1 Existing Air Quality 

The proposed Project would be constructed in portions of Panola County in Texas; DeSoto, Red 

River, Bienville, Jackson, Ouachita, Richland, and Madison Parishes in Louisiana; and Warren, Hinds, 

Copiah, Walthall, and Simpson Counties in Mississippi. These counties and parishes are characterized by 

a temperate climate. Rainfall at Shreveport, Louisiana, located near the western end of the proposed 

pipeline route, averages 51.30 inches annually (Weather.com 2006a). May is the wettest month in 

Shreveport, averaging 5.25 inches of precipitation; and August is the driest month, averaging 2.71 inches. 

The warmest month is July, with an average high temperature of 93o Fahrenheit (F) and an average low 

temperature of 73o F. January is the coldest month, with an average high temperature of 56o F and an 

average low temperature of 36o F. Rainfall at Vicksburg, Mississippi, located near the eastern end of the 

proposed pipeline route, averages 57.99 inches annually (Weather.com 2006b). March is the wettest 

month in Vicksburg, averaging 6.40 inches of precipitation; and August is the driest month, averaging 

3.12 inches. The warmest month is July, with an average high temperature of 92o F and an average low 

temperature of 71o F. January is the coldest month, with an average high temperature of 59o F and an 

average low temperature of 35o F. 

The Clean Air Act (CAA) designates six pollutants as criteria pollutants for which the National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) are promulgated. The NAAQS for sulfur dioxide (SO2), 

nitrogen dioxide (NO2), particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than 10 microns (PM10), 

particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than 2.5 microns (PM2.5), carbon monoxide (CO), 

ozone (O3), and lead were set to protect human health (primary standards) and human welfare (secondary 

standards). State air quality standards cannot be less stringent than the NAAQS. Texas, Louisiana, and 

Mississippi have adopted the NAAQS, as defined in 40 CFR 50; these standards are summarized 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 

means to implement the CAA and comply with the NAAQS through state implementation plans. The 

AQCRs are intra- and interstate regions such as large metropolitan areas where improvement of the air 

quality in one portion of the AQCR requires emission reductions throughout the AQCR. Each AQCR, or 

portion thereof, is designated based on compliance with the NAAQS. AQCR designations fall under 

three categories as follows: “attainment” (areas in compliance with the NAAQS); “nonattainment” (areas 

not in compliance with the NAAQS); or “unclassified”, which refers to areas with insufficient data to 

make a determination. The counties and parishes in which the proposed Project would be located are 

designated as “attainment” or “unclassifiable” for all criteria pollutants. 

3.11.1.2 Regulatory Requirements 

Federal Regulations 

The CAA, 42 USC 7401 et seq. amended in 1977 and 1990, and 40 CFR Parts 50 through 99 are 

the basic federal statutes governing air pollution. The provisions of the CAA that are potentially relevant 

to the proposed Project include the following: 

• New Source Review (NSR)/Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD); 

• New Source Performance Standards (NSPS); 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
3-110

TABLE 3.11.1-1 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

Pollutant Time Frame Primary Secondary 

Particulate matter less than 

10 microns in diameter 

24-houra 150 μg/m3

 150 μg/m3

Annualb 15 μg/m3 15 μg/m3

Particulate matter less than 

2.5 microns in diameter 24-hourc 35 μg/m3 35 μg/m3

Annual 0.030 ppm (80 μg/m3) N/A 

24-houra 0.014 ppm (365 μg/m3 Sulfur dioxide ) N/A 

3-houra N/A 0.5 ppm (1,300 μg/m3) 

8-houra 9 ppm (10,000 μg/m3) None Carbon monoxide 

1-houra 35 ppm (40,000 μg/m3

) None 

Nitrogen dioxide Annual 0.053 ppm (100 μg/m3) 0.053 ppm 

Ozone 8-hourd 0.08 ppm (157 μg/m3) 0.08 ppm 

Lead Quarterly 1.5 μg/m3 1.5 μg/m3

____________ 

Notes: 

μg = Microgram(s) 

m3

 = Cubic meter(s) 

NA = Not applicable 

ppm = Part(s) per million a

 Not to be exceeded more than once per year. 

b

 To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the weighted annual mean particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter 

concentrations from single or multiple community-oriented monitors, must not exceed 15.0 μg/m3. c

 The PM2.5 standard was revised from 65 μg/m3 to 35 μg/m3 in December 2006. d

 To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentrations, 

measured at each monitor within an area over each year, must not exceed 0.08 ppm. 

• National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP); 

• Title V operating permits; and 

• General Conformity. 

New Source Review/ Prevention of Significant Deterioration

New Source Review refers to the preconstruction permitting programs under Parts C and D of the 

CAA that must be satisfied before construction can begin on new major sources or major modifications to 

existing major sources located in attainment or unclassified areas. This review may include a PSD 

review. This review process is intended to keep new air emission sources from causing existing air 

quality to deteriorate beyond acceptable levels codified in the federal regulations. For sources located in 

non-attainment areas the Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR) program is implemented for the 

pollutants for which the area is classified as nonattainment. The proposed Project would be located in 

attainment areas. Consequently, NNSR is not applicable to the proposed Project. 

The PSD review regulations apply to proposed new major sources or major modifications to 

existing major sources located in an attainment area. The PSD regulations (40 CFR 52.21) define a 

“major source” as any source type belonging to a list of named source categories that emit or have the 

potential to emit 100 tons per year (tpy) or more of any regulated pollutant. A major source under PSD 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
3-111

can also be defined as any source not on the list of named source categories with the potential to emit 

such pollutants in amounts equal to or greater than 250 tpy. Modifications to existing major sources have 

lower emission thresholds, called “significant emission increases”; amounts over these thresholds trigger 

PSD review. The proposed Project would not include facilities or operations included on the list of 

named source categories to which the 100-tpy trigger applies. Also, the proposed Project does not include 

any existing major sources under the PSD program; therefore the existing Carthage Junction Compressor 

Station and the proposed new Vixen and Tallulah Compressor Stations are all subject to the 250-tpy 

threshold. 

The PSD review evaluates existing ambient air quality and the potential impacts of the proposed 

source on ambient air quality (noting in particular whether the source would contribute to any violation of 

the NAAQS), and reviews the best available control technology (BACT) in order to minimize emissions. 

The PSD regulations contain restrictions on the degree of ambient air quality deterioration that would be 

allowed. These increments for criteria pollutants are based on the PSD review classification of the area. 

None of the new facilities or additions to existing facilities would exceed emissions of 250 tpy of 

any criteria pollutant (see Tables 3.11.1-2 through 3.11.1-4 and the discussion under “Operations 

Emissions”). Therefore, PSD permitting is not applicable to the proposed Project. 

Air Quality Control Regions and PSD 

AQCRs are categorized as Class I, Class II, or Class III. Class I areas are designated specifically 

as pristine natural areas or areas of natural significance and have the lowest increment of permissible 

deterioration, which essentially precludes development near these areas. Class III designations, intended 

for heavily industrialized zones, can be made only on request and must meet all requirements outlined in 

40 CFR 51.166. The remainder of the United States is classified as Class II. Class II areas are designed 

to allow moderate, controlled growth. The proposed Project would be located in a Class II area. The 

nearest Class I area is the Caney Creek Wilderness located southeast of Mena, Arkansas, about 153 miles 

north of the western portion of the proposed Project. The Breton National Wildlife Refuge located in the 

Gulf of Mexico east of New Orleans, Louisiana and south of Biloxi, Mississippi, is also a Class I area and 

is located about 154 miles south of the eastern portion of the proposed Project. There are no Class I areas 

located within 62 miles of any of the proposed compressor station locations. 

New Source Performance Standards

The NSPS, codified in 40 CFR 60 and incorporated by reference in 30 Texas Administrative 

Code (TAC) Rule 101.20, Louisiana Administrative Code (LAC) 33.III.3303, and the Mississippi 

Commission on Environmental Quality (MCEQ) regulations APC-S-1 Section 6.3, establish requirements 

for new, modified, or reconstructed units in specific source categories. NSPS requirements include 

emission limits, monitoring, reporting, and record keeping. The following NSPS requirements were 

identified as potentially applicable to the specified sources at the compressor stations. 

Subpart Kb of 40 CFR 60, Standards of Performance for Volatile Organic Liquid Storage 

Vessels, lists affected emission sources as storage vessels containing volatile organic liquids. Regulatory 

applicability is dependent on the construction date, size, and vapor pressure of the storage vessel and its 

contents. Subpart Kb applies to new tanks, unless otherwise exempted, that have a storage capacity 

between 75 m3

 (19,813 gallons) and 151 m3 (39,890 gallons) and contain volatile organic compounds 

(VOCs) with a maximum true vapor pressure greater than or equal to 15.0 kilopascals (kPa). Subpart Kb 

also applies to tanks that have a storage capacity greater than or equal to 151 m3

 and contain VOCs with a 

maximum true vapor pressure greater than or equal to 3.5 kPa. Each proposed compressor station would 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
3-112

be equipped with an 8,800 gallon (210 barrel) condensate tank, which is below the regulated capacity. 

Therefore, the proposed Project would not be subject to NSPS Subpart Kb standards. 

TABLE 3.11.1-2 

Existing and Proposed Emissions for the Carthage Junction Compressor Station

Emission Source 

NOx

(tpy) 

CO 

(tpy) 

VOC 

(tpy) 

PM10

(tpy) 

PM2.5 

(tpy) 

SO2

(tpy) 

HAPs 

(tpy) 

New sources 

Turbine Engine #5 (Mars 100) 44.02 53.60 15.35 3.55 3.55 1.83 1.72 

Turbine Engine #6 (Mars 100) 44.02 53.60 15.35 3.55 3.55 1.83 1.72 

Turbine Engine #7 (Taurus 70) 29.12 35.45 10.15 2.29 2.29 1.18 1.11 

Emergency generator #2 0.89 0.71 0.14 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.07 

Fuel gas heater 0.55 0.46 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.01 

Piping components (fugitives) 0.00 0.00 1.74 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 

Subtotal new sources: 118.60 143.82 42.76 9.44 9.44 4.84 4.64 

Existing sources 

Reciprocating Engine #1 

(Superior 12) 

28.97 30.90 11.59 0.65 0.65 0.04 1.67 

Reciprocating Engine #2 

(Superior 12) 

28.97 30.90 11.59 0.65 0.65 0.04 1.67 

Reciprocating Engine #3 

(Superior 12) 

28.97 30.90 11.59 0.65 0.65 0.04 1.67 

Reciprocating Engine #4 

(Superior 16) 

38.38 40.94 15.35 0.86 0.86 0.05 4.03 

Emergency Generator #1 2.18 0.12 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 

Storage Tank 1A 0.00 0.00 3.39 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.25 

Truck loading of condensate 0.00 0.00 0.61 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.09 

Piping components 0.00 0.00 3.49 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 

Unpaved roads 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.43 0.06 0.00 0.00 

Engine blowdown stack 0.00 0.00 3.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.19 

Area releases 0.00 0.00 5.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.27 

Miscellaneous insignificant 

sources 

0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 

Subtotal existing sources: 127.47 133.76 67.63 4.25 3.88 0.17 9.86 

Total new and existing 

sources 

246.07 277.58 110.39 13.69 13.32 5.01 14.50 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
3-113

TABLE 3.11.1-3 

Proposed Emissions for the Vixen Compressor Station

Emission Source NOx

(tpy) 

CO 

(tpy) 

VOC 

(tpy) 

PM10

(tpy) 

PM2.5

(tpy) 

SO2

(tpy) 

HAPs 

(tpy) 

Turbine Engine #1 (Mars 100) 26.41 26.80 15.35 2.94 2.94 1.52 1.43 

Turbine Engine #2 (Mars 100) 26.41 26.80 15.35 2.94 2.94 1.52 1.43 

Emergency generator #1 0.89 0.71 0.14 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.10 

Storage tank 1A 0.00 0.00 5.32 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.93 

Truck loading of condensate 0.00 0.00 1.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.17 

Piping components 0.00 0.00 3.28 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 

Unpaved roads 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.44 0.06 0.00 0.00 

Engine blowdown stack 0.00 0.00 6.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.32 

Area releases 0.00 0.00 5.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.27 

Subtotal new sources: 53.71 54.31 52.20 6.34 5.90 3.04 4.66 

TABLE 3.11.1-4 

Proposed Emissions for the Tallulah Compressor Station

Emission Source NOx

(tpy) 

CO 

(tpy) 

VOC 

(tpy) 

PM10

(tpy) 

PM2.5 

(tpy) 

SO2

(tpy) 

HAPs 

(tpy) 

Turbine Engine #1 (Mars 100) 26.41 26.80 15.35 2.94 2.94 1.52 1.43 

Turbine Engine #2 (Mars 100) 26.41 26.80 15.35 2.94 2.94 1.52 1.43 

Turbine Engine # 3 (Taurus 70) 17.47 17.73 10.15 1.94 1.94 1.00 0.94 

Emergency generator #1 0.89 0.71 0.14 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.10 

Storage tank 1A 0.00 0.00 5.32 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.93 

Truck loading of condensate 0.00 0.00 1.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.17 

Piping components 0.00 0.00 3.28 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 

Unpaved roads 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Engine blowdown stack 0.00 0.00 6.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.32 

Area releases 0.00 0.00 5.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.27 

Subtotal new sources: 71.18 72.04 62.35 8.28 7.84 4.04 5.60 

On February 18, 2005, EPA proposed a new NSPS for stationary combustion turbines 

(Subpart KKKK) which received final approval on October 2, 2006. Stationary combustion turbines of 

1 megawatt (MW) and larger installed after February 18, 2005, are covered by the proposed NSPS. Each 

of the compressor stations would have at least one turbine greater than 1 MW. The proposed standard 

imposes 1.0 pound NOx per MW-hour and 0.58 pound SO2 per MW-hour emission limits on turbine 

operations. The proposed Project would comply with all applicable standards of the rule. 

No other NSPSs are applicable to the proposed Project. 

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

The NESHAP, codified in 40 CFR Parts 61 and 63, regulates hazardous air pollutant (HAP) 

emissions. Part 61 was promulgated prior to the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) and regulates 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
3-114

only eight types of hazardous substances (asbestos, benzene, beryllium, coke oven emissions, inorganic 

arsenic, mercury, radionuclides, and vinyl chloride). 

The 1990 CAAA established a list of 189 HAPs, resulting in the promulgation of Part 63. 

Part 63, also known as the Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standards, regulates HAP 

emissions from major sources of HAP emissions and specific source categories that emit HAPs. Part 63 

defines a major source of HAPs as any source that has the potential to emit 10-tpy of any single HAP or 

25 tpy of HAPs in aggregate. MACT standards are intended to reduce emissions of air toxics or HAPs 

through installation of control equipment rather than enforcement of risk-based emission limits. The total 

of HAP emissions from all equipment at Carthage Junction Station is 14.50 tpy (as shown in 

Table 3.11.1-2), and total emissions of formaldehyde (the HAP emitted in the greatest amount) are 4.14 

tpy. The proposed Vixen and Tallulah Compressor Stations each would emit less than 10 tpy of total 

HAPs, as shown in Tables 3.11.1-3 and 3.11.1-4. Potential HAP emissions resulting from the proposed 

Project would be well below the 10/25 tpy thresholds; therefore, MACT is not applicable. 

Title V Permitting

The Title V permit program, as described in 40 CFR 70, requires sources of air emissions with 

criteria pollutant emissions that reach or exceed major source levels to obtain federal operating permits. 

These permits list all applicable air regulations and include a compliance demonstration for each 

applicable requirement. The major source threshold level in attainment areas is 100 tpy of nitrogen 

oxides (NOx), SO2, CO, PM10, PM2.5, and VOC. Emissions of NOx and CO at the Carthage Junction 

Compressor Station would exceed the 100-tpy criteria pollutant threshold, as shown in Table 3.11.1-2. 

Therefore, the Carthage Junction Compressor Station would require a Title V permit. None of the criteria 

pollutants would be emitted at the 100-tpy level at the Vixen Compressor Station or at the Tallulah 

Compressor Station; therefore, Title V permits would not be required for those facilities. 

General Conformity

40 CFR parts 51 and 93 define the requirements for determining conformity for federal actions to 

state or federal implementation plans. A conformity analysis is required for each criteria pollutant where 

the total of direct and indirect emissions in a nonattainment or maintenance area caused by a federal 

action would equal or exceed any of the rates specified in the applicable implementation plan. The 

proposed Project would not be located in a nonattainment area; therefore, the general conformity 

requirements do not apply to the proposed Project. 

State Regulations 

In addition to the federal regulations described above, Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi have 

state air quality regulations. The TCEQ manages air quality issues in Texas, the LDEQ manages air 

quality issues in Louisiana, and the MDEQ manages air quality issues in Mississippi. Subject to EPA 

approval, these agencies manage the statewide air permitting, compliance, and enforcement programs. 

The Carthage Junction Compressor Station would be authorized under TCEQ’s Standard Permit for Oil 

and Gas Operations at 30TAC116.620, and the Vixen Compressor Station and Tallulah Compressor 

Station would be authorized under LDEQ minor source permits. 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
3-115

3.11.1.3 General Impacts and Mitigation 

Construction Emissions 

Construction of the pipeline and access roads would generate air emissions during grading, 

trenching, backfilling, and operation of construction vehicles along unpaved areas. The proposed Project 

would use existing roads to the extent possible. Some roads used for access would be improved during 

construction by widening or adding drain pipes, gravel, or grading; and some new roads and road 

extensions would be constructed. The roads would remain after construction to provide access to the 

pipeline for maintenance purposes. These activities could generate dust and particulate emissions from 

earth-moving activities and construction equipment engine exhaust. 

Construction of the compressor stations would be performed with mobile equipment similar to 

that typically used for pipeline and road construction. In addition to the compressor stations, Gulf South 

would construct other aboveground facilities consisting of M/R stations. 

Construction would be expected to cause a minor and temporary impact to local ambient air 

quality as a result of fugitive dust and combustion emissions generated by construction equipment. 

Criteria pollutant emissions during operation of the fossil-fueled construction equipment would occur 

from combustion products resulting from the use of gasoline and diesel fuels, primarily NO2, CO, VOCs, 

PM10, small amounts of SO2, and small amounts of HAPs (e.g., formaldehyde, benzene, toluene, and 

xylene) produced by the construction equipment engines. Impacts from construction equipment would be 

temporary and would be expected to result in an insignificant impact on air quality. 

The TCEQ regulates the emissions of particulate matter arising from unpaved streets, access 

roads, construction activities, and similar facilities through 30TAC111.141. The rule applies only to 

certain areas in El Paso and Harris Counties and is therefore not applicable to the proposed Project. 

LDEQ regulates these types of fugitive dust emissions through LAC33.III.1305, which requires 

application of water or dust-retardant chemicals, or paving of roadways. The MDEQ does not have a 

specific regulation for fugitive dust from roadways. Gulf South indicates that if fugitive dust becomes a 

problem it would use proven construction practices such as water sprays to control fugitive dust. Water 

sprays have provided sufficient control to ensure protection of air quality during construction of projects 

similar to the proposed Project. 

Operations Emissions 

Emissions from the turbines at all locations would be controlled with Solar’s SoLoNOx 

technology and the exclusive use of natural gas. SoLoNOx technology involves two-stage rich/lean 

combustors that essentially are air-staged, premixed combustors in which the primary zone is operated 

fuel rich and the secondary zone is operated fuel lean. The rich mixture decreases the amount of oxygen 

available for NOx generation. Before entering the secondary zone, the exhaust of the primary zone is 

quenched (to extinguish the flame) by large amounts of air, and a lean mixture is created. The lean 

mixture is pre-ignited, and the combustion is completed in the secondary zone. NOx formation in the 

second stage is minimized through combustion in a fuel-lean, lower temperature environment. 

Each compressor station would include an emergency shut down (ESD) system, pursuant to DOT 

requirements. Activation of the ESD system would vent the piping (expel the natural gas) to the 

atmosphere in case of an emergency. The ESD would be used only in the event of an emergency. 

Compressor unit blowdowns would occur as needed to relieve pressure when a unit is taken offline. 

Natural gas blowdowns are not part of routine operation. 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
3-116

Tables 3.11.1-2 through 3.11.1-4 list the anticipated emissions of criteria pollutants and HAPs 

from the operation of each compressor station. Gulf South submitted a Standard Permit application to 

TCEQ in May 2006 to authorize modification of the Carthage Junction Compressor Station in Panola. 

Facilities authorized by a TCEQ Standard Permit are considered to have minimal impacts and do not 

require air dispersion modeling as part of the Permit-by-Rule claim process. 

Gulf South prepared a SCREEN3 analysis of NO2 emissions for the Carthage Junction 

Compressor Station, which is the station expected to have the greatest emissions. The analysis included 

both new and existing emission sources. The offsite concentration due to contributions from onsite 

sources was predicted to be 4.4 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3

). Background NO2 concentrations at 

the air quality monitor were approximately 10 μg/m3. When added to station emissions, this resulted in a 

total offsite NO2 concentration of 14.4 μg/m3. This is well below the NAAQS of 100 μg/m3 for NO2. In 

May 2006, Gulf South also submitted applications to LDEQ for minor source construction permits for the 

proposed Vixen and Tallulah Compressor Stations. LDEQ does not require air dispersion modeling to 

evaluate minor source air permit applications. Because emissions from the Vixen and Tallulah 

Compressor Stations would be lower than emissions from the Carthage Junction Compressor Station, NO2

concentrations would be expected to be similar to or less than the SCREEN3 modeled results for the 

Carthage Junction Compressor Station. 

Operation of the aboveground meter stations and block valves would not result in substantial air 

emissions under normal operating conditions. Typically, only minor emissions of natural gas, called 

“fugitive emissions,” occur from small connections at meter station and valve sites; because such 

emissions are very small, they are not regulated by permit or source-specific requirements. 

Use of the access roads for maintenance would generate occasional, minor, and short-term 

increases in dust similar to that generated on other unpaved roads in the area. Use of these roads by 

maintenance and operation personnel would have a negligible effect on air quality. 

Construction of the proposed Project would be expected to result in temporary minor impacts to 

air quality. Operation of the proposed Project would be expected to result in long-term minor impacts to 

air quality. 

3.11.2 Noise Quality 

Noise quality can be affected both during construction and operation of pipeline projects. The 

magnitude and frequency of environmental noise may vary considerably over the course of the day and 

throughout the week, in part due to changing weather conditions and the effects of seasonal vegetative 

cover. Two measures used by federal agencies to relate the time-varying quality of environmental noise 

to its known effect on people are the 24-hour equivalent sound level (Leq) and day-night sound level (Ldn). 

The Leq is the level of steady sound with the same total (equivalent) energy as the time-varying sound of 

interest, as averaged over a 24-hour period. The Ldn is the Leq with 10 decibels on the A-weighted scale 

(dBA) added to nighttime sound levels between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. to account for people’s 

greater sensitivity to sound during nighttime hours. The A-weighted scale is used because human hearing 

is less sensitive to low and high frequencies than mid-range frequencies. The human ear’s threshold of 

perception for noise change is considered to be 3 dBA. 

3.11.2.1 Regulatory Requirements 

In 1974, the EPA published its Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to 

Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety. This document provides 

information for state and local governments to use in developing their own ambient noise standards. The 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
3-117

EPA has determined that an Ldn of 55 dBA protects the public from indoor and outdoor activity noise 

interference. We have adopted this criterion and use it to evaluate the potential noise impact from 

operation of the compressor facilities. 

Texas, Mississippi, and Louisiana do not regulate noise at the state level. Similarly, none of the 

counties crossed by the proposed Project in Texas and Mississippi have existing regulations governing 

noise from construction or industrial activities. Bienville Parish in Louisiana limits noise from 

continuous sources in residential areas to 55 dBA, in commercial areas to 60 dBA, and in industrial areas 

to 80 dBA. Red River Parish and Madison Parish in Louisiana have general prohibitions on nuisance 

noise. 

3.11.2.2 Existing Noise Levels 

Impacts are determined at receptors known as noise-sensitive areas (NSAs). NSAs include 

residences, schools and daycare facilities, hospitals, long-term care facilities, places of worship, libraries, 

and parks and recreational areas specifically known for their solitude and tranquility such as wilderness 

areas. The following NSAs and background noise levels have been evaluated at each compressor station. 

The Carthage Junction Compressor Station is located 4 miles east of Carthage in Panola County, 

Texas. The land surrounding the site consists primarily of forest. The nearest NSA (NSA #1) is a group 

of residences about 5,000 feet northwest of the proposed compressor station. On May 11, 2006, Gulf 

South conducted an ambient sound-level survey at NSA #1. Noise sources during the sound-level survey 

included traffic on local roads, insects, and birds. Measured noise at NSA #1 ranged from 41.9 to 

44.1 dBA, with a calculated Ldn of 49.3 dBA. 

The Vixen Compressor Station would be located in Ouachita Parish, Louisiana, southwest of the 

town of Luna. The land surrounding the site consists of forest with scattered residences located along 

Cypress School Road. The nearest NSAs are residences 1,500 feet south (NSA #1), 2,700 feet northwest 

(NSA #2), and 3,000 feet southeast (NSA #3) of the proposed station. On May 10, 2006, Gulf South 

conducted an ambient sound-level survey at the NSAs. Noise sources during the sound-level survey 

included traffic on local roads, insects, birds, and wind. Measured noise at NSA #1 ranged from 41.5 to 

42.2 dBA, with a calculated Ldn of 48.3 dBA. At NSA #2, measured noise ranged from 41.9 to 45.3 dBA, 

with a calculated Ldn of 49.4 dBA. At NSA #3, measured noise ranged from 39.0 to 39.7 dBA, with a 

calculated Ldn of 45.7 dBA. 

The Tallulah Compressor Station would be located in Madison Parish, Louisiana, south of 

Tallulah. The land surrounding the site consists of forest, cleared area, and marsh with scattered 

residences located along nearby roadways. The nearest NSAs are residences 2,600 feet south-southwest 

(NSA #1), 3,500 feet west (NSA #2), and 3,700 feet northeast (NSA #3) of the proposed station. On 

May 9, 2006, Gulf South conducted an ambient sound-level survey at the NSAs. Noise sources during 

the sound-level survey included traffic on local roads, insects, birds, wind, and the sound of operations 

from a nearby plant. Measured noise at NSA #1 ranged from 40.8 to 45.9 dBA, with a calculated Ldn of 

47.1 dBA. At NSA #2 measured noise ranged from 53.6 to 62.0 dBA, with a calculated Ldn of 57.5 dBA. 

At NSA #3 measured noise ranged from 41.4 to 43.0 dBA, with a calculated Ldn of 46.8 dBA. 

3.11.2.3 General Impacts and Mitigation 

Construction Noise 

Construction of the proposed Project is expected to be typical of other pipeline projects in terms 

of schedule, equipment used, and types of activities. Construction would increase sound levels in the 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
3-118

vicinity of proposed Project activities; and the sound levels would vary during the construction period, 

depending on the construction phase. Pipeline construction generally would proceed at rates ranging 

from several hundred feet to 1 mile per day. However, due to the assembly-line method of construction, 

construction activities in any one area could last from several weeks to several months on an intermittent 

basis. Construction and modifications at the compressor stations would be concentrated in the vicinity of 

the construction activity. Construction equipment would be operated on an as-needed basis during those 

periods and would be maintained to manufacturers’ specifications to minimize noise impacts. 

Nighttime noise levels would normally be unaffected because most pipeline construction would 

take place only during daylight hours. The possible exceptions would be at the HDD sites (e.g., at the 

crossings of waterbodies and highways). At HDD locations, drilling equipment may operate on a 

24-hour-per-day basis. In addition to the EPA’s 55 dBA standard, noise level changes are categorized as 

follows: a 3 dBA increase is considered noticeable, a 6 dBA increase is considered clearly noticeable, 

and a 9 dBA increase is considered significantly noticeable. An acoustical assessment was prepared for 

all of the planned HDD sites with NSAs within 1 mile of HDD locations to show existing sound levels at 

each site location and the project levels from HDD activity. Predicted noise impacts on NSAs indicate 

that sound levels could exceed 55 dBA at 14 of the 66 evaluated HDD entry and exit sites due to HDD 

operations. Predicted sound levels ranged from 56.7 to 68.7 dBA at these 14 sites, as shown in 

Table 3.11.2-1. 

To ensure that NSAs are not exposed to excessive noise during nighttime drilling operations, Gulf 

South developed a comprehensive plan for HDD operations that have the potential to exceed 55 dBA, as 

listed in Table 3.11.2-1. The comprehensive plan demonstrates whether noise due to nighttime drilling 

operations would be below 55 dBA Ldn at the nearest NSA and specifies all noise mitigation equipment 

necessary to reduce noise levels to less than 55 dBA Ldn. In addition, the plan details how Gulf South 

would ensure compliance and confirm that where surveys indicate that noise attributable to nighttime 

drilling would exceed 55 dBA Ldn Gulf South would offer temporary housing or equivalent monetary 

compensation to occupants of affected NSAs until Ldn levels at the NSAs are reduced to 55 dBA Ldn or 

less. 

In the plan, Gulf South proposes to construct temporary noise barriers, consisting of 16-foot-high 

insulated plywood sound walls at these sites, and to install hospital-grade mufflers on any diesel engines 

that do not move while they are operating. The temporary sound barrier is predicted to reduce noise to 

less than 55 dBA at the nearest NSA at all sites except the HDD #12 entry point at State Highway 167 

and at the HDD #23 entry point at the Tensas River. Predicted sound levels at those two sites, with the 

barrier in place, would be 60.1 and 55.4 dBA, respectively. At these two locations Gulf South proposes 

to use additional noise mitigation measures including equipment relocation and/or a secondary partial 

barrier around the hydraulic power unit. These additional measures are projected to reduce sound levels 

to 50.9 dBA and 52.8 dBA, respectively. After implementation of the plan, all HDD sound levels would 

be below55 dBA at all locations. These are calculated impacts; actual impacts may vary due to numerous 

factors, including operation of mobile equipment that would not be within the protection of the sound 

barrier. 

Four HDD locations were previously determined to contribute projected noise level increases 

above 9 dBA (HDD #18 entry, HDD #18 exit, HDD #28 entry, and HDD #33 entry). Gulf South filed a 

revised Noise Mitigation and Compliance Plan for HDD Operations in their March 21, 2007 Draft 

Implementation Plan. The revised plan includes additional mitigation at these four sites and reduces the 

impact at each location to below 55 dBA and a less than 9 dBA increase above the ambient. In following 

this plan, there would be no significant noise impacts with respect to HDD operations. 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
3-119

TABLE 3.11.2-1 

Locations with Predicted HDD Operation Noise Impacts Greater Than 55 dBA 

HDD Site HDD Location 

Calculated Ldn due to 

HDD Activity 

(dBA) 

Calculated Ldn due to 

HDD Activity with 

Temporary Sound 

Barrier (dBA) 

#8 entry Black Lake Bayou West 60.3 54.2 

#12 entry State Highway 167 68.7 60.1 

#12 exit State Highway 167 61.3 53.4 

#13 entry Castor Creek 59.2 52.1 

#17 entry Steep Bayou 58.2 51.1 

#18 entry Boeuf River 59.1 50.7 

#21 exit Big Creek 57.4 50.6 

#22 entry Macon Bayou 56.7 48.7 

#23 entry Tensas River 63.6 55.4 

#27 entry Walnut Bayou West 63.2 54.7 

#27 exit Walnut Bayou West 58.5 50.6 

#30 entry Highway 61 58.1 49.8 

#30 exit Highway 61 58.5 50.6 

#32 entry Interstate 55 58.1 49.8 

_______________ 

Note: 

HDD = Horizontal directional drilling 

In response to agency input, Gulf South now proposes to use an HDD at Baker’s Creek (MP 203). 

This modification to the proposed construction method at this location was made subsequent to the 

completion of acoustical assessments for other planned HDD sites with NSAs located within one mile. In 

order to ensure the proposed HDD at Baker’s Creek does not exceed 55 dbA at the nearest NSA, we 

recommend that:

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

approval by the Director of OEP, a noise analysis for the proposed HDD site at Baker’s 

Creek. This analysis should identify any NSAs within one-half mile of the proposed 

entry and exit sites. If NSAs exist within one mile, Gulf South should identify existing 

background noise levels and estimated drilling noise contributions at the nearest NSAs 

along with any measures it would implement to control noise from the HDD. 

Operational Noise 

During operation of the proposed Project, potential noise impacts would be limited to the vicinity 

of the new compressor stations. We received comments from affected landowners during the pre-filing 

process expressing concern about noise generated during operation of the proposed compressor stations. 

Principal noise sources would include the air inlet, exhaust, and casing of the turbines. Secondary noise 

sources would include yard piping and valves. Noise from the relief valves, blowdown stacks, and 

emergency electrical generation equipment would be infrequent. 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
3-120

All compressor stations would include design measures to minimize sound generation. Silencers 

or mufflers would be installed on the turbine exhausts, and silencers would be installed on the turbine air 

intakes. The walls and roof of each compressor building would be comprised of acoustical panels 

consisting of a 22-gauge metal outer skin and 4 inches of fiberglass insulation with a 26-gauge perforated 

metal liner. The building ventilation system vents would be equipped with acoustical louvers or duct 

silencers. 

The expected Ldn at NSA #1 near the Carthage Junction Compressor Station would be 45.5 dBA 

due to sound generated by the existing and new equipment at the station. When combined with the 

existing ambient noise level, the Ldn would be about 50.8 dBA at NSA #1, as shown in Table 3.11.2-2. 

Outside the scope of the proposed Project and authorized under a separate docket is the installation of a 

reciprocating compressor unit that has not yet been installed but would be installed prior to the 

construction detailed in the proposed Project. Table 3.11.2-2 also includes the estimated noise level for 

the separate unit. The table also indicates the sound contributions from the existing operation of the 

station and from the new equipment for the proposed Project alone and then combined with the separate 

unit. Predicted noise at NSA #1 is below the FERC specification of 55 dBA. Noise from blowdown 

events was estimated at 60 dBA at a distance of 300 feet from the blowdown vent. Blowdown noise at 

the NSA was estimated at 30 dBA. As a result, there would not be a significant impact on the noise 

environment near the Carthage Junction Compressor Station. 

TABLE 3.11.2-2 

Predicted Noise Level Contribution of the Carthage Junction Compressor Station at NSAs 

Measurement 

Location/ 

NSA 

Distance/ 

Direction of 

NSA to 

Compressor 

Building (feet) 

Calculated 

Ldn for 

Existing 

Equipment 

(dBA) 

Estimated Ldn

for New 

Project 

Equipment 

(dBA) 

Estimated Ldn

for New 

Reciprocating 

Unit (dBA) 

Estimated 

Ldn for New 

and Existing 

Equipment 

(dBA)a 

Total 

Estimated 

(Station 

Noise Plus 

Survey 

Levels) Ldn

(dBA)b

Potential 

Noise 

Increase 

from All 

New Units 

(dBA)c

NSA #1/ 

residence 

5,000 / NW 49.3 39.5 41.3 45.5 50.8 1.5 

____________ 

Notes: 

dBA = A-weighted decibel scale 

Ldn = Day-night sound level 

NSA = Noise-sensitive area a

 Estimated Project Ldn sound levels are from operation of existing and expansion station equipment, with noise control measures installed as 

recommended. b

 Estimated total Ldn = 10 log (10(Ambient L

dn

/10) + 10 (Predicted L

dn

/10)) c

 Estimated increase in the ambient Ldn sound levels due to operation of the existing and expansion station equipment. 

Table 3.11.2-3 shows the existing and projected noise levels for the Vixen Compressor Station. 

The expected Ldn at NSA #1 would be 51.0 dBA due to sound generated by the new station. When 

combined with the existing ambient noise level, the Ldn would be about 52.9 dBA at NSA #1. Expected 

noise at NSA #2 would be 44.3 dBA due to sound generated by the new station and 50.6 dBA when 

combined with the existing ambient noise level. Expected noise at NSA #3 would be 43.0 dBA due to 

sound generated by the new station. When combined with the higher existing ambient noise level at NSA 

#3, the Ldn would be about 47.6 dBA. Predicted noise at the NSAs is below the FERC specification of 

55 dBA. Noise from blowdown events was estimated at 60 dBA, at a distance of 300 feet from the 

blowdown vent. Blowdown noise at NSA #1 was estimated at 45 dBA and would be less at NSAs #2 and 

#3. Consequently, there would not be a significant impact on the noise environment near the Vixen 

Compressor Station. 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
3-121

TABLE 3.11.2-3 

Predicted Noise Level Contribution of the Vixen Compressor Station at Nearby NSAs 

Measurement 

Location/NSA 

Distance/Direction of 

NSA to Compressor 

Building (feet) 

Calculated 

Ambient Ldn

(dBA) 

Estimated 

Project Ldn

(dBA)a Total Estimated 

Ldn (dBA)b

Potential 

Noise 

Increase 

(dBA)c

NSA #1 / residence 1,500 / S 48.3 51.0 52.9 4.6 

NSA #2 / residence 2,700 / WNW 49.4 44.3 50.6 1.2 

NSA #3 / residence 3,000 / SE 45.7 43.0 47.6 1.9 

____________ 

Notes: 

dBA = A-weighted decibel scale 

Ldn = Day-night sound level 

NSA = Noise-sensitive area a Estimated Ldn sound levels from the proposed Vixen Compressor Station, with noise control measures installed as 

recommended. b Estimated total Ldn=10 log (10(Ambient L

dn

/10) + 10 (Predicted L

dn

/10)) c Estimated increase of the ambient Ldn sound levels due to operation of the proposed Vixen Compressor Station. 

Table 3.11.2-4 shows the existing and projected noise levels for the Tallulah Compressor Station. 

The expected Ldn at NSA #1 would be 50.0 dBA due to sound generated by the new station and 51.8 dBA 

when combined with the existing ambient noise level. Expected noise at NSA #2 would be 45.3 dBA due 

to sound generated by the new station. When combined with the higher existing ambient noise level at 

NSA #2, the Ldn would be about 57.8 dBA. Expected noise at NSA #3 would be 44.6 dBA due to sound 

generated by the new station and 48.8 dBA when combined with the higher existing ambient noise level. 

Predicted noise levels at NSAs #1 and #3 would be below the FERC specification of 55 dBA. The 

existing ambient noise level at NSA #2 exceeds 55 dBA due to non-Project related sources. The 

calculated increase in noise level due to the proposed Project is 0.3 dBA. Noise differences of less than 

3 dBA are considered undetectable by humans. The noise contribution due to the station is less than 

55 dBA. Noise from blowdown events was estimated at 60 dBA at a distance of 300 feet from the 

blowdown vent. Blowdown noise at the NSA #1 was estimated at 40 dBA and would be less at NSAs #2 

and #3. Consequently, there would not be a significant impact on the noise environment near the Tallulah 

Compressor Station. 

During operation of the proposed Project, the potential noise impacts from the pipeline would be 

limited to the vicinity of the new valve and M/R stations. Principal noise sources would include gas flow 

through valves and M/R equipment. Such gas flow noise is typically not noticeable more than a short 

distance from the equipment. The nearest NSA to a surface valve and M/R station is located 1,280 feet 

from the Columbia Gulf M/R Station at MP 148.7. Gas flow noise is expected to be undetectable at the 

NSA. Underground sections of the pipeline are not a significant source of noise. 

Minor short-term noise impacts are expected during the proposed Project construction, provided 

that equipment is maintained to the manufacturers’ specifications to minimize noise. This assessment 

assumes that temporary noise barriers would be installed at the HDD sites listed in Table 3.11.2-1, that 

hospital-grade mufflers would be installed on engines that do not move while operating at HDD sites 

listed in Table 3.11.2-1, and that temporary housing would be offered to residents of NSAs if noise 

mitigation measures do not reduce the Ldn to 55 dBA or less. 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
3-122

TABLE 3.11.2-4 

Predicted Noise Level Contribution of the Tallulah Compressor Station at Nearby NSAs 

Measurement 

Location/NSA 

Distance/Direction of 

NSA to Compressor 

Building (feet) 

Calculated 

Ambient Ldn

(dBA) 

Estimated 

Project Ldn

(dBA)a Total Estimated 

Ldn (dBA)b

Potential 

Noise 

Increase 

(dBA)c

NSA #1 / residence 2,600 / SSW 47.1 50.0 51.8 4.7 

NSA #2 / residence 3,500 / W 57.5 45.3 57.8 0.3 

NSA #3 / residence 3,700 / NE 46.8 44.6 48.8 2.0 

____________ 

Notes: 

dBA = A-weighted decibel scale 

Ldn = Day-night sound level 

NSA = Noise-sensitive area a Estimated Ldn sound levels from the proposed Vixen Compressor Station with noise control measures installed as 

recommended. b Estimated total Ldn=10 log (10(Ambient L

dn

/10) + 10 (Predicted L

dn

/10)) c Estimated increase of the ambient Ldn sound levels due to operation of the proposed Vixen Compressor Station. 

Minor long-term noise impacts are expected from compressor station operation during the life of 

the proposed Project and would not result in a significant effect on the noise environment. These minor 

impacts would result from the normal operation of compressor station equipment, as well as from 

blowdown events. 

To ensure that noise levels from operation of the Project facilities do not adversely impact 

surrounding areas, we recommend that: 

• Gulf South should file with the Secretary no later than 60 days after placing the 

authorized units at the Carthage Junction Compressor Station into service compressor 

station noise surveys. If the noise attributable to the operation of the authorized units 

exceeds an Ldn of 55 dBA at any nearby NSAs, Gulf South should file a report on what 

changes are needed and should install the additional noise controls to meet the level 

within 1 year of the in-service date. Gulf South should confirm compliance with the 

above requirement by filing a second noise survey with the Secretary no later than 60 

days after it installs the additional noise controls. 

• Gulf South should file with the Secretary no later than 60 days after placing the Vixen 

and Tallulah Compressor Stations into service compressor station noise surveys. If the 

noise attributable to the operation of the Vixen or Tallulah Compressor Stations at full 

load exceeds an Ldn of 55 dBA at any nearby NSAs, Gulf South should file a report on 

what changes are needed and should install the additional noise controls to meet the 

level within 1 year of the in-service date. Gulf South should confirm compliance with 

the above requirement by filing a second noise survey with the Secretary no later than 

60 days after it installs the additional noise controls. 

3.12 RELIABILITY AND SAFETY 

The transportation of natural gas by pipeline involves some risk to the public in the event of an 

accident and subsequent release of gas. The greatest hazard is a fire or explosion following a major 

pipeline rupture. 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
3-123

Methane, the primary component of natural gas, is colorless, odorless, and tasteless. It is not 

toxic but is classified as a simple asphyxiate, possessing a slight inhalation hazard. If breathed in high 

concentration, oxygen deficiency can result in serious injury or death. Methane has an ignition 

temperature of 1,000 o

F and is flammable at concentrations between 5 and 15 percent in air. Unconfined 

mixtures of methane in air are not explosive. However, a flammable concentration within an enclosed 

space in the presence of an ignition source can explode. It is buoyant at atmospheric temperatures and 

disperses rapidly in air. 

3.12.1 Safety Standards 

The DOT is mandated to provide pipeline safety under Title 49, USC Chapter 601. The Pipeline 

and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration’s (PHMSA’s) Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS) 

administers the national regulatory program to ensure the safe transportation of natural gas and other 

hazardous materials by pipeline. It develops safety regulations and other approaches to risk management 

that ensure safety in the design, construction, testing, operation, maintenance, and emergency response of 

pipeline facilities. Many of the regulations are written as performance standards that set the level of 

safety to be attained and allow the pipeline operator to use various technologies to achieve safety. 

PHMSA ensures that people and the environment are protected from the risk of pipeline incidents. This 

work is shared with state agency partners and others at the federal, state, and local level. Section 5(a) of 

the Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act (NGPSA) provides for a state agency to assume all aspects of the 

safety program for intrastate facilities by adopting and enforcing the federal standards, while Section 5(b) 

permits a state agency that does not qualify under Section 5(a) to perform certain inspection and 

monitoring functions. A state may also act as DOT’s agent to inspect interstate facilities within its 

boundaries; however, the DOT is responsible for enforcement action. The majority of the states have 

either 5(a) certifications or 5(b) agreements, while nine states act as interstate agents. 

The DOT pipeline standards are published in Parts 190-199 of Title 49 of the CFR. Part 192 of 

49 CFR specifically addresses natural gas pipeline safety issues. 

Under a Memorandum of Understanding on Natural Gas Transportation Facilities (Memorandum) 

dated January 15, 1993, between DOT and the FERC, the DOT has the exclusive authority to promulgate 

federal safety standards used in the transportation of natural gas. Section 157.14(a)(9)(vi) of the FERC’s 

regulations require that an Applicant certify that it 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 a pipeline under the Commission’s jurisdiction. 

The FERC also participates as a member of the DOT’s Technical Pipeline Safety Standards 

Committee, which determines whether proposed safety regulations are reasonable, feasible, and 

practicable. 

The pipeline and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed Project must be designed, 

constructed, operated, and maintained in accordance with the DOT Minimum Federal Safety Standards in 

49 CFR Part 192. The regulations are intended to ensure adequate protection for the public and to prevent 

natural gas facility accidents and failures. Part 192 specifies material selection and qualification, 

minimum design requirements, and protection from internal, external, and atmospheric corrosion. 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
3-124

Part 192 also defines area classifications, based on population density in the vicinity of the 

pipeline, and specifies more rigorous safety requirements for populated areas. The class location unit is 

an area that extends 220 yards on either side of the centerline of any continuous 1-mile length of pipeline. 

The four area classifications are defined as follows: 

Class 1 Location with 10 or fewer buildings intended for human occupancy. 

Class 2 Location with more than 10 but less than 46 buildings intended for human 

occupancy. 

Class 3 Location with 46 or more buildings intended for human occupancy or where the 

pipeline lies within 100 yards of any building, or small well-defined outside area 

occupied by 20 or more people on at least 5 days a week for 10 weeks in any 

12-month period. 

Class 4 Location where buildings with four or more stories aboveground are prevalent. 

Class locations representing more populated areas require higher safety factors in pipeline design, 

testing, and operation. Pipelines constructed on land in Class 1 locations must be installed with a 

minimum depth of cover of 30 inches in normal soil and 18 inches in consolidated rock. Class 2, 3, and 4 

locations, as well as drainage ditches of public roads and railroad crossings, require a minimum cover of 

36 inches in normal soil and 24 inches in consolidated rock. All pipelines installed in navigable rivers, 

streams, and harbors must have a minimum cover of 48 inches in soil and 24 inches in consolidated rock. 

Class locations also specify the maximum distance to a sectionalizing block valve (e.g., 

10.0 miles in Class 1, 7.5 miles in Class 2, 4.0 miles in Class 3, and 2.5 miles in Class 4). Pipe wall 

thickness and pipeline design pressures, hydrostatic test pressures, MAOP, inspection and testing of 

welds, and frequency of pipeline patrols and leak surveys must also conform to higher standards in more 

populated areas. Preliminary class locations for the proposed Project have been developed based on the 

relationship of the proposed pipeline centerline to other nearby structures and manmade features. 

Gulf South reports that six segments of the proposed pipeline would be designated as Class 2. The Class 

2 areas include: 

• MP 38.1 to 38.7 (3,209 feet); 

• MP 72.7 to 74.0 (6,687 feet); 

• MP 185.0 to 185.6 (3,227 feet); 

• MP 187.8 to 188.6 (4,298 feet); 

• MP 219.8 to 221.6 (9,259); and 

• and MP 228.4 to 228.7 (1,801 feet). 

The remaining 237.7 miles of the proposed pipeline would be designated as Class 1. 

If a subsequent increase in population density adjacent to the right-of-way indicates a change in 

class location for the pipeline, Gulf South would reduce the MAOP or replace the segment with pipe of 

sufficient grade and wall thickness, if required to comply with the DOT code of regulations for the new 

class location. 

In 2002, Congress passed an act to strengthen the Nation’s pipeline safety laws. The Pipeline 

Safety Improvement Act of 2002 (HR 3609) was passed by Congress on November 15, 2002, and signed 

into law by the President in December 2002. No later than December 17, 2004, gas transmission 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
3-125

operators were required 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 (68 FR 69778, 69 FR 18228, and 69 FR 29903) defines HCAs as 

they relate to the different class zones, potential impact circles, or areas containing an identified site as 

defined in §192.903 of the DOT regulations. 

OPS published a series of rules from August 6, 2002, to May 26, 2004, (69 FR 29903) that 

defines HCAs where a gas pipeline accident would cause considerable harm to people and their property, 

and requires an integrity management program to minimize the potential for an accident. This definition 

satisfies, in part, the Congressional mandate in 49 USC 60109 for OPS to prescribe standards that 

establish criteria for identifying each gas pipeline facility in a high-density population area. 

The HCAs may be defined in one of two ways. In the first method, an HCA includes: 

• current Class 3 and 4 locations; 

• any area in Class 1 or 2 where the potential impact radius1

 is greater than 660 feet and 20 or 

more buildings are intended for human occupancy within the potential impact circle2

; or 

• any area in Class 1 or 2 where the potential impact circle includes an identified site3

. 

In the second method, an HCA includes any area within a potential impact circle that contains: 

• 20 or more buildings intended for human occupancy; or 

• an identified site. 

Once a pipeline operator has determined the HCAs on its pipeline, it must apply the elements of 

its integrity management program to those segments of the pipeline within HCAs. The DOT regulations 

specify the requirements for the integrity management plan at § 192.911. The HCAs have been 

determined based on the relationship of the pipeline centerline to other nearby structures and identified 

sites. Gulf South reports that one HCA would be present along the proposed route at MP 186.1 to 186.8 

(3,951 feet). The pipeline integrity management rule for HCAs requires inspection of the entire pipeline 

every 7 years to determine the presence of HCAs. 

Part 192 prescribes the minimum standards for operating and maintaining pipeline facilities, 

including the requirement to establish a written plan governing these activities. Under Part 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: 

• receiving, identifying, and classifying emergency events, gas leakage, fires, explosions, and 

natural disasters; 

 

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 #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
3-126

• establishing and maintaining communications with local fire, police, and public officials, and 

coordinating emergency response; 

• emergency shutdown of the system and safe restoration of service; 

• making personnel, equipment, tools, and materials available at the scene of an emergency; 

and 

• protecting people first and then property, and making them safe from actual or potential 

hazards. 

Part 192 requires that each operator must establish and maintain liaison with appropriate fire, 

police, and public officials to learn the resources and responsibilities of each organization that may 

respond to a natural gas pipeline emergency, and to coordinate mutual assistance. The operator must also 

establish a continuing education program to enable customers, the public, government officials, and those 

engaged in excavation activities to recognize a gas pipeline emergency and report it to appropriate public 

officials. Gulf South would provide the appropriate training to local emergency service personnel before 

the pipeline is placed in service. No additional specialized local fire protection equipment would be 

required to handle pipeline emergencies. 

Gulf South would also operate a gas control center in Houston, Texas to monitor facility pressure, 

flows, and deliveries. If pressures fall outside of a predetermined range, an alarm notifies safety 

personnel and appropriate Gulf South responders would be dispatched to investigate the pressure alarm. 

3.12.2 Pipeline Accident Data 

Since February 9, 1970, 49 CFR Part 191 has required all operators of transmission and gathering 

systems to notify the DOT of any reportable incident and to submit a report on form F7100.2 within 

20 days. Reportable incidents are defined as any leaks that: 

• caused a death or personal injury requiring hospitalization; 

• required taking any segment of transmission line out of service; 

• resulted in gas ignition; 

• caused estimated damage to the property of the operator, or others, or both, of a total of 

$5,000 or more; 

• required immediate repair on a transmission line; 

• occurred while testing with gas or another medium; or 

• in the judgment of the operator was significant, even though it did not meet the above criteria. 

The DOT changed reporting requirements after June 1984 to reduce the amount of data collected. 

Since that date, operators must only report incidents that involve property damage of more than $50,000, 

injury, death, release of gas, or that are otherwise considered significant by the operator. Table 3.12.2-1 

presents a summary of incident data for the 1970 to 1984 period, as well as more recent incident data for 

1986 through 2005, recognizing the difference in reporting requirements. The 14.5-year period from 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
3-127

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.4

 

TABLE 3.12.2-1 

Natural Gas Service Incidents by Causea

 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 

__________ 

Note: 

a

 Sources: Jones et al. 1986, DOT OPS 2006. 

During the 14.5-year period, 5,862 service incidents were reported over the more than 

300,000 total miles of natural gas transmission and gathering systems nationwide. Service incidents, 

defined as failures that occur during pipeline operation, have remained fairly constant over this period, 

with no clear upward or downward trend in annual totals. In addition, 2,013 test failures were reported. 

Correction of test failures removed defects from the pipeline before operation (Jones et al. 1986). 

Additional insight into the nature of service incidents may be found by examining the primary 

factors that caused the failures. Table 3.12.2-2 provides a percentage distribution of the causal factors as 

well as the annual frequency of each factor per 1,000 miles of pipeline in service (Jones et al. 1986). Data 

presented for the period extending from mid-1986 through 2003 were gathered from the DOT’s OPS. 

The dominant incident cause is outside forces, constituting 53.8 percent of all service incidents. 

Outside forces incidents result from the encroachment of mechanical equipment such as bulldozers and 

backhoes; earth movements due to soil settlement, washouts, or geologic hazards; weather effects such as 

winds, storms, and thermal strains; and willful damage. Table 3.12.2-2 shows that human error in 

equipment usage was responsible for approximately 75 percent of outside forces incidents. Since 

April 1982, operators have been required to participate in “One Call” public utility programs in populated 

areas to minimize unauthorized excavation activities in the vicinity of pipelines. The “One Call” program 

is a service used by public utilities and some private sector companies (e.g., oil pipelines and cable 

television) to provide preconstruction information to contractors or other maintenance workers on the 

underground location of pipes, cables, and culverts. The 1986 through 2005 data show that the portion of 

incidents caused by outside forces has decreased to 38.5 percent. 

The pipelines included in the data set in Table 3.12.2-1 vary widely in terms of age, pipe 

diameter, and level of corrosion control. Each variable influences the incident frequency that may be 

expected for a specific segment of pipeline. 

 

4

 Jones, D. J., G. S. Kramer, D. N. Gideon, and R. J. Eiber. 1986. An Analysis of Reportable Incidents for Natural 

Gas Transportation and Gathering Lines 1970 through June 1984. (NG-18 Report No. 158.) Pipeline Research 

Committee of the American Gas Association. 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
3-128

TABLE 3.12.2-2 

Outside Forces Incidents by Cause 

(1970 through 1984)a

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 

__________ 

Note: 

a

 Source: Jones et al. 1986. 

The frequency of service incidents is strongly dependent on pipeline age. While pipelines 

installed since 1950 exhibit a fairly constant level of service incident frequency, pipelines installed before 

that time have a significantly higher rate, partially due to corrosion. Older pipelines have a higher 

frequency of corrosion incidents, since corrosion is a time-dependent process. 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. 

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)a

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 

__________ 

Note: 

a

 Source: Jones et al. 1986. 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
3-129

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; 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 

total 5.0 nationwide average, fatalities among the public averaged 2.6 per year over this period. The 

simplified reporting requirements in effect after June 1984 do not differentiate between employees and 

non-employees. However, the data show that the total annual average for the period 1984 through 2005 

decreased to 3.6 fatalities per year. Subtracting two major offshore incidents in 1989, which do not 

reflect the risk to the onshore public, yields a total annual rate of 2.8 fatalities per year for this period. 

TABLE 3.12.3-1 

Annual Average Fatalities for Natural Gas 

Transmission and Gathering Systemsa

Year Employees Non-employees Total 

1970 – June 1984 2.4 2.6 5.0 

1984 – 2005b -- -- 3.6 

1984 – 2005b -- -- 2.8c

__________ 

Notes: 

a Sources: Jones et al. 1986, DOT OPS 2006. 

b

 Employee/non-employee breakdown not available after June 1984. 

c 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). 

The nationwide totals of accidental fatalities from various manmade and natural hazards are listed 

in Table 3.12.3-2 in order to provide a relative measure of the industry-wide safety of natural gas 

pipelines. Direct comparisons between accident categories should be made cautiously, however, because 

individual exposures to hazards are not uniform among all categories. Nevertheless, the average 

2.6 public fatalities per year is relatively small, considering the more than 300,000 miles of transmission 

and gathering lines in service nationwide. Furthermore, the fatality rate is approximately two orders of 

magnitude (100 times) lower than the fatalities from natural hazards such as lightning, tornadoes, floods, 

and earthquakes. 

The available data show that natural gas pipelines continue to be a safe, reliable means of energy 

transportation. Based on approximately 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 400 years. This would 

represent a slight increase in risk to the nearby public. 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
3-130

TABLE 3.12.3-2 

Nationwide Accidental Deathsa

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 

(1984 to 1993 average) 181 

All liquid and gas pipelinesb 

(1978 to 1987 average) 27 

Gas transmission and gathering linesc 

(non-employees only, 1970 to 1984 average) 2.6 

__________ 

Notes: 

a

 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.” b

 Source: DOT, “Annual Report on Pipeline Safety – Calendar Year 1987.” 

c Source: Jones et al. 1986. 

3.12.4 Additional Security and Safety Issues 

3.12.4.1 Terrorism 

During the scoping and Draft EIS comment period, we received comments regarding the 

susceptibility of the proposed Project to terrorist attack. Due to the various motivations and abilities of 

terrorist organizations in conjunction with the extensive natural gas infrastructure within the United 

States, the likelihood of future acts of terrorism occurring at the Project site is unpredictable. The FERC 

has taken measures to limit the distribution of information to the public regarding facility design to 

minimize the risk of sabotage. Facility design and location information is removed from the FERC’s 

website to ensure that sensitive information filed under Critical Energy Infrastructure Information is not 

readily available. Further, the Commission, in cooperation with other federal agencies, industry trade 

groups, and interstate natural gas companies, is working to improve pipeline security practices, strengthen 

communications within the industry, and extend public outreach in an ongoing effort to secure pipeline 

infrastructure. 

Despite the ongoing potential for terrorist acts along any of the nation’s natural gas infrastructure, 

the continuing need for the construction of these facilities is not eliminated. Given the continued need for 

natural gas conveyance and the unpredictable nature of terrorist attacks, FERC, DOT, and the Office of 

Homeland Security’s efforts to continually improve pipeline safety would minimize the risk of terrorist 

sabotage of the Project to the maximum extent practical, while still meeting the nation’s natural gas 

needs. 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
3-131

3.12.4.2 Electric Transmission Lines and Facilities 

We have also received comments expressing concerns regarding the safety of the portions of the 

proposed Project proximate to high voltage alternating current (HVAC) power lines. Of the 243.6 miles 

of proposed pipeline, 38.4 miles would be collocated with HVAC power lines, and six aboveground 

facilities would be located within 1,004 feet of HVAC power lines. Further, concerns were expressed 

about the potential of pipeline failure impacting power delivery via HVAC power lines to the Baxter 

Wilson Steam Electric Plant and the offsite switch yard that supplies power to the Grand Gulf Nuclear 

Power Station. Gulf South evaluated and adopted an alternative route to the north of the originally 

proposed alignment (see Section 4.0), so that the proposed Project is now located greater than 2,400 feet 

from the Baxter Wilson Plant and Grand Gulf Station switch yard. Due to this adopted route variation, 

these facilities are now located beyond the pipeline’s potential impact radius. 

Due to the generally low risk of pipeline failure, as described in Section 3.12.1, combined with 

the avoidance of electrical infrastructure that has the potential to disrupt nuclear or steam power 

generation, we believe that the proposed Project would present a minimal increase in the potential for 

pipeline failure within areas containing HVAC power lines. 

3.13 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 

In accordance with NEPA and FERC policy, we considered the cumulative impacts of the 

proposed 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 period of 

time. The direct and indirect impacts of the proposed Project are discussed in other sections of this EIS. 

The purpose of this cumulative impact analysis is to identify and describe cumulative impacts that 

would potentially result from implementation of the proposed Project. This cumulative impact analysis 

generally follows the methodology set forth in relevant guidance (CEQ 1997b, EPA 1999). Under these 

guidelines, inclusion of other projects within the analysis is based on identifying commonalties of impacts 

from other projects to potential impacts that would result from the proposed Project. An action must meet 

the following three criteria to be included in the cumulative impacts analysis: 

• impact a resource area potentially affected by the proposed Project; 

• cause this impact within all, or part of, the proposed Project area; and 

• cause this impact within all, or part of, the timespan 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 are included based on the likelihood of completion, and 

only projects with either ongoing impacts or that are “reasonably foreseeable” future actions were 

evaluated. Existing or reasonably foreseeable actions that would be expected to affect similar resources 

during similar time periods as the proposed Project were considered further. The anticipated cumulative 

impacts of the proposed Project and these other actions are discussed below, as well as any pertinent 

mitigation actions. The anticipated cumulative impacts were based on NEPA documentation, agency and 

public input, and best professional judgment. 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
3-132

We identified three types of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects that would 

potentially result in a cumulative impact when considered with the proposed Project. These are: (1) other 

natural gas pipeline projects; (2) facilities that would be associated with construction of the proposed 

Project but that are not under the FERC’s jurisdiction; and (3) unrelated projects that are either in place, 

are under construction in the vicinity of the proposed Project, or are proposed (Table 3.13-1). 

TABLE 3.13-1 

Existing or Proposed Projects That Would Cumulatively Impact 

Resources in the East Texas to Mississippi Expansion Project Area 

Project Description 

Anticipated 

Construction 

Date 

Counties/Parishes 

Affected within 

East Texas to 

Mississippi 

Expansion Project 

Area 

Natural Gas Pipeline Projects 

East Texas to 

Mississippi Expansion 

Construct and operate a 240-mile-long, 42-

inch-diameter; and a 3-mile-long, 36-inchdiameter natural gas pipeline 

2007 Panola County, 

Texas 

DeSoto, Red River, 

Bienville, Jackson, 

Ouachita, Richland, 

and Madison 

Parishes, Louisiana 

Warren, Hinds, 

Copiah, Simpson, 

and Walthall 

Counties, Mississippi

Regency Pipeline Construct and operate an 80-mile long, 30-

inch-diameter intrastate natural gas 

pipeline and a 40-mile long, 24-inchdiameter natural gas pipeline loop 

Completed in 2005 Bienville, Jackson, 

and Richland 

Parishes, Louisiana 

Carthage to Perryville Construct and operate a 172-mile-long, 42-

inch-diameter natural gas pipeline 

2006–2007 Panola County, 

Texas 

DeSoto, Red River, 

Bienville, Jackson, 

Ouachita, and 

Richland Parishes, 

Louisiana 

Southeast Expansion Construct and operate a 111-mile-long, 42-

inch-diameter natural gas pipeline 

2007–2008 Richland Parish, 

Louisiana, Simpson 

County, Mississippi 

Southeast Supply 

Header 

Construct and operate a 269-mile-long, 36 

and 42-inch-diameter natural gas pipeline 

2007–2008 Richland and 

Madison Parishes, 

Louisiana 

Warren, Copiah, and 

Simpson Counties, 

Mississippi 

Gulf Crossing Project Construct and operate a 351-mile-long, 42-

inch-diameter natural gas pipeline 

2008 Richland and 

Madison Parishes, 

Louisiana 

Hinds, Copiah, and 

Simpson Counties, 

Mississippi 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
3-133

TABLE 3.13-1 (continued) 

Existing or Proposed Projects That Would Cumulatively Impact 

Resources in the East Texas to Mississippi Expansion Project Area 

Project Description 

Anticipated 

Construction 

Date 

Counties/Parishes 

within Project Area 

Natural Gas Pipeline Projects (continued) 

Midcontinent Express 

Project 

Construct and operate a 494-mile-long, 30, 

36, and 42-inch-diameter natural gas 

pipeline 

2008 - 2009 Ouachita, Richland, 

and Madison 

Parishes, Louisiana 

Warren, Hinds, and 

Simpson Counties, 

Mississippi 

Unrelated Projects 

Trans-Texas Corridor 

69 

Construct and operate an intermodal 

transportation corridor from Texarkana, 

Texas, to Mexico 

N/A Panola County, 

Texas 

Interstate 69 Construct and operate a highway between 

U.S. Highway 71 and Interstate Highway 

20 as part of the Interstate 69 corridor that 

will link Indianapolis, Indiana to the lower 

Rio Grande Valley in Texas 

N/A DeSoto Parish, 

Louisiana 

U.S. Highway 171 Widen to four lanes sections of U.S. 

Highway 171 from Shreveport to Lake 

Charles, Louisiana 

2007–2010; work in 

proposed Project 

area completed 

DeSoto Parish, 

Louisiana 

U.S. Highway 167 Widen to four lanes sections of U.S. 

Highway 167 from Alexandria, Louisiana to 

the Arkansas state line 

2007–2010 Jackson Parish, 

Louisiana 

U.S. Highway 165 Widen to four lanes sections of U.S. 

Highway 165 from Jennings, Louisiana to 

the Arkansas state line 

2007–2010; work in 

proposed Project 

area completed 

Ouachita Parish, 

Louisiana 

Clinton/Raymond Road 

Interchange 

Interchange reconstruction, new bridge on 

Interstate 20, a new loop in the southwest 

quadrant, and widen U.S. Highway 80 to 

five lanes between Raymond Road to 

Springridge Road 

October 2007 Hinds County, 

Mississippi 

Stack Project 

(Interstate 20 / 

U.S. Highway 49) 

Reconstruction of interchange, including 

additional lanes to both U.S. Highway 49 

south and frontage roads. 

December 2006 Hinds County, 

Mississippi 

____________ 

Note: 

N/A = Not available

In addition to the proposed East Texas to Mississippi Expansion Project, the identified projects 

consist of one completed project, one project recently certificated and under construction, four proposed 

natural gas transmission pipelines, and seven transportation improvement projects. We identified these 

projects through scoping and independent research, as well as information provided by Gulf South. 

While we did not specifically contact each county/parish, community, or other entity regarding new 

projects or plans for expansion, we did request information on other projects in the NOI. 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. 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
3-134

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 statelisted endangered and threatened species), land use, air quality, and noise. 

3.13.1 Other Natural Gas Pipeline Projects 

Regency Intrastate Gas, LLC (Regency) recently completed construction on an expansion of its 

existing intrastate pipeline facilities in the Project area. As an intrastate pipeline, the Regency Project was 

not jurisdictional to the FERC. The FERC recently issued a Certificate for CEGT’s Carthage to 

Perryville Project, which is also located in northern Louisiana and is currently in the final phase of 

construction. In addition, the FERC is currently considering a proposal for four other natural gas pipeline 

projects that would also traverse northern Louisiana and Mississippi, the Southeast Expansion Project, 

Southeast Supply Header Project (SESH), the Gulf Crossing Project, and the Midcontinent Express 

Project. Interstate natural gas pipeline projects occurring in the counties and parishes affected by the 

proposed East Texas to Mississippi Expansion project are depicted in Figure 3.13-1. Environmental 

resources that would be affected by recent and proposed interstate natural gas pipeline projects are 

quantified in Table 3.13-2. 

Regency Intrastate Pipeline 

Regency owns and operates a 280-mile-long, 30-inch-diameter intrastate pipeline system from 

Caddo Parish, Louisiana to Ruston, Louisiana. The Regency pipeline is interconnected at its western end 

with a 10-mile-long, 20-inch-diameter interstate gas pipeline that extends from Harrison County, Texas, 

to Caddo Parish, Louisiana (Regency 2006). In December 2005, Regency completed construction of the 

Regency Intrastate Enhancement Project. This expansion project included installation of 40 miles of 

24-inch-diameter pipeline loop adjacent to the existing pipeline between Haughton, Louisiana and eastern 

Bienville Parish; construction of 80 miles of new 30-inch-diameter mainline pipeline between Bienville 

Parish and Winnsboro, Louisiana; and addition of approximately 10,000 hp of new compression at an 

existing compressor station in eastern Bienville Parish. 

The Regency pipeline runs parallel to and generally north of portions of the proposed Project and 

the certificated Carthage to Perryville Project route, with the separation between the two routes ranging 

from about 10 to 25 miles. However, the recently constructed portion of the Regency pipeline in Jackson 

Parish, Louisiana is close to the proposed Project route and would intersect it near Chatham, Louisiana. 

Because it is an intrastate pipeline, the FERC did not have jurisdictional authority over planning or 

construction of the Regency Intrastate Enhancement Project, and we therefore have only limited 

information on the design and environmental impacts associated with that project. Construction of the 

Regency Intrastate Enhancement Project temporarily impacted a total of 42 acres of wetlands and resulted 

in permanent conversion of approximately 14 acres of forested wetlands to emergent and scrub-shrub 

wetlands. 

CEGT Carthage to Perryville Project 

CEGT is completing construction of the Carthage to Perryville Project, a new 42-inch-diameter 

natural gas pipeline system that would extend from Carthage in Panola County, Texas to near Delhi in 

Richland Parish, Louisiana. The project would consist of 172 miles of pipeline and two compressor 

stations that would total 41,240 hp. The pipeline would connect multiple receiving points in east Texas 

with CenterPoint’s Perryville Hub and four new interstate pipeline interconnections. The CEGT Project 

would parallel the proposed East Texas to Mississippi Expansion Project route for approximately 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
Non-Internet Public 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE 

PROPOSED EAST TEXAS TO MISSISSIPPI EXPANSION PROJECT 

Docket No. CP06-446-000 

Page 3-135 

Figure 3.13-1 

Approximate Location of Interstate Natural Gas Pipeline Projects in 

Counties/Parishes Affected by the Proposed East Texas to Mississippi 

Expansion 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 #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
3-136

TABLE 3.13-2 

Environmental Resources That Would Be Affected During Construction and 

Operation of Recent and Proposed Interstate Natural Gas Pipeline Projects in the Vicinity of t

Proposed East Texas to Mississippi Expansion Project 

Project 

Total 

Length/Length 

of Collocation 

(miles) 

Total Land 

Disturbance

(acres) 

Proposed 

Permanent 

Right-of-way 

Width (feet) 

Total OpenCut 

Waterbody 

Crossings 

(number) 

Total 

Wetlands 

Disturbed 

During 

Construction 

(number / 

acres) 

Total 

Forested 

Wetlands 

Disturbed 

(acres) 

Total 

Forested 

Land 

Cleared 

(acres) 

Federally 

Listed 

Endangered

Threatened

or Candidat

Species 

(number) 

East Texas to Mississippi Expansion Project 

244 /181 

3,763 

(1,564 

permanently)

60 170 perennial 647 intermittent 309 wetlands / 122 acres 84 acres 1,777 acres 11 

Carthage to Perryville Project 

172 /40 

2,498 

(1,248 

permanently)

60 104 perennial 136 intermittent 154 wetlands / 128 acres 87 acres 1,425 acres 6 

Southeast Supply Header Project 

269 /0 

3,417 

(1,631 

permanently)

50 177 perennial 448 intermittent 246 wetlands / 239 acres 249 acres 2,171 acres 19 

Southeast Expansion Project 

111 /73 

1,954 

(825 

permanently)

60 92 perennial 159 intermittent 129 wetlands / 89 acres 48 acres 1,329 acres 9 

Gulf Crossing Project 366 /273 5,619 (2,745 permanently) 60 73 perennial 433 intermittent 92 wetlands / 335 acres at least 154 acres 1,930 acres 16 Midcontinent Express Project 

494 /330 Not available 50 Not available Not available Not available Not available Not available 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
3-137

97 miles. The FERC issued CEGT its Certificate on October 2, 2006. Construction of the Carthage to 

Perryville Project would likely be completed by the second quarter of 2007. 

The Carthage to Perryville Project is considered here with respect to the potential for cumulative 

impacts to the natural and human environments of Texas and Louisiana. Its similarity and proximity to 

the proposed Project merits further consideration. The FERC (1989) considers that the general impacts of 

building multiple pipelines would be primarily additive. Based on the project scope, geographic location, 

and preliminary information, we anticipate that the Carthage to Perryville 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 CEGT Project are 

included in the EIS (FERC 2006) prepared by the FERC and can be viewed on the FERC website under 

Docket No. CP06-85-000. 

Southeast Expansion Project 

Gulf South has proposed construction of a new 42-inch-diameter natural gas pipeline system that 

would extend approximately 111 miles from Simpson County, Mississippi to Choctaw County, Alabama. 

Approximately 29 miles of 42-inch-diameter pipeline would be located in one county that would also be 

affected by the East Texas to Mississippi Expansion Project, Simpson County, Mississippi. The proposed 

Southeast Expansion Project would affect approximately 344 acres during construction and 207 acres 

during operation in Simpson County, Mississippi. In addition to the 111 miles of pipeline construction, 

the proposed Southeast Expansion Project would add three new compressor stations. Two of the new 

compressor stations would be located in the area affected by the proposed East Texas to Mississippi 

Expansion Project, the Delhi Compressor Station (10 acres disturbed during construction) in Richland 

Parish, Louisiana and the Harrisville Compressor Station (11 acres disturbed during construction), in 

Simpson County, Mississippi. Both of these proposed compressor stations would permanently affect 

5 acres of land during operation. The pipeline would connect onshore gas supplies from Texas and 

Louisiana to the markets in Florida and the northeastern United States, as well as interconnect with 

interstate systems in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama. 

A draft EIS was issued for the proposed Southeast Expansion Project on April 20, 2007, is still 

being evaluated by the FERC staff and has not yet been approved. While it is not certain if or when this 

action will occur, its similarity and proximity to the proposed Project merits further consideration. Within 

the two county region also affected by the proposed East Texas to Mississippi Expansion Project, the 

proposed Southeast Expansion Project would cross numerous waterbodies and forested lands, and would 

impact approximately 16 acres of wetlands during construction. Approximately 4 acres of forested 

wetlands would be permanently converted to herbaceous or scrub-shrub wetlands in this region. Based on 

the project scope, geographic location, and information that we have available, 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, including the draft EIS, can be viewed on 

the FERC website under Docket No. CP07-32-000. 

Southeast Supply Header Project 

Duke Energy Gas Transmission (DEGT) and CEGT have proposed construction of a new 

36-inch-diameter and 42-inch-diameter natural gas pipeline system that would extend approximately 

269 miles southeast from Delhi, Louisiana to near Coden, Alabama. Approximately 94 miles of 

42-inch-diameter pipeline would be located in five parishes and counties that would also be affected by 

the East Texas to Mississippi Expansion Project including Richland and Madison Parishes, Louisiana and 

Hinds, Copiah, and Simpson Counties, Mississippi. Given proposed 125-foot-wide and 50-foot-wide 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
3-138

construction and permanent rights-of-way, respectively, the proposed SESH pipeline would affect 

approximately 1,424 acres during construction and 570 acres during operation in the five parish/county 

region also affected by the proposed East Texas to Mississippi Expansion Project. In addition to the 

269 miles of pipeline construction, the SESH Project would add three new compressor stations. One of 

the new compressor stations would be located in Richland Parish, Louisiana. The pipeline would connect 

onshore gas supplies from Texas and Louisiana to the markets in the southeast, as well as interconnect 

with interstate systems in Mississippi and Alabama. 

The SESH Project is considered here with respect to the potential for cumulative impacts to the 

natural and human environments of Louisiana and Mississippi. A draft EIS was issued on April 27, 2007, 

is still being evaluated by the FERC, and has not yet been approved. While it is not certain if or when 

this action will occur, its similarity and proximity to the proposed Project merits further consideration. 

Within the five parish/county region also affected by the proposed East Texas to Mississippi Expansion 

Project, the proposed SESH Project would cross numerous waterbodies and forested lands, and would 

impact approximately 46 acres of wetlands during construction. Approximately 13 acres of forested 

wetlands would be permanently converted to herbaceous or scrub-shrub wetlands in this region. Based on 

the project scope, geographic location, and information that we have available, we anticipate that the 

SESH 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 SESH Project, including the draft EIS, can be viewed on the FERC website under Docket 

No. CP07-44-000. 

Gulf Crossing Project 

Gulf Crossing Pipeline Company, LLC (Gulf Crossing) is a subsidiary of Boardwalk Pipeline 

Partners, LP, along with Gulf South Pipeline Company. Gulf Crossing has proposed construction of a 

new 42-inch-diameter natural gas pipeline system that would extend approximately 351 miles from 

Grayson County, Texas to the area that would be affected by the proposed East Texas to Mississippi 

Expansion Project, including Ouachita, Richland and Madison Parishes, Louisiana with looping also 

proposed for Hinds, Copiah, and Simpson, Counties, Mississippi. Loop B of the proposed Gulf Crossing 

project would be collocated with the proposed East Texas to Mississippi Project for approximately 

11 miles. In addition to the 351 miles of pipeline construction, the proposed Gulf Crossing Project would 

add four new compressor stations, although no new compressor stations would be located in the six 

parish/county region also affected by the proposed East Texas to Mississippi Expansion Project. The 

pipeline would connect onshore gas supplies from Texas and Oklahoma to the markets in the southeast, as 

well as interconnect with interstate systems in Texas, Oklahoma, and Louisiana. 

The proposed Gulf Crossing Project is in the pre-filing stage and is being evaluated by the 

FERC, but an application has not yet been filed. While it is not certain if or when this action will occur, 

its similarity and proximity to the proposed Project merits further consideration. The Gulf Crossing 

Project would involve construction and operation of approximately 65 miles of pipeline and would affect 

approximately 750 and 478 acres during construction and operation, respectively, in the six parish/county 

region also affected by the proposed East Texas to Mississippi Expansion Project. Approximately 

85 acres of wetlands, including at least 5.2 acres of forested wetlands, 97 waterbodies, and 124 acres of 

forest would be affected by the proposed Gulf Crossing Project in the six parish/county region also 

affected by the proposed East Texas to Mississippi Expansion Project. As noted above, the general 

cumulative impact of constructing multiple pipelines would be primarily additive. Based on the project 

scope, geographic location, and preliminary information, we anticipate that the Gulf Crossing Project 

would result in environmental impacts similar to those of the proposed Project. More detailed 

information regarding the environmental impacts that would be associated with construction and 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
3-139

operation of the Gulf Crossing Project, once it is available, can be viewed on the FERC website under 

Docket No. PF07-1-000. 

Midcontinent Express Project 

Midcontinent Express Pipeline Company, LLC (Midcontinent Express) has proposed construction 

of a new 30-inch-diameter, 36-inch-diameter, and 42-inch-diameter natural gas pipeline system that 

would extend approximately 494 miles from Bryan County, Oklahoma to Choctaw County, Alabama. 

The proposed Midcontinent Express Project would extend through the region that would be affected by 

the proposed East Texas to Mississippi Expansion Project, including Ouachita, Richland, and Madison 

Parishes, Louisiana and Warren, Hinds, and Simpson Counties, Mississippi for a distance of 

approximately 120 miles. Based on preliminary information, the proposed Midcontinent Express Project 

would be located near or collocated with the East Texas to Mississippi Project for approximately 

68 miles. In addition to the 494 miles of pipeline construction, the proposed Gulf Crossing Project would 

add four new compressor stations, with one new compressor station proposed for Warren County, 

Mississippi. The pipeline would connect onshore gas supplies from Texas, Oklahoma, and Arkansas to 

the markets in the southeast, as well as interconnect with a variety of interstate natural gas transmission 

systems. 

The Midcontinent Express Project is in the pre-filing stage and is being evaluated by the FERC, 

but an application has not yet been filed. While it is not certain if or when this action will occur, its 

similarity and proximity to the proposed Project merits further consideration. The Midcontinent Express 

Project would involve construction and operation of approximately 120 miles of pipeline and would affect 

approximately 1,818 acres during construction in the six parish/county region affected by the proposed 

East Texas to Mississippi Expansion Project. Detailed information for waterbodies, wetlands, forested 

areas, and other resources is not yet available for the Midcontinent Express Project. As noted above, the 

general impact of constructing multiple pipelines would be primarily additive. Based on the project 

scope, geographic location, and preliminary information, we anticipate that the Midcontinent Express 

Project would result in environmental impacts similar to those of the proposed Project. More detailed 

information regarding the environmental impacts that would be associated with construction and 

operation of the Midcontinent Express Project, once it becomes available, can be viewed on the FERC 

website under Docket No. PF07-4-000. 

3.13.2 Unrelated Projects 

Trans-Texas Corridor 69 

A consortium of Texas state transportation planning agencies, including the Texas Department of 

Transportation (TxDOT) and the Texas Turnpike Authority have proposed the Trans-Texas Corridor 

(TTC) Project. The TTC Project would consist of a system of new and existing highways that would 

provide dedicated travel lanes for cars and heavy trucks, incorporate light and heavy rail and other transit 

modes, and provide infrastructure for pipelines and other linear utilities. Elements of the TTC would be 

evaluated, designed, and constructed over the next 50 years (TTC 2006). 

One major component of the Project, TTC 69, would extend from Texarkana, Texas to Mexico. 

One section of TTC 69 would be constructed in Panola County, Texas, in the general vicinity of the 

proposed Project route. An initial environmental study of TTC 69 will result in selection of a preferred 

4-mile-wide corridor. That study is currently being conducted by TxDOT and is expected to be 

completed in 2007. If a preferred corridor is selected, potential route and design alternatives would be 

evaluated through an EIS conducted by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Federal 

Transit Authority. 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
3-140

Interstate Highway 69 

The Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development (LDOT), in cooperation with the 

FHWA, is conducting an environmental and location study to construct a section of the proposed 

Interstate Highway 69 in Bossier, Caddo, and DeSoto Parishes, Louisiana. If approved, this project 

would provide a divided, four-lane, limited access highway on a new location between US Highway 171 

near the Town of Stonewall in DeSoto Parish and Interstate Highway 20 near the Town of Haughton in 

Bossier Parish, a distance of approximately 35 miles. The proposed highway is part of the Interstate 

69 Corridor that will link Indianapolis, Indiana to the lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas (LDOT 2006). 

U.S. Highway 171 Widening 

As part of its Transportation Infrastructure Model for Economic Development (TIMED), a 

$40-billion, 10-year program to improve 536 miles of state highways, LDOT is adding a fourth travel lane 

to approximately 121 miles of U.S. Highway 171 between Shreveport and Lake Charles, Louisiana 

(LDOT 2006). As of April 2007, construction of the U.S. Highway 171 project was approximately 

71 percent complete. Construction is scheduled to begin on the remaining portions by mid-2007, with 

completion of construction slated for 2010. The proposed Project route would intersect 

U.S. Highway 171 near MP 4.5 in DeSoto Parish, but construction on this portion of U.S. Highway 171 

has already been completed. 

U.S. Highway 167 Widening 

Under another component of the TIMED program, U.S. Highway 167 is being widened to four 

lanes along a 112-mile stretch between the Arkansas state line and Alexandria, Louisiana (LDOT 2006). 

As of April 2007, construction of the U.S. Highway 167 widening was approximately 40 percent 

complete. The proposed Project route would intersect U.S. Highway 167 near MP 73.1 in Jackson Parish, 

and this portion of U.S. Highway 167 is expected to be under construction between 2007 and 2010. 

U.S. Highway 165 Widening 

LDOT also has plans to expand a 173-mile portion of U.S. Highway 165 to four lanes between 

the Arkansas state line and Jennings, Louisiana (LDOT 2006). As of April 2007, construction of the U.S. 

Highway 165 widening was approximately 48 percent complete. The TIMED Project schedule indicates 

that all construction work on U.S. Highway 165 will start no later than mid-2007 and be completed by 

2010. The proposed Project route would intersect U.S. Highway 165 near MP 111.4 in Ouachita Parish, 

but this portion of U.S. Highway 165 has already been constructed. Sections of U.S. Highway 165 

located just north and south of the proposed pipeline route in Ouachita Parish would be under 

construction between 2007 and 2010. 

Clinton/Raymond Road Interchange 

The Mississippi Department of Transportation’s (MDOT’s) Clinton/Raymond Road Interchange 

project is currently underway. The scheduled completion date is October 2007. The project includes 

complete reconstruction of the interchange, including a new bridge on Interstate 20 over 

Clinton/Raymond Road, a new loop in the southwest quadrant to improve access to the interstate for 

traffic southbound on Clinton/Raymond Road going eastbound on Interstate 20, improving 

U.S. Highway 80 to five lanes from Clinton/ Raymond Road to Springridge Road, and installation of 

signals at all interstate ramps and at the Clinton/ Raymond Road and U.S. Highway 80 intersections 

(MDOT 2006). 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
3-141

Stack Project (Interstate 20/U.S. Highway 49) 

MDOT’s Phase III of the Stack Project is scheduled to be complete in December 2006. This 

phase includes reconstruction of the Interstate 20/U.S. Highway 49 interchange, including adding lanes to 

both U.S. Highway 49 south and frontage roads on U.S. Highway 49. Phase IV of the Stack Project is 

scheduled to be let for construction bids in October 2007. This phase will include replacing the pavement 

on Interstate 20/Interstate 55 from Gallatin Street to the Pearl River. It also includes a new roadway from 

Gallatin Street to State Street (MDOT 2006). 

3.13.3 Potential Cumulative Impacts of the Proposed Action 

Impacts to wetlands, waterbodies, vegetation, wildlife (including federally and state-listed 

endangered and threatened species), land use, and air quality and noise could contribute to larger 

cumulative impacts. 

The FERC has no authority over permitting, licensing, funding, construction, or operation of the 

projects listed above 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. Expansion or construction of intrastate pipelines and highways would require 

state or federal permits and approvals to ensure compliance with Section 7 of the ESA; Sections 401, 402, 

and 404 of the CWA; and the CAA. Issuance of the necessary permits and approvals would reduce or 

avoid significant impacts from these facilities to wetlands and waterbodies, vegetation and wildlife 

(including threatened and endangered species), land use, and air quality and noise. 

3.13.3.1 Wetlands and Waterbodies 

Construction and operation of the proposed Project would result in both short-term and long-term 

impacts to waterbodies and wetlands. The short-term impacts such as soil or sediment disturbance would 

dissipate over a period of weeks, while longer-term impacts, such as regrowth of forested wetlands within 

the temporary construction rights-of-way, would persist for months or years. The primary impacts to 

wetlands and waterbodies during operation of the proposed pipeline would be associated with routine 

right-of-way maintenance. All maintenance activities would comply with applicable federal regulations 

and Gulf South’s Plan (see Section 3.2) and Procedures (see Sections 3.3 and 3.4), but would continue 

throughout the life of the proposed Project. 

If approved and constructed, the proposed Project and other reasonably foreseeable future 

projects would impact wetlands and would include permanent loss or conversion of some existing 

wetlands (see Table 3.4.1-1). Elements of these projects with the potential to affect wetlands and 

waterbodies would be subject to review and approval under Section 404 of the CWA, as administered by 

the COE, as well as state and local wetland regulations (see Section 1.3). Any permanent or long-term 

impacts to wetlands and waterbodies would require appropriate mitigation. Construction of the proposed 

Project would affect 309 wetland areas, resulting in disturbance of a total of approximately 122.4 acres of 

wetlands, including approximately 84.2 acres of forested wetland impacts. Based on our recommendation 

in the Draft EIS, Gulf South developed site-specific wetland crossing plans in select areas to further 

minimize forested wetland effects. Gulf South indicates that compensatory mitigation for wetland 

impacts associated with the proposed Project would be provided through the purchase of wetland 

mitigation bank credits in Texas and through restoration of bottomland hardwood wetlands located on 

private property in Louisiana and Mississippi as approved by the COE. 

Construction of the proposed Project would result in 889 individual waterbody crossings. Gulf 

South proposes to use 34 separate HDD crossings to accomplish pipeline installation across 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
3-142

65 waterbodies, including 16 major waterbodies, two Louisiana Natural and Scenic Rivers (Black Lake 

Bayou and Saline Bayou), and two NRI-listed streams (Big Black River and Pearl River). The use of 

HDD would avoid direct impacts to waterbodies and minimize impacts to riparian vegetation at those 

crossings. Although 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 Gulf South’s HDD Contingency Plan and SPCC Plan. 

Because most of the projects listed in Table 3.13-1 are located within the same major watersheds 

that would be crossed by the proposed Project pipeline, and because some of these projects would likely 

involve direct and indirect waterbody impacts, the proposed Project and other reasonably foreseeable 

future projects would result in some cumulative impacts to waterbodies. However, because the proposed 

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 Gulf South’s Plan and Procedures and our recommendations; therefore, we believe that cumulative 

impacts to wetlands and waterbodies would be relatively minor. 

3.13.3.2 Vegetation and Wildlife 

Construction of the proposed Project and other reasonably foreseeable future projects would 

cause a cumulative impact on native vegetation and associated wildlife. These cumulative impacts would 

be most significant if the projects were constructed at or near the same time and within close proximity of 

one another. Either circumstance would increase the impacts and would lengthen the recovery time for 

affected vegetative communities. The proposed Project, if approved, would impact native vegetative 

communities during construction, including approximately 995.2 acres of upland forest (slope hardwood 

and loblolly pine-hardwood forest) and 781.5 acres of pine plantation. Impacts to forested land and other 

native vegetative communities from the Regency, CEGT, Southeast Expansion, SESH, Gulf Crossing, 

and Midcontinent Express Projects would likely result in a cumulative effect on vegetation and wildlife 

when considered in conjunction with proposed Project. The proposed roadway improvement projects 

listed in Table 3.13-1 are not likely to significantly impact forests or other native plant communities, as 

these projects would largely be sited within existing disturbed roadway rights-of-way. 

Cumulative impacts within a region, such as lost acreage of forestland, are additive. Furthermore, 

many wildlife species depend on mature contiguous tracts of forest to sustain their migratory and 

reproduction cycles. These species include dozens of migratory songbirds and terrestrial mammals that 

are not migratory but that require large tracts of forest to support their home ranges. The impacts of 

fragmentation can be immediate and significant because population levels for many such species are 

currently low and on the decline. 

The extent and duration of cumulative wildlife habitat impacts associated with construction of the 

proposed Project and other future projects would be minimized by using existing, maintained rights-ofway and other disturbed areas as much as possible. Gulf South’s proposed route would be collocated 

with or parallel to existing utility rights-of-way where possible, thereby minimizing impacts to previously 

undisturbed vegetation. The proposed pipeline route would parallel existing utility rights-of-way for 

approximately 181 miles, or about 76 percent of the proposed route. Additionally, approximately 

39 percent of the proposed pipeline route’s length would traverse agriculture and pasturelands that would 

typically experience rapid revegetation. Furthermore, Gulf South would implement the mitigation 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
3-143

measures outlined in its Plan and Procedures to encourage the regrowth of native vegetation and 

discourage the spread of exotic or noxious plant species. 

Eleven federally listed or candidate species and a number of state-listed threatened, endangered, 

and/or special-status species would be potentially impacted by construction activities associated with the 

proposed Project. As described in Section 3.7, with implementation of our recommendations for 

mitigation to avoid and minimize impacts, we believe that the proposed Project would not significantly 

affect federally listed species. However, if other reasonably foreseeable future projects were to impact 

the same habitats as the proposed Project route, cumulative impacts to these listed species would occur. 

Impacts to such species would likely be reduced or eliminated through conservation and mitigation 

measures identified during the permitting processes because protection of threatened, endangered and 

other special-status species is part of the federal and state permitting processes. Consequently, we believe 

that cumulative impacts to vegetation and wildlife resources would be relatively minor.

3.13.3.3 Land Use 

Construction of the proposed Project and other reasonably foreseeable future projects would 

result in temporary and permanent changes in land use within the Project area. The proposed Project 

would encumber a total of approximately 3,763.4 acres of land during construction. Approximately 

47 percent of that land would be upland forest (including pine plantations), 27 percent would be 

agricultural, 5 percent would be open land, and 3 percent would be wetland. Residential land, 

commercial/industrial land, and open water would also be affected. While many of these impacts would 

be temporary, construction of the proposed Project would result in some permanent land use changes, 

including conversion to maintained utility right-of-way of approximately 791.4 acres of forested uplands 

including pine plantations, 476.3 acres of agriculture, 70.7 acres of open land, and 45.0 acres of forested 

wetlands. 

Land use impacts associated with the Carthage to Perryville Project include approximately 

2,500 acres during construction and approximately 775 acres of permanent impacts to forested lands. The 

Southeast Expansion and SESH Projects would impact approximately 1,329 and 2,171 acres of forested 

lands, respectively, in total during construction. Specific data for the region also affected by the proposed 

East Texas to Mississippi Expansion Project is not available at this time. Acreages impacted for land use 

types have not yet been determined for the proposed Gulf Crossing and Midcontinent Express Projects. 

The construction and operational impacts of the Regency Intrastate Expansion also are not available at 

this time. Land use impacts associated with the pipeline projects would likely cause 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 roadway projects such as TTC 69, which would 

permanently convert thousands of acres of land to paved impervious surface, much of the land affected 

during construction of the proposed Project and the other pipeline projects would be restored and allowed 

to revert to preconstruction uses and conditions once pipeline installation was complete. Because 

non-woody vegetation would be expected to return to preconstruction conditions over the short term, 

impacts to acreage classified as agriculture, pastures, or open land would be short term and minor. Longterm impacts to cleared forestland located outside of permanently maintained rights-of-way would take 

many years to return to preconstruction conditions, with recovery time dependent on the types and ages of 

the trees removed. However, given the prevalence of these land uses and cover types within the affected 

counties and parishes, we believe that cumulative impacts to land use would be relatively minor. 

The FERC considers a variety of factors when evaluating potential pipeline routes proposed by 

applicants. One of these factors, but not necessarily the predominant factor, is collocation with existing 

utility corridors. Selection of a route that is collocated with an existing and maintained right-of-way may 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
3-144

have several advantages over a route in an undisturbed "greenfield" area. Some of these advantages 

include reduction in fragmentation of forested habitats, an expansion of an existing land use (i.e., 

maintained right-of-way) instead of introduction an entirely new one, less impacts to wildlife species 

found primarily in undisturbed habitats, and less visual impacts. However, we recognize that collocation 

with existing utility corridors may in some cases also have negative consequences to particular tracts such 

as small privately held properties or managed sites such as Sixteenth Section Lands and WRPs. Existing 

rights-of-way may appear attractive for routing of new projects and new rights-of-way may attract future 

projects. Although collocation may tend to reduce cumulative impacts overall, the cumulative impacts of 

two or more rights-of-way at individual properties or managed sites may be magnified. We have 

attempted to minimize the potential cumulative impacts for the proposed Project to the extent possible 

through our coordination with affected agencies and parties, our recommendation of impact avoidance, 

minimization, and mitigation measures, and our review of alternatives. 

3.13.3.4 Air Quality 

Air quality would be affected by construction and operation of the proposed Project and other 

reasonably foreseeable future projects. Construction of these projects would temporarily impact air 

quality by generating emissions from operation of fossil-fueled construction equipment and fugitive dust 

from land clearing, grading, excavation, concrete work, and vehicle traffic on paved and unpaved roads. 

However, the majority of impacts to air quality would occur during operation of these projects. The 

proposed Project, the proposed Southeast Expansion, SESH, Gulf Crossing, and Midcontinent Express 

Projects, the certificated Carthage to Perryville Project pipeline, and the existing Regency pipeline all 

would contribute to ongoing air emissions associated with operation of compressor stations. The 

proposed or planned roadway improvements might also contribute increased levels of air emissions as a 

result of increased vehicular traffic. 

Because construction-related air emissions would be temporary and localized, they would be 

unlikely to contribute significantly to cumulative air quality impacts. Air emissions from operations of 

the proposed Project and the other projects listed in Table 3.13-1 would be additive because they would 

be discharged into a shared air basin. However, all counties and parishes in which the proposed Project 

would be constructed are in attainment for all NAAQS criteria pollutants. Furthermore, each of the 

projects listed in Table 3.13-1 would be required to meet all applicable federal and state air quality 

standards. For these reasons, we believe that cumulative impacts to air quality would be relatively minor. 

3.13.3.5 Noise 

Potential noise impacts associated with the proposed Project and those projects listed in 

Table 3.13-1 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. 

Furthermore, because most construction activities would be limited to daylight hours, construction-related 

noise impacts would not occur at night for the most part. The proposed Project would cause potential 

impacts at NSAs near HDD sites, but we are recommending measures to mitigate this temporary effect 

including development of an updated HDD Noise Plan. Potential noise-related impacts during operation 

of the proposed Project and the other pipeline projects listed in Table 3.13-1 would primarily be limited to 

the vicinity of the associated compressor stations. As described in Section 3.11, the estimated noise that 

would be generated by the existing Carthage Junction Compressor Station and the proposed Vixen and 

Tallulah Compressor Stations likely would meet acceptable levels at the nearest NSA, but we are 

recommending monitoring to ensure that no impacts occur. 

Noise emissions from compressor station operations may be additive with noise-generating 

elements of other reasonably foreseeable future projects if they are located near a common NSA. 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
3-145

However, no other compressor station, roadway improvement, or other noise-generating source for the 

identified projects would be located within 1 mile of any of the proposed compressor stations, therefore, 

we believe that cumulative impacts resulting from additional noise would be negligible. 

3.13.4 Conclusions 

If the proposed Project and the Southeast Expansion, SESH, Gulf Crossing, and Midcontinent 

Express Projects are certificated, along with the recently certificated Carthage to Perryville Project, the 

projects would be constructed within the same general area, and the effects of these actions could overlap 

in time. Additionally, the project scopes, construction methods, and overall impacts would be similar. 

Though the unrelated projects identified in our cumulative impact analysis are different from the proposed 

Project, they would affect similar resources. Although each of these unrelated projects would result in 

temporary and minor effects during construction, each project would be designed to avoid or minimize 

impacts to wetlands, waterbodies, protected and special-status species, and other sensitive resources. 

Additionally, significant unavoidable impacts to sensitive resources resulting from these projects would 

be mitigated. Mitigation generally leads to avoidance or minimization of cumulative impacts. We 

therefore consider that the potential cumulative impacts of the five proposed pipeline projects under our 

review, as well as the recently certificated Carthage to Perryville Project, have been or would be 

minimized. 

We believe that impacts associated with the proposed Project would be relatively minor, and we 

are recommending additional measures to further reduce the environmental impacts associated with the 

proposed Project. The environmental impacts associated with the proposed Project would be minimized 

by careful project routing, utilization of HDD techniques to avoid and minimize impacts to some sensitive 

resources, and implementation of appropriate mitigation measures. Consequently, 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 #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
4-1

4.0 ALTERNATIVES 

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

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

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

by the general public, as well as other federal and state resource agencies. It considers the environmental 

differences resulting from each alternative as well as the alternative’s ability to meet the proposed Project’s 

objectives. 

We considered the No Action or Postponed Action Alternative, alternative energy sources, the effects 

of energy conservation, system alternatives, route alternatives, route variations, and aboveground facility site 

alternatives. We also considered the potential impacts to environmental resources and land uses in our 

alternatives analysis. We evaluated alternatives that would avoid or minimize impacts to environmental 

resources such as wetlands and waterbodies, and to land uses such as timber production, and federally and 

state-managed lands. 

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

environmentally preferable: 

• significant environmental advantage over the proposed Project; 

• ability to meet the proposed Project objectives; and 

• technical and economic feasibility and practicability. 

4.1 NO ACTION AND POSTPONED ACTION ALTERNATIVE 

The FERC has three alternative courses of action in processing an application for a Certificate: 

(1) grant the Certificate with or without conditions, (2) deny the Certificate, or (3) postpone action pending 

further study. 

Implementation of the No Action Alternative would require the Commission to deny Gulf South a 

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

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

impacts identified in this EIS would be eliminated. However, the objectives of the proposed project would 

not be met and it is likely that customers would seek alternative projects and/or sources of energy that may 

result in greater impacts than those described in this EIS. As discussed in Section 1.1, nationwide 

consumption of natural gas is projected to increase by more than 20 percent by 2025, and natural gas derived 

from domestic sources will account for the majority of the total U.S. consumption (EIA 2006a). By 2025, 

natural gas demand in the Northeast and Midwest regions is projected to increase by 13 and 25 percent, 

respectively (EIA 2006b). Onshore production of natural gas from unconventional sources (e.g., shale, tight 

sands, and coal bed methane) is expected to be a major contributor to future domestic natural gas supplies 

(EIA 2006a). The proposed Project would supply up to 1.7 Bcf/d of natural gas from unconventional sources 

(i.e., Bossier Sand and Barnett Shale fields). Since the objectives of the proposed project would not be met by 

implementing the No Action Alternative and the effects of other customer-driven projects are unknown, we 

believe that this alternative is not preferable to the proposed action. 

Implementation of the Postponed Action Alternative would require the Commission to delay its 

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

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

operation of the proposed Project; however, postponement would at a minimum delay and could also change 

the environmental impacts described in this Final EIS. Based on the information provided in Gulf South’s 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
4-2

application, its subsequent filings, responses to environmental information requests, and our analysis of this 

information and consultations with other responsible state and federal resource agencies, we believe that use 

of the Postponed Action Alternative to allow for further study of the proposed Project is not necessary at this 

time. We believe that delaying the effects described in this Final EIS would not significantly change these 

effects. Therefore, we believe that this alternative is not preferable to the proposed action. 

Alternative Energy Sources 

Several alternative energy sources to natural gas currently exist, such as petroleum and coal-based 

energy, nuclear power, hydropower, and other energy sources, including renewable energy technologies. 

Petroleum and coal-based energy are commonly used and found throughout the United States; however, 

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

of pollutants such as NOx, SO2, and CO2. The increased emission of these pollutants would result in 

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

secondary impacts associated with their mining, extraction, transportation, and refinement. The use of this 

alternative would not meet the proposed Project’s objectives and would not likely result in a significant 

reduction of environmental impacts; therefore we believe that the use of this energy source is not preferable to 

the proposed action. 

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

generating capacity will account for only about 10 percent of total U.S. generating capacity by 2019, and it is 

expected to remain at that level through 2030 (EIA 2006a). Additionally, regulatory requirements, cost 

considerations, and public concerns make it unlikely that new nuclear power plants would be sited and 

developed to serve the markets targeted by the proposed Project within a timeframe that would meet the 

objectives of the proposed Project. Therefore, we believe use of this energy source is not preferable to the 

proposed action. 

Though efficiency upgrades at existing hydropower facilities are expected to produce incremental 

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

hydropower would be permitted and brought online as reliable energy source alternatives to the proposed 

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

effectiveness of non-hydropower renewable energy sources such as wind, solar, tidal, geothermal, and 

biomass. For example, state and local initiatives have increased the availability of wind power-derived energy 

to local consumers in Texas (TREIA 2006), and renewable energy is playing a larger role in the Mid-Atlantic 

and Northeast regions of the United States (CSC 2004, NYSERDA 1999). Nevertheless, the percentage of 

electricity generated from non-hydropower renewable energy sources at the national level is projected to 

increase to only 3.2 percent by 2025 (EIA 2006a), which would offset only a small part of the projected 

national energy demands. Therefore, we believe that these other energy sources would not be able to meet the 

overall objectives of the proposed Project and as a result are not preferable to the proposed action. 

Energy Conservation Alternatives 

An increase in energy conservation measures employed throughout the proposed Project’s market 

area could also potentially decrease or slow the nation’s increasing energy demands. However as noted in 

Section 1.1, energy demand in the United States has been increasing steadily with total energy consumption in 

the United States estimated to increase from 99.7 quadrillion BTU per year in 2004 to 127.0 quadrillion BTU 

per year in 2025 (EIA 2006). 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 Tcf per year in 2004 to 27.0 Tcf by 2025. 

The growth in natural gas demand is being driven primarily by increased use of natural gas for electricity 

generation and industrial applications. Given the anticipated increases of energy consumption over the next 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
4-3

20 years, it is unlikely that voluntary energy conservation measures would be sufficient to offset increasing 

demands in general or affect the need for the proposed Project in particular. 

4.2 SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES 

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

or proposed pipeline systems to meet the stated objectives of the proposed Project. Implementation of a 

system alternative would make it unnecessary to construct the proposed Project, although some modifications 

or additions to existing or proposed pipeline systems may be required to meet the objectives of the proposed 

Project. Modifications or additions to existing or proposed pipeline systems would result in environmental 

impacts that may be less than, similar to, or greater than those associated with construction and operation of 

the proposed Project. The purpose of identifying and evaluating system alternatives is to determine whether 

or not the environmental impacts associated with the construction and operation of the proposed Project 

would be avoided or reduced by using existing, modified or proposed pipeline systems. 

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

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

whether those systems would meet the proposed Project’s objectives while offering an environmental 

advantage over the proposed Project. Specifically, the system alternatives considered in our analysis include 

an expansion of existing overland natural gas pipeline systems (Existing Pipeline System Alternatives) and 

the construction of new natural gas pipeline systems (New Pipeline System Alternatives). 

4.2.1 Existing Pipeline System Alternatives 

Two existing pipeline systems, one using Gulf South’s system and the other operated by CEGT, are 

located within the general vicinity of the proposed Project. Figure 4.2.1-1 depicts the location of the Gulf 

South System Alternative in relation to the proposed Project route, and Figure 4.2.1-2 depicts the location of 

the CEGT Pipeline System Alternative in relation to the proposed Project route. We evaluated the Gulf South 

and the CEGT Pipeline System Alternatives to determine whether the expansion of either of these existing 

systems would be able to meet the objectives of the proposed Project and result in significantly less 

environmental impacts than those associated with the proposed Project. 

4.2.1.1 Gulf South System Alternative 

Gulf South currently operates its interstate pipeline system in Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, 

Alabama, and Florida. This alternative would use Gulf South’s existing (or modified) natural gas delivery 

system to meet the proposed Project’s objectives. 

Modifying Gulf South’s existing system to meet the proposed Project’s objectives would require the 

construction of approximately 260.3 miles of 42-inch-diameter pipeline loop, about 3.3 miles of 

36-inch-diameter lateral pipeline, and the installation of approximately 120,906 hp of compression. 

Table 4.2-1 illustrates a comparison of the requirements and environmental considerations of this system 

alternative and the proposed Project. 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
Non-Internet Public 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE 

PROPOSED EAST TEXAS TO MISSISSIPPI EXPANSION PROJECT 

Docket No. CP06-446-000 

Page 4-4 

Figure 4.2.1-1 

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 #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
Non-Internet Public 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE 

PROPOSED EAST TEXAS TO MISSISSIPPI EXPANSION PROJECT 

Docket No. CP06-446-000 

Page 4-5 

Figure 4.2.1-2 

CenterPoint Pipeline 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 #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
4-6

TABLE 4.2-1 

Comparison of the Gulf South System Alternative to the Proposed East Texas to 

Mississippi Expansion Project Route 

Comparative Category Unit 

Proposed 

Routea

Gulf South System 

Alternative 

Facility Requirements 

Pipeline length Miles 243.6 260.3 

Compressor station requirements Number/hp 

2 new, 

1 expanded / 

110,604 

2 new, 

1 expanded / 

120,906 

Land Requirementsb

Construction right-of-way Acres 3,113.6 3,369.2 

Permanent right-of-way Acres 1,586.8 1,746.3 

Environmental Considerations 

Waterbody crossingsc Number 359 375 

Total Wetlands Affected by Constructionc Acres 230.3 161.3 

Forested Wetlands Affected by 

Construction Acres 60.6 75.1 

Residential Lands Affected by 

Construction Acres 2.9 186.3 

Forested Lands Affected by Construction Acres 1,527.5 1,340.3 

Archaeological Sites Crossed Number 3 7 

Public lands crossed Miles 0.2 5.8 

_________ 

Notes: 

a Values reported are based on published data and mapping; therefore, the values shown may differ from actual 

values provided elsewhere in this document. 

b Land requirements reported assume a 100-foot-wide construction right-of-way and a 60-foot-wide permanent right-ofway. 

c Based on interpretation of U.S. Geological Survey topographic maps; number of blue-line stream crossings, and 

construction impacts to wetlands. 

As indicated in Table 4.2-1, the proposed Project would affect fewer waterbodies, residential lands, 

and archaeological sites than the pipeline looping required under this system alternative. Although the 

proposed Project would impact more wetlands overall than the pipeline looping, less forested wetlands would 

be impacted by the proposed Project. Impacts to forested wetlands would be long term or permanent, while 

impacts to emergent or scrub-shrub wetlands would be short term or temporary. The pipeline looping would 

also result in the crossing of approximately 5.8 miles of the Jackson-Bienville WMA, which is managed by 

the LDWF and provides habitat for the federally endangered red-cockaded woodpecker. The proposed 

Project would avoid suitable habitats for red-cockaded woodpeckers and would use HDD methodology to 

cross a 1,000-foot-long corridor under the Ouachita WMA, thereby significantly minimizing impacts to 

WMAs. This technology could not be utilized to cross the Jackson Bienville WMA due to the extended 

length of crossing. Although the pipeline looping associated with the Gulf South System Alternative would 

be collocated with Gulf South’s existing pipeline right-of-way, which generally minimizes environmental 

impacts, our analysis, as summarized in Table 4.2-1, indicates that the construction and operational impacts 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
4-7

associated with this system alternative would be measurably greater than those of the proposed Project. 

Furthermore, the proposed pipeline route would parallel/be collocated with existing utility rights-of-way for 

approximately 181.0 miles, or about 76 percent of the proposed route; therefore, the benefits gained from 

collocating with utility rights-of-way would still be realized with the proposed action. 

Gulf South has indicated that its existing system is fully subscribed as a result of the increased 

demand for natural gas in the Gulf Coast, Midwestern, Northeastern, and Southeastern regions of the United 

States. Additionally, Gulf South’s existing pipeline system is relatively older, consisting of low-pressure 

pipelines incapable of transporting the volumes of natural gas called for in the proposed action. Based on the 

characteristics of Gulf South’s existing facilities and their fully subscribed status, we believe that this existing 

system would be unable to transport the volumes identified in the proposed action without significant 

modifications. 

Based on the increased land requirements and pipeline length, potentially increased impacts to the 

federally endangered red-cockaded woodpecker, waterbodies, residential lands, and archaeological sites, we 

believe that the Gulf South System Alternative would not be preferable to the proposed Project. 

4.2.1.2 CEGT Pipeline System Alternative 

CEGT currently operates an interstate pipeline system in Texas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Arkansas, 

segments of which extend from near Carthage, Texas, to Delhi, Louisiana. Because this system ends in Delhi, 

Louisiana, it would only replace about two-thirds of the length of the proposed Project. The remaining 

79 miles of pipeline needed to transport the gas from Delhi, Louisiana to Harrisville, Mississippi would still 

be required. 

Because this system does not contain sufficient available capacity to transport the volumes of gas 

identified in the proposed action, it would need to be significantly expanded and modified to meet the 

proposed Project’s objectives. Specifically, to add capacity for an additional 1.7 Bcf/d of natural gas to Delhi, 

Louisiana, approximately 190 miles of 42-inch-diameter pipeline looping, as well as significant additional 

compression, would need to be constructed. In the proposed action, approximately 149.0 miles of pipeline 

would be constructed to transport the gas to Delhi, Louisiana. Both the proposed Project and the system 

alternative would require about an additional 79 miles of pipeline to extend the system to the final delivery 

point in Mississippi. 

Although much of the pipeline looping could be collocated with existing CEGT rights-of-way, 

construction of this length of pipeline looping within an assumed 100-foot-wide construction right-of-way 

would impact more than 2,275 acres of land, including wetlands and surface waters, while the proposed 

Project would only affect about 2,000 acres of land. The construction and installation of facilities necessary 

to extend this system from Delhi into Mississippi would result in essentially the same impacts as the same 

segment of the proposed Project. 

Because the CEGT Pipeline System Alternative would be about 40 miles longer than the proposed 

Project, the potential environmental impacts would likely be greater than those associated with construction 

and operation of the proposed Project. Therefore, we believe that the CEGT Pipeline System Alternative 

would not be preferable to the proposed Project. 

4.2.2 New Pipeline System Alternatives 

The recently certificated Carthage to Perryville Project and the proposed SESH, Gulf Crossing, and 

Midcontinent Express Projects have been identified as potential interstate natural gas pipeline system 

alternatives to the proposed Project. The proposed SESH Project (CP07-44-000) Draft EIS was issued on 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
4-8

April 27, 2007. The Gulf Crossing and Midcontinent Express Projects are currently being reviewed under the 

Commission’s pre-filing process. Figure 4.2.2-1 depicts the location of the Carthage to Perryville System 

Alternative in relation to the proposed Project route, and Figure 4.2.2-2 depicts the location of the SESH, Gulf 

Crossing, and Midcontinent Express System Alternatives in relation to the proposed Project route. 

4.2.2.1 Carthage to Perryville System Alternative 

The Carthage to Perryville Project consists of a 42-inch-diameter pipeline which when constructed 

would run easterly from Carthage, Texas to near Delhi, Louisiana. It is capable of transporting up to 1.2 

Bcf/d of natural gas. However, the capacity of the Carthage to Perryville Project is fully subscribed. 

Additionally, the Carthage to Perryville Project does not extend into Mississippi. Since the Carthage to 

Perryville Project would be unable to transport the volumes of gas identified in the proposed action and the 

project does not extend into Mississippi, it would fail to meet the objectives of the proposed Project without 

significant modifications. 

Modifying the Carthage to Perryville Project so that it could transport the required volumes of gas 

identified in the proposed action would require the construction of approximately 149 miles of additional 

pipeline parallel to its certificated pipeline and extending its certificated pipeline an additional 79 miles into 

Mississippi. This modification would require a significant redesign of the Carthage to Perryville Project and a 

re-examination of the environmental impacts of the project. Since the proposed Project is already collocated 

with the Carthage to Perryville Project for a significant portion of its length (approximately 97 miles), and the 

extension of the Carthage to Perryville Project would result in impacts similar to those of the proposed 

Project; we believe that this system alternative would not result in significantly less environmental impact 

than that of the proposed action. Therefore, we believe that this alternative would not be preferable to the 

proposed action. 

4.2.2.2 SESH Project System Alternative 

As proposed, the 42- and 36-inch-diameter SESH Project, which would run southeasterly from Delhi, 

Louisiana to Coden, Alabama, would be capable of transporting 1.14 bcf /d of natural gas. Although the 

proposed SESH Project would be located generally parallel to the proposed Project for approximately 20 

miles, beginning near Delhi, Louisiana it would not extend further westward into Louisiana and would 

terminate in southeast Alabama over 100 miles from the termination point of the proposed Project. The 

proposed SESH Project also does not have sufficient unsubscribed capacity to transport the volumes of gas 

called for in the proposed action. 

The proposed SESH project would not be able to transport the volumes of gas to the proposed 

locations without significant modifications. The SESH project would need to be significantly redesigned with 

looping and/or a larger diameter pipeline and lateral(s) to meet the objectives of the proposed Project. Since 

the proposed SESH Project would need to be significantly modified, and the impacts of those modifications 

would be similar or greater than those of the proposed Project and the time required to consider those 

modifications and analyze their impacts would significantly delay service, we believe that this alternative 

would not be preferable to the proposed action. 

4.2.2.3 Gulf Crossing System Alternative 

Gulf Crossing Pipeline Company, LLC proposes to construct a new 42-inch-diameter natural gas 

pipeline system that would convey approximately 1.65 Bcf/d of natural gas extending approximately 351 

miles from Grayson County, Texas to Madison Parish, Louisiana. Approximately 11 miles of the easternmost portion of the proposed Gulf Crossing Project would be collocated with the proposed East Texas to 

Mississippi 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
Non-Internet Public 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE 

PROPOSED EAST TEXAS TO MISSISSIPPI EXPANSION PROJECT 

Docket No. CP06-446-000 

Page 4-9 

Figure 4.2.2-1 

Carthage to Perryville Project 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 #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
Non-Internet Public 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE 

PROPOSED EAST TEXAS TO MISSISSIPPI EXPANSION PROJECT 

Docket No. CP06-446-000 

Page 4-10 

Figure 4.2.2-2 

Recently Proposed Project System Alternatives 

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 #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
4-11

Project in Madison Parish, Louisiana. Since the Gulf Crossing Project does not extend into Mississippi, this 

system alternative would be unable to transport the volumes of gas identified in the proposed action to the 

Project terminus without significant modifications. The origins of the two projects are also located 

approximately 175 miles apart. Further, the proposed Gulf Crossing Project would not have sufficient 

capacity to transport the volumes of gas that it would require in addition to the East Texas to Mississippi 

Expansion Project; therefore, the Gulf Crossing System Alternative would require significant modifications, 

such as a larger diameter pipe or looping, to meet volume transportation needs. 

Impacts associated with these significant modifications would result in similar or greater impacts than 

those of the proposed Project. Further, since the Gulf Crossing Project is currently in the pre-filing phase, the 

time required to consider these modifications and analyze their impacts would significantly delay service, we 

believe that this alternative would not be preferable to the proposed action. 

4.2.2.4 Midcontinent Express System Alternative 

Midcontinent Express Pipeline Company, LLC proposes to construct a new 30-inch-diameter, 

36-inch-diameter, and 42-inch-diameter natural gas pipeline system that would extend approximately 494 

miles from Bryan County, Oklahoma to Choctaw County, Alabama. The proposed Midcontinent Express 

Project would transport between 1.2 and 1.5 Bcf/d of natural gas through the region. Based on preliminary 

information, the proposed Midcontinent Express Project would be located near or collocated with the East 

Texas to Mississippi Project for approximately 68 miles in Madison Parish, Louisiana and western 

Mississippi, before continuing on to its terminus in western Alabama. Since the Midcontinent Express Project 

would originate in Oklahoma, the project would require significant modification to service the western 

Louisiana and eastern Texas interconnects. Further, the proposed Midcontinent Express Project does not have 

sufficient capacity to transport the volumes of gas that it would require in addition to the East Texas to 

Mississippi Expansion Project; therefore, requiring significant modifications, such as looping and/or a larger 

diameter pipeline, to meet volume transportation needs. 

Since the proposed Midcontinent Express Project would have to be significantly modified, the 

impacts of those modifications would be similar or greater than those of the proposed Project, and the time 

required to consider those modifications and analyze their impacts would significantly delay service, we 

believe that this alternative would not be preferable to the proposed action. 

4.3 ROUTE ALTERNATIVES 

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

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

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

federal and state resource agencies, and our review of the proposed Project, we identified and evaluated three 

major route alternatives: the Northern Route Alternative and two Tallulah to Florence Route Alternatives. We 

evaluated each alternative to determine if either would avoid or significantly reduce environmental affects 

associated with the proposed Project. 

4.3.1 Northern Route Alternative 

The Northern Route Alternative would route the proposed pipeline adjacent to existing Gulf South 

facilities from Keatchie, Louisiana to Harrisville, Mississippi. This route alternative would be effectively the 

same as the Gulf South System Alternative described previously; therefore, our analysis of that system 

alternative and our belief that it would not be preferable to the proposed Project also apply to this route 

alternative. 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
4-12

4.3.2 Tallulah to Florence Route Alternatives 

Based upon public comments, two Tallulah to Florence route alternatives were evaluated to determine 

if alternative routes in the eastern Louisiana and the Mississippi portions of the Project area would be 

preferable to the proposed Project alignment. Both Tallulah to Florence Route Alternatives would diverge 

from the proposed route at the Tallulah Compressor Station at MP 167.6 and would generally follow the route 

of the proposed SESH Project, crossing the Mississippi River just north of Letourneau, Mississippi 

(approximately 7 miles south of the proposed route) into Warren County, Mississippi. The two evaluated 

route alternatives would diverge at the Warren/Claiborne County line, where the Tallulah to Florence Route 

Alternative 1 would continue collocation with the SESH Project through Claiborne County before turning east 

to cross Copiah County towards the proposed Project terminus near Harrisville, Mississippi (Figure 4.3.2-1). 

Upon entering Claiborne County, the Tallulah to Florence Route Alternative 2 would be routed southeast 

towards the proposed terminus traversing Claiborne, Hinds, and Copiah Counties before returning to the 

proposed alignment near Harrisville (Figure 4.3.2-1). 

We conducted a desktop evaluation to compare environmental impacts associated with the two route 

alternatives and the proposed alignment. Topographic maps, aerial photography, and other data were used to 

evaluate the approximate route alternative impacts. A comparison of the effects associated with the proposed 

Project alignment, Tallulah to Florence Route Alternative 1, and the Tallulah to Florence Route Alternative 2 

is shown in Table 4.3.2-1. 

TABLE 4.3.2-1 

Comparison of Tallulah to Florence Route Variations and the Proposed Route 

Evaluation Criteria Proposed Route 

Tallulah to Florence 

Route Alternative 1 

Tallulah to Florence 

Route Alternative 2 

Total Length (miles) 78 81 78 

Construction Impacts 

(acres) 

946 982 946 

Permanent Impacts (acres) 567 589 567 

Adjacent to Existing 

Rights-of-Way (miles) 

31 0 0 

Stream Crossings 

(number) a 60 63 69 

Land Use Type Forest, silviculture, 

agriculture 

Forest, silviculture, 

agriculture 

Forest, silviculture, 

agriculture 

____________ 

Note: 

a Based on interpretation of U.S. Geological Survey topographic maps blue-line stream crossings. 

The Tallulah to Florence route alternatives would not be collocated with any known existing rightsof-way, while the proposed Project route would be collocated with existing rights-of-way for approximately 

31 miles, or about 43 percent of the route in the segment between Tallulah, Louisiana and Harrisville, 

Mississippi. All three routes would cross forested and agricultural areas, but the Tallulah to Florence route 

alternatives would traverse more forested lands in Claiborne and northern Copiah Counties compared to the 

proposed route that would primarily cross cleared agricultural lands over a similar distance in Hinds County. 

The proposed Project alignment would cross the Natchez Trace Parkway in an agricultural area in Hinds 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
Non-Internet Public 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE 

PROPOSED EAST TEXAS TO MISSISSIPPI EXPANSION PROJECT 

Docket No. CP06-446-000 

Page 4-13 

Figure 4.3.2-1 

Tallulah to Florence Route Alternatives 

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 #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
4-14

County, thus minimizing long-term visual effects associated with right-of-way maintenance. Both Tallulah to 

Florence route alternatives would cross the Natchez Trace Parkway in a heavily forested area; thereby 

resulting in a permanent adverse visual impact associated with vegetative removal to maintain a right-of-way. 

 The Tallulah to Florence Route Alternative 1 would be approximately three miles longer than the proposed 

route and based on a review of topographic maps, we determined that it would affect a similar amount of 

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

alternative would not significantly reduce impacts compared to those of the proposed route. 

The Tallulah to Florence Route Alternative 2 would be approximately the same length as the Project 

route and would cross similar natural features including streams, wetlands, and topographic relief. Due to the 

similar route length and environmental features, effects associated with this route alternative would be 

comparable to the proposed Project alignment. 

Because both route alternatives would not result in significantly less environmental impacts, would 

result in permanent visual impacts to the Natchez Trace Parkway, and would cross more mature forested lands 

and would not be collocated with existing utility rights-of-way, we have eliminated these alternatives from 

further consideration. 

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 resources sites, wetlands, 

recreational lands, residences, landowner requests, and terrain conditions. Because route variations are 

identified in response to specific local concerns, they are often the result of landowner comments. While 

route variations may be a few miles in length, most are relatively short and in proximity to the proposed route. 

 We have considered a variety of factors in identifying and evaluating route variations, including length, land 

requirements, the number of landowners affected, and potential for reducing or minimizing impacts to natural 

resources. 

During the pre-filing process, Gulf South refined its proposed route based on discussions with 

landowners, resource stewards, project engineers, and our input to avoid or minimize impacts to natural or 

cultural resources, reduce or eliminate engineering and constructability concerns, and/or avoid or minimize 

conflicts with existing land uses. After filing its application, Gulf South also filed several additional route 

modifications that better aligned the proposed route with existing rights-of-way, avoided sensitive resources, 

resolved landowner issues, and addressed constructability concerns. These adopted minor route variations are 

described in Table 4.4-1 and are depicted in the figures provided as Appendix G of this EIS. These route 

modifications were incorporated as part of the proposed Project that we evaluated in Section 3.0. 

As noted in Table 4.4-1, some areas have been subjected to minor route variations on more than one 

occasion. Minor route variations proposed by Gulf South in November 2006 and March 2007 often 

represented slight shifts in alignment based upon previously adopted proposed alignments. All of the adopted 

minor route variations for the proposed Project are included in Table 4.4-1 and in Appendix G. Some of these 

adopted minor route variations are no longer applicable, but are included to illustrate the development of the 

proposed Project’s alignment in response to alternatives considered. 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
4-15

TABLE 4.4-1 

Minor Route Variations Incorporated into the Proposed 

East Texas to Mississippi Expansion Project 

Minor Route Variation County/Parish 

Milepost 

Range1 Reason for Incorporation 

Adams DeSoto, LA 0.8 to 2.0 Avoid a residence 

El Paso DeSoto, LA 7.2 to 7.7 Offset to provide a safe distance to an existing 

pipeline 

Pond DeSoto, LA 8.0 to 8.2 Avoid a pond 

Bethlehem DeSoto, LA 8.2 to 9.0 Avoid a production facility and a pond 

Myrtle Hill Road DeSoto, LA 9.0 to 9.3 Avoid two well pad sites 

Bates Road DeSoto, LA 10.3 to 10.6 Avoid a production facility 

I-49 DeSoto, LA 14.7 to 14.8 Realign for crossing I-49 

CrossTex DeSoto, LA 8.2 to 18.6 2 Offset to avoid recently acquired CrossTex 

right-of-way 

Carson Red River, LA 27.3 to 27.7 Realign to avoid slough east of the Red River 

and associated constructability issues 

Highway 783 Red River and 

Bienville, LA 

35.8 to 36.1 Avoid a residence and Highway 783 

Water Line Bienville and 

Jackson, LA 

63.7 to 69.8 Offset to avoid existing water line 

Dugdemona Jackson, LA 69.8 to 72.8 Reduce wetland impacts 

CenterPoint Crossing No. 1 Jackson, LA 69.8 to 70.2 3 Realign to avoid difficult CEGT Carthage to 

Perryville Pipeline crossing 

Dugdemona II Jackson, LA 70.6 to 72.5 2 Realign to avoid creating an isolated “island” 

of vegetation per landowner request 

House Jackson, LA 75.6 to 75.8 Realign to avoid site of planned house per 

landowner request 

Landfill Jackson, LA 76.9 to 77.6 Avoid crossing a landfill 

Residential Jackson, LA 86.7 to 88.0 Avoid a residence and a pond 

Slaughter Ouachita, LA 110.3 to 110.7 Realign to abut CEGT’s proposed right-of-way 

Ouachita River / TGT Ouachita, LA 110.9 to 112.3 3 Realign to avoid CEGT’s proposed right-ofway and TRT meter station to avoid wetland 

impacts 

Sartor Richland, LA 122.5 to 124.1 Avoid impacts to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service-administered W.W. Farms 

Conservation Easement and row crops 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
4-16

TABLE 4.4-1 (continued) 

Minor Route Variations Incorporated into the Proposed 

East Texas to Mississippi Expansion Project 

Minor Route Variation County/Parish 

Milepost 

Range 1 Reason for Incorporation 

CenterPoint Tract No. 2 Richland, LA 126.2 to 126.5 Avoid CEGT above ground facilities 

Bee Bayou Richland, LA 130.8 to 131.1 Avoid CEGT easement and minimize impacts 

to WRP 

Cypress Creek Richland, LA Privileged Avoid cultural resource 

CGT Richland, LA 148.6 to 150.6 Avoid CEGT aboveground facilities 

Bayou Macon Richland and 

Madison 

Parish, LA 

148.8 to 150.6 3 Avoid USFWS fee-owned tract 

Burks Madison, LA 150.6 to 152.1 Avoid agricultural impacts 

Burns WRP Madison, LA 154.0 to 155.5 Avoid USFWS fee-owned tract 

Charles Brown Madison, LA 158.2 to 159.6 Avoid lands with undetermined ownership and 

constructability issues 

Tallulah Madison, LA 167.5 to 167.6 Necessary to route into the proposed Tallulah 

Compressor Station 

Collins WRP Madison, LA 171.9 to 172.7 Realign to minimize impact to WRP property 

as requested by the NRCS 

Entergy Madison, LA 172.7 to 176.7 Realign to avoid creating an isolated strip of 

vegetation per landowner request 

Newton WRP Madison, LA 176.8 to 177.1 Realign to minimize impact to WRP property 

as requested by the NRCS 

Archaeology Site 1 Madison, LA Privileged Avoid potential archaeological resource 

Baxter-Wilson Warren, MS 181.4 to 186.5 2 Realign to cross to the north of the BaxterWilson Power Plant per Entergy’s request 

Highway 61 Warren, MS 184.5 to 188.3 Avoid potential future casino access 

Archaeology Site 2 Warren, MS Privileged Avoid potential archaeological resource 

Fourteen Mile Creek Hinds, MS 198.0 to 199.1 Avoid multiple creek crossings 

Natchez Trace Parkway and 

Brown Loam Experiment 

Station Reroute 

Hinds, MS 207.0 to 213.9 Parallel an existing crossing of the Parkway 

and avoid research station 

Archaeology Site 3 Hinds, MS Privileged Avoid cultural resource 

Archaeology Site 4 Hinds, MS Privileged Avoid potential archaeological resource 

Neil Collins Road Hinds, MS 216.0 to 216.2 Realign to avoid one landowner at the request 

of an adjacent landowner 

Davis Hinds, MS 224.4 to 224.8 2 Realign to minimize impact to subdivided 

property per landowner request 

Valley Campbell Road Hinds, MS 224.5 to 229.0 Avoid a residence 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
4-17

TABLE 4.4-1 (continued) 

Minor Route Variations Incorporated into the Proposed 

East Texas to Mississippi Expansion Project 

Minor Route Variation County/Parish 

Milepost 

Range 1 Reason for Incorporation 

Reroute Hinds, MS 227.6 to 228.7 2 Realign to avoid creating an isolated strip of 

vegetation and avoid impacts to future 

development per landowner request 

Marble Hinds and 

Copiah, MS 

229.0 to 230.5 Realign to avoid property per landowner 

request 

Terrain Simpson, MS 235.2 to 238.6 Avoid difficult construction terrain 

Harrisville Simpson, MS 238.5 to 238.6 Realign to avoid steep side slopes and 

associated constructability issues 

____________ 

Notes: 

1

 Milepost ranges may be different than those shown in Appendix D due to alignment changes before and after filing. 

2

 Reroute proposed in November 2006 that modifies the proposed alignment based in part on previously adopted reroutes. 

3

 Reroute proposed in March 2007 that modifies the proposed alignment based in part on previously adopted reroutes. 

As part of our alternatives analysis, we have also evaluated variations to avoid or reduce impacts to 

sensitive environmental resources identified through our review of topographic maps, aerial photography, and 

other available information. These sensitive environmental resources include wetlands and waterbodies, as 

well as special land uses such as WRP easements and Sixteenth Section lands. Other specially managed areas 

located in the vicinity of the proposed Project, including the Tensas River NWR, the Ouachita and Bayou 

Pierre WMAs, and FWS fee-owned lands, would either be avoided entirely or surface impacts would be 

avoided through use of special construction techniques such as HDD. In addition to avoiding surface impacts 

to FWS and WMA lands, Gulf South has also developed a FWS-approved construction and operation plan for 

a one-mile-long portion of the Project alignment located on a WRP site near the Tensas NWR. That area was 

identified by FWS as being significant to on-going black bear recovery efforts. Sections 3.6, 3.7, and 3.8 

further describe proposed actions to minimize impacts to these sensitive environmental resource areas. 

Approximately 83 percent of the WRP easements that would be crossed by the proposed Project are 

located in Madison Parish, Louisiana, which has a high relative density of these sites, rendering avoidance 

impractical. Additionally, Gulf South proposes a route through Madison Parish that avoids the Tensas River 

NWR, further limiting routing options that would avoid WRP easements. To ensure that impacts to WRP 

lands are minimized, we are recommending in Section 3.8.4 that Gulf South continue consultation with NRCS 

and file a NRCS-approved construction and operations plan prior to construction. Based on routing 

considerations, the ongoing consultation, and our recommendation, we believe that the proposed route would 

avoid WRP easements and impacts to crossed easements to the maximum extent practical. 

The proposed Project would cross four areas enrolled in the State of Mississippi’s Sixteenth Section 

Program, as discussed in Section 3.8.4. Gulf South indicated that it had reached agreement or closed 

easement agreements with all of the involved property owners. Gulf South proposes to cross a portion of one 

of the properties using HDD, thereby avoiding impacts to the ground surface. Other considerations that Gulf 

South used for routing included avoidance of residential properties, avoidance of the central portions of 

individual tracts, and collocation with existing rights-of-way. Given the landowner agreements and the 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
4-18

impact minimization measures adopted, we believe that the proposed route would avoid Sixteenth Section 

lands to the extent practical. 

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

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

special land uses would be adequately avoided or minimized. 

Identified Route Variations 

Based on our analysis of the proposed Project and comments provided by the public, we have 

identified and evaluated eight route variations. Table 4.4-2 lists these route variations, the segments of the 

proposed Project route that they would replace, and the reason for the proposed variation. Each route 

variation considered was compared to the corresponding segment of the proposed Project route to determine 

whether potential environmental benefits would be afforded. Our evaluation of route variations was based on 

information provided by Gulf South, comments filed with the FERC, review of available aerial photography 

and USGS topographic maps, and site visits performed by FERC staff. 

TABLE 4.4-2 

Summary of Route Variations Identified in Response to Public Comments 

Received for the Proposed East Texas to Mississippi Expansion Project 

Route Variation 

Proposed Route 

Mileposts 

(approximate) Reason for Variation 

Analysis in 

Section Noted 

Garner 1 78.4 to 78.8 Avoid impacts to landowner 4.4.1 

Garner 2 78.4 to 78.8 Avoid impacts to landowner 4.4.1 

Hoychick 120.8 to 122.8 Avoid impacts to rice farming and hunting 4.4.2 

Shelton 140.6 to 141.9 Avoid or minimize impacts to the Shelton 

property 

4.4.3 

Withrow/Broadbent 187.9 to 189.5 Avoid or minimize impacts to the 

Withrow/Broadbent property 

4.4.4 

Barton East 213.7 to 214.0 Avoid or minimize impacts to the Barton 

property 

4.4.5 

Pearl River 231.0 to 236.0 Avoid or minimize impacts to wetlands, black 

bear candidate denning trees, and a bird 

rookery 

4.4.6 

Pitre 192.7 to 193.8 Avoid or minimize impacts to the Pitre property 4.4.7 

4.4.1 Garner Route Variations 

The Garner Route Variations were developed in response to a landowner comment concerning Project 

effects to land use, specifically a loss of income from timber production. Both Garner Route Variations 

would diverge from the proposed Project route at MP 78.4 and rejoin the proposed Project route at 

approximately MP 78.8. 

The Garner Route Variation 1 (Figure 4.4.1-1a) would parallel the north side of an existing 

transmission line right-of-way present on the Garner property, while the Garner Route Variation 2 

(Figure 4.4.1-1b) would avoid the Garner property altogether by shifting the route north to an adjacent 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
Non-Internet Public 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE 

PROPOSED EAST TEXAS TO MISSISSIPPI EXPANSION PROJECT 

Docket No. CP06-446-000 

Page 4-19 

Figure 4.4.1-1a 

Garner Route Variation 1 

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 #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
Non-Internet Public 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE 

PROPOSED EAST TEXAS TO MISSISSIPPI EXPANSION PROJECT 

Docket No. CP06-446-000 

Page 4-20 

Figure 4.4.1-1b 

Garner Route Variation 2 

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 #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
4-21

landowner’s property. The Garner Route Variation 1 would be approximately the same total length as the 

proposed Project, while the Garner Route Variation 2 would require an additional 0.1 mile of pipeline length, 

resulting in an additional 1.3 acres of land temporarily impacted (Table 4.4.1-1). Lands impacted by both 

route variations and the proposed Project are comprised of forests and pine plantations. In addition to a 

similarity of land types crossed, both route variations would cross the same number of waterbodies as the 

originally proposed route and none of the options would affect wetlands. Unlike the proposed Project route, 

however, both route variations would result in two additional crossings of a high-voltage transmission line. 

Additionally, selection of the Garner Route Variation 2 would result in clearing of a new corridor in a forested 

area instead of collocation with the electric transmission line right-of-way or the Carthage to Perryville 

Project’s pipeline right-of-way. 

TABLE 4.4.1-1 

Comparison of Garner Route Variations and the Original Route 

Evaluation Criteria Original Route Garner Route Variation 1 Garner Route Variation 2 

Total Length (miles) 0.4 0.4 0.5 

Landowners Affected 

(number) 

3 3 3 

Construction Impacts 

(acres) 

4.8 4.8 6.1 

Permanent Impacts (acres) 2.9 2.9 3.6 

Adjacent to Existing 

Rights-of-Way (miles) 

0.4 0.4 0.0 

Stream Crossings 

(number) 

4 4 4 

Wetland Impacts (acres) 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Land Use Type Forest, silviculture Forest, silviculture Forest, silviculture, other 

Although the Garner Route Variations would alleviate concerns raised by the affected landowner by 

avoiding timber production on the Garner property, adoption of either route variation would result in two 

additional crossings of a high-voltage electric transmission line that would introduce constructability and 

worker safety concerns. Further, neither the Garner Route Variation 1 nor the Garner Route Variation 2 

would result in additional environmental benefit. In addition to the lack of environmental benefit and the 

additional transmission line crossings, the Garner Route Variation 2 would result in transference of impacts to 

another landowner. For these reasons, we believe that adoption of either of the Garner Route Variations 

would not be preferable to the proposed route and have eliminated them from further consideration. 

4.4.2 Hoychick Route Variation 

The Hoychick Route Variation was developed in response to a landowner comment concerning 

potential impacts to rice farming and hunting activities. The Hoychick Route Variation would eliminate 

impacts to this property; diverging from the proposed Project route at MP 120.8, passing north of the 

Hoychick property, and then rejoining the proposed Project route at approximately MP 122.8 (see Figure 

4.4.2-1). 

The Hoychick Route Variation would be the same length as the proposed route, with identical land 

requirements and affecting the same number of landowners (Table 4.4.2-1). Both the route variation and the 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
Non-Internet Public 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE 

PROPOSED EAST TEXAS TO MISSISSIPPI EXPANSION PROJECT 

Docket No. CP06-446-000 

Page 4-22 

Figure 4.4.2-1 

Hoychick 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 #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
4-23

TABLE 4.4.2-1 

Comparison of the Hoychick Route Variation and the Original Route 

Evaluation Criteria Original Route Hoychick Route Variation 

Total Length (miles) 2.0 2.0 

Landowners Affected (number) 4 4 

Construction Impacts (acres) 24.2 24.2 

Permanent Impacts (acres) 14.5 14.5 

Adjacent to Existing Rights-of-Way 

(miles) 

2.0 0.0 

Stream Crossings (number) 2 3 

Wetland Impacts (acres) 0.0 0.0 

Land Use Type Agriculture, forest Agriculture, forest 

proposed Project route would cross agricultural and forestland. Neither the proposed route nor the route 

variation would cross any wetlands, but the route variation would require one more waterbody crossing than 

the proposed route. The route variation would also result in the alteration of the proposed Boeuf River 

crossing to a point approximately 1,000 feet north of its proposed location. The route variation would not be 

collocated with the Carthage to Perryville Project corridor. Consequently, Gulf South would not be able to 

use any of the CEGT’s previously cleared construction right-of-way to minimize land impacts. 

Although the Hoychick Route Variation would alleviate concerns raised by the landowner, by 

eliminating impacts to the Hoychick property, it would offer no significant environmental advantage over the 

proposed Project route and would result in an additional waterbody crossing. Additionally, the route variation 

would merely result in transference of impacts to other nearby landowners. For these reasons, we eliminated 

it from further consideration. 

4.4.3 Shelton Route Variation 

The Shelton Route Variation was developed in response to a landowner comment concerning 

potential impacts to livestock operations and property value. The Shelton Route Variation would move the 

proposed route north onto an adjacent property owner’s land. The route variation would deviate from the 

proposed Project route at MP 140.6, west of the Shelton property, and proceed eastward before rejoining the 

proposed Project route at MP 141.9 (see Figure 4.4.3-1). 

Relative to the proposed Project route, the Shelton Route Variation would be 0.1 mile longer in total 

pipeline length and would require an additional 1.2 acres for construction right-of-way land requirements 

(Table 4.4.3-1). Both the proposed Project route and the route variation would cross a mixture of croplands 

and forestland, and they both would cross identical amounts of wetlands. However, the Shelton Route 

Variation would cross one additional waterway and more forested land than the proposed Project route. 

Further, this route variation would not be adjacent to an existing right-of-way easement, and Gulf South 

would not be able to utilize any previously disturbed right-of-way for construction. 

Although the Shelton Route Variation would alleviate concerns raised by the landowner, by 

eliminating impacts to the Shelton property, adoption of the route variation would merely result in 

transference 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
Non-Internet Public 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE 

PROPOSED EAST TEXAS TO MISSISSIPPI EXPANSION PROJECT 

Docket No. CP06-446-000 

Page 4-24 

Figure 4.4.3-1 

Shelton 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 #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
4-25

TABLE 4.4.3-1 

Comparison of the Shelton Route Variation and the Original Route 

Evaluation Criteria Original Route Shelton Route Variation 

Total Length (miles) 1.3 1.4 

Landowners Affected (number) 3 3 

Construction Impacts (acres) 15.8 17.0 

Permanent Impacts (acres) 9.5 10.2 

Adjacent to Existing Rights-of-Way 

(miles) 

1.3 0.0 

Stream Crossings (number) 2 3 

Wetland Impacts (acres) 1.7 1.7 

Land Use Type Agriculture and forest Agriculture and forest 

of impact to other nearby landowners. Adoption of the Shelton Route Variation also would not allow an 

existing right-of-way to be followed, resulting in impacts to previously undisturbed upland forestlands; and 

no environmental benefit would be gained. For these reasons, we believe that adoption of the Shelton Route 

Variation provides no environmental advantage and we eliminated it from further consideration. 

4.4.4 Withrow/Broadbent Route Variation 

The Withrow/Broadbent Route Variation was developed in response to landowner comments 

concerning potential impacts to wildlife habitats, topography, sensitive soil types, and planned developments, 

as well as safety concerns. The Withrow/Broadbent Route Variation would eliminate impacts to these 

properties. The Withrow/Broadbent Route Variation would diverge from the proposed Project route at 

MP 187.9, circumvent the Withrow/Broadbent Property to the north, and rejoin the proposed Project route at 

approximately MP 189.5 (see Figure 4.4.4-1). 

The Withrow/Broadbent Route Variation would be 0.2 mile longer than the proposed Project route 

(Table 4.4.4-1). Both the variation and the proposed route would cross forested lands. Both the proposed 

Project alignment and the Withrow/Broadbent Route Variation contain rugged topography that would require 

similar workspace variances for safe construction. Therefore, adoption of the Withrow/Broadbent Route 

Variation would not eliminate the need for additional workspace. Due to the increased length of this 

variation, the construction right-of-way would require 2.4 acres of additional land. In addition to disturbing 

additional forested lands, the Withrow/Broadbent Route Variation would result in two additional stream 

crossings, would impact 0.2 acre of additional wetlands, and would not be adjacent to an existing powerline 

easement. 

Although the Withrow/Broadbent Route Variation would alleviate concerns raised by the landowners, 

it would increase the total route length, which would result in an increased conversion of forested lands, an 

increased number of waterway crossings, and increased impacts to wetlands. Adoption of the 

Withrow/Broadbent Route Variation would not allow collocation with an existing right-of-way, thereby 

impacting previously undisturbed lands. For these reasons, we believe that adoption of the 

Withrow/Broadbent Route Variation provides no environmental advantage and we eliminated it from further 

consideration. 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
Non-Internet Public 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE 

PROPOSED EAST TEXAS TO MISSISSIPPI EXPANSION PROJECT 

Docket No. CP06-446-000 

Page 4-26 

Figure 4.4.4-1 

Withrow/Broadbent 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 #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
4-27

TABLE 4.4.4-1 

Comparison of the Withrow/Broadbent Route Variation and the Original Route 

Evaluation Criteria Original Route 

Withrow/Broadbent Route 

Variation 

Total Length (miles) 1.6 1.8 

Landowners Affected (number) 6 6 

Construction Impacts (acres) 19.4 21.8 

Permanent Impacts (acres) 11.6 13.1 

Adjacent to Existing Rights-of-Way 

(miles) 1.6 0.0 

Stream Crossings (number) 5 7 

Wetland Impacts (acres) 0.3 0.5 

Land Use Type Forest Forest 

4.4.5 Barton Route Variation 

The Barton Route Variation was developed in response to a landowner comment concerning potential 

impacts to the center of the property, thereby potentially reducing the value of the land and restricting future 

property development. The commenter suggested two possible alternatives, traversing around the property to 

the east and west, respectively, to minimize impacts. The commenter identified the eastern alternative as the 

preferred route. The Barton East Route Variation was developed in response to that comment. The Barton 

East Route Variation would diverge from the proposed Project route at MP 213.7, proceed east circumventing 

the Barton property, and then rejoin the proposed alignment at MP 214.0 (Figure 4.4.5-1). The route 

variation would minimize impacts to the center of the Barton property by shifting the route to the northern 

property boundary. 

The Barton East Route Variation would increase the total pipeline length by 0.3 mile and would 

increase the construction and permanent right-of-way land requirements by approximately 3.6 acres and 

2.2 acres, respectively (Table 4.4.5-1). Both the proposed Project and the route variation are similar in that 

neither would be adjacent to existing rights-of-way and they both would cross pasture and forested lands, 

although the route variation would cross relatively more forested lands. The Barton Route East Route 

Variation would result in one additional waterbody crossing and one additional landowner being affected. 

Although the Barton East Route Variation would alleviate concerns raised by the landowner by 

eliminating impacts to the Barton property, it would increase temporary and permanent land requirements, 

require an additional waterbody crossing, and affect an additional landowner. Therefore, we believe that 

adoption of the Barton East Route Variation provides no environmental advantage and we eliminated it from 

further consideration. 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
Non-Internet Public 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE 

PROPOSED EAST TEXAS TO MISSISSIPPI EXPANSION PROJECT 

Docket No. CP06-446-000 

Page 4-28 

Figure 4.4.5-1 

Barton 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 #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
4-29

TABLE 4.4.5-1 

Comparison of the Barton East Route Variation and the Original Route 

Evaluation Criteria Original Route Barton East Route Variation 

Total Length (miles) 0.8 1.1 

Landowners Affected (number) 2 3 

Construction Impacts (acres) 9.7 13.3 

Permanent Impacts (acres) 5.8 8.0 

Adjacent to Existing Rights-of-Way 

(miles) 

0.0 0.0 

Stream Crossings (number) 3 4 

Wetland Impacts (acres) 0.0 0.0 

Land Use Type Pasture and forest Pasture and forest 

Gulf South has since indicated that right-of-way negotiations were settled with the landowner during 

the Draft EIS comment period. Given our analysis above, and the resolution of the landowner’s concerns, we 

believe that the proposed route in this area is appropriate. 

4.4.6 Pearl River Route Variation 

The Pearl River Route Variation was developed based on consultation with the FWS regarding the 

proposed Project. The FWS identified a route variation for the proposed crossing of the Pearl River near 

MP 232.5 that it believed could minimize impacts to wetlands, Louisiana black bear candidate denning trees, 

and a bird rookery. Generally, this route variation would deviate to the north, crossing the Pearl River along 

an existing road near the Hinds County and Copiah County border, and then rejoin the proposed route east of 

the Pearl River (Figure 4.4.6-1). 

The Pearl River Route Variation is virtually identical to proposed route in regard to total length and 

area affected by construction and operation (Table 4.4.6-1). Both the proposed Project and the route variation 

are similar in that neither would be adjacent to existing rights-of-way or located within 50 feet of residences. 

The proposed route would affect more waterbodies and forested area, but would impact less landowners and 

wetlands relative to the Pearl River Route Variation. 

Given the relative similarity of the environmental impacts associated with the proposed Project and 

the Pearl River Route Variation, and additional consultations including a site visit with the FWS, we believe 

that adoption of the Pearl River Route Variation would not be preferable to the proposed route and we 

eliminated it from further consideration. 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
Non-Internet Public 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE 

PROPOSED EAST TEXAS TO MISSISSIPPI EXPANSION PROJECT 

Docket No. CP06-446-000 

Page 4-30 

Figure 4.4.6-1 

Pearl River 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 #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
4-31

TABLE 4.4.6-1 

Comparison of the Pearl River Route Variation and the Original Route 

Evaluation Criteria Original Route Pearl River Route Variation 

Total Length (miles) 6.2 6.2 

Landowners Affected (number) 19 24 

Construction Impacts (acres) 50.6 49.6 

Permanent Impacts (acres) 35.0 34.1 

Adjacent to Existing Rights-of-Way 

(miles) 

0.0 0.0 

Stream Crossings (number) 8 6 

Wetlands Crossed (number / miles) 2 / 1.7 4 / 1.9 

Land Use Type Mixed forest, pine forest, and 

forested wetland 

Pasture, mixed forest, and forested 

wetland 

4.4.7 Pitre Route Variation 

The Pitre Route Variation was developed in response to a landowner comment concerning safety 

issues and the potential for soil erosion. The Pitre Route Variation would diverge from the proposed Project 

route between MP 192.7 and MP 193.8 (see Figure 4.4.7-1). The route variation would eliminate impacts to 

this landowner by shifting the corridor south around the Pitre property. 

The Pitre Route Variation would increase the total pipeline length by 0.2 mile and increase the 

construction right-of-way land requirements by about 2.5 acres compared to the original route (Table 4.4.7-1). 

 The Pitre Route Variation would shift the Project corridor from crossing forested and pasturelands to 

crossing forested lands, wetlands, and some residential areas. The number of waterbodies would not change 

with this route variation, but an additional 1.0 acre of wetlands would be disturbed. Additionally, this 

variation would not be collocated with an existing power line easement. Gulf South indicated that during 

right-of-way negotiations, it agreed to modify the proposed route to accommodate the landowner’s request to 

avoid impacts to three large trees located on the subject property. 

TABLE 4.4.7-1 

Comparison of the Pitre Route Variation and the Original Route 

Evaluation Criteria Original Route Pitre Route Variation 

Total Length (miles) 1.1 1.3 

Landowners Affected (number) 3 4 

Construction Impacts (acres) 13.3 15.8 

Permanent Impacts (acres) 8.0 9.5 

Adjacent to Existing Rights-of-Way 

(miles) 

1.1 0.0 

Stream Crossings (number) 3 3 

Wetlands Impacted (acres) 0.0 1.0 

Land Use Type Forest and pasture Forested, wetlands, and residential 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
Non-Internet Public 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE 

PROPOSED EAST TEXAS TO MISSISSIPPI EXPANSION PROJECT 

Docket No. CP06-446-000 

Page 4-32 

Figure 4.4.7-1 

Pitre 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 #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
4-33

Although the Pitre Route Variation would alleviate concerns raised by the landowner, by eliminating 

impacts to the Pitre property, it would increase land disturbance and wetland impacts, and would not be 

collocated with existing rights-of-way. Further, this route variation would impact one more property owner 

than the original route, resulting in transference of alignment impacts to other and additional nearby 

landowners. For these reasons, we believe that adoption of the Pitre Route Variation would not be preferable 

to the proposed route and we eliminated it from further consideration. 

4.5 ABOVEGROUND FACILITY ALTERNATIVES 

We evaluated the proposed locations of the new aboveground facilities to determine whether 

environmental impacts would be reduced or mitigated by use of alternative facility sites. Our evaluation 

involved inspection of aerial photography and mapping, as well as site visits along the proposed Project 

corridor. The aboveground facilities for the proposed Project include two new compressor stations and the 

addition of new compression at one existing station, six M/R stations, 11 MLVs, nine side valves, and five pig 

launcher and/or receiver stations. All of the pig launcher/receiver facilities would be located within the 

confines of the proposed compressor stations and/or M/R station sites, so we did not consider alternatives for 

those facilities. 

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

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

intersection of the proposed Project route and the planned and existing pipeline facility locations. Similarly, 

the locations of MLVs would be linked to the location of the proposed Project pipeline. Further, the proposed 

locations of MLVs along the proposed Project route were largely determined based on DOT safety regulations 

that specify the maximum distance between sectionalizing block valves and also require that these facilities be 

located in readily accessible areas. We did not identify any alternative sites for the proposed M/R stations or 

MLV facilities that would offer a significant environmental advantage to the proposed sites for these facilities. 

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

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

along the proposed pipeline route were largely dictated based on engineering and economic design standards. 

 Gulf South indicated that its existing Carthage Junction Compressor Station, located in Panola County, 

Texas, provided the optimal location for initial compression for the proposed Project, and use of this existing 

facility would avoid disturbance and impacts to greenfield areas. The proposed Vixen Compressor Station 

would be located at MP 99.4 in Ouachita Parish, Louisiana, and the proposed Tallulah Compressor Station 

would be located at MP 167.6 in Madison Parish, Louisiana. As described in Section 3.8, construction and 

operation of the Vixen and Tallulah Compressor Stations would result in a permanent conversion of 

approximately 6.0 acres of pine plantation and 10.0 acres of agricultural land, respectively. However, no 

wetlands or other environmentally sensitive features would be affected at either of these proposed compressor 

station locations, and we have determined that operation of these facilities would not result in significant air 

quality degradation or noise impacts to any nearby residents, given measures proposed by Gulf South and our 

recommendations (see Section 3.11). 

During the scoping period for the proposed Project, we received a comment requesting consideration 

of an alternative to the Tallulah Compressor Station site. We evaluated site alternatives for both of the new 

compressor facilities associated with the proposed Project. 

4.5.1 Vixen Compressor Station Site Alternatives 

We looked at three alternative sites for the Vixen Compressor Station. Each of these three alternative 

sites, as well as the proposed site, are located on each quadrant of the intersection of the proposed Project and 

Gulf South’s existing 30-inch-diameter Index 330 pipeline (Figure 4.5.1-1). In addition to being proximate to 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
4-34

existing Gulf South facilities, this intersection meets the necessary engineering and hydraulic requirements for 

an intermediate location for compression. Each of the four potential sites currently contain planted pines, but 

variations in the area’s topography and the presence of wetlands, access roads, and abandoned railroad 

crossings rendered each of the alternative sites less preferable than the proposed site. The proposed Vixen 

Compressor Station site location on the southwestern quadrant was selected by Gulf South due to the lack of 

sensitive environmental resources present and because of the presence of an existing access road, which 

would minimize land disturbance. 

Our environmental review did not identify any significant environmental consequences for the 

proposed Vixen Compressor Station site in relation to the alternative sites. Therefore, we believe that 

adoption of any of the three alternative sites for the Vixen Compressor Station would not be preferable to the 

proposed location. 

4.5.2 Tallulah Compressor Station Site Alternatives 

We evaluated one alternative site (MP 172.1; Figure 4.5.2-1) for the Tallulah Compressor Station in 

addition to the proposed site at MP 167.6. One commentor indicated concern regarding the proposed location 

of the Tallulah Compressor Station, which would be adjacent to his home and property. Specifically, the 

commentor was concerned about potential visual and noise impacts to his property. Issues associated with 

visual and noise impacts are discussed in detail in Sections 3.8.6 and 3.11.2, respectively. Both sites would 

be located on agricultural lands and neither would contain wetlands, waterbodies, or other significant 

environmental resources. However, several residences are located within 0.25 mile of the alternative site, 

which would also require crossing agricultural operations to construct an access road. The proximity of these 

residences to the alternate site could result in the potential occurrence of visual and noise impacts. 

Additionally, the alternative site would be visually screened by existing trees on only one side. The proposed 

site is located at least 0.5 mile from the nearest residence and would be visually screened on three sides by 

trees, thereby reducing the potential for visual and noise impacts. We evaluated the potential for noise 

impacts associated with the proposed Tallulah Compressor Station, as discussed in Section 3.11.2 and 

concluded that there would not be a significant impact on the noise environment. We recommended 

additional noise surveys and if necessary, noise controls, to ensure that adverse impacts would not occur. 

Based on a comment provided by the NRCS, we also evaluated whether or not it could be feasible for 

the Tallulah Compressor Station to be sited in an area where prime farmland could be avoided. Virtually the 

entire length of the proposed pipeline route in Madison Parish, Louisiana (approximately 97 percent) where 

the Tallulah Compressor Station would be located, crosses prime farmland. Both the proposed and alternate 

evaluated sites for the Tallulah Compressor Station would be located on prime farmland. Although a few 

areas in Madison Parish that would be crossed by the proposed pipeline were not designated as prime 

farmland, each of these areas contained soils described as “frequently flooded” by the soil survey data, 

rendering them unsuitable for construction of a compressor station. Given the prevalence of prime farmland 

in Madison Parish, the unsuitability of the few available non-prime farmland areas, and engineering and 

hydraulic constraints associated with the positioning of compressor stations, it does not appear feasible that 

the compressor station could be moved to an area where prime farmland would not be affected. 

Construction at either the proposed site or the alternative site for the proposed Tallulah Compressor 

Station would not result in significant environmental impacts, but the proposed site would be better visually 

screened and is located farther away from residences than the alternative site. For these reasons, we believe 

that the alternative site for the proposed Tallulah Compressor Station provides no environmental advantage 

and we eliminated it from further consideration. 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
Non-Internet Public 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE 

PROPOSED EAST TEXAS TO MISSISSIPPI EXPANSION PROJECT 

Docket No. CP06-446-000 

Page 4-35 

Figure 4.5.1-1 

Vixen Compressor Station Site 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 #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
Non-Internet Public 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE 

PROPOSED EAST TEXAS TO MISSISSIPPI EXPANSION PROJECT 

Docket No. CP06-446-000 

Page 4-36 

Figure 4.5.2-1 

Tallulah Compressor Station Site 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 #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
5-1

5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

5.1 SUMMARY OF THE STAFF’S ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS OF THE PROPOSED 

ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES 

Based on our analysis of the proposed action and alternatives, Gulf South’s adherence to its 

proposed construction, restoration, mitigation, and operations measures, the attachment of our 

recommendations as conditions to a Certificate, and Gulf South’s implementation of a third-party 

environmental inspection and monitoring program, we conclude that construction and operation of the 

proposed Project would result in limited adverse environmental impacts. To support this conclusion, we 

are providing the following summary of our environmental analysis. 

5.1.1 Geology 

Construction and operation of the proposed Project would not significantly affect geological 

resources. Existing topographical features (such as rolling hills and loess bluffs) would be temporarily 

impacted by construction of the proposed pipeline; however, these impacts would be mitigated by Gulf 

South’s restoration efforts. The proposed Project would be located in a region with a low risk of seismic 

activity, soil liquefaction, and subsidence. Some portions of the proposed Project would traverse areas 

with a high or moderate risk of landslides (MP 162.5 – 174.2 in Louisiana, and MP 182.3 – 185.9 and 

MP 201.9 – 238.2 in Mississippi); however, due to proposed evaluation and monitoring measures, 

construction and operations-related activities would not be significantly affected in these areas. No 

bedrock blasting is anticipated during construction of the proposed Project. No known paleontological 

resources would be affected by the proposed Project. Oil and natural gas extraction is common in the 

project area, but construction and operation of the proposed Project is not expected to have an impact on 

exploitable oil or natural gas resources. Other mineral resources would not be significantly affected by 

construction and operation of the proposed Project. 

5.1.2 Soils 

Construction and operation of the proposed Project would affect a variety of soils and soils 

associations including sensitive agricultural and loess soils. Several soils characteristics including 

susceptibility to erosion and compaction, drainage capability, and revegetation potential would be 

temporarily affected by construction of the proposed Project. In order to minimize general constructionrelated affects to soils, Gulf South would implement the measures described in its Plan, SPCC and SPPP 

Plans. These measures would control erosion, and increase the potential success of revegetation efforts. 

Furthermore, Gulf South proposes to strip and segregate topsoil, restore contours, conduct compaction 

testing and treatment, and monitor revegetation efforts and crop yields. Additionally, Gulf South would 

minimize impacts to loess soils through the implementation of measures described in its LSMP, which 

includes the monitoring of construction in loess soils by an experienced geotechnical engineer, re-seeding 

in accordance with NRCS recommendations, and monthly monitoring for the first six months following 

restoration. 

5.1.3 Water Resources 

Construction and operation of the proposed Project would not significantly affect groundwater 

resources including aquifers, sole-source aquifers, wellhead protection areas, areas of groundwater 

concern, wells and springs. Gulf South would avoid or minimize impacts to groundwater resources by 

implementing measures described in its Procedures, SPCC Plan, and Contaminated Media Plan. To 

further minimize impacts to water supply wells, we are recommending that Gulf South complete 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
5-2

preparation of a well monitoring and mitigation plan and file a report describing any impacts to private or 

domestic water wells resulting from construction. 

Construction and operation of the proposed Project would not significantly affect surface water 

resources. Approximately 92 percent of all waterbodies, including most minor and intermediate 

waterbodies and seven major waterbodies, would be crossed using open-cut methods. Waterbodies that 

would be crossed using HDDs include twenty-one major and/or navigable streams; two designated 

Louisiana Natural and Scenic Rivers (Black Lake Bayou and Saline Bayou); two Nationwide Rivers 

Inventory (NRI)-listed streams (the Big Black River and the Pearl River); the rivers most likely to contain 

habitat for federally-listed fish species (the Mississippi River, Red River, and Pearl River); and nine of the 

ten impaired waterbodies that would be crossed by the proposed pipeline. To ensure that affects related to 

the crossing of the NRI-listed streams would be sufficiently minimized we are recommending that Gulf 

South complete consultations with the NPS and file a report summarizing these consultations with the 

Secretary of the Commission. Based on consultations with the MDWFP and other agencies, Gulf South 

proposes to cross Baker’s Creek via HDD, and Fourteenmile, Turkey, and Tallahalla Creeks using opencut methods. 

All waterbody crossings would be conducted in accordance with Gulf South’s Procedures and the 

terms of any applicable federal or state permits. Gulf South’s Procedures are consistent with our Wetland 

and Waterbody Construction and Mitigation Procedures with the exception of several ATWS which are 

located within 50 feet of certain waterbodies to accommodate special construction activities such as road 

crossings, HDD workspaces, and side slope construction. However, based on our review of proposed 

ATWS including their size, location, and purpose, we find their placement acceptable. 

Accidental spills occurring during construction and operation of the proposed Project would be 

prevented or adequately minimized through implementation of Gulf South’s Procedures, and SPCC Plan. 

Any contaminated sediment in waterways discovered during open-cut waterbody crossings would be 

contained according to Gulf South’s Contaminated Media Plan. Additionally, Gulf South’s HDD 

Contingency Plan describes the measures that would be implemented to monitor for, contain, and clean 

up any inadvertent releases of drilling fluids during HDD operations. 

Gulf South’s HDD Contingency Plan also describes measures that would be followed in the event 

of an HDD failure. To further minimize the impacts of HDD failures, we are recommending that Gulf 

South prepare site-specific construction plans prior to open-cutting any surface waters previously 

designated as HDD crossings. 

Gulf South proposes to use surface waters and municipal water supplies for hydrostatic testing of 

the proposed pipeline, would implement its Procedures and adhere to local, state, and federal water 

withdrawal and discharge permits. 

5.1.4 Wetlands 

Construction and operation of the proposed Project would not significantly affect wetlands. 

Specifically, construction of the proposed Project would impact approximately 122.4 acres of wetlands 

including 84.2 acres of forested wetlands and 38.2 acres of scrub-shrub, emergent, and open-water 

wetlands. No wetlands would be affected by the construction and operation of proposed aboveground 

facilities, pipe storage and contractor yards with the exception of one forested wetland which would be 

affected by the construction of a new access road. However, impacts to this wetland would be minimized 

by Gulf South’s Procedures. Operation of the proposed Project would affect approximately 45.0 acres of 

wetlands, including 31.0 acres of forested wetlands. Sensitive, high quality and special-status wetlands 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
5-3

affected by the proposed Project include several high quality forested water tupelo or cypress stand 

wetland areas, and NRCS-administered WRP wetlands. 

Gulf South would minimize affects to wetlands by completing all wetland crossings in 

accordance with its Procedures, Wetland Mitigation Plan, and by complying with the terms and 

conditions of other state and federal permits. We are recommending that Gulf South complete its 

consultation with the agencies and file the finalized Wetland Mitigation Plan. Gulf South would also 

minimize affects to wetlands by reducing the construction right-of-way width through wetlands to 75 feet. 

To further reduce impacts to sensitive, high quality forested wetlands, Gulf South proposes to implement 

site-specific wetland crossing plans, developed in consultation with the agencies for several areas of 

cypress and water tupelo forested wetlands (Table 3.4.1-2). These plans include measures to further 

reduce the construction right-of-way and avoid large trees. To further minimize affects to WRP lands, we 

are recommending that Gulf South finalize its site-specific plans for WRP crossings. 

Following construction, affected wetlands located outside the 30-foot-wide maintained portion of 

the permanent pipeline right-of-way would be allowed to revert to preconstruction conditions. 

5.1.5 Vegetation 

Construction and operation of the proposed Project would affect agricultural, pasture, loblolly 

pine-hardwood forest, hardwood slope forest, pine plantation, and open lands vegetative communities. 

Approximately 47 percent of the upland vegetation that would be affected by the proposed Project is 

classified as pine plantation, slope hardwood forest, and loblolly pine/hardwood stands. Several extensive 

forested tracts and areas containing exotic and/or invasive plant species would also be affected by 

construction of the proposed Project. Vegetative communities of special concern include the FSAadministered CRP lands, the Ouachita Wildlife Management Area, and the Loess Hills Forest community. 

Gulf South would restore all disturbed vegetated areas in accordance with its Plan and 

Procedures. Gulf South has developed its revegetation procedures in consultation with interested federal, 

state, and local agencies. Comments provided by the agencies with the exception of the TPWD were 

incorporated by Gulf South; therefore, to ensure that the TPWD’s input regarding revegetation in Texas is 

adequately addressed, we are recommending that Gulf South finalize consultations with the TPWD prior 

to construction. 

Construction and operation of the proposed Project could contribute to the spread of exotic and 

invasive species; therefore, we are recommending that Gulf South finalize development of its Exotic and 

Invasive Species Control Plan in consultation with the appropriate federal and state agencies prior to 

construction. 

5.1.6 Wildlife and Aquatic Resources 

Construction and operation of the proposed Project would not significantly affect wildlife and 

wildlife habitats. The clearing of herbaceous upland and wetland habitats within the construction rightof-way and other work areas would affect wildlife at or near the time of construction, but such impacts 

would be temporary and many habitats would generally recover quickly following construction. Forested 

habitats would be affected by the long-term conversion of wooded areas to earlier successional stages 

within the temporary construction right-of-way and a permanent conversion to scrub-shrub or herbaceous 

levels within the permanent pipeline right-of-way. Gulf South proposes to collocate and/or parallel 

existing utility rights-of-way to the extent possible to minimize impacts to previously undisturbed 

vegetation and wildlife habitat. In addition, we are recommending further use of existing right-of-way. 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
5-4

Gulf South would further minimize impacts to wildlife habitats through the implementation of measures 

described in its plans and Procedures. 

Impacts to fisheries and aquatic habitats would result from increased sedimentation and turbidity, 

loss of cover, introduction of pollutants into the aquatic environment, and disruptions of fish movements. 

As described above, all waterbody crossings would be conducted in accordance with Gulf South’s 

Procedures and the terms of any applicable federal or state permits. Impacts would also be avoided by the 

use of HDDs at many waterbody crossings. Aquatic habitat impacts at other crossing locations would be 

temporary, as crossings would be generally completed in less than 48 hours. Additionally, intake 

screening to limit entrainment of fishes and maintenance of adequate stream flow rates to protect aquatic 

life during hydrostatic test water withdrawals would ensure that any Project-related impacts to aquatic 

habitats would be minor and temporary. 

5.1.7 Threatened, Endangered, and Special Status Species 

Based on consultations with the FWS, we identified ten federally-listed threatened and 

endangered species and one candidate species that could be affected by the proposed Project. Based on 

our review of these species, their requirements, potential impacts to them resulting from construction and 

operations-related activities and agency consultations, we have determined that the proposed Project may 

affect, but is not likely to adversely affect ten federally-listed threatened or endangered species the 

candidate species would not be significantly affected. 

The FWS’ Arlington, Lafayette, and Jackson field offices have indicated in letters to the 

Commission dated July 17, 2006; November 16, 2006; and March 22, 2006, respectively, that Section 7 

consultations are complete. However, since the issuance of these letters by the FWS, Gulf South has 

made several minor modifications to the proposed Project which have not yet been reviewed by the FWS. 

To ensure consultations are completed before construction is authorized, we are recommending that Gulf 

South not begin construction until all Section 7 consultations with the FWS are complete. 

Based on comments provided by the FWS during our review of the proposed Project concerning 

the presence of bald eagles and interior least terns in the project area and changes in ranges that are 

common for these species, we are recommending that if the bald eagle and/or interior least tern are 

identified along the proposed pipeline route prior to or during construction, that Gulf South contact us and 

the FWS to assess the need for avoidance, minimization and/or mitigation measures. We are also 

recommending that Gulf South consult further with the FWS to finalize additional minimization and 

mitigation measures concerning potential impacts to the Louisiana black bear and Louisiana pine snake. 

In addition to federally-listed species, other special status species, including migratory bird 

species, colonial nesting waterbirds, and an additional 27 species listed as endangered, threatened, 

imperiled, or rare by the states of Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi were identified through consultations 

with the TPWD, LDWF and the MDWFP. Based on consultations with these agencies, no additional 

surveys or mitigation measures regarding state listed species are necessary and impacts to these species 

resulting from construction and operation of the proposed Project would not be significant. 

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

Approximately 3,763 acres of land would be used during construction of the proposed Project, 

including 3,394 acres of land for the nominal 100-foot wide pipeline construction right-of-way and 

additional temporary work spaces; 36 acres of land for the aboveground facilities; and 334 acres of land 

for pipe storage and contractor yards and access roads. Following construction, all affected areas outside 

the permanent pipeline right-of-way and aboveground facility sites would be restored and allowed to 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
5-5

revert to preconstruction conditions and uses. During operation of the proposed Project, the proposed 

60-foot wide permanent pipeline right-of-way, aboveground facilities, and permanent access roads would 

require the use of approximately 1,564 acres of land. However, we believe that a 60-foot wide permanent 

right-of-way is not necessary for operation and maintenance of the proposed Project; therefore, to reduce 

permanent impacts, we are recommending that Gulf South should not exercise eminent domain authority 

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

further reduce impacts on land requirements for the project, we are also recommending that Gulf South 

make use of up to 10 feet of existing, foreign pipeline rights-of-way as part of its 100-foot-wide nominal 

construction right-of-way and additional temporary workspaces; and to limit the width of its construction 

right-of-way in rugged areas between MPs 186.3 and 191.6 to 175 feet or less. 

Four residential structures would be located within 50 feet of construction work areas. One of 

these structures, which is abandoned and unsuitable for habitation is located within the proposed pipeline 

construction right-of-way and would be demolished prior to construction. Gulf South has developed sitespecific construction plans for the other three residential structures in order to avoid or minimize potential 

impacts to these structures. We have reviewed these plans and find them acceptable. 

The proposed Project would cross and be located in the vicinity of several recreation and special 

interest areas, including CRP and WRP lands administered by the FSA and the NRCS, respectively; the 

Ouachita WMA; the NRI-listed Pearl and Big Black Rivers; two Louisiana Natural and Scenic Rivers, 

Black Lake Bayou and Saline Bayou; the Natchez Trace Parkway; and the Tensas NWR. To minimize 

impacts to these resources, Gulf South has consulted with the respective management agencies, modified 

its proposed route, would adhere to site-specific crossing plans, and would use special construction 

techniques. In the instances where permits and approvals for proposed Project-related use and/or 

approved mitigation for potential impacts to these resources are incomplete, we are recommending that 

Gulf South complete consultations with the applicable agencies including the FSA, and the NPS and file 

site-specific plans to minimize, or mitigate impacts to these areas. 

The proposed Project would cross the NPS-managed Natchez Trace Parkway, which is a 

444-mile-long elongated park and roadway in Mississippi, Alabama, and Tennessee. Based on 

consultations with the NPS, Gulf South would cross under the Natchez Trace Parkway using subsurface 

boring methods, thereby avoiding direct impacts to the roadway surface and traffic flow. The 

implementation of measures identified in Gulf South’s Plan would minimize impacts to environmental 

resources associated with the Natchez Trace Parkway. 

Visual resources along the proposed Project route would be affected by the installation of certain 

aboveground facilities and through the alteration of existing vegetative patterns associated with the 

clearing and maintenance of the construction and permanent pipeline rights-of-way. The installation of 

the proposed aboveground facilities would not significantly affect visual resources; however, we are 

recommending that Gulf South finalize development of its site-specific screening plan for a mainline 

valve located at MP 129.8 to visually screen this facility from a nearby residence. 

5.1.9 Socioeconomics 

The proposed Project would have positive impacts on local spending, employment, and tax 

income during construction and operation; however, these impacts would be relatively small. 

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 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
5-6

temporarily increase demand for public services such as medical, police, and fire protection, but these 

impacts would be offset by increased tax revenues to local governments. 

5.1.10 Cultural Resources 

Gulf South has conducted cultural resource surveys and prepared reports for almost all of the land 

that would be affected by construction and operation of the proposed Project. Cultural resource surveys 

within the Texas portion of the proposed Project identified no cultural resources within the proposed 

Project area; therefore, we are not recommending any additional work. Cultural resource surveys within 

the Louisiana portion of the proposed Project identified five new and six previously-recorded prehistoric 

sites; and 15 new and five previously recorded historic sites in Louisiana. These sites are either not 

eligible for listing in the NRHP or would not be affected by the proposed Project; therefore we are not 

recommending any additional work. Cultural resources surveys in the Mississippi portion of the proposed 

Project identified four new and two previously recorded prehistoric sites and two new historic sites. 

These sites are either not eligible for listing in the NRHP or would not be affected by the proposed 

Project; therefore we are not recommending any additional work. Gulf South also contacted six Native 

American groups regarding the proposed Project, and although some requested additional consultation or 

information, none have expressed opposition to the proposed Project. 

Survey reports have not yet been completed and/or SHPO review is still pending in Texas, 

Louisiana, and Mississippi regarding access roads, recently proposed route modifications, M/R stations, 

contractor yards, and ATWS. Gulf South indicates that it will complete and file all of its outstanding 

survey reports. To ensure that all cultural resources are adequately protected, we are recommending that 

Gulf South defer construction until all surveys and evaluations of areas not previously accessed are 

completed, all survey reports and any necessary treatment plans have been reviewed by appropriate 

parties, and the Director of OEP provides written notification to proceed. 

5.1.11 Air Quality and Noise 

Increased equipment emissions associated with construction of the proposed Project would be 

temporary and localized, and these emissions are not expected to cause or contribute to a violation of 

applicable air quality standards. The proposed Tallulah and Vixen Compressor Stations and the 

expansion of the existing Carthage Junction Compressor Station would emit air pollutants as a result of 

combustion of natural gas to drive the compressor units, and in association with the periodic operation of 

auxiliary generators. However, the air emissions associated with operation of these facilities would meet 

federal and state ambient air quality standards and permitting requirements. 

Impacts to noise quality associated with construction of the proposed Project would generally be 

temporary, minor, and limited to daylight hours, except at HDD sites, where drilling and related 

construction equipment would likely operate on a continuous basis for up to several days. As a result of 

this continual operation, noise levels at 14 of the 66 evaluated HDD sites could be significantly increased. 

To minimize this potential increase in noise levels and the resulting impacts to NSAs, Gulf South 

developed a Noise Mitigation and Compliance Plan for HDD Operations. We have reviewed this plan 

and find it acceptable. Additionally, we are recommending that Gulf South conduct a noise analysis for 

the newly proposed HDD crossing at Baker’s Creek. 

The proposed new compressor stations and the expanded Carthage Junction Compressor Station 

would generate noise on a continuous basis during operations. However, the predicted noise levels 

attributable to operations of the new compressor stations and the authorized units at the Carthage Junction 

Compressor Station should not result in significant effects on the NSAs nearest to those facilities. To 

ensure that noise levels are within acceptable limits, we are recommending that Gulf South file noise 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
5-7

survey reports within 60 days after placing the compressor stations in service to confirm the noise levels 

would be below 55dBA. 

5.1.12 Reliability and Safety 

The proposed Project would be designed, constructed, operated, and maintained to meet or 

exceed all DOT safety standards for natural gas pipelines. Following construction, Gulf South would also 

initiate a pipeline integrity management plan to ensure public safety during operation. The proposed 

Project would result in only a slight increase in risk to the nearby public. 

5.1.13 Cumulative Impacts 

Three types of projects: past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects could potentially 

contribute to a cumulative impact when considered with the proposed Project. These projects include 

other natural gas transmission pipelines in the area, nonjurisdictional facilities associated with the 

proposed Project, and transportation projects in the vicinity of the proposed pipeline route. Interstate 

natural gas pipeline projects occurring or that would occur in the counties and parishes affected by the 

proposed Project include the Carthage to Perryville Project (CP06-85-000); two other projects that are 

currently filed with the Commission [Duke’s SESH Project (CP07-44-000) and Gulf South's Southeast 

Expansion Project (CP07-32-000)]; and two proposed projects that are currently undergoing the 

Commission's Pre-Filing Review [Gulf Crossing Project (PF07-1-000) and Midcontinent Express Project 

(PF07-4-000)]. Construction of these projects is projected to occur between the years 2006 through 2009. 

The potential impacts associated with these projects that are most likely to be cumulatively significant are 

related to wetlands and waterbodies, vegetation and wildlife (including federally and state-listed 

endangered and threatened species), land use, air quality, and noise. 

Based on the proposed construction, minimization, mitigation and operations procedures and 

measures, we believe that impacts associated with the proposed Project would be relatively minor. 

Similarly, each of the projects considered in our analysis has been or would be designed to avoid or 

minimize impacts to sensitive environmental resources. Additionally, it is anticipated that any significant 

unavoidable impacts to sensitive resources resulting from these projects would be mitigated. Mitigation 

generally leads to the avoidance or minimization of cumulative impacts. Any proposed projects under the 

Commission’s jurisdiction would also be the subject of our NEPA review to avoid or minimize impacts. 

Consequently, although construction and operation of the proposed project along with other projects in 

the area would result in cumulative impacts to environmental resources, we believe that these impacts 

would not be significant. 

5.1.14 Alternatives 

We evaluated the no action and postponed action alternatives, which would involve not building 

or deferring construction of the proposed Project facilities. While the no action or postponed action 

alternative would eliminate or delay the short- and long-term environmental impacts identified in this 

EIS, the objectives of the proposed Project would not be met. We also evaluated the use of alternative 

energy sources and the potential effects of energy conservation, but these measures would not satisfy the 

need for the proposed Project. 

Our analysis of system alternatives included an evaluation of whether existing or 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 (Gulf South and CEGT) 

traverse the same general geographic area as the proposed Project, neither of these systems would meet 

the capacity requirements or the geographic needs of the proposed Project without substantial system 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
5-8

upgrades, such as new or increased compression and new pipeline looping, or the construction of 

additional pipelines to extend existing systems to the proposed Project terminus. Similarly, the proposed 

natural gas pipelines (SESH, Gulf Crossing, and Midcontinent Express Projects) which would be located 

in the vicinity of the proposed Project would not meet the capacity requirements or the geographic needs 

of the proposed Project without substantial system upgrades. 

We also evaluated the alternative route analysis which Gulf South used to design the proposed 

route. Gulf South attempted to avoid or significantly reduce impacts on sensitive resources in its initial 

planning and siting of its proposal. We evaluated three major route alternatives to the proposed Project 

route which would not offer a significant environmental advantage over the proposed Project route; and 

therefore, we eliminated these routes from further consideration. 

Additionally, smaller-scale route variations were identified to resolve or reduce construction 

impacts to localized, specific resources and to accommodate landowner requests. At least 47 route 

variations were incorporated in the proposed route by Gulf South as a result of comments received during 

the pre-filing and NEPA review processes. We also considered additional route variations to resolve or 

reduce construction impacts to localized, specific resources. We evaluated eight route variations, but are 

not recommending the adoption of any route variations because they were not environmentally preferable 

to the proposed Project. 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 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. We did not 

identify any meter/regulator and mainline valve facilities alternative sites. Though no significant 

environmental consequences were identified in association with any of the proposed compressor station 

sites, we did evaluate alternative sites for the proposed Vixen and Tallulah Compressor Stations, based in 

part on public comments. Our environmental review did not identify alternative compressor station sites 

that would be environmentally preferable to the proposed sites. 

5.2 STAFF’S RECOMMENDATIONS 

If the Commission issues a Certificate for the proposed Project, we recommend that the 

Commission’s Order include the following specific conditions. We believe that these measures would 

further minimize and mitigate the environmental impacts resulting from the construction and operation of 

the proposed Project. 

1. Gulf South shall follow the construction procedures and mitigation measures described in its 

application, supplemental filings (including responses to staff information requests), and as 

identified in the EIS, unless modified by the Order. Gulf South must: 

a. request any modification to these procedures, measures, or conditions in a filing with 

the Secretary; 

b. justify each modification relative to site-specific conditions; 

c. explain how that modification provides an equal or greater level of environmental 

protection than the original measure; and 

d. receive approval in writing from the Director of OEP before using that modification. 

2. The Director of OEP has delegated authority to take whatever steps are necessary to ensure 

the protection of all environmental resources during construction and operation of the 

Project. This authority shall allow: 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
5-9

a. the modification of conditions of the Commission’s Order; and 

b. the design and implementation of any additional measures deemed necessary (including 

stop work authority) to assure continued compliance with the intent of the 

environmental conditions as well as the avoidance or mitigation of adverse 

environmental impact resulting from Project construction and operation. 

3. Prior to any construction, Gulf South shall file an affirmative statement with the Secretary, 

certified by a senior company official, that all company personnel, EIs, and contractor 

personnel will be informed of the 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(s) shall be as shown in the EIS, as supplemented by filed 

alignment sheets, and shall include all of the staff's recommended facility locations. As 

soon as they are available, and prior to the start of construction, Gulf South shall file 

with the Secretary any revised detailed survey alignment maps/sheets at a scale not smaller 

than 1:6,000 with station positions for all facilities approved by the Order. All requests for 

modifications of environmental conditions of the Order or site-specific clearances must be 

written and must reference locations designated on these alignment maps/sheets. 

Gulf South‘s exercise of eminent domain authority granted under NGA Section 7(h) in any 

condemnation proceedings related to the Order must be consistent with these authorized 

facilities and locations. Gulf South’s right of eminent domain granted under NGA 

Section 7(h) does not authorize it to increase the size of its natural gas pipeline to 

accommodate future needs or to acquire a right-of-way for a pipeline to transport a 

commodity other than natural gas. 

5. Gulf South shall file with the Secretary detailed alignment maps/sheets and aerial 

photographs at a scale not smaller than 1:6,000 identifying all route realignments or facility 

relocations, and staging areas, pipe storage yards, new access roads, and other areas that 

would be used or disturbed and have not been previously identified in filings with the 

Secretary. Approval for each of these areas must be explicitly requested in writing. For 

each area, the request must include a description of the existing land use/cover type, and 

documentation of landowner approval, whether any cultural resources or federally listed 

threatened or endangered species would be affected, and whether any other environmentally 

sensitive areas are within or abutting the area. All areas shall be clearly identified on the 

maps/sheets/aerial photographs. Each area must be approved in writing by the Director of 

OEP prior to construction in or near that area. 

This requirement does not apply to route variations required herein or minor field 

realignments per landowner needs and requirements, 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: 

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 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
5-10

d. agreements with individual landowners that affect other landowners or would affect 

sensitive environmental areas. 

6. Within 60 days of the acceptance of this certificate and prior to construction, Gulf South 

shall file an initial Implementation Plan with the Secretary for review and written approval 

by the Director of OEP describing how Gulf South will implement the mitigation measures 

required by the Order. Gulf South must file revisions to the plan as schedules change. The 

plan shall identify: 

a. how Gulf South will incorporate these requirements into the contract bid documents, 

construction contracts (especially penalty clauses and specifications), and construction 

drawings so that the mitigation required at each site is clear to 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 Gulf South 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 Gulf South's organization 

having responsibility for compliance; 

f. the procedures (including use of contract penalties) Gulf South will follow if 

noncompliance occurs; and 

g. for each discrete facility, a Gantt or PERT chart (or similar project scheduling 

diagram), and dates for: 

(1) the completion of all required surveys and reports; 

(2) the mitigation training of onsite personnel; 

(3) the start of construction; and 

(4) the start and completion of restoration. 

7. Gulf South shall employ one or more EIs per construction spread. The 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; 

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; 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
5-11

e. responsible for documenting compliance with the environmental conditions of the 

Order, as well as any environmental conditions/permit requirements imposed by other 

federal, state, or local agencies; and 

f. responsible for maintaining status reports. 

8. Gulf South shall file updated status reports with the Secretary on a weekly basis until all 

construction-related activities, including restoration, are complete for each phase of the 

Project. On request, these status reports will also be provided to other federal and state 

agencies with permitting responsibilities. Status reports shall include: 

a. the current construction status of each spread, work planned for the following reporting 

period, and any schedule changes for stream crossings or work in other 

environmentally sensitive areas; 

b. a listing of all problems encountered and each instance of 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 Gulf South from other federal, state or local 

permitting agencies concerning instances of noncompliance, and Gulf South's response. 

9. Gulf South must receive written authorization from the Director of OEP before 

commencing service from the Project. Such authorization will only be granted following a 

determination that rehabilitation and restoration of areas affected by the Project are 

proceeding satisfactorily. 

10. Within 30 days of placing the certificated facilities in service, Gulf South shall file an 

affirmative statement with the Secretary, certified by a senior company official: 

a. that the facilities have been constructed in compliance with all applicable conditions, 

and that continuing activities will be consistent with all applicable conditions; or 

b. identifying which of the certificate conditions Gulf South has complied with or will 

comply with. This statement shall also identify any areas affected by the Project where 

compliance measures were not properly implemented, if not previously identified in 

filed status reports, and the reason for noncompliance. 

11. Gulf South shall develop and implement an environmental complaint resolution procedure. 

The procedure shall provide landowners with clear and simple directions for identifying and 

resolving their environmental mitigation problems/concerns during construction of the 

Project and restoration of the right-of-way. Prior to construction, Gulf South shall mail the 

complaint procedures to each landowner whose property would be crossed by the Project. 

a. In its letter to affected landowners, Gulf South shall: 

(1) provide a local contact that the landowners should call first with their concerns; 

the letter shall indicate how soon a landowner should expect a response; 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
5-12

(2) instruct the landowners that, if they are not satisfied with the response, they 

should call Gulf South’s Hotline; the letter shall indicate how soon to expect a 

response; and 

(3) instruct the landowners that, if they are still not satisfied with the response from 

Gulf South’s Hotline, they should contact the Commission's Enforcement Hotline 

at (888) 889-8030, or at hotline@ferc.gov. 

b. In addition, Gulf South shall include in its weekly status 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. Gulf South shall not exercise eminent domain authority granted under Section 7(h) of the 

NGA to acquire a permanent right-of-way greater than 50 feet in width. (Section 2.2.1)

13. Prior to construction, Gulf South shall file with the Secretary, for review and written 

approval by the Director of OEP, revised alignment sheets, plans, and associated agreements 

indicating the use of at least 10 feet of adjacent pipeline rights-of-way as part of its 100 footwide nominal construction right-of-way and for any additional temporary workspaces that 

are needed. Where this is not possible, Gulf South shall identify the locations by milepost 

and provide site-specific justification explaining why the adjacent right-of-way cannot be 

used. (Section 2.2.1) 

14. Gulf South shall limit the width of its construction right-of-way to 175 feet between MP 

186.3 and 191.6. (Section 2.3.2.5) 

15. Prior to construction, Gulf South shall file with the Secretary, for review and written 

approval by the Director of OEP, a final well monitoring and mitigation plan that describes 

standard testing procedures, and the measures that would be taken should a well be impacted 

such that it is no longer operable or that it becomes impaired. Gulf South shall also file a 

report with the Secretary, within 30 days of placing its pipeline facilities in service, 

identifying all private or domestic water wells or systems damaged by construction and 

describing how they were repaired. The report shall include a discussion of any complaints 

concerning well yield or quality and how each problem was resolved. (Section 3.3.1.3)

16. Prior to construction, Gulf South shall complete consultation with the NPS regarding its 

proposed HDD crossings of, and hydrostatic test water withdrawals from, the NRI-listed Big 

Black and Pearl Rivers, and file copies of those consultations with the Secretary. If 

applicable, Gulf South shall also file plans to address any additional mitigation measures 

recommended by the NPS. (Section 3.3.2.3)

17. Prior to construction, Gulf South shall file with the Secretary, its final Wetland Mitigation 

Plan. (Section 3.4.4) 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
5-13

18. Prior to construction, Gulf South shall finalize its revegetation procedures based on 

comments provided by the TPWD, and file these procedures with the Secretary for review 

and approval by the Director of OEP. (Section 3.5.2) 

19. Prior to construction, Gulf South shall file with the Secretary, for review and written 

approval by the Director of OEP, a final Exotic and Invasive Species Control Plan 

developed in consultation with the FWS, TPWD, LDWF, and the MDWFP. This plan shall 

identify the specific measures that Gulf South would implement during construction and 

operation to control exotic and invasive plant species. Following approval, Gulf South shall 

also submit copies of the Exotic and Invasive Species Control Plan to the above-listed 

agencies. (Section 3.5.3)

20. Gulf South shall not begin construction activities until:

a. the staff completes Section 7 consultations with the FWS; and 

b. Gulf South has received written notification from the Director of OEP that construction 

or use of mitigation may begin. (Section 3.7.1) 

21. Gulf South shall file with the Secretary as part of the final Implementation Plan a 

description of measures, developed in consultation with the FWS, to train construction 

workers regarding awareness of bald eagles and nesting activity. Gulf South shall 

immediately notify the FERC staff and the FWS if bald eagles or their nests are observed 

within 1,500 feet of the proposed Project’s facilities prior to or during construction. 

(Section 3.7.1.1) 

22. Gulf South shall file with the Secretary as part of the final Implementation Plan a 

description of measures, developed in consultation with the FWS, to train construction 

workers in the identification of interior least terns and their nesting habitat in the vicinity of 

the Red and Mississippi River crossings. Gulf South shall immediately notify the FERC 

staff and the FWS if interior least terns are observed within 650 feet of proposed waterbody 

crossings in the Red and Mississippi River basins prior to or during construction. (Section 

3.7.1.2)

23. Gulf South shall file with the Secretary as part of the final Implementation Plan a 

description of measures, developed in consultation with the FWS, to revegetate the bear 

management corridor located near the Tensas River NWR, and in accordance with FWS 

recommendations train construction workers regarding the elimination of activities that may 

serve as attractants to the Louisiana black bear, and to protect candidate denning trees. 

(Section 3.7.1.4) 

24. Prior to construction, Gulf South shall file with the Secretary its final plan for avoiding or 

minimizing impacts to the Louisiana pine snake. (Section 3.7.1.11)

25. Prior to construction, Gulf South shall consult with the FSA to determine appropriate seed 

mixes and/or revegetation efforts that shall be implemented on CRP lands to minimize and 

mitigate construction and operations impacts. Gulf South shall also retain and have 

available for inspection any records of consultation(s) with the FSA indicating specific 

measures agreed upon by Gulf South and the FSA that would be implemented on CRP lands. 

(Section 3.8.4.1) 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
5-14

26. Prior to construction, Gulf South shall file with the Secretary, its final site-specific plans 

for WRP crossings. (Section 3.8.4.1)

27. Prior to construction, Gulf South shall file with the Secretary, for review and written 

approval by the Director of OEP, a final site screening plan for the proposed MLV at MP 

129.8. (Section 3.8.6.2)

28. Gulf South shall defer implementation of any treatment plans/measures (including 

archaeological data recovery); construction of facilities; and use of all staging, storage, or 

temporary work areas and new or to-be-improved access roads until:

a. Gulf South files with the Secretary cultural resources survey and evaluation reports; 

any necessary treatment plans; and the Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi SHPO 

comments on the reports and plans; and 

b. The Director of OEP reviews and approves all cultural resources survey reports and 

plans, and notifies Gulf South in writing that treatment plans/procedures may be 

implemented and/or construction may proceed. 

All material filed with the Secretary containing location, character, and ownership 

information about cultural resources must have the cover and any relevant pages 

therein clearly labeled in bold lettering: “CONTAINS PRIVILEGED INFORMATION 

– DO NOT RELEASE.” (Section 3.10.4)

29. Prior to construction, Gulf South shall file with the Secretary, for review and written 

approval by the Director of OEP, a noise analysis for the proposed HDD site at Baker’s 

Creek. This analysis shall identify any NSAs within one half mile of the proposed entry and 

exit sites. If NSAs exist within one mile, Gulf South shall identify existing background 

noise levels and estimated drilling noise contributions at the nearest NSAs along with any 

measures it would implement to control noise from the HDD. (Section 3.11.2.3)

30. Gulf South shall file with the Secretary no later than 60 days after placing the authorized 

units at the Carthage Junction Compressor Station into service compressor station noise 

surveys. If the noise attributable to the operation of the authorized units exceeds an Ldn of 

55 dBA at any nearby NSAs, Gulf South shall file a report on what changes are needed and 

shall install the additional noise controls to meet the level within 1 year of the in-service 

date. Gulf South shall confirm compliance with the above requirement by filing a second 

noise survey with the Secretary no later than 60 days after it installs the additional noise 

controls. (Section 3.11.2.3) 

31. Gulf South shall file with the Secretary no later than 60 days after placing the Vixen and 

Tallulah Compressor Stations into service compressor station noise surveys. If the noise 

attributable to the operation of the Vixen or Tallulah Compressor Stations at full load 

exceeds an Ldn of 55 dBA at any nearby NSAs, Gulf South shall file a report on what 

changes are needed and shall install the additional noise controls to meet the level within 1 

year of the in-service date. Gulf South shall confirm compliance with the above 

requirement by filing a second noise survey with the Secretary no later than 60 days after 

it installs the additional noise controls. (Section 3.11.2.3) 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
APPENDIX A 

DISTRIBUTION LIST 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
APPENDIX A 

Distribution List 

A-1

Federal Government Agencies

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

 Director of Cultural Resources 

Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) 

 Jim Kelly, Fort Worth District 

Elizabeth Guynes, Vicksburg District 

Wayne Lea, Vicksburg, District 

Mike Miller, Vicksburg District 

Mike Stewart, Vicksburg District 

 Office of the Chief of Army Engineers 

Department of Agriculture (USDA) 

 Office of Finance and Management 

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) 

 National Environmental Coordinator 

 Stephen Cruse 

 Yancy Magee 

 Ron Marcantel 

Teresa May 

Don Gohmert 

James Greenwade 

 Brian Baiamonte 

 Al Garner 

Matthew Judy 

John Pitre 

NRCS, Bienville Parish, LA, District Conservationist 

NRCS, DeSoto Parish, LA, District Conservationist 

NRCS, Jackson Parish, LA, District Conservationist 

NRCS, Madison Parish, LA, District Conservationist 

NRCS, Ouachita Parish, LA, District Conservationist 

NRCS, Red River Parish, LA, District Conservationist 

NRCS, Richland Parish, LA, District Conservationist 

NRCS, Panola County, TX, District Conservationist 

NRCS, Copiah County, MS, District Conservationist 

NRCS, Warren County, MS, District Conservationist 

NRCS, Hinds, County, MS, District Conservationist 

NRCS, Simpson County, MS, District Conservationist 

NRCS, Walthall County, MS, District 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 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
APPENDIX A 

Distribution List 

A-2

Federal Government Agencies (continued)

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

 Director of Ecology and Conservation 

 National Marine Fisheries Service 

 Karen Abrams, National EFH Coordinator 

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 

 Harvey Harmon, Director for Import/Export Activities 

 Office of Environmental Compliance 

 Office of Intergovernmental Affairs 

 Steve Lerner 

Department of Health and Human Services 

Centers for Disease Control (CDC) 

Department of Homeland Security 

 United States Coast Guard 

 Admiral Thomas H. Collins, Commandant 

 Office of Operating and Environmental Standards 

 Captain David Scott 

Department of Housing and Urban Development 

 Director of Environment 

Department of Interior 

 Director of the Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance 

Patricia E. Morrison, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Land & Minerals Management 

 Minerals Management Service 

Walter Cruickshank, Deputy Director 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
APPENDIX A 

Distribution List 

A-3

Federal Government Agencies (continued)

National Park Service 

 Natchez Trace Parkway 

 Wendell Simpson 

 D. Craig Stubblefield 

 Stennis Young 

 Kurt Foote 

 Rivers, Trails & Conservation Assistance Program 

 Stacye Palmer 

 Jeff Duncan 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

 Arlington Ecological Services Field Office 

 Thomas Cloud 

 Sean Edwards 

Jackson Ecological Services Field Office 

 Ray Aycock 

David Felder 

Daniel Gregg 

 Lafayette Ecological Services Field Office, Louisiana 

 James F. Boggs 

Bridgette Firmin 

Russell Watson 

 North Lousiana National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

Region 4 Office 

 Noreen Walsh 

Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge 

 Brett Hartman 

 Kelby Ouchley 

Department of Justice 

 Land and Natural Resources Division 

Department of Labor 

 Office of Regulatory Economics 

Department of State 

 Office of Environment/Health 

Department of Transportation 

 Camille Mittelholtz, Environmental Policies Team Leader 

 Office of Pipeline Safety 

 Research and Special Program Administrator 

Karen Butler 

Alex Dankanich 

Linda Daugherty, Southern Region 

Kimbra Davis, Community Assistance/Technical Services 

Tom Fortner 

Stacey Gerard, Acting Assistant Administrator 

William Gute, Eastern Region 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
APPENDIX A 

Distribution List 

A-4

Federal Government Agencies (continued)

Mike Schwarzkof 

Rodrick M. Seeley, Southwestern Region 

 Harold Winnie 

 Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 

 Kimberly Hughes, Executive Secretary 

Environmental Protection Agency 

 Office of Federal Activities 

Region 4 

Chris Hoberg 

Ron Mikulak, Waste Management Division 

Heinz J. Mueller, Chief, NEPA Office (3 copies) 

J.I. Palmer, Jr., Administrator 

 Region 6 

 Richard E. Green, Region 6 Administrator 

 Debra Griffin, Associate Director of Compliance 

 Assurance and Enforcement Division 

 Mike Jansky, NEPA 309 Project Coordinator 

 Rhonda M. Smith, Region 6, NEPA Program Manager (3 copies) 

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 

 Alisa Lykens, Chief Gas Branch 2 

John Peconom, Project Manager 

J. Mark Robinson, Director 

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 

Federal Representatives and Senators

Louisiana Rep. Rodney Alexander, District 5 

 Rep. Jim McCrery, District 4 

 Senator Mary Landrieu 

 Senator David Vitter 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
APPENDIX A 

Distribution List 

A-5

Federal Representatives and Senators (continued)

Texas Rep. Louie Gohmert, District 1 

 Senator John Cornyn 

 Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson 

Mississippi Rep. Bennie G. Thompson, District 2 

 Rep. Charles W. Pickering, District 3 

Senator Thad Cochran 

 Senator Trent Lott 

 

State Representatives and Senators

Louisiana Rep. Francis Thompson, District 19 

 Rep. Andy Anders, District 21 

 Rep. Rick Gallot, Jr., District 11 

Rep. Jim Fannin, District 13 

 Rep. Charles McDonald, District 14 

 Rep. Mike Walsworth, District 15 

 Rep. Kay Katz, District 16 

 Rep. Willie Hunter, Jr., District 17 

 Rep. Francis Thompson, District 19 

 Rep. Bryant O. Hammett, District 21 

 Rep. Joe R. Salter, Distict 24 

 Rep. Beverly G. Bruce, District 7

 Senator Robert Adley, District 36 

 Senator Sherri Cheek, District 38 

Senator Noble Ellington, Jr., District 32 

 Senator Robert J. Barham, District 33 

Senator Charles D. Jones, District 34 

 Senator Bob Kostelka, District 35 

Senator Mike Smith, District 31 

Texas Rep. Chuck H. Hopson, District 11 

 Senator Kevin Eltife, District 1 

Mississippi Rep. George Flaggs, Jr., District 55 

Rep. Dr. Chester Masterson, District 54 

Rep. Chuck Middleton, District 85 

Rep. Walter L. Robinson, District 63 

Rep. Jim Ellington, District 73 

Rep. Gregory L. Holloway, Sr., District 76 

Rep. Clinton G. Rotenberry, Jr., District 77 

Rep. Tom Weathersby, District 62 

Rep. Sam C. Mims, District 97 

Rep. Robert E. Vince, District 99 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
APPENDIX A 

Distribution List 

A-6

State Representatives and Senators (continued)

Rep. J.L. Warren, District 90 

Senator Mike Chaney, District 23 

Senator John A. Horhn, District 26 

Senator Irvin Lynn Posey, District 36 

Senator Richard White, District 29 

Senator Perry Lee, District 35 

Senator Kelvin E. Butler, District 38 

Senator Sid Albritton, District 40 

State Government Agencies

Louisiana 

Louisiana Governor 

Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality 

 Tom Griggs 

 Brian Baker 

 Northeast Regional Office 

 Northwest Regional Office 

 Office of Environmental Services 

 Dr. Chuck Carr, Assistant Secretary 

 Wilbert Jordan, Environmental Assessment 

Louisiana Department of Culture, Recreation and Tourism 

 Duke Rivet 

Louisiana Department of Natural Resources 

 Office of Conservation 

 Don Hebert 

Louisiana Department of Transportation 

 Paul Colquette 

Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries 

 Kyle Balkum 

 Steve Hebert 

 James Seales 

 Area 1 - Minden 

 Area 2 - Monroe 

 Area 4 - Ferriday 

 Natural Heritage Program 

 Gary Lester 

Texas 

Texas Governor 

Railroad Commission of Texas 

 Stephen Pitner 

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality 

 Air Permits Division 

Anne M. Inman 

 Leroy Biggers 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
APPENDIX A 

Distribution List 

A-7

State Government Agencies (continued)

Office of Permitting, Remediation, and Registration 

 Dan Eden 

Texas Historical Commission 

 James Bruseth 

 William Martin 

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department 

 Gary Calkins 

 William R. Coenen, Jr. 

 Karen B. Hardin 

 Annette McLemore 

 Wildlife Habitat Assessment Program 

 Kathy Boydston 

Texas Committee on Natural Resources 

 Janice Bezanson 

Mississippi 

Mississippi Governor 

Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality 

 Jim Morris 

 Maya Rao 

 Office of Land and Water Resources 

 Lisa May-McKenzie 

 Charles Smith 

Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks 

 Dennis Riecke 

 Mississippi Museum of Natual Science 

 Melanie Howarter 

Matthew Hicks 

Brad Young 

Mississippi Department of Archives and History 

 Tom Waggener 

Mississippi Secretary of State 

 William Cheney, Jr., Senior Public Lands Attorney 

Local Government Agencies

Louisiana 

 Village of Mer Rouge, Morehouse Parish 

 Johnny McAdams, Mayor 

Bienville Parish 

 Berty Wiggins, Police Jury President 

 Rodney Warren, Police Jury Secratery 

 William "Bill" Sims, Police Jury Vice President 

Town of Gibsland 

 Odis Key, Mayor 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
APPENDIX A 

Distribution List 

A-8

Local Government Agencies (continued)

DeSoto Parish 

 Dewayne Mitchell, Police Jury President 

 Bill Smith, Parish Manager 

Village of Longstreet 

Frank Elliot, Mayor 

 Village of Stonewall 

 Curtis McCune, Mayor 

Jackson Parish 

 Nathaniel Zeno, Jr., Police Jury President 

 Kenneth Pardue, Police Jury Secretary 

 Paul Walsworth 

 Town of Jonesboro 

 Don Essmeser 

 Village of Quitman 

 Delroy Warren 

Madison Parish 

 Thomas J. Williams, Police Jury President 

 Margarett Dew, Police Jury Secretary 

 Johnny Hughes, Police Jury Road Superintendant 

 Village of Richmond 

 Genevieve Ellis 

Ouachita Parish 

 Walter M Caldwell, Police Jury President 

 Bradley Cammack, Police Jury Tresurer/Secretary 

 Ouachita Parish Schools 

 Wallace Hargon 

 Ouachita Parish Assessor’s Office 

 Rich Bailey 

Red River Parish 

 Jessie Davis, Police Jury President/Parish Manager 

 Brenda Jones, Police Jury Secretary 

 Billy Gay, Police Juror 

Richland Parish 

 Althan Smith, Police Jury President 

 Tommy Burgess, Parish Manager 

 Willie Latum, Police Jury District 1 

Texas 

Panola County 

 David Anderson, County Judge 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
APPENDIX A 

Distribution List 

A-9

Local Government Agencies (continued)

Mississippi 

Copiah County 

 Ronnie Barlow, County Administrator 

Hinds County 

 Anthony Brister, County Administrator 

Simpson County 

 Tommy Harvey, Chancery Clerk 

 Town of Braxton 

 Marbel Everett 

Walthall County 

County Board of Supervisors 

 Larry Montgomery 

 Ken Craft 

 Shelton Stogner 

 Travis Alford 

 Clifton Carr 

Warren County 

 Dot McGee, Chancery Clerk 

 Vicksburg Warren School District 

 Dr. James Price 

Libraries

Louisiana 

Bienville Parish Library 

Delhi Branch Library 

DeSoto Parish Library 

Jackson Parish Library 

Madison Parish Public Library 

 Kizzy Bynum 

Mangham Branch Library 

Ouachita Parish Public Library 

Red River Parish Library 

Richland Parish Public Library 

Saline Branch Library 

Stonewall Branch Library 

Texas 

Sammy Brown Library 

Mississippi 

Eudora Welty Library 

George W. Covington Memorial Library 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
APPENDIX A 

Distribution List 

A-10

Libraries (continued)

Jackson County Library 

Mendenhall Public Library 

Warren County-Vicksburg Public Library 

Media

Louisiana 

Bienville Democrat-Record 

 Wayne Dring 

KNOE-TV (CBS) 

 Andrew Pontz 

KTVE-TV (NBC) 

 Lydia Guillory 

Madison Journal 

 Bert Bryant 

Mansfield Enterprise Newspaper 

 Cindy Williams 

Monroe Dispatch 

 Frank DeTigue 

Richland Beacon News 

 Darryl Riser 

Ruston Daily Leader 

The Coushatta Citizen 

 Joe Jones 

The Delhi Dispatch 

 Mary Terry 

The Bastrop Daily Enterprise 

 Mark Rainwater 

The Jackson Independent 

 Chris Smith 

The Ouachita Citizen 

 Ron Watson 

The Shreveport Times 

The News Star 

 Kathy Spurlock 

Texas 

Panola County Newspaper 

Panola Watchman 

 Elaine McPherson 

Mississippi 

Copiah County Courier 

Crystal Springs Weekly Meteor 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
APPENDIX A 

Distribution List 

A-11

Media (continued)

Jackson Clarion-Ledger 

Magee Courier 

Simpson County News 

The Vicksburg Post 

Native American Tribes 

Alabama Coushatta Tribe of Texas 

 Debbie Thomas 

Caddo Nation 

 Robert Cast 

Chitimacha Tribe of Louisiana 

 Alton LeBlanc 

Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana 

 Loveline Poncho 

Jena Band of Choctaw Indians 

 Christine Norris 

Kickapoo Tradional Tribe of Texas 

 Juan Garza, Jr. 

Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians 

 Kenneth Carleton 

Quapaw Tribe of Oklahoma 

 John Berrey 

Tunica-Biloxi Indian Tribe 

 Early Barbry, Jr. 

Intervenors

AGL Resources, Inc. 

 Richard Siegal 

 Shannon Omia Pierce 

 Tiffany Callaway Ferrell 

Atmos Energy Corporation 

 Douglas Walther 

Blach & Bingham, LLP 

 Roy Robertson, Jr. 

BP America, Inc. 

 Fredrick Kolb 

BP Energy Company 

 Steve Tarpey 

Brunder, Gentile & Marcoux, LLP 

 J. Michael Marcoux 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
APPENDIX A 

Distribution List 

A-12

Intervenors (continued)

Brunenkant & Cross, LLP 

 Kenneth Albert 

Jon Brunenkant 

 Joelle Ogg 

CenterPoint Energy Entex 

 Debra DePena 

Chesapeake Energy Marketing, Inc. 

 W.E. Wince, Jr. 

City of Vicksburg 

 Timothy Smith 

Fulbright & Jaworski, LLP 

 Michael Manning 

 Letitia McKoy 

John & Hengerer 

 Kim Clark 

Kaiser Francis Oil Company 

 John Boone 

LDC Gas Supply & Transportation - CenterPoint Energy Entex 

 Kent Armstrong 

Merrill Lynch Commodities, Inc 

 Ron Oppenheimer 

 Kelly Funderburk 

Miller, Balis & O'Neil, PC 

 James Byrd 

Mobile Gas Service Corporation 

 Edgar Downing, Jr. 

 J. Harris Oswalt 

Moore & Van Allen PLLC 

 James Jefferies IV 

 Brain Heslin 

Pelican Gas Management, Inc. 

 Robert Adley 

Progress Energy Corporation 

 Richard Rhodes 

 John Trimble 

Southern Natural Gas Company 

 John Griffen 

 Glen Sheffield 

Stuntz, Davis & Staffier, PC 

 John Staffier 

United Municipal Distributors Group c/o Energy Services of Pensacola 

 Charles Good, Jr. 

Willmut Gas Company 

 Karl Ficken

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
APPENDIX A 

Distribution List 

A-13

Organizations and Individuals

Charles Adams 

Bryan Ashley 

Fred Abbott, Jr. 

Charles A. Albright 

John L. Alexander 

Mrs. Armstrong 

William L. Bailey 

John Henry Baker 

Billy Baker 

Bobbie Bankston 

Steven Bankston 

Juliette Bankston 

Jewel & Doris P. Barkley 

Chuck Barlow 

John & Margaret Barlow 

J.H. Barnes 

David Barton 

Rocco Battaglia 

Jerry Beard 

James G. Bethard 

Carol Booth 

Joe Allen Boothe 

Rana J. Bourg 

Ursula Braxton 

Gregory Broadbent 

Robert L. Brunson 

 James E. Bryan 

 Kathy G. Bryant 

 Nora Sue Bullock 

 James Bullock 

 Troy S. Cage 

 John Michael Cage 

Vollie Campbell 

 Lloyd W. Chapman, Jr. 

 W. D. & Julia Carraway 

 Gary Lane & Angie Carter 

 John C. Chapman 

 John E. Chisholm 

Dr. Franklin Chukwuma 

Jimmy G. Coates 

 James R. Cobb 

 William R. Coenen, Jr. 

 Melvin Cohan 

 Marvin Wayne Coker 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
APPENDIX A 

Distribution List 

A-14

Organizations and Individuals (continued)

Gerald D. Coker, Sr. 

 Cecil Andrew Collins, Sr. 

 Janie Conly Sandidge 

 Elaine Crainshaw 

 Judy Crawford 

 Geraldine Dahlhouser 

Mary Latin Davis 

Henry H. Davis, Jr. 

William Diel 

Sally Barham Dienes 

James S. Dowling 

Blanche Marie Downey Pitre 

Dr. Arelena C. Stringer & Dr. Joe Louis Caldwell 

Charles Duke 

Ethel Mae Duke 

Debra P. Edwards 

Frank Elliot 

Genevieve Ellis 

Don Essmeser 

Taama Marti Forasiepi 

Robert & Bernice Forrest 

Joe Fortenberry 

F. J. Foster 

Shirley Janette Foster Murray 

Dan R. Freeman 

Robert C. & Carol L. Fron 

Jack Garner 

Billy & Betty Gay 

James Glasgow 

Larry C. Golden 

James A. Greco 

Ronald Morris Green 

Inez Sanders Green 

Percell F. Green, Jr. 

Stuart Butler Green 

Mike Griffin 

Clayton C. Grigg 

Lorita Guerrero 

Dorothy Hand 

Lucille Harpole 

Judge John Robert Harrison 

Eric Hatfield 

Margie L. Hays 

Kenny Head 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
APPENDIX A 

Distribution List 

A-15

Organizations and Individuals (continued)

Gary Hemba 

Larry Hal Henderson 

Judith Yarberry Holland 

Jean Hollingsworth 

Amanda Holmes 

James Holmes 

James W. Hosea 

Claude E. Hosea 

Douglas House 

John Hoychick, Jr. 

Betty S. Ingram 

Louie Mark Irving, Jr. 

Carol Cage Jarred 

Seretha Jefferson 

Donna Julian Johnson 

Amy Jo Jones-Slaughter 

R. Barry King, Sr. 

Edgar Landry 

Roy Lathem 

Wilbert Latin, Sr. 

Janis Evans Leach 

Richie LeBlanc 

Donnie Lee 

Frank Leone 

James Alvin Lofton 

Margie Lowe 

Blair Marble 

Renee Marble 

Peggy A. Martin 

Deann & John Matza 

Mattie May 

Shonica Michelle McDowell 

Herman M. McGuire, II 

James McIntosh 

Brandy Lyn McPherson 

Patti S. Mella 

Rita Mendrop 

Steven Miller 

Richard Wayne Milstead 

Dearl E. Morris 

Michael Norphlet Morris 

Ozella Collins Morris 

Albert Murray 

Leigh Nosser 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
APPENDIX A 

Distribution List 

A-16

Organizations and Individuals (continued)

Beverly Means Ogilvie 

Shannon P. O’Neal 

Tommie Onermar 

Edna Mae Owens McGrew 

Lamar E. Ozley 

Robert Ellis Paris 

Osie D. Patterson 

Carol Alford Pepper 

Benjamin M. Peters 

Wayne Pitre 

Patricia Pleasant 

John I. Porter (P.C.) 

John Shephard Puckett 

Merle Payne Raborn 

Lois Robertson 

Mildred H. Rone 

Anita H. Rubin 

Thomas A. Sanders, Jr. 

James Edwin Sandifer 

D.R. Sartor, Jr. 

Sharon Schooley 

Charles “Mack” Shelton 

Ken Shelton 

Terry Lane Sikes 

Wynona Sisemore 

James E. Slavant 

William F. Smelley 

James Aubrey Smelley 

Mavis Conly Smith 

David Sorrells 

H. L. Spillers 

O. L. Stone, Jr. 

Bobby Stout 

Dorothy Stringer Carr 

LaValle G. Stuart 

Roy Sullivan 

Jesse Sumers, Sr. 

Mary Rebecca Takewell 

Evelyn L. Terrell 

Rogenia Green Trotter 

Robert Turner, Jr. 

Cindy Vanderberry 

James William Walker 

J. N. Walpole 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
APPENDIX A 

Distribution List 

A-17

Organizations and Individuals (continued)

Thomas Walsworth 

John & Linda Walton 

Brad Warden 

Paul Wells 

Prentiss Wilks, Jr. 

Jerome White 

Almirtha P. White 

Charles H. Whitney 

Johnny & Teresa Williams 

Tommy & Guylene Williams 

Florence Jeanne Wilson 

E. Michael Wilson 

Michael Withrow 

Jimmy Woodard 

John Yocum 

Rex L. Young 

Nathaniel Zeny, Jr. 

Alfred Pollard Estate 

Almond Brothers Lumber and Supply, Inc. 

American Gas Association 

 Dave Parker 

Antony Farms, LLC 

Auburnia Company LLC 

Kenneth L. Hickman 

Baker-Dahlhauser Farms, LLC 

CH2MHILL 

 Tom Simpson 

Burns Forest Products, Inc. 

 Joe Burns 

Carlos Charles Carter Estate 

Gladys Joe Carter BeBlieux 

Century Ready Mix Corp. 

Bob Humble 

Charles & Mary Ann Mueller Trust 

Cotton, Bolton, Hoychick & Doughty, LLP 

 John Hoychick, Jr. 

Dawson Farms, LLC 

Delta Ridge Implement, Inc. 

Melvin Vidrine, Jr. 

Dorothy & LaVaughan Kirkham Revocable Living Trust 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
APPENDIX A 

Distribution List 

A-18

Organizations and Individuals (continued)

ENTRIX, Inc. 

 Erik Dilts 

 Katey Grange 

 Trevor Loveday 

 Doug Mooneyhan 

Freundschaft, Inc. 

Julianne Cole 

Gayette Hodde Barham Family Limited Partnership 

Betsy H. Dakin 

George B. Franklin & Son, Inc. 

Gulf South 

 Kyle Stephens 

 Ted Ryther 

 Andrew Chartrand 

 Cale LeBlanc 

Harrod & Harrod 

 Chet Harrod 

Hunt Timberland, LLC 

Alex Hunt, Jr. 

Irrevocable Spendthrift Trust 

 Robert Charles Brown 

K & G Builders, Inc. 

 R.T. Kinney, Jr 

L & S Land and Timber, LP 

M&M Herzog, Inc. 

Martin Timber Co., Inc. 

W. M. McInnis Estate 

Marbel Everett 

MDM Properties, LLC 

Moran Oil Company 

Frank Scott Moran 

W.E. Mounce Estate 

 James Rowell 

MS Bluffs Development, LLC 

Opus Broadcasting Monroe, LLC 

Pipeline Contractors Association 

 J.Patrick Tielborg 

Ritchie Grocer Co., Inc. 

John Benson, Sr. 

Rocky Mountain P/L Construction Association 

 J.D. Lormand 

Rochell Fuller Estate 

Simonton Properties, LLC 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
APPENDIX A 

Distribution List 

A-19

Organizations and Individuals (continued)

Teer-Burks-Teers 

Bill Burks 

The Wilderness Society 

 Pete Morton 

Three K. Properties, LLC 

Vicksburg Limestone Products, LLC 

Waverly Land & Timber 

Woodard Villa, Inc. 

Mr. E. S. Woodard 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
APPENDIX B 

FACILITY LOCATION MAPS 

Appendix B-1 Facility Location Maps for the East Texas to Mississippi Expansion 

Project

Appendix B-2 Pipe Storage and Contractor Yard Maps for the East Texas to Mississippi 

Expansion Project 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
Non-Internet Public 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE 

PROPOSED EAST TEXAS TO MISSISSIPPI EXPANSION PROJECT 

Docket No. CP06-446-000 

Appendix B Figures 

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 #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
APPENDIX C 

SOILS FOUND ALONG THE PROPOSED PROJECT 

Appendix C-1 Soil Associations Crossed by the Proposed East Texas to Mississippi 

Expansion Project Pipeline Facilities 

Appendix C-2 Soil Associations Located at the Proposed East Texas to Mississippi 

Expansion Project Aboveground Facilities 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
APPENDIX C-1 

Soil Associations Crossed by the Proposed East Texas to Mississippi Expansion Project 

Pipeline Facilities 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
APPENDIX C-1 

C1-1

TABLE C-1 

Soil Associations Crossed by the Proposed East Texas to Mississippi Expansion Project Pipeline F

Cumulative 

Length 

Crossed 

(miles) Soil Association 

Erosion 

Potential Drainage Class 

Hydric 

Soil 

Severe 

Compaction 

Potential 

Shallow 

Bedrock 

(<60 inches 

bgs) 

Re

P

11.6 Keithville-Eastwood- Metcalf Low to moderate Somewhat poorly drained to moderately well drained No No No 

2.3 Guyton-Iuka-Cahaba Low Poorly drained to moderately well drained Yes (Guyton) No No 1.2 Bowie-Ruston Low Moderately well drained No No No 3.9 Forbing-Gore- Wrightsville Low Poorly drained to moderately well drained No No No Fa0.6 Gallion-Caspiana Low Well drained No No No 0.1 Yorktown-Perry Low Poorly drained Yes Yes No 5.1 Moreland-Buxin Low Poorly drained to somewhat poorly drained No Yes No 2.6 Caspiana-Gallion Low Somewhat poorly drained to well drained No Yes No Fa2.5 Ruston Low Well drained No No No 0.4 Meth-Malbis Low Moderately well drained to well drained No No No 3.7 Malbis-Ruston- Beauregard Low Moderately well drained to well drained No No No 

11.4 Guyton-Ouachita Low Poorly drained to well drained No No No Fa

0.4 Gurdon-Dubach- Bienville Low Somewhat poorly drained to well drained No No No 5.7 Briley-Betis-Mclaurin Low 

Moderately well drained to somewhat excessively drained 

No No No 

6.9 Guyton-Ouachita- Ochlockonee Low Poorly drained to well drained Yes No No Fa0.4 Mahan-Bowie Low Somewhat poorly drained to moderately well drained No No No Fa

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
APPENDIX C-1 

C1-2

TABLE C-1 (continued) 

Soil Associations Crossed by the Proposed East Texas to Mississippi Expansion Project Pipeline F

Cumulative 

Length 

Crossed 

(miles) Soil Association 

Erosion 

Potential Drainage Class 

Hydric 

Soil 

Severe 

Compaction 

Potential 

Shallow 

Bedrock 

(<60 inches 

bgs 

Re

P

6.9 Briley-Mclaurin Low Moderately drained to well drained No No No 3.4 Cadeville-Ora Low to moderate Moderately well drained No No No 0.8 Guyton Rosebloom Low Poorly drained Yes No No 3.6 Ruston-Lucy-Alaga Low to moderate Well drained No No No 0.8 Ora-Savannah Low to 

moderate 

Somewhat poorly drained to moderately well drained 

No No No Po

2.5 Frizzell-ProvidenceGuyton Low Poorly drained to moderately well drained No No No 8.7 Perry-Portland Low Poorly drained to 

somewhat poorly drained 

Yes Yes No Fa

1.3 Hebert-SterlingtonRilla Low Somewhat poorly drained to well drained No No No Fa0.1 Barclay-Rosebloom Low Poorly drained to 

somewhat poorly drained 

Yes No No 

0.2 Wrightsville-AlligatorCrowley Low Poorly drained Yes Yes No 3.8 Hebert-RillaSterlington Low Somewhat poorly drained No Yes No 9.7 Gilbert-Gigger-Dexter Low Poorly drained Yes No No 0.6 Perry-Forestdale Low Poorly drained Yes Yes No 6.5 Gilbert-NecessityEgypt Low Poorly drained Yes No No 8.4 Calhoun-Grenada Low Poorly drained 50/50 No No 0.2 Sharkey-Tensas Low Poor Yes Yes No 0.7 Sharkey Moderate Moderately well drained No No No 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
APPENDIX C-1 

C1-3

TABLE C-1 (continued) 

Soil Associations Crossed by the Proposed East Texas to Mississippi Expansion Project Pipeline F

Cumulative 

Length 

Crossed 

(miles) Soil Association 

Erosion 

Potential Drainage Class 

Hydric 

Soil 

Severe 

Compaction 

Potential 

Shallow 

Bedrock 

(<60 inches 

bgs) 

Re

P

2.2 Eastwood-Meth Low Well drained No No No 3.9 Forbing-Gore- Wrightsville Low Poorly drained to moderately well drained No No No Fa0.6 Gallion-Caspiana Low Well drained No No No 0.1 Coushatta Low Well drained No No No 0.3 Severn NA NA NA NA NA 1.8 Guyton-Messer Low Poorly drained Yes No No 0.6 Falkner-Boswell Low Somewhat poorly drained to moderately well drained No No No 2.4 Bellwood- Natchitoches-Sacul Low Moderately well drained to well drained No No No 

11.8 Sacul-Bowie-Sawyer Low Moderately well drained to 

well drained 

No No No Fa

8.2 Sacul Low Moderately well drained No No No 6.9 Guyton-OuachitaOchlockonee Low Poorly drained to well drained Yes No No Fa1.8 Frizzell-CahabaGuyton Low Moderately well drained to well drained No No No Fa4.0 Bellwood-Vaiden Low Moderately well drained No No No 4.9 Dundee-SharkeyTensas Low Poorly drained No Yes No 

13.3 Sharkey-DundeeTunica Low Poorly drained Yes Yes No 

8.7 Commerce-BruinTunica Low Poorly drained No Yes No 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
APPENDIX C-1 

C1-4

TABLE C-1 (continued) 

Soil Associations Crossed by the Proposed East Texas to Mississippi Expansion Project Pipeline F

Cumulative 

Length 

Crossed 

(miles) Soil Association 

Erosion 

Potential Drainage Class 

Hydric 

Soil 

Severe 

Compaction 

Potential 

Shallow 

Bedrock 

(<60 inches 

bgs) 

Re

P

1.6 CommerceRobinsonvilleCrevasse Low Moderately drained Yes No No 

10.8 Memphis-NatchezCollins Severe Well drained Yes No No 

2.3 Oaklimeter-ArielGillsburg Low Moderately well drained Yes No No 7.6 Riedtown-OaklimeterAriel Low Moderately well drained No No No 

10.4 Memphis-LoringCollins Low Well drained No No No 

3.1 ProvidenceSmithdale-Saffell Low Moderately well drained No No No 

10.8 Loring-ByramGrenada Low Moderately well drained No No No 

1.5 Guyton-ColumbusProvidence Low Poorly drained to moderately drained No No No 0.8 Guyton-RosebloomCahaba Low Excessively drained No No No 1.6 Jenna-MantachieKirkville Low Well drained (7) Poorly drained (5) No No No 4.6 SmithdaleProvidence-Collins Low to moderate Well drained and moderately well drained No No No 

_______________ Notes: 

bgs = below ground surface NA = not available 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
APPENDIX C-2 

Soil Associations Located at the Proposed East Texas to Mississippi Expansion Project 

Aboveground Facilities 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
APPENDIX C-2 

C2-1

TABLE C-2 

Soil Associations Located at the Proposed East Texas to Mississippi Expansion Project Aboveground 

Facility MP 

Soil 

Association 

Erosion 

Potential 

Drainage 

Class 

Hydric 

Soil? 

Severe 

Compaction 

Potential 

Shallow 

Bedrock 

(<60 inches 

bgs) 

Reveg

Pot

Compressor Stations Carthage Junction Compressor Station 

N/A Cart-Erno 

complex 

Slight Well 

drained 

Yes No No F

Vixen Compressor Station 

99.4 Cadeville 

association, hilly (Ca) 

Slight to 

moderate 

Moderately well drained 

No No No P

Vixen Compressor Station 

99.4 GuytonRosebloom 

complex, frequently flooded (Gy) (90% of site) 

Slight Poorly 

drained 

Yes No No F

Tallulah Compressor Station 

167.6 Sharkey-Tunica 

complex, gently undulating (St) 

Low Poorly 

drained 

Yes Yes No F

McComb Compressor Station 

N/A Ora loam, 2 to 5 

percent slopes, eroded 

Moderate Moderately 

well drained 

No No No G

McComb Compressor Station 

N/A Ruston fine 

sandy loam, 8 to 12 percent slopes, eroded (Smithdale) 

Low Well 

drained 

No No No P

Meter and Regulation Facilities Texas Gas M/R Station 

112.4 Perry clay, 

occasionally flooded (Pe) 

Slight Poorly 

drained 

Yes Yes No P

Columbia Gulf M/R Station 

149.4 Sharkey clay 

(Sc) 

Low Poorly 

drained 

Yes Yes No F

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
APPENDIX C-2

C2-2

TABLE C-2 (continued) 

Soil Associations Located at the Proposed East Texas to Mississippi Expansion Project Aboveground 

Facility MP 

Soil 

Association 

Erosion 

Potential 

Drainage 

Class 

Hydric 

Soil? 

Severe 

Compaction 

Potential 

Shallow 

Bedrock 

(<60 inches 

bgs) 

Reveg

Pot

Texas Eastern M/R Station 

219.7 Providence silt 

loam, 5 to 8 percent slopes, eroded (PoC2) 

Low Moderately 

well drained 

No No No G

Gulf South M/R Station 

238.6 Petal and 

Smithdale soils, 8 to 15 percent slopes (PD) 

Low Well 

drained and moderately well drained 

No No No G

Enbridge M/R Station 

H2.7 Sacul fine sandy 

loam, 1 to 5 percent slopes (SaC) 

Moderate Poorly 

drained 

No Yes No F

Enterprise M/R Station 

H3.3 Wrightsville-Cart 

complex (Wt) 

Low Moderately 

well drained 

Yes No No G

Valves and Other Facilities Mainline valve 0.0 Metcalf silt loam 

(Mc) 

Slight Somewhat 

poorly drained 

No No No G

Mainline valve 19.5 Kolin silt loam, 1 

to 5 percent slopes (Ko) 

Slight Moderately 

well drained 

No No No G

Launcher/ receiver site 

38.4 Malbis fine 

sandy loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes (MgD) 

Slight Moderately 

well drained 

No No No G

Mainline valve 56.4 Beauregard silt 

loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes (BaB) 

Slight Moderately 

well drained 

No No No G

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
APPENDIX C-2 

C2-3

TABLE C-2 (continued) 

Soil Associations Located at the Proposed East Texas to Mississippi Expansion Project Aboveground 

Facility MP 

Soil 

Association 

Erosion 

Potential 

Drainage 

Class 

Hydric 

Soil? 

Severe 

Compaction 

Potential 

Shallow 

Bedrock 

(<60 inches 

bgs) 

Reveg

Pot

Mainline valve 70.0 Frizzell-Guyton 

silt loams, 0 to 2 percent slopes (FzB) 

Slight Frizzell: 

somewhat poorly drained Guyton: poorly drained 

Yes 

(Guyton) 

No No F

Mainline valve 84.6 Sacul fine sandy 

loam, 5 to 20 percent slopes (SCE) 

Slight Moderately 

well drained 

No No No G

Launcher/ receiver site

99.4 Cadeville 

association, hilly (Ca) 

Slight to 

moderate 

Moderately well drained 

No No No P

Side valve 112.4 Perry clay, 

occasionally flooded (Pe) 

Slight Poorly 

drained 

Yes Yes No P

Mainline valve 112.4 Perry clay, 

occasionally flooded (Pe) 

Slight Poorly 

drained 

Yes Yes No P

Mainline valve 129.8 Necessity-Gilbert 

silt loams, gently undulating (Ng) 

Slight Poorly 

drained 

Yes No No Nece

good; 

f

Side valve 141.4 Calhoun silt 

loams (Ca) 

Slight Poorly 

drained 

No No No F

Mainline valve 149.4 Sharkey clay 

(Sc) 

Low Poorly 

drained 

Yes Yes No F

Mainline valve 150.4 Sharkey clay 

(Sc) 

Low Poorly 

drained 

Yes Yes No F

Launcher/ receiver site 

167.6 Sharkey clay 

(Sc), frequently flooded 

Low Poorly 

drained 

Yes Yes No F

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
APPENDIX C-2

C2-4

TABLE C-2 (continued) 

Soil Associations Located at the Proposed East Texas to Mississippi Expansion Project Aboveground 

Facility MP 

Soil 

Association 

Erosion 

Potential 

Drainage 

Class 

Hydric 

Soil? 

Severe 

Compaction 

Potential 

Shallow 

Bedrock 

(<60 inches 

bgs) 

Reveg

Pot

Mainline valve 182.0 Commerce silt 

loam (Cm) 

Low Poorly 

drained 

No No No G

Side valve 185.5 Commerce silty 

clay loam (Co) 

Low Moderately 

drained to poorly drained 

Yes Yes No G

Mainline valve 191.6 Memphis and 

Natchez silt loams, 17 to 40 percent slopes, eroded (MnF2) 

Severe Well 

drained 

Yes No No Very 

Side valve 193.6 Memphis and 

Natchez silt loams, 12 to 17 percent slopes, severely eroded (MnE3) 

Severe Well 

drained 

Yes No No P

Side valve 207.1 Memphis silt 

loam, 5 to 8 percent slopes, eroded (MeC2) 

Low Well 

drained 

No No No G

Mainline valve 207.1 Memphis silt 

loam, 5 to 8 percent slopes, eroded (MeC2) 

Low Well 

drained 

No No No G

Side Valve 219.7 Providence silt 

loam 5 to 8 percent slopes, eroded (PoC2) 

Low Moderately 

well drained 

No No No G

Mainline valve 225.3 Loring silt loam, 

2 to 5 percent slopes, eroded (LoB2) 

Low Moderately 

well drained 

No No No G

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
APPENDIX C-2 

C2-5

TABLE C-2 (continued) 

Soil Associations Located at the Proposed East Texas to Mississippi Expansion Project Aboveground 

Facility MP 

Soil 

Association 

Erosion 

Potential 

Drainage 

Class 

Hydric 

Soil? 

Severe 

Compaction 

Potential 

Shallow 

Bedrock 

(<60 inches 

bgs) 

Reveg

Pot

Side valve 227.9 Grenada silt 

loam 2 to 5 percent slopes (GrB) 

Low Moderately 

well drained 

No No No G

Receiver H0.0 Kirvin fine sandy 

loam, 1 to 8 percent slope (Kf) 

Low Well 

drained and moderately well drained 

No No No G

Launcher H3.3 Wrightsville-Cart 

complex (Wt) 

Low Moderately 

well drained 

Yes No No G

_______________ Notes: bgs = below ground surface 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
APPENDIX D 

WATERBODY CROSSINGS 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
APPENDIX D 

D-1 

TABLE D-1 

Waterbodies Crossed by the Proposed East Texas to Mississippi Project 

Milepost Waterbody Name 

Crossing 

Width 

(feet) 

Waterbody 

Type 

State Water 

Quality 

Classificationa 

Proposed 

Crossing 

Method 

Panola County, Texas 

H0.2 Unnamed Waterbody 10 Intermittent 5 Open Cut 

H1.4 Hoggs Bayou 137 Perennial 5 Open Cut 

H1.4 Respass Creek 20 Perennial 5 Open Cut 

H2.3 Respass Creek Tributary 40 Perennial 5 Open Cut 

H2.4 Respass Creek Tributary 7 Intermittent 5 Open Cut 

DeSoto Parish, Louisiana 

0.1 Castor Bayou Tributary 40 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

0.1 Castor Bayou Tributary 35 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

0.1 Castor Bayou Tributary 3 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

0.4 Castor Bayou Tributary 2 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

0.5 Castor Bayou Tributary 4 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

1.0 Castor Bayou Tributary 15 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

1.3 Castor Bayou 32 Perennial A, B, and C Open Cut 

1.7 Castor Bayou Tributary 36 Perennial A, B, and C Open Cut 

2.0 Castor Bayou Tributary 17 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

2.7 Rochelle Bayou Tributary 2 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

3.3 Rambin Bayou Tributary 3 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

3.6 Rambin Bayou Tributary 10 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

3.6 Rambin Bayou Tributary 3 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

3.9 Rambin Bayou Tributary 3 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

3.9 Rambin Bayou Tributary 55 Perennial A, B, and C Open Cut 

4.0 Rambin Bayou Tributary 1 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

4.0 Rambin Bayou Tributary 20 Perennial A, B, and C Open Cut 

4.6 Rambin Bayou Tributary 1 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

4.9 Rambin Bayou Tributary 1 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

5.2 Rambin Bayou Tributary 2 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

5.9 Rambin Bayou 4 Perennial A, B, and C Open Cut 

6.9 Rambin Bayou Tributary 4 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

6.9 Rambin Bayou Tributary 1 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

7.1 Rambin Bayou Tributary 1 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

7.6 Rambin Bayou Tributary 7 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

8.0 Rambin Bayou Tributary 1 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

8.4 Unnamed Waterbody 98 Pond A, B, and C Open Cut 

8.9 Caney BayouTributary 4 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

9.2 Caney BayouTributary 4 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

9.3 Caney BayouTributary 1 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

9.5 Caney BayouTributary 5 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

9.9 Caney BayouTributary 3 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

10.8 McGee Bayou Tributary 8 Perennial A, B, and C Open Cut 

10.8 McGee Bayou Tributary 6 Perennial A, B, and C Open Cut 

11.0 McGee Bayou Tributary 10 Perennial A, B, and C Open Cut 

11.4 McGee Bayou Tributary 2 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

11.5 McGee Bayou Tributary 5 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

12.0 McGee Bayou Tributary 5 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

12.6 McGee Bayou Tributary 13 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

13.2 McGee Bayou Tributary 9 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

13.3 McGee Bayou Tributary 3 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

13.8 McGee Bayou Tributary 3 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

13.8 McGee Bayou Tributary 12 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

14.2 McGee Bayou Tributary 2 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

14.4 McGee Bayou Tributary 10 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

14.5 McGee Bayou Tributary 4 Intermittent A, B, and C HDD 

15.0 Caney BayouTributary 2 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

15.0 Caney BayouTributary 1 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

15.0 Caney BayouTributary 10 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

15.2 Caney BayouTributary 3 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

15.6 Clear Lake Tributary 4 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

16.1 Clear Lake Tributary 6 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

16.2 Clear Lake Tributary 3 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

16.3 Clear Lake Tributary 4 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

17.4 Rambin Bayou Tributary 1 Perennial A, B, and C Open Cut 

17.4 Rambin Bayou 32 Perennial A, B, and C Open Cut 

17.5 Rambin Bayou 48 Perennial A, B, and C Open Cut 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
APPENDIX D 

D-2 

TABLE D-1 (continued) 

Waterbodies Crossed by the Proposed East Texas to Mississippi Project 

Milepost Waterbody Name 

Crossing 

Width 

(feet) 

Waterbody 

Type 

State Water 

Quality 

Classificationa 

Proposed 

Crossing 

Method 

18.3 Rambin Bayou Tributary 4 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

18.4 Rambin Bayou Tributary 1 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

19.6 Bayou Pierre Tributary 1 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

20.5 Crook All Bayou 7 Perennial A, B, and C Open Cut 

20.5 Crook All Bayou 7 Perennial A, B, and C Open Cut 

21.4 Bayou Pierre Tributary 1 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

21.4 Bayou Pierre Tributary 2 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

21.9 Bayou Pierre Tributary 1 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

Red River Parish, Louisiana 

22.1 Bayou Pierre Tributary 9 Intermittent A, B, and C HDD 

22.1 Bayou Pierre Tributary 6 Intermittent A, B, and C HDD 

22.1 Bayou Pierre Tributary 11 Intermittent A, B, and C HDD 

22.2 Bayou Pierre 88 Perennial A, B, C, and F HDD 

22.4 Bayou Pierre Tributary 4 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

23.0 Prairie Bayou 10 Perennial A, B, and C HDD 

23.4 Cowpen Bayou 111 Perennial A, B, and C HDD 

24.0 Ash Bayou Tributary 12 Intermittent A, B, and C HDD 

24.0 Ash Bayou Tributary 19 Intermittent A, B, and C HDD 

24.1 Ash Bayou 150 Perennial A, B, and C HDD 

24.7 Powell Bayou Tributary 3 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

25.0 Powell Bayou 30 Perennial A, B, and C HDD 

25.1 Powell Bayou Tributary 5 Intermittent A, B, and C HDD 

25.1 Powell Bayou Tributary 2 Intermittent A, B, and C HDD 

25.8 Watson Bayou tributary 8 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

25.9 Watson Bayou 26 Perennial A, B, and C Open Cut 

26.3 Watson Bayou Tributary 3 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

26.5 Watson Bayou Tributary 3 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

27.0 Red River 716 Perennial A, B, C, and F HDD 

27.3 Red River Tributary 56 Perennial A, B, and C Open Cut 

27.7 Loggy Bayou Tributary 4 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

27.7 Loggy Bayou Tributary 3 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

28.0 Loggy Bayou Tributary 23 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

28.3 Loggy Bayou Tributary 8 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

29.3 Loggy Bayou Tributary 30 Perennial A, B, and C Open Cut 

29.7 Loggy Bayou 200 Perennial A, B, C, and F HDD 

30.5 Toulon Bayou Tributary 1 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

30.5 Toulon Bayou Tributary 5 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

30.9 Toulon Bayou Tributary 4 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

30.9 Toulon Bayou Tributary 3 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

31.3 Toulon Bayou Tributary 1 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

31.4 Toulon Bayou 16 Perennial A, B, and C Open Cut 

31.7 Toulon Bayou Tributary 13 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

31.9 Toulon Bayou Tributary 2 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

32.2 Toulon Bayou Tributary 7 Perennial A, B, and C Open Cut 

32.2 Toulon Bayou Tributary 4 Perennial A, B, and C Open Cut 

32.2 Toulon Bayou Tributary 2 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

32.3 Toulon Bayou Tributary 2 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

32.8 Spring Hill Br Tributary 2 Perennial A, B, and C Open Cut 

33.0 Spring Hill Br Tributary 18 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

33.4 Bayou Chicot Tributary 11 Perennial A, B, and C Open Cut 

33.7 Bayou Chicot Tributary 4 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

33.7 Bayou Chicot Tributary 6 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

33.8 Bayou Chicot Tributary 2 Perennial A, B, and C Open Cut 

34.2 Bayou Chicot Tributary 3 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

34.4 Bayou Chicot Tributary 7 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

34.5 Bayou Chicot Tributary 3 Perennial A, B, and C Open Cut 

34.7 Bayou Chicot Tributary 5 Perennial A, B, and C Open Cut 

35.0 Bayou Chicot Tributary 57 Perennial A, B, and C Open Cut 

35.0 Bayou Chicot Tributary 7 Perennial A, B, and C Open Cut 

35.0 Bayou Chicot Tributary 5 Perennial A, B, and C Open Cut 

35.1 Bayou Chicot Tributary 8 Perennial A, B, and C Open Cut 

35.1 Bayou Chicot Tributary 9 Perennial A, B, and C Open Cut 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
APPENDIX D 

D-3 

TABLE D-1 (continued) 

Waterbodies Crossed by the Proposed East Texas to Mississippi Project 

Milepost Waterbody Name 

Crossing 

Width 

(feet) 

Waterbody 

Type 

State Water 

Quality 

Classificationa 

Proposed 

Crossing 

Method 

35.1 Bayou Chicot Tributary 4 Perennial A, B, and C Open Cut 

35.8 Grand Bayou Tributary 4 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

Bienville Parish, Louisiana 

35.9 Unnamed Drainage Ditch 1 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

36.1 Grand Bayou Tributary 8 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

36.3 Grand Bayou Tributary 5 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

36.4 Grand Bayou Tributary 4 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

36.4 Grand Bayou Tributary 115 Perennial A, B, and C Open Cut 

36.4 Carter Branch 23 Perennial A, B, and C Open Cut 

36.7 Grand Bayou Tributary 2 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

37.0 Grand Bayou Tributary 13 Perennial A, B, and C Open Cut 

37.2 Grand Bayou Tributary 5 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

37.6 Grand Bayou Tributary 3 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

37.9 Grand Bayou Tributary 5 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

38.0 Grand Bayou Tributary 4 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

38.0 Grand Bayou Tributary 4 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

38.5 Red Branch Tributary 22 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

38.6 Red Branch Tributary 4 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

38.6 Red Branch Tributary 2 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

39.0 Red Branch 10 Perennial A, B, and C Open Cut 

39.3 Red Branch Tributary 3 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

39.7 Campground Branch 10 Perennial A, B, and C Open Cut 

40.6 Mill Creek Tributary 2 Perennial A, B, and C Open Cut 

40.7 Mill Creek Tributary 13 Perennial A, B, and C Open Cut 

40.7 Mill Creek Tributary 12 Perennial A, B, and C Open Cut 

40.7 Mill Creek Tributary 9 Perennial A, B, and C Open Cut 

40.7 Mill Creek Tributary 8 Perennial A, B, and C Open Cut 

40.7 Mill Creek Tributary 5 Perennial A, B, and C Open Cut 

40.9 Mill Creek Tributary 1 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

41.0 Mill Creek 3 Perennial A, B, and C Open Cut 

41.6 Black Lake Bayou Tributary 26 Perennial A, B, and C Open Cut 

41.6 Black Lake Bayou Tributary 5 Perennial A, B, and C Open Cut 

41.6 Black Lake Bayou Tributary 4 Perennial A, B, and C Open Cut 

41.6 Black Lake Bayou Tributary 5 Perennial A, B, and C Open Cut 

41.9 Black Lake Bayou Tributary 5 Perennial A, B, and C Open Cut 

41.9 Black Lake Bayou Tributary 2 Perennial A, B, and C Open Cut 

41.9 Black Lake Bayou Tributary 5 Perennial A, B, and C Open Cut 

42.4 Black Lake Bayou 103 Perennial A, B, C, F, and G HDD 

43.6 Black Lake Bayou Tributary 4 Perennial A, B, and C Open Cut 

43.7 Black Lake Bayou Tributary 1 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

43.7 Black Lake Bayou Tributary 26 Perennial A, B, and C Open Cut 

43.8 Black Lake Bayou Tributary 23 Perennial A, B, and C Open Cut 

44.6 Black Lake Bayou Tributary 2 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

44.8 Black Lake Bayou Tributary 16 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

46.4 Kepler Creek Tributary 4 Perennial A, B, and C Open Cut 

46.5 Kepler Creek Tributary 1 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

46.6 Kepler Creek Tributary 1 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

46.9 Kepler Creek Tributary 7 Perennial A, B, and C Open Cut 

46.9 Kepler Creek Tributary 5 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

47.3 Kepler Creek Tributary 2 Perennial A, B, and C Open Cut 

47.5 Kepler Creek Tributary 3 Perennial A, B, and C Open Cut 

50.6 Castor Creek Tributary 2 Perennial A, B, and C Open Cut 

50.6 Castor Creek Tributary 4 Perennial A, B, and C Open Cut 

50.6 Castor Creek Tributary 11 Perennial A, B, and C Open Cut 

50.7 Castor Creek Tributary 26 Perennial A, B, and C Open Cut 

51.2 Castor Creek Tributary 7 Perennial A, B, and C Open Cut 

52.8 Sixmile Creek Tributary 5 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

53.5 Sixmile Creek Tributary 3 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

54.2 Sixmile Creek Tributary 3 Perennial A, B, and C Open Cut 

54.4 Sixmile Creek Tributary 5 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

55.2 Sixmile Creek Tributary 3 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

56.1 Sixmile Creek Tributary 2 Perennial A, B, and C Open Cut 

56.1 Sixmile Creek Tributary 3 Perennial A, B, and C Open Cut 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
APPENDIX D 

D-4 

TABLE D-1 (continued) 

Waterbodies Crossed by the Proposed East Texas to Mississippi Project 

Milepost Waterbody Name 

Crossing 

Width 

(feet) 

Waterbody 

Type 

State Water 

Quality 

Classificationa 

Proposed 

Crossing 

Method 

56.1 Sixmile Creek 4 Perennial A, B, and C Open Cut 

57.1 Saline Bayou 58 Perennial A, B, C, F, and G HDD 

58.1 Saline Bayou Tributary 2 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

58.1 Saline Bayou Tributary 2 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

58.1 Saline Bayou Tributary 6 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

58.5 Saline Bayou Tributary 2 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

58.5 Saline Bayou Tributary 2 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

59.1 Saline Bayou Tributary 1 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

59.9 Saline Bayou Tributary 2 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

60.0 Saline Bayou Tributary 1 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

60.0 Saline Bayou Tributary 2 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

60.0 Saline Bayou Tributary 1 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

60.1 Saline Bayou Tributary 4 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

60.3 Muddy Creek Tributary 2 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

60.9 Muddy Creek Tributary 1 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

60.9 Muddy Creek Tributary 3 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

60.9 Muddy Creek Tributary 4 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

61.2 Brush Creek Tributary 3 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

61.4 Muddy Creek Tributary 3 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

61.4 Muddy Creek Tributary 1 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

61.5 Muddy Creek Tributary 2 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

61.7 Muddy Creek Tributary 8 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

62.4 Brush Creek Tributary 5 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

62.4 Brush Creek Tributary 5 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

62.9 Brush Creek Tributary 9 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

62.9 Brush Creek Tributary 9 Perennial A, B, and C Open Cut 

62.9 Brush Creek Tributary 9 Perennial A, B, and C Open Cut 

62.9 Brush Creek Tributary 9 Perennial A, B, and C Open Cut 

63.0 Brush Creek Tributary 25 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

63.0 Brush Creek Tributary 26 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

63.0 Brush Creek Tributary 5 Perennial A, B, and C Open Cut 

63.0 Brush Creek Tributary 13 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

63.2 Brush Creek Tributary 2 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

63.3 Brush Creek 31 Perennial A, B, and C Open Cut 

63.3 Brush Creek 45 Perennial A, B, and C Open Cut 

63.3 Brush Creek 29 Perennial A, B, and C Open Cut 

63.3 Brush Creek Tributary 6 Perennial A, B, and C Open Cut 

63.7 Brush Creek Tributary 4 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

63.7 Brush Creek Tributary 0 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

63.7 Brush Creek Tributary 27 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

63.8 Brush Creek Tributary 6 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

63.8 Brush Creek Tributary 8 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

63.8 Brush Creek Tributary 10 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

64.3 Brush Creek Tributary 6 Perennial A, B, and C Open Cut 

66.0 Dukedall Creek Tributary 9 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

66.0 Dukedall Creek 27 Perennial A, B, and C Open Cut 

66.2 Dukedall Creek Tributary 10 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

66.2 Dukedall Creek Tributary 8 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

66.2 Dukedall Creek Tributary 8 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

66.5 Dukedall Creek Tributary 9 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

66.8 Dukedall Creek Tributary 3 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

67.0 Dukedall Creek Tributary 5 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

67.5 Dukedall Creek Tributary 3 Perennial A, B, and C Open Cut 

67.9 Coulee Creek Tributary 5 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

68.4 Coulee Creek Tributary 4 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

Jackson Parish, Louisiana 

68.9 Coulee Creek Tributary 14 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

68.9 Coulee Creek Tributary 25 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

68.9 Coulee Creek Tributary 7 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

68.9 Coulee Creek 112 Perennial A, B, and C Open Cut 

69.1 Coulee Creek 123 Perennial A, B, and C Open Cut 

69.2 Coulee Creek 22 Perennial A, B, and C Open Cut 

69.6 Coulee Creek Tributary 17 Perennial A, B, and C Open Cut 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
APPENDIX D 

D-5 

TABLE D-1 (continued) 

Waterbodies Crossed by the Proposed East Texas to Mississippi Project 

Milepost Waterbody Name 

Crossing 

Width 

(feet) 

Waterbody 

Type 

State Water 

Quality 

Classificationa 

Proposed 

Crossing 

Method 

69.6 Coulee Creek Tributary 13 Perennial A, B, and C Open Cut 

69.7 Coulee Creek Tributary 8 Perennial A, B, and C Open Cut 

70.3 Dugdemona River Tributary 9 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

70.5 Dugdemona River Tributary 6 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

71.2 Dugdemona River Tributary 5 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

71.5 Dugdemona River 54 Perennial A, B, and C HDD 

71.8 Unnamed Waterbody 25 Pond A, B, and C HDD 

72.0 Unnamed Waterbody 38 Pond A, B, and C HDD 

72.0 Unnamed Waterbody 77 Pond A, B, and C HDD 

72.6 Dugdemona River Tributary 3 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

72.9 Dugdemona River Tributary 10 Perennial A, B, and C Open Cut 

73.3 Dugdemona River Tributary 1 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

73.7 Little Dugdemona River Tributary 2 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

73.7 Little Dugdemona River Tributary 3 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

74.0 Little Dugdemona River Tributary 4 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

74.1 Little Dugdemona River Tributary 5 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

74.2 Little Dugdemona River Tributary 7 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

74.8 Little Dugdemona River Tributary 5 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

74.9 Little Dugdemona River Tributary 3 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

75.1 Little Dugdemona River Tributary 3 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

75.3 Little Dugdemona River Tributary 13 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

75.5 Little Dugdemona River Tributary 29 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

75.8 Willow Creek Tributary 3 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

75.9 Willow Creek 13 Perennial A, B, and C Open Cut 

76.1 Little Dugdemona River 43 Perennial A, B, and C Open Cut 

76.4 Little Dugdemona River Tributary 15 Perennial A, B, and C Open Cut 

77.0 Little Dugdemona River Tributary 3 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

77.0 Little Dugdemona River Tributary 26 Perennial A, B, and C Open Cut 

77.1 Little Dugdemona River Tributary 5 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

77.3 Little Dugdemona River Tributary 8 Perennial A, B, and C Open Cut 

77.5 Little Dugdemona River Tributary 17 Perennial A, B, and C Open Cut 

77.7 Little Dugdemona River Tributary 9 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

78.5 Little Dugdemona River Tributary 7 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

78.7 Little Dugdemona River Tributary 7 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

78.8 Little Dugdemona River Tributary 4 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

79.0 Little Dugdemona River Tributary 25 Perennial A, B, and C Open Cut 

79.2 Caney Creek Tributary 32 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

79.5 Caney Creek Tributary 1 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

79.6 Caney Creek Tributary 1 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

79.9 Caney Creek Tributary 2 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

80.3 Caney Creek 16 Perennial A, B, and C Open Cut 

81.2 Caney Creek Tributary 4 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

81.8 Cypress Creek Tributary 9 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

82.3 Hancock Creek Tributary 10 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

82.6 Hancock Creek Tributary 3 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

82.6 Hancock Creek Tributary 2 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

82.6 Hancock Creek Tributary 6 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

82.7 Hancock Creek Tributary 6 Perennial A, B, and C Open Cut 

82.7 Hancock Creek 9 Perennial A, B, and C Open Cut 

83.2 Hancock Creek Tributary 3 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

83.2 Hancock Creek Tributary 5 Perennial A, B, and C Open Cut 

83.6 Hancock Creek Tributary 1 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

83.6 Hancock Creek Tributary 1 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

83.9 Clear Branch Tributary 2 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

83.9 Clear Branch Tributary 2 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

83.9 Clear Branch Tributary 2 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

84.2 Clear Branch Tributary 2 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

84.3 Clear Branch Tributary 2 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

84.5 Clear Branch Tributary 2 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

84.7 Edwards Branch Tributary 3 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

85.1 Edwards Branch Tributary 2 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

85.2 Edwards Branch Tributary 8 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

85.4 Edwards Branch Tributary 2 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
APPENDIX D 

D-6 

TABLE D-1 (continued) 

Waterbodies Crossed by the Proposed East Texas to Mississippi Project 

Milepost Waterbody Name 

Crossing 

Width 

(feet) 

Waterbody 

Type 

State Water 

Quality 

Classificationa 

Proposed 

Crossing 

Method 

85.5 Edwards Branch Tributary 5 Perennial A, B, and C Open Cut 

87.0 Edwards Branch 17 Perennial A, B, and C Open Cut 

88.2 Chatham Lake Tributary 1 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

88.2 Chatham Lake Tributary 3 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

88.2 Chatham Lake Tributary 1 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

88.5 Chatham Lake Tributary 1 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

88.8 Castor Creek Tributary 1 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

89.0 Castor Creek Tributary 1 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

89.7 Castor Creek Tributary 13 Intermittent A, B, and C HDD 

89.8 Castor Creek 34 Perennial A, B, and C HDD 

89.9 Castor Creek Tributary 13 Intermittent A, B, and C HDD 

90.1 Castor Creek tributary 4 Intermittent A, B, and C HDD 

90.3 Castor Creek Tributary 4 Intermittent A, B, and C HDD 

90.5 Castor Creek Tributary 1 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

90.5 Castor Creek Tributary 1 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

90.5 Castor Creek Tributary 1 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

90.6 Castor Creek Tributary 5 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

91.0 Castor Creek Tributary 3 Perennial A, B, and C Open Cut 

91.1 Castor Creek Tributary 3 Perennial A, B, and C Open Cut 

91.1 Castor Creek Tributary 11 Perennial A, B, and C Open Cut 

91.5 Castor Creek Tributary 2 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

92.1 Castor Creek Tributary 1 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

92.1 Castor Creek Tributary 1 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

92.3 Castor Creek Tributary 12 Perennial A, B, and C Open Cut 

92.4 Castor Creek Tributary 5 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

92.4 Castor Creek Tributary 53 Perennial A, B, and C Open Cut 

92.5 Castor Creek Tributary 14 Perennial A, B, and C Open Cut 

92.6 Castor Creek Tributary 108 Perennial A, B, and C Open Cut 

92.7 Castor Creek Tributary 1 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

92.8 Castor Creek Tributary 1 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

92.8 Castor Creek Tributary 2 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

92.8 Castor Creek Tributary 1 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

92.8 Castor Creek Tributary 1 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

93.0 Castor Creek Tributary 11 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

93.0 Castor Creek Tributary 2 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

93.0 Castor Creek Tributary 3 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

93.0 Castor Creek Tributary 1 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

93.1 Castor Creek Tributary 1 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

93.1 Castor Creek Tributary 1 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

93.1 Castor Creek Tributary 5 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

93.1 Castor Creek Tributary 2 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

93.5 Castor Creek Tributary 1 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

93.9 Little Glade Creek Tributary 3 Perennial A, B, and C Open Cut 

93.9 Little Glade Creek Tributary 4 Perennial A, B, and C Open Cut 

93.9 Little Glade Creek Tributary 6 Perennial A, B, and C Open Cut 

94.2 Little Glade Creek Tributary 3 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

94.2 Little Glade Creek 8 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

94.2 Little Glade Creek 8 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

94.3 Little Glade Creek Tributary 2 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

94.7 Little Glade Creek Tributary 1 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

94.7 Little Glade Creek Tributary 3 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

95.1 Glade Creek Tributary 3 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

95.3 Glade Creek Tributary 3 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

95.3 Glade Creek Tributary 4 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

95.3 Glade Creek 20 Perennial A, B, and C Open Cut 

95.9 Cypress Creek Tributary 1 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

96.0 Cub Creek Tributary 2 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

96.2 Cub Creek Tributary 2 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

96.3 Cub Creek Tributary 8 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

96.5 Cub Creek Tributary 3 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

96.5 Cub Creek Tributary 35 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

96.8 Cub Creek Tributary 2 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

96.9 Cub Creek Tributary 1 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
APPENDIX D 

D-7 

TABLE D-1 (continued) 

Waterbodies Crossed by the Proposed East Texas to Mississippi Project 

Milepost Waterbody Name 

Crossing 

Width 

(feet) 

Waterbody 

Type 

State Water 

Quality 

Classificationa 

Proposed 

Crossing 

Method 

97.4 Cypress Creek Tributary 2 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

Ouachita Parish, Louisiana 

97.4 Cypress Creek Tributary 1 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

97.4 Cypress Creek Tributary 2 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

97.5 Cypress Creek Tributary 2 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

97.5 Cypress Creek Tributary 1 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

97.6 Cypress Creek Tributary 2 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

97.8 Cypress Creek Tributary 1 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

97.9 Cypress Creek Tributary 3 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

97.9 Cypress Creek Tributary 2 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

98.2 Cypress Creek Tributary 2 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

98.2 Cypress Creek Tributary 1 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

98.3 Cypress Creek Tributary 1 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

98.5 Cypress Creek Tributary 4 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

98.5 Cypress Creek Tributary 12 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

98.5 Cypress Creek Tributary 4 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

98.6 Cypress Creek Tributary 5 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

98.6 Cypress Creek Tributary 3 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

98.6 Cypress Creek Tributary 3 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

98.6 Cypress Creek Tributary 3 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

98.6 Cypress Creek Tributary 4 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

98.6 Cypress Creek Tributary 4 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

98.6 Cypress Creek Tributary 4 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

98.7 Cypress Creek Tributary 3 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

98.8 Cypress Creek Tributary 1 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

98.8 Cypress Creek Tributary 1 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

99.6 Cypress Creek Tributary 2 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut

100.1 Walters Creek Tributary 2 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

100.2 Walters Creek 10 Perennial A, B, and C Open Cut 

100.3 Walters Creek Tributary 1 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

100.8 Walters Creek Tributary 2 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

100.8 Walters Creek Tributary 4 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

101.0 Cypress Creek Tributary 4 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

101.1 Cypress Creek Tributary 1 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

101.1 Cypress Creek Tributary 11 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

101.4 Cypress Creek Tributary 10 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

101.6 Gladden Branch Tributary 1 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

102.3 Gladden Branch 9 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

102.9 Alligator Brake Tributary 4 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

103.1 Alligator Brake Tributary 2 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

105.0 Claire Branch Tributary 3 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

105.2 Claire Branch Tributary 3 Perennial A, B, and C Open Cut 

105.5 Claire Branch Tributary 2 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

106.0 Claire Branch Tributary 3 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

106.6 Cutoff Bayou Tributary 0 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

106.6 Cutoff Bayou Tributary 3 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

107.1 Cutoff Bayou Tributary 3 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

107.1 Cutoff Bayou Tributary 2 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

107.3 Cutoff Bayou Tributary 3 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

107.5 Cutoff Bayou Tributary 6 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

108.3 Cutoff Bayou Tributary 5 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

109.1 Cutoff Bayou 45 Perennial A, B, and C HDD 

110.7 Ouachita River 746 Perennial A, B, and C HDD 

112.3 Halfway Bayou Tributary 3 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

112.3 Halfway Bayou Tributary 200 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut

112.4 Halfway Bayou Tributary 1 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

112.7 Halfway Bayou Tributary 4 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

112.8 Halfway Bayou Tributary 1 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

113.3 Halfway Bayou Tributary 45 Perennial A, B, and C Open Cut 

114.7 Bayou LaFourche Tributary 4 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

Richland Parish, Louisiana 

115.3 Bayou LaFourche Tributary 12 Perennial A, B, and C HDD 

115.4 Bayou LaFourche Tributary 5 Intermittent A, B, and C HDD 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
APPENDIX D 

D-8 

TABLE D-1 (continued) 

Waterbodies Crossed by the Proposed East Texas to Mississippi Project 

Milepost Waterbody Name 

Crossing 

Width 

(feet) 

Waterbody 

Type 

State Water 

Quality 

Classificationa 

Proposed 

Crossing 

Method 

115.5 Bayou Lafourche 262 Perennial A, B, and C HDD 

115.6 Bayou LaFourche Tributary 8 Intermittent A, B, and C HDD 

115.7 Bayou LaFourche Tributary 16 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

115.8 Bayou LaFourche Tributary 74 Perennial A, B, and C Open Cut 

115.8 Bayou LaFourche Tributary 51 Perennial A, B, and C Open Cut 

116.1 Bayou LaFourche Tributary 13 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

116.1 Bayou LaFourche Tributary 11 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

116.4 Bayou LaFourche Tributary 9 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

116.4 Bayou LaFourche Tributary 16 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

117.0 Bayou Lafourche Tributary 13 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

117.0 Bayou Lafourche Tributary 68 Perennial A, B, and C Open Cut 

117.0 Bayou Lafourche Tributary 11 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

117.6 Bayou Lafourche Tributary 18 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

117.9 Bayou Lafourche Tributary 8 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

118.1 Bayou Lafourche Tributary 5 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

118.1 Bayou Lafourche Tributary 56 Perennial A, B, and C Open Cut 

118.1 Bayou Lafourche Tributary 5 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

118.4 Bayou Lafourche Tributary 25 Perennial A, B, and C Open Cut 

119.2 Boeuf River Tributary 7 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

120.9 Steep Bayou 26 Perennial A, B, and C HDD 

122.2 Boeuf River 140 Perennial A, B, and C HDD 

122.9 Boeuf River Tributary 27 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut

123.0 Boeuf River Tributary 18 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut

123.4 Boeuf River Tributary 4 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut

124.4 Muddy Bayou Tributary 16 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

124.9 Muddy Bayou Tributary 5 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut

124.9 Muddy Bayou Tributary 1 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

125.0 Muddy Bayou Tributary 5 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

125.3 Muddy Bayou Tributary 7 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

125.8 Muddy Bayou 6 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

126.1 Muddy Bayou Tributary 7 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

126.4 Mose Bayou 5 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

127.0 Mose Bayou Tributary 3 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

127.2 Cane Bayou Tributary 6 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

127.7 Cane Bayou 8 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

128.2 Little Creek 11 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

128.9 Little Creek Tributary 7 Perennial A, B, and C Open Cut 

129.1 Ash Slough 33 Perennial A, B, and C Open Cut 

129.5 Ash Slough Tributary 3 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

129.7 Ash Slough Tributary 5 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

129.7 Unnamed Drainage Ditch 2 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

129.8 Unnamed Drainage Ditch 2 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

129.8 Ash Slough Tributary 2 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

129.9 Ash Slough Tributary 6 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

130.2 Dry Fork Creek Tributary 3 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

130.8 Bee Bayou 11 Perennial A, B, and C HDD 

132.0 Wild Dog Creek Tributary 3 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

130.9 Bee Bayou 15 Perennial A, B, and C Open Cut

132.9 Wild Dog Creek 6 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

133.0 Wild Dog Creek Tributary 6 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

133.4 Hurricane Bayou 6 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

134.2 Big Creek Tributary 9 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

134.3 Big Creek Tributary 45 Pond A, B, and C Open Cut 

134.3 Big Creek Tributary 37 Pond A, B, and C Open Cut 

134.4 Big Creek Tributary 23 Pond A, B, and C Open Cut 

134.9 Big Creek Tributary 4 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

135.3 Big Creek Tributary 27 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

135.4 Big Creek Tributary 14 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

135.9 Cow Bayou 58 Perennial A, B, and C Open Cut 

136.4 Cow Bayou Tributary 16 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

136.8 Cow Bayou Tributary 19 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

136.8 Cow Bayou Tributary 2 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

137.1 Big Creek Tributary 5 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
APPENDIX D 

D-9 

TABLE D-1 (continued) 

Waterbodies Crossed by the Proposed East Texas to Mississippi Project 

Milepost Waterbody Name 

Crossing 

Width 

(feet) 

Waterbody 

Type 

State Water 

Quality 

Classificationa 

Proposed 

Crossing 

Method 

137.2 Big Creek Tributary 55 Perennial A, B, and C Open Cut 

137.6 Big Creek Tributary 21 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

138.0 Big Creek Tributary 12 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

138.6 Big Creek Tributary 19 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

138.9 Big Creek Tributary 4 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

139.0 Big Creek Tributary 3 Intermittent A, B, and C HDD 

139.4 Big Creek Tributary 54 Perennial A, B, and C Open Cut 

139.7 Big Creek Tributary 12 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

140.1 Cypress Creek 19 Perennial A, B, and C HDD 

140.1 Cypress Creek Tributary 2 Intermittent A, B, and C HDD 

140.5 Big Creek Tributary 2 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

140.5 Big Creek Tributary 4 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

140.7 Big Creek Tributary 3 Intermittent A, B, and C HDD 

140.9 Big Creek 78 Perennial A, B, and C HDD 

141.4 Big Creek Tributary 1 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

141.4 Big Creek Tributary 2 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

142.6 Big Creek Tributary 10 Perennial A, B, and C Open Cut 

142.9 Big Creek Tributary 33 Perennial A, B, and C Open Cut 

143.5 Muddy Slough 4 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

144.2 Ash Slough Tributary 12 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

144.2 Ash Slough Tributary 11 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

144.3 Ash Slough Tributary 4 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

144.5 Ash Slough 18 Perennial A, B, and C Open Cut 

144.5 Ash Slough Tributary 1 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

144.9 Ash Slough Tributary 4 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

145.1 Ash Slough Tributary 3 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

145.6 Ash Slough Tributary 13 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

146.3 Ash Slough Tributary 2 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

146.8 Turkey Creek Tributary 2 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

146.8 Turkey Creek 24 Perennial A, B, and C Open Cut 

147.1 Turkey Creek Tributary 13 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

148.2 Turkey Creek Tributary 4 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

148.5 Turkey Creek Tributary 4 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

148.8 Bayou Macon Tributary 5 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut

149.0 Bayou Macon Tributary 5 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut

149.7 Bayou Macon Tributary 5 Intermittent A, B, and C HDD

149.8 Bayou Macon Tributary 5 Intermittent A, B, and C HDD

149.8 Bayou Macon 200 Perennial A, B, and C HDD

150.1 Bayou Macon Tributary 48 Perennial A, B, and C HDD

Madison Parish, Louisiana 

150.8 Joes Bayou 55 Perennial A, B, and C Open Cut 

151.7 Joes Bayou Tributary 8 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

153.1 Sutt Bayou 43 Perennial A, B, and C Open Cut 

153.2 Sutt Bayou Tributary 20 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

153.8 Sutt Bayou Tributary 6 Perennial A, B, and C Open Cut 

153.8 Sutt Bayou Tributary 3 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

153.9 Sutt Bayou Tributary 8 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

154.0 Sutt Bayou Tributary 12 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut

154.4 Sutt Bayou Tributary 6 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut

156.1 Tensas River Tributary 4 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

156.1 Tensas River Tributary 4 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

156.1 Tensas River Tributary 10 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

156.7 Tensas River Tributary 21 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

157.2 Tensas River Tributary 15 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

157.6 Tensas River Tributary 15 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

158.5 Tensas River Tributary 5 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

158.8 Tensas River Tributary 4 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

159.1 Tensas River Tributary 4 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

159.1 Tensas River Tributary 4 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

159.2 Tensas River Tributary 23 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

159.3 Tensas River Tributary 6 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

159.4 Tensas River Tributary 20 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

159.6 Tensas River Tributary 9 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
APPENDIX D 

D-10 

TABLE D-1 (continued) 

Waterbodies Crossed by the Proposed East Texas to Mississippi Project 

Milepost Waterbody Name 

Crossing 

Width 

(feet) 

Waterbody 

Type 

State Water 

Quality 

Classificationa 

Proposed 

Crossing 

Method 

159.9 Tensas River 90 Perennial A, B, and C HDD 

160.0 Tensas River Tributary 1 Intermittent A, B, and C HDD 

160.0 Tensas River Tributary 4 Intermittent A, B, and C HDD 

160.2 Despair Lake Tributary 10 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

161.2 Despair Lake 181 Perennial A, B, and C HDD 

161.3 Despair Lake Tributary 1 Intermittent A, B, and C HDD 

161.4 Despair Lake Tributary 1 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

161.5 Despair Lake Tributary 1 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

161.5 Despair Lake Tributary 1 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

161.6 Despair Lake Tributary 1 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

161.6 Despair Lake Tributary 1 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

161.7 Despair Lake Tributary 1 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

161.7 Despair Lake Tributary 21 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

162.2 Despair Lake Tributary 2 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

162.6 Despair Lake Tributary 8 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

162.9 Despair Lake Tributary 4 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

163.4 Mothigham Bayou Tributary 2 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

163.4 Mothigham Bayou Tributary 2 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

163.4 Mothigham Bayou Tributary 5 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

163.5 Mothigham Bayou Tributary 7 Intermittent A, B, and C HDD 

163.6 Mothigham Bayou 169 Perennial A, B, and C HDD 

163.7 Mothigham Bayou Tributary 7 Intermittent A, B, and C HDD 

164.0 Mothigham Bayou Tributary 2 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

164.5 Mothigham Bayou Tributary 26 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

166.3 Roundaway Bayou 25 Perennial A, B, and C Open Cut 

166.6 Roundaway Bayou Tributary 2 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

166.7 Roundaway Bayou Tributary 60 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

166.7 Roundaway Bayou Tributary 2 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

167.1 Roundaway Bayou Tributary 6 Intermittent A, B, and C HDD 

167.2 Roundaway Bayou Tributary 88 Perennial A, B, and C HDD 

167.6 Roundaway Bayou Tributary 9 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

167.6 Roundaway Bayou Tributary 107 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut

167.6 Roundaway Bayou Tributary 68 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut

168.1 Roundaway Bayou Tributary 4 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

172.8 Walnut Bayou 336 Perennial A, B, and C HDD 

173.5 Sip Lake Tributary 1 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

173.6 Sip Lake Tributary 7 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

173.9 Sip Lake Tributary 1 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

174.0 Sip Lake Tributary 1 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

174.2 Sandbank Lake Tributary 2 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

174.4 Sandbank Lake Tributary 8 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

174.6 Sandbank Lake Tributary 15 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

174.6 Sandbank Lake Tributary 43 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

174.8 Sandbank Lake Tributary 4 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

175.7 Big Lake Tributary 2 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

176.4 Long Lake Tributary 3 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

177.1 Long Lake Tributary 3 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

177.5 Walnut Bayou 197 Perennial A, B, and C HDD 

178.0 Cypress Bayou Tributary 32 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

178.2 Cypress Bayou Tributary 31 Perennial A, B, and C Open Cut 

178.6 Cypress Bayou 13 Perennial A, B, and C Open Cut 

179.0 Cypress Bayou Tributary 3 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

179.0 Cypress Bayou Tributary 4 Perennial A, B, and C Open Cut 

179.1 Cypress Bayou Tributary 7 Perennial A, B, and C Open Cut 

179.7 Mississippi River Tributary 8 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

179.8 Mississippi River Tributary 8 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

179.9 Mississippi River Tributary 11 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

180.0 Mississippi River Tributary 10 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

180.1 Mississippi River Tributary 9 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

180.3 Mississippi River Tributary 16 Perennial A, B, and C Open Cut 

180.4 Mississippi River Tributary 6 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

180.7 Mississippi River Tributary 15 Perennial A, B, and C Open Cut 

180.9 Mississippi River Tributary 7 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
APPENDIX D 

D-11 

TABLE D-1 (continued) 

Waterbodies Crossed by the Proposed East Texas to Mississippi Project 

Milepost Waterbody Name 

Crossing 

Width 

(feet) 

Waterbody 

Type 

State Water 

Quality 

Classificationa 

Proposed 

Crossing 

Method 

181.1 Mississippi River Tributary 9 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

181.3 Mississippi River Tributary 9 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

181.4 Mississippi River Tributary 6 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

181.5 Mississippi River Tributary 6 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

181.6 Mississippi River Tributary 3 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

181.8 Mississippi River Tributary 4 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

181.8 Mississippi River Tributary 5 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

182.0 Mississippi River Tributary 6 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

182.6 Mississippi River 4182 Perennial A, B, and C HDD 

Warren County, Mississippi 

184.8 Mississippi River Tributary 14 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

185.2 Hennesseys Bayou 36 Perennial A, B, and C Open Cut 

185.1 Hennesseys Bayou 30 Perennial A, B, and C HDD

185.4 Hennesseys Bayou Tributary 38 Perennial A, B, and C HDD 

185.4 Hennesseys Bayou Tributary 6 Intermittent A, B, and C HDD 

185.4 Hennesseys Bayou Tributary 2 Intermittent A, B, and C HDD 

185.6 Hennesseys Bayou Tributary 36 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

185.6 Hennesseys Bayou Tributary 21 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

185.7 Hennesseys Bayou Tributary 10 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

185.7 Hennesseys Bayou Tributary 3 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

185.7 Hennesseys Bayou Tributary 11 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

185.9 Hennesseys Bayou Tributary 3 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

185.9 Hennesseys Bayou Tributary 11 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

185.9 Hennesseys Bayou Tributary 9 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

186.0 Hennesseys Bayou Tributary 2 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

186.0 Hennesseys Bayou Tributary 3 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

186.2 Hatcher Bayou Tributary 2 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

186.3 Hatcher Bayou Tributary 4 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

186.3 Hatcher Bayou Tributary 2 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

186.4 Hatcher Bayou Tributary 4 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

186.7 Hatcher Bayou Tributary 7 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

186.8 Hatcher Bayou Tributary 3 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

186.9 Hatcher Bayou Tributary 5 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

187.1 Hatcher Bayou Tributary 2 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

187.1 Hatcher Bayou Tributary 2 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

187.1 Hatcher Bayou Tributary 17 Perennial A, B, and C Open Cut 

187.3 Hatcher Bayou Tributary 15 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

187.3 Hatcher Bayou Tributary 7 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

187.3 Hatcher Bayou Tributary 6 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

187.4 Hatcher Bayou Tributary 4 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

187.6 Hatcher Bayou Tributary 18 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

187.7 Hatcher Bayou Tributary 2 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

187.8 Hatcher Bayou Tributary 11 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

187.8 Hatcher Bayou Tributary 2 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

187.9 Hatcher Bayou Tributary 6 Perennial A, B, and C Open Cut 

187.9 Hatcher Bayou Tributary 6 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

187.9 Hatcher Bayou Tributary 5 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

187.9 Hatcher Bayou Tributary 2 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

188.0 Hatcher Bayou Tributary 3 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

188.0 Hatcher Bayou Tributary 4 Perennial A, B, and C Open Cut 

188.1 Hatcher Bayou Tributary 32 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

188.1 Hatcher Bayou Tributary 4 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

188.2 Hatcher Bayou Tributary 4 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

188.2 Hatcher Bayou Tributary 2 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

188.4 Hatcher Bayou Tributary 10 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

188.6 Hatcher Bayou Tributary 22 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

188.8 Hatcher Bayou Tributary 50 Perennial A, B, and C Open Cut 

188.8 Hatcher Bayou Tributary 33 Perennial A, B, and C Open Cut 

188.8 Hatcher Bayou Tributary 4 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

188.8 Hatcher Bayou Tributary 3 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

188.8 Hatcher Bayou Tributary 4 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

188.8 Hatcher Bayou Tributary 5 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

189.3 Hatcher Bayou Tributary 9 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
APPENDIX D 

D-12 

TABLE D-1 (continued) 

Waterbodies Crossed by the Proposed East Texas to Mississippi Project 

Milepost Waterbody Name 

Crossing 

Width 

(feet) 

Waterbody 

Type 

State Water 

Quality 

Classificationa 

Proposed 

Crossing 

Method 

189.3 Hatcher Bayou Tributary 18 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

189.5 Hatcher Bayou Tributary 4 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

189.5 Hatcher Bayou Tributary 5 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

190.0 Hatcher Bayou Tributary 13 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

190.3 Hatcher Bayou Tributary 9 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

191.8 Markham Creek Tributary 12 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

192.0 Markham Creek Tributary 3 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

192.6 Markham Creek Tributary 12 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

193.1 Markham Creek Tributary 2 Perennial A, B, and C Open Cut 

193.2 Markham Creek Tributary 2 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

193.3 Markham Creek Tributary 3 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

193.7 Markham Creek Tributary 2 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

193.9 Markham Creek Tributary 24 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

194.0 Markham Creek Tributary 34 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

194.0 Markham Creek Tributary 22 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

194.0 Markham Creek Tributary 3 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

194.3 Markham Creek Tributary 4 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

194.4 Markham Creek Tributary 3 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

194.6 Markham Creek Tributary 8 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

194.7 Markham Creek Tributary 3 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

194.9 Markham Creek Tributary 6 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

195.2 Markham Creek 11 Perennial A, B, and C Open Cut 

195.2 Markham Creek 14 Perennial A, B, and C Open Cut 

195.9 Big Black River Tributary 10 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

196.1 Unnamed Drainage Ditch 1 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

196.3 Big Black River Tributary 6 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

196.7 Big Black River 193 Perennial A, B, and C HDD 

Hinds County, Mississippi 

199.1 Fourteenmile Creek Tributary 7 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

199.2 Fourteenmile Creek Tributary 48 Perennial A, B, and C Open Cut 

200.7 Fourteenmile Creek Tributary 5 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

201.4 Fourteenmile Creek Tributary 4 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

201.7 Fourteenmile Creek Tributary 22 Perennial A, B, and C Open Cut 

202.7 Fourteenmile Creek Tributary 4 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

202.9 Fourteenmile Creek Tributary 3 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

203.7 Bakers Creek Tributary 2 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

203.8 Bakers Creek 55 Perennial A, B, and C HDD 

203.8 Bakers Creek Tributary 3 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

204.1 Bakers Creek Tributary 10 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

204.5 Fourteenmile Creek Tributary 4 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

204.7 Fourteenmile Creek Tributary 2 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

205.0 Fourteenmile Creek Tributary 3 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

205.3 Fourteenmile Creek Tributary 1 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

205.3 Fourteenmile Creek Tributary 6 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

205.6 Fourteenmile Creek Tributary 26 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

206.3 Fourteenmile Creek Tributary 15 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

207.7 Turkey Creek Tributary 2 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

208.0 Turkey Creek 10 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

208.1 Turkey Creek Tributary 2 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

208.1 Turkey Creek Tributary 2 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

208.2 Turkey Creek Tributary 3 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

208.6 Turkey Creek Tributary 5 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

209.2 Fourteenmile Creek Tributary 11 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

209.6 Fourteenmile Creek Tributary 3 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

210.0 Fourteenmile Creek Tributary 2 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

210.5 Snake Creek Tributary 4 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

210.5 Snake Creek 8 Perennial A, B, and C Open Cut 

210.5 Snake Creek Tributary 1 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

211.3 Fourteenmile Creek Tributary 2 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

211.4 Fourteenmile Creek 3 Perennial A, B, and C Open Cut 

211.4 Fourteenmile Creek Tributary 1 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

211.5 Fourteenmile Creek Tributary 5 Perennial A, B, and C Open Cut 

211.6 Fourteenmile Creek Tributary 9 Perennial A, B, and C Open Cut 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
APPENDIX D 

D-13 

TABLE D-1 (continued) 

Waterbodies Crossed by the Proposed East Texas to Mississippi Project 

Milepost Waterbody Name 

Crossing 

Width 

(feet) 

Waterbody 

Type 

State Water 

Quality 

Classificationa 

Proposed 

Crossing 

Method 

211.6 Fourteenmile Creek Tributary 13 Perennial A, B, and C Open Cut 

211.6 Fourteenmile Creek Tributary 8 Perennial A, B, and C Open Cut 

213.0 Moore Spring Branch Tributary 2 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

213.2 Moore Spring Branch 18 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

214.2 Hamilton Creek Tributary 5 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

214.4 Hamilton Creek Tributary 7 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

214.6 Snake Creek Tributary 7 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

214.7 Snake Creek Tributary 5 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

214.8 Snake Creek Tributary 1 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

214.9 Snake Creek Tributary 9 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

214.9 Snake Creek Tributary 4 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

215.2 Snake Creek 3 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

215.4 Snake Creek Tributary 6 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

215.5 Snake Creek Tributary 3 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

215.5 Snake Creek Tributary 4 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

215.6 Snake Creek Tributary 8 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

215.6 Snake Creek Tributary 5 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

215.7 Snake Creek Tributary 9 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

215.7 Snake Creek Tributary 7 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

216.2 Tallahalla Creek Tributary 3 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

216.8 Tallahalla Creek Tributary 6 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

217.2 Tallahalla Creek 13 Perennial A, B, and C Open Cut 

217.4 Tallahalla Creek Tributary 5 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

217.5 Tallahalla Creek Tributary 6 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

217.5 Tallahalla Creek Tributary 11 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

217.5 Tallahalla Creek Tributary 6 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

217.7 Tallahalla Creek Tributary 4 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

218.0 Elda Hill Creek Tributary 4 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

218.2 Elda Hill Creek Tributary 2 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

218.6 Elda Hill Creek Tributary 49 Perennial A, B, and C Open Cut 

219.0 Elda Hill Creek Tributary 4 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

219.0 Elda Hill Creek Tributary 21 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

219.0 Elda Hill Creek Tributary 22 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

219.0 Elda Hill Creek Tributary 10 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

219.2 Elda Hill Creek 36 Perennial A, B, and C Open Cut 

219.3 Elda Hill Creek Tributary 2 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

219.6 Elda Hill Creek Tributary 2 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

219.7 Elda Hill Creek Tributary 2 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

219.7 Elda Hill Creek Tributary 1 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

219.7 Elda Hill Creek Tributary 2 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

219.8 Elda Hill Creek Tributary 2 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

219.8 Elda Hill Creek Tributary 2 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

219.8 Elda Hill Creek Tributary 2 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

219.8 Elda Hill Creek Tributary 5 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

220.0 Elda Hill Creek Tributary 3 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

220.1 Elda Hill Creek Tributary 3 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

220.4 Elda Hill Creek Tributary 4 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

220.5 Elda Hill Creek Tributary 7 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

220.5 Elda Hill Creek Tributary 4 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

220.5 Elda Hill Creek Tributary 8 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

220.6 Elda Hill Creek Tributary 3 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

220.7 Elda Hill Creek Tributary 3 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

220.7 Elda Hill Creek Tributary 3 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

220.8 Elda Hill Creek Tributary 9 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

220.8 Elda Hill Creek Tributary 5 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

220.8 Elda Hill Creek Tributary 3 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

221.0 Elda Hill Creek Tributary 17 Perennial A, B, and C Open Cut 

221.1 Elda Hill Creek Tributary 7 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

221.2 Elda Hill Creek Tributary 15 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

221.5 Elda Hill Creek Tributary 26 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

222.9 Harris Creek Tributary 9 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

223.4 Harris Creek Tributary 6 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

223.5 Harris Creek Tributary 3 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
APPENDIX D 

D-14 

TABLE D-1 (continued) 

Waterbodies Crossed by the Proposed East Texas to Mississippi Project 

Milepost Waterbody Name 

Crossing 

Width 

(feet) 

Waterbody 

Type 

State Water 

Quality 

Classificationa 

Proposed 

Crossing 

Method 

223.8 Harris Creek Tributary 4 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

224.0 Harris Creek Tributary 3 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

225.1 Beaverdam Creek 23 Perennial A, B, and C Open Cut 

225.3 Beaverdam Creek Tributary 10 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

225.3 Beaverdam Creek Tributary 21 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

225.4 Beaverdam Creek Tributary 39 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

225.7 Vaughn Creek Tributary 13 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

225.7 Vaughn Creek Tributary 16 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

225.8 Vaughn Creek Tributary 13 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

225.8 Vaughn Creek Tributary 14 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

225.8 Vaughn Creek Tributary 10 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

226.4 Vaughn Creek Tributary 8 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

226.4 Vaughn Creek Tributary 8 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

226.7 Vaughn Creek Tributary 6 Perennial A, B, and C Open Cut 

226.7 Vaughn Creek 13 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

226.7 Vaughn Creek Tributary 39 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

226.7 Vaughn Creek Tributary 12 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

227.4 Vaughn Creek Tributary 5 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

227.7 Chestnut Creek Tributary 8 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

227.8 Chestnut Creek Tributary 15 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

227.8 Chestnut Creek Tributary 12 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

227.8 Chestnut Creek Tributary 9 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

227.9 Chestnut Creek Tributary 3 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

228.2 Chestnut Creek Tributary 3 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

228.2 Chestnut Creek Tributary 15 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

228.3 Chestnut Creek Tributary 7 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

228.3 Chestnut Creek Tributary 10 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

228.4 Chestnut Creek Tributary 3 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

228.5 Chestnut Creek Tributary 3 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

229.4 Chestnut Creek 29 Perennial A, B, and C Open Cut 

Copiah County, Mississippi 

229.6 Chestnut Creek 15 Perennial A, B, and C Open Cut 

229.6 Chestnut Creek 42 Perennial A, B, and C Open Cut 

229.6 Chestnut Creek 19 Perennial A, B, and C Open Cut 

230.5 Chestnut Creek Tributary 3 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

230.7 Chestnut Creek Tributary 8 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

230.7 Chestnut Creek Tributary 5 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

230.8 Chestnut Creek Tributary 8 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

230.8 Chestnut Creek Tributary 7 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

231.1 Chestnut Creek Tributary 14 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

231.1 Chestnut Creek Tributary 14 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

232.3 Pearl River Tributary 1 Intermittent A, B, and C HDD 

232.3 Pearl River 238 Perennial A, B, and C HDD 

Simpson County, Mississippi 

232.4 Pearl River Tributary 3 Intermittent A, B, and C HDD 

232.5 Pearl River Tributary 5 Intermittent A, B, and C HDD 

232.5 Pearl River Tributary 3 Intermittent A, B, and C HDD 

233.6 Pearl River Tributary 9 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

235.4 Rocky Creek Tributary 4 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

235.6 Rocky Creek Tributary 4 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

235.6 Rocky Creek Tributary 4 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

235.7 Rocky Creek Tributary 6 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

235.7 Rocky Creek Tributary 16 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

235.7 Rocky Creek Tributary 10 Perennial A, B, and C Open Cut 

236.0 Rocky Creek Tributary 4 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

236.0 Rocky Creek Tributary 4 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

236.3 Rocky Creek Tributary 4 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

236.3 Rocky Creek Tributary 6 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

236.6 Rocky Creek Tributary 3 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

236.7 Rocky Creek Tributary 9 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

236.8 Rocky Creek Tributary 3 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

236.8 Rocky Creek Tributary 6 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

236.9 Rocky Creek Tributary 4 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
APPENDIX D 

D-15 

TABLE D-1 (continued) 

Waterbodies Crossed by the Proposed East Texas to Mississippi Project 

Milepost Waterbody Name 

Crossing 

Width 

(feet) 

Waterbody 

Type 

State Water 

Quality 

Classificationa 

Proposed 

Crossing 

Method 

237.0 Rocky Creek Tributary 8 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

237.0 Rocky Creek Tributary 5 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

237.0 Rocky Creek Tributary 5 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

237.1 Rocky Creek Tributary 3 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

237.2 Rocky Creek Tributary 5 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

237.8 Rocky Creek Tributary 4 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

237.9 Rocky Creek Tributary 6 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

237.9 Rocky Creek Tributary 4 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

237.9 Rocky Creek Tributary 5 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

238.0 Rocky Creek Tributary 4 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

238.0 Rocky Creek Tributary 4 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

238.1 Rocky Creek Tributary 4 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

238.1 Rocky Creek Tributary 9 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

238.2 Rocky Creek Tributary 6 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

238.3 Rocky Creek Tributary 7 Intermittent A, B, and C Open Cut 

Access Roads 

23.6 Cowpen Bayou 152.14 Intermittent A, B, and C 

Temporary 

Bridge 

112.2 Halfway Bayou Tributary 30 Intermittent A, B, and C Culvert 

185.5 Hennesseys Bayou Tributary 37 Intermittent A, B, and C Culvert 

219.7 Elda Hill Creek Tributary 10 Intermittent A, B, and C Culvert 

____________ 

Notes: 

a

 State Water Quality Classifications according to the LDEQ, Title 33 Environmental Regulatory Code, Part IX, 

Chapter 11 Surface Water Quality Standards; MDEQ Water Quality Criteria for Intrastate, Interstate, and Coastal 

Waters; Water Quality Standards for the State of Texas, Surface Water Quality Standards, Chapter 307: 

 Louisiana 

 A: Primary Contact Recreation. Includes any recreational or other water use involving body contact. 

 B: Secondary Contact Recreation. Includes any recreational or other water use in which body contact is 

incidental or accidental, such as fishing, wading, commercial or recreational boating, and any limited contact 

incident to shoreline activities. 

 C: Fish and Wildlife Propagation. Includes the use of water for aquatic habitat, food, resting, reproduction, cover, 

and/or travel corridors for any indigenous wildlife and aquatic life species associated with the aquatic 

environment. 

 F: Agriculure. involves the use of water for crop spraying, irrigation, livestock watering, or other farm purposes 

not related to human consumption. 

 G: Outstanding Natural Resource Waters. Includes water bodies designated for preservation, protection, 

reclamation, or enhancement for wilderness, aesthetic qualities, and ecological regimes. 

 Mississippi 

A. Fish and Wildlife. Includes any waters used for fishing of the propogation of fish, aquatic life, or wildlife. 

B. Public Water Supply. Includes any waters used as a source of raw water supply for drinking and food 

processing purposes. 

C. Recreation. Includes any waters suitable for recreational purpose. 

 Texas 

 5. Aquatic Life. 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
APPENDIX E 

AFFECTED WETLANDS 

Appendix E-1 Wetlands Affected by the Proposed East Texas to Mississippi Expansion 

Project 

Appendix E-2 Summary of the Proposed Alternative Measures to Our Procedures in 

Wetland Areas for the Proposed East Texas to Mississippi Expansion 

Project 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
APPENDIX E-1 

Wetlands Affected by the Proposed East Texas to Mississippi Expansion Project 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
APPENDIX E-1 

E1-1

TABLE E-1 

Wetlands Affected by the Proposed East Texas to Mississippi Expansion Project 

Wetland Enter MP Exit MP 

National 

Wetland 

Inventory 

Classificationa

Crossing 

Length 

(feet)b

Total Area 

Affected by 

Construction 

(acres)b,c,d

Total Area 

Affected by 30-

Foot Wide 

Operation Easement 

(acres) b,c,d

Total Area 

Affected by 10

Foot Wide 

Operation Easement 

(acres) b,c,d 

Panola County, Texas 

EWw04PEM H0.9 H0.9 PEM 42 0.07 0.03 0.01 

EWw02PSS H1.0 H1.0 PSS 79 0.11 0.06 0.01 

EWw07PFO H1.2 H1.2 PFO 57 0.11 0.04 0.03 EWw11PFO H1.7 H1.7 PFO 332 0.55 0.25 0.01 

EWw15PSS H1.9 H2.1 PSS 893 1.20 0.50 <0.01 EWw19PSS H2.4 H2.4 PSS 21 0.05 <0.02 <0.01 

EW20PEM H2.4 H2.4 PEM 43 0.07 0.05 0.01 

DeSoto Parish, Louisiana 

EWw50PEM 1.7 1.7 PEM 9 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 EWw51PEM 1.7 1.7 PEM 59 0.04 0.01 <0.01 

BPOW1 5.1 5.1 POW 23 <0.01 0.00 0.00 

PDP31W 6.9 6.9 PFO 40 0.04 0.02 0.01 PDP38W 7.8 7.8 PEM 22 0.03 0.02 0.01 

BBDP2W 17.5 17.5 PFO 52 0.05 0.03 0.01 BBDP6W 17.6 17.6 PFO 11 0.01 0.01 <0.01 

YWL3PFO 17.7 17.8 PFO 285 0.23 0.12 0.04 

DW64PFO 19.1 19.1 PFO 51 0.05 0.03 <0.01 

DW63PEM 19.1 19.1 PEM 1 0.06 0.04 <0.01 

PDP42W 19.2 19.2 PEM 111 0.02 0.01 0.00 PDP47W 19.4 19.4 PEM 103 0.03 0.02 <0.01 PDP46W 19.4 19.4 PFO 112 0.07 0.02 <0.01 PDP48W 19.5 19.5 PEM 24 0.02 0.00 0.00 

MDP23W 20.8 20.8 PFO 23 <0.01 0.00 0.00 MDP20W 21.0 21.0 PEM 192 0.04 0.02 <0.01 MDP17W 21.0 21.0 PFO 313 0.32 0.19 0.07 MDP13W 21.1 21.1 PEM 87 0.02 0.01 <0.01 MDP12W 21.2 21.2 PEM 100 <0.17 <0.07 <0.01 

DW66PEM 21.2 21.2 PEM 124 0.02 <0.02 <0.01 

MDP9W 21.2 21.2 PEM 18 0.02 0.02 0.02 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
APPENDIX E-1 

E1-2

TABLE E-1 (continued) 

Wetlands Affected by the Proposed East Texas to Mississippi Expansion Project 

Wetland Enter MP Exit MP 

National 

Wetland 

Inventory 

Classificationa

Crossing 

Length 

(feet)b

Total Area 

Affected by 

Construction 

(acres)b,c,d

Total Area 

Affected by 30-

Foot Wide 

Operation Easement 

(acres) b,c,d

Total Area 

Affected by 10

Foot Wide 

Operation Easement 

(acres) b,c,d 

DW67PEM 21.3 21.3 PEM 68 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 

Red River Parish, Louisiana 

QDP16W 27.4 27.4 PEM 9 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 

EW502PEM 28.8 28.9 PEM 1609 2.04 1.11 0.37 EW503PEM 29.2 29.2 PEM 54 0.03 0.00 0.00 

ADP100W 31.4 31.4 PSS 22 0.02 0.02 <0.01 

ADP97W 31.5 31.5 PFO 116 0.14 0.08 0.03 ADP96W 31.5 31.5 PSS 106 0.15 0.08 0.02 

EW49PSS 33.2 33.2 PSS 352 0.40 0.22 0.08 

EW31PFO 33.5 33.5 PFO 71 0.08 0.05 0.02 EW42PFO 34.3 34.4 PFO 741 0.87 0.49 0.17 EW28PFO 34.5 34.5 PFO 138 0.18 0.09 0.03 

EW27PSS 34.7 34.7 PSS 107 0.13 0.07 0.02 

EW26PEM 35.1 35.1 PEM 58 <0.01 0.00 0.00 EW22PEM 35.7 35.7 PEM 19 0.01 0.01 <0.01 EW23PEM 35.7 35.7 PEM 19 0.02 0.01 <0.01 EW24PEM 35.7 35.7 PEM 10 0.02 0.01 <0.01 EW21PEM 35.8 35.8 PEM 47 0.05 0.03 0.01 

Bienville Parish, Louisiana 

EW2PEM 36.0 36.0 PEM 19 0.03 0.01 <0.01 EW4PEM 36.3 36.3 PEM 29 0.01 0.01 <0.01 

EW19PFO 36.4 36.4 PFO 309 0.90 0.51 0.16 

EW33PSS 36.6 36.6 PSS 10 0.03 0.01 <0.01 EW16PSS 36.8 36.8 PSS 141 0.18 0.10 0.03 

EW15PFO 36.9 36.9 PFO 26 0.03 0.02 0.01 

EW14PEM 36.9 36.9 PEM 161 0.19 0.10 0.04 EW12PEM 37.3 37.3 PEM 96 <0.01 0.00 0.00 

EW10PFO 37.4 37.4 PFO 96 0.10 0.06 0.02 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
APPENDIX E-1 

E1-3

TABLE E-1 (continued) 

Wetlands Affected by the Proposed East Texas to Mississippi Expansion Project 

Wetland Enter MP Exit MP 

National 

Wetland 

Inventory 

Classificationa

Crossing 

Length 

(feet)b

Total Area 

Affected by 

Construction 

(acres)b,c,d

Total Area 

Affected by 30-

Foot Wide 

Operation 

Easement 

(acres) b,c,d

Total Area 

Affected by 10

Foot Wide 

Operation Easement 

(acres) b,c,d 

EW11PFO 37.4 37.4 PFO 94 0.10 0.04 0.02 

EW9PEM 37.9 37.9 PEM 18 <0.01 0.00 0.00 EW8PEM 38.0 38.0 PEM 41 0.02 0.00 0.00 EW7PEM 38.0 38.0 PEM 57 0.06 0.04 0.01 

DW2PSS 39.7 39.7 PFO 89 0.07 0.04 0.02 

DW2PEM 39.8 39.8 PSS 35 <0.01 0.00 0.00 

DW16PFO 41.0 41.0 PFO 69 0.09 0.05 0.02 

DW13PSS 41.0 41.0 PSS 138 0.15 0.09 0.03 

DW9PFO 41.8 41.8 PFO 10 <0.01 0.00 0.00 

DW10PFO 41.8 41.8 PFO 33 0.03 0.02 0.01 DW21PFO 41.9 41.9 PFO 38 0.24 0.03 0.01 DW24PFO 42.2 42.2 PFO 33 0.11 0.10 0.01 DW23PFO 42.2 42.2 PFO 112 0.72 0.08 0.03 DW24PFO 42.3 43.2 PFO 3,073 0.00 0.00 0.00 

DW25PEM 43.2 43.4 PEM 1,011 0.00 0.00 0.00 DW29PEM 43.5 43.5 PEM 28 0.04 0.02 0.01 

DW32PFO 43.6 43.6 PFO 139 0.29 0.12 0.03 

DW37PEM 44.0 44.1 PEM 665 0.38 0.35 0.15 

DW38PFO 45.4 45.4 PFO 40 0.10 0.04 0.01 DW53PFO 46.4 46.4 PFO 174 0.20 0.10 0.04 

DW46PSS 46.6 46.6 PSS 58 0.06 0.03 0.01 

DW41PEM 46.9 46.9 PEM 83 0.01 0.00 0.00 

DW42PFO 46.9 46.9 PFO 44 0.02 0.01 <0.01 DW43PFO 46.9 46.9 PFO 42 0.06 0.03 0.01 

DW40PEM 47.0 47.0 PEM 49 <0.01 0.00 0.00 DW39PEM 47.0 47.0 PEM 120 0.02 <0.01 <0.01 DW54PEM 48.4 48.4 PEM 35 0.04 0.02 0.01 

DW56PFO 48.5 48.5 PFO 375 0.50 0.26 0.09 

DW57PEM 48.6 48.6 PEM 35 0.03 0.02 0.01 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
APPENDIX E-1 

E1-4

TABLE E-1 (continued) 

Wetlands Affected by the Proposed East Texas to Mississippi Expansion Project 

Wetland Enter MP Exit MP 

National 

Wetland 

Inventory 

Classificationa

Crossing 

Length 

(feet)b

Total Area 

Affected by 

Construction 

(acres)b,c,d

Total Area 

Affected by 30-

Foot Wide 

Operation Easement 

(acres) b,c,d

Total Area 

Affected by 10

Foot Wide 

Operation Easement 

(acres) b,c,d 

DW58 48.8 48.8 PFO 354 0.37 0.20 0.08 

DW60PFO 49.0 49.0 PFO 56 0.05 0.05 0.01 

DW122PFO 50.5 50.5 PFO 392 0.66 0.27 0.09 

DW123PEM 50.7 50.7 PEM 235 0.40 0.17 0.05 

DW124PSS 51.1 51.1 PSS 219 0.38 0.15 0.05 

DW125PFO 51.2 51.2 PFO 384 0.67 0.26 0.09 DW126PFO 52.8 52.8 PFO 217 0.39 0.15 0.05 DW127PFO 54.2 54.2 PFO 102 0.18 0.13 0.04 DW128PFO 54.2 54.2 PFO 194 0.35 0.07 0.02 

EW72PFO 56.1 56.1 PFO 25 0.10 0.04 0.01 EW73PFO 56.1 56.1 PFO 356 0.61 0.24 0.08 EW74PFO 56.4 56.4 PFO 130 0.26 0.09 0.03 

EW75PSS 56.6 56.6 PSS 173 0.30 0.12 0.04 

EW76PFO 57.0 57.0 PFO 192 0.00 0.00 0.00 EW78PFO 57.1 57.4 PFO 1,339 0.00 0.00 0.00 

EW79PEM 57.4 57.5 PEM 207 0.00 0.00 0.00 EW80PEM 57.4 57.4 PFO 790 3.08 1.43 0.95 

DW87PEM 57.6 57.7 PEM 881 2.71 1.77 0.20 

DW88PFO 57.7 57.7 PFO 92 1.63 0.78 0.10 

DW89PEM 58.1 58.1 PEM 78 0.06 0.05 0.02 DW91PEM 58.8 58.8 PEM 62 0.14 0.05 0.01 

DW92PSS 58.9 58.9 PSS 55 0.11 0.04 0.01 

DW94PFO 61.2 61.2 PFO 68 0.13 0.05 0.02 

DW93PEM 61.6 61.6 PEM 46 0.06 0.03 0.01 

EW57PSS 62.1 62.1 PSS 179 0.30 0.12 0.04 

DW100PFO 62.8 62.8 PFO 3 <0.01 0.00 0.00 

DW99PFO 62.8 62.8 PFO 216 0.44 0.18 0.06 DW97PFO 62.9 62.9 PFO 136 0.18 0.09 0.03 DW96PFO 63.0 63.0 PFO 196 0.35 0.14 0.05 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
APPENDIX E-1 

E1-5

TABLE E-1 (continued) 

Wetlands Affected by the Proposed East Texas to Mississippi Expansion Project 

Wetland Enter MP Exit MP 

National 

Wetland 

Inventory 

Classificationa

Crossing 

Length 

(feet)b

Total Area 

Affected by 

Construction 

(acres)b,c,d

Total Area 

Affected by 30-

Foot Wide 

Operation 

Easement 

(acres) b,c,d

Total Area 

Affected by 10

Foot Wide 

Operation Easement 

(acres) b,c,d 

DW95PEM 63.1 63.1 PEM 274 0.46 0.19 0.06 

DW101PEM 65.3 65.3 PEM 15 <0.01 0.00 0.00 

EW58PSS 65.7 65.7 PSS 111 0.08 0.03 0.01 

DW104PFO 66.0 66.0 PFO 149 0.28 0.11 0.04 DW103PFO 66.1 66.1 PFO 117 0.21 0.09 0.03 DW102PFO 66.2 66.2 PFO 283 0.45 0.15 0.05 

EW60PFO 67.5 67.5 PFO 34 0.06 0.03 0.01 EW59PFO 67.7 67.7 PFO 202 0.34 0.14 0.05 EW61PFO 67.7 67.7 PFO 492 0.86 0.35 0.12 EW62PFO 68.1 68.1 PFO 16 0.04 0.03 0.01 EW63PFO 68.5 68.5 PFO 466 0.79 0.32 0.11 

Jackson Parish, Louisiana 

DW113PFO 69.4 69.4 PFO 288 0.15 0.08 0.02 

W1BJN001 70.0 70 PFO 307 0.52 0.22 0.08 

EW501PFO 70.7 70.7 PFO 333 0.24 0.02 0.00 

EW65PEM 75.1 75.1 PEM 30 0.05 0.02 0.01 EW66PEM 75.3 75.3 PEM 91 0.15 0.06 0.02 EW68PEM 75.6 75.6 PEM 10 0.03 0.01 <0.01 

W1BJN003 75.6 75.6 PSS 255 0.25 0.03 0.01 

DW117PEM 75.9 75.9 PEM 207 0.35 0.14 0.05 

DW116PSS 76.3 76.3 PSS 60 0.08 0.04 0.01 

DW118PEM 79.2 79.2 PEM 120 0.21 0.08 0.03 

DW119PFO 79.2 79.2 PFO 369 0.61 0.25 0.08 

DW120PEM 79.9 79.9 PEM 102 0.19 0.07 0.02 

DW121PFO 80.2 80.2 PFO 263 0.47 0.18 0.06 

EW71PFO 80.4 80.4 PFO 217 0.37 0.15 0.05 EW69PFO 81.8 81.8 PFO 453 0.75 0.31 0.10 EW79PFO 82.6 82.6 PFO 428 0.74 0.29 0.10 

DW80PFO 82.6 82.6 PFO 65 0.82 0.30 0.10 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
APPENDIX E-1 

E1-6

TABLE E-1 (continued) 

Wetlands Affected by the Proposed East Texas to Mississippi Expansion Project 

Wetland Enter MP Exit MP 

National 

Wetland 

Inventory 

Classificationa

Crossing 

Length 

(feet)b

Total Area 

Affected by 

Construction 

(acres)b,c,d

Total Area 

Affected by 30-

Foot Wide 

Operation Easement 

(acres) b,c,d

Total Area 

Affected by 10

Foot Wide 

Operation Easement 

(acres) b,c,d 

EW81PFO 82.8 82.8 PFO 21 0.03 0.01 <0.01 

RDP11W 83.6 83.6 PSS 83 0.13 0.06 0.02 

RDP9W 84.2 84.2 PFO 16 <0.01 0.00 0.00 

ODP18W 85.5 85.5 PFO 132 0.09 0.06 0.03 ODP19W 87.0 87.0 PFO 9 0.57 0.09 <0.01 

IDP28W 88.3 88.3 PFO 21 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 

GDP33W 89.4 89.4 PEM 11 0.35 0.14 0.00 GDP31W 89.7 89.8 PEM 64 0.00 0.00 0.00 GDP30W 89.8 89.9 PFO 94 0.00 0.00 0.00 GDP27W 89.8 89.9 PFO 67 0.00 0.00 0.00 

HDP26W 90.9 90.9 PFO 8 0.02 0.02 <0.01 HDP25W 91.1 91.1 PFO 20 0.04 0.04 <0.01 HDP23W 92.0 92.0 PFO 19 0.01 0.01 <0.01 HDP22W 92.1 92.1 PFO 26 0.05 0.02 0.01 HDP18W 92.5 92.5 PSS 29 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 HDP17W 92.5 92.5 PSS 11 0.21 0.02 0.01 HDP16W 92.6 92.6 PSS 11 0.04 0.01 0.00 

Ouachita Parish, Louisiana 

HPOW 99.0 99.0 POW 48 0.02 <0.01 <0.01 

HDP13W 99.1 99.1 PEM 102 0.18 0.07 0.02 HDP12W 99.7 99.7 PEM 11 0.02 0.02 0.01 HDP11W 99.8 99.8 PEM 4 0.01 0.01 <0.01 

HDP7W 100.1 100.1 PEM 19 0.00 0.00 0.00 HDP3W 100.2 100.2 PFO 11 0.01 0.01 <0.01 HDP5W 100.2 100.2 PSS 31 0.08 0.02 0.01 

GDP5W 102.3 102.3 PFO 350 0.61 0.24 0.08 

ODP26W 107.5 107.5 PFO 32 0.04 0.02 0.01 ODP25W 107.5 107.5 PFO 355 0.60 0.25 0.08 ODP23W 108.1 108.1 PEM 56 <0.01 0.00 0.00 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
APPENDIX E-1 

E1-7

TABLE E-1 (continued) 

Wetlands Affected by the Proposed East Texas to Mississippi Expansion Project 

Wetland Enter MP Exit MP 

National 

Wetland 

Inventory 

Classificationa

Crossing 

Length 

(feet)b

Total Area 

Affected by 

Construction 

(acres)b,c,d

Total Area 

Affected by 30-

Foot Wide 

Operation Easement 

(acres) b,c,d

Total Area 

Affected by 10

Foot Wide 

Operation Easement 

(acres) b,c,d 

ADP13W 109.6 109.7 PFO 3,424 5.88 2.36 0.79 

YDP20WYDP30W 112.3 112.3 PFO 240 0.71 0.40 0.38 

HDP29W 113.1 113.1 PEM 29 0.05 0.02 0.01 

KDP21W 113.1 113.1 PSS 85 0.15 0.06 0.02 

Richland Parish, Louisiana 

NDP8W 118.5 118.5 PFO 11 0.24 0.09 0.03 NDP9W 119.0 119.1 PSS 683 1.18 0.47 0.16 

NDP10W 119.2 119.2 PSS 11 0.02 <0.01 0.00 NDP11W 119.2 119.3 PFO 3105 5.36 <2.14 0.71 

IDP36W 122.3 122.4 PFO 149 0.00 0.00 0.00 

1W30PEM 123.1 123.1 PEM 273 0.61 0.17 0.06 1W31PEM 123.4 123.4 PEM 170 0.31 0.11 0.04 

1W40PFO 124 124 PFO 1120 2.91 0.86 0.24 

IDP46W 124.1 124.1 PFO 134 0.26 0.07 0.03 

IDP47PFO 124.1 124.2 PFO 1183 2.04 0.82 0.27 

NDP14W 124.4 124.5 PFO 620 1.06 0.43 0.14 

W1PEM 125.0 125.0 PEM 45 0.04 0.01 <0.01 

IDP53W 125.5 125.5 PFO 362 0.61 0.24 0.08 IDP51W 125.7 125.7 PFO 387 0.64 0.24 0.09 

HDP34W 126.3 126.3 PEM 20 0.05 0.00 0.00 

W3PFO 126.4 126.4 PFO 150 0.24 0.10 0.05 

W2PEM 126.4 126.4 PEM 46 0.06 0.02 0.01 

HDP41 127.2 127.2 PFO 63 0.10 0.04 0.01 

PDP3W 127.7 127.7 PFO 29 0.07 0.02 0.01 PDP4W 127.7 127.7 PFO 232 0.41 0.16 0.05 PDP5W 127.8 127.8 PFO 112 0.18 0.08 0.03 PDP6W 127.8 127.8 PFO 378 0.67 0.26 0.09 PDP9W 128.1 128.1 PFO 347 0.61 0.24 0.08 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
APPENDIX E-1 

E1-8

TABLE E-1 (continued) 

Wetlands Affected by the Proposed East Texas to Mississippi Expansion Project 

Wetland Enter MP Exit MP 

National 

Wetland 

Inventory 

Classificationa

Crossing 

Length 

(feet)b

Total Area 

Affected by 

Construction 

(acres)b,c,d

Total Area 

Affected by 30-

Foot Wide 

Operation Easement 

(acres) b,c,d

Total Area 

Affected by 10

Foot Wide 

Operation 

Easement (acre

b,c,d 

PDP10W 128.2 128.2 PFO 108 0.17 0.07 0.02 

HDP48W 128.9 128.9 PSS 353 0.61 0.24 0.08 HDP46W 129.1 129.1 PSS 282 0.48 0.19 0.06 HDP50W 129.9 129.9 PEM 59 0.09 0.04 0.01 

PDP64W 130.8 130.9 PFO 41 0.00 0.00 0.00 PDP62W 130.8 130.9 PFO 191 0.00 0.00 0.00 

HDP53W 132.6 132.6 PFO 175 0.29 0.12 0.03 HDP53W 132.7 132.7 PFO 128 0.70 0.09 <0.03 

AW604PEM 133.4 133.4 PEM 47 0.11 0.03 0.01 

HDP62W 133.9 133.9 PSS 161 0.24 0.11 0.04 

GDP36W 134.2 134.2 PEM 10 0.02 0.01 <0.01 GDP37W 134.2 134.2 PEM 23 0.04 0.02 0.01 

GPOW1 134.3 134.3 POW 45 0.10 0.03 0.01 GPOW2 134.3 134.3 POW 37 0.12 0.03 0.01 GPOW3 134.4 134.4 POW 23 0.05 0.02 0.01 

 IDP61W 136.4 136.4 PFO 9 0.08 0.03 0.01 

IDP65W 136.7 136.7 PFO 33 0.06 0.02 0.01 

GDP57W 138.6 138.6 PFO 111 0.21 0.08 0.03 

PDP30W 141.6 141.7 PFO 797 1.37 0.55 0.18 PDP23W 141.7 141.7 PFO 303 0.53 0.21 0.07 

KDP5W 143.0 143.0 PEM 2 0.00 <0.01 <0.01 KDP6W 143.8 143.8 PEM 120 0.02 <0.01 <0.01 KDP9W 144.0 144.0 PEM 73 0.13 0.05 0.03 

GDP68W 144.4 144.4 PEM 32 0.07 0.03 0.01 GDP69W 144.4 144.4 PSS 83 0.15 0.06 0.02 GDP71W 144.5 144.5 PFO 138 0.23 0.09 0.03 GDP75W 144.6 144.6 PEM 71 0.10 0.08 0.02 GDP74W 144.6 144.6 PSS 112 0.21 0.05 0.01 GDP77W 144.7 144.7 PSS 11 0.09 0.03 0.03 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
APPENDIX E-1 

E1-9

TABLE E-1 (continued) 

Wetlands Affected by the Proposed East Texas to Mississippi Expansion Project 

Wetland Enter MP Exit MP 

National 

Wetland 

Inventory 

Classificationa

Crossing 

Length 

(feet)b

Total Area 

Affected by 

Construction 

(acres)b,c,d

Total Area 

Affected by 30-

Foot Wide 

Operation Easement 

(acres) b,c,d

Total Area 

Affected by 10

Foot Wide 

Operation 

Easement (acre

b,c,d 

GDP78W 144.8 144.8 PEM 28 0.03 0.02 0.01 GDP79W 144.8 144.8 PSS 130 0.22 0.09 0.03 GDP88W 145.8 145.8 PFO 107 0.22 0.08 0.02 GDP91W 146.0 146.0 PFO 66 0.11 0.05 0.02 

QPFO2 147.3 147.3 PFO 180 0.32 0.12 0.04 

KDP16W 147.5 147.5 PFO 11 <0.01 0.00 0.00 

QDP7W 147.7 147.7 PEM 30 0.04 0.02 0.01 

Madison Parish, Louisiana 

UDP3W 150.7 150.7 PFO 172 0.30 0.12 0.04 

EW147PEM 153.3 153.3 PEM 31 <0.05 0.03 0.01 EW146PEM 153.3 153.3 PEM 34 0.03 0.01 0.01 EW148PEM 153.4 153.4 PEM 11 0.02 0.01 <0.01 EW149PEM 153.4 153.4 PEM 40 0.05 0.02 0.01 EW150PEM 153.5 153.5 PEM 66 0.02 0.07 <0.01 EW151PEM 153.6 153.6 PEM 78 0.12 <0.05 <0.02 EW152PEM 153.8 153.8 PEM 9 0.01 0.01 <0.01 EW153PEM 153.9 153.9 PEM 15 0.03 0.01 <0.01 

W2354 154.5 154.8 PEM 1,646 1.20 0.10 0.01 W2354 154.8 155.2 PEM 1,870 1.28 0.00 0.00 

RDP20W 155.5 155.5 PEM 66 0.11 0.05 0.02 

EW144PEM 156.3 156.3 PEM 11 0.16 0.07 0.02 EW141PEM 156.8 156.8 PEM 111 0.16 0.08 0.03 

EW142PSS 157.0 157.0 PSS 157 0.10 0.01 0.01 

EW140PEM 159.0 159.0 PEM 119 0.28 0.08 0.05 

ODP2W 166.3 166.3 PEM 74 0.13 0.05 0.02 ODP7W 167.0 167.0 PSS 36 0.06 0.03 0.01 

VPOW5 167.6 167.6 POW 53 0.03 0.00 0.00 

BWPFO004 167.4 167.4 PFO 192 0.26 0.04 0.01 

VDP53W 167.1 167.2 PFO 565 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
APPENDIX E-1 

E1-10

TABLE E-1 (continued) 

Wetlands Affected by the Proposed East Texas to Mississippi Expansion Project 

Wetland Enter MP Exit MP 

National 

Wetland 

Inventory 

Classificationa

Crossing 

Length 

(feet)b

Total Area 

Affected by 

Construction 

(acres)b,c,d

Total Area 

Affected by 30-

Foot Wide 

Operation 

Easement 

(acres) b,c,d

Total Area 

Affected by 10

Foot Wide 

Operation 

Easement (acre

b,c,d 

W1BMN001 172.0 172.0 PEM 360 0.30 0.12 0.04 W1BMN002 172.1 172.1 PEM 137 0.18 0.09 0.03 

XDP12W 173.4 173.4 PEM 270 0.62 0.41 0.32 XDP15W 173.5 173.5 PFO 55 <0.01 <0.01 0.00 XDP14W 173.6 173.6 PEM 93 0.56 0.43 0.22 

TDP18W 174.3 174.3 PFO 152 0.38 0.06 0.02 TDP24W 174.4 174.4 PFO 171 0.38 0.03 0.02 

XDP20W 174.9 174.9 PFO 33 0.60 0.22 0.12 XDP23W 175.1 175.2 PFO 547 0.94 0.26 0.13 XDP26W 175.3 175.3 PFO 12 0.04 0.03 0.02 XDP27W 175.5 175.5 PFO 65 0.12 <0.01 <0.01 XDP28W 175.5 175.5 PEM 385 0.85 0.10 0.06 

XPOW2 175.7 175.7 POW 68 1.09 0.33 0.13 

XDP36W 175.9 175.9 PFO 93 0.23 0.54 <0.08 XDP34W 175.9 175.9 PFO 334 0.75 0.15 0.34 XDP40W 176.4 176.4 PSF 107 0.24 0.08 0.02 

EEPFO1 182.0 183.4 PFO 1,282 12.04 3.19 1.06 

PEM/PSS1 182.2 182.3 PEM/PSS 1,217 2.50 0.83 0.28 

DDDP5W 182.2 182.7 PFO 278 0.67 0.19 0.06 

FFP2W 183.0 183.1 PFO 148 0.17 0.10 0.06 

PEM/PSS2 183.0 183.1 PEM/PSS 271 0.64 0.17 0.06 

FFP2W 183.0 183.1 PFO 875 4.61 0.50 0.20 FFP1W 183.0 183.1 PEM 1,195 1.39 0.00 0.00 FFP1W 183.0 183.0 PEM 550 0.63 0.00 0.00 FFP1W 183.4 183.4 PEM 625 2.13 0.43 0.14 

DDPEM3 183.5 183.5 PEM 213 0.61 0.15 0.14 

DDPFO 183.5 183.5 PFO 625 0.95 0.10 0.03 

Warren County, Mississippi 

AWPFO205 185.1 185.1 PFO 50 0.05 0.03 0.01 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
APPENDIX E-1 

E1-11

TABLE E-1 (continued) 

Wetlands Affected by the Proposed East Texas to Mississippi Expansion Project 

Wetland Enter MP Exit MP 

National 

Wetland 

Inventory 

Classificationa

Crossing 

Length 

(feet)b

Total Area 

Affected by 

Construction 

(acres)b,c,d

Total Area 

Affected by 30-

Foot Wide 

Operation 

Easement 

(acres) b,c,d

Total Area 

Affected by 10

Foot Wide 

Operation 

Easement (acre

b,c,d 

A204PEM 185.1 185.1 PEM 54 0.02 0.00 0.00 

EEPEM3 185.5 185.5 PEM 388 0.97 <0.27 0.09 

EEPFO3 185.5 185.6 PFO 241 0.45 0.27 0.06 EEPFO2 185.6 185.6 PFO 155 0.16 <0.11 0.06 

AWPFO202 185.6 185.6 PFO 73 0.12 0.06 <0.01 

EW801PSS 185.4 185.5 PSS 13 0.00 0.00 0.00 

EW801PFO 187.3 187.3 PFO 48 0.02 0.02 <0.01 EW803PFO 187.8 187.8 PFO 27 0.01 0.00 0.00 

001PEM 196.5 196.5 PEM 40 0.01 0.00 0.00 

BWPFO002 196.5 196.5 PFO 158 0.07 0.00 0.00 

Hinds County, Mississippi 

BW601PFO 197.1 197.3 PFO 1,624 0.00 0.00 0.00 BW601PFO 197.3 197.4 PFO 877 3.57 2.10 <0.01 

DW609PEM 197.5 197.5 PEM 66 0.13 0.06 <0.05 

BW602PFO 198.1 198.1 PFO 98 0.27 0.06 0.02 

EW614PEM 198.9 198.9 PEM 21 0.02 0.01 <0.01 

EW611PFO 199.2 199.2 PFO 294 0.74 0.31 0.48 EW610PFO 199.3 199.4 PFO 563 1.02 0.44 0.10 

RDP29W 202.0 202.0 POW 9 <0.01 0.00 0.00  RDP44W 203.7 203.7 PFO 9 0.02 0.02 <0.01 

EW511PEM 207.2 207.2 PEM 356 0.62 0.25 0.08 

 XDP49W 210.2 210.2 PSS 9 0.02 0.02 <0.01 

EWPFO508 215.4 215.4 PFO 43 0.08 0.03 0.01 

DW900PEM 217.8 217.8 PEM 161 0.27 0.12 0.04 

DW901PFO 219.1 219.1 PFO 195 1.77 0.71 0.24 

DW903PEM 219.3 219.4 PEM 1,121 1.94 0.77 0.26 

DW904PFO 219.9 220.0 PFO 540 0.94 0.37 0.12 

BWPEM002 227.3 227.3 PEM 90 0.04 0.00 0.00 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
APPENDIX E-1 

E1-12

TABLE E-1 (continued) 

Wetlands Affected by the Proposed East Texas to Mississippi Expansion Project 

Wetland Enter MP Exit MP 

National 

Wetland 

Inventory 

Classificationa

Crossing 

Length 

(feet)b

Total Area 

Affected by 

Construction 

(acres)b,c,d

Total Area 

Affected by 30-

Foot Wide 

Operation Easement 

(acres) b,c,d

Total Area 

Affected by 10

Foot Wide 

Operation 

Easement (acre

b,c,d 

Simpson County, Mississippi

EW507PFO 233.0 233.0 PFO 158 0.27 0.10 0.04 EW506PFO 233.3 233.3 PFO 87 0.09 0.05 0.02 

69,816 122.3 44.9 15.0 

________________ Notes: MP = Milepost a PEM = Palustrine emergent 

 PSS = Palustrine scrub-shrub  PFO = Palustrine forested 

 POW = Palustrine open water  PUB = Palustrine unconsolidated bottom b “0” indicates that the pipeline centerline would not cross the wetland. Reported impacts for these wetlands are for the portion of the construction co

the wetland. 

c Wetland impact calculations were based on a 75-foot-wide construction right-of-way, a 30-foot-wide permanent right-of-way in which selective tree 

and a 10-foot-wide mowed. Extra temporary workspaces that would be located in wetlands are included in the impact numbers presented in this taTable 3.4.2-1. 

d Due to rounding, total pipeline facility values may deviate from values reported in text. 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
APPENDIX E-2 

Summary of the Proposed Alternative Measures to Our Procedures in Wetland Areas for 

the Proposed East Texas to Mississippi Expansion Project 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
APPENDIX E2 

E2-1

TABLE E-2 

Summary of the Proposed Alternative Measures to Gulf South’s Procedures 

for the Proposed East Texas to Mississippi Project 

Affected 

Wetland/ 

Facility Milepost 

Affected 

Area 

(acres) 

Wetland 

Type/ 

Identifier 

Applicable 

FERC 

Procedures 

Section Basis for Requested Variance 

Casper Bayou 

Tributary 

0.00 n/a Waterbody V.A.2.a ATWS required for staging at 

beginning of pipeline. 

McGee Bayou 

Tributary 

13.2 n/a Intermittent 

Waterbody 

V.A.2.a ATWS within 40 feet of waterbody – 

ATWS required for installation of 

bored crossing of KCS Railroad 

PPEM3 19.50 0.02 PEM VI.B.1.a Valve setting located within 50’ of 

wetland. ATWS required for 

installation of valve and road 

crossing. 

Bayou Pierre 

Tributary 

22.3 n/a Intermittent 

Waterbody 

V.A.2.a ATWS for HDD pull back section 

crosses waterbody 

Red River 

Tributary 

27.4 n/a Intermittent 

Waterbody 

VI.A.2.a Additional temporary workspace (50-

ft x 400-ft) crosses waterbody on the 

south side of pipeline ROW to safely 

install the pipeline at the Red River 

HDD crossing. 

Red River 

Tributary 

27.5 n/a Perennial 

Waterbody 

V.A.2.a ATWS Staging area within 50 feet of 

waterbody required to safely install 

pipeline in the vicinity of existing 

overhead Gulf South Facilities. 

EW42PFO 34.5 0.1 PFO VI.B1.a Additional temporary workspace (50 ft 

x 100 ft) needed in wetland to safely 

install pipe on east side of Parish 

Road 350 

Drainage Ditch 

State Hwy 783 

35.9 n/a Intermittent 

Waterbody 

V.A.2a ATWS required to safely install pipe 

across Highway 783 

EW8PEM 38.0 0.09 PEM VI.B1.a Additional temporary workspace 

needed in wetland on the west side of 

Layfield Road (50 ft x 100 ft) to safely 

install pipeline 

EW7PEM 38.0 0.01 PEM VI.B1.a Additional temporary workspace 

needed in wetland on the east side of 

Layfield Road (75 ft x 150 ft) to safely 

install pipeline 

DW18PFO 40.9 0..15 PFO VI.B1.a Additional temporary workspace 

needed in wetlands on west side of 

Parish Road 540 (50 ft x 100 Ft) to 

safely install pipeline. 

DW16PFO 40.9 0.15 PFO VI.B1.a Additional temporary workspace 

needed in wetlands on east side of 

Parish Road 540 (50 ft x 150 ft) to 

safely install pipeline. 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
APPENDIX E2 

E2-2

TABLE E-2 (continued) 

Summary of the Proposed Alternative Measures to Gulf South’s Procedures 

for the Proposed East Texas to Mississippi Project 

Affected 

Wetland/ 

Facility Milepost 

Affected 

Area 

(acres) 

Wetland 

Type/ 

Identifier 

Applicable 

FERC 

Procedures 

Section Basis for Requested Variance 

DW21PFO 

and 

DW23PFO, 

and 

Black Lake 

Bayou 

Tributaries 

42.0 0.65 PFO VI.B1.a Additional temporary workspace 

needed (50 ft x 2,100 ft) in wetland 

adjacent to Black Lake Bayou and 

crosses waterbodies for testing and 

fabrication of pipe extending west 

from HDD exit. 

DW21PFO 

and 

DW23PFO 

42.0 0.23 PFO VI.B1.a Temporary workspace needed (100 ft 

Wide) in wetland adjacent to Black 

Lake Bayou for testing and fabrication 

of pipe extending west from HDD exit.

DW24PFO 42.3 0.0 PFO VI.B1.a The exit point for the Black Lake 

Bayou HDD is located within 50 feet 

of a wetland. 

DW29PEM, 

DW31PEM, 

DW32PFO, 

DW35PFO, 

and DW36PFO 

and Black 

Lake Bayou 

Tributaries 

43.5 0.8 PEM and 

PFO 

VI.B1.a 

and 

V.A.2.a 

Additional temporary workspace 

needed (50 ft x 1450 ft) in wetland 

and crossing waterbodies for 

fabrication and test pipe for Black 

Lake Bayou HDD extending east from 

Black Lake Bayou. 

DW29PEM, 

DW32PFO, 

43.5 0.33 PEM and 

PFO 

VI.B1.a 

and 

V.A.2.a 

Temporary workspace needed (100 ft 

Wide) in wetland for fabrication and 

test pipe for Black Lake Bayou HDD 

extending east from Black Lake 

Bayou. 

DW37PEM 44.0 0.0 PEM V1B.1.a ATWS within 50’ of Wetland required 

for crossing installations 

Black Lake 

Bayou 

Tributary 

44.6 n/a Intermittent V.A.2.a ATWS required for State Highway 

792 bore crosses waterbody on the 

downstream side of abandoned 

railroad 

Black Lake 

Bayou 

Tributary 

46.6 n/a Intermittent V.A.2.a ATWS within 50’ of waterbody 

required for wetland installation 

EW74PFO 56.4 0.1 PFO VI.B1.a Additional temporary workspace 

needed in wetland on the east side of 

State Highway 9 (50 ft x 100 ft) to 

safely install pipeline at the road 

crossing 

6-Mile Creek 

Tributary 

56.4 n/a Intermittent V.A.2.a Additional temporary workspace 

needed for wetland within 50’ of 6-

Mile Creek Tributary 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
APPENDIX E2 

E2-3

TABLE E-2 (continued) 

Summary of the Proposed Alternative Measures to Gulf South’s Procedures 

for the Proposed East Texas to Mississippi Project 

Affected 

Wetland/ 

Facility Milepost 

Affected 

Area 

(acres) 

Wetland 

Type/ 

Identifier 

Applicable 

FERC 

Procedures 

Section Basis for Requested Variance 

EW78PFO 57.5 0.85 PFO VI.B1.a Additional temporary workspace (185’ 

X 200’) needed for HDD exit site at 

Saline Bayou. The drill length is too 

long to span entire wetland. 

EW78PFO, 

DW87PEM, 

and 

DW88PFO and 

Saline Bayou 

Tributaries 

57.5 3.1 PEM and 

PFO 

VI.B1.a 

and 

V.A.2.a. 

This additional temporary workspace 

(75 ft x 1800 ft) is needed in wetland 

to fabricate and test pipe for Saline 

Bayou HDD extending east from the 

HDD exit. 

Brush Creek 63.3 n/a Perennial 

Waterbody 

V.A.2.a ATWS required for railroad crossing 

bore crosses waterbody. 

EW59PFO 67.7 0.05 PFO VI.B1.a Additional temporary workspace 

needed on West side of Parish Road 

757 (25 ft x 100 ft) to safely install the 

pipeline at the road crossing. 

EW59PFO 67.7 0.09 PFO VI.B1.a Temporary workspace needed on 

West side of Parish Road 757 (100 ft 

Wide) to safely install the pipeline at 

the road crossing. 

EW61PFO 67.7 0.3 PFO VI.B1.a Additional temporary workspace 

needed on East side of Parish Road 

757 (75 ft x 200 ft) to safely install the 

pipeline at the road crossing. 

EW61PFO 67.7 0.25 PFO VI.B1.a Temporary workspace needed on 

East side of Parish Road 757 (100 ft 

Wide) to safely install the pipeline at 

the road crossing. 

Dugdemona 

River Tributary 

71.2 n/a Intermittent 

Waterbody 

V.A.2.a ATWS for HDD pull back section 

crosses waterbody. 

Dugdemona 

River Tributary 

73.4 n/a Intermittent 

Waterbody 

V.A.2.a ATWS for HDD pull back section 

crosses waterbodies. 

W1BKM003 75.6 0.05 PSS VI.B.1.a ATWS within wetland required for 

crossing of Center Point pipeline 

DW116PSS 76.4 0.00 PSS VI.B.1.a ATWS within 50’ of wetland required 

for waterbody crossing 

Cypress Creek 

Tributary 

97.5 n/a Intermittent 

Waterbody 

V.A.2.a Water body crossing on areas of 

ATWS in side slope 

Cypress Creek 

Tributary 

97.5 n/a Intermittent 

Waterbody 

V.A.2.a Water body crossing on areas of 

ATWS in side slope 

Cypress Creek 

Tributary 

97.6 n/a Intermittent 

Waterbody 

V.A.2.a Water body crossings on area of 

ATWS required for severe side slope 

Cypress Creek 

Tributary 

97.8 n/a Intermittent 

Waterbody 

V.A.2.a Water body crossings on area of 

ATWS required for severe side slope 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
APPENDIX E2 

E2-4

TABLE E-2 (continued) 

Summary of the Proposed Alternative Measures to Gulf South’s Procedures 

for the Proposed East Texas to Mississippi Project 

Affected 

Wetland/ 

Facility Milepost 

Affected 

Area 

(acres) 

Wetland 

Type/ 

Identifier 

Applicable 

FERC 

Procedures 

Section Basis for Requested Variance 

Cypress Creek 

Tributary 

97.9 n/a Intermittent 

Waterbody 

V.A.2.a Water body crossings on area of 

ATWS required for severe side slope 

Cypress Creek 

Tributary 

97.9 n/a Intermittent 

Waterbody 

V.A.2.a Water body crossings on area of 

ATWS required for severe side slope 

Cypress Creek 

and Cypress 

Creek 

Tributaries 

98.2 – 

98.9 

n/a Intermittent 

Waterbody 

V.A.2.a Water body crossings on area of 

ATWS required for severe side slope 

Walters Creek 

Tributary 

100.1 n/a Intermittent 

Waterbody 

V.A.2.a Water body crossings on area of 

ATWS required for severe side slope 

Walters Creek 

Tributary 

100.3 n/a Intermittent 

Waterbody 

V.A.2.a Water body crossings on area of 

ATWS required for severe side slope 

Walters Creek 

Tributary 

100.8 n/a Intermittent 

Waterbody 

V.A.2.a Water body crossings on area of 

ATWS required for severe side slope 

Walters Creek 

Tributary 

100.8 n/a Intermittent 

Waterbody 

V.A.2.a Water body crossings on area of 

ATWS required for severe side slope 

Cypress Creek 

Tributary 

101.0 n/a Intermittent 

Waterbody 

V.A.2.a Water body crossings on area of 

ATWS required for severe side slope 

Cypress Creek 

Tributary 

101.1 n/a Intermittent 

Waterbody 

V.A.2.a Water body crossings on area of 

ATWS required for severe side slope 

Cypress Creek 

Tributary 

101.1 n/a Intermittent 

Waterbody 

V.A.2.a Water body crossings on area of 

ATWS required for severe side slope 

Cypress Creek 

Tributary 

101.4 n/a Intermittent 

Waterbody 

V.A.2.a Water body crossings on area of 

ATWS required for severe side slope 

Gladden 

Branch 

Tributary 

101.6 n/a Intermittent 

Waterbody 

V.A.2.a Water body crossings on area of 

ATWS required for severe side slope 

Alligator Brake 

Tributary 

102.9 n/a Intermittent 

Waterbody 

V.A.2.a Water body crossings on area of 

ATWS required for severe side slope 

Alligator Brake 

Tributary 

103.1 n/a Intermittent 

Waterbody 

V.A.2.a Water body crossings on area of 

ATWS required for severe side slope 

Claire Branch 

Tributary 

105.0 n/a Intermittent 

Waterbody 

V.A.2.a Water body crossings on area of 

ATWS required for severe side slope 

Claire Branch 

Tributary 

105.2 n/a Perennial 

Waterbody 

V.A.2.a Water body crossings on area of 

ATWS required for severe side slope 

Claire Branch 

Tributary 

106.0 n/a Intermittent 

Waterbody 

V.A.2.a Water body crossings on area of 

ATWS required for severe side slope 

ADP13W 110.0 2.30 PFO V1.B1.a Wetland length and proximity of 

CenterPoint Pipeline requires 

increased width to safely install 42” 

pipeline. 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
APPENDIX E2 

E2-5

TABLE E-2 (continued) 

Summary of the Proposed Alternative Measures to Gulf South’s Procedures 

for the Proposed East Texas to Mississippi Project 

Affected 

Wetland/ 

Facility Milepost 

Affected 

Area 

(acres) 

Wetland 

Type/ 

Identifier 

Applicable 

FERC 

Procedures 

Section Basis for Requested Variance 

YDP20WYDP30W 

112.4 0.2 PFO VI.B.1.a Temporary Work Space (100 ft. 

Wide) required to cross existing 

pipelines and install facilities. 

YDP20WYDP30W 

W2365 

And Halfway 

Bayou 

Tributary 

112.4 0.4 PFO VI.B.1.a 

V.A.2.a 

ATWS and TWS required to cross 

existing pipelines and install facilities. 

W2365 112.4 0.27 PFO VI.B.1.a Permanent Access Road Through 

Wetland required to Access Mainline 

Valve Setting 

1W40PFO 124.1 0.62 PFO V1.B.a Temporary Work Space (100 ft. 

Wide) required in wetland for pipeline 

installation and crossing of 

CenterPoint Pipeline 

1W40PFO 124.1 0.25 PFO V1.B.a ATWS for installation of CenterPoint 

Pipeline Crossing 

1W40PFO 

IDP46WPFO 

124.1 0.08 PFO V1.B.a ATWS for installation of CenterPoint 

Pipeline Crossing 

IDP53W 

IDP51W 

125.7 0.0 PFO VI.B1.a Temporary workspace needed within 

50 ft of wetlands for installation 

across wetlands 

Mose Bayou 

Tributary 

126.5 n/a Intermittent 

Waterbody 

V.A.2.a ATWS area within 50 feet of 

waterbody 

PdP4W 127.8 0.0 PFO VI.B1.a Temporary workspace needed within 

50 ft of wetlands near Cane Bayou. 

HDP53W 132.8 0.3 PFO VI.B.1.a ATWS and TWS located in wetland to 

safely install pipeline across Parish 

Road 

HDP53W 132.8 0.14 PFO VI.B.1.a Temporary Work Space (100 ft. 

Wide) located in wetland to safely 

install pipeline across Parish Road 

DP36WPEM 

Big Creek 

Tributary 

134.2 0.0 PEM VI.B1.a 

V.A.2.a 

Additional temporary workspace 

needed (50 ft x 200 ft) within 50 feet 

of wetland and waterbody on east 

side of Johnson Road to safely install 

the pipeline at road crossing 

Big Creek 

Tributary 

134.3 n/a Intermittent 

Waterbody 

V.A.2.a ATWS area within 50 feet of 

waterbody 

Big Creek 

Tributary 

139.8 n/a Intermittent 

Waterbody 

V.A.2.a Pull back ATWS area for HDD 

crosses waterbody 

Big Creek 

Tributary 

140.5 n/a Intermittent 

Waterbody 

V.A.2.a ATWS area for road crossing within 

50 feet of waterbody 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
APPENDIX E2 

E2-6

TABLE E-2 (continued) 

Summary of the Proposed Alternative Measures to Gulf South’s Procedures 

for the Proposed East Texas to Mississippi Project 

Affected 

Wetland/ 

Facility Milepost 

Affected 

Area 

(acres) 

Wetland 

Type/ 

Identifier 

Applicable 

FERC 

Procedures 

Section Basis for Requested Variance 

Big Creek 

Tributary 

140.5 n/a Intermittent 

Waterbody 

V.A.2.a ATWS area for road crossing within 

50 feet of waterbody 

Big Creek 

Tributary 

141.1 n/a Intermittent 

Waterbody 

V.A.2.a ATWS area for HDD pullback crosses 

waterbody 

Sutt Bayou 153.1 n/a Perennial 

Waterbody 

V.A.2.a ATWS area for Sutt Bayou crossing 

within 50 feet of waterbody 

Sutt Bayou 

Tributary 

153.2 n/a Intermittent 

Waterbody 

V.A.2.a ATWS staging area within 50 feet of 

waterbody 

Sutt Bayou 

Tributary 

153.3 n/a Intermittent 

Waterbody 

V.A.2.a ATWS for road crossing within 50 feet 

of waterbody 

Sutt Bayou 

Tributary 

153.3 n/a Intermittent 

Waterbody 

V.A.2.a ATWS for road crossing within 50 feet 

of waterbody 

EW148PEM 153.4 0.0 PEM V1.B.1.a ATWS within 50 feet of a wetland 

W2354 154.5 0.23 PEM VI.B.1.a 50X200 ATWS areas located in 

wetland to provide work space to 

safely cross wetland 

W2354 154.7 0.23 PEM VI.B.1.a 50X200 ATWS areas located in 

wetland to provide work space to 

safely cross wetland 

W2354 154.7 0.23 PEM VI.B.1.a 50X200 ATWS areas located in 

wetland to provide work space to 

safely cross wetland 

W2354 155.1 0.23 PEM VI.B.1.a 50X200 ATWS areas located in 

wetland to provide work space to 

safely cross wetland 

Mothiglam 

Bayou 

And Mothiglam 

Bayou 

Tributary 

163.6 n/a Perennial 

Waterbody 

and 

Intermittent 

Waterbody 

V.A.2.a ATWS for HDD entry on Mothiglam 

Bayou is within 50 feet of Bayou and 

Tributary to minimize impacts to 

WRP property east of Bayou 

Mothiglam 

Bayou 

Tributary 

164.0 n/a Intermittent 

Waterbody 

V.A.2.a ATWS for HDD Pull Back crosses 

Tributary 

BWPFO004 167.4 0.07 PFO VI.B.1.a ATWS for HDD impacts wetland 

BWPFO004 167.4 0.12 PFO VI.B.1.a Temporary Work Space (100 ft. 

Wide) in wetland for installation of 

pipeline. 

BWPFO004 167.5 0.02 PFO VI.B.1.a ATWS for ROW access impacts 

wetland 

Walnut Bayou 177.5 n/a Perennial 

Waterbody 

V.A.2.a ATWS for Contractor Staging Area 

adjoins field road that is within 50 feet 

of Walnut Bayou 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
APPENDIX E2 

E2-7

TABLE E-2 (continued) 

Summary of the Proposed Alternative Measures to Gulf South’s Procedures 

for the Proposed East Texas to Mississippi Project 

Affected 

Wetland/ 

Facility Milepost 

Affected 

Area 

(acres) 

Wetland 

Type/ 

Identifier 

Applicable 

FERC 

Procedures 

Section Basis for Requested Variance 

Mississippi 

River 

Tributary 

181.5 n/a Intermittent 

Waterbody 

V.A.2.a 50 X 200 ATWS for Road crossing 

within 50 feet of waterbody 

Mississippi 

River 

Tributary 

181.5 n/a Intermittent 

Waterbody 

V.A.2.a 50 X 200 ATWS for Road crossing 

within 50 feet of waterbody 

EEPFO1 182.0 1.2 PFO VI.B.1.a Part of the Additional temporary 

workspace (600-ft x 350-ft) needed 

for installation of the Levee Crossing 

falls within the wetlands inside the 

levee or crosses the waterbody 

EEPFO1, 

FFP2W, 

DDP7W, 

DDP5W 

182.0 4.61 PFO VI.B.1.a Temporary Work Space (100 ft. 

Wide) in wetlands for installation of 

pipeline 

FFWP1, 

FFP2W, PSS1 

183.0 4.0 PFO 

PEM 

VI.B.1.a Additional temporary workspace (50-

ft x 3,720-ft needed in wetlands on 

west side of the Mississippi River to 

safely install the HDD crossing of the 

Mississippi River. 

FFP2W 183.0 0.9 PFO VI.B.1.a Additional temporary workspace 

(200-ft x 200-ft needed in wetlands on 

west side of the Mississippi River for 

staging area 

FFP2W, 

DDP7W, 

DDP5W 

183.0 0.75 PFO 

PEM 

VI.B.1.a Additional temporary workspace (50-

ft x 960-ft needed in wetlands on west 

side of the Mississippi River to safely 

install the HDD crossing of the 

Mississippi River. 

DDP5W 183.0 0.5 PFO VI.B.1.a Additional temporary workspace 

(160-ft x 200-ft needed in wetlands on 

west side of the Mississippi River to 

safely install the HDD crossing of the 

Mississippi River. 

AWPEM204 184.5 0.01 PEM VI.B.1.a Additional temporary workspace (50-

ft x 100-ft) needed in wetlands on 

east side of State Highway 61 to 

safely install the pipeline at the State 

Highway 61 crossing. 

EEPEM3 184.8 0.3 PEM VI.B.1.a Additional temporary workspace (75-

ft x 200-ft) needed in wetlands on 

south side of Railroad & Kemp 

Bottom Road to safely install the 

pipeline at the Railroad & Kemp 

Bottom Road crossing. 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
APPENDIX E2 

E2-8

TABLE E-2 (continued) 

Summary of the Proposed Alternative Measures to Gulf South’s Procedures 

for the Proposed East Texas to Mississippi Project 

Affected 

Wetland/ 

Facility Milepost 

Affected 

Area 

(acres) 

Wetland 

Type/ 

Identifier 

Applicable 

FERC 

Procedures 

Section Basis for Requested Variance 

EEPFO2 184.9 0.2 PFO VI.B.1.a ATWS for HDD pull back for Highway 

61 located in a wetland 

AWPFO202 

and 

Hennesseys 

Bayou 

Tributary

185.5 0.0 PFO 

Intermittent 

Waterbody 

V1.B.1.a 

V.A.2.a 

200’ X 200’ Wide ATWS for HDD of 

Highway 61 within 50’ of wetland and 

waterbody

AWPFO202 185.5 0.1 PFO V1.B.1.a 100’ Wide ATWS side slope impacts 

wetland 

Hennesseys 

Bayou 

Tributary 

185.5 – 

186.0 

n/a Intermittent 

Waterbody 

V.A.2.a 100’ Wide ATWS for side slope – 6 

crossings of Hennesseys Bayou 

Tributary 

Hatcher Bayou 

Tributary 

186.0 – 

190.3 

n/a Intermittent 

Waterbody 

V.A.2.a 100’ Wide ATWS for side slope – 23 

crossings of Hatcher Bayou Tributary 

Markham 

Creek 

Tributary 

193.7 – 

194.9 

n/a Intermittent 

Waterbody 

V.A.2.a 50’ Wide ATWS for side slope - 

crosses 8 Markham Creek Tributary 

Waterbodies 

Markham 

Creek 

195.2 n/a Perennial 

Waterbody 

V.A.2.a 50’ Wide ATWS for side slope 

crosses Markham Creek Waterbody 

BWPFO002 196.7 .06 PFO VI.B.1.a HDD Entry ATWS for Big Black River 

impacts wetland 

BW601PFO 197.4 0.7 PFO VI.B.1.a HDD Exit 160’ X 200’ ATWS for Big 

Black River impacts wetland 

BW601PFO 197.4 0.8 PFO VI.B.1.a 50’ X 1135” ATWS for HDD Pull Back 

at Big Black River impacts wetland 

BW601PFO 197.4 0.52 PFO VI.B.1.a Temporary Work Space (100 ft. 

Wide) for HDD Pull Back at Big Black 

River impacts wetland 

Elda Hill Creek 

Tributary 

219.7 n/a Intermittent 

Waterbody 

V.A.2.a 1000’ X 75’ Wide ATWS for side 

slope crosses Waterbodies 

Elda Hill Creek 

Tributary 

219.8 n/a Intermittent 

Waterbody 

V.A.2.a 1800’ X 50’ Wide ATWS for side 

slope crosses Waterbodies 

Elda Hill Creek 

Tributary 

219.9 n/a Intermittent 

Waterbody 

V.A.2.a 700’ X 50’ Wide ATWS for side slope 

crosses Waterbodies 

Elda Hill Creek 

Tributary 

221.5 n/a Intermittent 

Waterbody 

V.A.2.a 50’ Wide ATWS for side slope 

crosses Waterbodies 

BWPEM002 227.3 0.03 PEM VI.B.1.a HDD entry for crossing of I55 impacts 

wetland 

Chestnut 

Creek 

Tributary 

228.4 n/a Intermittent 

Waterbody 

V.A.2.a 50’ Wide ATWS for side slope 

crosses Waterbodies 

Chestnut 

Creek 

Tributary 

232.1 n/a Intermittent 

Waterbody 

V.A.2.a 50’ Wide ATWS for side slope 

crosses Waterbodies 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
APPENDIX E2 

E2-9

TABLE E-2 (continued) 

Summary of the Proposed Alternative Measures to Gulf South’s Procedures 

for the Proposed East Texas to Mississippi Project 

Affected 

Wetland/ 

Facility Milepost 

Affected 

Area 

(acres) 

Wetland 

Type/ 

Identifier 

Applicable 

FERC 

Procedures 

Section Basis for Requested Variance 

Pearl River 

Tributary 

233.8 – 

234.4 

n/a Intermittent 

Waterbody 

V.A.2.a 50’ Wide ATWS for side slope 

crosses 7 Pearl River Tributary 

Waterbodies 

Pearl River 

Tributary 

234.5 – 

234.9 

n/a Intermittent 

Waterbody 

V.A.2.a 50’ Wide ATWS for side slope 

crosses 4 Pearl River Tributary 

Waterbodies 

Pearl River 

Tributary 

234.9 n/a Perennial 

Waterbody 

V.A.2.a 50’ Wide ATWS for side slope 

crosses Waterbody 

Rocky Creek 

Tributary 

235.4 – 

237.9 

n/a Intermittent 

Waterbody 

V.A.2.a 50’ Wide ATWS for side slope 

crosses 14 Rocky Creek Tributary 

Waterbodies 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
APPENDIX F 

EXTRA WORKSPACES, ACCESS ROADS, AND PIPE STORAGE AND 

CONTRACTOR YARDS 

Appendix F-1 Extra Workspace Areas for the Proposed East Texas to Mississippi 

Expansion Project 

Appendix F-2 Existing, Modified, and New Access Roads for the Proposed East Texas 

to Mississippi Expansion Project 

Appendix F-3 Pipe Storage and Contractor Yards for the Proposed East Texas to 

Mississippi Expansion Project 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
APPENDIX F-1 

Extra Workspace Areas for the Proposed East Texas to Mississippi Expansion Project 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
APPENDIX F-1 

F1-1 

TABLE F-1 

Extra Workspace Areas for the Proposed East Texas to Mississippi Project 

Milepost County/Parish 

Reason for Extra 

Workspace Area Affected Land Use 

Land 

Requirements 

(Acres) 

H0.1 Panola, TX Pipelines Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.11 

H0.1 Panola, TX Pipelines Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.11 

H0.3 Panola, TX Waterbodies Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.11 

H0.3 Panola, TX Waterbodies Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.11 

H0.4 Panola, TX Pipelines Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.11 

H0.4 Panola, TX Pipelines Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.11 

H0.8 Panola, TX Roads Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.11 

H0.8 Panola, TX Roads Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.11 

H0.9 Panola, TX Wetlands Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.11 

H0.9 Panola, TX Wetlands Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.11 

H1.0 Panola, TX Wetlands Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.11 

H1.0 Panola, TX Wetlands Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.62 

H1.1 Panola, TX Wetlands Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.11 

H1.3 Panola, TX Wetlands Industrial/Commercial 0.11 

H1.3 Panola, TX Wetlands Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.33 

H1.5 Panola, TX Wetlands Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.34 

H1.8 Panola, TX Wetlands Industrial/Commercial 0.11 

H2.0 Panola, TX Wetlands Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.11 

H2.3 Panola, TX Wetlands Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.11 

H2.5 Panola, TX Roads Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.11 

H2.5 Panola, TX Roads Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.11 

H2.6 Panola, TX Roads Open Land 0.11 

H2.9 Panola, TX Pipelines Open Land 0.11 

H2.9 Panola, TX Pipelines Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.11 

H3.0 Panola, TX Pipelines Open Land 0.47 

H3.1 Panola, TX Pipelines Pine Plantation 0.14 

H3.1 Panola, TX Pipelines Pine Plantation 0.22 

H3.3 Panola, TX Pipelines Pine Plantation 0.33 

0.0 DeSoto, LA Staging Area Pasture 1.82 

0.3 DeSoto, LA Waterbodies Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.23 

0.4 DeSoto, LA Waterbodies Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.23 

0.4 DeSoto, LA Waterbodies Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.23 

0.6 DeSoto, LA Waterbodies Pasture 0.23 

0.6 DeSoto, LA Waterbodies Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.23 

0.7 DeSoto, LA Roads Pasture 0.46 

0.7 DeSoto, LA Staging Area Pasture 3.44 

1.0 DeSoto, LA Waterbodies Pasture 0.23 

1.0 DeSoto, LA Waterbodies Pasture 0.23 

1.4 DeSoto, LA Waterbodies Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.23 

1.4 DeSoto, LA Waterbodies Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.23 

1.7 DeSoto, LA Waterbodies Pasture 0.40 

1.7 DeSoto, LA Waterbodies Pine Plantation 0.23 

2.0 DeSoto, LA Roads Pine Plantation 0.23 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
APPENDIX F-1 

F1-2

TABLE F-1 (continued) 

Extra Workspace Areas for the Proposed East Texas to Mississippi Project 

Milepost County/Parish 

Reason for Extra 

Workspace Area Affected Land Use 

Land 

Requirements 

(Acres) 

2.8 DeSoto, LA Waterbodies Pine Plantation 0.23 

2.8 DeSoto, LA Waterbodies Pine Plantation 0.23 

3.0 DeSoto, LA Wetlands Pine Plantation 0.23 

3.0 DeSoto, LA Wetlands Slope Hardwood 0.23 

3.2 DeSoto, LA Roads Pasture 1.52 

3.2 DeSoto, LA Roads Pasture 0.08 

3.6 DeSoto, LA Waterbodies Pasture 0.23 

3.7 DeSoto, LA Waterbodies Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.23 

3.9 DeSoto, LA Waterbodies Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.23 

4.0 DeSoto, LA Waterbodies Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.23 

4.0 DeSoto, LA Waterbodies Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.08 

4.1 DeSoto, LA Waterbodies Pasture 0.23 

4.3 DeSoto, LA Waterbodies Pasture 0.23 

4.3 DeSoto, LA Waterbodies Pasture 0.23 

4.5 DeSoto, LA Waterbodies Pasture 0.34 

4.5 DeSoto, LA Roads Pasture 0.06 

4.6 DeSoto, LA Roads Pasture 0.34 

4.7 DeSoto, LA Waterbodies Pasture 0.11 

4.7 DeSoto, LA Roads Pasture 0.23 

4.9 DeSoto, LA Waterbodies Pasture 0.23 

4.9 DeSoto, LA Waterbodies Pasture 0.23 

5.1 DeSoto, LA Waterbodies Pasture 0.23 

5.3 DeSoto, LA Waterbodies Pasture 0.23 

5.3 DeSoto, LA Waterbodies Pasture 0.11 

5.6 DeSoto, LA Waterbodies Pasture 0.40 

5.8 DeSoto, LA Roads Pasture 0.36 

5.8 DeSoto, LA Railroads Open Land 0.23 

5.9 DeSoto, LA Waterbodies Open Land 0.11 

5.9 DeSoto, LA Waterbodies Open Land 0.23 

6.0 DeSoto, LA Wetlands Agricultural 0.23 

6.6 DeSoto, LA Roads Agricultural 0.23 

6.6 DeSoto, LA Roads Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.23 

7.0 DeSoto, LA Wetlands Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.34 

7.0 DeSoto, LA Wetlands Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.23 

7.1 DeSoto, LA Waterbodies Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.11 

7.2 DeSoto, LA Roads Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.23 

7.2 DeSoto, LA Roads Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.23 

7.4 DeSoto, LA Waterbodies Pasture 0.11 

7.4 DeSoto, LA Waterbodies Pasture 0.11 

7.4 DeSoto, LA Roads Pasture 0.23 

7.7 DeSoto, LA Waterbodies Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.23 

7.7 DeSoto, LA Waterbodies Pasture 0.11 

7.7 DeSoto, LA Waterbodies/Roads Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.11 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
APPENDIX F-1 

F1-3 

TABLE F-1 (continued) 

Extra Workspace Areas for the Proposed East Texas to Mississippi Project 

Milepost County/Parish 

Reason for Extra 

Workspace Area Affected Land Use 

Land 

Requirements 

(Acres) 

7.8 DeSoto, LA Wetlands Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.23 

7.8 DeSoto, LA Wetlands Other 0.23 

8.1 DeSoto, LA Waterbodies Other 0.23 

8.1 DeSoto, LA Waterbodies Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.23 

8.1 DeSoto, LA Waterbodies Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.23 

8.3 DeSoto, LA Roads Agricultural 0.23 

8.3 DeSoto, LA Roads Agricultural 0.23 

8.4 DeSoto, LA Wetlands Agricultural 0.23 

8.7 DeSoto, LA Roads Pastures 0.23 

8.7 DeSoto, LA Roads Pine Plantation 0.44 

8.9 DeSoto, LA Waterbodies Pine Plantation 0.23 

9.1 DeSoto, LA Roads Pastures 0.23 

9.1 DeSoto, LA Roads Pasture/Pine Plantation 0.28 

9.2 DeSoto, LA Waterbodies Pine Plantation 0.23 

9.2 DeSoto, LA Waterbodies/Roads Pine Plantation 0.42 

9.3 DeSoto, LA Roads Pine Plantation 0.28 

9.5 DeSoto, LA Waterbodies Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.34 

9.5 DeSoto, LA Waterbodies/Roads Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.34 

9.6 DeSoto, LA Roads Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.29 

9.8 DeSoto, LA Roads Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.23 

9.8 DeSoto, LA Roads/Waterbodies Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.44 

9.9 DeSoto, LA Waterbodies Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.23 

10.0 DeSoto, LA Roads Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.26 

10.0 DeSoto, LA Roads Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.23 

10.2 DeSoto, LA Roads Pasture 0.20 

10.2 DeSoto, LA Roads Pasture 0.11 

10.4 DeSoto, LA Roads Pasture 0.40 

10.4 DeSoto, LA Roads Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.26 

10.7 DeSoto, LA Roads Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.11 

10.7 DeSoto, LA Roads/Waterbodies Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.14 

10.8 DeSoto, LA Waterbodies Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.11 

10.8 DeSoto, LA Waterbodies Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.23 

11.0 DeSoto, LA Waterbodies Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.23 

11.0 DeSoto, LA Waterbodies/Roads Pasture 0.23 

11.2 DeSoto, LA Roads Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.23 

11.2 DeSoto, LA Roads Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.23 

11.3 DeSoto, LA Pipelines Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.11 

11.3 DeSoto, LA Pipelines/Waterbodies Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.29 

11.4 DeSoto, LA Waterbodies Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.23 

11.9 DeSoto, LA Waterbodies Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.22 

11.9 DeSoto, LA Waterbodies Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.23 

12.1 DeSoto, LA Roads Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.23 

12.1 DeSoto, LA Roads Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.23 

12.2 DeSoto, LA Pipelines/Roads Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 1.38 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
APPENDIX F-1 

F1-4

TABLE F-1 (continued) 

Extra Workspace Areas for the Proposed East Texas to Mississippi Project 

Milepost County/Parish 

Reason for Extra 

Workspace Area Affected Land Use 

Land 

Requirements 

(Acres) 

12.2 DeSoto, LA Pipelines Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.23 

12.2 DeSoto, LA Pipelines Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.23 

12.6 DeSoto, LA Waterbodies Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.23 

12.6 DeSoto, LA Waterbodies Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.23 

13.2 DeSoto, LA Roads Pine Plantation 0.57 

13.2 DeSoto, LA Railroads Pine Plantation 0.81 

13.7 DeSoto, LA Roads Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.13 

13.7 DeSoto, LA Roads Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.46 

13.8 DeSoto, LA Waterbodies Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.24 

13.8 DeSoto, LA Waterbodies Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.23 

14.2 DeSoto, LA Roads Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.23 

14.2 DeSoto, LA Roads/Waterbodies Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.23 

14.4 DeSoto, LA Waterbodies Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.23 

14.4 DeSoto, LA Waterbodies Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.23 

14.5 DeSoto, LA HDD Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.73 

14.8 DeSoto, LA HDD Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.73 

14.9 DeSoto, LA Roads Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.20 

14.9 DeSoto, LA Roads Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.17 

15.0 DeSoto, LA Waterbodies Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.23 

15.2 DeSoto, LA Waterbodies Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.23 

15.2 DeSoto, LA Waterbodies Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.23 

15.4 DeSoto, LA Roads Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.46 

15.6 DeSoto, LA Waterbodies Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.23 

15.6 DeSoto, LA Waterbodies Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.23 

15.9 DeSoto, LA Roads Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.23 

15.9 DeSoto, LA Roads Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.11 

16.1 DeSoto, LA Waterbodies Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.23 

16.2 DeSoto, LA Waterbodies Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.11 

16.2 DeSoto, LA Waterbodies Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.23 

16.4 DeSoto, LA Roads Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.23 

16.4 DeSoto, LA Roads Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.23 

16.7 DeSoto, LA Roads Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.23 

16.8 DeSoto, LA Roads Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.23 

17.0 DeSoto, LA Wetlands Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.23 

17.0 DeSoto, LA Wetlands Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.23 

17.5 DeSoto, LA Wetlands Slope Hardwood 0.23 

17.7 DeSoto, LA Wetlands Slope Hardwood 0.23 

17.9 DeSoto, LA Waterbodies Slope Hardwood 0.23 

17.9 DeSoto, LA Waterbodies Slope Hardwood 0.23 

18.1 DeSoto, LA Roads Slope Hardwood 0.34 

18.1 DeSoto, LA Roads/Pipelines Pasture 0.34 

18.3 DeSoto, LA Wetlands Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.11 

18.3 DeSoto, LA Wetlands Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.11 

18.5 DeSoto, LA Railroads Pine Plantation 0.37 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
APPENDIX F-1 

F1-5 

TABLE F-1 (continued) 

Extra Workspace Areas for the Proposed East Texas to Mississippi Project 

Milepost County/Parish 

Reason for Extra 

Workspace Area Affected Land Use 

Land 

Requirements 

(Acres) 

18.5 DeSoto, LA Railroads Pine Plantation 0.65 

18.6 DeSoto, LA Pipelines Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.23 

18.6 DeSoto, LA Pipelines Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.11 

19.0 DeSoto, LA Roads Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.46 

19.2 DeSoto, LA Wetlands Slope Hardwood 0.23 

19.5 DeSoto, LA Wetlands Slope Hardwood 0.11 

19.5 DeSoto, LA Roads/Waterbodies Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.34 

19.6 DeSoto, LA Waterbodies Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.23 

20.3 DeSoto, LA Roads Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.23 

20.3 DeSoto, LA Roads Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.23 

20.6 DeSoto, LA Waterbodies Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.22 

20.6 DeSoto, LA Waterbodies Slope Hardwood 0.11 

20.8 DeSoto, LA Waterbodies Slope Hardwood 0.34 

21.0 DeSoto, LA Wetlands Slope Hardwood 0.29 

21.2 DeSoto, LA Wetlands Slope Hardwood 0.60 

21.5 DeSoto, LA Waterbodies Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.23 

21.6 DeSoto, LA Roads Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.23 

21.6 DeSoto, LA Roads Open Land 0.23 

21.7 DeSoto, LA Pipelines Open Land 0.23 

21.7 DeSoto, LA Pipelines Open Land 0.23 

21.8 DeSoto, LA Roads Open Land 0.46 

21.8 DeSoto, LA Roads Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.44 

21.9 DeSoto, LA Waterbodies Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.23 

22.0 DeSoto, LA HDD Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.94 

22.4 Red River, LA HDD Slope Hardwood 0.73 

22.4 Red River, LA HDD Multiple 2.07 

22.4 Red River, LA Waterbodies Open Land 0.17 

22.4 Red River, LA Waterbodies Agricultural 0.23 

23.0 Red River, LA HDD Agricultural 0.73 

23.5 Red River, LA HDD Agricultural 0.73 

24.0 Red River, LA HDD Agricultural 0.73 

24.4 Red River, LA HDD Agricultural 0.73 

24.7 Red River, LA Roads Agricultural 0.23 

24.7 Red River, LA Roads Agricultural 0.11 

24.9 Red River, LA HDD Agricultural 0.73 

25.2 Red River, LA HDD Agricultural 0.73 

25.4 Red River, LA Roads Agricultural 0.23 

25.4 Red River, LA Roads Agricultural 0.23 

25.6 Red River, LA Waterbodies Agricultural 0.11 

25.6 Red River, LA Waterbodies Agricultural 0.11 

25.7 Red River, LA Roads Agricultural 0.23 

25.7 Red River, LA Roads Agricultural 0.23 

25.9 Red River, LA Waterbodies Agricultural 0.23 

25.9 Red River, LA Waterbodies/Railroads Agricultural 0.60 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
APPENDIX F-1 

F1-6

TABLE F-1 (continued) 

Extra Workspace Areas for the Proposed East Texas to Mississippi Project 

Milepost County/Parish 

Reason for Extra 

Workspace Area Affected Land Use 

Land 

Requirements 

(Acres) 

26.0 Red River, LA Railroads/Roads Agricultural 0.29 

26.4 Red River, LA Waterbodies Slope Hardwood 0.23 

26.4 Red River, LA Waterbodies Agricultural 0.23 

26.6 Red River, LA Waterbodies Slope Hardwood 0.23 

26.6 Red River, LA Waterbodies Slope Hardwood 0.23 

26.8 Red River, LA Pipelines Slope Hardwood 0.23 

26.9 Red River, LA Roads Slope Hardwood 0.18 

26.9 Red River, LA Levee/HDD Slope Hardwood 1.10 

26.9 Red River, LA Levee/HDD Slope Hardwood 1.81 

27.3 Red River, LA HDD Open Land 0.73 

27.3 Red River, LA HDD Pipe String Open Land 1.97 

27.6 Red River, LA Staging Area Agricultural 2.13 

27.6 Red River, LA Roads Agricultural 0.56 

28.1 Red River, LA Roads Agricultural 0.23 

28.1 Red River, LA Railroads Agricultural 0.23 

28.4 Red River, LA Roads Agricultural 0.23 

28.4 Red River, LA Roads Agricultural 0.46 

28.6 Red River, LA Pipelines Agricultural 0.18 

28.8 Red River, LA Wetlands Agricultural 1.04 

29.2 Red River, LA Wetlands Agricultural 0.23 

29.6 Red River, LA Roads/HDD String Agricultural 0.97 

29.6 Red River, LA HDD Agricultural 0.73 

29.9 Red River, LA HDD Slope Hardwood 0.73 

30.3 Red River, LA Roads Agricultural 0.23 

30.4 Red River, LA Waterbodies Slope Hardwood 0.52 

30.5 Red River, LA Waterbodies Slope Hardwood 0.23 

30.6 Red River, LA Waterbodies Slope Hardwood 0.23 

30.7 Red River, LA Roads Slope Hardwood 0.23 

30.7 Red River, LA Roads Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.23 

30.9 Red River, LA Pipelines Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.34 

30.9 Red River, LA Roads Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.11 

30.9 Red River, LA Roads Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.23 

31.0 Red River, LA Waterbodies Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.23 

31.2 Red River, LA Roads Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.23 

31.2 Red River, LA Roads Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.23 

31.4 Red River, LA Waterbodies Slope Hardwood 0.23 

31.4 Red River, LA Waterbodies Slope Hardwood 0.39 

31.5 Red River, LA Wetlands Slope Hardwood 0.23 

31.6 Red River, LA Wetlands Slope Hardwood 0.60 

31.8 Red River, LA Waterbodies Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.23 

31.9 Red River, LA Roads Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.23 

31.9 Red River, LA Roads Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.23 

31.9 Red River, LA Waterbodies Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.11 

32.2 Red River, LA Waterbodies Open Land 0.23 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
APPENDIX F-1 

F1-7 

TABLE F-1 (continued) 

Extra Workspace Areas for the Proposed East Texas to Mississippi Project 

Milepost County/Parish 

Reason for Extra 

Workspace Area Affected Land Use 

Land 

Requirements 

(Acres) 

32.4 Red River, LA Waterbodies Open Land 0.23 

32.7 Red River, LA Roads Open Land 0.23 

32.7 Red River, LA Roads Pine Plantation 0.23 

32.8 Red River, LA Waterbodies Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.23 

33.0 Red River, LA Waterbodies Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.23 

33.0 Red River, LA Roads Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.09 

33.0 Red River, LA Roads Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.23 

33.2 Red River, LA Wetlands Pine Plantation 0.23 

33.3 Red River, LA Wetlands Pine Plantation 0.95 

33.5 Red River, LA Wetlands Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.34 

33.7 Red River, LA Waterbodies Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.23 

33.7 Red River, LA Waterbodies Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.23 

33.8 Red River, LA Waterbodies Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.23 

34.3 Red River, LA Waterbodies Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.23 

34.3 Red River, LA Waterbodies/Roads Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.44 

34.4 Red River, LA Wetlands Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.11 

34.8 Red River, LA Wetlands Pine Plantation 0.95 

34.8 Red River, LA Waterbodies Pine Plantation 0.34 

35.1 Red River, LA Waterbodies Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.23 

35.1 Red River, LA Waterbodies Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.42 

35.2 Red River, LA Wetlands Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.23 

35.7 Red River, LA Wetlands Pasture 0.52 

35.7 Red River, LA Wetlands Pasture 0.35 

35.9 Red River, LA Waterbodies/Roads Pasture 0.44 

35.9 Red River, LA Roads Pasture 0.23 

36.1 Red River, LA Roads/Wetlands Pasture 0.34 

36.2 Bienville, LA Waterbodies Pasture 0.23 

36.6 Bienville, LA Wetlands Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.26 

36.7 Bienville, LA Wetlands Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.60 

36.8 Bienville, LA Wetlands Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.50 

37.1 Bienville, LA Wetlands Open Land 0.57 

37.3 Bienville, LA Waterbodies Pine Plantation 0.23 

37.4 Bienville, LA Wetlands Pine Plantation 0.46 

37.6 Bienville, LA Wetland/Waterbodies Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.46 

37.6 Bienville, LA Waterbodies Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.23 

38.0 Bienville, LA Wetlands Pasture 0.86 

38.0 Bienville, LA Wetlands Pasture 0.17 

38.0 Bienville, LA Wetlands Pasture 0.11 

38.1 Bienville, LA Wetlands Agricultural 0.23 

38.3 Bienville, LA Pipelines Agricultural 0.23 

38.3 Bienville, LA Pipelines Agricultural 0.23 

38.5 Bienville, LA Roads Agricultural 0.23 

38.5 Bienville, LA Roads Pasture 0.23 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
APPENDIX F-1 

F1-8

TABLE F-1 (continued) 

Extra Workspace Areas for the Proposed East Texas to Mississippi Project 

Milepost County/Parish 

Reason for Extra 

Workspace Area Affected Land Use 

Land 

Requirements 

(Acres) 

38.7 Bienville, LA Waterbodies Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.23 

38.7 Bienville, LA Waterbodies Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.23 

39.1 Bienville, LA Waterbodies Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.23 

39.1 Bienville, LA Waterbodies Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.23 

40.1 Bienville, LA Waterbodies Pine Plantation 0.23 

40.1 Bienville, LA Waterbodies Pine Plantation 0.23 

40.6 Bienville, LA Roads Pine Plantation 0.18 

40.6 Bienville, LA Roads Pasture 0.39 

40.9 Bienville, LA Wetlands/Roads Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.23 

41.0 Bienville, LA Wetlands/Roads Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.23 

41.4 Bienville, LA Wetlands Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 1.72 

41.6 Bienville, LA Waterbodies Pasture 0.23 

41.7 Bienville, LA Waterbodies Pasture 0.23 

41.8 Bienville, LA Wetlands Pasture 0.29 

41.9 Bienville, LA Roads Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.31 

42.0 Bienville, LA Wetlands/HDD String Slope Hardwood 1.88 

42.3 Bienville, LA HDD Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.73 

42.8 Bienville, LA Roads Pine Plantation 0.11 

42.8 Bienville, LA Roads Pine Plantation 0.11 

42.9 Bienville, LA HDD Pine Plantation 0.73 

43.4 Bienville, LA HDD Slope Hardwood 0.73 

43.4 Bienville, LA HDD String Slope Hardwood 3.18 

44.0 Bienville, LA Roads Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.23 

44.2 Bienville, LA Waterbodies Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.23 

44.2 Bienville, LA Waterbodies Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.23 

44.6 Bienville, LA Roads Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.46 

44.6 Bienville, LA Roads Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.34 

44.9 Bienville, LA Waterbodies Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.23 

44.9 Bienville, LA Waterbodies Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.23 

45.2 Bienville, LA Waterbodies Pasture 0.23 

45.2 Bienville, LA Waterbodies Pasture 0.23 

45.5 Bienville, LA Wetlands Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.52 

45.5 Bienville, LA Wetlands Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.23 

45.7 Bienville, LA Roads Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.23 

45.7 Bienville, LA Roads Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.23 

46.2 Bienville, LA Roads Pine Plantation 0.23 

46.2 Bienville, LA Roads Pine Plantation 0.12 

46.3 Bienville, LA Roads Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.23 

46.4 Bienville, LA Wetlands Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.43 

46.5 Bienville, LA Wetlands Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.23 

46.6 Bienville, LA Wetlands Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.23 

46.6 Bienville, LA Wetlands Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.23 

46.9 Bienville, LA Wetlands Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.23 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
APPENDIX F-1 

F1-9 

TABLE F-1 (continued) 

Extra Workspace Areas for the Proposed East Texas to Mississippi Project 

Milepost County/Parish 

Reason for Extra 

Workspace Area Affected Land Use 

Land 

Requirements 

(Acres) 

47.0 Bienville, LA Wetlands Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.23 

47.1 Bienville, LA Roads Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.23 

47.1 Bienville, LA Roads Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.11 

47.3 Bienville, LA Roads Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.25 

47.3 Bienville, LA Roads Industrial/Commercial 0.11 

47.4 Bienville, LA Waterbodies Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.23 

47.4 Bienville, LA Waterbodies Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.23 

47.5 Bienville, LA Roads Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.23 

47.5 Bienville, LA Roads Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.11 

47.6 Bienville, LA Waterbodies Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.23 

47.6 Bienville, LA Waterbodies Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.23 

48.1 Bienville, LA Roads Pine Plantation 0.23 

48.1 Bienville, LA Roads Pine Plantation 0.23 

48.6 Bienville, LA Wetlands Pine Plantation 0.68 

48.7 Bienville, LA Wetlands Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.84 

48.9 Bienville, LA Wetlands Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.23 

49.1 Bienville, LA Wetlands Pine Plantation 0.23 

49.5 Bienville, LA Waterbodies Pine Plantation 0.23 

49.5 Bienville, LA Waterbodies Pine Plantation 0.23 

49.6 Bienville, LA Roads Pine Plantation 0.23 

49.6 Bienville, LA Roads Pine Plantation 0.23 

49.7 Bienville, LA Roads Pine Plantation 0.11 

50.0 Bienville, LA Waterbodies Pine Plantation 0.23 

50.0 Bienville, LA Waterbodies Pine Plantation 0.23 

50.5 Bienville, LA Roads Pine Plantation 0.23 

50.5 Bienville, LA Roads/Wetlands Slope Hardwood 0.59 

50.7 Bienville, LA Wetlands Slope Hardwood 0.11 

50.8 Bienville, LA Wetlands Slope Hardwood 0.43 

51.1 Bienville, LA Wetlands Pine Plantation 1.12 

51.3 Bienville, LA Wetlands Pine Plantation 1.03 

51.6 Bienville, LA Roads Pine Plantation 0.11 

51.6 Bienville, LA Pipelines Pine Plantation 0.23 

51.7 Bienville, LA Pipelines Pine Plantation 0.11 

51.7 Bienville, LA Pipelines Pine Plantation 0.23 

51.9 Bienville, LA Roads Pine Plantation 0.11 

51.9 Bienville, LA Roads Pine Plantation 0.75 

52.1 Bienville, LA Roads Pine Plantation 0.23 

52.1 Bienville, LA Roads Pine Plantation 0.23 

52.3 Bienville, LA Waterbodies Pine Plantation 0.23 

52.9 Bienville, LA Wetlands Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.37 

52.9 Bienville, LA Wetlands/Roads Pine Plantation 0.16 

52.9 Bienville, LA Roads Open Land 0.23 

53.4 Bienville, LA Roads Pine Plantation 0.23 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
APPENDIX F-1 

F1-10

TABLE F-1 (continued) 

Extra Workspace Areas for the Proposed East Texas to Mississippi Project 

Milepost County/Parish 

Reason for Extra 

Workspace Area Affected Land Use 

Land 

Requirements 

(Acres) 

53.4 Bienville, LA Roads Pine Plantation 0.23 

53.6 Bienville, LA Waterbodies Pine Plantation 0.23 

53.7 Bienville, LA Waterbodies Pine Plantation 0.23 

53.8 Bienville, LA Roads Pine Plantation 0.23 

53.8 Bienville, LA Roads Pine Plantation 0.23 

54.1 Bienville, LA Roads Pine Plantation 0.11 

54.1 Bienville, LA Roads Pine Plantation 0.07 

54.3 Bienville, LA Wetlands Pine Plantation 0.88 

54.4 Bienville, LA Waterbodies Pine Plantation 0.23 

54.6 Bienville, LA Roads Pine Plantation 0.23 

54.6 Bienville, LA Roads Pine Plantation 0.23 

54.9 Bienville, LA Pipeline Tie-In Pine Plantation 0.23 

55.0 Bienville, LA Roads Pine Plantation 0.23 

55.0 Bienville, LA Roads Pine Plantation 0.23 

55.2 Bienville, LA Waterbodies Pine Plantation 0.23 

55.3 Bienville, LA Waterbodies Pine Plantation 0.23 

55.3 Bienville, LA Waterbodies Pine Plantation 0.23 

55.6 Bienville, LA Roads Pine Plantation 0.23 

55.6 Bienville, LA Roads Pine Plantation 0.24 

56.2 Bienville, LA Wetlands Slope Hardwood 0.63 

56.4 Bienville, LA Roads Pine Plantation 0.23 

56.4 Bienville, LA Roads Pine Plantation 0.11 

56.5 Bienville, LA Wetlands Pine Plantation 0.43 

56.7 Bienville, LA Wetlands/Roads Pine Plantation 0.54 

56.8 Bienville, LA Roads Pine Plantation 0.23 

57.0 Bienville, LA HDD Pine Plantation 0.73 

57.5 Bienville, LA HDD Slope Hardwood 0.86 

57.5 Bienville, LA HDD String Slope Hardwood 3.51 

57.9 Bienville, LA Roads Open Land 0.23 

58.1 Bienville, LA Roads Pine Plantation 0.23 

58.1 Bienville, LA Roads Pine Plantation 0.11 

58.5 Bienville, LA Waterbodies Pine Plantation 0.23 

58.5 Bienville, LA Waterbodies Pine Plantation 0.23 

58.9 Bienville, LA Wetlands Pine Plantation 0.55 

58.9 Bienville, LA Wetlands Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.23 

59.1 Bienville, LA Roads Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.29 

59.1 Bienville, LA Roads Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.23 

59.5 Bienville, LA Waterbodies Pine Plantation 0.23 

59.5 Bienville, LA Waterbodies Pine Plantation 0.30 

59.7 Bienville, LA Waterbodies Pine Plantation 0.23 

59.7 Bienville, LA Waterbodies/Roads Pine Plantation 0.39 

59.7 Bienville, LA Roads/Waterbodies Pine Plantation 0.46 

59.9 Bienville, LA Waterbodies Pine Plantation 0.46 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
APPENDIX F-1 

F1-11

TABLE F-1 (continued) 

Extra Workspace Areas for the Proposed East Texas to Mississippi Project 

Milepost County/Parish 

Reason for Extra 

Workspace Area Affected Land Use 

Land 

Requirements 

(Acres) 

59.9 Bienville, LA Waterbodies Pine Plantation 0.23 

60.1 Bienville, LA Waterbodies Pine Plantation 0.23 

60.2 Bienville, LA Roads Pine Plantation 0.23 

60.2 Bienville, LA Roads Pine Plantation 0.11 

60.3 Bienville, LA Waterbodies Pine Plantation 0.23 

60.4 Bienville, LA Roads Pine Plantation 0.23 

60.4 Bienville, LA Roads Pine Plantation 0.23 

60.7 Bienville, LA Roads Pine Plantation 0.23 

60.7 Bienville, LA Roads Pine Plantation 0.23 

60.9 Bienville, LA Waterbodies Pine Plantation 0.23 

61.0 Bienville, LA Waterbodies Pine Plantation 0.23 

61.1 Bienville, LA Roads Pine Plantation 0.23 

61.2 Bienville, LA Wetlands Pine Plantation 0.29 

61.2 Bienville, LA Wetlands/Roads Pine Plantation 0.09 

61.3 Bienville, LA Roads Pine Plantation 0.11 

61.4 Bienville, LA Waterbodies Pine Plantation 0.23 

61.4 Bienville, LA Waterbodies Pine Plantation 0.23 

61.5 Bienville, LA Waterbodies Slope Hardwood 0.23 

61.5 Bienville, LA Waterbodies Slope Hardwood 0.23 

61.7 Bienville, LA Wetlands Pine Plantation 0.23 

61.7 Bienville, LA Wetlands/Roads Pine Plantation 0.26 

61.8 Bienville, LA Waterbodies Pine Plantation 0.23 

62.2 Bienville, LA Wetlands Pine Plantation 0.34 

62.2 Bienville, LA Wetlands Pine Plantation 0.23 

62.4 Bienville, LA Waterbodies Pine Plantation 0.40 

62.6 Bienville, LA Staging Area Pine Plantation 5.74 

62.7 Bienville, LA Staging Area Pine Plantation 6.89 

62.9 Bienville, LA Wetlands Slope Hardwood 0.55 

63.0 Bienville, LA Wetlands Slope Hardwood 0.52 

63.1 Bienville, LA Wetlands Slope Hardwood 0.29 

63.3 Bienville, LA Railroads Pine Plantation 0.11 

63.3 Bienville, LA Railroads Pine Plantation 0.17 

63.4 Bienville, LA Waterbodies Pine Plantation 0.57 

63.7 Bienville, LA Roads Pine Plantation 0.23 

63.8 Bienville, LA Waterbodies Pine Plantation 0.23 

64.3 Bienville, LA Waterbodies Pine Plantation 0.23 

64.3 Bienville, LA Waterbodies Pine Plantation 0.23 

64.8 Bienville, LA Roads Pine Plantation 0.23 

64.8 Bienville, LA Roads Pine Plantation 0.23 

65.2 Bienville, LA Roads Pine Plantation 0.26 

65.2 Bienville, LA Roads Pine Plantation 0.23 

65.8 Bienville, LA Wetlands Pine Plantation 0.72 

65.9 Bienville, LA Roads Pine Plantation 0.25 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
APPENDIX F-1 

F1-12

TABLE F-1 (continued) 

Extra Workspace Areas for the Proposed East Texas to Mississippi Project 

Milepost County/Parish 

Reason for Extra 

Workspace Area Affected Land Use 

Land 

Requirements 

(Acres) 

66.0 Bienville, LA Waterbodies Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.29 

66.2 Bienville, LA Wetlands Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.37 

66.3 Bienville, LA Wetlands Pine Plantation 1.87 

66.6 Bienville, LA Waterbodies Pine Plantation 0.23 

66.6 Bienville, LA Waterbodies Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.23 

66.8 Bienville, LA Roads Pine Plantation 0.23 

66.8 Bienville, LA Roads Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.23 

66.9 Bienville, LA Waterbodies Pine Plantation 0.23 

66.9 Bienville, LA Waterbodies Pine Plantation 0.23 

67.0 Bienville, LA Waterbodies Pine Plantation 0.11 

67.0 Bienville, LA Waterbodies Pine Plantation 0.23 

67.3 Bienville, LA Roads Pine Plantation 0.24 

67.3 Bienville, LA Roads Pine Plantation 0.33 

67.5 Bienville, LA Wetlands Pine Plantation 0.23 

67.5 Bienville, LA Wetlands Pine Plantation 0.23 

67.7 Bienville, LA Wetlands Slope Hardwood 0.37 

67.8 Bienville, LA Roads Pine Plantation 0.07 

67.8 Bienville, LA Roads Pine Plantation 0.36 

67.9 Bienville, LA Waterbodies Slope Hardwood 0.29 

68.1 Bienville, LA Waterbodies/Roads Slope Hardwood 0.29 

68.1 Bienville, LA Roads Pine Plantation 0.11 

68.2 Bienville, LA Roads Pine Plantation 0.29 

68.2 Bienville, LA Roads Pine Plantation 0.11 

68.4 Bienville, LA Waterbodies Slope Hardwood 1.08 

68.5 Bienville, LA Wetlands Slope Hardwood 0.69 

68.9 Jackson, LA Waterbodies Pine Plantation 0.57 

69.3 Jackson, LA Roads Slope Hardwood 0.41 

69.4 Jackson, LA Wetlands Pine Plantation 0.39 

69.8 Jackson, LA Pipelines Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.20 

69.8 Jackson, LA Pipelines Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.18 

69.9 Jackson, LA Wetlands Pine Plantation 0.58 

70.0 Jackson, LA Wetlands Pine Plantation 0.19 

70.0 Jackson, LA Pipelines Pine Plantation 0.23 

70.1 Jackson, LA Roads Pine Plantation 0.23 

70.1 Jackson, LA Roads Pine Plantation 0.12 

70.2 Jackson, LA Roads Pine Plantation 0.23 

70.2 Jackson, LA Roads Pine Plantation 0.23 

70.4 Jackson, LA Waterbodies Pine Plantation 0.23 

70.4 Jackson, LA Waterbodies Pine Plantation 0.23 

70.5 Jackson, LA Waterbodies Pine Plantation 0.23 

70.5 Jackson, LA Waterbodies Pine Plantation 0.27 

70.6 Jackson, LA Side Slope/Roads Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.49 

70.7 Jackson, LA Roads Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.11 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
APPENDIX F-1 

F1-13

TABLE F-1 (continued) 

Extra Workspace Areas for the Proposed East Texas to Mississippi Project 

Milepost County/Parish 

Reason for Extra 

Workspace Area Affected Land Use 

Land 

Requirements 

(Acres) 

71.5 Jackson, LA Wetlands/HDD String Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 3.89 

71.5 Jackson, LA HDD Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.73 

72.2 Jackson, LA HDD Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.73 

72.5 Jackson, LA Waterbodies Pine Plantation 0.23 

72.6 Jackson, LA Waterbodies Pine Plantation 0.23 

72.9 Jackson, LA Waterbodies Open Land 0.24 

72.9 Jackson, LA Waterbodies Pine Plantation 0.19 

73.0 Jackson, LA HDD Pine Plantation 0.60 

73.3 Jackson, LA HDD Pine Plantation 0.73 

73.3 Jackson, LA HDD String Pine Plantation 1.54 

73.6 Jackson, LA Roads Pine Plantation 0.29 

73.7 Jackson, LA Waterbodies Pine Plantation 0.23 

73.8 Jackson, LA Waterbodies Pine Plantation 0.23 

73.9 Jackson, LA Waterbodies Pine Plantation 0.11 

74.0 Jackson, LA Waterbodies Pine Plantation 0.23 

74.0 Jackson, LA Waterbodies/Roads Pine Plantation 0.11 

74.1 Jackson, LA Roads Pine Plantation 0.23 

74.2 Jackson, LA Waterbodies Pine Plantation 0.23 

74.3 Jackson, LA Waterbodies Pine Plantation 0.23 

74.4 Jackson, LA Roads Pine Plantation 0.23 

74.7 Jackson, LA Roads Pine Plantation 0.23 

74.8 Jackson, LA Roads/Waterbodies Pine Plantation 0.51 

74.9 Jackson, LA Waterbodies Pine Plantation 0.23 

74.9 Jackson, LA Waterbodies Pine Plantation 0.23 

75.2 Jackson, LA Wetlands Agricultural 0.23 

75.2 Jackson, LA Wetlands Agricultural 0.23 

75.3 Jackson, LA Wetlands Agricultural 0.25 

75.4 Jackson, LA Wetlands Agricultural 0.23 

75.5 Jackson, LA Waterbodies Slope Hardwood 0.23 

75.6 Jackson, LA Wetlands Slope Hardwood 0.19 

75.6 Jackson, LA Waterbodies Slope Hardwood 0.61 

75.8 Jackson, LA Roads Pasture 0.36 

75.8 Jackson, LA Roads Pasture 0.28 

75.9 Jackson, LA Waterbodies Slope Hardwood 0.34 

76.0 Jackson, LA Wetlands Slope Hardwood 0.35 

76.0 Jackson, LA Wetlands Slope Hardwood 0.26 

76.2 Jackson, LA Waterbodies Pine Plantation 0.23 

76.2 Jackson, LA Waterbodies Pine Plantation 0.23 

76.4 Jackson, LA Waterbodies Pine Plantation 0.34 

76.5 Jackson, LA Roads Pine Plantation 0.11 

76.5 Jackson, LA Roads Industrial/Commercial 0.11 

76.8 Jackson, LA Pipelines Slope Hardwood 0.23 

76.8 Jackson, LA Pipelines Slope Hardwood 0.23 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
APPENDIX F-1 

F1-14

TABLE F-1 (continued) 

Extra Workspace Areas for the Proposed East Texas to Mississippi Project 

Milepost County/Parish 

Reason for Extra 

Workspace Area Affected Land Use 

Land 

Requirements 

(Acres) 

77.0 Jackson, LA Waterbodies Slope Hardwood 0.23 

77.1 Jackson, LA Waterbodies Slope Hardwood 0.23 

77.2 Jackson, LA Waterbodies Pine Plantation 0.23 

77.2 Jackson, LA Waterbodies Pine Plantation 0.23 

77.4 Jackson, LA Waterbodies Pine Plantation 0.23 

77.4 Jackson, LA Waterbodies Pine Plantation 0.53 

77.5 Jackson, LA Waterbodies Pine Plantation 0.23 

77.6 Jackson, LA Waterbodies Pine Plantation 0.22 

77.7 Jackson, LA Roads Open Land 0.23 

78.1 Jackson, LA Waterbodies Pine Plantation 0.23 

78.2 Jackson, LA Waterbodies/Roads Pine Plantation 0.47 

78.2 Jackson, LA Roads Pine Plantation 0.23 

78.3 Jackson, LA Waterbodies/Roads Pine Plantation 0.46 

78.4 Jackson, LA Roads Pine Plantation 0.23 

78.5 Jackson, LA Pipelines Pine Plantation 0.34 

78.5 Jackson, LA Pipelines Pine Plantation 0.34 

78.6 Jackson, LA Waterbodies Pine Plantation 0.17 

78.8 Jackson, LA Waterbodies Pine Plantation 0.23 

78.8 Jackson, LA Waterbodies Pine Plantation 0.23 

79.0 Jackson, LA Waterbodies Pine Plantation 0.23 

79.0 Jackson, LA Waterbodies Pine Plantation 0.23 

79.2 Jackson, LA Roads/Wetlands Pine Plantation 0.46 

79.3 Jackson, LA Wetlands/Roads Pine Plantation 0.60 

79.4 Jackson, LA Roads/Waterbodies Pine Plantation 0.45 

79.5 Jackson, LA Waterbodies Pine Plantation 0.33 

79.6 Jackson, LA Waterbodies Pine Plantation 0.23 

80.0 Jackson, LA Wetlands Pine Plantation 0.34 

80.0 Jackson, LA Waterbodies Pine Plantation 0.23 

80.3 Jackson, LA Wetlands Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.52 

80.5 Jackson, LA Wetlands Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.11 

80.6 Jackson, LA Wetlands Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.60 

81.2 Jackson, LA Roads Pine Plantation 0.23 

81.2 Jackson, LA Roads/Waterbodies Pine Plantation 0.62 

81.3 Jackson, LA Waterbodies Pine Plantation 0.23 

81.5 Jackson, LA Roads Agricultural 0.23 

81.5 Jackson, LA Roads Agricultural 0.23 

81.9 Jackson, LA Wetlands Agricultural 0.63 

82.0 Jackson, LA Wetlands Pine Plantation 0.23 

82.1 Jackson, LA Waterbodies Pine Plantation 0.23 

82.2 Jackson, LA Waterbodies Pine Plantation 0.23 

82.3 Jackson, LA Waterbodies/Roads Pine Plantation 0.62 

82.3 Jackson, LA Roads/Waterbodies Pine Plantation 0.40 

82.3 Jackson, LA Wetlands Slope Hardwood 1.43 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
APPENDIX F-1 

F1-15

TABLE F-1 (continued) 

Extra Workspace Areas for the Proposed East Texas to Mississippi Project 

Milepost County/Parish 

Reason for Extra 

Workspace Area Affected Land Use 

Land 

Requirements 

(Acres) 

82.8 Jackson, LA Wetlands Pine Plantation 0.23 

83.0 Jackson, LA Roads Pine Plantation 0.23 

83.0 Jackson, LA Roads/Waterbodies Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.30 

83.1 Jackson, LA Waterbodies Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.11 

83.2 Jackson, LA Waterbodies Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.23 

83.5 Jackson, LA Pipelines Pasture 0.23 

83.5 Jackson, LA Pipelines Pasture 0.57 

83.7 Jackson, LA Wetlands Pasture 0.29 

83.8 Jackson, LA Waterbodies Pine Plantation 0.11 

83.9 Jackson, LA Waterbodies Pine Plantation 0.23 

84.0 Jackson, LA Waterbodies Pine Plantation 0.23 

84.3 Jackson, LA Waterbodies Pine Plantation 0.23 

84.3 Jackson, LA Waterbodies Pine Plantation 0.23 

84.5 Jackson, LA Waterbodies Pine Plantation 0.23 

84.5 Jackson, LA Waterbodies Pine Plantation 0.23 

84.8 Jackson, LA Waterbodies Agricultural 0.23 

84.8 Jackson, LA Waterbodies Agricultural 0.23 

84.9 Jackson, LA Pipelines Agricultural 0.23 

85.2 Jackson, LA Waterbodies Pine Plantation 0.23 

85.3 Jackson, LA Waterbodies Pine Plantation 0.45 

85.3 Jackson, LA Waterbodies Pine Plantation 0.23 

85.5 Jackson, LA Waterbodies Slope Hardwood 0.34 

85.6 Jackson, LA Wetlands Slope Hardwood 0.34 

86.3 Jackson, LA Roads Pine Plantation 0.23 

86.3 Jackson, LA Roads Pine Plantation 0.23 

86.7 Jackson, LA Roads Pine Plantation 0.23 

86.7 Jackson, LA Roads Pine Plantation 0.69 

87.0 Jackson, LA Waterbodies Slope Hardwood 0.23 

87.1 Jackson, LA Wetlands Slope Hardwood 0.29 

87.7 Jackson, LA Roads Agricultural 0.23 

87.7 Jackson, LA Roads Agricultural 0.23 

87.8 Jackson, LA Roads Agricultural 0.23 

87.8 Jackson, LA Roads Agricultural 0.24 

88.0 Jackson, LA Roads Pine Plantation 0.24 

88.0 Jackson, LA Roads Open Land 0.42 

88.1 Jackson, LA Roads Pine Plantation 0.23 

88.3 Jackson, LA Waterbodies Pine Plantation 0.23 

88.3 Jackson, LA Waterbodies Pine Plantation 0.23 

88.6 Jackson, LA Waterbodies Pine Plantation 0.23 

88.6 Jackson, LA Waterbodies Pine Plantation 0.23 

88.7 Jackson, LA Roads Pine Plantation 0.23 

88.7 Jackson, LA Roads/Pipelines Open Land 0.23 

88.8 Jackson, LA Pipelines Pine Plantation 0.23 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
APPENDIX F-1 

F1-16

TABLE F-1 (continued) 

Extra Workspace Areas for the Proposed East Texas to Mississippi Project 

Milepost County/Parish 

Reason for Extra 

Workspace Area Affected Land Use 

Land 

Requirements 

(Acres) 

88.9 Jackson, LA Waterbodies Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.23 

89.1 Jackson, LA Waterbodies Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.23 

89.1 Jackson, LA Waterbodies Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.23 

89.5 Jackson, LA Wetlands Pasture 0.63 

89.5 Jackson, LA Wetlands Pasture 0.23 

89.7 Jackson, LA HDD Pasture 0.73 

90.4 Jackson, LA HDD Pine Plantation 0.73 

90.5 Jackson, LA Waterbodies Pine Plantation 0.23 

90.5 Jackson, LA Waterbodies Pine Plantation 0.23 

90.7 Jackson, LA Waterbodies Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.23 

90.7 Jackson, LA Waterbodies/Roads Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.52 

90.8 Jackson, LA Roads Pasture 0.11 

90.8 Jackson, LA Roads Pasture 0.23 

91.1 Jackson, LA Waterbodies Slope Hardwood 0.23 

91.2 Jackson, LA Waterbodies Slope Hardwood 0.23 

91.5 Jackson, LA Roads Open Land 0.23 

91.6 Jackson, LA Waterbodies Open Land 0.19 

91.6 Jackson, LA Roads Open Land 0.11 

91.7 Jackson, LA Waterbodies Open Land 0.23 

91.7 Jackson, LA Waterbodies Open Land 0.23 

92.1 Jackson, LA Waterbodies Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.26 

92.1 Jackson, LA Wetlands Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.23 

92.3 Jackson, LA Wetlands Slope Hardwood 0.29 

92.4 Jackson, LA Waterbodies Slope Hardwood 0.23 

92.5 Jackson, LA Waterbodies Slope Hardwood 0.25 

92.8 Jackson, LA Waterbodies Pine Plantation 0.34 

92.8 Jackson, LA Waterbodies Pine Plantation 0.29 

92.9 Jackson, LA Roads Pine Plantation 0.11 

92.9 Jackson, LA Roads Pine Plantation 0.23 

93.1 Jackson, LA Waterbodies Pine Plantation 0.26 

93.1 Jackson, LA Waterbodies Pine Plantation 0.26 

93.5 Jackson, LA Waterbodies Pine Plantation 0.23 

93.5 Jackson, LA Waterbodies Pine Plantation 0.23 

93.7 Jackson, LA Roads Pine Plantation 0.23 

93.7 Jackson, LA Roads Pine Plantation 0.23 

94.0 Jackson, LA Waterbodies Pine Plantation 0.23 

94.0 Jackson, LA Waterbodies Slope Hardwood 0.23 

94.2 Jackson, LA Waterbodies Pine Plantation 0.23 

94.3 Jackson, LA Waterbodies Pine Plantation 0.23 

94.7 Jackson, LA Waterbodies Pine Plantation 0.23 

94.7 Jackson, LA Waterbodies Pine Plantation 0.23 

95.0 Jackson, LA Roads Pine Plantation 0.23 

95.0 Jackson, LA Roads Pine Plantation 0.23 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
APPENDIX F-1 

F1-17

TABLE F-1 (continued) 

Extra Workspace Areas for the Proposed East Texas to Mississippi Project 

Milepost County/Parish 

Reason for Extra 

Workspace Area Affected Land Use 

Land 

Requirements 

(Acres) 

95.1 Jackson, LA Waterbodies Pine Plantation 0.23 

95.2 Jackson, LA Waterbodies/Roads Pine Plantation 0.23 

95.2 Jackson, LA Waterbodies Pine Plantation 0.23 

95.4 Jackson, LA Waterbodies Pine Plantation 0.23 

95.9 Jackson, LA Waterbodies Pine Plantation 0.37 

95.9 Jackson, LA Waterbodies Pine Plantation 0.23 

96.1 Jackson, LA Waterbodies Pine Plantation 0.23 

96.1 Jackson, LA Roads Pine Plantation 0.08 

96.1 Jackson, LA Roads Pine Plantation 0.23 

96.3 Jackson, LA Waterbodies Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.37 

96.3 Jackson, LA Waterbodies Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.23 

96.5 Jackson, LA Waterbodies Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.23 

96.5 Jackson, LA Waterbodies Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.23 

96.8 Jackson, LA Waterbodies Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.23 

96.8 Jackson, LA Waterbodies Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.23 

97.0 Jackson, LA Waterbodies Pine Plantation 0.23 

97.0 Jackson, LA Waterbodies/Roads Pine Plantation 0.38 

97.1 Jackson, LA Sideslope Pipe Plantation 10.15 

97.1 Jackson, LA Roads Pine Plantation 0.21 

97.3 Jackson, LA Roads Pine Plantation 0.23 

97.3 Jackson, LA Roads Pine Plantation 0.23 

97.6 Ouachita, LA Waterbodies Pine Plantation 0.23 

97.7 Ouachita, LA Waterbodies Pine Plantation 0.23 

97.9 Ouachita, LA Waterbodies Pine Plantation 0.11 

98.0 Ouachita, LA Waterbodies Pine Plantation 0.23 

98.1 Ouachita, LA Roads Pine Plantation 0.19 

98.1 Ouachita, LA Roads Pine Plantation 0.26 

98.2 Ouachita, LA Waterbodies Pine Plantation 0.23 

98.2 Ouachita, LA Waterbodies Pine Plantation 0.34 

98.3 Ouachita, LA Waterbodies Pine Plantation 0.23 

98.8 Ouachita, LA Sideslope Pine Plantation 2.52 

98.8 Ouachita, LA Waterbodies Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.23 

99.0 Ouachita, LA Roads Pine Plantation 0.27 

99.0 Ouachita, LA Roads Pine Plantation 0.19 

99.2 Ouachita, LA Wetlands Pine Plantation 0.34 

99.2 Ouachita, LA Sideslope Multiple 5.87 

99.6 Ouachita, LA Roads Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.23 

99.6 Ouachita, LA Roads/Pipelines Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.23 

99.9 Ouachita, LA Wetlands Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.23 

100.1 Ouachita, LA Wetlands Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.73 

100.3 Ouachita, LA Sideslope Multiple 4.18 

100.7 Ouachita, LA Roads Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.34 

100.7 Ouachita, LA Roads Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.27 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
APPENDIX F-1 

F1-18

TABLE F-1 (continued) 

Extra Workspace Areas for the Proposed East Texas to Mississippi Project 

Milepost County/Parish 

Reason for Extra 

Workspace Area Affected Land Use 

Land 

Requirements 

(Acres) 

100.8 Ouachita, LA Waterbodies Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.23 

100.9 Ouachita, LA Waterbodies Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.23 

101.0 Ouachita, LA Roads Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.23 

101.0 Ouachita, LA Sideslope Multiple 2.80 

101.0 Ouachita, LA Roads Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.11 

101.1 Ouachita, LA Waterbodies Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.23 

101.1 Ouachita, LA Waterbodies Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.23 

101.2 Ouachita, LA Waterbodies Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.23 

101.4 Ouachita, LA Waterbodies Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.23 

101.4 Ouachita, LA Roads Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.11 

101.4101.5 Ouachita, LA Sideslope Multiple 2.62 

101.5 Ouachita, LA Roads Pine Plantation 0.11 

101.7 Ouachita, LA Waterbodies Pine Plantation 0.23 

101.7 Ouachita, LA Waterbodies Pine Plantation 0.23 

101.9 Ouachita, LA Roads Pine Plantation 0.26 

101.9 Ouachita, LA Sideslope Multiple 2.49 

101.9 Ouachita, LA Roads Pine Plantation 0.32 

102.3 Ouachita, LA Wetlands Pine Plantation 0.63 

102.4 Ouachita, LA Sideslope Multiple 1.88 

102.4 Ouachita, LA Wetlands Pine Plantation 0.24 

102.7 Ouachita, LA Side Slope Multiple 6.85 

102.7 Ouachita, LA Roads/Waterbodies Pine Plantation 0.59 

102.8 Ouachita, LA Waterbodies Pine Plantation 0.23 

103.0 Ouachita, LA Waterbodies Pine Plantation 0.23 

103.0 Ouachita, LA Waterbodies Pine Plantation 0.23 

103.1 Ouachita, LA Waterbodies Pine Plantation 0.23 

103.1 Ouachita, LA Waterbodies Pine Plantation 0.45 

103.2 Ouachita, LA Waterbodies Pine Plantation 0.23 

103.9 Ouachita, LA Roads Pine Plantation 0.23 

103.9 Ouachita, LA Sideslope Pine Plantation 1.08 

104.1 Ouachita, LA Sideslope Multiple 6.32 

105.1 Ouachita, LA Sideslope Multiple 7.01 

106.3 Ouachita, LA Roads Pine Plantation 0.23 

106.6 Ouachita, LA Waterbodies Pine Plantation 0.23 

106.6 Ouachita, LA Waterbodies Pine Plantation 0.23 

107.1 Ouachita, LA Waterbodies Slope Hardwood 0.23 

107.2 Ouachita, LA Waterbodies Slope Hardwood 0.37 

107.3 Ouachita, LA Waterbodies Pine Plantation 0.23 

107.6 Ouachita, LA Wetlands Pine Plantation 0.66 

107.7 Ouachita, LA Wetlands Pine Plantation 0.23 

107.8 Ouachita, LA Roads Pine Plantation 0.23 

107.8 Ouachita, LA Roads Pine Plantation 0.23 

108.1 Ouachita, LA Wetlands Pine Plantation 0.34 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
APPENDIX F-1 

F1-19

TABLE F-1 (continued) 

Extra Workspace Areas for the Proposed East Texas to Mississippi Project 

Milepost County/Parish 

Reason for Extra 

Workspace Area Affected Land Use 

Land 

Requirements 

(Acres) 

108.2 Ouachita, LA Wetlands Pine Plantation 0.23 

108.3 Ouachita, LA Waterbodies Pine Plantation 0.23 

108.3 Ouachita, LA Waterbodies Slope Hardwood 0.23 

108.5 Ouachita, LA Waterbodies Pine Plantation 0.23 

108.5 Ouachita, LA Waterbodies Pine Plantation 0.23 

108.8 Ouachita, LA Waterbodies Agricultural 0.23 

108.9 Ouachita, LA HDD Agricultural 0.73 

109.2 Ouachita, LA HDD Agricultural 0.73 

109.2 Ouachita, LA HDD String Agricultural 1.87 

110.4 Ouachita, LA Staging Area Agricultural 3.26 

110.5 Ouachita, LA Staging Area Agricultural 5.23 

110.6 Ouachita, LA HDD Agricultural 0.73 

111.0 Ouachita, LA HDD Agricultural 0.73 

111.5 Ouachita, LA Roads/Railroads Agricultural 0.69 

111.8 Ouachita, LA Roads Agricultural 0.23 

111.8 Ouachita, LA Roads Agricultural 0.23 

112.0 Ouachita, LA Roads Agricultural 0.23 

112.0 Ouachita, LA Roads Agricultural 0.23 

112.2 Ouachita, LA Roads Agricultural 0.21 

112.2 Ouachita, LA Roads Agricultural 0.23 

112.3 Ouachita, LA Wetlands Agricultural 0.23 

112.4 Ouachita, LA Pipelines Slope Hardwood 0.11 

112.4 Ouachita, LA Pipelines Slope Hardwood 0.11 

112.4 Ouachita, LA Pipeline Slope Hardwood 0.22 

112.5 Ouachita, LA Wetlands Slope Hardwood 1.14 

112.5 Ouachita, LA Wetlands/Pipelines Slope Hardwood 0.24 

112.7 Ouachita, LA Waterbodies Slope Hardwood 0.23 

112.7 Ouachita, LA Waterbodies Slope Hardwood 0.23 

112.9 Ouachita, LA Waterbodies Slope Hardwood 0.38 

112.9 Ouachita, LA Waterbodies Slope Hardwood 0.23 

113.1 Ouachita, LA Wetlands Pasture 0.23 

113.1 Ouachita, LA Wetlands Pasture 0.23 

113.2 Ouachita, LA Wetlands Pasture 0.23 

113.4 Ouachita, LA Waterbodies Pasture 0.23 

113.4 Ouachita, LA Waterbodies Open Land 0.23 

113.7 Ouachita, LA Roads Open Land 0.23 

113.7 Ouachita, LA Roads Open Land 0.23 

114.2 Ouachita, LA Roads Agricultural 0.23 

114.8 Ouachita, LA Roads Agricultural 0.23 

114.8 Ouachita, LA Roads Agricultural 0.23 

115.3 Ouachita, LA Roads Agricultural 0.23 

115.3 Ouachita, LA Roads Agricultural 0.13 

115.3 Ouachita, LA Roads Agricultural 0.92 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
APPENDIX F-1 

F1-20

TABLE F-1 (continued) 

Extra Workspace Areas for the Proposed East Texas to Mississippi Project 

Milepost County/Parish 

Reason for Extra 

Workspace Area Affected Land Use 

Land 

Requirements 

(Acres) 

115.6 Richland, LA HDD Agricultural 0.73 

115.8 Richland, LA Waterbodies Agricultural 0.27 

115.8 Richland, LA Waterbodies Agricultural 0.34 

115.9 Richland, LA Waterbodies Agricultural 0.11 

116.0 Richland, LA Levee Agricultural 0.37 

116.1 Richland, LA Waterbodies/Roads Agricultural 0.40 

116.1 Richland, LA Roads/Waterbodies Agricultural 0.41 

116.2 Richland, LA Levee Agricultural 0.38 

116.3 Richland, LA Levee Agricultural 0.37 

116.4 Richland, LA Levee/Roads Agricultural 0.39 

116.5 Richland, LA Roads Agricultural 0.23 

116.6 Richland, LA Levee Agricultural 0.23 

116.8 Richland, LA Levee Agricultural 0.34 

116.8 Richland, LA Levee Agricultural 0.34 

117.0 Richland, LA Roads/Waterbodies Agricultural 0.34 

117.1 Richland, LA Levee Agricultural 0.34 

117.2 Richland, LA Levee Agricultural 0.34 

117.4 Richland, LA Levee Agricultural 0.23 

117.4 Richland, LA Levee Agricultural 0.23 

117.6 Richland, LA Levee/Roads Agricultural 0.29 

117.7 Richland, LA Levee Agricultural 0.23 

117.8 Richland, LA Levee Agricultural 0.23 

117.9 Richland, LA Waterbodies/Roads Agricultural 0.23 

117.9 Richland, LA Roads/Waterbodies Agricultural 0.21 

118.2 Richland, LA Levee Agricultural 0.21 

118.2 Richland, LA Levee Agricultural 0.13 

118.2 Richland, LA Levee Agricultural 0.11 

118.3 Richland, LA Levee Agricultural 0.11 

118.4 Richland, LA Levee Agricultural 0.22 

118.6 Richland, LA Wetlands Slope Hardwood 0.86 

119.1 Richland, LA Wetlands Slope Hardwood 2.08 

119.8 Richland, LA Wetlands Agricultural 1.38 

120.0 Richland, LA Roads Agricultural 0.11 

120.0 Richland, LA Roads Agricultural 0.11 

120.4 Richland, LA Staging Area Agricultural 3.10 

120.4 Richland, LA Roads Agricultural 0.11 

120.5 Richland, LA Staging Area Agricultural 2.84 

120.8 Richland, LA HDD String Agricultural 1.21 

120.8 Richland, LA HDD Agricultural 0.73 

121.1 Richland, LA HDD Agricultural 0.73 

121.1 Richland, LA Roads Agricultural 0.11 

121.3 Richland, LA Roads Agricultural 0.23 

121.3 Richland, LA Roads Agricultural 0.23 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
APPENDIX F-1 

F1-21

TABLE F-1 (continued) 

Extra Workspace Areas for the Proposed East Texas to Mississippi Project 

Milepost County/Parish 

Reason for Extra 

Workspace Area Affected Land Use 

Land 

Requirements 

(Acres) 

121.6 Richland, LA Roads Agricultural 0.23 

121.8 Richland, LA Roads Agricultural 0.21 

122.1 Richland, LA HDD String Agricultural 1.80 

122.1 Richland, LA HDD Agricultural 1.03 

122.4 Richland, LA HDD Agricultural 0.90 

123.0 Richland, LA Waterbodies Agricultural 0.23 

123.0 Richland, LA Wetlands Agricultural 0.53 

123.1 Richland, LA Wetlands Agricultural 0.23 

123.7 Richland, LA Waterbody Agricultural 0.23 

123.7 Richland, LA Waterbodies/Roads Agricultural 0.17 

123.7 Richland, LA Roads Agricultural 0.23 

124.1 Richland, LA Wetlands/Pipelines Slope Hardwood 0.26 

124.1 Richland, LA Wetlands/Pipelines Slope Hardwood 0.39 

124.6 Richland, LA Wetlands/Roads Agricultural 2.20 

125.1 Richland, LA Waterbodies Slope Hardwood 0.23 

125.4 Richland, LA Waterbodies Agricultural 0.23 

125.4 Richland, LA Wetlands Agricultural 1.16 

125.7 Richland, LA Wetlands Slope Hardwood 0.23 

125.8 Richland, LA Wetlands Slope Hardwood 0.32 

125.9 Richland, LA Roads Agricultural 0.11 

125.9 Richland, LA Roads Agricultural 0.23 

126.1 Richland, LA Waterbodies Agricultural 0.23 

126.2 Richland, LA Waterbodies Agricultural 0.23 

126.3 Richland, LA Pipelines Agricultural 0.23 

126.3 Richland, LA Pipelines/Wetlands Agricultural 0.62 

126.4 Richland, LA Wetlands Agricultural 0.24 

126.6 Richland, LA Waterbodies Agricultural 0.23 

126.6 Richland, LA Waterbodies Agricultural 0.23 

127.0 Richland, LA Waterbodies Agricultural 0.23 

127.1 Richland, LA Pipelines Agricultural 0.39 

127.1 Richland, LA Pipelines Agricultural 0.20 

127.2 Richland, LA Wetlands Agricultural 0.23 

127.3 Richland, LA Wetlands Agricultural 0.23 

127.7 Richland, LA Wetlands Agricultural 0.44 

127.8 Richland, LA Wetlands Slope Hardwood 0.49 

128.0 Richland, LA Wetlands/Roads Slope Hardwood 0.23 

128.2 Richland, LA Wetlands Agricultural 0.61 

128.3 Richland, LA Wetlands Agricultural 0.23 

128.8 Richland, LA Roads Agricultural 0.35 

128.8 Richland, LA Roads Agricultural 0.51 

129.0 Richland, LA Wetlands Agricultural 0.89 

129.2 Richland, LA Wetlands Agricultural 0.16 

129.4 Richland, LA Roads Agricultural 0.23 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
APPENDIX F-1 

F1-22

TABLE F-1 (continued) 

Extra Workspace Areas for the Proposed East Texas to Mississippi Project 

Milepost County/Parish 

Reason for Extra 

Workspace Area Affected Land Use 

Land 

Requirements 

(Acres) 

129.6 Richland, LA Waterbodies Agricultural 0.23 

129.8 Richland, LA Roads/Wetlands Agricultural 0.60 

130.0 Richland, LA Waterbodies Agricultural 0.24 

130.1 Richland, LA Roads Agricultural 0.23 

130.2 Richland, LA Roads Agricultural 0.23 

130.3 Richland, LA Waterbodies Agricultural 0.23 

130.8 Richland, LA HDD String Agricultural 2.51 

130.8 Richland, LA HDD Agricultural 0.73 

131.1 Richland, LA HDD Agricultural 0.73 

131.4 Richland, LA Waterbodies Agricultural 0.23 

131.4 Richland, LA Waterbodies Agricultural 0.25 

131.7 Richland, LA Waterbodies Agricultural 0.29 

131.7 Richland, LA Waterbodies Agricultural 0.25 

132.0 Richland, LA Roads Agricultural 0.23 

132.0 Richland, LA Waterbodies Agricultural 0.23 

132.4 Richland, LA Waterbodies Agricultural 0.23 

132.6 Richland, LA Waterbodies Pine Plantation 0.30 

132.7 Richland, LA Wetlands Pine Plantation 0.17 

132.8 Richland, LA Wetlands/Roads Agricultural 0.34 

132.8 Richland, LA Roads Agricultural 0.23 

133.0 Richland, LA Waterbodies Agricultural 0.23 

133.0 Richland, LA Waterbodies Agricultural 0.23 

133.1 Richland, LA Roads Agricultural 0.23 

133.1 Richland, LA Roads Agricultural 0.17 

133.3 Richland, LA Pipeline Tie-In Agricultural 0.23 

133.4 Richland, LA Waterbodies Agricultural 0.23 

133.4 Richland, LA Roads Agricultural 0.23 

134.0 Richland, LA Wetlands Open Land 0.46 

134.0 Richland, LA Wetlands Open Land 0.23 

134.2 Richland, LA Roads Open Land 0.23 

134.2 Richland, LA Roads Open Land 0.23 

134.3 Richland, LA Wetlands Open Land 0.58 

134.4 Richland, LA Roads/Waterbodies Open Land 0.32 

134.9 Richland, LA Waterbodies Slope Hardwood 0.23 

134.9 Richland, LA Waterbodies Agricultural 0.23 

135.1 Richland, LA Waterbodies Agricultural 0.23 

135.1 Richland, LA Waterbodies Agricultural 0.23 

135.3 Richland, LA Roads Agricultural 0.23 

135.3 Richland, LA Roads Agricultural 0.23 

135.5 Richland, LA Roads Agricultural 0.23 

135.9 Richland, LA Waterbodies Agricultural 0.29 

136.0 Richland, LA Waterbodies Agricultural 0.23 

136.5 Richland, LA Wetlands Agricultural 0.26 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
APPENDIX F-1 

F1-23

TABLE F-1 (continued) 

Extra Workspace Areas for the Proposed East Texas to Mississippi Project 

Milepost County/Parish 

Reason for Extra 

Workspace Area Affected Land Use 

Land 

Requirements 

(Acres) 

136.5 Richland, LA Wetlands Agricultural 0.23 

136.5 Richland, LA Roads Agricultural 0.23 

136.8 Richland, LA Waterbodies Agricultural 0.23 

136.8 Richland, LA Waterbodies Agricultural 0.32 

137.1 Richland, LA Roads Agricultural 0.23 

137.3 Richland, LA Waterbodies Agricultural 0.29 

137.6 Richland, LA Waterbodies Agricultural 0.23 

137.7 Richland, LA Waterbodies Agricultural 0.23 

138.0 Richland, LA Roads Agricultural 0.23 

138.0 Richland, LA Roads Agricultural 0.34 

138.1 Richland, LA Pipeline Tie-In Pasture 0.23 

138.7 Richland, LA Wetlands Agricultural 0.55 

138.9 Richland, LA Roads Agricultural 0.23 

138.9 Richland, LA Roads Agricultural 0.29 

139.5 Richland, LA Waterbodies Agricultural 0.23 

139.5 Richland, LA Waterbodies Agricultural 0.54 

140.0 Richland, LA HDD String Agricultural 1.31 

140.0 Richland, LA HDD Agricultural 0.73 

140.3 Richland, LA HDD Agricultural 0.73 

140.5 Richland, LA Roads Agricultural 0.23 

140.5 Richland, LA Roads Agricultural 0.23 

140.6 Richland, LA Pipeline Tie-in Agricultural 0.23 

140.7 Richland, LA HDD Agricultural 0.73 

141.1 Richland, LA HDD Agricultural 0.73 

141.1 Richland, LA HDD String Agricultural 2.01 

141.5 Richland, LA Waterbodies Agricultural 0.23 

141.6 Richland, LA Wetlands Agricultural 0.23 

141.8 Richland, LA Wetlands Agricultural 1.52 

142.5 Richland, LA Roads Agricultural 0.23 

142.5 Richland, LA Roads Slope Hardwood 0.23 

142.7 Richland, LA Waterbodies Slope Hardwood 0.23 

142.7 Richland, LA Waterbodies Slope Hardwood 0.23 

143.0 Richland, LA Waterbodies Agricultural 0.23 

143.0 Richland, LA Waterbodies Agricultural 0.23 

143.5 Richland, LA Roads Agricultural 0.29 

143.5 Richland, LA Roads/Waterbodies Open Land 0.27 

143.5 Richland, LA Waterbodies Open Land 0.23 

143.8 Richland, LA Wetlands Slope Hardwood 0.34 

143.8 Richland, LA Wetlands Slope Hardwood 0.23 

144.2 Richland, LA Roads Open Land 0.23 

144.3 Richland, LA Roads/Waterbodies Open Land 0.27 

144.4 Richland, LA Waterbodies Open Land 0.23 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
APPENDIX F-1 

F1-24

TABLE F-1 (continued) 

Extra Workspace Areas for the Proposed East Texas to Mississippi Project 

Milepost County/Parish 

Reason for Extra 

Workspace Area Affected Land Use 

Land 

Requirements 

(Acres) 

144.4 Richland, LA Wetlands Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.39 

144.5 Richland, LA Wetlands Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.56 

144.8 Richland, LA Wetlands Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.59 

144.9 Richland, LA Wetlands Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.33 

145.0 Richland, LA Waterbodies Open Land 0.23 

145.1 Richland, LA Roads Open Land 0.23 

145.1 Richland, LA Waterbodies Open Land 0.23 

145.4 Richland, LA Roads Open Land 0.23 

145.4 Richland, LA Roads Open Land 0.23 

145.6 Richland, LA Waterbodies Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.23 

145.6 Richland, LA Waterbodies Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.23 

145.8 Richland, LA Wetlands Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.34 

145.8 Richland, LA Wetlands Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.23 

146.1 Richland, LA Wetlands Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.34 

146.1 Richland, LA Wetlands Pine Plantation 0.23 

146.3 Richland, LA Waterbodies Pine Plantation 0.23 

146.3 Richland, LA Waterbodies Pasture 0.23 

146.5 Richland, LA Pipelines Pasture 0.23 

146.5 Richland, LA Roads Pasture 0.23 

146.6 Richland, LA Roads Pasture 0.23 

146.8 Richland, LA Waterbodies Pasture 0.23 

146.9 Richland, LA Roads/Waterbodies Pasture 0.29 

146.9 Richland, LA Roads Pasture 0.29 

147.1 Richland, LA Waterbodies Pasture 0.49 

147.3 Richland, LA Wetlands Slope Hardwood 0.51 

147.4 Richland, LA Wetlands Slope Hardwood 0.34 

147.6 Richland, LA Roads Agricultural 0.48 

147.6 Richland, LA Roads Pasture 0.15 

147.7 Richland, LA Wetlands Pasture 0.23 

148.2 Richland, LA Roads Agricultural 0.23 

148.3 Richland, LA Waterbodies Agricultural 0.23 

148.6 Richland, LA Waterbodies Agricultural 0.23 

148.8 Richland, LA Waterbodies Agricultural 0.15 

148.8 Richland, LA Roads Agricultural 0.23 

148.8 Richland, LA Roads Agricultural 0.23 

149.0 Richland, LA Waterbodies Agricultural 0.23 

149.2 Richland, LA Pipelines Agricultural 0.16 

149.2 Richland, LA Pipelines/Roads Agricultural 0.27 

149.2 Richland, LA Pipelines/Roads Agricultural 0.25 

149.2 Richland, LA Pipelines/Roads Agricultural 0.18 

149.2 Richland, LA Staging Area Agricultural 0.92 

149.5 Richland, LA Fabrication Agricultural 0.99 

 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
APPENDIX F-1 

F1-25

TABLE F-1 (continued) 

Extra Workspace Areas for the Proposed East Texas to Mississippi Project 

Milepost County/Parish 

Reason for Extra 

Workspace Area Affected Land Use 

Land 

Requirements 

(Acres) 

150.1 Richland, LA HDD Agricultural 0.73 

150.1 Richland, LA HDD String Agricultural 1.73 

150.4 Madison, LA HDD Agricultural 0.73 

150.6 Madison, LA Waterbodies Agricultural 0.27 

150.6 Madison, LA Waterbodies Agricultural 0.22 

150.7 Madison, LA Pipelines Agricultural 0.32 

150.8 Madison, LA Wetlands Agricultural 0.73 

150.9 Madison, LA Waterbodies Agricultural 0.34 

151.1 Madison, LA Roads Agricultural 0.23 

151.1 Madison, LA Roads Agricultural 0.23 

151.6 Madison, LA Waterbodies Agricultural 0.23 

151.6 Madison, LA Waterbodies Agricultural 0.23 

151.7 Madison, LA Waterbodies Agricultural 0.36 

151.7 Madison, LA Waterbodies Agricultural 0.38 

151.9 Madison, LA Pipeline Tie-in Agricultural 0.17 

152.1 Madison, LA Waterbodies Agricultural 0.23 

152.1 Madison, LA Waterbodies Agricultural 0.23 

152.3 Madison, LA Waterbodies Agricultural 0.23 

152.3 Madison, LA Waterbodies Agricultural 0.21 

152.8 Madison, LA Roads Agricultural 0.23 

152.8 Madison, LA Roads Agricultural 0.23 

153.1 Madison, LA Waterbodies Agricultural 0.17 

153.1 Madison, LA Waterbodies Agricultural 0.23 

153.1 Madison, LA Waterbodies Agricultural 0.24 

153.1 Madison, LA Waterbodies Agricultural 0.50 

153.3 Madison, LA Waterbodies/Roads Agricultural 0.24 

153.3 Madison, LA Staging Area Agricultural 0.61 

153.3 Madison, LA Roads Agricultural 0.26 

153.3 Madison, LA Staging Area Agricultural 1.01 

153.3 Madison, LA Wetlands Agricultural 0.18 

153.4 Madison, LA Wetlands Agricultural 0.15 

153.5 Madison, LA Wetlands Agricultural 0.20 

153.5 Madison, LA Wetlands Agricultural 0.11 

153.7 Madison, LA Wetlands Agricultural 0.23 

153.8 Madison, LA Waterbodies Agricultural 0.21 

153.9 Madison, LA Waterbodies Agricultural 0.20 

154.0 Madison, LA Wetlands Agricultural 0.11 

154.0 Madison, LA Waterbodies Agricultural 0.23 

154.2 Madison, LA Roads Agricultural 0.23 

154.2 Madison, LA Roads Agricultural 0.23 

154.5 Madison, LA Wetlands Agricultural 2.41 

154.9 Madison, LA Roads Agricultural 0.23 

154.9 Madison, LA Roads Agricultural 0.23 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
APPENDIX F-1 

F1-26

TABLE F-1 (continued) 

Extra Workspace Areas for the Proposed East Texas to Mississippi Project 

Milepost County/Parish 

Reason for Extra 

Workspace Area Affected Land Use 

Land 

Requirements 

(Acres) 

155.2 Madison, LA Waterbodies Agricultural 0.23 

155.2 Madison, LA Waterbodies/Roads Agricultural 0.23 

155.7 Madison, LA Wetland Agricultural 0.23 

155.7 Madison, LA Wetland Agricultural 0.23 

155.9 Madison, LA Roads Agricultural 0.23 

155.9 Madison, LA Roads Agricultural 0.23 

156.2 Madison, LA Waterbodies Agricultural 0.23 

156.2 Madison, LA Waterbodies Agricultural 0.11 

155.3 Madison, LA Wetland Agricultural 0.37 

156.6 Madison, LA Roads Agricultural 0.53 

156.7 Madison, LA Waterbodies Agricultural 0.23 

156.7 Madison, LA Waterbodies Agricultural 0.23 

157.0 Madison, LA Wetlands Agricultural 0.37 

157.0 Madison, LA Wetlands Agricultural 0.23 

157.2 Madison, LA Waterbodies Agricultural 0.23 

157.2 Madison, LA Waterbodies Agricultural 0.23 

157.7 Madison, LA Waterbodies Agricultural 0.23 

157.7 Madison, LA Waterbodies Agricultural 0.23 

158.2 Madison, LA Roads Agricultural 0.11 

158.2 Madison, LA Roads Agricultural 0.24 

158.6 Madison, LA Waterbodies Agricultural 0.23 

158.6 Madison, LA Waterbodies Agricultural 0.23 

158.9 Madison, LA Waterbodies Agricultural 0.23 

159.1 Madison, LA Wetlands Agricultural 0.84 

159.1 Madison, LA Wetlands/Roads Agricultural 0.31 

159.2 Madison, LA Waterbodies Agricultural 0.24 

159.3 Madison, LA Waterbodies Agricultural 0.23 

159.3 Madison, LA Waterbodies Agricultural 0.13 

159.5 Madison, LA Waterbodies Agricultural 0.47 

159.5 Madison, LA Waterbodies/Roads Agricultural 0.27 

159.5 Madison, LA Roads Agricultural 0.23 

159.6 Madison, LA Waterbodies/Roads Agricultural 0.23 

159.6 Madison, LA Roads Agricultural 0.23 

159.9 Madison, LA HDD Agricultural 0.73 

160.2 Madison, LA HDD Agricultural 0.73 

160.3 Madison, LA HDD String Agricultural 1.22 

161.1 Madison, LA HDD String Agricultural 1.89 

161.1 Madison, LA HDD Agricultural 0.73 

161.4 Madison, LA HDD Agricultural 0.73 

161.4 Madison, LA HDD String Agricultural 1.60 

161.8 Madison, LA Roads Agricultural 0.22 

162.0 Madison, LA Roads Agricultural 0.14 

162.0 Madison, LA Roads Agricultural 0.23 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
APPENDIX F-1 

F1-27

TABLE F-1 (continued) 

Extra Workspace Areas for the Proposed East Texas to Mississippi Project 

Milepost County/Parish 

Reason for Extra 

Workspace Area Affected Land Use 

Land 

Requirements 

(Acres) 

162.3 Madison, LA Waterbodies Agricultural 0.23 

162.3 Madison, LA Waterbodies Agricultural 0.23 

162.6 Madison, LA Waterbodies Agricultural 0.23 

162.6 Madison, LA Waterbodies Agricultural 0.23 

162.9 Madison, LA Waterbodies Agricultural 0.23 

162.9 Madison, LA Waterbodies Agricultural 0.23 

163.4 Madison, LA Roads Agricultural 0.23 

163.4 Madison, LA Roads Agricultural 0.23 

163.6 Madison, LA HDD Agricultural 0.73 

163.9 Madison, LA HDD Agricultural 0.73 

163.9 Madison, LA HDD String Agricultural 1.85 

164.6 Madison, LA Roads Agricultural 0.23 

164.6 Madison, LA Roads Agricultural 0.23 

164.9 Madison, LA Waterbodies Agricultural 0.23 

164.9 Madison, LA Waterbodies Agricultural 0.23 

165.1 Madison, LA Roads Agricultural 0.23 

165.1 Madison, LA Roads Agricultural 0.24 

165.2 Madison, LA Roads Agricultural 0.23 

165.5 Madison, LA Roads Agricultural 0.52 

165.6 Madison, LA Roads Agricultural 0.23 

165.6 Madison, LA Roads Agricultural 0.25 

166.0 Madison, LA Roads Agricultural 0.23 

166.0 Madison, LA Roads Agricultural 0.23 

166.1 Madison, LA Roads/Railroads Agricultural 0.23 

166.1 Madison, LA Roads/Railroads Agricultural 0.23 

166.3 Madison, LA Wetlands Agricultural 0.23 

166.3 Madison, LA Wetlands Agricultural 0.46 

166.7 Madison, LA Waterbodies Agricultural 0.54 

166.8 Madison, LA Roads Agricultural 0.21 

166.8 Madison, LA Roads Agricultural 0.23 

167.0 Madison, LA Wetlands Agricultural 0.29 

167.1 Madison, LA HDD Agricultural 0.73 

167.4 Madison, LA HDD Agricultural 0.80 

167.4 Madison, LA HDD String Agricultural 1.12 

167.7 Madison, LA Pipelines/Wetlands Agricultural 0.47 

167.7 Madison, LA Wetlands Agricultural 0.34 

168.2 Madison, LA Waterbodies Agricultural 0.23 

168.2 Madison, LA Waterbodies Agricultural 0.23 

168.9 Madison, LA Roads Agricultural 0.11 

168.9 Madison, LA Roads Agricultural 0.11 

169.3 Madison, LA Roads Agricultural 0.23 

169.3 Madison, LA Roads Agricultural 0.23 

170.0 Madison, LA Waterbodies Agricultural 0.23 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
APPENDIX F-1 

F1-28

TABLE F-1 (continued) 

Extra Workspace Areas for the Proposed East Texas to Mississippi Project 

Milepost County/Parish 

Reason for Extra 

Workspace Area Affected Land Use 

Land 

Requirements 

(Acres) 

170.0 Madison, LA Waterbodies Agricultural 0.23 

170.9 Madison, LA Roads Agricultural 0.23 

170.9 Madison, LA Roads Agricultural 0.23 

171.1 Madison, LA Waterbodies Agricultural 0.23 

171.1 Madison, LA Waterbodies Agricultural 0.23 

171.3 Madison, LA Roads Agricultural 0.23 

171.3 Madison, LA Roads Agricultural 0.23 

171.8 Madison, LA Roads Agricultural 0.23 

171.9 Madison, LA Pipelines Agricultural 0.29 

171.9 Madison, LA Pipelines Agricultural 0.40 

171.9 Madison, LA Wetlands Agricultural 0.29 

172.1 Madison, LA Wetlands Agricultural 0.23 

172.8 Madison, LA HDD Agricultural 0.73 

173.1 Madison, LA HDD Agricultural 0.73 

173.1 Madison, LA HDD String Agricultural 1.61 

173.4 Madison, LA Wetlands Agricultural 0.23 

173.7 Madison, LA Wetlands Agricultural 0.23 

173.9 Madison, LA Waterbodies Agricultural 0.23 

173.9 Madison, LA Waterbodies Agricultural 0.25 

174.0 Madison, LA Waterbodies Agricultural 0.28 

174.3 Madison, LA Wetlands Agricultural 0.84 

174.4 Madison, LA Wetlands Agricultural 0.60 

174.6 Madison, LA Waterbodies Agricultural 0.23 

174.9 Madison, LA Wetlands Agricultural 0.23 

175.0 Madison, LA Wetlands Agricultural 0.55 

175.2 Madison, LA Wetlands/Roads Agricultural 0.23 

175.5 Madison, LA Wetlands Agricultural 0.23 

175.6 Madison, LA Wetlands Agricultural 0.40 

175.7 Madison, LA Wetlands Slope Hardwood 0.18 

176.2 Madison, LA Wetlands Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 1.84 

176.9 Madison, LA Roads Agricultural 0.13 

177.0 Madison, LA Pipelines Agricultural 0.29 

177.0 Madison, LA Pipelines Agricultural 0.29 

177.1 Madison, LA Waterbodies Agricultural 0.23 

177.1 Madison, LA Waterbodies Agricultural 0.23 

177.4 Madison, LA HDD Agricultural 0.92 

177.4 Madison, LA Staging Area Agricultural 4.49 

177.6 Madison, LA Staging Area Agricultural 5.66 

177.7 Madison, LA HDD Agricultural 1.85 

177.7 Madison, LA HDD String Agricultural 1.44 

178.1 Madison, LA Waterbodies Agricultural 0.23 

178.3 Madison, LA Waterbodies Agricultural 0.11 

178.6 Madison, LA Waterbodies Agricultural 0.23 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
APPENDIX F-1 

F1-29

TABLE F-1 (continued) 

Extra Workspace Areas for the Proposed East Texas to Mississippi Project 

Milepost County/Parish 

Reason for Extra 

Workspace Area Affected Land Use 

Land 

Requirements 

(Acres) 

178.6 Madison, LA Waterbodies Agricultural 0.23 

179.0 Madison, LA Roads Agricultural 0.23 

179.0 Madison, LA Roads Agricultural 0.23 

179.1 Madison, LA Waterbodies Agricultural 0.34 

179.7 Madison, LA Waterbodies Agricultural 0.23 

179.7 Madison, LA Waterbodies Agricultural 0.23 

179.8 Madison, LA Waterbodies Agricultural 0.23 

179.8 Madison, LA Waterbodies Agricultural 0.23 

180.0 Madison, LA Waterbodies Agricultural 0.23 

180.0 Madison, LA Waterbodies Agricultural 0.23 

180.2 Madison, LA Waterbodies Agricultural 0.23 

180.2 Madison, LA Waterbodies Agricultural 0.23 

180.4 Madison, LA Waterbodies Agricultural 0.23 

180.4 Madison, LA Waterbodies Agricultural 0.23 

180.5 Madison, LA Waterbodies Agricultural 0.23 

180.5 Madison, LA Waterbodies Agricultural 0.23 

180.7 Madison, LA Waterbodies Agricultural 0.32 

180.7 Madison, LA Waterbodies Agricultural 0.23 

181.0 Madison, LA Waterbodies Agricultural 0.23 

181.0 Madison, LA Waterbodies Agricultural 0.23 

181.1 Madison, LA Waterbodies Agricultural 0.23 

181.1 Madison, LA Waterbodies Agricultural 0.23 

181.4 Madison, LA Waterbodies Agricultural 0.23 

181.4 Madison, LA Waterbodies Agricultural 0.23 

181.5 Madison, LA Roads Agricultural 0.23 

181.5 Madison, LA Roads Agricultural 0.23 

181.9 Madison, LA Roads Agricultural 0.23 

181.9 Madison, LA Roads/Waterbodies Agricultural 0.23 

181.9 Madison, LA Waterbodies Agricultural 0.23 

182.1 Madison, LA Fabrication/Levee Multiple 2.75 

182.1 Madison, LA Fabrication/Levee Multiple 2.07 

183.4 Madison, LA Staging Area Slope Hardwood 0.92 

183.6 Madison, LA HDD String Slope Hardwood 4.93 

183.8 Madison, LA HDD Slope Hardwood 0.73 

184.6 Warren, MS HDD Slope Hardwood 0.73 

184.7 Warren, MS Waterbody Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.26 

184.8 Warren, MS Roads Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.23 

185.1 Warren, MS Road Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.26 

185.1 Warren, MS Road Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.16 

185.3 Warren, MS Road Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.18 

185.4 Warren, MS Road Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.23 

185.4 Warren, MS Wetlands Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.18 

185.5 Warren, MS Wetlands Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.14 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
APPENDIX F-1 

F1-30

TABLE F-1 (continued) 

Extra Workspace Areas for the Proposed East Texas to Mississippi Project 

Milepost County/Parish 

Reason for Extra 

Workspace Area Affected Land Use 

Land 

Requirements 

(Acres) 

185.5 Warren, MS Wetlands/Pipelines Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.18 

185.5 Warren, MS Pipelines Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.23 

185.6 Warren, MS Pipelines/Road Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.07 

185.6 Warren, MS Roads/Railroad Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.23 

185.8 Warren, MS Pipeline Tie-in Agricultural 0.69 

185.9 Warren, MS HDD String Agricultural 2.24 

185.9 Warren, MS HDD Agricultural 0.73 

186.3 Warren, MS HDD Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.73 

186.3 Warren, MS Sideslope Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 4.56 

186.7 Warren, MS Sideslope Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 6.35 

187.3 Warren, MS Sideslope Multiple 7.39 

187.5 Warren, MS Staging Area Slope Hardwood 2.75 

187.9 Warren, MS Sideslope Multiple 4.96 

188.3 Warren, MS Roads Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.22 

188.4 Warren, MS Sideslope Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 6.00 

189.0 Warren, MS Sideslope Multiple 24.09 

191.0 Warren, MS Sideslope Multiple 6.82 

191.6 Warren, MS Roads Slope Hardwood 0.57 

192.7 Warren, MS Waterbodies Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.34 

192.7 Warren, MS Waterbodies Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.17 

193.1 Warren, MS Waterbodies Pasture 0.23 

193.4 Warren, MS Waterbodies Pasture 0.23 

193.6 Warren, MS Roads Pasture 0.23 

193.6 Warren, MS Side Slope Multiple 10.33 

195.6 Warren, MS Roads Agricultural 0.23 

195.6 Warren, MS Roads Agricultural 0.23 

195.9 Warren, MS Waterbodies Agricultural 0.23 

195.9 Warren, MS Waterbodies Agricultural 0.22 

196.3 Warren, MS Waterbodies Agricultural 0.23 

196.3 Warren, MS Waterbodies Agricultural 0.23 

196.5 Warren, MS Roads Agricultural 0.23 

196.5 Warren, MS Roads Agricultural 0.11 

196.7 Warren, MS HDD Agricultural 0.73 

197.4 Hinds, MS HDD Slope Hardwood 0.73 

197.4 Hinds, MS HDD String Slope Hardwood 1.32 

198.0 Hinds, MS Waterbodies Slope Hardwood 0.11 

198.0 Hinds, MS Waterbodies Slope Hardwood 0.28 

198.3 Hinds, MS Side Slope Pasture 1.38 

199.0 Hinds, MS Wetlands Pasture 0.16 

199.0 Hinds, MS Powerlines Pasture 0.32 

199.1 Hinds, MS Waterbodies Slope Hardwood 0.26 

199.1 Hinds, MS Wetlands Pasture 0.11 

199.2 Hinds, MS Wetlands Slope Hardwood 0.23 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
APPENDIX F-1 

F1-31

TABLE F-1 (continued) 

Extra Workspace Areas for the Proposed East Texas to Mississippi Project 

Milepost County/Parish 

Reason for Extra 

Workspace Area Affected Land Use 

Land 

Requirements 

(Acres) 

199.4 Hinds, MS Wetlands Slope Hardwood 0.41 

199.5 Hinds, MS Wetlands Agricultural 0.52 

200.4 Hinds, MS Waterbodies Pasture 0.29 

200.7 Hinds, MS Roads/Waterbodies Agricultural 0.22 

200.7 Hinds, MS Waterbodies Agricultural 0.23 

201.0 Hinds, MS Staging Area Slope Hardwood 4.34 

201.2 Hinds, MS Roads Agricultural 0.23 

201.4 Hinds, MS Waterbodies Agricultural 0.23 

201.4 Hinds, MS Waterbodies Agricultural 0.23 

201.6 Hinds, MS Waterbodies Agricultural 0.23 

201.6 Hinds, MS Waterbodies Agricultural 0.23 

201.8 Hinds, MS Waterbodies Agricultural 0.23 

201.8 Hinds, MS Waterbodies Pasture 0.23 

201.9 Hinds, MS Waterbodies Pasture 0.23 

202.7 Hinds, MS Waterbodies Pasture 0.34 

202.8 Hinds, MS Roads Agricultural 0.34 

202.9 Hinds, MS Waterbodies Slope Hardwood 0.23 

202.9 Hinds, MS Waterbodies Slope Hardwood 0.23 

203.1 Hinds, MS Waterbodies Agricultural 0.34 

203.1 Hinds, MS Waterbodies/Roads Agricultural 0.33 

203.2 Hinds, MS Roads Agricultural 0.34 

203.7 Hinds, MS Powerlines/Roads Agricultural 1.15 

203.8 Hinds, MS Roads Agricultural 0.25 

203.8 Hinds, MS Roads/Waterbodies Agricultural 0.67 

203.9 Hinds, MS Waterbodies Agricultural 0.73 

204.1 Hinds, MS Waterbodies Agricultural 0.29 

204.2 Hinds, MS Waterbodies Agricultural 0.34 

204.6 Hinds, MS Roads Agricultural 0.23 

204.6 Hinds, MS Roads Agricultural 0.23 

204.8 Hinds, MS Waterbodies Agricultural 0.23 

204.8 Hinds, MS WaterbodiesRoads Agricultural 0.23 

205.0 Hinds, MS Roads Agricultural 0.32 

205.1 Hinds, MS Waterbodies Pine Plantation 0.11 

205.3 Hinds, MS Waterbodies Pine Plantation 0.23 

205.3 Hinds, MS Waterbodies Pasture 0.27 

205.4 Hinds, MS Waterbodies Pasture 0.23 

205.7 Hinds, MS Waterbodies Pasture 0.23 

205.7 Hinds, MS Waterbodies Pasture 0.23 

206.0 Hinds, MS Roads Pasture 0.23 

206.3 Hinds, MS Waterbodies Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.23 

206.7 Hinds, MS Waterbodies Pine Plantation 0.23 

207.0 Hinds, MS Waterbodies Pine Plantation 0.23 

207.1 Hinds, MS Pipelines/Wetlands Pine Plantation 0.63 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
APPENDIX F-1 

F1-32

TABLE F-1 (continued) 

Extra Workspace Areas for the Proposed East Texas to Mississippi Project 

Milepost County/Parish 

Reason for Extra 

Workspace Area Affected Land Use 

Land 

Requirements 

(Acres) 

207.2 Hinds, MS Wetlands Pine Plantation 0.23 

207.3 Hinds, MS Wetlands Pine Plantation 0.23 

207.6 Hinds, MS Roads Pine Plantation 0.23 

207.6 Hinds, MS Roads/Waterbodies Pine Plantation 0.34 

207.8 Hinds, MS Waterbodies Pine Plantation 0.38 

207.8 Hinds, MS Waterbodies/Roads Pine Plantation 0.23 

208.1 Hinds, MS Waterbodies Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.19 

208.1 Hinds, MS Waterbodies Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.23 

208.2 Hinds, MS Waterbodies Agricultural 0.23 

208.4 Hinds, MS Staging Area Agricultural 1.26 

208.5 Hinds, MS Roads Agricultural 0.39 

208.5 Hinds, MS Roads Agricultural 0.35 

208.6 Hinds, MS Staging Area Agricultural 3.20 

208.7 Hinds, MS Roads Agricultural 0.23 

209.2 Hinds, MS Waterbodies Agricultural 0.23 

209.2 Hinds, MS Waterbodies Agricultural 0.18 

209.4 Hinds, MS Roads Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.23 

209.4 Hinds, MS Roads Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.23 

209.6 Hinds, MS Waterbodies Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.11 

209.6 Hinds, MS Waterbodies Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.11 

209.7 Hinds, MS Waterbodies Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.23 

209.7 Hinds, MS Waterbodies Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.23 

210.0 Hinds, MS Roads Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.18 

210.0 Hinds, MS Roads Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.17 

210.0 Hinds, MS Waterbodies Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.23 

210.0 Hinds, MS Waterbodies Pasture 0.23 

210.2 Hinds, MS Roads Pasture 0.23 

210.2 Hinds, MS Roads Pasture 0.23 

210.5 Hinds, MS Waterbodies Slope Hardwood 0.23 

210.5 Hinds, MS Waterbodies Slope Hardwood 0.23 

211.3 Hinds, MS Waterbodies Slope Hardwood 0.40 

211.5 Hinds, MS Waterbodies Slope Hardwood 0.23 

211.7 Hinds, MS Railroads Pasture 0.11 

211.7 Hinds, MS Railroads Pasture 0.23 

212.5 Hinds, MS Roads Pasture 0.23 

212.5 Hinds, MS Roads Agricultural 0.27 

213.1 Hinds, MS Waterbodies Agricultural 0.30 

213.1 Hinds, MS Waterbodies Agricultural 0.23 

213.2 Hinds, MS Waterbodies Agricultural 0.23 

213.2 Hinds, MS Waterbodies Agricultural 0.23 

213.4 Hinds, MS Roads Agricultural 0.34 

213.4 Hinds, MS Roads Agricultural 0.23 

213.5 Hinds, MS Roads/Waterbodies Agricultural 0.64 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
APPENDIX F-1 

F1-33

TABLE F-1 (continued) 

Extra Workspace Areas for the Proposed East Texas to Mississippi Project 

Milepost County/Parish 

Reason for Extra 

Workspace Area Affected Land Use 

Land 

Requirements 

(Acres) 

213.5 Hinds, MS Wetlands Agricultural 0.23 

214.2 Hinds, MS Waterbodies Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.23 

214.2 Hinds, MS Waterbodies Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.25 

214.3 Hinds, MS Waterbodies Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.23 

214.3 Hinds, MS Waterbodies Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.14 

214.4 Hinds, MS Waterbodies Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.23 

214.7 Hinds, MS Waterbodies Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.20 

214.7 Hinds, MS Waterbodies Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.23 

214.9 Hinds, MS Roads Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.23 

215.3 Hinds, MS Waterbodies Agricultural 0.23 

215.3 Hinds, MS Waterbodies Agricultural 0.23 

215.4 Hinds, MS Wetlands Pasture 0.23 

215.4 Hinds, MS Wetlands Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Fores 0.23 

215.7 Hinds, MS Waterbodies Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Fores 0.29 

215.7 Hinds, MS Waterbodies Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Fores 0.23 

215.7 Hinds, MS Waterbodies Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.13 

215.8 Hinds, MS Roads Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.23 

215.8 Hinds, MS Roads/Waterbodies Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.18 

216.0 Hinds, MS Waterbodies Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.19 

216.0 Hinds, MS Roads Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Fores 0.23 

216.2 Hinds, MS Waterbodies Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.23 

216.2 Hinds, MS Waterbodies Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.23 

216.5 Hinds, MS Waterbodies Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.23 

216.9 Hinds, MS Waterbodies Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.23 

216.9 Hinds, MS Waterbodies/Roads Slope Hardwood 0.37 

216.9 Hinds, MS Roads Slope Hardwood 0.23 

217.2 Hinds, MS Waterbodies Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.11 

217.2 Hinds, MS Waterbodies Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.28 

217.2 Hinds, MS Waterbodies Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.38 

217.5 Hinds, MS Waterbodies Slope Hardwood 0.23 

217.5 Hinds, MS Waterbodies Slope Hardwood 0.23 

217.7 Hinds, MS Roads Slope Hardwood 0.23 

217.7 Hinds, MS Roads Slope Hardwood 0.23 

217.8 Hinds, MS Wetlands Slope Hardwood 0.34 

217.9 Hinds, MS Roads Slope Hardwood 0.23 

218.1 Hinds, MS Waterbodies Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.23 

218.2 Hinds, MS Waterbodies Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.23 

218.5 Hinds, MS Roads Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.23 

218.7 Hinds, MS Wetlands Slope Hardwood 1.03 

219.1 Hinds, MS Waterbodies Slope Hardwood 0.23 

219.2 Hinds, MS Wetlands Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.49 

219.6 Hinds, MS Wetlands Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.34 

219.7 Hinds, MS Pipeline Fabrication Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.67 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
APPENDIX F-1 

F1-34

TABLE F-1 (continued) 

Extra Workspace Areas for the Proposed East Texas to Mississippi Project 

Milepost County/Parish 

Reason for Extra 

Workspace Area Affected Land Use 

Land 

Requirements 

(Acres) 

219.7 Hinds, MS Pipelines Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 1.72 

220.0 Hinds, MS Wetlands Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.85 

220.0 Hinds, MS Wetlands Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 1.56 

220.1 Hinds, MS Roads Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.21 

220.1 Hinds, MS Roads/Waterbodies Slope Hardwood 0.33 

220.2 Hinds, MS Waterbodies Slope Hardwood 0.23 

220.5 Hinds, MS Waterbodies Slope Hardwood 0.23 

220.5 Hinds, MS Waterbodies Slope Hardwood 0.25 

220.6 Hinds, MS Waterbodies Slope Hardwood 0.23 

220.7 Hinds, MS Waterbodies Slope Hardwood 0.23 

220.7 Hinds, MS Waterbodies Slope Hardwood 0.23 

221.0 Hinds, MS Waterbodies Slope Hardwood 0.46 

221.0 Hinds, MS Waterbodies Slope Hardwood 0.23 

221.1 Hinds, MS Waterbodies Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.23 

221.1 Hinds, MS Waterbodies Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.23 

221.3 Hinds, MS Side Slope Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 5.11 

222.7 Hinds, MS Waterbodiesd Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.23 

222.7 Hinds, MS Roads Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.23 

222.7 Hinds, MS Roads Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.23 

223.0 Hinds, MS Waterbodies Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.23 

223.0 Hinds, MS Waterbodies Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.23 

223.1 Hinds, MS Pipeline Tie-in Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.23 

223.4 Hinds, MS Waterbodies Slope Hardwood 0.30 

223.4 Hinds, MS Waterbodies Slope Hardwood 0.30 

223.5 Hinds, MS Waterbodies Slope Hardwood 0.23 

223.6 Hinds, MS Wetlands Slope Hardwood 0.23 

223.6 Hinds, MS Wetlands Slope Hardwood 0.23 

223.8 Hinds, MS Waterbodies Slope Hardwood 0.23 

223.8 Hinds, MS Waterbodies Slope Hardwood 0.23 

224.0 Hinds, MS Waterbodies Pasture 0.23 

224.1 Hinds, MS Roads Pasture 0.23 

224.3 Hinds, MS Roads Pasture 0.34 

224.3 Hinds, MS Roads Pasture 0.34 

224.6 Hinds, MS Pipeline Tie-In Pasture 0.11 

225.2 Hinds, MS Waterbodies Slope Hardwood 0.23 

225.2 Hinds, MS Waterbodies Slope Hardwood 0.23 

225.3 Hinds, MS Roads Slope Hardwood 0.23 

225.6 Hinds, MS Roads Pasture 0.23 

225.8 Hinds, MS Waterbodies Pasture 0.23 

226.5 Hinds, MS Waterbodies Slope Hardwood 0.23 

226.8 Hinds, MS Waterbodies Slope Hardwood 0.23 

226.8 Hinds, MS Waterbodies Slope Hardwood 0.23 

227.0 Hinds, MS Staging Area Pasture 6.31 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
APPENDIX F-1 

F1-35

TABLE F-1 (continued) 

Extra Workspace Areas for the Proposed East Texas to Mississippi Project 

Milepost County/Parish 

Reason for Extra 

Workspace Area Affected Land Use 

Land 

Requirements 

(Acres) 

227.0 Hinds, MS HDD String Pasture 1.52 

227.0 Hinds, MS HDD Pasture 0.96 

227.3 Hinds, MS HDD Pasture 0.73 

227.3 Hinds, MS Waterbodies Pasture 0.23 

227.4 Hinds, MS Waterbodies Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.23 

227.6 Hinds, MS Roads Pasture 0.33 

227.6 Hinds, MS Roads Pasture 0.23 

227.8 Hinds, MS Waterbodies Pasture 0.23 

228.0 Hinds, MS Waterbodies Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.23 

228.0 Hinds, MS Waterbodies Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.23 

228.3 Hinds, MS Sideslope Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 3.15 

228.7 Hinds, MS Roads Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.23 

229.0 Hinds, MS Waterbodies Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.23 

229.6 Copiah, MS Side Slope Pasture 1.05 

230.2 Copiah, MS Roads Pasture 0.23 

230.2 Copiah, MS Roads Pasture 0.23 

230.6 Copiah, MS Waterbodies Pasture 0.23 

230.6 Copiah, MS Waterbodies Pasture 0.23 

230.8 Copiah, MS Waterbodies Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.23 

230.8 Copiah, MS Waterbodies Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.24 

231.2 Copiah, MS Waterbodies Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.23 

231.2 Copiah, MS Waterbodies Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.23 

231.5 Copiah, MS Roads Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.23 

232.2 Copiah, MS HDD Pipe String Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 1.76 

232.2 Copiah, MS HDD Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.73 

232.6 Simpson, MS HDD Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.90 

232.7 Simpson, MS Staging Area Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 8.26 

232.9 Simpson, MS Waterbodies Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.23 

232.9 Simpson, MS Waterbodies Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.23 

233.0 Simpson, MS Wetlands Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.23 

233.0 Simpson, MS Wetlands Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.37 

233.7 Simpson, MS Roads/Waterbodies Slope Hardwood 0.23 

233.7 Simpson, MS Waterbodies/Roads Slope Hardwood 0.23 

233.8 Simpson, MS Sideslope Slope Hardwood 2.96 

234.5 Simpson, MS Sideslope Slope Hardwood 18.89 

237.7 Simpson, MS Sideslope Slope Hardwood 5.09 

238.6 Simpson, MS Staging Area Slope Hardwood 0.60 

 Total Extra Workspace Land Requirements 728.3 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
APPENDIX F-2 

Existing, Modified, and New Access Roads for the Proposed East Texas to Mississippi 

Expansion Project 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
APPENDIX F-2

F2-1 

TABLE F-2 

Existing, Modified, and New Access Roads for the Proposed East Texas to Mississippi Projec

Access 

Road County/Parish Milepost 

Length 

(ft) 

Width 

(ft) 

New 

or 

Existing 

Temporary 

or 

Permanent 

Improvement 

Required 

Temporary 

Land 

Requiremen

(acres) 

TAR – H0.4 Panola, TX H0.4 8,000 25 Existing Temporary No 0.00 TAR – H1.3 Panola, TX H1.3 N/A N/A Existing Temporary No 0.00 TAR – H1.9 Panola, TX H1.9 2,500 25 Existing Temporary No 0.00 TAR – H2.6 Panola, TX H2.6 4,000 25 Existing Temporary No 0.00 TAR – H3.3 Panola, TX H3.3 1,600 25 Existing Temporary No 0.00 TAR – 0.7 DeSoto, LA 0.7 4,000 30 Existing Temporary No 0.00 TAR – 3.2 DeSoto, LA 3.2 3,000 30 Existing Temporary No 0.00 TAR – 4.7 DeSoto, LA 4.7 800 20 Existing Temporary No 0.00 TAR – 5.7 DeSoto, LA 5.7 7,000 25 Existing Temporary No 0.00 TAR – 9.1 DeSoto, LA 9.1 3,000 20 Existing Temporary No 0.00 TAR – 9.6 DeSoto, LA 9.6 1,500 30 Existing Temporary No 0.00 TAR – 9.8 DeSoto, LA 9.8 1,500 30 Existing Temporary No 0.00 TAR – 10.1 DeSoto, LA 10.1 3,000 20 Existing Temporary No 0.00 TAR – 10.4 DeSoto, LA 10.4 3,000 20 Existing Temporary No 0.00 PAR – 13.2 DeSoto, LA 13.2 1,300 20 Existing Permanent No 0.60 PAR – 13.3 DeSoto, LA 13.2 1,100 20 Existing Permanent No 0.51 TAR – 13.8 DeSoto, LA 13.8 3,000 20 Existing Temporary No 0.00 TAR – 14.3 DeSoto, LA 14.3 2,800 20 Existing Temporary No 0.00 TAR – 15.5 DeSoto, LA 15.5 3,500 20 Existing Temporary No 0.00 TAR – 16.6 DeSoto, LA 16.6 1,500 20 Existing Temporary No 0.00 TAR – 19.0 DeSoto, LA 19.0 1,500 20 Existing Temporary No 0.00 PAR – 19.5 DeSoto, LA 19.5 100 25 Existing Permanent Yes 0.00 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
APPENDIX F-2

F2-2 

TABLE F-2 (continued) 

Existing, Modified, and New Access Roads for the Proposed East Texas to Mississippi Projec

Access 

Road County/Parish Milepost 

Length 

(ft) 

Width 

(ft) 

New 

or 

Existing 

Temporary 

or 

Permanent 

Improvement 

Required 

Temporary 

Land 

Requiremen

(acres) 

TAR – 21.8 DeSoto, LA 21.8 2,000 30 Existing Temporary No 0.00 TAR – 22.1 DeSoto, LA 22.1 1,000 30 Existing Temporary No 0.00 TAR – 22.3 Red River, LA 22.3 3,000 25 Existing Temporary Yes 1.72 TAR – 23.6 Red River, LA 23.6 3,000 25 New Temporary N/A 1.72 TAR – 24.7 Red River, LA 24.7 1,000 25 Existing Temporary Yes 0.60 TAR – 25.3 Red River, LA 25.3 2,000 25 New Temporary N/A 1.15 TAR – 25.7 Red River, LA 25.7 1,000 25 Existing Temporary Yes 0.60 TAR – 26.9 Red River, LA 26.9 1,400 25 Existing Temporary Yes 0.80 TAR – 27.0 Red River, LA 27.0 3,000 25 Existing Temporary Yes 1.72 TAR – 27.6 Red River, LA 27.6 6,500 25 Existing Temporary Yes 3.73 TAR – 29.4 Red River, LA 29.4 7,000 25 Existing Temporary No 0.00 TAR – 29.9 Red River, LA 29.9 7,300 25 Existing Temporary Yes 4.20 TAR – 30.4 Red River, LA 30.4 7,300 25 Existing Temporary Yes 4.20 TAR – 31.9 Red River, LA 31.9 6,000 20 Existing Temporary Yes 0.28 TAR – 37.1 Bienville, LA 37.1 1,500 25 Existing Temporary Yes 0.86 PAR – 38.4 Bienville, LA 38.4 800 25 New Permanent N/A 0.46 TAR – 42.8 Bienville, LA 42.8 1,500 25 Existing Temporary Yes 0.86 TAR – 43.4 Bienville, LA 43.4 1,500 25 Existing Temporary Yes 0.00 TAR – 44.0 Bienville, LA 44.0 4,500 25 Existing Temporary Yes 2.58 TAR – 46.0 Bienville, LA 46.0 2,000 20 Existing Temporary Yes 1.15 TAR – 46.2 Bienville, LA 46.2 2,000 20 Existing Temporary Yes 1.15 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
APPENDIX F-2

F2-3 

TABLE F-2 (continued) 

Existing, Modified, and New Access Roads for the Proposed East Texas to Mississippi Projec

Access 

Road County/Parish Milepost 

Length 

(ft) 

Width 

(ft) 

New 

or 

Existing 

Temporary 

or 

Permanent 

Improvement 

Required 

Temporary 

Land 

Requiremen

(acres) 

TAR – 50.2 Bienville, LA 50.2 2,500 20 Existing Temporary Yes 0.00 TAR – 51.6 Bienville, LA 51.6 1,500 25 Existing Temporary No 0.00 TAR – 52.9, Bienville, LA 52.9 4,500 25 Existing Temporary No 0.00 TAR – 54.6 Bienville, LA 54.6 5,000 25 Existing Temporary Yes 0.17 PAR – 56.4, Bienville, LA 56.4 150 25 Existing Permanent Yes 0.00 TAR – 56.4 Bienville, LA 56.4 600 25 Existing Temporary No 0.00 TAR – 57.0 Bienville, LA 57.0 3,000 20 Existing Temporary No 0.00 TAR – 57.9 Bienville, LA 57.9 2,000 20 Existing Temporary Yes 1.15 TAR – 58.7 Bienville, LA 58.7 3,000 25 Existing Temporary Yes 1.72 TAR – 59.7 Bienville, LA 59.7 2,100 25 Existing Temporary Yes 1.20 TAR – 60.1 Bienville, LA 60.1 600 25 Existing Temporary Yes 0.34 TAR – 60.2 Bienville, LA 60.2 6,330 25 Existing Temporary Yes 3.60 TAR – 61.7 Bienville, LA 61.7 4,800 25 Existing Temporary Yes 2.75 TAR – 62.3 Bienville, LA 62.3 1,580 25 Existing Temporary Yes 0.90 TAR – 63.6 Bienville, LA 63.6 5,280 25 Existing Temporary Yes 3.00 TAR – 67.1, Bienville, LA 67.1 4,000 25 Existing Temporary No 0.00 TAR – 68.1 Bienville, LA 68.1 600 25 Existing Temporary Yes 0.34 TAR – 68.2 Bienville, LA 68.2 250 25 Existing Temporary Yes 0.14 TAR – 68.7 Bienville, LA 68.7 1,500 25 Existing Temporary Yes 0.86 PAR – 70.1 Jackson, LA 70.0 350 25 New Permanent N/A 0.00 TAR – 74.8 Jackson, LA 74.8 800 20 Existing Temporary No 0.00 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
APPENDIX F-2

F2-4 

TABLE F-2 (continued) 

Existing, Modified, and New Access Roads for the Proposed East Texas to Mississippi Projec

Access 

Road County/Parish Milepost 

Length 

(ft) 

Width 

(ft) 

New 

or 

Existing 

Temporary 

or 

Permanent 

Improvement 

Required 

Temporary 

Land 

Requiremen

(acres) 

TAR – 75.0 Jackson, LA 75.0 2,000 20 Existing Temporary Yes 0.92 TAR – 78.4 Jackson, LA 78.4 800 25 Existing Temporary No 0.00 TAR – 83.0 Jackson, LA 83.0 2,800 25 Existing Temporary No 0.00 PAR – 84.6 Jackson, LA 84.6 100 25 Existing Permanent Yes 0.00 TAR – 86.3 Jackson, LA 86.3 600 25 Existing Temporary Yes 0.35 TAR – 88.1 Jackson, LA 88.1 465 25 Existing Temporary No 0.00 TAR – 88.9 Jackson, LA 88.1 3,500 25 Existing Temporary No 0.00 TAR – 90.4 Jackson, LA 90.4 1,100 25 New Temporary Yes 0.63 TAR – 90.8 Jackson, LA 90.8 300 25 Existing Temporary No 0.00 TAR – 97.4 Ouachita, LA 97.4 2,000 25 Existing Temporary No 0.00 TAR – 98.1 Ouachita, LA 98.1 2,000 25 Existing Temporary No 0.00 PAR-99.4 Ouachita, LA 99.4 400 25 New Permanent N/A 0.23 TAR – 106.8 Ouachita, LA 106.8 1,000 25 Existing Temporary Yes 0.00 TAR – 110.8 Ouachita, LA 110.8 2,000 25 Existing Temporary No 0.00 TAR – 111.0, River Rd. 

Ouachita, LA 111.0 5,000 30 Existing Temporary No 0.00 

PAR – 112.2 Ouachita, LA 112.2 1,300 25 New Permanent N/A 0.75 TAR – 114.2 Ouachita, LA 114.2 15,840 25 Existing Temporary Yes 9.10 TAR - 115.8, Field Trail / Canal 

Richland, LA 115.8 7,500 25 Existing Temporary Yes 4.00 

TAR – 116.1 Richland, LA 116.1 800 25 Existing Temporary Yes 0.50 TAR – 116.5 Richland, LA 116.5 1,800 25 Existing Temporary Yes 1.00 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
APPENDIX F-2

F2-5 

TABLE F-2 (continued) 

Existing, Modified, and New Access Roads for the Proposed East Texas to Mississippi Projec

Access 

Road County/Parish Milepost 

Length 

(ft) 

Width 

(ft) 

New 

or 

Existing 

Temporary 

or 

Permanent 

Improvement 

Required 

Temporary 

Land 

Requiremen

(acres) 

TAR – 117.1 Richland, LA 117.1 3,500 25 Existing Temporary Yes 2.00 TAR - 117.2 Richland, LA 117.2 5,000 25 Existing Temporary Yes 2.80 TAR - 117.6 Richland, LA 117.6 2,500 25 Existing Temporary Yes 1.40 TAR – 117.9 Richland, LA 117.9 15,000 25 Existing Temporary Yes 8.60 TAR – 118.5 Richland, LA 118.5 2,500 25 Existing Temporary Yes 1.40 TAR – 120.0 Richland, LA 120.0 1,000 20 Existing Temporary No 0.00 TAR – 121.1 Richland, LA 121.1 3,000 20 Existing Temporary Yes 1.72 TAR – 122.6 Richland, LA 122.6 2,500 20 Existing Temporary Yes 1.43 PAR – 129.8 Richland, LA 129.8 50 25 New Permanent N/A 0.00 TAR – 131.2 Richland, LA 131.2 3,000 25 Existing Temporary No 0.00 TAR – 133.1 Richland, LA 133.1 1,200 25 Existing Temporary Yes 0.69 TAR – 140.1 Richland, LA 140.08 2,200 20 Existing Temporary No 0.00 TAR – 140.5 Richland, LA 140.5 1,200 25 Existing Temporary Yes 0.69 PAR -141.4 Richland, LA 141.4 2,800 25 Existing Permanent Yes 1.60 TAR – 144.9 Richland, LA 144.9 600 20 Existing Temporary Yes 0.34 TAR – 145.3 Richland, LA 145.3 1,450 20 Existing Temporary No 0.00 TAR – 147.0 Richland, LA 147.0 3,000 25 Existing Temporary Yes 1.37 TAR – 148.0 Richland, LA 148.0 1,000 25 Existing Temporary Yes 0.57 PAR-149.4 Richland, LA 149.4 200 25 New Permanent N/A 0.00 TAR -149.8 Madison, LA 149.8 7,330 20 Existing Temporary No 0.00 PAR -150.4 Madison, LA 150.4 375 20 New Permanent N/A 0.00 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
APPENDIX F-2

F2-6 

TABLE F-2 (continued) 

Existing, Modified, and New Access Roads for the Proposed East Texas to Mississippi Projec

Access 

Road County/Parish Milepost 

Length 

(ft) 

Width 

(ft) 

New 

or 

Existing 

Temporary 

or 

Permanent 

Improvement 

Required 

Temporary 

Land 

Requiremen

(acres) 

TAR -150.7 Madison, LA 150.7 1,700 20 Existing Temporary No 0.00 TAR – 155.1 Madison, LA 155.1 1,200 20 Existing Temporary No 0.00 TAR – 156.6 Madison, LA 156.6 13,500 20 Existing Temporary No 0.00 TAR – 158.2 Madison, LA 158.2 1,400 20 Existing Temporary No 0.00 TAR – 159.4 Madison, LA 159.4 3,850 20 Existing Temporary No 0.00 TAR – 160.3 Madison, LA 160.3 1,633 20 Existing Temporary No 0.00 TAR – 161.27 Madison, LA 161.27 4,952 20 Existing Temporary No 0.00 TAR – 161.3 Madison, LA 161.3 162 20 Existing Temporary No 0.00 TAR – 161.8 Madison, LA 161.8 1,720 20 Existing Temporary No 0.00 TAR – 162.61 Madison, LA 162.61 9,746 20 Existing Temporary No 0.00 TAR – 163.42 Madison, LA 163.42 16,084 20 Existing Temporary No 0.00 TAR – 164.58 Madison, LA 164.58 5,166 20 Existing Temporary No 0.00 TAR – 165.1 Madison, LA 165.1 2,475 20 Existing Temporary No 0.00 TAR – 166.3 Madison, LA 166.3 2,546 20 Existing Temporary No 0.00 PAR – 167.6 Madison, LA 167.6 1,000 25 Existing Permanent Yes 0.57 TAR – 168.4 Madison, LA 168.4 3,007 20 Existing Temporary No 0.00 TAR – 168.9 Madison, LA 168.9 4,000 20 Existing Temporary No 0.00 TAR – 170.1 Madison, LA 170.1 2,332 20 Existing Temporary No 0.00 TAR – 172.6 Madison, LA 172.6 2,388 20 Existing Temporary No 0.00 TAR – 174.6 Madison, LA 174.6 5,211 20 Existing Temporary No 0.00 TAR – 175.3 Madison, LA 175.3 1,298 20 Existing Temporary No 0.00 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
APPENDIX F-2

F2-7 

TABLE F-2 (continued) 

Existing, Modified, and New Access Roads for the Proposed East Texas to Mississippi Projec

Access 

Road County/Parish Milepost 

Length 

(ft) 

Width 

(ft) 

New 

or 

Existing 

Temporary 

or 

Permanent 

Improvement 

Required 

Temporary 

Land 

Requiremen

(acres) 

TAR – 175.5 Madison, LA 175.5 3,929 20 Existing Temporary No 0.00 TAR – 176.2 Madison, LA 176.2 1,521 20 Existing Temporary No 0.00 TAR – 176.5 Madison, LA 176.5 1,279 20 Existing Temporary No 0.00 TAR – 177.3 Madison, LA 177.3 1,462 20 Existing Temporary No 0.00 PAR – 182.1 Madison, LA 182.1 100 25 New Permanent N/A 0.00 TAR – 183.4 Madison, LA 183.4 9,600 20 Existing Temporary No 0.00 TAR – 184.9 Warren, MS 184.9 550 20 New Temporary N/A 0.25 TAR – 185.1 Warren, MS 185.1 200 25 Existing Temporary No 0.00 TAR – 185.3 Warren, MS 185.3 600 20 Existing Temporary No 0.00 PAR – 185.5 Warren, MS 185.5 450 25 New Permanent N/A 0.26 TAR – 185.9 Warren, MS 185.9 250 25 Existing Temporary No 0.00 TAR – 187.5 Warren, MS 187.5 5,596 20 Existing Temporary Yes 2.60 TAR – 189.8 Warren, MS 189.8 5,692 30 Existing Temporary Yes 2.70 TAR – 190.7 Warren, MS 190.7 300 25 Existing Temporary No 0.00 PAR-191.6 Warren, MS 191.6 100 20 New Permanent N/A 0.00 TAR – 196.5 Warren, MS 196.5 3,705 20 Existing Temporary Yes 1.70 TAR – 197.1 Warren, MS 197.1 8,085 20 Existing Temporary No 0.00 TAR – 197.5 Hinds, MS 197.5 2,075 20 Existing Temporary No 0.00 TAR – 199.6 Hinds, MS 199.6 3,666 20 Existing Temporary No 0.00 TAR – 200.7 Hinds, MS 200.7 260 20 Existing Temporary No 0.00 TAR – 201.07 Hinds, MS 201.07 100 20 Existing Temporary No 0.00 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
APPENDIX F-2

F2-8 

TABLE F-2 (continued) 

Existing, Modified, and New Access Roads for the Proposed East Texas to Mississippi Projec

Access 

Road County/Parish Milepost 

Length 

(ft) 

Width 

(ft) 

New 

or 

Existing 

Temporary 

or 

Permanent 

Improvement 

Required 

Temporary 

Land 

Requiremen

(acres) 

TAR – 201.09 Hinds, MS 201.09 120 20 Existing Temporary No 0.00 TAR – 203.7 Hinds, MS 203.7 600 20 Existing Temporary No 0.00 TAR – 203.9 Hinds, MS 203.9 400 20 Existing Temporary No 0.00 TAR – 204.6 Hinds, MS 204.6 1,435 20 Existing Temporary No 0.00 PAR – 207.1 Hinds, MS 207.1 750 20 New Permanent N/A 0.00 TAR – 207.9 Hinds, MS 207.9 2,022 20 Existing Temporary No 0.00 TAR – 208.4 Hinds, MS 208.4 800 20 Existing Temporary No 0.00 TAR – 208.7 Hinds, MS 208.7 800 20 Existing Temporary No 0.00 TAR – 211.2 Hinds, MS 211.2 800 20 Existing Temporary No 0.00 TAR – 213.4 Hinds, MS 213.4 100 20 Existing Temporary No 0.00 TAR – 214.9 Hinds, MS 214.9 2,768 20 Existing Temporary No 0.00 TAR – 216.8 Hinds, MS 216.8 1,144 20 Existing Temporary No 0.00 TAR – 217.7 Hinds, MS 217.7 1,258 20 Existing Temporary No 0.00 TAR – 218.48 Hinds, MS 218.48 748 20 Existing Temporary No 0.00 TAR – 218.5 Hinds, MS 218.5 600 25 Existing Temporary No 0.00 PAR - 219.7 Hinds, MS 219.7 700 20 Existing Permanent Yes 1.32 TAR – 221.7 Hinds, MS 221.7 3,340 20 Existing Temporary No 0.00 TAR – 222.2 Hinds, MS 222.2 2,600 25 Existing Temporary No 0.00 PAR - 225.3 Hinds, MS 225.3 250 20 New Permanent N/A 0.00 TAR – 225.6 Hinds, MS 225.6 1,640 20 Existing Temporary No 0.00 TAR – 226.3 Hinds, MS 226.3 5,156 20 Existing Temporary No 0.00 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
APPENDIX F-2

F2-9 

TABLE F-2 (continued) 

Existing, Modified, and New Access Roads for the Proposed East Texas to Mississippi Projec

Access 

Road County/Parish Milepost 

Length 

(ft) 

Width 

(ft) 

New 

or 

Existing 

Temporary 

or 

Permanent 

Improvement 

Required 

Temporary 

Land 

Requiremen

(acres) 

PAR – 227.9 Hinds, MS 227.9 1,840 20 Existing Permanent Yes 0.23 TAR – 231.5 Copiah, MS 231.5 1,000 20 Existing Temporary No 0.00 TAR – 232.7 Simpson, MS 232.7 9,344 20 Existing Temporary No 0.00 TAR – 233.6 Simpson, MS 233.6 1,400 20 Existing Temporary No 0.00 TAR – 233.8 Simpson, MS 233.8 1,626 20 Existing Temporary No 0.00 TAR – 234.4 Simpson, MS 234.4 150 20 Existing Temporary No 0.00 TAR – 234.5 Simpson, MS 234.5 440 20 Existing Temporary No 0.00 TAR – 235.3 Simpson, MS 235.3 400 20 Existing Temporary No 0.00 TAR – 236.0 Simpson, MS 236.0 2,632 20 Existing Temporary No 0.00 TAR – 236.7 Simpson, MS 236.7 3,635 25 Existing Temporary No 0.00 TAR – 237.1 Simpson, MS 237.1 6,811 20 Existing Temporary No 0.00 PAR - 238.6 Simpson, MS 238.6 12,000 25 Existing Permanent Yes 7.00 

Total Access Road Land Requirements 103.78 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
APPENDIX F-3 

Pipe Storage and Contractor Yards for the Proposed East Texas to Mississippi Expansion 

Project 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
APPENDIX F-3

F3-1

TABLE F-3 

Contractor/Staging Yards for the Proposed East Texas to Mississippi Project 

Facility County/Parish Location 

Land 

Requirements

(acres) 

TX-SY1 Panola, TX 9-miles west of Carthage on Hwy 79 toward Henderson 20.0 

TX-SY2 Panola, TX 59 loop west of Carthage between Hwy 79 and Hwy 59N 60.0 

LA-CY1 Caddo, LA 3085 Stagecoach Rd. Keithville, LA , approx 1⁄2 mile east of LA 

171 

15.0 

LA-CY2 Webster, LA 11221 Hwy 371 S. Sibley, LA 71073 10.0 

LA-CY3 Webster, LA 915 N. Main, Sibley LA approx 1.5 miles south of I-20 on east 

side of SH 7 

10.0 

LA-CY-6 Ouachita, LA 455 Well Rd. , West Monroe, LA, Frost Trailer, Skip Moore 318-

322-5107 

10.0 

LA-CY7 Ouachita, LA Hwy 151 N. Calhoun, LA 71225 –contact # 318-322-5707 10.0 

LA-CY8 Ouachita, LA 6742 Milhaven Rd. Monroe, LA 15.0 

LA-CY10 Richland, LA Rayville, LA NE corner of Fifth St. & Gin Road 55.0 

MS-CY11 Hinds, MS Across from 2648 Old Hwy 51, Terry MS, 2 miles South of Terry, 

MS on US Highway 51. 103 I-55 W. Frontage Road Terry, MS 

39170 

15.0 

MS-CY12 Hinds, MS 2648 Old Hwy 51, Terry MS, 2 miles South of Terry, MS on US 

Highway 51. 103 I-55 W. Frontage Road Terry, MS 39170 

10.0 

Total Affected Acres 230.0 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
APPENDIX G 

MINOR ROUTE VARIATION MAPS 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
Non-Internet Public 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE 

PROPOSED EAST TEXAS TO MISSISSIPPI EXPANSION PROJECT 

Docket No. CP06-446-000 

Appendix G Figures 

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 #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
APPENDIX H 

NATCHEZ TRACE PARKWAY 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
APPENDIX H 

Natchez Trace Parkway 

H-1

1.0 NATCHEZ TRACE PARKWAY 

1.1 INTRODUCTION 

The FERC has developed the following appendix to address the proposed crossing of the Natchez 

Trace Parkway (Parkway) in Hinds County, Mississippi by a 42-inch-diameter natural gas pipeline in 

association with the proposed East Texas to Mississippi Expansion Project (Project). Although this 

appendix incorporates by reference other sections within the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), our 

intent was to consolidate the most pertinent information relevant to the Natchez Trace Parkway in this 

appendix, including an overview of the alternatives considered. The Parkway is managed by the National 

Park Service (NPS), which requires a distinct National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) evaluation 

before deciding whether to allow the proposed crossing. The NPS (2006g) agreed to serve as a 

cooperating federal agency with the FERC in the development of the EIS and specifically requested that 

this separate assessment be developed. It is anticipated that the information and analyses included in this 

appendix and the EIS would suffice for the proposed Project’s NEPA requirements in relation to the NPS 

and the Parkway. 

The Parkway is a 444-mile-long elongated park and roadway in Mississippi, Alabama, and 

Tennessee (NPS 2006h). The Parkway was authorized by Congress in 1938 and commemorates the 

historic Old Natchez Trace. The Old Natchez Trace was historically used for centuries by Native 

Americans, traders, military personnel, and early settlers as a pathway connecting the mid-South with the 

lower Mississippi River. The Parkway connects Nashville, Tennessee and Natchez, Mississippi. The 

roadway also is designated as a National Scenic Byway and All-American Road due to the presence of 

significant archeological, cultural, historic, natural, recreational, and scenic qualities. The 

Congressionally designated purpose of the Natchez Trace Parkway is to provide and maintain a scenic 

and recreational roadway. 

1.2 NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION 

The overall purpose and need for the proposed Project is described in detail in Section 1.1 of the 

EIS. In general, there is a need to transport supplies of natural gas from production fields in eastern 

Texas to markets in other portions of the United States. The proposed East Texas to Mississippi 

Expansion Project would assist with this goal of better distributing additional supplies of natural gas and 

help meet growing energy demands, enhance reliability, and result in supply diversification. Interstate 

natural gas pipelines extending in an east to west fashion through Mississippi would be likely to 

encounter the Natchez Trace Parkway, which extends diagonally across most of the State in a southwest 

to northeast direction. As such, it would be difficult or impossible for certain proposed pipelines, 

depending on their location and route, to completely avoid crossing the Parkway. In the particular case of 

the proposed Project, given its origin near Keatchie, Louisiana, its terminus near Harrisville, Mississippi, 

and its overall direction, the pipeline route would need to cross the Parkway at some point in order for the 

Project’s objective to be attained.

1.3 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION 

Gulf South Pipeline Company’s (Gulf South) proposed crossing is located near Parkway Milepost 

(MP) 73, approximately 12 miles southwest of Jackson, Mississippi. Parkway MPs begin at 0 near 

Natchez, Mississippi; increase sequentially as the roadway proceeds generally to the northeast; and end at 

MP 444 near Nashville, Tennessee. The crossing location is located at the East Texas to Mississippi 

Expansion Project’s MP 208.5. The proposed Parkway crossing point is located approximately 1,200 feet 

northeast of the historic Dillon Plantation and Bailey Farm, which the NPS incorporated into the Parkway 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
APPENDIX H 

Natchez Trace Parkway 

H-2

in 2002 (NPS 2002). The Parkway boundary extends for approximately 400 feet on both sides of the 

roadway at the location of the proposed crossing. 

The proposed Project would involve an approach to the Parkway boundary from the west through 

actively cultivated agricultural (i.e., corn) fields. The proposed pipeline would be installed using 

conventional open-cut methods up to a point approximately 80 feet west of the toe of the slope of the 

Parkway. Following the crossing under the Parkway, which is described below, the proposed pipeline 

would then again be constructed using open-cut methods and would continue eastward. Open-cut 

construction includes clearing, grading, trenching, pipe installation, backfilling, and restoration, which are 

described in detail in Section 2.3.1 of the EIS. 

Gulf South proposes to cross under the Parkway, without directly disturbing the road surface or 

the roadway slopes, using a directional boring technique. A bore pit, approximately 40 feet wide by 80 

feet long and 10 to 14 feet deep, would be excavated 10 feet away from the toe of the slope on each side 

of the Parkway. A boring auger with a diameter of approximately 44 inches with an attached section of 

temporary pipe would be used to complete the 140-foot-long bore hole and prevent its collapse. Once the 

boring process is completed, a section of the actual pipeline would be attached and pulled back through 

the bore hole. The pipeline section would then be welded to the other pipeline segments, located to the 

east and west of the Parkway that would be installed using the open-cut methods described above. The 

top of the pipeline would be located a minimum of 25 feet below the bottom of the Parkway’s road 

surface given the depth of the bore pits and the substantial elevation of the roadway (approximately 18 

feet above the adjacent agricultural fields). 

The proposed construction right-of-way would encompass a 100-foot-wide corridor, of which a 

proposed 60-foot-wide strip would be maintained as permanent right-of-way. In Section 2 of the EIS, we 

are recommending that Gulf South use a 50-foot-wide permanent right-of-way, which would reduce 

impacts. The bore pits would be positioned in the proposed permanent right-of-way. Outside of the 

corridor for the construction right-of-way, Gulf South would also use the agricultural fields south of each 

bore pit for spoil storage and pipe lay down areas. These spoil storage and pipe lay down areas would 

encompass areas of 100 feet by 200 feet to the west of the Parkway and 60 feet by 200 feet to the east of 

the Parkway. Additionally, staging areas would be positioned in the agricultural fields located just 

outside the Parkway boundary. Temporary construction barrier fencing would be placed at the perimeter 

of the construction right-of-way and extra work areas to prevent disturbance outside of the zones 

described above. 

Access for construction on both sides of the Parkway would be provided from Mt. Moriah Road. 

Existing access roads would be used to move equipment and materials from Mt. Moriah Road to the 

pipeline right-of-way and extra work areas. Construction-related equipment would not need to use the 

Parkway for access, nor would the Parkway or its side slopes be crossed or blocked at any time. It is 

anticipated that the entire construction process from mobilization to de-mobilization would take 

approximately 4 weeks, with active construction activities such as trenching and boring taking 

approximately 2 weeks to complete. Construction would take place only during daylight hours. 

1.4 SCOPING 

The level of scoping, as well as agency and public involvement, is discussed in detail in 

Section 1.4 of the EIS. In specific regard to the Natchez Trace Parkway, the NPS agreed to be a 

cooperating federal agency in the development of the EIS, participated in an interagency scoping meeting 

held on July 18, 2006 in Jackson, Mississippi, and provided substantial input and guidance regarding the 

environmental review process. The NPS also attended an agency meeting to discuss the Draft EIS held in 

Jackson, Mississippi on March 1, 2007. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) Jackson, Mississippi 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
APPENDIX H 

Natchez Trace Parkway 

H-3

Field Office, responsible for compliance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, also participated 

in the development of the EIS as a federal cooperating agency. In addition, Gulf South and the FERC 

have also consulted with the Mississippi Department of Archives and History regarding compliance with 

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, and with other agencies in Mississippi such as the 

Natural Resources Conservation Service;, Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks; 

Mississippi Museum of Natural Science; and Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality. 

1.5 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 

We considered three alternatives in relation to the proposed Project: the No Action or Postponed 

Action Alternative, the Dillon Plantation – Bailey Farm Crossing Alternative, and the Mt. Moriah Road 

Crossing Alternative. These alternatives are discussed and evaluated below. 

1.5.1 No Action or Postponed Action Alternative 

Under the No Action or Postponed Action Alternative, the proposed Project would not be 

constructed and the proposed natural gas pipeline would not cross the Parkway, at least in the 2007 

timeframe proposed by Gulf South. If the FERC denied Gulf South’s application, the NPS denied the 

proposed crossing of the Parkway, or if Gulf South withdrew its application, then the environmental 

impacts discussed in this appendix and the EIS would not occur. If the proposed Project were delayed 

through postponed action, then the identified impacts would be delayed as well. However, if approval for 

the proposed Project was denied, or if it was significantly delayed, then the objectives of the Project 

would not be met and the infrastructure needed to transport natural gas and meet growing energy 

demands, enhance reliability, and result in supply diversification would not be provided. In light of this 

analysis, and the more detailed information presented in Section 4.1 of the EIS, we do not recommend the 

No Action or the Postponed Action Alternative. 

1.5.2 Dillon Plantation – Bailey Farm Crossing Alternative 

Gulf South originally proposed that the pipeline route cross the Parkway approximately 3,800 feet 

southwest of the currently proposed route at the Dillon Plantation and Bailey Farm area (Figures 1.5.2-1a, 

1.5.2-1b, and 1.5.2-1c). This 470-acre parcel is owned by the NPS and was incorporated into the 

Parkway in 2002. The Dillon Plantation and Bailey Farm played key roles in the Civil War’s Battle of 

Raymond, siege of Vicksburg, and the Battle of Jackson and are eligible for listing on the National 

Register of Historic Places (NRHP) due to this history. Given the historic nature of this area, the 

potential for impacts to historic resources, and input provided by the NPS, we do not recommend the 

Dillon Plantation and Bailey Farm Crossing Alternative. 

1.5.3 Mt. Moriah Road Crossing Alternative 

Based on consultations with the NPS, Gulf South developed an alternate crossing location near 

Mt. Moriah Road that would avoid the historic Dillon Plantation and Bailey Farm (Figures 1.5.2-1a, 

1.5.2-1b, and 1.5.2-1c). The Mt. Moriah Road crossing location offers several favorable features from a 

constructability and environmental viewpoint, including an elevated roadbed, a lack of tree cover within 

the Parkway boundary, and convenient access from a road other than the Parkway. Due to these features 

and in consideration of the NPS role in consulting with Gulf South about selection of this route, we 

conclude that the Mt. Moriah Road Crossing Alternative is the environmentally preferable route 

alternative. 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
Non-Internet Public 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE 

PROPOSED EAST TEXAS TO MISSISSIPPI EXPANSION PROJECT 

Docket No. CP06-446-000 

Page H-4 

Figure 1.5.2-1a 

42-Inch Mainline Pipeline Topo 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 #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
Non-Internet Public 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE 

PROPOSED EAST TEXAS TO MISSISSIPPI EXPANSION PROJECT 

Docket No. CP06-446-000 

Page H-5 

Figure 1.5.2-1b 

42-Inch Mainline Pipeline Topo 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 #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
Non-Internet Public 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE 

PROPOSED EAST TEXAS TO MISSISSIPPI EXPANSION PROJECT 

Docket No. CP06-446-000 

Page H-6 

Figure 1.5.2-1c 

42-Inch Mainline Pipeline Topo 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 #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
APPENDIX H 

Natchez Trace Parkway 

H-7

1.6 AFFECTED RESOURCES, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION 

This section of Appendix H discusses the resources that would be affected by the proposed 

Project within the Parkway boundary, as well as relevant resources in adjacent areas. Information 

regarding potential impacts and mitigation is also presented in consolidated subsections. Several resource 

areas, including geology (Section 3.1), socioeconomics (Section 3.9), air quality (Section 3.11), and 

reliability and safety (Section 3.12), are discussed in other sections of the EIS and are not evaluated 

further in this appendix. Based on the nature of the proposed Project in relation to the Parkway, we have 

selected several other environmental resource areas for specific evaluation, as described below. 

1.6.1 Soils and Prime Farmland 

The soils at the proposed crossing of the Parkway are comprised of the Memphis-Loring-Collins 

soil association and are best described as a silty loam. These soils typically have low erosion potential, 

are not hydric, have good revegetation potential, and usually are not subject to soil compaction. The 

drainage characteristics of these soils range from moderately well drained to well drained. Prime 

farmland is designated on both sides of the proposed crossing of the Parkway. 

Construction activities associated with open-cut pipeline installation methods and with excavation 

of the bore pits would disturb soils adjacent to the Parkway. Clearing of vegetation, grading, trenching, 

backfilling, and restoration would impact soils, but these impacts would be relatively minor and 

temporary. Impacts could include increased potential for soil erosion and compaction; reduced potential 

for soil productivity, drainage capability, and productivity; and soil contamination through spills of 

hazardous substances such as fuel. Impacts to prime farmland would also be temporary as the land would 

not be permanently converted to another use and agricultural activity could continue over the right-of-way 

following restoration. 

Gulf South would implement measures that would minimize soil erosion and enhance 

revegetation. Mitigation measures identified in its Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation, and 

Maintenance Plan (Plan) include using erosion controls during construction to control runoff, reducing the 

duration of soil disturbance, and reestablishing contours and vegetative cover as soon as practicable. 

Additionally, Gulf South’s Plan includes measures for topsoil stripping and replacement, testing and 

mitigation for compacted soils, use of Environmental Inspectors (EIs) to ensure compliance with erosion 

control and all other requirements, and post-construction monitoring of revegetation and crop yields. 

Gulf South would also implement its Spill Prevention, Containment, and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan to 

prevent or minimize potential impacts from spills or other inadvertent releases. 

Based on the resources described above, the temporary and relatively minor impacts anticipated, 

and Gulf South’s proposed construction, minimization, and mitigation measures, we believe that 

construction and operation of the proposed Project would not significantly affect the soils and prime 

farmland within the Parkway boundary. 

1.6.2 Water Resources and Wetlands 

The proposed route would not cross any sensitive groundwater resources, waterbodies, or 

wetlands within the Parkway boundary, nor did Gulf South’s field surveys identify any adjacent wetlands 

within 1 mile of the crossing location. The waterbodies nearest the Parkway that would be crossed by the 

proposed route include a 3-foot-wide intermittent stream at proposed Project MP 208.2 and a 5-foot-wide 

intermittent stream at proposed Project MP 208.6. Both streams are tributaries to Turkey Creek. 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
APPENDIX H 

Natchez Trace Parkway 

H-8

Because no groundwater resources, waterbodies, or wetlands would be crossed, no impacts to 

these resources within the Parkway boundary would occur. Additionally, no wetlands adjacent to or 

visible from the Parkway would be affected. Although they would not be crossed or directly affected, the 

two identified intermittent streams could be indirectly affected by runoff from the disturbed areas of the 

pipeline corridor, bore pits, and extra work areas or through accidental spills. We believe that the 

potential impact of soil erosion upon water quality would be prevented or effectively minimized through 

implementation of Gulf South’s Plan. Additionally, implementation of Gulf South’s SPCC Plan would 

prevent or minimize impacts to water quality from spills. Given the relative lack of resources present, 

and the implementation of the impact minimization and mitigation measures identified, we believe that 

the proposed Project would not significantly affect the Parkway’s groundwater resources, streams, or 

wetlands. 

1.6.3 Vegetation 

Vegetation types occurring within the Parkway boundary that would be affected by the proposed 

Project includes maintained grass adjacent to the roadway and on the side slopes, as well as cultivated 

corn on both sides. Scattered, small forested areas are found west, north, and east of the proposed route; 

and a larger expanse of forested area is located to the south. 

The grassed areas adjacent to the Parkway and on the side slopes would not be disturbed by the 

bore pits or any other construction activity and would not be impacted. The cornfields, both located 

within the Parkway boundary and in immediately adjacent areas, would be affected by clearing, grading, 

pipe installation, excavation of the bore pits, and extra work areas. Gulf South indicated that construction 

would require approximately 1 month for the Parkway crossing and that overall Project construction 

would occur during the approximate period of May through September 2007. Given these estimated 

timeframes if the proposed Project is approved, the existing seasonal cornfields and the associated 

agricultural land use would likely be lost for the 2007 growing season. However, Gulf South would 

compensate landowners for such a loss during easement negotiations, as appropriate. Such an impact 

would also be short-term, as the agricultural use could be restored during the next growing season. 

Additionally, implementation of its Plan would ensure that continuing agricultural operations would not 

be hampered over the long-term. Relatively minor impacts to the scattered, small forested areas located 

to the west and east outside the Parkway boundary would occur due to clearing and maintenance of the 

right-of-way; these impacts would be long-term in the construction right-of-way and permanent in the 

maintained right-of-way. The larger forested area located south of the Parkway crossing location would 

not be affected by the proposed Project. 

The spread of invasive plant species, such as cogon grass (as described in Section 3.5 of the EIS), 

is an issue of concern to the NPS along the Natchez Trace Parkway. Because, the area of the proposed 

crossing already contains numerous other corridors, such as roadways, the proposed pipeline route would 

not represent a significant new pathway for the spread of invasive plant species. Additionally, we are 

recommending in Section 3.5 of the EIS that Gulf South complete development an Exotic and Invasive 

Species Control Plan, developed in consultation with the resource agencies, to control the spread of 

invasive species. 

Given the nature of the vegetation types present, the minor impacts anticipated, the mitigation 

measures required by Gulf South’s Plan, and the requirement for Gulf South to develop an Exotic and 

Invasive Species Control Plan, we believe that the proposed Project would not significantly affect the 

Parkway’s vegetation. 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
APPENDIX H 

Natchez Trace Parkway 

H-9

1.6.4 Wildlife and Fisheries 

The wildlife species present in the vicinity of the proposed Parkway crossing would be most 

likely to reflect the modified edge habitats that occur there, due to the presence of agricultural fields, 

roads, and residences. These species are relatively tolerant of human activity. Based on surveys of the 

Parkway, species likely to be present in the vicinity of the proposed crossing include the American toad 

(Bufo americanus), southern black racer (Coluber constrictor), eastern tufted titmouse (Parus bicolor), 

and opossum (Dildelphis virginiana) (NPS 2002). Fish, mussels, and other aquatic species are not 

anticipated to occur within the Parkway boundary, due to the lack of streams, ponds, and wetlands at the 

proposed crossing site. 

Impacts to habitat resulting from the proposed crossing of the Parkway would be temporary or 

short-term, and relatively minor overall. The dominant wildlife habitat affected would be corn fields, and 

the species that typically use that habitat type are accustomed to periodic disturbance and human activity. 

Individual specimens of wildlife may be displaced, injured, or killed during construction; but these 

impacts would be minor at a population level. Impacts to aquatic resources such as fish are not 

anticipated due to the lack of suitable aquatic habitat and the measures that Gulf South would use to 

prevent or minimize soil erosion and accidental spills and their associated potential impacts to water 

quality. 

Given the overall lack of high quality wildlife habitats, the minor impacts anticipated, and the 

mitigation and restoration measures that would be used, we believe that the proposed Project would not 

significantly affect the Parkway’s wildlife and fish resources. 

1.6.5 Threatened and Endangered Species 

The FWS indicated that five federally listed threatened species were potentially found in Hinds 

County, Mississippi (FWS 2006j). These species, which are also discussed in detail in Section 3.7 of the 

EIS, include the Louisiana black bear, ringed map turtle, bayou darter, Gulf sturgeon, and inflated 

heelsplitter mussel. Louisiana black bears are typically associated with forests, particularly forested 

wetlands. The ringed map turtle, Gulf sturgeon, and inflated heelsplitter mussel typically occur in large 

rivers, such as the Pearl River. The bayou darter is found in meandering streams with gravel riffles or 

exposed sandstone. 

The habitat needed to support these listed species is not present at the proposed crossing site of 

the Parkway, nor is it present in immediately adjacent areas. Given this lack of suitable habitat, impacts 

to these species would not occur in association with the proposed Parkway crossing. The FWS Jackson, 

Mississippi Field Office, in its correspondence dated November 16, 2006, concurred with Gulf South’s 

determination that “the proposed Project is not likely to adversely affect federally listed species in 

Mississippi.” No further consultation with the FWS or mitigation in relation to the proposed Parkway 

crossing is required. 

1.6.6 Roads and Transportation 

The Parkway and Mt. Moriah Road are both paved two-lane roads that provide access and 

transportation routes to local residents. Commercial traffic is prohibited on the Parkway, and the speed 

limit is 50 miles per hour. The Parkway is used for sightseeing and tourism given its status, associated 

historic attractions, and views. Existing access roads provide a pathway from Mt. Moriah Road to the 

proposed work areas on both the west and east sides of the Parkway. 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
APPENDIX H 

Natchez Trace Parkway 

H-10

The proposed pipeline crossing would not affect traffic flow along the Parkway. The pipeline 

installation would be accomplished by boring beneath the Parkway, with no need for road closure or 

construction activity on the road surface or adjacent side slopes. Gulf South proposes to use Mt. Moriah 

Road and existing access roads for construction equipment, supplies, and labor instead of the Parkway. 

Impacts to traffic flow along Mt. Moriah Road would be relatively minor and temporary. A bend 

in Mt. Moriah Road potentially limits driver visibility in the area, including at the ingress and egress 

points associated with the existing access roads. Although the level of traffic on Mt. Moriah Road is 

typically minimal due to the rural nature of the area, Gulf South proposed to use flagmen to manage 

traffic flow and to provide safe travel during the anticipated short periods required to move equipment 

from one side of the Parkway to the other and during brief periods when one lane of Mt. Moriah Road 

may need to be closed. It is also possible that both lanes of Mt. Moriah Road would need to be closed for 

very brief periods to accommodate the transport of heavy equipment or supplies. Construction-related 

traffic would use Mt. Moriah Road for a period of up to 4 weeks, although the bulk of activity may be 

completed in 2 weeks. We believe that based on the lack of impacts on the Parkway and the temporary 

and relatively minor impacts to Mt. Moriah Road, there would not be a significant impact on traffic flow 

in the vicinity of the proposed crossing. 

1.6.7 Visual Resources 

The primary visual resources associated with the proposed Parkway crossing include those areas 

and objects visible to motorists using the Parkway. These areas include the roadway itself, the grassy side 

slopes located immediately adjacent to the roadway, agricultural fields located on both sides of the 

Parkway, and small scattered forested areas. Secondary visual resources, which include views of the 

Parkway and its associated property from Mt. Moriah Road or other adjacent areas, are virtually identical 

to the primary resources identified. 

Gulf South has proposed to cross under the Parkway using a directional boring technique that 

would not require physical disturbance to the Parkway or side slopes, nor would equipment, supplies, or 

personnel be positioned in these areas. Therefore, there would not be a visual impact to the Parkway or 

side slopes. 

However, construction activity including clearing, trenching, and excavation of bore pits, as well 

as the positioning of equipment, supplies, and personnel, would occur in the agricultural fields both 

within and just outside the Parkway boundary. These activities would result in temporary (up to 4 weeks) 

visual impacts to areas visible to passing motorists. Following construction and restoration, the fields 

would either be sown with the appropriate cover vegetation to prevent soil erosion or be replanted with a 

crop, growing season permitting. This process would ensure that the visual character of the area likely 

would not be very different from its appearance during other portions of the year. 

Additionally, relatively small forested areas outside the Parkway boundary would be cleared for 

the construction right-of-way, with a proposed 60-foot-wide strip maintained as herbaceous or scrubshrub vegetation types following construction. Given the small size of the forested areas, their 

fragmented nature, our recommendation that Gulf South use a 50-foot-wide permanent right-of-way, and 

slight bends in the proposed pipeline route, the visual nature of these forested areas would remain largely 

intact for passing motorists. We believe that the proposed Project would not result in the clearing and 

maintenance of new and visually obvious corridors adjacent to the Parkway. 

Given the nature of the resources present, and the largely temporary nature of the impacts 

anticipated, we believe that the proposed Project would not significantly affect visual resources of the 

Parkway. 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
APPENDIX H 

Natchez Trace Parkway 

H-11

1.6.8 Noise 

The existing noise environment at the proposed Mt. Moriah Road crossing location reflects the 

predominately rural landscape. The agricultural areas adjacent to the Parkway support wildlife capable of 

making noise in a natural setting, such as birds and insects. Human influence such as farming activity 

would also result in periodic noise associated with operation of tractors, other equipment, and light trucks. 

Vehicular traffic on the Parkway and Mt. Moriah Road would also result in intermittent noise, although 

traffic volume in this rural area is light to moderate and commercial traffic is prohibited on the Parkway. 

The proposed crossing would result in construction noise during daylight hours for a period of 2 

to 4 weeks. This noise would result from operation of heavy equipment, increased traffic volume on Mt. 

Moriah Road, and the presence of personnel at the site. However, this increase in noise would be 

temporary overall. It would be noticeable to motorists using the Parkway for a short duration, estimated 

at approximately 1 minute or less, assuming that the vehicle passed the site at the speed limit of 50 miles 

per hour. Given the temporary, minor, and transient nature of the impacts anticipated, we believe that the 

proposed Project would not have a significant impact on the noise environment of the Parkway. 

1.6.9 Cultural Resources 

The Natchez Trace Parkway is eligible to be listed on the NRHP in its entirety as “a designed 

cultural landscape” (NPS 2006i). The Old Natchez Trace was historically used first by Native 

Americans, and then by traders and early settlers. The Old Natchez Trace provided an early and valuable 

transportation route connecting the lower Mississippi River and Gulf Coast to areas located well inland as 

far north as Tennessee. The proposed crossing location is also near and just north of the historic Dillon 

Plantation and Bailey Farm, as described in Section 1.5.2, which have been incorporated into the 

Parkway. The Dillon Plantation and Bailey Farm are also eligible for listing in the NRHP, based on their 

historic significance, particularly in relation to the Civil War. 

Gulf South’s contractor for cultural resources, the University of Alabama, Office of 

Archaeological Research (OAR) conducted a cultural resources reconnaissance survey of the proposed 

pipeline route from March to August 2006. The purpose of the survey was to identify archaeological sites 

or historic structures found along the proposed pipeline route. The OAR reported that, except for the 

crossing of the Parkway itself, no other cultural resources such as archaeological sites or historic 

structures were identified at the proposed Mt. Moriah Road crossing location. 

Gulf South has avoided impacts to cultural resources at the Dillon Plantation and Bailey Farm 

area through selective routing developed in consultation with the NPS. This consultation resulted in 

selection of the Mt. Moriah Road crossing location as the preferred alternative. The OAR indicated that, 

given the proposed pipeline approach corridor through the agricultural fields and use of the subsurface 

boring technique at the Mt. Moriah Road crossing location, impact on the Parkway would be limited to 

temporary and minimal visual effects. Gulf South has also committed to having an archaeologist from 

OAR onsite to monitor construction activity at the immediate approaches to the Parkway through the 

agricultural fields and during execution of the boring technique. This monitoring would ensure that any 

unanticipated cultural resources or artifacts encountered would be recognized and appropriate action 

would be taken. Should cultural resources be encountered, Gulf South would implement its Plan for the 

Unanticipated Discovery of Historic Properties, Human Remains, or Potential Paleontological Evidence 

during Construction. 

Gulf South submitted its original cultural resources survey report to the Mississippi Department 

of Archives and History on September 1, 2006. Gulf South filed addendum survey reports that included 

access roads and small corridor segments that had not been previously surveyed on November 15, 2006, 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
APPENDIX H 

Natchez Trace Parkway 

H-12

and in January 2007. The OAR concluded that the proposed Project, including the crossing of the 

Natchez Trace Parkway, would not significantly affect any cultural resources. Mississippi SHPO, in their 

letters dated January 16, 2007 and February 21, 2007, concurred with OAR’s conclusion for the Natchez 

Trace Parkway. Given the selective routing developed in consultation with NPS, lack of cultural 

resources adjacent to the Parkway, special construction methods proposed, and the commitment to use 

onsite monitoring during construction, we conclude that the proposed Project would not significantly 

affect the cultural resources of the Natchez Trace Parkway. 

1.6.10 Cumulative Impacts 

We identified four other proposed projects that would cross the Natchez Trace Parkway based on 

our research and coordination with the NPS. These proposed projects include the Southeast Supply 

Header (SESH) Project, the Midcontinent Express Project, and two projects proposed by Denbury 

Resources Inc. Information regarding these proposed Projects is listed in Table 1.6-1. 

Detailed information regarding the specific resources, potential impacts, and mitigation in 

relation to the Natchez Trace Parkway is currently lacking for several of the proposed crossings. The 

Midcontinent Express Project is currently in the FERC pre-filing phase. Preliminary information 

indicates that the Midcontinent Express Project would cross the Natchez Trace Parkway in Hinds County, 

Mississippi, possibly near the proposed crossing location for the East Texas to Mississippi Expansion 

Project, but specific Parkway crossing information is currently not available. A final Parkway crossing 

alignment for the proposed Midcontinent Express Project would be determined based on consultations 

with the NPS, thereby minimizing long term impacts to the Parkway. The proposed SESH Project 

crossing location of the Parkway is at an existing roadway intersection and was selected based on 

consultation with the NPS. 

TABLE 1.6-1 

Proposed Projects That Would Cumulatively Impact the Natchez Trace Parkway In 

Addition to the Proposed East Texas to Mississippi Expansion Project 

Project Name 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 CO2 

pipeline 

MP 8.9 

Denbury Resources, Inc. 

New Pipeline Project 

Denbury Resources, Inc. Construction of a new 

CO2 pipeline 

MP 121.5 

Midcontinent Express 

Project 

Midcontinent Express 

Pipeline LLC 

Construction of a new 

36-inch diameter natural 

gas pipeline 

Hinds County, MS 

Southeast Supply 

Header Project 

Southeast Supply 

Header, LLC / Duke 

Energy 

Construction of a new 

36-inch-diameter natural 

gas pipeline 

MP 49.3 

Except for the SESH and the Midcontinent Express Projects, the FERC has no authority over 

permitting, licensing, funding, construction, or operation of the projects listed in Table 1.6-1. 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 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
APPENDIX H 

Natchez Trace Parkway 

H-13

Act; and the Clean Air Act. Issuance of the necessary permits and approvals would avoid or reduce 

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 

three proposed pipeline projects under our review would be minimized. 

We believe that impacts to the Natchez Trace Parkway associated with the proposed East Texas 

to Mississippi Expansion Project would be relatively minor. The environmental impacts associated with 

the proposed Project would be minimized by careful project routing, utilization of subsurface boring 

techniques, and implementation of appropriate mitigation measures. Consequently, only a small 

cumulative effect is anticipated when the impacts of the proposed Project are added to the other identified 

proposed projects that would affect the Parkway. 

1.6.11 Conclusion 

Based on our review of the selected route and crossing location, the resources present, potential 

impacts including cumulative impacts, and mitigation measures, we conclude that construction and 

operation of the proposed Project would not have a significant effect on the Natchez Trace Parkway. 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
APPENDIX I 

LITERATURE CITED 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
APPENDIX I 

Literature Cited 

I-1

Bates, R. L. and J. A. Jackson. 1984. Dictionary of Geological Terms, 3

rd

 Edition. Anchor Books, New 

York. 

Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2006. Annual average of 2005 Local Area Unemployment Statistics. 

http://www.bls.gov/lau/. 

The Coordinating & Development Corporation. 2006. http://www.cdconline.org/. 

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). 1997a. The 1997 Annual Report of the Council on 

Environmental Quality. http://ceq.eh.doe.gov/nepa/reports/1997/index.html. 

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). 1997b. Considering Cumulative Effects under the National 

Environmental Policy Act. http://www.nepa.gov/nepa/ccenepa/ccenepa.htm. 

Connecticut Siting Council (CSC). 2004. Review of Connecticut Electric Utilities’ Ten-Year Forecasts of 

Loads and Resources. 

Cowardin, L.W., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater 

Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC FWS/OBS-79/31. 

Crandall, K.A., J.W. Fetzner, Jr., and H.H. Hobbs, Jr., 2001. Faxonella creaseri Walls 1968. 

http://tolweb.org/Faxonella_creaseri/7099/2001.01.01.

Earth System Science Center. 2006. Soil Information for Environmental Modeling and Ecosystem 

Management. http://www.soilinfo.psu.edu/soil_lrr. 

EDR Data Map. 2006a. Environmental Atlas, East Texas Expansion Project, Jackson, LA. May 10, 2006. 

Inquiry Number 01670806.lr. 

EDR Data Map. 2006b. Environmental Atlas, East Texas Expansion Project, Jackson, LA. May 10, 2006. 

Inquiry Number 017209481r. 

EDR Data Map. 2006c. Environmental Atlas, Mississippi Alignment (3 Miles), Warren, MS. July 25, 

2006. Inquiry Number 01720948.3r. 

Energy Information Administration (EIA). 2004. Mississippi 2004 Distribution of Wells by Production 

Rate Bracket. http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petrosystem/ms_table.html. 

Energy Information Administration (EIA). 2006a. Annual Energy Outlook 2006 (Early Release). 

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/index.html. 

Energy Information Administration (EIA). 2006b. Energy Overview. 

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/txt/stb0101.xls. 

Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y87-1. US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station: Vicksburg, MS. 

ePodunk. 2006. http://www.epodunk.com/counties/la_county.html. 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). 2006. Carthage to Perryville Project Final 

Environmental Impact Statement. Washington, DC. 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
APPENDIX I 

Literature Cited 

I-2

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). 2004. Weaver’s Cove LNG Project Final 

Environmental Impact Statement. FERC. Washington, DC. 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). 2003. Greenbrier Pipeline Project Final Environmental 

Impact Statement. (Docket Nos. PF01-1-000 and CP02-396-000.) Volume 1. Washington, DC. 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). 1989. January 13, 1989 Order Affirming the 

Administrative Law Judge’s Initial Decision for the Mojave-Kern River-El Dorado Project. 

Hartfield, Paul. 1988. Status Survey for the Alabama Heelsplitter Mussel. Potamilus inflatus (Lea 

1831). Report to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Hotel-Rates.com. 2006. http://www.hotel-rates.com/us/louisiana/monroe/comfort-suites-monroe.html. 

Invasive Species 2006. Invasive and Exotic species- Tallow Tree 

http://www.invasive.org/browse/subject.cfm?sub=3079. 

Invasive.org. 2003a. Invasive Plants of the Eastern US- Japanese Honeysuckle. 

http://www.invasive.org/eastern/srs/JH.html. 

Invasive.org. 2003b. Invasive Plants of the Eastern US- Chinese Privet. 

http://www.invasive.org/eastern/srs/CP_EP.html. 

Jones, D. J., G. S. Kramer, D. N. Gideon, and R. J. Eiber. 1986. An Analysis of Reportable Incidents for 

Natural Gas Transportation and Gathering Lines 1970 through June 1984. (NG-18 Report No. 

158.). Pipeline Research Committee of the American Gas Association. 

Jonesboro Budget Inn. 2006. Personal communication between Jennifer Ward, ENTRIX, Inc., and 

receptionist. 

Kirkpatrick, D.T. 1993. An overview of Map Turtles of the United States. Reptile & Amphibian 

Magazine: 6 – 17. http://www.unc.edu/~dtkirkpa/stuff/maps.html. 

Koch, L. M. 1993. Status of Fat Pocketbook Mussels (Potamilis capax) Three Years after Reintroduction to the Upper Mississippi River, Missouri. Missouri Dept. of Conservation. 

Louisiana Department of Transportation (LDOT). 2006. Louisiana TIMED Program. 

http://www.timedla.com/improvement/factschedule.aspx. 

Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ). 2006. Water Quality Assessment in 

Louisiana. http://www.deq.louisiana.gov/portal/Default.aspx?tabid=1674. 

Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ). 2003. Baseline Monitoring Program, Fiscal 

years 2001–2003 (July 2000 through June 2003), Triennial Summary Report, 2003 for the 

Environmental Technology Division of the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality. 

Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries (LDWF). 2006a. Letter dated April 27, 2006 from Gary 

Lester, LDWF, to Andrew Chartrand, Gulf South, concerning a request to review potential 

impacts to rate, threatened, and endangered species related to the East Texas to Mississippi 

Expansion Project. 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
APPENDIX I 

Literature Cited 

I-3

Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries (LDWF). 2006b. Louisiana Natural and Scenic Rivers 

System. http://www.wlf.state.la.us/apps/netgear/index.asp?cn=lawlf&pid=1175. 

Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries (LDWF). 2006c. Ouachita Wildlife Management Area. 

http://www.wlf.state.la.us/hunting/wmas/wmas/list.cfm?wmaid=33. 

Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries (LDWF). 2005a. Ouachita WMA. 

http://www.wlf.state.la.us/hunting/wmas/wmas/list.cfm?wmaid=33. 

Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries (LDWF). 2005b. Bayou Pierre WMA. 

http://www.wlf.state.la.us/hunting/wmas/wmas/list.cfm?wmaid=10. 

Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries (LDWF). 2005c. Louisiana Animals of Conservation 

Concern. 

http://www.wlf.louisiana.gov/experience/naturalheritage/rareanimals/animalsofconservaionconce

rn.cfm. 

Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries (LDWF). 1988. Louisiana Scenic Rivers Act. 

http://www.wlf.louisiana.gov/experience/scenicrivers/louisianascenicriversact/. 

Matlack, Glenn R. 2002. Exotic plant species in Mississippi, USA: critical issues in management and 

research. Natural Areas Journal. 22(3): 241-247. 

Mississippi Department of Transportation (MDOT). 2006. MDOT Project Updates. 

http://www.mdot.state.ms.us/news/projects/default_statewide.htm. 

Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks (MDWFP). 2006a. Natural Heritage Program: 

Search NHP online. http://www.mdwfp.com/museum/html/research/search_database.html. 

Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks (MDWFP). 2006b. Letter dated September 11, 

2006 from Melanie Howarter, MNHP, to Andrew Chartrand, Gulf South, concerning a request to 

review potential impacts to rate, threatened, and endangered species related to the East Texas to 

Mississippi Expansion Project. 

Mississippi Hotel Guides. 2006. Hotels, Motels, & Resorts. 

http://www.visitmississippi.org/packages/hotel_motels_resorts.asp. 

Mississippi Secretary of State. 2006. Sixteenth Section Lands – Frequently Asked Questions. 

http://www.sos.state.ms.us/PublicLands/16th/16l_faq.asp. 

National Park Service (NPS). 2006a. Nationwide Rivers Inventory. http://www.ncrc.nps.gov/ rtca/nri/. 

National Park Service (NPS). 2006b. Nationwide Rivers Inventory in Mississippi. 

http://www.nps.gov/rtca/nri/states/ms.html. 

National Park Service (NPS) 2006c. Invasive Species- Purple Loosestrife. 

http://www.nps.gov/plants/alien/fact/lysa1.htm 

National Park Service (NPS) 2006d. Invasive Species- Cogon Grass. 

http://www.nps.gov/plants/alien/fact/imcy1.htm 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
APPENDIX I 

Literature Cited 

I-4

National Park Service (NPS). 2006e. Nationwide Rivers Inventory. http://www.nps.gov/rtca/nri/. 

National Park Service (NPS). 2006f. Rivers and Trails: Texas Segments. 

http://www.nps.gov/rtca/nri/states/tx.html. 

National Park Service (NPS). 2006g. Letter to the FERC Regarding Proposed Natural Gas Pipeline 

Projects Potentially Affecting the Natchez Trace Parkway dated July 26, 2006. 

National Park Service (NPS). 2006h. Natchez Trace Parkway. http://www.nps.gov/natr/. 

National Park Service (NPS). 2006i. Email Correspondence to U.S. Department of Energy Regarding the 

Strategic Petroleum reserve project dated June 2, 2006. 

National Park Service (NPS). 2004. National Rivers Inventory. http://www.nps.gov/rtca/nri/#. 

National Park Service (NPS). 2002. Environmental Assessment – Proposed Bailey Farm Acquisition. 

March 2002. 

NatureServe. 2006. An Online Encyclopedia of Life. http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/. 

Recreation.gov. 2006. Recreation.gov: Explore Your America. http://www.recreation.gov/. 

New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA). 1999. Energy Efficiency 

and Renewable Energy Resource Development Potential in New York State. 

Regency Energy Partners, LP (Regency). 2006. Regency Intrastate Gas (RIGS) Operations. 

http://www.regencygas.com/website/operations/rigs.htm. 

Reichling, S. B. 1990. Reproductive Traits of the Louisiana Pine Snake, Pituophis melanoleucus 

ruthveni (Serpentes: Colubridae). Southwest Nat. 35:221-222. 

Rudolph, D. C. and S. J. Burgdorf. 1997. Timber Rattlesnakes and Louisiana Pine Snakes of the West 

Gulf Coastal Plain: Hypotheses of Decline. Texas Journal of Science 49:111-122. 

Rudolph, D. C. and R. N. Conner. 1996. Radio-telemetry Study of Louisiana Pine Snakes in Eastern 

Texas and western Louisiana. Unpublished Report to Texas Parks and Wildlife and Louisiana 

Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, Baton Rouge, LA. 7 pp. 

Sargent, P. 2002. Water Use in Louisiana. Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development. 

(Water Resources Special Report No. 15.). 

Southeast Supply Header, LLC. 2006. Southeast Supply Header Project Draft Resource Report 8, Land 

Use, Recreation, and Aesthetics. 

Southern Regional Water Program. 2006a. Watershed Management in Texas. 

http://srwqis.tamu.edu/states/texas/watershed.aspx. 

Southern Regional Water Program. 2006b. Louisiana Watershed Management. 

http://srwqis.tamu.edu/states/louisiana/watershed.aspx. 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
APPENDIX I 

Literature Cited 

I-5

Southern Regional Water Program. 2006c. Mississippi Hydrologic Unit Map. 

http://srwqis.tamu.edu/states/louisiana/watershed.aspx. 

Stern, E. M. 1976. The Freshwater Mussels (Unionidae) of the Lake Maurepas-Pontchartrain-Borgne 

Drainage System, Louisiana and Mississippi. Ph.D. Dissertation, Louisiana State University, 

Baton Rouge, LA. 206 pp. 

Taylor, J. L. 2006. Mississippi Loess Plains. USGS Land Cover Trends. 

http://eros.usgs.gov/LT/regions/eco74.html. 

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ). 2006. An Introduction to the Texas Surface 

Water Quality Standards. http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/permitting/ 

water_quality/wq_assessment/standards/WQ_standards_intro.html. 

Texas Economic Development. 2006. Carthage. 

http://community.txed.state.tx.us/communities/commpages/45.htm. 

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD). 2006a. Endangered and Threatened Species. 

http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/huntwild/wild/species/endang/index.phtml. 

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD). 2006b. Bald Eagle. 

http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/huntwild/wild/species/baldeagle/. 

Texas Renewable Energy Industries Association (TREIA). 2006. Texas Operational Wind Plants as of 

February 2006. http://treia.org/pdf_files/Wind%20Plant%20Chart.pdf. 

Texas Water Development Board. 2006. North East Texas Regional Water Plan. January 2006. 

http://www.twdb.state.tx.us/rwpg/2006_RWP/RegionD/Ch%201%20 Final%20-

%20Region%20D.pdf. 

Trans-Texas Corridor (TTC). 2006. Trans-Texas Corridor, Overview. 

http://www.keeptexasmoving.org/about/. 

U.S. Bureau of the Census. 2006a. State and County Quick Facts. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/. 

U.S. Bureau of the Census. 2006b. American FactFinder. 

http://factfinder.census.gov/home/saff/main.html?_lang=en. 

U.S. Bureau of the Census. 2006c. 1997 Federal, State & Local Governments County Area Finance & 

Employment FastFacts. http://harvester.census.gov/finance/asp/finance.asp. 

U.S. Bureau of the Census. 2005. Historical Poverty Tables. 

http://www.census.gov/hhes/poverty/hispov/hstpov3.html. 

U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1998. Statistical Abstract of the United States, 118th Edition. 

Washington, DC. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2006. Farm Service Agency- Conservation Reserve Program. 

http://www.fsa.usda.gov/FSA/webapp?area=home&subject=copr&topic=crp 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
APPENDIX I 

Literature Cited 

I-6

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2006a. Major Land 

Resource Areas. http://www.ar.nrcs.usda.gov/soils/mo16_mlra.html. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2006b. The 

Development U.S. Department of Agriculture of Land Capability Classifications. 

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/about/history/articles/LandClassification.html. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2006c. Soil Survey 

Manual. http://soils.usda.gov/technical/manual/contents/chapter3c.html#27. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2006d. Hydric Soils 

Information. http://soils.usda.gov/use/hydric/intro.html. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2006e. Ecological and 

Interpretive Groups. http://soils.usda.gov/technical/handbook/contents/part622.html. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture. Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS). 2006f. Wetlands 

Reserve Program. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/WRP/. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2006g. Land Cover/ 

Land Use. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/TECHNICAL/land/cover_use.html. 

U.S. Department of Transportation, Office of Pipeline Safety. (DOT OPS). 2006. Pipeline Statistics. 

http://ops.dot.gov/stats.htm. 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2006a. Earthquake Hazard Program. 

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/learning/glossary.php?term=seismicity. 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2006b. Land Subsidence Information. 

http://water.usgs.gov/ogw/pubs/fs00165/. 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2006c. Land Subsidence Information. 

http://geochange.er.usgs.gov/sw/changes/anthropogenic/subside/. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2006. Map of Region 6 Sole Source Aquifers. 

http://www.epa.gov/earth1r6/6wq/swp/ssa/gif/ssa.gif. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1999. Consideration of Cumulative Impacts on EPA 

Review of Federal Activities (2252A). (EPA 315-R-99-002.). 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1974. Information on Levels of Environmental Noise 

Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2006a. Consultation letter from the Lafayette, Louisiana FWS 

Field Office dated April 26, 2006. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2006b. Consultation letter from the Lafayette, Louisiana FWS 

Field Office dated June 23, 2006. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2006c. Consultation letter from the Lafayette, Louisiana FWS 

Field Office. August 3, 2006. 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
APPENDIX I 

Literature Cited 

I-7

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2006d. Consultation letter from the Lafayette, Louisiana FWS 

Field Office dated November 9, 2006. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2006e. Consultation letter from the Jackson, Mississippi FWS 

Field Office dated November 16, 2006. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2006f. Louisiana Black Bear. 

http://www.fws.gov/endangered/i/a/saa9e.html. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2006g. Ringed Map (Sawback) Turtle. 

http://www.fws.gov/endangered/i/c/sac2s.html. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2006h. Bayou Darter. 

http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/life_histories/E01S.html. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2006i. Gulf Sturgeon. 

http://www.fws.gov/endangered/i/e/sae2w.html. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2006j. Letter to CH2MHill Regarding the East Texas to 

Mississippi Expansion Project and Endangered Species (for Mississippi) dated November 16, 

2006. 

Weather.com. 2006a. Weather information for Shreveport is based on 

http://www.weather.com/weather/wxclimatology/monthly/graph/USLA0426?from=tenDay_botto

mnav_undeclared. 

Weather.com. 2006b. Weather information for Vicksburg is based on 

http://www.weather.com/weather/wxclimatology/monthly/graph/USMS0414?from=tenDay_botto

mnav_undeclared. 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
APPENDIX J 

LIST OF PREPARERS 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
APPENDIX J 

List of Preparers 

J-1

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Peconom, John – Project Manager

 B.S., Environmental Biology & Management, 2000, University of California – Davis 

Polit, Juan I. – Deputy Project Manager; Geology, Soils, Alternatives 

 M.S., Forest Ecology, 1992, University of Illinois 

B.S., Forestry, 1989, University of Illinois 

Manco, Magdalene – Air and Noise Analysis, Reliability and Safety

B.S., Environmental Systems Engineering, 2004, Pennsylvania State University 

Armbruster, Ellen – Cultural Resources

 M.A., Anthropology, 1986, University of Pennsylvania 

 B.A., Anthropology, 1979, Bryn Mawr College 

ENTRIX, Inc.

Mooneyhan, Doug – Project Manager; Proposed Action; Water Resources

 M.S., Biology, 1989, Tennessee Technological University 

 B.S., Wildlife and Fisheries Science, 1987, University of Tennessee 

Loveday, Trevor – Deputy Project Manager; Cumulative Impacts

 B.B.A., Finance, 1990, Baylor University 

 M.S., Aquatic Biology, 1995, Stephen F. Austin University 

Ayala, Chelsea – Air Quality and Noise

 B.A. Environmental Studies, Minor, Geology, California State University, Sacramento, 1992 

Bouffard, Luc – Vegetation; Wetlands

 B.S., Biology, 2001, Southern Connecticut State University 

Craig, Donald – Cultural Resources

 M.A., Anthropology, in progress, University of Southern Mississippi 

 B.S., English, 1990, Oregon State University 

Grange, Katey – Land Use, Recreation, Special Interest Areas, and Visual Resources; 

Alternatives; Reliability and Safety

 M.E.M., Environmental Management, 2006, Duke University 

 B.S., Fisheries and Aquatic Science, 2003, University of Washington 

Kacher, Michael – Geology; Soils

 B.S., Geology, 2004, Baylor University 

Shrier, Brianna- Threatened and Endangered Species 

B.S., Marine Biology, 2001, Evergreen State College 

Slate, Jennifer – Wildlife and Aquatic Resources; Threatened and Endangered Species

 B.S., Marine Biology, 2004, Texas A&M University 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
APPENDIX J 

List of Preparers 

J-2

Ward, Jennifer – Socioeconomics

M.S., Resource Economics and Policy, Anticipated 2007, University of Maine 

B.A., Mathematics, 2001, University of North Carolina 

Willoughby, Craig – Air Quality and Noise 

 B.S., Mining Engineering, 1980, University of Missouri-Rolla 

Lynn, Joan (Egret, Inc.) - Editor 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
APPENDIX K 

Response to Comments 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
U.S. Department Of The Interior 

K-1 Federal A

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
U.S. Department Of The Interior 

K-2 Federal A

F1-1 F1-2 F1-3 F1-4 F1-5 F1-6 F1-7 

Thank you for your comment. Section 3Section 7 ESA consultation process for tThe Louisiana pine snake is discussed in As part of its draft Implementation Plan, consulted with the FWS regarding the Loand has developed a training module to iworkers about avoiding impacts to this splisting status for the Louisiana pine snakduring construction, Gulf South would rewith the FWS. 

We have included a recommendation in Swould require Gulf South to immediately staff and to consult with the FWS should observed within 1,500 feet of the propose

We have included a recommendation in would require Gulf South to immediately staff and the FWS if interior least terns a650 feet of proposed waterbody crossingMississippi River basins prior to or durin

The proposed use of any new access roadalready assessed in the EIS would requirthe FERC and all necessary surveys and Please see the response to F1-2. Please see the response to F1-3 and F1-4

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
U.S. Department Of The Interior 

K-3 Federal A

F1-8 F1-9 

Gulf South is now completing Section 7 regard to several new re-routes, additionworkspaces, and access roads. We have recommendation in Section 3.7.1 that Gubegin construction activities until the FESection 7 consultation with the FWS and in writing that it may begin construction 

We have included a recommendation in Gulf South should limit the width of its pway to 50 feet in the event that federal emauthority is exercised. 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
U.S. Department Of The Interior 

K-4 Federal A

F1-10 F1-11 F1-12 F1-13 F1-14 

Gulf South would be required to restore wetland hydrology in compliance with are based closely on the FERC's WetlanConstruction and Mitigation Procedures

wetland impacts would be mitigated in COE permitting process. See the response to F1-8. We have revised Section 3.7.1.4 to incluregarding habitat management for the Lthe vicinity of the Tensas River NWR. included a recommendation that would complete consultations with the FWS reused for replanting in this area. Please see the response to F1-2. Please see the response to F1-10. 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
U.S. Department Of The Interior 

K-5 Federal A

F1-15 F1-16 F1-17 F1-18 F1-19 

Comment noted. Please see the response to F1-8. Please see the response to F1-9. Please see the response to F1-10. Please see the response to F1-8. 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
U.S. Department Of The Interior 

K-6 Federal A

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service 

K-7 Federa

F2-1 F2-2 F2-3 F2-4 

The "agricultural" cover type, as well as are defined in Table 3.5-1 and representalisted. This cover type does not include por abandoned cropland.

We are recommending in Section 2.2.1 thits permanent right-of-way to a width of 5feet as proposed in the event that federal eauthority is exercised. In addition, we are Gulf South utilize at least 10 feet of existipipeline rights-of-way during construction construction right-of-way in rugged areas construction to a width of 175 feet or lessconsiderations and workspace requiremenbelieve that it is appropriate to dictate the proposed pipeline within the permanent ricase. We are recommending in Section 2.2.1 thits permanent right-of-way to a width of 5feet as proposed for the Project in the eveeminent domain authority is exercised. We are recommending in Section 3.8.4 thwith the Secretary prior to the start of conapproved in writing by the NRCS, for the Converted wetlands and WRP lands. Thishould ensure that any construction or moroads on WRP easements is conducted in NRCS requirements. 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service 

K-8 Federa

F2-5 F2-6 F2-7 

The possible crossing methods for saturatdescribed in Section 2.3.2.2. In conditionis inundated or saturated to the extent that support heavy equipment, especially in laprefabricated floating pipeline segment mpulled into position from outside the wetlfloat method. The floats would then be repipeline segment would sink into the trenalso be crossed using HDD. Please see the response to F2-4. Gulf Souallow for maintenance of a herbaceous cofeet-wide, along with selective trimming a corridor 30-feet-wide, in wetlands. The that are larger than 15 feet tall is typically prevent roots from growing around the picausing damage. This concern typically dsections of pipeline installed via HDD, as these areas is typically buried much deepethe three feet below ground surface assoc

installation.Gulf South has developed a plan for revegconsultation with NRCS and state and fedmanagement agencies. In general, this plreseeding using non-native bahia and bermgrasses, and rye and wheat as cool season South continues to consult with FWS and revegetation near the Tensas River NWR, included recommendations in Sections 3.7would require Gulf South to complete theprior to construction. 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service 

K-9 Federa

F2-8 F2-9 F2-10 

Virtually the entire length of the proposed Madison Parish, Louisiana, where the TalStation would be located, crosses prime faengineering and hydraulic constraints assopositioning of compressor stations, it doethat the compressor station could be moveprime farmland would not be affected. Gulf South has delineated jurisdictional waccordance with criteria established by thsoils, and vegetation), the federal agency permitting impacts to wetlands. Gulf Souidentified WRP easements in consultation Although Gulf South indicated that it doeWRP lands are jurisdictional wetlands, it series of measures developed in consultattreat WRP lands as wetlands for the purpoand restoration. We acknowledge in SectNRCS considers all WRP lands and Prior to be functional wetlands.

The suggested edits regarding swamp chtupelo have been made to Section 3.4.1. 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service 

K-10 Federa

F2-11 F2-12 F2-13 F2-14 

The suggested edits regarding additionawere added to Section 3.4.1. The suggested edits regarding WRPs anWetlands were incorporated into Section

The suggested edits regarding the FSA'CRP lands were incorporated into SectiWe have added discussion of the propoMidcontinent Express natural gas pipelievaluation of cumulative impacts in Secprojects had not yet been proposed at thEIS. To the extent possible, we have queffects of these projects, however, they early planning stages, and detailed inforaffected is not yet available in all instan

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

K-11 Federal A

F3-1 F3-2 

We have updated the table as indicated in 

Comment noted.

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
National Park Service 

K-12 Federal A

F4-1 Comment noted.

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
State of Mississippi Secretary of State 

K-13 State 

S1-1 S1-2 

Comment noted. 

Comment noted. 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
State of Mississippi Secretary of State 

K-14 State 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
Texas Parks and Wildlife 

K-15 State A

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
Texas Parks and Wildlife 

K-16 State A

S2-1 S2-2 

We have included a recommendation in SGulf South should limit the width of its pway to 50 feet in the event that federal emauthority is exercised. 

Gulf South would be required to obtain alincluding the pending TPWD stream distuprior to the initiation of construction. 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
Texas Parks and Wildlife 

K-17 State A

S2-3 S2-4 

Comment noted. 

Comment noted. 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
Texas Parks and Wildlife 

K-18 State A

S2-5 S2-6 

We recognize that TPWD prefers revegetgrass and forb species, especially in areas native landscapes. The TPWD's recommagree with the draft plan that Gulf South revegetation, which includes seeding with bermuda, bahia, and annual rye grasses ato ensure that TPWD's input into the reveconsidered, we are recommending in SecSouth finalize development of revegetatioPanola County, Texas in consultation wit

construction.

We note TPWD's recommendation that ePanola County, Texas be allowed to decieither native or non-native species. We bcomment would be addressed in the contibetween Gulf South, TPWD, and affected recommended and described in the responS2-5.

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
Texas Parks and Wildlife 

K-19 State A

S2-7 S2-8 S2-9 S2-10 

We note TPWD's recommendation that wnative species is infeasible, that bahia graavoided and bermuda grass should be usebelieve that this comment would be addrecontinuing consultations between Gulf Sowe have recommended as described in thComment S2-5. 

Comment noted. Comment noted. 

Comment noted. Gulf South has also pconstruction personnel regarding specianot to disturb such species during const

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
Texas Parks and Wildlife 

K-20 State A

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
Minden Public Meeting 

K-21 Public 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
Minden Public Meeting 

K-22 Public 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
Minden Public Meeting 

K-23 Public 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
Monroe Public Meeting 

K-24 Public 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
Monroe Public Meeting 

K-25 Public 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
Monroe Public Meeting 

K-26 Public 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
Vicksburg Public Meeting 

K-27 Public M

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
Vicksburg Public Meeting 

K-28 Public M

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
Vicksburg Public Meeting 

K-29 Public M

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
Vicksburg Public Meeting 

K-30 Public M

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
Vicksburg Public Meeting 

K-31 Public M

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
Vicksburg Public Meeting 

K-32 Public M

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
Vicksburg Public Meeting 

K-33 Public M

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
Vicksburg Public Meeting 

K-34 Public M

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
Vicksburg Public Meeting 

K-35 Public M

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
Vicksburg Public Meeting 

K-36 Public M

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
Vicksburg Public Meeting 

K-37 Public M

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
Vicksburg Public Meeting 

K-38 Public M

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
Vicksburg Public Meeting 

K-39 Public M

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
Vicksburg Public Meeting 

K-40 Public M

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
Vicksburg Public Meeting 

K-41 Public M

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
Vicksburg Public Meeting 

K-42 Public M

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
Vicksburg Public Meeting 

K-43 Public M

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
Vicksburg Public Meeting 

K-44 Public M

P3-1 P3-2 P3-3 P3-4 

The proposed Project has not been Certifby the FERC. In the past, proposed projedenied by the Commission or withdrawn construction. 

The Final EIS includes evaluation of a rouPitre property, as discussed in Section 4.4Soil erosion is discussed in Section 3.2. Guse its Plan and Procedures to prevent or erosion. Additionally, Gulf South has devconsultation with the NRCS for the manaerodable loess soils, which are found in thMississippi area. We believe that with imthese plans, soil erosion would be effectivAs stated in Section 2.3.1 of the Final EISpublic property damaged during constructgates, and driveways, would be restored tcondition, consistent with individual land

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
Vicksburg Public Meeting 

K-45 Public M

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
Vicksburg Public Meeting 

K-46 Public M

P3-5 P3-6 P3-7 

Pipeline safety is addressed in Section 3.1The available data show that natural gas pbe a safe, reliable means of energy transpapproximately 300,000 miles in service, tfatalities for the nationwide mix of transmgathering lines in service is 0.01 per year pipeline. Using this rate, the proposed Pra public fatality every 400 years. This woslight increase in risk to the nearby publicCollocation of natural gas pipelines and elines commonly occurs throughout the Unthe overall low risk of pipeline failures anbelieve that the risk of a pipeline incident an electrical transmission line, or vice verPotential impacts resulting from terrorism electric transmission lines are discussed in the Final EIS. Due to the various abilities terrorist organizations, the likelihood of futerrorism at the proposed Project site is unFERC has taken measures to limit this risremoval of sensitive information from the cooperation with other agencies and groupongoing efforts to secure pipeline infrastr

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
Vicksburg Public Meeting 

K-47 Public M

P3-8 Please see the response to P3-1. 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
Vicksburg Public Meeting 

K-48 Public M

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
Vicksburg Public Meeting 

K-49 Public M

P3-9 We have further evaluated route alternativ

route alternative located in the southern pCounty. This information is included in SFinal EIS. 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
Vicksburg Public Meeting 

K-50 Public M

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
Vicksburg Public Meeting 

K-51 Public M

P3-10 In their letter dated March 27, 2007, Mr

Broadbent indicated that they "hereby wcomments that we have submitted to the proceedings, including the March 26 Copertain, and only as they pertain, to this Dockets." They went on to say "Howevcomments and concerns as they pertain overall environmental review process ancriteria for the routing of pipelines". GiWithrow/Broadbent filing dated March consider their specific comments regard

Mississippi Expansion Project provided Mississippi Draft EIS comment meeting 2007 as withdrawn and will not respond However, have responded to their generregarding our environmental review profor the routing of pipelines in our respoletters dated March 26 and March 27, 2

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
Vicksburg Public Meeting 

K-52 Public M

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
Vicksburg Public Meeting 

K-53 Public M

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
Vicksburg Public Meeting 

K-54 Public M

P3-11 Please see the response to P3-10. 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
Vicksburg Public Meeting 

K-55 Public M

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
Vicksburg Public Meeting 

K-56 Public M

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
Vicksburg Public Meeting 

K-57 Public M

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
Vicksburg Public Meeting 

K-58 Public M

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
Vicksburg Public Meeting 

K-59 Public M

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
Vicksburg Public Meeting 

K-60 Public M

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
Vicksburg Public Meeting 

K-61 Public M

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
Vicksburg Public Meeting 

K-62 Public M

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
Vicksburg Public Meeting 

K-63 Public M

P3-12 P3-13 

Please see the responses to P3-3 and P3-erosion, and safety. Please see the respoimpacts to any personal property or struplanted trees would be permanent within maintained right-of-way, but potentially the portion of the construction right-of-wallowed to revegetate to pre-project conreplanting could be negotiated during ea

Please see the response to P3-4. 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
Vicksburg Public Meeting 

K-64 Public M

P3-14 Please see the response to P3-5. 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
Vicksburg Public Meeting 

K-65 Public M

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
Vicksburg Public Meeting 

K-66 Public M

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
Vicksburg Public Meeting 

K-67 Public M

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
Vicksburg Public Meeting 

K-68 Public M

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
Vicksburg Public Meeting 

K-69 Public M

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
Vicksburg Public Meeting 

K-70 Public M

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
Vicksburg Public Meeting 

K-71 Public M

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
Vicksburg Public Meeting 

K-72 Public M

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
Vicksburg Public Meeting 

K-73 Public M

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
Vicksburg Public Meeting 

K-74 Public M

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
Vicksburg Public Meeting 

K-75 Public M

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
Vicksburg Public Meeting 

K-76 Public M

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
Vicksburg Public Meeting 

K-77 Public M

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
Vicksburg Public Meeting 

K-78 Public M

P3-15 The Midcontinent Express Project is in 

beginning phases. During this early plalandowners may work directly with the an attempt to have their concerns addremodified to avoid sensitive resources. Lcontact the FERC, to make us aware of consider in our environmental review, aFERC will host scoping meetings and dmeetings in the proposed Project's vicinwritten comments on the record as well

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
Vicksburg Public Meeting 

K-79 Public M

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
Vicksburg Public Meeting 

K-80 Public M

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
Vicksburg Public Meeting 

K-81 Public M

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
Vicksburg Public Meeting 

K-82 Public M

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
Vicksburg Public Meeting 

K-83 Public M

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
Vicksburg Public Meeting 

K-84 Public M

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
Vicksburg Public Meeting 

K-85 Public M

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
Vicksburg Public Meeting 

K-86 Public M

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
Vicksburg Public Meeting 

K-87 Public M

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
Vicksburg Public Meeting 

K-88 Public M

P3-16 P3-17 

Please see the response to P3-1. 

Please see the response to P3-9. 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
Vicksburg Public Meeting 

K-89 Public M

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
Vicksburg Public Meeting 

K-90 Public M

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
Vicksburg Public Meeting 

K-91 Public M

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
Withrow-Broadbent 

K-92 I

I1-1 I1-2 

In their letter dated March 27, 2007, Mr. WBroadbent indicated that they "hereby withcomments that we have submitted to the Cproceedings, including the March 26 Compertain, and only as they pertain, to this PrDockets." They went on to say "Howevercomments and concerns as they pertain to overall environmental review process and criteria for the routing of pipelines". GiveWithrow/Broadbent filing dated March 27consider their specific comments regardinMississippi Expansion Project provided in March 26, 2007 to be withdrawn and will herein. However, we will respond to their regarding our environmental review proce2) and will respond to their comment regafor the routing of pipelines in their letter d2007. 

We believe that the Draft EIS does satisfy the National Environmental Policy Act of on Environmental Quality regulations for NEPA (40 CFR 1500–1508), and the FERimplementing NEPA (18 CFR 380). Our review process includes a comprehensive resources that may be affected by the propwe have recommended numerous measureprevent, minimize, or mitigate unavoidablincluding cumulative impacts. We have a

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
Withrow-Broadbent 

K-93 I

I1-2 (Continued) 

numerous alternatives to the proposed Projaction alternative, system alternatives, rouroute variations. Our analysis has been aidpublic and local, state, and federal agency FWS, NPS, and EPA served as federal coofor the EIS process and various state agencserved in key roles as well. The Applicanall other necessary agency permits and appconstruction can begin. In summary, we blevel of analysis is adequate to satisfy the NEPA. 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
Withrow-Broadbent 

K-94 I

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
Withrow-Broadbent 

K-95 I

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
Withrow-Broadbent 

K-96 I

I1-3 We are re-examining our eLibrary and eSu

and procedures regarding the notification opersons when docket numbers change, sucfiling docket numbers (i.e., PF docket numfollowing receipt of an application (i.e., CP It is our intention to provide readily accessinformation to the interested public in an e

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
Dr. Wayne Pitre 

K-97 I

I2-1 I2-2 I2-3 

This comment specifically references the Withrow and Mr. Broadbent, which have Please see the response to comment I1-1 iMr. Broadbent's letter filed on March 26, 

We have further evaluated route alternativmodified route alternative located in the soWarren County. This information is incluof the Final EIS. 

Potential impacts resulting from terrorism electric transmission lines are discussed in the Final EIS. Due to the various abilities terrorist organizations, the likelihood of futerrorism at the proposed Project site is unFERC has taken measures to limit this riskremoval of sensitive information from the record and cooperation with other agenciestrengthen ongoing efforts to secure pipeliDue to the generally low risk of pipeline fin Section 3.12.1, combined with the avoidinfrastructure that has the potential to disrupower generation through adoption of routthe proposed Project would present a minipotential for pipeline failure within areas cpower lines. 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
Dr. Wayne Pitre 

K-98 I

I2-4 I2-5 I2-6 

The FERC considers a variety of factors wpotential pipeline routes proposed by applthese factors, but not necessarily the predocollocation with existing utility corridors. route that collocated with an existing and way may have several advantages over a rundisturbed "greenfield" area, including refragmentation of forested habitats, an expaexisting land use (i.e., maintained right-ofintroduction an entirely new one, less impspecies found primarily in undisturbed habvisual impacts. We recognize that collocautility corridors may in some cases also haconsequences, such as when landowners’ would be affected by multiple rights-of-wproposed project individually, and strive tenvironmental impacts to the extent possibreview of alternatives. We have evaluated in and near Warren County, Mississippi as Section 4.3 of the Final EIS. 

Please see the response to Comment I2-2 rand potential impacts to electric transmisselectrical switchyard providing power to this now avoided through adoption of a rout

Please see the response to Comment I2-2. 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
Withdrawal of Comments by Withrow & Broadbent 

K-99 I

I3-1 The pipeline company proposes the route 

project facilities, which is then examined The applicant must evaluate alternative romay evaluate other alternative routes bascomments made by the public, agencies, We view each proposed project individuaminimize environmental impacts to the ethrough our review of alternatives. Based may recommend that alternative routes bproposed projects. The FERC considers when evaluating potential pipeline routes applicants. One of these factors, but not predominant factor, is collocation with excorridors. Selection of a route that collocexisting and maintained right-of-way may advantages over a route in an undisturbed including a reduction in fragmentation of expansion of an existing land use (i.e., mway) instead of introduction an entirely nto wildlife species found primarily in undand less visual impacts. We recognize thexisting utility corridors may in some casnegative consequences, such as when lanor would be affected by multiple rights-o

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
APPENDIX L 

Subject Index 

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
APPENDIX L 

Subject Index

aboveground facilities .................................................. ES-1, ES-3, ES-4, 1-6, 1-10, 2-1, 2-6, 2-12, 

2-13, 2-14, 2-29, 2-31, 3-5, 3-7, 3-8, 3-9, 3-15, 3-17, 3-19, 3-22, 3-25, 3-28, 3-29, 3-44, 

3-46, 3-47, 3-56, 3-57, 3-63, 3-76, 3-77, 3-80, 3-81, 3-82, 3-94, 3-95, 3-96, 3-97, 3-108, 

3-115, 3-123, 3-131, 4-1, 4-16, 4-33, 5-2, 5-4, 5-5, 5-8 

access roads ....................................................1-3, 1-4, 1-5, 1-6, 2-14, 2-20, 3-12, 3-13, 3-24, 3-25, 

3-40, 3-44, 3-46, 3-56, 3-59, 3-65, 3-76, 3-77, 3-81, 3-88, 3-105, 3-106, 3-107, 3-108, 

3-115, 3-116, 4-34, 5-4, 5-6, 5-9, 5-14 

additional temporary work spaces (ATWS) ...............................ES-3, 2-8, 2-14, 2-15, 5-2, 5-4, 5-6 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) .................................................1-3, 1-7, 3-105 

air quality..................................................................1-7, 3-109, 3-110, 3-111, 3-114, 3-115, 3-116, 

3-134, 3-141, 3-144, 4-2, 4-33, 5-6, 5-7 

air quality control regions (AQCRs) ........................................................................................ 3-109 

airport ....................................................................................................................................... 3-84 

alternatives............................................ES-4, 1-2, 1-7, 3-86, 3-139, 3-144, 4-1, 4-2, 4-3, 4-7, 4-11, 

4-12, 4-14, 4-17, 4-27, 4-33, 5-1, 5-7 

ANR Pipeline Company (ANR)............................................................................................ 2-5, 2-6 

aquifer .................................................................................................. 3-15, 3-16, 3-17, 3-21, 3-23 

bald eagle................................................................................................... 1-9, 3-65, 3-66, 5-4, 5-13 

bayou darter....................................................................................................................... 3-69, 3-70 

best management practices (BMPs) .........................................................................3-13, 3-48, 3-62 

Big Black River .............................................. ES-3, 2-23, 2-24, 3-25, 3-26, 3-27, 3-30, 3-31, 3-32, 

3-33, 3-40, 3-61, 3-86, 3-87, 3-142, 5-2, 5-5 

Black Lake Bayou ............................................ ES-3, 1-5, 2-23, 2-24, 3-24, 3-25, 3-26, 3-27, 3-30, 

3-33, 3-37, 3-40, 3-61, 3-87, 3-119, 3-142, 5-2, 5-5 

carbon dioxide (CO2).................................................................................................................... 4-2 

carbon monoxide (CO)................................................................ 3-109, 3-112, 3-113, 3-114, 3-115 

cathodic protection .......................................................................................................... 2-31, 3-128 

Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (Certificate) ................. ES-1, 1-1, 1-2, 1-3, 2-30, 

3-1, 3-12, 3-80, 3-83, 3-123, 3-134, 3-137, 4-1, 5-1, 5-8 

Clean Air Act (CAA) ...................................................................... 1-7, 3-109, 3-110, 3-113, 3-141 

Clean Water Act (CWA) .............................................................1-3, 1-4, 1-5, 1-6, 1-7, 3-35, 3-141 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) ................................. 1-2, 1-7, 2-14, 2-19, 2-31, 3-7, 3-8, 3-14, 

3-25, 3-105, 3-109, 3-110, 3-111, 3-113, 3-114, 3-123, 3-126 

collocation ..................................................... 2-13, 3-41, 3-42, 3-49, 3-50, 3-57, 3-81, 3-86, 3-96, | 

3-143, 4-12, 4-17, 4-21, 4-25 

compensatory mitigation ..................................................................... 3-35, 3-39, 3-40, 3-42, 3-141 

L-1

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
APPENDIX L 

Subject Index

compressor station....................................ES-2, 1-1, 1-10, 2-1, 2-3, 2-6, 2-8, 2-29, 2-30, 2-32, 3-1, 

3-11, 3-44, 3-77, 3-95, 3-96, 3-98, 3-105, 3-108, 3-111, 3-113, 3-115, 3-116, 3-117, 

3-118, 3-119, 3-120, 3-122, 3-134, 3-137, 3-138, 3-139, 3-144, 4-33, 4-34, 5-6, 5-8, 5-14 

conclusions ................................................................................................................................... 1-2 

Conservation Reserve Program (CRP).....................ES-3, 1-10, 3-44, 3-49, 3-53, 3-54, 3-58, 3-88, 

3-89, 3-91, 3-92, 5-3, 5-5, 5-13 

construction procedures........................................................................... 2-15, 2-25, 3-39, 3-82, 5-8 

construction right-of-way ................................... ES-4, 2-6, 2-8, 2-12, 2-14, 2-15, 2-19, 2-21, 2-25, 

2-26, 2-27, 2-29, 3-5, 3-12, 3-13, 3-14, 3-17, 3-19, 3-29, 3-36, 3-39, 3-41, 3-44, 3-47, 

3-49, 3-55, 3-62, 3-76, 3-77, 3-81, 3-82, 3-83, 3-88, 3-95, 4-6, 4-7, 4-23, 4-25, 4-31, 5-3, 

5-4, 5-5, 5-12 

contamination .................................................................................1-9, 3-14, 3-29, 3-62, 3-65, 3-85

contractor yards ..................................................................3-25, 3-35, 3-44, 3-46, 3-47, 3-56, 3-76, 

3-77, 3-106, 3-107, 5-2, 5-4, 5-6 

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) ...............................................................1-2, 1-11, 3-131 

critical habitat.................................................................................1-7, 3-25, 3-60, 3-63, 3-68, 3-70 

cultural resources.......................................ES-3, 1-4, 1-5, 1-6, 1-7, 1-10, 2-15, 2-30, 3-105, 3-106, 

3-107, 3-108, 4-14, 5-6, 5-9, 5-14 

cumulative impacts................... ES-4, 3-131, 3-137, 3-138, 3-141, 3-142, 3-143, 3-144, 3-145, 5-7 

cypress .............................................................. ES-5, 3-35, 3-37, 3-40, 3-42, 3-55, 3-68, 3-87, 5-3 

decibels on the A-weighted scale (dBA) ............................................... 3-116, 3-117, 3-118, 3-119, 

3-120, 3-121, 3-122, 5-14 

easement ............................................. 1-3, 1-10, 2-8, 2-15, 2-23, 2-27, 3-6, 3-37, 3-44, 3-47, 3-54, 

3-58, 3-68, 3-80, 3-82, 3-83, 3-85, 3-86, 3-88, 3-89, 3-92, 3-102, 4-16, 4-17, 4-23, 4-25, 

4-31 

eminent domain .......................... 2-8, 2-12, 3-46, 3-47, 3-49, 3-55, 3-76, 3-77, 3-80, 5-5, 5-9, 5-12 

emissions ................................. 1-4, 1-6, 3-108, 3-111, 3-113, 3-114, 3-115, 3-116, 3-144, 4-2, 5-6 

Endangered Species Act (ESA)........................................................1-3, 1-6, 1-7, 3-63, 3-64, 3-141 

Energy Information Administration (EIA)............................................................. 1-1, 1-2, 4-1, 4-2 

Environmental Inspector (EI).................................................................. 2-30, 3-12, 3-48, 5-9, 5-11 

erosion ................................................................. ES-4, 1-9, 2-18, 2-19, 2-20, 2-25, 2-31, 3-8, 3-9, 

3-11, 3-12, 3-13, 3-15, 3-28, 3-29, 3-30, 3-32, 3-34, 3-38, 3-39, 3-44, 3-46, 3-48, 3-49, 

3-50, 3-62, 4-31, 5-1 

exotic and invasive species.................................................................................................. 3-50, 5-3 

extensive forested tracts ............................................................................................................... 5-3 

fat pocketbook mussel ................................................................................................................ 3-71 

L-2

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
APPENDIX L 

Subject Index

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission)................ ES-1, ES-2, ES-4, 1-1, 

1-2, 1-3, 1-6, 1-7, 1-8, 1-10, 1-11, 2-30, 2-32, 2-33, 3-1, 3-2, 3-12, 3-17, 3-28, 3-30, 3-58, 

3-59, 3-62, 3-63, 3-66, 3-80, 3-83, 3-85, 3-98, 3-99, 3-102, 3-105, 3-106, 3-107, 3-108, 

3-111, 3-120, 3-121, 3-123, 3-130, 3-131, 3-132, 3-134, 3-137, 3-138, 3-139, 3-141, 

3-143, 4-1, 4-8, 4-18, 5-4, 5-7, 5-8, 5-9, 5-11, 5-12, 5-13 

Federal Register (FR) ............................................................................. ES-2, 1-2, 1-8, 1-11, 3-125 

fish ..................................................................................ES-3, 1-3, 1-9, 3-24, 3-25, 3-32, 3-59, 

3-60, 3-61, 3-62, 3-63, 3-65, 3-69, 3-70, 3-87, 5-2, 5-4 

fisheries ....................................................................................ES-3, 1-5, 1-6, 3-28, 3-61, 3-62, 5-4 

forest .....................................................................ES-3, 3-38, 3-41, 3-42, 3-43, 3-44, 3-45, 3-47, 

3-49, 3-50, 3-51, 3-54, 3-55, 3-56, 3-58, 3-65, 3-67, 3-74, 3-75, 3-76, 3-77, 3-81, 3-87, 

3-96, 3-117, 3-138, 3-142, 3-143, 4-21, 4-23, 4-25, 4-29, 4-31, 5-3 

forested wetland ....................................ES-3, 3-36, 3-37, 3-40, 3-42, 3-53, 3-55, 3-56, 3-65, 3-67, 

3-74, 3-134, 3-137, 3-138, 3-141, 3-143, 4-6, 4-31, 5-2, 5-3 

geologic hazards................................................................................................................ 3-9, 3-127 

groundwater.................... ES-3, 1-9, 2-18, 3-15, 3-16, 3-17, 3-19, 3-21, 3-22, 3-23, 3-24, 3-34, 5-1 

Gulf sturgeon......................................................................................... 3-25, 3-60, 3-61, 3-64, 3-70 

Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) ............................................... 3-112, 3-113, 3-114, 3-115, 3-116 

hazardous waste sites................................................................................................3-76, 3-84, 3-85 

high consequence area.............................................................................................................. 3-125 

Horizontal Directional Drill (HDD) ..................................... ES-3, ES-4, 1-9, 2-8, 2-14, 2-20, 2-21, 

2-22, 2-23, 2-24, 2-25, 2-26, 3-6, 3-25, 3-26, 3-27, 3-29, 3-30, 3-31, 3-32, 3-34, 3-40, 

3-42, 3-46, 3-49, 3-50, 3-57, 3-61, 3-62, 3-63, 3-65, 3-66, 3-67, 3-69, 3-70, 3-71, 3-72, 

3-73, 3-86, 3-87, 3-88, 3-90, 3-92, 3-93, 3-95, 3-99, 3-106, 3-107, 3-118, 3-119, 3-121, 

3-141, 3-144, 3-145, 4-6, 4-17, 5-2, 5-6, 5-12, 5-14 

hydrostatic testing........................................................ 1-7, 2-19, 3-31, 3-34, 3-62, 3-63, 3-142, 5-2 

inflated heelsplitter ...................................................................................................3-61, 3-71, 3-72 

interior least tern........................................................................................ 1-9, 3-66, 3-67, 5-4, 5-13 

land requirements ......................... 1-9, 2-8, 2-13, 3-76, 3-77, 4-7, 4-14, 4-21, 4-23, 4-27, 4-31, 5-5 

land use....................................... ES-2, ES-3, ES-4, 2-12, 3-12, 3-15, 3-54, 3-76, 3-77, 3-80, 3-81, 

3-83, 3-85, 3-88, 3-89, 3-95, 3-98, 3-102, 3-104, 3-134, 3-141, 3-143, 3-144, 4-1, 4-14, 

4-17, 4-18, 5-7, 5-9 

levee crossings............................................................................................................................ 3-84 

loess bluffs....................................................................................................................3-9, 3-11, 5-1 

loess soils................................................................................................... 3-2, 3-11, 3-45, 3-49, 5-1 

L-3

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
APPENDIX L 

Subject Index

Louisiana ................................................ ES-1, ES-2, ES-3, 1-1, 1-4, 1-5, 1-8, 1-9, 1-10, 1-11, 2-1, 

2-3, 2-5, 2-8, 2-23, 2-24, 2-26, 3-1, 3-2, 3-5, 3-6, 3-7, 3-8, 3-9, 3-10, 3-12, 3-14, 3-15, 

3-16, 3-17, 3-23, 3-24, 3-25, 3-26, 3-27, 3-30, 3-35, 3-37, 3-41, 3-42, 3-47, 3-48, 3-52, 

3-54, 3-57, 3-60, 3-61, 3-63, 3-64, 3-65, 3-66, 3-67, 3-68, 3-69, 3-70, 3-71, 3-72, 3-73, 

3-74, 3-75, 3-84, 3-87, 3-88, 3-89, 3-92, 3-95, 3-96, 3-98, 3-99, 3-100, 3-101, 3-102, 

3-103, 3-104, 3-105, 3-106, 3-107, 3-108, 3-109, 3-111, 3-114, 3-117, 3-132, 3-133, 

3-134, 3-137, 3-138, 3-139, 3-140, 3-141, 3-142, 4-3, 4-7, 4-8, 4-11, 4-12, 4-17, 4-29, 

4-33, 4-34, 5-1, 5-2, 5-4, 5-5, 5-6, 5-13, 5-14 

Louisiana black bear....................................1-9, 3-63, 3-64, 3-67, 3-68, 3-69, 3-92, 4-29, 5-4, 5-13 

Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries (LDWF).............................. 1-4, 1-10, 3-25, 3-28, 

3-30, 3-45, 3-48, 3-50, 3-54, 3-55, 3-61, 3-62, 3-66, 3-71, 3-72, 3-73, 3-75, 3-87, 3-88, 

4-6, 5-4, 5-13 

Louisiana Natural and Scenic River ............................ES-3, 2-23, 3-25, 3-30, 3-87, 3-142, 5-2, 5-5 

Louisiana pine snake ................................................................................. 1-9, 3-64, 3-72, 5-4, 5-13

migratory birds ...........................................................................................................1-3, 3-53, 3-55 

mineral resources................................................................................................................... 3-5, 5-1 

Mississippi................................................ ES-1, ES-2, ES-3, 1-1, 1-3, 1-4, 1-5, 1-6, 1-8, 1-9, 1-10, 

1-11, 2-1, 2-3, 2-4, 2-5, 2-7, 2-8, 2-13, 2-23, 2-24, 2-26, 2-27, 2-30, 2-33, 3-1, 3-2, 3-3, 

3-4, 3-5, 3-6, 3-7, 3-8, 3-9, 3-11, 3-12, 3-14, 3-15, 3-16, 3-17, 3-18, 3-19, 3-20, 3-21, 

3-22, 3-24, 3-25, 3-26, 3-27, 3-29, 3-32, 3-33, 3-34, 3-35, 3-36, 3-37, 3-42, 3-43, 3-45, 

3-47, 3-52, 3-54, 3-55, 3-57, 3-60, 3-61, 3-63, 3-64, 3-65, 3-66, 3-67, 3-68, 3-69, 3-70, 

3-71, 3-73, 3-74, 3-75, 3-84, 3-85, 3-86, 3-87, 3-88, 3-89, 3-90, 3-91, 3-93, 3-94, 3-96, 

3-98, 3-99, 3-100, 3-101, 3-102, 3-103, 3-104, 3-105, 3-106, 3-107, 3-108, 3-109, 3-111, 

3-114, 3-117, 3-132, 3-133, 3-134, 3-135, 3-136, 3-137, 3-138, 3-139, 3-140, 3-141, 

3-143, 4-1, 4-3, 4-6, 4-7, 4-8, 4-11, 4-12, 4-15, 4-16, 4-17, 4-18, 5-1, 5-2, 5-4, 5-5, 5-6, 

5-13, 5-14 

Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks (MDWFP) ......................1-5, 1-10, 3-25, 

3-28, 3-31, 3-48, 3-50, 3-62, 3-72, 3-73, 3-75, 5-2, 5-4, 5-13 

Mississippi River...................................................... ES-3, 1-5, 2-23, 2-24, 3-1, 3-2, 3-3, 3-6, 3-15, 

3-16, 3-22, 3-25, 3-26, 3-32, 3-33, 3-61, 3-66, 3-70, 3-71, 3-84, 3-87, 3-104, 4-12, 5-2, 

5-13 

Natchez Trace Parkway..................................... ES-3, 1-3, 2-20, 3-76, 3-107, 4-12, 4-14, 4-16, 5-5 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)................... 3-109, 3-110, 3-111, 3-116, 3-144 

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs)..................... 3-110, 3-113 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)............. ES-1, 1-2, 1-7, 1-8, 1-11, 3-131, 4-1, 5-7, 5-8 

National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) .............................1-3, 1-4, 1-5, 1-6, 1-7, 3-105, 3-108 

National Park Service (NPS)...................................... ES-1, ES-2, ES-3, 1-2, 1-3, 1-10, 1-11, 3-25, 

3-30, 3-31, 3-50, 3-61, 3-86, 3-87, 3-107, 5-2, 5-5, 5-12 

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)............................. 1-4, 1-7, 3-21, 3-34 

National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) ..........................1-7, 3-105, 3-106, 3-107, 3-136, 5-6 

Nationwide Rivers Inventory (NRI)............................................. ES-3, 1-3, 2-23, 3-25, 3-30, 3-31, 

3-34, 3-61, 3-85, 3-86, 3-87, 3-95, 3-142, 5-2, 5-5, 5-12 

L-4

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
APPENDIX L 

Subject Index

Natural Gas Act ................................................................................................................. 1, 1-1, 1-3 

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) ...............ES-1, ES-2, ES-3, 1-2, 1-3, 1-10, 1-11, 

3-2, 3-10, 3-11, 3-13, 3-14, 3-37, 3-41, 3-48, 3-49, 3-50, 3-57, 3-58, 3-88, 3-90, 3-91, 

3-92, 3-104, 4-16, 4-17, 4-34, 5-1, 5-3, 5-5 

New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) .................................. 1-7, 3-109, 3-111, 3-112, 3-113 

New Source Review (NSR)...................................................................................................... 3-109 

nitrogen dioxide (NO2).......................................................................................3-109, 3-115, 3-116 

nitrogen oxides (NOX).............................................................................................................. 3-114 

noise ...............................................................ES-3, 1-10, 2-29, 3-57, 3-83, 3-116, 3-117, 3-118, 

3-119, 3-120, 3-121, 3-122, 3-134, 3-141, 3-144, 4-33, 4-34, 5-6, 5-7, 5-14 

noise-sensitive area (NSA)....................................3-117, 3-118, 3-119, 3-120, 3-121, 3-122, 3-144 

Office of Energy Projects (OEP).........................................ES-1, 1-2, 2-12, 3-23, 3-30, 3-40, 3-48, 

3-50, 3-65, 3-97, 3-108, 3-119, 5-6, 5-8, 5-9, 5-10, 5-11, 5-12, 5-13, 5-14 

Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS) ............................................................. 3-123, 3-125, 3-127, 3-129 

ozone .......................................................................................................................... 3-109, 3-110 

pallid sturgeon ......................................................................................... 1-9, 3-25, 3-61, 3-70, 3-71 

particulate matter less than 10 microns in aerodynamic diameter (PM10).................... 3-109, 3-112, 

3-113, 3-114, 3-115 

Pearl River................................................................ES-3, 2-23, 2-24, 3-25, 3-26, 3-27, 3-30, 3-31, 

3-32, 3-33, 3-55, 3-60, 3-61, 3-68, 3-69, 3-70, 3-71, 3-72, 3-86, 3-87, 3-141, 3-142, 4-18, 

4-29, 4-30, 4-31, 5-2, 5-12 

permanent right-of-way..................................................ES-4, 1-10, 2-6, 2-8, 2-12, 2-15, 2-32, 3-6, 

3-15, 3-36, 3-38, 3-46, 3-47, 3-49, 3-55, 3-56, 3-68, 3-76, 3-77, 3-80, 3-81, 3-82, 3-95, 

3-104, 3-138, 4-6, 4-27, 5-5, 5-12 

permits .......................................................ES-4, 1-2, 1-3, 1-4, 1-5, 1-6, 1-7, 1-8, 2-20, 2-23, 2-25, 

2-26, 2-30, 3-2, 3-21, 3-25, 3-27, 3-30, 3-31, 3-34, 3-39, 3-40, 3-87, 3-93, 3-107, 3-110, 

3-114, 3-116, 3-123, 3-141, 5-2, 5-3, 5-4, 5-5, 5-10, 5-11 

pig launcher/receiver ..............................................2-4, 2-6, 2-8, 2-13, 2-29, 3-77, 3-95, 3-96, 4-33 

pipe storage yards................................................................................................................ 3-12, 5-9 

pipeline facilities ............................................................ 1-2, 2-1, 2-3, 2-31, 2-32, 3-24, 3-36, 3-55, 

3-123, 3-125, 3-134, 4-33, 5-12 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)........................................... 1-8, 3-109, 3-110, 3-111 

prime farmland ........................................................................................ 1-9, 3-11, 3-14, 3-15, 4-34 

proposed facilities.............................................................................. ES-4, 1-1, 2-32, 3-1, 3-9, 3-97 

red-cockaded woodpecker.................................................................................... 1-9, 3-67, 4-6, 4-7 

Regency Intrastate Gas LLC (Regency)...................................... 3-132, 3-134, 3-142, 3-143, 3-144 

residence....................................................2-29, 3-82, 3-83, 3-95, 3-96, 3-97, 3-117, 3-120, 3-121, 

3-122, 4-14, 4-15, 4-16, 4-29, 4-34, 5-5 

L-5

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
APPENDIX L 

Subject Index

revegetation ............................................2-20, 2-25, 3-10, 3-11, 3-12, 3-13, 3-28, 3-38, 3-42, 3-48, 

3-57, 3-58, 3-69, 3-82, 3-92, 3-142, 5-1, 5-3, 5-13 

ringed map turtle ........................................................................................................................ 3-69 

road crossings.......................................................................................... 2-14, 2-26, 3-12, 3-93, 5-2 

route alternatives ....................................................................ES-4, 3-86, 4-1, 4-11, 4-12, 4-14, 5-8 

route variations...........................................................ES-4, 1-7, 3-83, 3-88, 3-131, 4-1, 4-14, 4-18, 

4-21, 4-23, 4-27, 4-29, 4-31, 4-33, 5-8, 5-9 

rugged topography.............................................................................................. 1-9, 2-29, 3-2, 4-25 

safety ........................................................ES-2, 1-10, 2-6, 2-19, 2-25, 2-26, 2-29, 2-31, 3-2, 3-7, 

3-8, 3-39, 3-82, 3-83, 3-84, 3-123, 3-124, 3-126, 3-129, 3-130, 3-131, 4-21, 4-25, 4-31, 

4-33, 5-7 

Saline Bayou...............................................................ES-3, 1-5, 2-23, 2-24, 3-24, 3-25, 3-26, 3-30, 

3-33, 3-37, 3-40, 3-61, 3-87, 3-142, 5-2, 5-5 

Secretary of the Commission (Secretary)............................................ ES-2, 1-11, 2-12, 2-14, 3-23, 

3-31, 3-42, 3-48, 3-50, 3-66, 3-69, 3-72, 3-85, 3-92, 3-97, 3-108, 3-119, 3-122, 5-2, 5-8, 

5-9, 5-10, 5-11, 5-12, 5-13, 5-14 

side valve......................................................ES-2, 1-1, 2-5, 2-6, 2-12, 2-29, 3-44, 3-95, 3-97, 4-33 

Sixteenth Section lands ..................................................................................................... 4-17, 4-18 

socioeconomics .......................................................................................................................... 3-98 

soils .............................................................ES-2, ES-3, 1-9, 2-18, 2-19, 2-21, 2-23, 2-25, 2-26, 

3-2, 3-3, 3-6, 3-7, 3-9, 3-10, 3-11, 3-12, 3-13, 3-14, 3-15, 3-21, 3-22, 3-28, 3-29, 3-34, 

3-38, 3-39, 3-41, 3-43, 3-44, 3-45, 3-46, 3-48, 3-51, 3-62, 3-72, 3-75, 3-88, 3-92, 3-124, 

3-127, 3-141, 4-25, 4-31, 4-34, 5-1 

Spill Prevention, Containment, and Countermeasure Plan (SPCC) ........................2-20, 3-14, 3-15, 

3-22, 3-23, 3-29, 3-32, 3-62, 3-142, 5-1, 5-2 

state historic preservation officer (SHPO) .............................3-105, 3-106, 3-107, 3-108, 5-6, 5-14 

sulphur dioxide (SO2) ..........................................................3-109, 3-112, 3-113, 3-114, 3-115, 4-2 

surface water......................................................................ES-3, 2-19, 3-22, 3-24, 3-25, 3-28, 3-29, 

3-30, 3-34, 3-61, 3-62, 3-142, 4-7, 5-2 

terrorism ................................................................................................................................... 3-130 

Texas ......................................................ES-1, ES-2, 1-1, 1-3, 1-4, 1-5, 1-6, 1-8, 1-9, 1-10, 1-11, 

2-1, 2-3, 2-4, 2-5, 2-6, 2-7, 2-8, 2-13, 2-24, 2-27, 2-30, 2-33, 3-1, 3-2, 3-3, 3-4, 3-5, 3-7, 

3-8, 3-10, 3-13, 3-15, 3-17, 3-18, 3-19, 3-20, 3-21, 3-24, 3-26, 3-27, 3-28, 3-32, 3-33, 

3-34, 3-35, 3-36, 3-37, 3-42, 3-43, 3-45, 3-47, 3-52, 3-57, 3-60, 3-63, 3-64, 3-65, 3-67, 

3-70, 3-72, 3-73, 3-74, 3-75, 3-77, 3-84, 3-86, 3-89, 3-90, 3-91, 3-93, 3-94, 3-96, 3-97, 

3-98, 3-99, 3-100, 3-101, 3-102, 3-103, 3-104, 3-105, 3-107, 3-108, 3-109, 3-111, 3-114, 

3-117, 3-126, 3-132, 3-133, 3-134, 3-135, 3-136, 3-137, 3-138, 3-139, 3-140, 3-141, 

3-143, 4-1, 4-2, 4-3, 4-6, 4-7, 4-8, 4-11, 4-15, 4-16, 4-17, 4-18, 4-33, 5-3, 5-4, 5-6, 5-14 

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD)........................... ES-2, 1-6, 1-10, 1-11, 3-13, 3-28, 

3-37, 3-48, 3-50, 3-57, 3-62, 3-65, 3-72, 3-73, 3-75, 5-3, 5-4, 5-13 

threatened and endangered species..............................................ES-2, ES-3, 3-25, 3-51, 3-141, 5-4 

L-6

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
APPENDIX L 

Subject Index

two-tone.................................................................................................... ES-4, 2-27, 3-2, 3-8, 3-11 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) ....................... ES-1, 1-2, 1-3, 1-4, 1-5, 1-6, 1-7, 1-10, 3-25, 

3-27, 3-35, 3-39, 3-40, 3-41, 3-42, 3-84, 3-141 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).......................................................... 1-3, 3-2, 3-44, 3-54, 

3-58, 3-88, 3-89, 3-92 

U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) .....................................1-3, 2-6, 2-14, 2-18, 2-19, 2-31, 

2-32, 3-115, 3-123, 3-124, 3-125, 3-126, 3-127, 3-129, 3-130, 4-33, 5-7 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ........................ ES-1, ES-2, 1-2, 1-4, 1-7, 1-8, 1-11, 

3-17, 3-27, 3-109, 3-113, 3-114, 3-116, 3-118, 3-131 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) ..............ES-1, ES-2, ES-3, 1-2, 1-7, 1-10, 1-11, 3-35, 3-48, 

3-50, 3-53, 3-54, 3-57, 3-58, 3-59, 3-63, 3-64, 3-65, 3-66, 3-67, 3-68, 3-69, 3-70, 3-71, 

3-72, 3-88, 4-15, 4-17, 4-29, 5-4, 5-13 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) .................................................3-5, 3-7, 3-8, 3-16, 4-6, 4-12, 4-18 

Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation, and Maintenance Plan (Plan) ................. ES-3, ES-4, 2-20, 

2-26, 2-27, 2-29, 2-30, 2-32, 3-2, 3-6, 3-8, 3-11, 3-12, 3-13, 3-14, 3-15, 3-22, 3-23, 3-24, 

3-29, 3-30, 3-31, 3-32, 3-34, 3-42, 3-48, 3-49, 3-50, 3-51, 3-57, 3-59, 3-62, 3-66, 3-69, 

3-70, 3-71, 3-72, 3-82, 3-85, 3-86, 3-88, 3-92, 3-93, 3-107, 3-118, 3-141, 3-142, 3-143, 

3-144, 5-1, 5-2, 5-3, 5-5, 5-6, 5-10, 5-12, 5-13 

variance ....................................................................................................................2-14, 2-30, 4-25 

vegetation ...................................... ES-2, ES-3, 1-9, 1-10, 2-14, 2-25, 2-31, 3-10, 3-12, 3-13, 3-14, 

3-21, 3-29, 3-34, 3-35, 3-36, 3-38, 3-42, 3-43, 3-44, 3-46, 3-47, 3-49, 3-50, 3-51, 3-53, 

3-55, 3-56, 3-57, 3-61, 3-62, 3-67, 3-75, 3-80, 3-81, 3-86, 3-89, 3-92, 3-94, 3-95, 3-96, 

3-97, 3-106, 3-134, 3-141, 3-142, 3-143, 4-15, 4-16, 4-17, 5-3, 5-7 

water tupelo ............................................................................................................... ES-5, 3-35, 5-3 

waterbodies..................................... ES-2, ES-3, ES-4, 1-7, 1-9, 2-14, 2-15, 2-18, 2-19, 2-20, 2-21, 

2-23, 2-24, 3-12, 3-24, 3-25, 3-26, 3-27, 3-28, 3-29, 3-30, 3-31, 3-32, 3-34, 3-40, 3-46, 

3-59, 3-61, 3-62, 3-63, 3-65, 3-67, 3-68, 3-87, 3-93, 3-118, 3-134, 3-137, 3-138, 3-139, 

3-141, 3-142, 3-145, 4-1, 4-6, 4-7, 4-14, 4-17, 4-21, 4-23, 4-27, 4-29, 4-31, 4-34, 5-2, 

5-4, 5-7, 5-13 

wellhead protection area................................................................................... 3-15, 3-17, 3-23, 5-1 

Wetland and Waterbody Construction and Mitigation Procedures (Procedures)............ES-3, ES-4, 

2-15, 2-20, 2-21, 2-25, 2-29, 2-30, 2-32, 3-2, 3-13, 3-22, 3-23, 3-24, 3-25, 3-27, 3-28, 

3-29, 3-30, 3-31, 3-34, 3-38, 3-39, 3-40, 3-41, 3-42, 3-48, 3-57, 3-62, 3-63, 3-87, 3-92, 

3-141, 3-142, 3-143, 5-1, 5-2, 5-3, 5-4 

Wetland Reserve Program (WRP)..............................................ES-3, ES-5, 3-37, 3-41, 3-53, 3-54, 

3-58, 3-68, 3-88, 3-89, 3-90, 3-91, 3-92, 4-16, 4-17, 5-3, 5-5, 5-14 

wetlands..........................................................................ES-2, ES-3, ES-4, ES-5, 1-3, 1-4, 1-5, 1-6, 

1-7, 1-9, 2-6, 2-8, 2-14, 2-15, 2-18, 2-19, 2-20, 2-21, 2-23, 2-24, 2-25, 2-26, 3-10, 3-11, 

3-12, 3-29, 3-32, 3-35, 3-36, 3-37, 3-38, 3-39, 3-40, 3-41, 3-42, 3-43, 3-46, 3-48, 3-50, 

3-51, 3-53, 3-54, 3-55, 3-56, 3-62, 3-65, 3-74, 3-76, 3-81, 3-88, 3-92, 3-134, 3-136, 

3-137, 3-138, 3-139, 3-141, 3-142, 3-143, 3-145, 4-1, 4-6, 4-7, 4-14, 4-15, 4-17, 4-18, 

4-21, 4-23, 4-25, 4-29, 4-31, 4-33, 4-34, 5-2, 5-3, 5-7, 5-9 

L-7

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
APPENDIX L 

Subject Index

wildlife ...............................................................ES-2, ES-3, 1-3, 1-9, 3-12, 3-24, 3-25, 3-34, 3-35, 

3-37, 3-38, 3-44, 3-45, 3-46, 3-50, 3-51, 3-53, 3-54, 3-55, 3-56, 3-57, 3-58, 3-59, 3-61, 

3-63, 3-72, 3-73, 3-85, 3-86, 3-87, 3-88, 3-134, 3-141, 3-142, 3-143, 3-144, 4-14, 4-25, 

5-3, 5-7 

wildlife management area (WMA)....................................................... 2-23, 3-44, 3-45, 3-49, 3-53, 

3-54, 3-57, 3-87, 3-88, 3-95, 4-6, 4-17, 5-5 

L-8

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007
Document Content(s)

Report Cover_and Spine.PDF................................................1

Cover_Letter_Letter_to_the_Parties.PDF....................................4

Executive_Summary.PDF.....................................................6

Table_of_Contents.PDF....................................................11

Section_1_Introduction.PDF...............................................27

Section_2_Proposed_Action.PDF............................................38

Section_3_Environmental_Analysis.PDF ....................................71

Section_4_Alternatives.PDF..............................................216

Section_5_Conclusion_&_Recommendations.PDF..............................252

Appendix_A.PDF..........................................................266

Appendix_B.PDF..........................................................286

Appendix_C.PDF..........................................................288

Appendix_D.PDF..........................................................300

Appendix_E.PDF..........................................................316

Appendix_F.PDF..........................................................340

Appendix_G.PDF..........................................................389

Appendix_H.PDF..........................................................391

Appendix_I.PDF..........................................................405

Appendix_J.PDF..........................................................413

Appendix_K_part_1.PDF...................................................416

Appendix_K_part_2.PDF...................................................443

Appendix_L.PDF..........................................................516

Document Accession #: 20070525-4001 Filed Date: 05/25/2007