Document Accession #: 20060818-4000 Filed Date: 08/18/2006

File [Report Cover_and_Spine.PDF] cannot be converted to PDF. (Error: File not found)
Document Accession #: 20060818-4000 Filed Date: 08/18/2006

File [Cover_Letter_to_the_Parties.PDF] cannot be converted to PDF. (Error: File not found)
Document Accession #: 20060818-4000 Filed Date: 08/18/2006

File [Table_of_Contents.PDF] cannot be converted to PDF. (Error: File not found)
Document Accession #: 20060818-4000 Filed Date: 08/18/2006

File [Executive_Summary.PDF] cannot be converted to PDF. (Error: File not found)
1-1

1.0 INTRODUCTION 

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

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

with the construction and operation of the facilities proposed by CenterPoint Energy Gas Transmission 

Company (CEGT or Applicant).1

 The facilities proposed by CEGT are hereafter collectively referred to 

as the Carthage to Perryville Project, or the proposed Project, in this EIS. 

On March 10, 2006, CEGT filed an application for the proposed Project with the FERC, pursuant 

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

regulations. Under Docket No. CP06-85-000, CEGT seeks a Certificate of Public Convenience and 

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

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

(FR) on March 17, 2006. 

The proposed Project would consist of an approximately 172.1-mile-long, 42-inch-diameter, 

interstate natural gas pipeline, two new compressor stations totaling 41,240 horsepower (hp), and 

associated ancillary facilities. The proposed pipeline would extend from multiple receipt points with 

intrastate natural gas pipeline facilities near Carthage in Panola County, Texas (see Section 1.5), to 

interconnects with four existing, interstate pipelines in Ouachita and Richland Parishes, Louisiana. 

CEGT proposes to construct the Carthage to Perryville Project in two phases, with planned in-service 

dates of February 2007 (Phase I) and October 2008 (Phase II). Following completion of Phase II, the 

proposed Project would receive and transport up to about 1.2 billion cubic feet per day (Bcf/d) of 

natural gas. 

1.1 PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED 

CEGT indicates that the primary purpose of the proposed Project is to provide the pipeline 

capacity needed to connect new domestic, onshore natural gas supplies with markets in the Midwest and 

Northeastern regions of the United States that can be accessed through interconnects with existing 

pipeline infrastructure. Specifically, the proposed Project would facilitate the transport of natural gas 

received from the Barnett Shale and Bossier Sand production areas in eastern Texas, as well as the Elm 

Grove and Vernon Field production areas in Louisiana, to these markets through interconnects with four 

interstate pipeline systems. CEGT believes that the addition of incremental supply at the proposed 

interconnect locations would help meet growing energy demands, enhance reliability, and result in supply 

diversification by providing access to domestic, unconventional natural gas supplies. 

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

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

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

per year in 2004 to 127.0 quadrillion BTU per year in 2025, representing an annualized increase of 1.2 

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

1

 CenterPoint Energy Gas Transmission Company is a wholly owned subsidiary of CenterPoint Energy, Inc. 

Document Accession #: 20060818-4000 Filed Date: 08/18/2006
1-2

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

to 2025 (EIA 2006a). 

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

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

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

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

to account for about 15 percent of total United States natural gas consumption by 2025. Domestic 

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

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

(EIA 2006a). Onshore production of natural gas from unconventional sources (e.g., shale, tight sands, 

and coal bed methane) is expected to be a major contributor to that growth. The EIA (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 federal agency responsible for evaluating applications filed for authorization to 

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

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

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

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

implementing NEPA (18 CFR 380). 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) are 

federal cooperating agencies for the development of this EIS. 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. 

Our2

 principal purposes in preparing this EIS are to: 

• identify and assess potential impacts on 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 effects on the human environment; 

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

environmental impacts; and 

• facilitate public involvement in identifying the significant environmental impacts. 

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

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

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

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

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

 

2

 The pronouns “we,” “us,” and “our” refer to the environmental staff of the Office of Energy Projects (OEP), part 

of the FERC staff. 

Document Accession #: 20060818-4000 Filed Date: 08/18/2006
1-3

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

recommended mitigation measures. 

After the Final EIS is issued, the Commission will determine whether or not the proposed Project 

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

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

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

factors in that final determination. 

Currently, we have received one other proposal to construct and operate an interstate pipeline in 

the general vicinity of the proposed Project. The East Texas Expansion Project (Docket No. PF06-17-

000) proposed by Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP (Gulf South) would share a similar purpose to that of 

the proposed Project and would also traverse northern Louisiana. Although these projects are on similar 

schedules, the FERC is preparing separate EISs for each. The Commission does not consider the East 

Texas Expansion Project to represent a mutually exclusive alternative to the Carthage to Perryville 

Project. Rather, we view each of these projects to be potentially complementary for the purpose of 

meeting the United States’ projected demands for natural gas. In addition, the FERC has a regulatory 

responsibility to act on each of the projects that are filed with it in a timely manner. Linking the 

environmental analyses of both projects into a single EIS could result in delaying action on one or more 

of the projects based on insufficient data or unresolved issues associated with just one of the projects. 

The potential cumulative environmental effects of the Carthage to Perryville and East Texas Expansion 

Projects, as well as other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects and activities are addressed in 

Section 3.13 of this EIS. 

1.3 PERMITS, APPROVALS AND REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS 

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

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

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

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

FERC may issue. The FERC encourages cooperation between interstate pipeline companies and local 

authorities, but state and local authorities may not prohibit or unreasonably delay the construction or 

operation of facilities approved by the FERC through application of state and local laws. 

As the lead federal agency for the proposed Project, the FERC has certain obligations under 

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act 

(NHPA). At the federal level, required permits and approval authority outside of the FERC’s jurisdiction 

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

Air Act (CAA). Each of these statutes has been taken into account in the preparation of this document. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

habitat occur in the vicinity of the proposed Project. If, upon review of existing data or data provided by 

CEGT, the FERC determines that these species or habitats may be adversely affected by the proposed 

Document Accession #: 20060818-4000 Filed Date: 08/18/2006
1-4

TABLE 1.3-1 

Summary of Major Permits, Approvals and Consultations for the Carthage to Perryville 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 March 10, 

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. (Wetland delineation 

report submitted March 3, 2006; 

application pending.) 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Natural Resources Conservation 

Service 

Compatible Use Permit Consider issuance of a permit for 

crossing of lands enrolled in the 

Wetlands Reserve Program. 

(Application 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. 

(Concurrence letters of no adverse 

effect to federally endangered or 

threatened species issued on February 

17 and April 27, 2006.) 

National Park Service Consultations under the Wild 

and Scenic Rivers Act 

Review for impacts on designated 

Natural Resource Inventory Streams. 

(Consultation completed on March 10, 

2006.) 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Federal Highway Administration 

Encroachment permit Consider issuance of permit to work 

within road right-of-way. (Application 

pending.) 

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. 

Document Accession #: 20060818-4000 Filed Date: 08/18/2006
1-5

TABLE 1.3-1 

Summary of Major Permits, Approvals and Consultations for the Carthage to Perryville Project 

Agency Permit/Approval/ 

Consultations Agency Action (Status) 

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. (Concurrence with findings 

of initial cultural resources report 

provided on June 8, 2006. 

Concurrence with findings of 

addendum report findings pending.) 

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. (Consultations on-going.) 

 Stormwater Discharge Permit Consider issuance of a Section 402 

permit regulating discharge of 

stormwater from the construction work 

area. (Permit no longer required as a 

result of rule changes effective June 

12, 2006.) 

 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 

pending.) 

 Minor Source Air Permit Consider issuance of a permit to 

construct and operate facilities with the 

potential for air emissions. (Application 

submitted December 16, 2005.) 

Louisiana Department of 

Transportation 

Road Crossing Permits Consider issuance of permits to cross 

and work within the right-of-way of 

state highways. (Permit applications 

filed in June 2006.) 

Louisiana Department of Wildlife and 

Fisheries 

Consultations regarding 

special status species 

Review and comment on activities 

potentially affecting state-listed 

species. (Protected species report 

submitted February 13, 2006; 

consultations on-going.) 

 Scenic Rivers Permit Consider issuance of a permit for 

proposed crossings of the Saline 

Bayou and Black Lake Bayou. 

(Permits issued on May 26, 2006.) 

Document Accession #: 20060818-4000 Filed Date: 08/18/2006
1-6

TABLE 1.3-1 (continued) 

Summary of Major Permits, Approvals and Consultations for the Carthage to Perryville Project 

Agency Permit/Approval/ 

Consultations Agency Action (Status) 

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

proposed crossings of the Red River 

and Ouachita River levees. 

(Application filed with Tensas Levee 

District on March 6, 2006; letter of 

request for application submitted to 

Red River Levee District on February 

28, 2006.) 

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. (Consultations on-going.) 

 Stormwater Discharge Permit Consider issuance of a Section 402 

permit regulating discharge of 

stormwater from the construction work 

area. (Permit no longer required as a 

result of rule changes effective June 

12, 2006.) 

 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 

pending.) 

 Minor Source Air Permit Consider issuance of a Permit by Rule 

authorizing construction and operation 

of facilities with the potential for air 

emissions. (Permit by Rule 

authorization received January 26, 

2006.) 

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 with findings 

of cultural resources report provided on 

May 22, 2006. Concurrence with 

findings of addendum report findings 

pending) 

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

potentially affecting state-listed 

species. (Consultations completed.) 

 Stream Disturbance Permits Consider issuance of a permit for 

disturbance of state-owned streambed 

and/or removal of streambed materials. 

(Application pending.) 

Document Accession #: 20060818-4000 Filed Date: 08/18/2006
1-7

Project, the FERC is required to prepare a biological assessment to identify the nature and extent of the 

adverse impact and to recommend measures that would avoid the habitat and/or species, or would reduce 

potential impacts to acceptable levels. If the FERC determines that no federally listed or proposed 

endangered or threatened species or their critical habitat would be adversely affected by the proposed 

Project, then no further action is necessary. See Section 3.7 of this EIS for further discussion of our ESA 

review. 

Section 106 of the NHPA requires the FERC to take into account the effects of its undertakings 

on properties listed in, or eligible for listing in, the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), 

including prehistoric or historic sites, districts, buildings, structures, objects, or properties of traditional 

religious or cultural importance, and to afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) an 

opportunity to comment on the undertaking. The FERC has requested that CEGT, 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. 

CEGT is required to comply with Sections 401, 402, and 404 of the CWA. The U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (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 analysis of natural resources and cultural resources that would be 

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

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

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

proposed Project. 

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

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

Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. 

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

compliance under the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and the requirements for the 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD). The federal permitting process for the CAA has been 

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

EPA, the states would determine the need for NSPS or 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 October 25, 2005, CEGT filed a request with the FERC to implement the Commission’s PreFiling Process for the Carthage to Perryville Project. At that time, CEGT was in the preliminary design 

Document Accession #: 20060818-4000 Filed Date: 08/18/2006
1-8

stage of the proposed Project and no formal application had been filed with the FERC. The FERC 

granted CEGT’s request to use the Pre-Filing Process on November 10, 2005, and established a pre-filing 

docket number (PF06-1-000) to place information relevant to the proposed Project into the public record. 

The Pre-Filing Process was established by the FERC to encourage early involvement of interested 

stakeholders, facilitate interagency cooperation, and identify and resolve environmental issues before an 

application is filed with the FERC. 

On December 1, 2005, the FERC issued a public information notice, National Environmental 

Policy Act Pre-Filing Review for the Carthage to Perryville Project, that explained the Pre-Filing 

environmental review process for the proposed Project. This notice was sent to affected landowners; 

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

Native American tribes; other interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. The notice also 

invited interested groups and individuals to attend a series of open houses scheduled by CEGT to provide 

information about the proposed Project to affected landowners and other stakeholders. Concurrently, 

CEGT also mailed notification letters to landowners, government and agency officials, and the general 

public informing them about the proposed Project and inviting them to attend the open houses. CEGT 

also published notifications of the open houses in local newspapers. The open houses were held on 

December 13, 14, and 15, 2005, in Carthage, Texas, and Quitman and Delhi, Louisiana, respectively. 

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

interested parties and accept comments about the proposed Project. 

On January 6, 2006, the FERC issued a Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact 

Statement for the Proposed Carthage to Perryville Project, Request for Comments on Environmental 

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

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

American tribes; other interested parties; local libraries and newspapers; and other interested parties. The 

NOI, which was published in the FR provided a summary of the proposed Project, outlined our NEPArequired environmental review process, provided a list of the then currently identified environmental 

issues, and requested comments on the scope of the analysis for the EIS. The NOI also listed the dates 

and times of three public scoping meetings that were sponsored by the FERC to give the general public an 

opportunity to learn more about the proposed Project and to comment on environmental issues to be 

addressed in the EIS. These scoping meetings were held on January 24, 25, and 26, 2006, in Carthage, 

Texas, and Quitman and Delhi, Louisiana, respectively. 

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

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

viewing on the FERC Internet website (http://www.ferc.gov).3

 Excluding representatives of CEGT and 

the FERC, about 40 people attended the public scoping meetings for the proposed Project, and we 

received verbal statements from a total of four individuals. During the pre-filing and scoping periods for 

the proposed Project, we received a total of 11 written comment letters from members of the general 

public, Native American tribes, and federal and state resource agencies. The issues and concerns 

identified by commentors during the public scoping process for the proposed Project are summarized in 

Table 1.4-1, which also identifies the EIS section in which these issues are addressed. All comments 

received during the pre-filing period and since the CEGT’s application was filed under Docket No. CP06-

85-000 are considered to be part of the record for the Carthage to Perryville Project. 

 

3

 Using the “eLibrary link”, select “General Search” and enter the Project docket number excluding the last three 

digits (i.e., PF06-1 or CP06-85) in the “Docket Number” field. Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. 

Document Accession #: 20060818-4000 Filed Date: 08/18/2006
1-9

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 November 15, 2005, March 20, 

2006, and June 21, 2006, to discuss the proposed Project and its associated environmental review process 

with other key federal and state agencies. The agencies that participated in one or more of those meetings 

included the COE; FWS; the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS); the Louisiana Department 

of Wildlife and Fisheries (LDWF); the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ); and the 

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD). 

The FERC prepared a Draft EIS for the Carthage to Perryville Project and issued a Notice of 

Availability (NOA) for the Draft EIS on May 26, 2006. The Draft EIS was also filed with the EPA, and a 

formal notice was published in the FR on June 2, 2006, 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 implementing the NEPA, the NOA and FR 

notice established a 45-day comment period ending on July 17, 2006; 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 

Quitman and Delhi, Louisiana, on June 21 and June 22, 2006, 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. A single individual 

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

EIS from two federal agencies, EPA and FWS, and two state agencies, LDWF and TPWD. 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 response to those 

comments are provided in Appendix J 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. All substantive changes in the text of the Final EIS are indicated by 

vertical bars that appear in the margins of the document. 

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 CEGT 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 #: 20060818-4000 Filed Date: 08/18/2006
1-10

TABLE 1.4-1 

Issues Identified and Comments Received During the Public Scoping Process 

for the Carthage to Perryville Project 

Issue/Specific Comments 

EIS Section 

Addressing 

Comment 

General 

 Project purpose and need 1.1 

 Public notification requirements 1.3 

 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, and erosion potential following 

construction, and associated mitigation 

3.2 

 Impacts to prime farmland soils 3.2 

Water Resources 

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

requirements 

3.3.1 

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

major or state-designated scenic rivers 

3.3.2, 3.8 

 Impacts associated with hydrostatic test water withdrawals 2.0, 3.3.2 

Vegetation and Wetlands 

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

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

maintenance activities; mitigation for Project-related effects 

3.4, 3.5 

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

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

Threatened, Endangered, and Special Status Species 

 Potential impacts to state and federally protected species, 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 

2.6, 3.8 

 Proximity of pipeline to occupied structures 3.8 

Document Accession #: 20060818-4000 Filed Date: 08/18/2006
1-11

TABLE 1.4-1 (continued) 

Issues Identified and Comments Received During the Public Scoping Process 

for the Carthage to Perryville Project 

Issue/Specific Comments 

EIS Section 

Addressing 

Comment 

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

 Reduced property access during construction activities, including that of livestock 2.3, 3.8 

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

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

Air Quality and Noise 

 Potential impacts from construction-related noise 3.11.2 

 Potential noise impacts from compressor stations during operations 3.11.2 

Cultural Resources 

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

 Native American notification and consultation 3.10 

Socioeconomics 

 Potential effect on property values 3.9 

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

 General economic effects to agricultural operations 3.9 

 Potential for landowner liability associated with accidental pipeline damage; associated 

insurance premium effects 

3.9 

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

Reliability and Safety 

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

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

agricultural operations and equipment 

2.6, 3.12 

Cumulative Impacts 

 Cumulative impacts of similar proposed pipeline projects 3.13 

Alternatives 

 Analysis of alternative pipeline routes and aboveground facility locations, including 

alternative compressor station sites 

4.3, 4.4, 4.5 

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

1.5 NONJURISDICTIONAL FACILITIES 

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

jurisdictional facilities, all factors bearing on the public convenience and necessity. Toward this end, the 

Document Accession #: 20060818-4000 Filed Date: 08/18/2006
1-12

FERC may need to consider the environmental impact of related “nonjurisdictional” facilities that would 

be constructed upstream or downstream of the jurisdictional facilities for the purpose of delivering, 

receiving, or using the proposed gas volumes. Integrally related nonjurisdictional facilities could include 

major power facilities, such as cogeneration plants, as well as less significant facilities, such as lateral 

pipeline connections. 

The jurisdictional facilities for the proposed Project are described in detail in Section 2.1. The 

nonjurisdictional facilities for the proposed Project include three, intrastate natural gas pipeline laterals. 

These facilities would be constructed and operated by Houston Pipe Line Company (HPL), Duke Energy 

Field Services (DEFS), and Enbridge Energy Partners, LP (Enbridge) to enable these parties to deliver 

natural gas to the proposed Carthage to Perryville Project pipeline (Table 1.5-1). 

TABLE 1.5-1 

Summary of Nonjurisdictional Facilities for the Carthage to Perryville Project 

Facility Description 

Houston Pipe Line Company (HPL) 

Lateral 

A 1.1-mile-long, 42-inch-diameter pipeline lateral, to be constructed and 

operated by HPL, would deliver natural gas to the Carthage to Perryville 

Project via an interconnect at the proposed HPL Meter/Regulator (M/R) 

Station. The HPL facilities would also include a pig launching facility located 

just upstream of the delivery point to the proposed Project. 

Duke Energy Field Services 

(DEFS) Lateral 

An approximately 2,000-foot-long, 24-inch-diameter pipeline lateral, to be 

constructed and operated by DEFS, would extend from the outlet of the 

DEFS processing facility in Panola County to an interconnect with the 

Carthage to Perryville Project at the proposed DEFS-Enbridge M/R Station. 

Enbridge Energy Partners, LP 

(Enbridge) Lateral 

An approximately 350-foot-long, 12-inch-diameter pipeline lateral, to be 

constructed and operated by Enbridge, would extend from the outlet of an 

existing Enbridge meter facility in Panola County to an interconnect with the 

Carthage to Perryville Project at the proposed DEFS-Enbridge M/R Station. 

1.5.1 The Four Factor Test 

We use four factors 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; 

• 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, CEGT serves only to transport natural 

gas for its customers and does not sell gas to consumers. Therefore, this factor favors examining the 

nonjurisdictional facilities. 

Document Accession #: 20060818-4000 Filed Date: 08/18/2006
1-13

With regard to the second factor, the proposed Project would transport natural gas received from 

the nonjurisdictional pipeline laterals, but the design and route of the proposed Project has not been 

uniquely influenced by the location or configuration of the nonjurisdictional facilities. CEGT has made 

numerous adjustments to its proposed pipeline route with only the need to ultimately reach the delivery 

points on the eastern end of the proposed Project. Thus, the second factor does not support the FERC’s 

review of the nonjurisdictional facilities. 

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

jurisdiction. Intrastate pipeline facilities are regulated by state and local permitting agencies, primarily 

the Railroad Commission of Texas in the case of the three proposed pipeline laterals. 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. Construction of the HPL Lateral would impact wetlands 

along the proposed construction right-of-way, but it is anticipated that such impacts would be authorized 

under a COE nationwide permit. 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 Carthage to Perryville Project and have determined 

that only one factor favors examining the nonjurisdictional facilities. Therefore, insufficient justification 

exists to warrant extension of the FERC’s environmental review to include the nonjurisdictional facilities. 

However, because construction of the nonjurisdictional facilities is reasonably foreseeable in the region, 

we have considered them in our analysis of cumulative impacts (see Section 3.13). 

Document Accession #: 20060818-4000 Filed Date: 08/18/2006
Document Accession #: 20060818-4000 Filed Date: 08/18/2006

File [Section_2_Proposed Action.PDF] cannot be converted to PDF. (Error: File not found)
Document Accession #: 20060818-4000 Filed Date: 08/18/2006

File [Section_3_Environmental Analysis.PDF] cannot be converted to PDF. (Error: File not found)
Document Accession #: 20060818-4000 Filed Date: 08/18/2006

File [Section_4_Alternatives.PDF] cannot be converted to PDF. (Error: File not found)
Document Accession #: 20060818-4000 Filed Date: 08/18/2006

File [Section_5_Conclusions and Recommendations.PDF] cannot be converted to PDF. (Error: File 

not found)
Document Accession #: 20060818-4000 Filed Date: 08/18/2006

File [Appendix_A_Distribution List.PDF] cannot be converted to PDF. (Error: File not found)
APPENDIX B 

FACILITY LOCATION MAPS 

Appendix B-1 Facility Location Maps for the Carthage to Perryville Project 

Appendix B-2 Pipe Storage and Contractor Yard Maps for the Carthage to Perryville 

Project 

Document Accession #: 20060818-4000 Filed Date: 08/18/2006
APPENDIX B-1 

Facility Location Maps for the Carthage to Perryville Project 

Document Accession #: 20060818-4000 Filed Date: 08/18/2006
Non-Internet Public 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE 

PROPOSED CARTHAGE TO PERRYVILLE 

PIPELINE PROJECT 

Docket No. CP06-085-000 

Appendix B-1 

Facility Location Maps 

Public access for the above information is available only 

through the Public Reference Room, or by e-mail at 

public.referenceroom@ferc.gov. 

Document Accession #: 20060818-4000 Filed Date: 08/18/2006
APPENDIX B-2 

Pipe Storage and Contractor Yard Maps for the Carthage to Perryville Project 

Document Accession #: 20060818-4000 Filed Date: 08/18/2006
Non-Internet Public 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE 

PROPOSED CARTHAGE TO PERRYVILLE 

PIPELINE PROJECT 

Docket No. CP06-085-000 

Appendix B-2 

Pipe Storage and Contractor Yard 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 #: 20060818-4000 Filed Date: 08/18/2006
Document Accession #: 20060818-4000 Filed Date: 08/18/2006

File [Appendix_C_Spill Prevention Plan.PDF] cannot be converted to PDF. (Error: File not found)
APPENDIX D

DIRECTIONAL DRILL CONTINGENCY PLAN

Document Accession #: 20060818-4000 Filed Date: 08/18/2006
CenterPoint Energy Gas Transmission Company 

Carthage to Perryville Project 

DIRECTIONAL DRILL CONTINGENCY PLAN 

(DDCP) 

In the event a complete loss of circulation of drilling mud occurs during operation of a horizontal 

directional drill (HDD) CenterPoint Energy Gas Transmission (CEGT) will require the Contractor 

to cease pumping immediately, contain any drilling fluid which has surfaced, notify the Chief 

Inspector and Chief Environmental Inspector, and evaluate the data and circumstances leading to 

the loss of circulation to determine what method is to be utilized to seal the fracture. Most fractures 

can be sealed, if detected early, by pumping special materials to prevent loss of circulation down 

hole. 

The Construction Inspector(s) and/or the Environmental Inspector(s) will continuously monitor 

operations during HDD activities. Monitoring activities during drilling operations will include: 

• Visual inspection along the drill path, fluid return pit(s) and waterbody surface for evidence 

of a release; 

• Observation and documentation of drilling fluid pressures using HDD instrumentation; 

• Observation and documentation of drilling fluid recirculation volumes; and 

• Documentation of all drilling fluid products used. 

The Contractor will have readily available containment equipment to contain inadvertent releases of 

drilling mud to waterbodies including earth-moving equipment, portable pumps, containment 

booms, hand tools, hay bales, silt fence and sandbags. The Environmental Inspector(s) will ensure 

that adequate quantities of spill containment equipment and supplies are at the drilling location prior 

to allowing the contractor to begin drilling. Further, the Environmental Inspector(s) will ensure that 

each individual involved in drilling operations is familiar with the locations of all spill containment 

equipment and the specific procedures for handling potential drilling fluid releases. 

If a significant reduction of drilling fluid circulation is detected without total loss of circulation, 

Contractor will reduce drilling fluid volumes and subsequent pressures and will increase the yield 

point of drilling fluid. Then, depending upon the progress of the drilling, the drill pipe may be 

tripped out until return flow is restored. 

Should an inadvertent release of drilling fluid (Bentonite) occur, containment and subsequent 

clean-up will begin immediately upon detection. Field measures to contain inadvertent releases of 

drilling fluid will vary according to site-specific conditions (e.g. volume of fluid, topography, and 

environmental setting). Field measures will differ in wetland versus upland areas and in wetlands 

will follow the FERC's Wetland and Waterbody Construction and Mitigation Procedures, where 

applicable. In wetlands, the most commonly utilized system for containment of surface releases of 

drilling fluid would incorporate a perimeter coffer constructed of hay bales and silt fences. Where 

this system of containment cannot be employed the containment procedures will be directed by the 

Chief Inspector assisted by the Chief Environmental Inspector to minimize the adverse impacts. 

Alternate mitigating methods within wetlands would include, but not be limited to: 

• damming of dry drainage swales using sandbags or plastic water structures. 

Document Accession #: 20060818-4000 Filed Date: 08/18/2006
CenterPoint Energy Gas Transmission Company 

Carthage to Perryville Project 

• isolation using skirted containment booms in inundated or aquatic environments. 

• isolation in shallow stream sections utilizing sandbags and plastic water structures. 

In upland areas, the most commonly utilized system for containment of surface releases of bentonite 

would incorporate a perimeter earthen berm or hay bales. Again, where this system of containment 

cannot be employed, containment procedures will be directed by the Chief Inspector assisted by the 

Chief Environmental Inspector, again, to minimize impact. 

Isolation under certain field conditions is virtually impossible. In the unlikely event that a 

release occurs within an area that cannot be isolated or contained, drilling operations will be 

stopped immediately. Upon evaluation by appropriate personnel a decision will be made on how 

best to continue the crossing construction which minimizes impacts. 

After containment, clean-up and restoration will generally be accomplished utilizing one of the 

following: 

• hand labor, hand tools and buckets; 

• portable pumps and hand tools; 

• rubber tired equipment and hand tools; and 

• vacuum trucks and hand tools. 

If a directional drill must be abandoned, the drill hole will be filled with drilling fluid and grout 

sealed for a distance of not less than thirty feet at each end. 

In the event of an inadvertent release of drilling fluid within a waterway, CEGT will 

immediately contact applicable agencies by telephone and/or facsimile detailing: 

• the location and nature of the release; 

• corrective actions being taken; and 

• whether the release poses and threat to public health and safety. 

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Project Manager will also be notified by 

telephone of an inadvertent water body release as well as in the reports submitted by CEGT. 

Document Accession #: 20060818-4000 Filed Date: 08/18/2006
Document Accession #: 20060818-4000 Filed Date: 08/18/2006

File [Appendix_E_Waterbody Crossings.PDF] cannot be converted to PDF. (Error: File not found)
Document Accession #: 20060818-4000 Filed Date: 08/18/2006

File [Appendix_F_Affected Wetlands.PDF] cannot be converted to PDF. (Error: File not found)
Document Accession #: 20060818-4000 Filed Date: 08/18/2006

File [Appendix_G_Extra Workspaces.PDF] cannot be converted to PDF. (Error: File not found)
Document Accession #: 20060818-4000 Filed Date: 08/18/2006

File [Appendix_H_Minor Route Variation Maps.PDF] cannot be converted to PDF. (Error: File not 

found)
Document Accession #: 20060818-4000 Filed Date: 08/18/2006

File [Appendix_I_Literature Cited.PDF] cannot be converted to PDF. (Error: File not found)
Document Accession #: 20060818-4000 Filed Date: 08/18/2006

File [Appendix_J_List of Preparers.PDF] cannot be converted to PDF. (Error: File not found)
APPENDIX K 

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS 

Document Accession #: 20060818-4000 Filed Date: 08/18/2006
U.S. Department Of The Interior 

K-1 Feder

Document Accession #: 20060818-4000 Filed Date: 08/18/2006
U.S. Department Of The Interior 

K-2 Feder

F1-1 Thank you for your comment. Sect

ESA consultation process for the prop

F1-2 Comment noted. We agree that fore

Project area provide valuable wildlife water quality functions, as discusseFinal EIS.

F1-1 Please refer to Section 3.4.3 of the F

specific impacts and mitigation to the (vicinity of MP 43.0). We concur thto the Cannisnia Basin forested wetwithin that wetland, might be feastherefore included a recommendatioconsult with FWS and LDWF to crossing plan that considers all pracwidth of the cleared right-of-way and trees within and adjacent to the coavoided. 

F1-3

F1-2 

F1-4 In response to this comment, we r

resolve any potential discrepancieworkspace areas and the delineated Creek forested wetland (MP 74.8 to investigation, CEGT verified the delineation and confirmed that the pquestion would be located outsiboundaries. CEGT determined composition appears similar within wetlands, the hydrology of that area are not present. All field delineationCOE Wetland Delineation Manual and the COE would be responsdelineations and permitting all weProject.

F1-3 

F1-4 

Document Accession #: 20060818-4000 Filed Date: 08/18/2006
U.S. Department Of The Interior 

K-3 Feder

Refer to Section 3.4.3 of the Final feasibility of implementing an HDD Sixmile Creek forested wetland (MP the high vegetative quality and habforested wetland, but we do not consiwould justify implementation of an Hthe resource relative to the minimum Section 3.4.3 of the Final EIS for addconcur that further minimization oforested wetland, particularly to matube feasible and appropriate. Wrecommendation in the Final EIS for LDWF to develop a site-specific weall practicable methods to minimize way and identifies how impacts to mthe construction right-of-way might b

F1-5 

F1-5 

F1-6 F1-7 F1-4 F1-8 

F1-6 As proposed, the crossing of the Sal

80.7 to MP 81.5) would be accomplisfoot-long HDD and conventional opeto Section 3.4.3 of the Final EIS for dof extending the Saline Bayou HDD wetland impacts. To minimize wawetland impacts, the proposed pipeliexisting electric transmission line righBayou. Construction effects and cumreduced by avoiding the creation undisturbed areas. For these reasons, increase in forested wetland impact aextension of the Saline Bayou HDD to 

F1-7 As proposed, the crossing of the Ca

112.9 to MP 113.5) would be accominstallation methods. Refer to Secdiscussion regarding the feasibility oto avoid impacts at the Castor Crehabitat and functional value of thpotential for an HDD crossing to entCreek forested wetland. Such a conventional bore of State Highway 3requirements, and eliminate the 

Document Accession #: 20060818-4000 Filed Date: 08/18/2006
U.S. Department Of The Interior 

K-4 Feder

Continued an ammonia pipeline. For these recommendation in the Final EIS focrossing rather than the proposed conforested wetland.

F1-7

F1-11 

F1-10 

F1-9 F1-8 

F1-8 In response to this request, we have 

the FWS Cutoff Bayou Variation) in that section, we have also included adopt a route variation that would futo the Cutoff Bayou forested wetland 

F1-9 Please see response to comments F

CEGT would minimize impacts to measures identified in our ProcedureCEGT has also indicated that compenwetland impacts would be provided mitigation bank credits in the area of 3.4.4 of the Final EIS, we have incluto consult with the COE, FWS, LDWagencies to further develop its compeWe appreciate the input and assistwetland impact avoidance and minimincluded a recommendation in the FEto develop site-specific plans that wimpacts to several forested wetlands iconsider that impacts to forested minimized given compliance with oour recommendations for developmenplans and incorporation of an additiocompensatory wetland mitigation plan

F1-10 F1-11 Section 3.4.4 of the Final EIS, and th

development of a compensatory maccordingly. 

Document Accession #: 20060818-4000 Filed Date: 08/18/2006
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

K-5 Feder

F2-2 

F2-1 Comment noted. Section 3.11.1 of t

discussion of air quality standarequirements. 

F2-1 F2-2 Thank you for your comments. 

Document Accession #: 20060818-4000 Filed Date: 08/18/2006
Texas Department Of Parks And Wildlife 

K-6 State 

S1-2 

S1-1 

S1-1 Comments noted. Project impacts to th

are addressed in Section 3.4.3.1 of the F

S1-2 In response to this comment, we includ

3.4.3.2 of the Final EIS that CEGT cocompensatory mitigation plan to offset Water Oak-Willow Oak Series that compensatory wetland mitigation plan. 

Document Accession #: 20060818-4000 Filed Date: 08/18/2006
Texas Department Of Parks And Wildlife 

K-7 State 

S1-3 

S1-5 

S1-4 

S1-2 

S1-3 Comment noted. As described in Secti

restoration would be accomplished in awhich include requirements for post-cosuccessful vegetative restoration. 

Thank you for your comment. CEGT’crossings outside the time window addressed in Section 3.3.2.2 of the Fina

S1-4S1-5 In Section 3.5.3.3 of the Final 

recommendation that CEGT develop incorporates FWS recommended measplant species, and following approval, agencies, including TPWD. We appreTPWD to date regarding the proposed which would include an HDD crossing to the river and the associated Wvegetative community. In Section 3included a recommendation for CEGT LDWF, TPWD, and other applicable compensatory wetland mitigation plan. 

Document Accession #: 20060818-4000 Filed Date: 08/18/2006
Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries 

K-8 

S2-2 

S2-1 

S2-1 Refer to Section 3.4.3 of the Final E

feasibility of implementing an HDD cCastor Creek forested wetland (MP 74.vegetative quality and habitat value wetland, but we do not consider that ajustify implementation of an HDD crresource relative to the minimum feaSection 3.4.3 of the final EIS for additconcur that further minimization of forested wetland, particularly to mature be feasible and appropriate. We recommendation in the Final EIS for CLDWF to develop a site-specific wetlall practicable methods to minimize thway and identifies how impacts to mathe construction right-of-way might be 

S2-2 Please see response to comment F1-5. 

Document Accession #: 20060818-4000 Filed Date: 08/18/2006
Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries 

K-9 

S2-3 Please see response to comment F1-6.

S2-7 

S2-6 S2-5 

S2-4 

S2-3 S2-2 

S2-4 Since the issuance of the Draft EI

variation in the vicinity of the Dugdempart of that reroute, CEGT has approximately 2,300-foot-long HDD cimpacts to the Dugdemona River fores95.5). Refer to Section 3.4.3 of the Fthe feasibility of extending the Dugdfurther avoid forested wetland impacDugdemona River HDD would introAdditionally, the affected landowner iCreek forested wetland has immediate including, and in addition to, the propof-way. For these reasons, we do proposed Dugdemona River HDD to b

S2-5 Please see response to comment F1-7.S2-6 Comment noted. In Section 4.4.6 of th

recommendation for CEGT to adopt a rreduce construction impacts to the Cut132.7 to 133.7). CEGT has also mitigation for unavoidable wetland imthe purchase of wetland mitigation bproposed Project. We have included 3.4.4 of the Final EIS for CEGT to LDWF, TPWD, and other applicable compensatory wetland mitigation plan. 

Document Accession #: 20060818-4000 Filed Date: 08/18/2006
Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries 

K-10 

S2-7 Comments noted. The proposed East T

evaluated separately by the FERC (seThe proposed East Texas Expansion Prand we are uncertain if or when that acpotential for cumulative impacts reoperation of the proposed Carthage Expansion Projects is addressed in Please see our responses to comments regarding recommendations for the Sixmile Creek, Dugdemona River, and 

S2-7 

Document Accession #: 20060818-4000 Filed Date: 08/18/2006
Transcript from Quitman High School Public Meeting 

K-11 P

Document Accession #: 20060818-4000 Filed Date: 08/18/2006
Transcript from Quitman High School Public Meeting 

K-12 P

Document Accession #: 20060818-4000 Filed Date: 08/18/2006
Transcript from Quitman High School Public Meeting 

K-13 P

Document Accession #: 20060818-4000 Filed Date: 08/18/2006
Transcript from Quitman High School Public Meeting 

K-14 P

Document Accession #: 20060818-4000 Filed Date: 08/18/2006
Transcript from Quitman High School Public Meeting 

K-15 P

Document Accession #: 20060818-4000 Filed Date: 08/18/2006
Transcript from Quitman High School Public Meeting 

K-16 P

Document Accession #: 20060818-4000 Filed Date: 08/18/2006
Transcript from Quitman High School Public Meeting 

K-17 P

Document Accession #: 20060818-4000 Filed Date: 08/18/2006
Transcript from Quitman High School Public Meeting 

K-18 P

Document Accession #: 20060818-4000 Filed Date: 08/18/2006
Transcript from Quitman High School Public Meeting 

K-19 P

Document Accession #: 20060818-4000 Filed Date: 08/18/2006
Transcript from Quitman High School Public Meeting 

K-20 P

Document Accession #: 20060818-4000 Filed Date: 08/18/2006
Transcript from Quitman High School Public Meeting 

K-21 P

Document Accession #: 20060818-4000 Filed Date: 08/18/2006
Transcript from Quitman High School Public Meeting 

K-22 P

P1-1 

Comment noted. Public notice of the issued in accordance with CEQ regulThe Draft EIS comment meeting wawhich was issued on May 26, 2006, anof availability of the Draft EIS Additionally, the Draft EIS commennewspapers in advance of the meeting to involve the general public, elected stakeholders throughout the EIS informational correspondence, and direview and comment. The public redescribed in more detail in Section 1.4 

P1-1 

Document Accession #: 20060818-4000 Filed Date: 08/18/2006
Transcript from Quitman High School Public Meeting 

K-23 P

P1-1 

P1-2 

The easement acquisition process for tin Section 3.8.2 of the Final EIS. The negotiations or in eminent domain cassolicits input from affected landowneEIS), and we have considered alenvironmental review of the proposCEGT and the FERC would mainconstruction of the proposed Project affected landowners and stakeholdercomments and ensure that any landoeffective and timely manner. 

P1-2 

Document Accession #: 20060818-4000 Filed Date: 08/18/2006
Transcript from Quitman High School Public Meeting 

K-24 P

P1-3 

P1-2 

Section 3.9 of the Final EIS addresseffects of the proposed Project, includand employment. CEGT estimates workers would be hired during constand five full-time positions would bgeneral, it is anticipated that constructiresult in a temporary, stimulatory effpotential for Project-related effecinfrastructure is considered in Section 

P1-3 

Document Accession #: 20060818-4000 Filed Date: 08/18/2006
Transcript from Quitman High School Public Meeting 

K-25 P

Document Accession #: 20060818-4000 Filed Date: 08/18/2006
Transcript from Delhi High School Public Meeting 

K-26 P

Document Accession #: 20060818-4000 Filed Date: 08/18/2006
Transcript from Delhi High School Public Meeting 

K-27 P

Document Accession #: 20060818-4000 Filed Date: 08/18/2006
Transcript from Delhi High School Public Meeting 

K-28 P

Document Accession #: 20060818-4000 Filed Date: 08/18/2006
Transcript from Delhi High School Public Meeting 

K-29 P

Document Accession #: 20060818-4000 Filed Date: 08/18/2006
Transcript from Delhi High School Public Meeting 

K-30 P

Document Accession #: 20060818-4000 Filed Date: 08/18/2006
Transcript from Delhi High School Public Meeting 

K-31 P

Document Accession #: 20060818-4000 Filed Date: 08/18/2006
Transcript from Delhi High School Public Meeting 

K-32 P

Document Accession #: 20060818-4000 Filed Date: 08/18/2006
Transcript from Delhi High School Public Meeting 

K-33 P

Document Accession #: 20060818-4000 Filed Date: 08/18/2006
Transcript from Delhi High School Public Meeting 

K-34 P

Document Accession #: 20060818-4000 Filed Date: 08/18/2006
Transcript from Delhi High School Public Meeting 

K-35 P

Document Accession #: 20060818-4000 Filed Date: 08/18/2006
Transcript from Delhi High School Public Meeting 

K-36 P

Document Accession #: 20060818-4000 Filed Date: 08/18/2006
Document Content(s)

Report Cover_and_Spine.PDF................................................1

Cover_Letter_to_the_Parties.PDF...........................................2

Table_of_Contents.PDF.....................................................3

Executive_Summary.PDF.....................................................4

Section_1_Introduction.PDF................................................5

Section_2_Proposed Action.PDF............................................18

Section_3_Environmental Analysis.PDF ....................................19

Section_4_Alternatives.PDF...............................................20

Section_5_Conclusions and Recommendations.PDF............................21

Appendix_A_Distribution List.PDF.........................................22

Appendix_B_Facility Location Maps.PDF....................................23

Appendix_C_Spill Prevention Plan.PDF ....................................28

Appendix_D_Directional Drill Contingency Plan.PDF........................29

Appendix_E_Waterbody Crossings.PDF.......................................32

Appendix_F_Affected Wetlands.PDF.........................................33

Appendix_G_Extra Workspaces.PDF..........................................34

Appendix_H_Minor Route Variation Maps.PDF ...............................35

Appendix_I_Literature Cited.PDF..........................................36

Appendix_J_List of Preparers.PDF.........................................37

Appendix_K_Response to Comments.PDF......................................38

Document Accession #: 20060818-4000 Filed Date: 08/18/2006