# Presentation: 224981

## PRCI Stakeholder Strategic Planning Conference 

- March 14, 2006
- Barton Creek Resort, Austin, Texas

**Robert J. Cupina**
*Deputy Director*
*Office of Energy Projects*
*U. S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission*

## Issues and Best Management Methods for Pipeline Construction Adjacent to Powerlines 

- Issues and Best Management Methods for Pipeline Construction Adjacent to Powerlines

- Co-location benefits versus electrical system vulnerability, construction techniques, offsets, etc.

- Co-location benefits versus electrical system vulnerability.

- Impact – could support or not support co-location.

**Notes:**
Collocation minimizes land-use impacts.
But transmission line routes are not always suitable for pipelines because powerlines can span areas that can be very difficult for pipeline installation.
Construction costs for pipelines can be higher adjacent to transmission powerlines.
Construction schedules are affected due to the need to coordinate with the power company.
Safety risks are higher for both the powerline and the pipeline.
A pipeline rupture can take out electric service.
Electric lines can cause induced current effects on the pipelines resulting in increased corrosion.
Conductor to ground faults from transmission lines are also a potential hazard to pipelines.

## Noise Effects from Pile-Driving on Fish and Other Aquatic Species 

- Will result in the use of mitigation only where required to protect aquatic species.
- Determine what species are most at risk, best mitigation method to reduce fish kills and impacts to other aquatic species (mammals, invertebrates).

- Noise impacts to threatened and endangered fish species and commercially and recreational fish species from LNG terminal construction.

- Testing of pile driving impacts to various species in areas where LNG terminals are proposed or under construction.

**Notes:**
Currently cannot address impacts of noise and impulsive pressure effects to aquatic species well.

Would enhance understanding of what T&E species, and which commercial fish species would be significantly impacted by pile driving noise within waterbodies.

Could result in quicker application processing once the issue is “laid to rest” with appropriate consensus guidelines.

Will have the net effect of reducing uncertainty and will reduce environmental information requests. We can be certain of what species would be impacted at only have mitigation only where it is needed.

## Water Uptake/Discharge and Air Emissions from LNG Tankers – Air, Water (Cold/Hot) 

- Impact – It is unknown how mitigation could be developed, given the variability of the LNG fleet and the lack of direct control by applicants.

- Water uptake by LNG carriers for cooling water and ballast is a common concern of NOAA.

- Survey of operating vessels could provide ranges for documenting impacts.

**Notes:**
FERC staff needs air emissions data to properly characterize shipping traffic from LNG carriers for Conformity Determinations.

Would result in quicker processing.  

Will have the net effect of reducing uncertainty and will significantly reduce environmental information requests. 

Will result in much more accurate estimates of shipping emissions which would result in a faster Conformity determination.

## Noise Associated with LNG Import Terminals

- May result in the use of mitigation only where required to protect aquatic species.
- Determine what species are most at risk, best mitigation method to reduce fish kills and impacts to other aquatic species (mammals, invertebrates).

- Need to understand the operational noise impacts from LNG Terminals.

**Notes:**
There is very little data on LNG ship noise and noise from LNG terminal operations. We have little understanding of how ship and unloading operations contribute to the overall noise impact. 

This should result in quicker processing

We would understand noise impacts of the facilities better and this in turn would reduce environmental information requests, and better validation of company noise data.

Would ensure that mitigation is needed only where necessary. In addition, we would ensure we are concentrating on the operations that truly are the primary noise generators.

## Noise Impacts due to Pipeline Blowdowns; Nature of the Impact & Mitigation if Appropriate 

- Determination Survey and review of NSAs  near compressor stations to establish the quantitative and qualitative impact to NSAs due to station blowdowns, the efficacy of installing blowdown silencers, and the perceived impacts to local residents.

- Investigation into reducing impacts to residents from essential infrastructure.

- Impact would determine when and if blowdown mitigation is necessary.

**Notes:**
We simply don’t know if requiring Compressor Station blowdown silencers are necessary in all cases. In addition, we don’t know the frequency of these incidents, the perceived noise at NSAs, and the amount of annoyance to residents.

This should have no impact on our process

We would determine how much of an issue this is to local residents, reduce unnecessary mitigation, and reduce need for lengthy information requests and noise mitigation plans.

## Coastal Marsh Impacts from Pipeline Construction 

- Could confirm/refute the severity of impacts.  Either reduces or increases construction costs.
- Survey past construction and interview agency personnel.

- Important for LNG sendout pipelines.

**Notes:**
Coastal marsh impacts are of particular concern in the Gulf Coastal States where insufficient or improper restoration of affected areas can lead to more extensive effects due to subsidence of pipeline backfill and increased wave action on adjacent areas.

Severity of the impact will influence mitigation recommendations from resource agencies (e.g., NOAA, FWS)

## LNG Vessel Transit Impacts to Marine Mammals and Sea Turtles 

- A big issue for NOAA and the USCG CEU.
- Cost would involve improving avoidance guidelines, modifying transit corridors.
- Would require a review of vessel strikes, common species affected, and avoidance strategies.  Could be co-funded by NOAA.

**Notes:**
background
Several threatened or endangered species of sea turtles, including loggerhead, hawksbill, leatherback, green, and Kemp’s ridley
Endangered marine mammal species include sperm whale and right whale
Northern right whales are the rarest species of large whale, with an estimated population size of fewer than 300
Whales and sea turtles are susceptible to ship strikes, especially when traveling along migratory routes that coincide with shipping lanes
In the first half of 2005, about 5 percent of the total northern right whale female breeding population was killed by ship strikes, including two pregnant females
issues
Issue:  how to adequately consult when the specifics of the shipping aspect of the project (e.g., shipping company, ship size, ship speeds, shipping routes, shipping frequency) are typically not know at the time of project review.  
Issue:  Jurisdictional issues--LNG ships typically come from other countries and much of the shipping routes cross international waters.
what we do now
FERC responsibility under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act requires that FERC-authorized activities do not jeopardize the continued existence of federally listed species.  Thus, FERC will enter informal or formal Section 7 consultation regarding potential impacts on listed sea turtles and marine mammals during the review process of projects that would include LNG vessel transit.
We typically require applicants to discuss measures with NOAA to reduce ship strikes on listed species, including possible use of NOAA’s Strategy to Reduce Ship Strikes of Right Whales
looking ahead--suggestions
Increase FERC involvement with the Mandatory Ship Reporting System, a Coast Guard/NOAA effort that helps large ships avoid known whale locations
Use recent monitoring reports to assess the effectiveness of vessel strike plans and look for ways to improve measures for strike avoidance on a site-specific (or route-specific) basis.

## Stream Crossings – Available Technologies and Expected Impacts

- Stream crossing technology discussions affect nearly every project.
- Results may argue for more/fewer dry cut crossings.
- Canadian Pipeline Water Crossing Committee did a study in 1998.  This study could update the technology and provide information for regions of the United States.

**Notes:**
FERC must address resource agency concerns for impacts to aquatic and riparian habitats

Applicants might argue that certain methods are cost prohibitive for particular situations

FERC staff can benefit from a better understanding of what methods are feasible and commensurate with appropriate resource protection needs.

FERC staff would be in a better position to address/negotiate options with resource agencies if there were a comprehensive database and established guidelines for stream crossing methods. 

## More Information

- Robert.Cupina@ferc.gov
- 202/502-8700