II. RESPUESTA A COMENTARIOS SOBRE EL BORRADOR

DE LA DECLARACIÓN DE IMPACTO AMBIENTAL

i

PROYECTO DEL TERMINAL MARÍTIMO DE GNL DE AGUIRRE

DECLARACIÓN DE IMPACTO AMBIENTAL FINAL

RESPUESTA A COMENTARIOS SOBRE EL BORRADOR

DE LA DECLARACIÓN DE IMPACTO AMBIENTAL

ÍNDICE

Número de documento/Comentarista Página

AGENCIAS ...........................................................................................................................................AG-1

AG01 – Puerto Rico Department of Agriculture.............................................................................AG-1

AG02 – NOAA National Marine Fisheries Services.......................................................................AG-2

AG03 – USDA Rural Utilities Service..........................................................................................AG-21

AG04 – U.S. Department of Interior, Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance..............AG-22

AG05 – U.S. Army Corps of Engineers........................................................................................AG-23

AG06 – U.S. Environmental Protection Agency...........................................................................AG-34

AG07 – U.S. Geological Survey ...................................................................................................AG-43

AG08 – Puerto Rico Department of Natural and Environmental Resource ..................................AG-44

AG09 – Municipal of Salinas, Mayor Karilyn Bonilla Colon.......................................................AG-51

AG10 – U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ........................................................................................AG-55

AG11 – U.S. Department of Transportation, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety

Administration ...................................................................................................................AG-64

COMPAÑÍAS Y ORGANIZACIONES................................................................................................CO-1

CO01 – Center for Biological Diversity.......................................................................................... CO-1

CO02 – Comite Dialogo Ambiental, Inc. part of Iniciativa de Ecodesarrollo de 

Bahia de Jobos, Inc. ........................................................................................................... CO-14

CO03 – James Goodman, PhD...................................................................................................... CO-49

CO04 – Mount Sinai Hospital, Pediatric Environmental Health and Specialty Unit.................... CO-65

CO05 – Puerto Rico Fishermen’s Federation and Defenders of the Sea, Inc................................ CO-67

CO06 – Puerto Rico Manufacturers Association .......................................................................... CO-68

CO07 – Mesa de Dialogo Energetico de Puerto Rico ................................................................... CO-69

CO08 –Puerto Rico Manufacturers Association ........................................................................... CO-77

PERSONAS INDIVIDUALES.............................................................................................................IND-1

IND01 – Luis Vazquez Garcia on behalf of Salinas Municipality Mayor,

Honorable Karilyn Bonilla Colon.......................................................................................IND-1

IND02 – Kathleen de Onis.............................................................................................................IND-2

IND03 – Jimmy H. Vazquez ..........................................................................................................IND-4
ÍNDICE (continuación)

Número de documento/Comentarista Página

ii

IND04 – Jimmy H. Vazquez-Aran.................................................................................................IND-9

IND05 – Victor Gonzalez.............................................................................................................IND-11

IND06 – Mithriel MacKay ...........................................................................................................IND-15

IND07 – Alfredo Mendez.............................................................................................................IND-20

IND08 – Jacqueline Rosado .........................................................................................................IND-21

IND09 – Noelle Mendez ..............................................................................................................IND-21

IND10 – Walter M. Ruiz..............................................................................................................IND-22

IND11 – Fernando Gomez ...........................................................................................................IND-24

IND12 – Miriam Gallardo............................................................................................................IND-26

REUNIONES PÚBLICAS.....................................................................................................................PM-1

PM01 – Public Meeting in Guayama, Puerto Rico ......................................................................... PM-1

PM02 – Public Meeting in Salinas, Puerto Rico ........................................................................... PM-37

POSTULANTE.......................................................................................................................................AP-1

AP01 – Aguirre Offshore GasPort, LLC..........................................................................................AP-1
AG-1

AGENCIAS

AGENCIAS

AG01 – Puerto Rico Department of Agriculture

AG01-01 Comment noted.
AG-2

AGENCIAS

AG02 – NOAA National Marine Fisheries Services
AG-3

AGENCIAS

AG02 – NOAA National Marine Fisheries Services (cont’d)
AG-4

AGENCIAS

AG02 – NOAA National Marine Fisheries Services (cont’d)

AG02-01 Section 4.12.2.1 has been updated to include a statement that there will be no change 

in the current intake and discharge rates of the existing Aguirre Power Complex 

(Aguirre Plant).
AG-5

AGENCIAS

AG02 – NOAA National Marine Fisheries Services (cont’d)

AG02-02 Section 3.3.1 has been updated and augmented to address the possibility of expanding 

the EcoEléctrica LNG (EcoEléctrica) facility to allow it to provide natural gas to the 

Aguirre Plant. This system alternative would not be viable due to the timing, the 

involvement of another commercial entity, and the indication (based on recent 

history) from the government of Puerto Rico and its people that construction of the 

pipeline would be opposed. 

AG02-03 We agree that the pipeline route as proposed through the Boca del Infierno would 

result in impacts on federally endangered corals to a level we find to be unacceptable. 

Therefore, in section 3.6, we are recommending an alternative construction method or

pipeline route that would substantially reduce impacts on sensitive benthic resources. 

Section 3.5 of the draft environmental impact statement (EIS) was revised to explain 

the scope that we established for reasonable offshore alternative sites. The final EIS 

provides additional information on the alternative terminal sites to support the 

analysis. Site selection criteria shows that the proposed site ranked well in meeting 

the site selection criteria. 
AG-6

AGENCIAS

AG02 – NOAA National Marine Fisheries Services (cont’d)

AG02-04 Section 3.6 was updated to address in more detail the potential for a horizontal 

directional drill (HDD) of the Boca del Infierno pass. Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission’s (FERC or Commission) recommendation to Aguirre Offshore GasPort, 

LLC (Aguirre LLC) is to further study the HDD and, if it is determined to be 

infeasible, we recommend the Commission direct Aguirre LLC to construct 

Alternative Route 6.

AG02-05 Section 4.5.2 reviews the impact of trenching and we recommend that Aguirre LLC

update the Benthic Resources Mitigation Plan to include 5 years of post-construction 

monitoring of the areas where the pipeline and/or concrete mats are above grade to 

determine if the mats are preventing the migration of conch, urchins, sea cucumber, 

and other mobily impaired benthic organisms. 

AG02-06 Section 3.8 of the final EIS provides an analysis of liquefied natural gas (LNG)

vaporization alternatives. 
AG-7

AGENCIAS

AG02 – NOAA National Marine Fisheries Services (cont’d)

AG02-07 To address concerns over the scientific information provided, we are recommending

that Aguirre LLC consult with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration’s (NOAA) National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) regarding the 

type of screen to be used for hydrostatic test water withdrawal. In addition, we are 

recommending that Aguirre LLC continue to consult with NMFS, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (FWS), the Puerto Rico Department of Natural Environmental 

Resources (DNER), and other agencies to establish and continue a monitoring 

program through Aguirre LLC’s Benthic Resources Mitigation Plan. Also see 

sections 4.4.3 and 4.5.2.4 of the EIS.

AG02-08 Aguirre LLC has proposed a work plan to conduct pre-operation baseline 

ichthyoplankton surveys at the offshore terminal to address potential entrainment 

impacts on various species, including groupers. Additional analysis has been 

included in section 4.5.4.3 related to our recommendation to develop mitigation 

measures for entrainment activities. 
AG-8

AGENCIAS

AG02 – NOAA National Marine Fisheries Services (cont’d)

AG02-09 Section 3.8 was prepared to address alternative vaporization technologies and provide

a discussion of the seawater volume regasification technologies of the Calypso LNG 

Deepwater Port and Port Dolphin projects. 

AG02-10 Due to the revised construction methods, subsea surface currents are not anticipated 

to change. Therefore, no significant impacts on coral larvae and ichthyoplankton are 

anticipated. Pipeline burial would ensure that the subsea and surface currents are not 

altered. 

AG02-11 Seawater withdrawal estimates are discussed in section 4.3.1.3. Seawater intake 

depths are variable across the different visiting LNG carriers, but can be expected to 

be similar to the Floating Storage and Regasification Unit (FSRU) intake depths. 
AG-9

AGENCIAS

AG02 – NOAA National Marine Fisheries Services (cont’d)
AG-10

AGENCIAS

AG02 – NOAA National Marine Fisheries Services (cont’d)
AG-11

AGENCIAS

AG02 – NOAA National Marine Fisheries Services (cont’d)
AG-12

AGENCIAS

AG02 – NOAA National Marine Fisheries Services (cont’d)

AG02-12 The final EIS recommends in sections 4.4.3, 4.5.2.4, and 4.5.3 that comprehensive 

monitoring and management mitigation be developed by Aguirre LLC in consultation 

with NMFS. 

AG02-13 Section 4.5.2 the final EIS was expanded to provide additional information on the 

current environment and surveys completed. 

AG02-14 Section 4.3.1.1 has been updated to include acoustic Doppler data from an existing 

Caribbean Coastal Ocean Observing System (CariCOOS) buoy located approximately 

20 miles west of the proposed Aguirre Offshore GasPort Project (Project) location. 

NMFS could consider requiring areal extent of coral larval transport mechanisms 

through the Benthic Resources Mitigation Plan. 

AG02-15 See the response to comment AG02-12. 
AG-13

AGENCIAS

AG02 – NOAA National Marine Fisheries Services (cont’d)

AG02-16 In section 4.5.4, we are recommending that a pre-operations ichthyoplankton baseline 

survey and monitoring plan be developed. Once this additional baseline study has 

been performed, we recommend that Aguirre LLC develop mitigation measures for 

entrainment impacts on ichthyoplankton and coral larvae associated with Project 

operations and water use required for construction and operation activities. This plan 

should include a 3- or 5-year operational study to analyze water intake impacts 

associated with Project operations. 

AG02-17 The draft Benthic Resources Mitigation Plan includes mitigation for impacts on 

essential fish habitat (EFH), primarily by relocating seagrasses impacted by the 

pipeline and relocating corals impacted by the pipeline and offshore terminal. This 

Benthic Resources Mitigation Plan will assist in identifying impacts on the fisheries

as well as potential mitigation measures.

AG02-18 We updated section 3.8 to include a review of water use associated with various 

vaporization technologies.

Alternative pipeline installation procedures are discussed in sections 3.6 and 4.5.2.4, 

including the use of an HDD to reduce impacts on coral reef habitat within the Boca 

del Infierno pass.

See the response to comment AG02-16.

Section 4.5.2.4 has been updated to summarize the draft Benthic Resources

Mitigation Plan (see appendix D) provided by Aguirre LLC to address impacts on

coral and seagrass resources in the Project area. 
AG-14

AGENCIAS

AG02 – NOAA National Marine Fisheries Services (cont’d)

AG02-19 Section 4.5.3.3 has been updated and states that if a marine mammal not listed under 

the Endangered Species Act (ESA) may be adversely affected by the proposed action, 

a take authorization under the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (MMPA) may 

be necessary.

AG02-20 Aguirre LLC has committed to having Marine Mammal Observers (MMO on all 

construction vessels to minimize impacts on marine mammals and sea turtles. In 

addition, we are recommending in section 4.5.3.3 that Aguirre LLC coordinate with 

the NMFS, FWS, and DNER to develop an MMO training and response protocol plan 

for the construction and operation phases of the Project. We believe that Aguirre 

LLC’s commitment and our recommendations would minimize impacts on these 

species.
AG-15

AGENCIAS

AG02 – NOAA National Marine Fisheries Services (cont’d)

AG02-21 Section 4.5.2.4 of the final EIS has been updated to include the change in coral listing 

status and provide a revised assessment of impact. 

AG02-22 Section 4.6 has been updated to reflect the change in listing status (proposed 

threatened) for the Nassau grouper. Aguirre LLC has proposed a work plan to 

conduct pre-operation baseline ichthyoplankton surveys at the offshore terminal to 

address potential entrainment impacts on various species, including groupers. Also

see the response to comment AG02-10.

AG02-23 Section 4.6 has been updated to reflect the current threatened status of the species. 

Section 4.6.1.4 states "both [shark] species have the potential to occur in the Project 

area."

We updated the EIS to include Aguirre LLC’s modified pipeline design. We state in 

section 4.5.2.4 that, because the majority of the pipeline would be buried at or below 

grade, we do not anticipate that these buried segments of pipeline would present a 

barrier to migration for conch. However, we are recommending that Aguirre LLC 

update its Benthic Resources Mitigation Plan to include 5 years of post-construction 

monitoring of the areas where the pipeline and/or concrete mats are above grade to 

determine if the mats are preventing the migration of conch.
AG-16

AGENCIAS

AG02 – NOAA National Marine Fisheries Services (cont’d)

AG02-24 Based on the results of the marine mammal and sea turtle surveys conducted by 

Aguirre LLC, the proposed mitigation measures (e.g., utilizing MMOs, reduced 

vessel speeds), and our recommendation in section 4.5.3.3, we concluded that 

additional surveys are not warranted.

AG02-25 We updated the acoustic modeling analyses in section 4.5.3.3 and are recommending 

that Aguirre LLC confirm that it would use bubble curtains during construction and 

file detailed noise mitigation protocol to address potential impacts on marine 

mammals and sea turtles. Further, this information will be included in the Biological 

Assessment (BA) that will be submitted to the FWS and NMFS.

AG02-26 Vessel strike data for large whales and sea turtles have been summarized in sections 

4.5.3 and 4.6. While the risk of a vessel striking a sea turtle or marine mammal 

cannot be quantified, it is known to exist. Mitigation measures have been proposed to 

avoid and minimize the risk. 

AG02-27 Sections 4.5 and 4.6 have been updated to include steps Aguirre LLC would take to 

implement NMFS' guidelines for vessel strike avoidance, reporting, and in-water 

construction. We have recommended in section 4.5.3.3 that, prior to construction, 

Aguirre LLC should coordinate with appropriate agencies to develop a detailed MMO 

training and response protocol plan for construction and operation phases of the 

Project. The plan should provide appropriate measures to avoid and minimize 

potential vessel strikes of manatees and sea turtles and incorporate the FWS's manatee 

conservation measure for in-water work, where applicable. In addition, Aguirre LLC 

should restrict the transit of crew boats to daytime trips during construction and 

operation to allow for the observation of marine mammals and decrease the potential 

for vessel strikes. The plan should also require that travel speeds for Project 

construction-related vessels be reduced to no-wake (5 miles per hour [4.3 knots])

levels, especially in waters shallower than 10 feet. 
AG-17

AGENCIAS

AG02 – NOAA National Marine Fisheries Services (cont’d)

AG02-28 As stated in section 4.5.3.3, we are recommending that, prior to construction, Aguirre 

LLC develop a lighting plan that identifies specific measures that would be 

implemented to minimize or avoid impacts associated with the Project’s operational 

nighttime lighting on avian species, fish species, marine mammals, various life stages 

of sea turtles, and people on the shoreline. The plan should also analyze if the Project 

could artificially induce biological aggregations. The analysis should provide 

empirical evidence of how those potential aggregations could affect local fisheries 

and ecotourism. 

AG02-29 Section 4.6.2 was updated to provide additional information on potential thermal 

effects on ESA-listed species.

AG02-30 Aguirre LLC has proposed a work plan to conduct pre-operation baseline 

ichthyoplankton surveys at the offshore terminal to address potential entrainment 

impacts on various species, including groupers. In addition, we are recommending in 

section 4.5.4.3 that Aguirre LLC develop mitigation measures for entrainment 

impacts of ichthyoplankton and coral larvae associated with Project operations. 

AG02-31 The potential for sea turtle impingement has been summarized in section 4.6.2. Coral 

and Nassau grouper life stage entrainment and impingement impacts will be analyzed 

after the pre-operation coral larvae and ichthyoplankton surveys have been completed 

and the results are analyzed in collaboration with NMFS. 

AG02-32 The U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) are 

responsible for navigation and safety of the Project area. Each agency has standards

with which the Project would be required to comply that should provide sufficient 

warnings to people about the presence of the pipeline and the facility. In addition, we 

are recommending the preparation of a construction access plan that would minimize 

the disruption to mariners from the construction and operation of the facility. 

AG02-33 As discussed in section 4.3.1.3, Aguirre LLC would implement the mitigation 

measures in the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) 

construction stormwater discharge permit and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan

(SWPPP) developed for the Project to avoid or minimize water quality impacts on 

shore and in the bay. 
AG-18

AGENCIAS

AG02 – NOAA National Marine Fisheries Services (cont’d)

AG02-34 Each alternative would require a similar period of construction due to similarity of 

pipeline length for each alternative. The final EIS discusses the revised construction 

period required to bury the pipeline.

AG02-35 As discussed in section 4.2.3.2, FERC commissioned a study to predict the suspended 

sediment concentrations and subsequent transport and deposition resulting from handjetting/suction activities during the burial of the pipeline. Based on the results of 

these surveys, we determined that impacts on ESA species would be limited to the 

construction workspace as described in sections 4.5 and 4.6.

AG02-36 Sections 4.5 and 4.6 have been updated, where applicable, to include impacts on ESA 

resources associated with the mentioned water quality constituents that would be 

released into the water column during Project construction and/or operation. All 

operational discharges would be subject to the requirements of the NPDES permit for 

the Project. See the response to comment AG08-04 describing the proposed use of a 

copper-anode system as the anti-fouling agent. See the responses to comments

AG08-21 and CO01-15 related to bilge water and ballast water associated with the 

Project, respectively. 

AG02-37 See the responses to comments AG02-10 and AG02-18.

AG02-38 A summary of existing water conditions from the National Estuarine Research 

Reserve System-Wide Monitoring Program is included in section 4.3.1.1, including a 

range of existing turbidity levels. All operational discharges would be subject to the 

requirements of the NPDES permit for the Project. 
AG-19

AGENCIAS

AG02 – NOAA National Marine Fisheries Services (cont’d)
AG-20

AGENCIAS

AG02 – NOAA National Marine Fisheries Services (cont’d)
AG-21

AGENCIAS

AG03 – USDA Rural Utilities Service

AG03-01 As indicated in section 1.0 of the EIS, the U.S. Department of Agriculture became a 

cooperating agency in the preparation of the EIS.
AG-22

AGENCIAS

AG04 – U.S. Department of Interior, Office of Environmental 

Policy and Compliance 

AG04-01 Comment noted.
AG-23

AGENCIAS

AG05 – U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

AG05-01 We disagree. The proposed site and the site selection criteria included seafloor 

stability, minimization of impact on marine resources, and distance to shore to 

determine a valid range of alternatives. As stated in section 3.5, no other terminal site 

evaluated offered a reasonable environmental alternative to the proposed site. In 

accordance with the Council on Environmental Quality’s (CEQ) regulations, we 

determined that the proposed site was feasible and would not result in a significant 

environmental impact. To make this determination, we considered Aguirre LLC’s 

mitigation plans, agency comments received, and our recommendations within this 

EIS. Based on our analysis of the proposed site and the alternative sites, we found no 

compelling reason to review additional alternative sites.
AG-24

AGENCIAS

AG05 – U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (cont’d)

AG05-02 For our comparison of impacts in the EIS, because the success of an HDD is unknown 

for the Boca del Infierno pass, our analysis assumes a direct lay through coral areas of 

the proposed route and each of the alternative routes, though we do note where we 

believe important impacts would be reduced if the HDD method or Alternate Route 6 

is adopted by Aguirre LLC or authorized by the Commission.

AG05-03 We are recommending in section 4.4.3 that, prior to construction, Aguirre LLC 

should, among other requirements, comply with the standard requirements found in 

the COE’s Compensatory Mitigation Rule under the Clean Water Act section 404 

regulatory program to finalize the Benthic Resources Mitigation Plan. In addition, 

FERC has recommended environmental conditions for Commission consideration to 

address mitigation measures for seagrass, coral, entrainment, lighting, and 

construction noise. In addition, the EIS has been revised where appropriate to further 

develop our analysis of the impacts.

AG05-04 Sections 4.5 and 4.6 discuss potential impacts on wildlife from noise associated with 

construction and operation of the Project and provide an analysis of noise mitigation 

options, primarily using bubble curtain technology and ramp-up methods to be 

performed by Aguirre LLC. We have recommended that, prior to construction, 

Aguirre LLC should verify that it would use confined bubble curtains when 

conducting vibratory and hammer pile activities and should develop a detailed noise 

mitigation protocol for the safety exclusion zone (0.3 mile) that identifies when the 

noise mitigation protocol would be implemented during construction.

AG05-05 Section 4.7.7 was updated with an additional recommendation that would require

Aguirre LLC to develop a construction access plan to minimize the impacts on the 

community during construction of the facilities.
AG-25

AGENCIAS

AG05 – U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (cont’d)

AG05-06 Section 4.1.3.1 has been updated to require a revised Seismic Hazard Analysis Report

that includes both the Great Southern Puerto Rico Fault Zone and Salinas Faults,

which would be consistent with the location and seismic characterization of these 

faults provided in the May 2014 Bureau of Reclamation reports.

AG05-07 The statement that FERC must complete its consultations prior to issuing the final 

EIS is incorrect. FERC routinely completes Section 7 and EFH (and Section 106) 

consultations between Commission approval and authorization to begin project 

construction. Due to recent revisions in construction methods, FERC will 

recommence its Section 7 ESA and EFH consultations with the FWS and NMFS. As 

detailed in section 4.9.4, FERC has completed its Section 106 consultation with the 

State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). 

AG05-08 This EIS provides sufficient detail to enable the reader to understand and consider the 

issues raised by the proposed Project and address a reasonable range of alternatives. 

Provided that the Commission adopts the recommendations as required actions in any 

authorization for the Project, the FERC staff’s conclusions as to the level of impact on 

the resources are valid. Part of FERC’s permitting process requires that an applicant 

comply with such mandatory conditions prior to requesting authorization for 

construction.
AG-26

AGENCIAS

AG05 – U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (cont’d)

AG05-09 The existing vessel traffic through the Boca del Infierno pass would not change due to 

the presence of the pipeline because we are recommending that the pipeline be either 

constructed by HDD through the Boca del Infierno pass or rerouted, primarily to 

avoid impacts on coral resources in this area. Further, we are recommending in 

section 4.7.7 that Aguirre LLC develop a construction access plan to minimize the 

impacts on the community (e.g., boating, fishing) during construction of the facilities.

AG05-10 Due to recent revisions to construction methods, FERC will recommence its 

consultations with the FWS and NMFS. As detailed in section 4.9.4, FERC has 

completed its Section 106 consultation with the SHPO. The FERC understands that 

the COE may wait until the FERC completes any outstanding consultations before 

issuing any COE-related permits for the Project. 
AG-27

AGENCIAS

AG05 – U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (cont’d)

AG05-11 We have recommended that, prior to construction, Aguirre LLC should verify that it 

would use confined bubble curtains when conducting vibratory and hammer pile 

activities and should develop a detailed noise mitigation protocol for the safety 

exclusion zone (0.3 mile) that identifies when the noise mitigation protocol would be 

implemented during construction.

AG05-12 In a filing dated November 14, 2014, Aguirre LLC stated that, due to additional 

consultations with the USCG and its intent to bury the pipeline, it would not be 

required to place "Aids to Navigation" on the pipeline. Section 1.2.4 has been revised 

to remove this permit.

AG05-13 We clarify here that Aguirre LLC would comply with the requirements in our 

Wetland and Waterbody Construction and Mitigation Procedures to minimize 

impacts along the shore from onshore construction of the proposed pipeline within the 

Aguirre Plant.
AG-28

AGENCIAS

AG05 – U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (cont’d)

AG05-14 Comment noted.

AG05-15 The final EIS has been revised to clarify estimated impact numbers to facilitate the 

reader's understanding of the Project. 

AG05-16 See the response to comment AG05-01.
AG-29

AGENCIAS

AG05 – U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (cont’d)

AG05-17 The sentence in section 3.6 has been updated to include the COE. 

AG05-18 An HDD is recommended for the Boca del Infierno pass in order to avoid specifically 

identified sensitive benthic resources, including federally listed corals. It is not 

intended to merely avoid the benthos in general. Further, because the other pipeline 

route alternatives were dismissed for reasons other than potential impacts on federally 

listed species, there is no need to evaluate an HDD for these routes. Also see the 

response to comment AG02-04. 
AG-30

AGENCIAS

AG05 – U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (cont’d)

AG05-19 Section 3.5 has been updated to include a discussion of permanent impacts, where 

applicable.

AG05-20 The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) does not require the FERC to 

determine if the proposed action is the “best” practical alternative. The FERC criteria 

for evaluating alternatives are clearly described in section 3.0. We did, however, 

conclude that the proposed action (specifically, the proposed pipe lay through the 

Boca del Infierno pass) was not environmentally acceptable. As such, we have 

included recommended alternatives that would reduce impacts to an acceptable level. 

AG05-21 Text has been inserted where necessary to discuss the impact of the temporary 

exclusion zones during construction. We have recommended that Aguirre LLC 

prepare and submit a Construction Access Plan for review and approval.
AG-31

AGENCIAS

AG05 – U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (cont’d)

AG05-22 See the response to comment AG05-07.

AG05-23 The duplicate sentence in section 4.12.2.2 has been removed.

AG05-24 See the response to comment AG05-07.
AG-32

AGENCIAS

AG05 – U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (cont’d)
AG-33

AGENCIAS

AG05 – U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (cont’d)
AG-34

AGENCIAS

AG06 – U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
AG-35

AGENCIAS

AG06 – U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (cont’d)

AG06-01 Section 4.6 has been updated to reflect the newly listed ESA coral species. 

Additional avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures have been summarized.

AG06-02 A summary of the draft Benthic Resources Mitigation Plan has been added to section 

4.5.2.4 and included as appendix D. This EIS provides sufficient detail to enable the 

reader to understand and consider the issues raised by the proposed Project and 

address a reasonable range of alternatives. While some information is still pending at 

this time, the lack of this final information does not deprive the public of a 

meaningful opportunity to comment on the Project. Further, we are recommending in 

section 4.5.2.4 that Aguirre LLC provide a determination on whether the HDD is a 

viable construction method. Lastly, all of the information filed by Aguirre LLC, in

accordance with the recommendations in the EIS, is available for the public to review 

on the FERC’s eLibrary website.

AG06-03 During the environmental review of the Project, we requested information regarding 

the applicability of the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS). In subsequent 

filings, Aguirre LLC’s interpretation of the applicability of these requirements 

changed on several occasions. We will defer to the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency’s (EPA) authority on the applicable requirements and the actual air quality 

permit issued by the EPA for this Project.

AG06-04 Section 4.3.1.3 has been updated to reflect changes in the applicant's NPDES permit. 

The thermodynamic calculations were not added to the final EIS but were submitted 

in Aguirre LLC’s response to our August 23, 2013 data request as attachment 3-1 

(Pipe Heat Loss Calculations) in attachment B (Accession Number 20130912-5100). 

Section 4.3.2.3 was also updated to clarify that the Stormwater Pollution Prevention 

Plan would be developed as part of the NPDES application.

AG06-05 The final EIS has been updated to reflect all changes to the proposed action. See 

section 2.3.4 for a description of the new construction methods.
AG-36

AGENCIAS

AG06 – U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (cont’d)
AG-37

AGENCIAS

AG06 – U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (cont’d)

AG06-06 The distances to each populated area have been added to section 3.5.

AG06-07 Table 3.5-1 (formerly 3.4-1) has been corrected to be consistent with Resource Report 

10, stating that the seafloor condition at site 4 is "favorable.”

AG06-08 There are limited data available on beachgoers on the cays except for anecdotal 

information. The area provides alternative options for beachgoers and fisherman.

AG06-09 See the response to comment AG06-04.

AG06-10 Section 4.3.1.3 has been updated to include the information in Aguirre LLC’s August 

22, 2014 NPDES application. All of the discharge sources are discussed in the EIS; 

however, they are not listed in the same order as found in the NPDES application. 

AG06-11 Section 4.3.1.3 has been updated to include a citation for the interim mixing zone 

application.

AG06-12 See the response to comment AG06-04.

AG06-13 Section 4.2.3.2 has been updated with the results of the sedimentation analysis 

provided by Aguirre LLC on September 29, 2014 (Accession number: 20140929-

5220) and the results of our own analysis. 
AG-38

AGENCIAS

AG06 – U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (cont’d)

AG06-14 See the response to comment AG06-04.

AG06-15 See the response to comment AG06-03.
AG-39

AGENCIAS

AG06 – U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (cont’d)

AG06-16 Although not required by Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality

(PSD) permit regulations, FERC requested that Aguirre LLC perform an Offshore and 

Coastal Dispersion Model (OCD) modeling analysis to study the impacts from both 

the offshore and onshore stationary sources. The EPA requested data concerning this 

OCD modeling analysis, as well as several questions on how the modeling was 

performed. A copy of the OCD modeling analysis was provided to the EPA.

AG06-17 See the response to comment AG06-16.

AG06-18 See the response to comment AG06-16.

AG06-19 See the response to comment AG06-16.
AG-40

AGENCIAS

AG06 – U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (cont’d)

AG06-20 See the response to comment AG06-16.

AG06-21 See the response to comment AG06-16.

AG06-22 See the response to comment AG06-16.

AG06-23 See the response to comment AG06-16.

AG06-24 Tables have been updated per Aguirre LLC’s response to the EPA's data request.

AG06-25 Section 4.5.2.4 has been revised to clarify that pipeline scouring was included in the 

permanent impacts analysis. 
AG-41

AGENCIAS

AG06 – U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (cont’d)

AG06-26 Aguirre LLC intends to keep construction and support vessels within the construction 

right-of-way width. The use of the spud-leg anchoring system would minimize 

seafloor disturbance. The EIS reflects impacts associated with Project construction 

activities, including the use of support vessels.

AG06-27 Section 4.5.2.4 has been updated to summarize the draft Benthic Resources

Mitigation Plan (appendix D) provided by Aguirre LLC to address impacts on coral 

and seagrass resources in the Project area. We are also recommending that Aguirre 

LLC finalize this plan in consultation with the appropriate agencies, as well as 

recommending that an HDD be used across the Boca del Infierno pass, if feasible.

AG06-28 Section 4.5.2 has been updated to describe where Aguirre LLC would place the 

pipeline at or below grade and where concrete mats would be used for pipeline safety. 

Potential impacts on Queen conch using the newly proposed construction measures 

have been summarized. We have recommended that, prior to the start of construction, 

Aguirre LLC should update the Benthic Resources Mitigation Plan to include 5 years 

of post-construction monitoring of the areas where the pipeline and/or concrete mats 

are above grade to determine if the mats are preventing the migration of conch, 

urchins, sea cucumber, and other mobily impaired benthic organisms. 

AG06-29 In section 4.4.3, we are recommending that Aguirre LLC expand the draft Benthic 

Resources Mitigation Plan to include mitigation measures for the shading impacts on 

seagrasses at the offshore berthing platform.

AG06-30 There are no established thresholds of significance criteria for Project greenhouse gas 

(GHG) emissions by Puerto Rico Environmental Quality Board (EQB) or the EPA. 

Therefore, absent any significance thresholds, we compared the Project’s GHG 

emissions to the Puerto Rico GHG emissions inventory.

AG06-31 Operation of Aguirre LLC’s FSRU is under the authority of the USCG, and FERC 

has jurisdiction over operation of the offshore berthing platform. However, we would 

expect that the EPA would impose any best management practices to reduce methane 

emissions in its air quality permit issued to Aguirre LLC and the Aguirre Plant.
AG-42

AGENCIAS

AG06 – U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (cont’d)

AG06-32 See the response to comment AG05-04.

AG06-33 The USCG Water Suitability Assessment noted that pipeline marking may be 

required. However, because the pipeline installation method has been modified, the 

pipeline marking requirements will change. Aguirre LLC is working with the USCG,

as well as NOAA, to ensure that the pipeline is marked accordingly.

AG06-34 While some information was still pending at the time of issuance of the draft EIS, the 

lack of this final information does not deprive the public of a meaningful opportunity 

to comment on potential adverse environmental effects of the Project or to suggest a

feasible way to mitigate or avoid such effect. The EIS includes sufficient detail to 

enable the reader to understand and consider the issues raised by the proposed Project 

and addresses a reasonable range of alternatives. The final EIS has been updated with 

new information where it is available. Any information filed after issuance of the 

final EIS will be in the FERC public reading room and available for people or 

organizations to comment on.

AG06-35 Aguirre LLC updated its proposed action to incorporate pipeline burial. The final EIS 

has been updated to reflect the construction method change. 
AG-43

AGENCIAS

AG07 – U.S. Geological Survey

AG07-01 Section 4.1.3.1 has been updated to require a revised Seismic Hazard Analysis Report

that includes both the Great Southern Puerto Rico Fault Zone and Salinas Faults,

which would be consistent with the location and seismic characterization of these 

faults provided in the May 2014 Bureau of Reclamation reports.
AG-44

AGENCIAS

AG08 – Puerto Rico Department of Natural and Environmental 

Resource
AG-45

AGENCIAS

AG08 – Puerto Rico Department of Natural and Environmental 

Resource (cont’d)

AG08-01 Comments noted.

Also see the response to comment AG02-14.
AG-46

AGENCIAS

AG08 – Puerto Rico Department of Natural and Environmental 

Resource (cont’d)

AG08-02 Section 4.5 has been updated to discuss impacts on seagrass resources and 

summarizes the draft Benthic Resources Mitigation Plan (see appendix D). Further, 

we are recommending that Aguirre LLC finalize this plan in consultation with the 

appropriate agencies and include further detail as discussed in section 4.5.2.4.
AG-47

AGENCIAS

AG08 – Puerto Rico Department of Natural and Environmental 

Resource (cont’d)

AG08-03 Comments noted. See the responses to comments AG02-27 and AG08-02.

AG08-04 Section 4.5.2.4 has been updated to include a discussion of the newly proposed 

copper anode marine growth prevention system; this will be subject to conditions of 

the NPDES permit. 

AG08-05 Sections 4.7.4 and 4.8.3 have been revised to incorporate these comments.

AG08-06 As discussed in section 4.7.7, based on the limited footprint of the Project, the 

availability of adjacent fishing areas, and our recommendation to provide a 

Construction Access Plan, we concluded that construction and operation of the 

Project is not likely to cause a significant impact on boating and fishing in the area. 
AG-48

AGENCIAS

AG08 – Puerto Rico Department of Natural and Environmental 

Resource (cont’d)

AG08-07 The Executive Summary and other references have been updated accordingly.

Sections 4.5 and 4.6 have been updated to discuss sedimentation impacts from 

construction on seagrass and coral habitats. In addition, we are recommending that 

Aguirre LLC finalize its Benthic Resources Mitigation Plan in consultation with the 

FWS, NMFS, DNER, and other appropriate agencies.

AG08-08 The temperature range from the Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority (PREPA)

outfall is noted in section 4.12.2.1; however, no change to the discharge rate or 

temperature would result from the Project. 

AG08-09 Comment noted. 

AG08-10 Section 4.4.2.2 has been updated to include manatees and sea turtles in the sentence 

describing the importance of seagrass species. 

AG08-11 The statement in section 4.5.2.4 has been corrected to state that the temperature near 

the pipeline would "decrease" slightly before returning to ambient temperature.

AG08-12 Section 4.5.4 has been updated to discuss potential impacts on ichthyoplankton due to 

thermal plumes, use of biocides, and inadvertent hydrocarbon spills.
AG-49

AGENCIAS

AG08 – Puerto Rico Department of Natural and Environmental 

Resource (cont’d) AG08-13 Comment noted. Table 4.5.5-1 discusses annual fish landings while tables 4.5.4-5 

and 4.5.4-6 discuss annual population impacts associated with entrainment; therefore, 

values within the tables are not comparable.

AG08-14 Lionfish are habitat generalists found in most marine habitat types in warm tropical 

waters. The habitat below the proposed FSRU and berthing platform could provide 

habitat for lionfish, both pre- and post-construction, because lionfish are found in a 

variety of habitat types, including both shaded and non-shaded areas. Literature was 

not found that evaluated preferred habitat of lionfish species in the Caribbean or other 

waters where they occur naturally and/or as an invasive exotic species. Therefore, 

additional measures to conduct periodic post-construction inspections and removal of 

the invasive species are not warranted. 

AG08-15 Section 4.6 states that, in addition to the ESA, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico 

conserves species under the Regulation to Govern the Threatened and Endangered 

Species (Regulation No. 6766), and protects all corals under Law 147 of July 15, 

1999. Section 4.6.1.5 has been updated to state that additional non-federally listed 

coral species are found within the Project area. The potential impacts on those 

species would be similar to those discussed for the federally listed species.

AG08-16 See the response to comment AG06-28.

AG08-17 The Goliath grouper is not a federally listed ESA species; it was removed from the 

ESA candidate list in 2006. Table 4.6.3-1 summarized potential impacts on ESA 

listed species only. The Goliath grouper does appear on table 4.6-1 because it is 

listed as critically endangered by the DNER. 

AG08-18 Construction noise impact and mitigation are discussed in section 4.10.2.4.

AG08-19 The water intake for the LNG carriers would take place within the Caribbean Sea at 

the facility. Due to the current and flow in the Caribbean Sea, the discussion of the 

impact needs to take into account where it occurs. To base the discussion on an area 

immediately surrounding the offshore platform does not reflect the environment in 

which the water intake would occur.

AG08-20 See the response to comment AG08-04.

AG08-21 Section 4.3.1.3 states that "Aguirre LLC has indicated that bilge water collected from 

the FSRU bilge sump pumps, together with comingled bottom blowdown water from 

the main and auxiliary boilers would be pumped off the FSRU for onshore disposal at 

a Puerto Rico government approved facility." The appropriate Puerto Rico agency 

would have authority over how and where the bilge water would be disposed.
AG-50

AGENCIAS

AG08 – Puerto Rico Department of Natural and Environmental 

Resource (cont’d)

AG08-22 Comment noted.
AG-51

AGENCIAS

AG09 – Municipal of Salinas, Mayor Karilyn Bonilla Colon

AG09-01 Comments noted. Section 4.8.5 has been updated.
AG-52

AGENCIAS

AG09 – Municipal of Salinas, Mayor Karilyn Bonilla Colon

(cont’d)
AG-53

AGENCIAS

AG09 – Municipal of Salinas, Mayor Karilyn Bonilla Colon

(cont’d)

AG09-02 Cayos de Barca is approximately 3,000 feet from the FSRU. It is unlikely at this 

distance that the Project would cause an exceedance of the FERC's 55 decibels on the 

A-weighted scale (dBA) threshold or the EQB’s 50 dBA nighttime noise limit. As 

per FERC's recommendation, Aguirre LLC would be required to submit a noise 

survey no later than 60 days after placing the Project in service. Additional noise 

controls would be required if it is determined that there is an exceedance of the 

threshold. Section 4.5 and our recommendations adequately address the impacts of 

the Project and mitigation for wildlife in the Project area.

AG09-03 Section 4.12 adequately addresses the cumulative impacts associated with the Project. 

Further, the EIS concludes that the Project would improve the regional air quality. 
AG-54

AGENCIAS

AG09 – Municipal of Salinas, Mayor Karilyn Bonilla Colon

(cont’d)

AG09-04 Comment noted. 
AG-55

AGENCIAS

AG10 – U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
AG-56

AGENCIAS

AG10 – U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (cont’d)

AG10-01 Comment noted. See the response to comment AG02-28.
AG-57

AGENCIAS

AG10 – U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (cont’d)

AG10-02 We updated section 4.6 to reflect that the Project would not affect the rufa red knot or 

the piping plover.

AG10-03 Comment noted. See the response to comment AG02-28.

AG10-04 Section 4.6 has been revised to reflect Aguirre LLC's currently proposed action. As 

noted in section 4.6, the FERC will submit a BA to the FWS and NMFS outlining 

impacts on the Antillean manatee and all other ESA-listed species once the final 

pipeline design or route is determined.
AG-58

AGENCIAS

AG10 – U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (cont’d)

AG10-05 We updated section 4.6.2 to clarify that incidental take of Antillean manatees cannot 

be authorized under the ESA. 

AG10-06 Anticipated Project impacts on the Antillean manatee are summarized in section 4.6. 

Also see response to comment AG10-04.

AG10-07 Comment noted. Anticipated Project impacts on the Antillean manatee are 

summarized in section 4.6.
AG-59

AGENCIAS

AG10 – U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (cont’d)

AG10-08 See the response to comment AG02-27.

AG10-09 See the response to comment AG02-27.

AG10-10 See the response to comment AG02-27.
AG-60

AGENCIAS

AG10 – U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (cont’d)

AG10-11 See the response to comment AG02-25.
AG-61

AGENCIAS

AG10 – U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (cont’d)

AG10-12 See the response to comment AG02-25.

AG10-13 See the response to comment AG02-25.

AG10-14 See the response to comment AG02-25.

AG10-15 Comment noted. This information has been included in section 4.6. 

AG10-16 Comment noted. Sections 3.5 and 3.6 describe the impacts on seagrass from the 

alternatives.

AG10-17 A draft Benthic Resources Mitigation Plan has been filed (appendix D). We are

recommending that Aguirre LLC work with appropriate federal and state agencies to 

finalize the plan. Aguirre LLC would be required to provide the plan to the FERC 

staff for review and approval prior to construction. 

AG10-18 The draft and final EISs reviewed multiple routes from the proposed terminal and 

alternative terminal sites. Avoidance of seagrass areas was one of the criteria used in 

our comparison of alternatives.
AG-62

AGENCIAS

AG10 – U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (cont’d)

AG10-19 We are recommending in section 4.5.3 that Aguirre LLC file, as part of its sitespecific Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure Plan, response measures that 

would be implemented if wildlife, including federally listed species or migratory 

birds, are impacted by an inadvertent hydrocarbon spill. 

AG10-20 Since issuance of the draft EIS, Aguirre LLC proposed a copper-anode system as an 

anti-fouling mechanism. We updated section 4.6 accordingly.

AG10-21 Comment noted. This information has been summarized in section 4.6.2.

AG10-22 We are recommending in section 4.5.3.3 the use of aerial surveys during construction. 

Based on this recommendation and others in section 4.5.3.3 related to the MMOs, 

vessel traffic, noise, lighting, and inadvertent hydrocarbon spills; the mitigation 

measures proposed by Aguirre LLC; and the temporary nature of the Project impacts, 

we concluded that the impacts on manatees and other marine mammals would be 

reduced to acceptable levels in compliance with federal requirements. Impacts on 

manatees and related mitigation measures will also be a part of our Section 7 

consultation for this species.
AG-63

AGENCIAS

AG10 – U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (cont’d)

AG10-23 We reviewed the supplied reference and added a citation in section 4.6. 

AG10-24 We revised section 4.6 to only include the 2014 citation for the Puerto Rico Antillean 

Manatee Stock Assessment Report. 
AG-64

AGENCIAS

AG11 – U.S. Department of Transportation, Pipeline and 

Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

AG11-01 As discussed in subsequent meetings and in the final EIS, Aguirre LLC has revised its

proposed action to include appropriate pipeline burial and protection requirements.

AG11-02 See the response to comment AG11-01.
AG-65

AGENCIAS

AG11 – U.S. Department of Transportation, Pipeline and 

Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (cont’d)

AG11-03 See the response to comment AG11-01.

AG11-04 See the response to comment AG11-01.

AG11-05 See the response to comment AG11-01.

AG11-06 See the response to comment AG11-01.
CO-1

COMPAÑÍAS Y ORGANIZACIONES

COMPAÑÍAS Y ORGANIZACIONES

CO01 – Center for Biological Diversity

CO01-01 We provided a more detailed analysis of the energy alternatives in section 3.2. As 

described in section 1.1 of the EIS, Aguirre LLC developed the Project in response to 

PREPA’s demand and then filed an application with the FERC for authorization to 

construct and operate the proposed facilities. The EIS is limited to assessing the 

potential environmental impacts of the proposed Project. Although the EIS does 

consider whether alternative actions might meet the customers’ demands, the EIS 

does not consider or reach a conclusion on whether there is a need for the proposed 

Project. Section 1502.13 of the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations 

implementing NEPA requires that an EIS “briefly specify the underlying purpose and 

need to which the agency is responding in proposing the alternatives including the 

proposed action.” In other words, the EIS states the purpose of and need for a 

proposed project in order to define the range of alternative actions that the agency can 

legitimately consider. The determination of whether there is a “need” for the 

proposed facilities for the purpose of issuing an authorization under section 3 of the 

Natural Gas Act (NGA) will be made in the subsequent Commission Order granting 

or denying the applicant’s request for findings of public interest and authorization and

is based on a balancing of the benefits of the Project against any adverse impacts.
CO-2

COMPAÑÍAS Y ORGANIZACIONES

CO01 – Center for Biological Diversity (cont’d)

CO01-02 Figures provided in the draft EIS identify the location of coral reef, seagrass, benthic, 

critical habitat for staghorn and elkhorn corals, and recreational use areas. These 

maps are also included in the final EIS. To further assist the reader, an additional 

map of seagrass habitat was added and named figure 4.4.2-2. In addition, all of the

environmental information incorporated or referenced in the EIS is public and can be 

found on our eLibrary website.

CO01-03 FERC cannot estimate exactly where the natural gas volumes would come from 

because the volumes could be sourced internationally, and how much, if any, would 

be new production “attributable” to the Project. Sources that could produce gas that 

might ultimately flow to this Project might be developed in any part of the world. 

Therefore, it is impossible and speculative to calculate any GHG emissions or impacts 

associated with production of the natural gas that would eventually flow through the 

Project. Sections 4.10.1.4, 4.10.1.5, and 4.12.2.2 discuss GHGs associated with 

construction and operation of the Project and the Aguirre Plant. 

CO01-04 The end user of the natural gas would be the Aguirre Plant, and the air quality impacts 

are discussed in section 4.12.2.2. The impacts of the offshore and onshore emissions 

were evaluated through the OCD analysis with no adverse impact results. Therefore, 

there is no need to evaluate the emissions from residential and commercial use of the 

natural gas transported by the Project.

CO01-05 There are no thresholds of significance criteria established by PREPA or the EPA for 

Project GHG emissions. There is no legal precedent to make a damage claim for 

stationary source or Project GHG emissions causing local climate change impacts. 

Climate change is caused by global impacts and effects. However, the GHG 

emissions from the Project and the effects of climate change are properly discussed in 

sections 4.10.1 and 4.12.2.3 of the final EIS, which includes the most recent 

information from the U.S. Global Change Research Program. Section 4.12.2.2 further 

discloses the GHG emissions from the Project combined with the Aguirre Plant 

operations. Finally, we provide a comparison of the future potential GHG emissions 

for the Project and the Aguirre Plant to Puerto Rico’s reported GHG emissions for 

2011 (see section 4.10.1.5). 
CO-3

COMPAÑÍAS Y ORGANIZACIONES

CO01 – Center for Biological Diversity (cont’d)
CO-4

COMPAÑÍAS Y ORGANIZACIONES

CO01 – Center for Biological Diversity (cont’d)

CO01-06 The GHG emissions from the Project and the effects of climate change are properly 

discussed in sections 4.10.1 and 4.12.2.3 of the final EIS, which include the most 

recent information from the U.S. Global Change Research Program. Section 4.12.2.2 

further discloses the GHG emissions from the Project combined with the Aguirre 

Plant operations, and we find that our scope of emission sources is appropriate for our 

environmental review of the Project. As to the comment regarding using imported 

LNG rather than domestic natural gas, Puerto Rico does not have a source of natural 

gas on the island; therefore, any natural gas consumed in Puerto Rico must be 

imported. Further, section 3 of the final EIS thoroughly discusses other energy 

alternatives and provides a determination on their applicability for the Project. 
CO-5

COMPAÑÍAS Y ORGANIZACIONES

CO01 – Center for Biological Diversity (cont’d)
CO-6

COMPAÑÍAS Y ORGANIZACIONES

CO01 – Center for Biological Diversity (cont’d)
CO-7

COMPAÑÍAS Y ORGANIZACIONES

CO01 – Center for Biological Diversity (cont’d)

CO01-07 As described in section 4.3.3.3, construction contractors and port operations personnel 

would be required to comply with all laws and regulations related to handling of fuels 

and lubricants, and Aguirre LLC would prepare a site-specific Spill Prevention and 

Control Plan for construction and operation to minimize the potential for inadvertent 

release. We are recommending in section 4.3.3.3 that Aguirre LLC file this plan for 

our review and approval prior to construction.

CO01-08 See the responses to comments AG02-33 and CO01-07.

CO01-09 Our analysis in sections 4.3.1.3, 4.5.2.4, and 4.6.2 provides a thorough discussion of 

thermal plumes and the effects on wildlife resources. This analysis will be included 

in our BA that will be submitted to the FWS and NMFS and will address specific 

impacts on federally listed species.
CO-8

COMPAÑÍAS Y ORGANIZACIONES

CO01 – Center for Biological Diversity (cont’d)

CO01-10 Sections 4.5 and 4.6 have been updated to summarize the role of thermal plumes in 

sheltering and promoting the growth of invasive species that harm threatened and 

endangered species. In general, there is a lack of data related to the role of thermal 

plumes sheltering and promoting the growth of invasive species in sub-tropical 

marine environments.
CO-9

COMPAÑÍAS Y ORGANIZACIONES

CO01 – Center for Biological Diversity (cont’d)

CO01-11 The commentor is requesting a Programmatic EIS be prepared. There may be merit 

for the FWS or the EPA to prepare a Policy or Programmatic EIS on the marine area

around Puerto Rico to assist in the overall conservation and development of this area. 

However, this is beyond the scope of this EIS. We have identified a range of 

reasonable alternatives, selected relevant comparisons of the alternatives, and 

determined that the proposed action would be an environmentally acceptable action, 

provided our recommendations are included as mandatory requirements in any 

authorization the Commission may issue. 

CO01-12 We updated sections 4.5.3 and 4.6.2 to discuss the potential for vessel collisions with 

whales within the Project area; reviewing these impacts throughout the transoceanic 

route is beyond the scope of this EIS. Mitigation measures have been summarized to 

reduce and prevent vessel strikes to marine mammals and sea turtles. 
CO-10

COMPAÑÍAS Y ORGANIZACIONES

CO01 – Center for Biological Diversity (cont’d)

CO01-13 We updated sections 4.5 and 4.6 to address potential impacts on marine resources 

associated with the anticipated Project's noise levels. Noise associated with facility 

decommissioning is not within the scope of our environmental analysis. Approval for 

decommissioning the facilities would require additional FERC authorization, at which 

time we would address any associated potential impacts on marine resources.

CO01-14 See the response to comment AG02-28.

CO01-15 Section 4.3.1.3 describes ballast water systems and how water for the FSRU would be 

taken and withdrawn from the same body of water, decreasing the possibility of 

invasive species being introduced through the release of ballast water. During drydock maintenance discharge of ballast water may occur in an offsite location; 

however, this would be infrequent. Discharge would need to comply with the 

USCG's ballast water discharge requirements. Impacts on marine ecosystems 

associated with the intake of water for the proposed Project operations have been 

described in sections 4.5 and 4.6.
CO-11

COMPAÑÍAS Y ORGANIZACIONES

CO01 – Center for Biological Diversity (cont’d)
CO-12

COMPAÑÍAS Y ORGANIZACIONES

CO01 – Center for Biological Diversity (cont’d)

CO01-16 Section 4.11.7.1 of the final EIS discusses the three Zones of Concern and the hazard 

severity from each zone to the public from an LNG spill, pool fire, or vapor clouds. 

Specifically, the highest potential for impacts on public safety and property exists

within approximately 500 meters (m) of a spill, due to thermal hazards from fires, 

with lower public health and safety impacts at distances beyond approximately 1600 

m. If an unignited LNG spill were to occur from the LNG ship, given that LNG is 

lighter than water, the LNG would float on the water until it has vaporized. The LNG 

from any release would rapidly cool water within the LNG pool. The temperature 

change would be greatest at the surface, with decreasing effects as depth is increased 

within the water column. Any biological resource that comes within contact of the 

released LNG could be injured or killed. If an associated fire were to occur with the 

release of LNG, impacts on would be limited to biological resources on or near the 

water’s surface in the vicinity of the fire. 

CO01-17 The potential erosion of the sea floor in the area of the proposed facilities, as well as

proposed mitigation measures, are discussed in sections 4.2.3.1 and 4.2.3.2 of the 

final EIS. Section 4.1.3.5 indicates that the risk of subsidence associated with 

sinkholes and caverns is considered small. The effect of local subsidence of the sea 

floor under the pipeline is discussed in section 4.2.3.2. The facility would be 

designed for all plausible geologic hazards including earthquakes and related effects,

and hurricane winds and associated storm waves and tsunamis. In addition, we are 

recommending in section 4.1.3.1 that the Seismic Hazard Analysis Report be revised 

to include both the Great Southern Puerto Rico Fault Zone and Salinas Faults, which 

would be consistent with the location and seismic characterization of these faults 

provided in the May 2014 Bureau of Reclamation reports.

CO01-18 We updated section 4.7.7 and acknowledge that restrictions on boating during 

construction would occur around the construction equipment, but this restriction 

would be short in duration in any one area as the construction activities move through 

the Jobos Bay area. However, to ensure that impacts on boating and fishing are 

minimized during construction, we are recommending that Aguirre LLC prepare a 

Construction Access Plan that demonstrates areas that would be required to be 

avoided by marine users, duration and restrictions, and methods of communication of 

restrictions to the general public.

CO01-19 As stated in section 4.11.8 of the final EIS, for emergencies that may affect the 

public, the USCG regulations contain requirements for notification, coordination, and 

cooperation with local officials, hospitals, fire departments, police departments, and 

other emergency response organizations. To address these types of impacts, this 

section of the final EIS also contains a recommendation that would require Aguirre 

LLC to develop an Emergency Response Plan in coordination with the USCG and 

local responders.
CO-13

COMPAÑÍAS Y ORGANIZACIONES

CO01 – Center for Biological Diversity (cont’d)

CO01-20 These release events have been thoroughly reviewed in the Sandia Reports. The 

conclusions from the Sandia Reports have resulted in the three Zones of Concern that 

are described in section 4.11.7.1 of the EIS. Each zone is based on the potential 

severity of impacts on the public and property.
CO-14

COMPAÑÍAS Y ORGANIZACIONES

CO02 – Comite Dialogo Ambiental, Inc. part of Iniciativa de 

Ecodesarrollo de Bahia de Jobos, Inc.
CO-15

COMPAÑÍAS Y ORGANIZACIONES

CO02 – Comite Dialogo Ambiental, Inc. part of Iniciativa de 

Ecodesarrollo de Bahia de Jobos, Inc. (cont’d)

CO02-01 Specific requests under the Freedom of Information Act must be filed in accordance 

with 18 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 388.108.
CO-16

COMPAÑÍAS Y ORGANIZACIONES

CO02 – Comite Dialogo Ambiental, Inc. part of Iniciativa de 

Ecodesarrollo de Bahia de Jobos, Inc. (cont’d)

CO02-02 While some information was still pending at the time of issuance of the draft EIS, the 

lack of this final information does not deprive the public of a meaningful opportunity 

to comment on a substantial adverse environmental effect of the Project or a feasible 

way to mitigate or avoid such effect. The EIS includes sufficient detail to enable the 

reader to understand and consider the issues raised by the proposed Project and 

addresses a reasonable range of alternatives. The final EIS has been updated with 

new information where it is available. 
CO-17

COMPAÑÍAS Y ORGANIZACIONES

CO02 – Comite Dialogo Ambiental, Inc. part of Iniciativa de 

Ecodesarrollo de Bahia de Jobos, Inc. (cont’d)
CO-18

COMPAÑÍAS Y ORGANIZACIONES

CO02 – Comite Dialogo Ambiental, Inc. part of Iniciativa de 

Ecodesarrollo de Bahia de Jobos, Inc. (cont’d)
CO-19

COMPAÑÍAS Y ORGANIZACIONES

CO02 – Comite Dialogo Ambiental, Inc. part of Iniciativa de 

Ecodesarrollo de Bahia de Jobos, Inc. (cont’d)

CO02-03 The discussion in section 4.10.1 provides all of the operating emissions from the 

Project (even those not applicable for certain federal and state air quality permitting 

requirements), including the non-FERC-jurisdictional Aguirre Plant, and describes the 

applicability of these emissions in the context of the federal and state regulatory 

requirements. Notwithstanding, the air quality impacts of the Project demonstrated 

by air dispersion modeling were not required under PSD regulations. However, to 

assess the impacts, we required Aguirre LLC to perform an OCD model of the 

impacts from the offshore stationary sources as well as the non-stationary sources 

even though federal and state regulations do not consider the non-stationary sources. 

In addition, we required Aguirre LLC to model the Project and the Aguirre Plant, and 

we disclose the air quality impacts in section 4.12.2.2. The model results showed no 

adverse impacts. Note on commentor’s suggestion that volatile organic compounds 

(VOC) and ozone be modeled: There are no stationary source modeling requirements 

or protocols for VOC and ozone modeling. Lastly, in the absence of EPA-defined 

significance criteria for ozone, these modeling results for the ozone precursor, 

nitrogen dioxide (NO2), were presented in the EIS, demonstrating no new violations 

and no increases in the severity or frequency of violations of the National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), which the EPA established to protect human health 

and public welfare for criteria pollutants, including ozone.
CO-20

COMPAÑÍAS Y ORGANIZACIONES

CO02 – Comite Dialogo Ambiental, Inc. part of Iniciativa de 

Ecodesarrollo de Bahia de Jobos, Inc. (cont’d)

CO02-04 Aguirre LLC performed an air quality impact analysis both for the new sources 

offshore and the cumulative air quality impacts of the combined onshore and offshore 

sources, at the request of FERC staff. Both analyses demonstrated no new violation

and no increases in the severity or frequency of violations of the (NAAQS, which the 

EPA established to protect human health and public welfare for criteria pollutants. In 

addition and as shown in the EIS, PREPA is reducing the emissions at the onshore 

power plant, switching to less polluting natural gas instead of fuel oil, which would be 

a benefit to the air quality for receptors near the onshore power plant. Therefore, we 

do not believe that the environmental justice communities in the Project area would 

be exposed to additional emissions.

CO02-05 See the responses to comments CO01-05 and CO02-02. Our analysis discloses the air 

quality impacts associated with the Project. We do note that the EPA and EQB are 

the appropriate agencies with particular technical expertise over air quality to account 

for all the pertinent factors and to use its permitting processes to appropriately enforce 

all mitigation measures in compliance with the NAAQS and the Clean Air Act (CAA)

of 1970. 
CO-21

COMPAÑÍAS Y ORGANIZACIONES

CO02 – Comite Dialogo Ambiental, Inc. part of Iniciativa de 

Ecodesarrollo de Bahia de Jobos, Inc. (cont’d)

CO02-06 See the response to comment CO02-02. Also the ambient air data were provided 

using the best available data from the closest monitoring stations.

CO02-07 See the response to comment CO02-02. Further, we disagree with the last sentence in 

the statement. The NAAQS were established by the EPA in compliance with the 

CAA, and intended to protect human health.

CO02-08 In the absence of EPA-defined significance criteria for ozone, the cumulative 

modeling results for the ozone precursor, nitrogen dioxide, were presented in the EIS, 

demonstrating no new violation and no increases in the severity or frequency of 

violations of the NAAQS.

CO02-09 Our analysis of air quality impacts and emissions associated with the proposed Project 

and the Aguirre Plant includes a disclosure of the estimated emissions and mitigation 

measures both proposed by Aguirre LLC and PREPA. However, in regard to specific 

mitigation technology, we defer to the agencies with particular technical expertise 

over the resource. In this case, the EPA and the EQB have the authority to enforce 

the CAA and ensure that emission sources, such as the Aguirre Offshore GasPort and 

the Aguirre Plant, comply with the CAA, including requiring technically, 

economically, and reasonable emissions control technologies.

CO02-10 Regional planning for electricity generation and consumption in Puerto Rico is 

outside of the scope of this EIS. Per a request from the EPA on November 5, 2013, 

concerning annual LNG throughput from the GasPort, Aguirre LLC responded to the 

request on February 26, 2014 in relation to the natural gas throughput and future plans 

to increase that throughput. This response was incorporated into our Cumulative 

Impacts section (Air Quality) in the EIS stating that the Project was appropriately 

sized, that the LNG delivered onshore would be exclusively used by the onshore 

plant, no excess LNG would be provided to other users or markets, and that there 

would be no other emissions other than those estimated for the plant. The EPA 

mentioned in its comment letter that the Title V operating permit would have 

restrictions on the LNG throughputs (see section 4.12.2.2).
CO-22

COMPAÑÍAS Y ORGANIZACIONES

CO02 – Comite Dialogo Ambiental, Inc. part of Iniciativa de 

Ecodesarrollo de Bahia de Jobos, Inc. (cont’d)

CO02-11 The purpose and need of this proposed action is focused on the use of natural gas as a 

fuel to replace the diesel fuel being used by the facility. We expanded our review of 

renewable energies in section 3.2 and determined them to not be a reasonable 

alternative to the proposed action. The commentor is requesting an energy policy 

shift within Puerto Rico, which could occur; however, this policy shift is beyond the 

scope of this EIS.

CO02-12 The EIS does in fact disclose the emissions associated with construction and 

operation of the Project, including those not considered stationary and permitted 

sources under federal and state air quality regulations. Also, see the response to 

comment CO02-02.

CO02-13 We disagree with the first statement. Rather than delegating its duty to analyze the 

cumulative operational air quality impacts associated with the Project and the Aguirre 

Plant, we fully disclosed these cumulative air quality impacts, which in fact were not 

required by the EQB and EPA. We do reiterate here that the EQB and EPA are the 

appropriate agencies with jurisdiction over air quality permitting and enforcing all 

mitigation measures in compliance with the NAAQS and the CAA. Also, the 

locations of monitoring stations are established by the appropriate air quality planning 

authorities and it is a general fact that not all monitoring stations provide all of the 

background information for the purposes of air dispersion modeling. Therefore, data 

are acquired from the best available monitoring stations, in this case from those 

locations described in section 4.12.2.2. We believe that the air dispersion modeling 

provided in the EIS accurately depicts the air quality impacts from the Project and the 

Aguirre Plant.

CO02-14 See the response to comment CO01-05. The commentor suggests reductions in 

emissions at the AES Coal Combustion Plant as a possible mitigation measure for 

cumulative impacts on climate change. However, we reiterate that regional planning 

for electricity generation and consumption in Puerto Rico and mitigation on nonFERC-jurisdictional facilities is outside of the scope of this EIS. 
CO-23

COMPAÑÍAS Y ORGANIZACIONES

CO02 – Comite Dialogo Ambiental, Inc. part of Iniciativa de 

Ecodesarrollo de Bahia de Jobos, Inc. (cont’d)

CO02-15 Table 4.2.2-1 summarizes all known contaminants found within Jobos Bay. All 

concentrations are below the effects range median established by NOAA.
CO-24

COMPAÑÍAS Y ORGANIZACIONES

CO02 – Comite Dialogo Ambiental, Inc. part of Iniciativa de 

Ecodesarrollo de Bahia de Jobos, Inc. (cont’d)

CO02-16 Section 4.3 of the EIS discusses the water flows from the offshore area and inner 

Jobos Bay. In addition, section 4.3.1.3 reviews the thermal plume discharge of the 

Project and its potential to impact the local water quality. Modeling was completed 

on the anticipated thermal plume from the LNG carriers as well as from the facility. 

The modeling indicates that the plume would not significantly affect water quality.

CO02-17 The commentor is requesting the opportunity to comment on the Spill Prevention and 

Control Plan. This document will be available to the public in our eLibrary system. 

Anyone is able to comment on a document in the FERC record.

CO02-18 There are no thresholds of significance criteria established by the EQB or EPA for 

Project GHG emissions.

CO02-19 We updated section 3.8 to address alternative vaporization technologies; our

discussion presents a comparison of the seawater volume regasification technologies 

of the Calypso LNG Deepwater Port and Port Dolphin projects and the vaporization 

technology proposed by Aguirre LLC. We concluded that changing the vaporization 

method of the FSRU was not reasonable considering the location of the facility. 

Further, because the FSRU is a non-FERC-jurisdictional facility, the use of an 

alternative shell and tube vaporization method that uses the water/glycol closed-loop 

system is out of the scope of this EIS.
CO-25

COMPAÑÍAS Y ORGANIZACIONES

CO02 – Comite Dialogo Ambiental, Inc. part of Iniciativa de 

Ecodesarrollo de Bahia de Jobos, Inc. (cont’d)

CO02-20 Section 4.1.1 has been updated to change "Rio Salinas" to "Rio Nigua.” 

CO02-21 Section 4.3.3.2 has been updated to show that public water supply in Salinas is drawn 

from the South Coast Aquifer.

CO02-22 See the responses to comments AG02-08 and AG02-16.

CO02-23 Since issuance of the draft EIS, Aguirre LLC revised its proposed action to include 

pipeline burial. See section 2.3.4 for a discussion of the new construction methods.
CO-26

COMPAÑÍAS Y ORGANIZACIONES

CO02 – Comite Dialogo Ambiental, Inc. part of Iniciativa de 

Ecodesarrollo de Bahia de Jobos, Inc. (cont’d)

CO02-24 See the response to comment AG06-13.

CO02-25 See the response to comment AG08-04.
CO-27

COMPAÑÍAS Y ORGANIZACIONES

CO02 – Comite Dialogo Ambiental, Inc. part of Iniciativa de 

Ecodesarrollo de Bahia de Jobos, Inc. (cont’d)

CO02-26 See the response to comment AG02-08.

CO02-27 Comment noted. See the response to comment AG02-08.

CO02-28 Section 4.3.1.3 has been updated to clarify that the change in ambient temperature for 

this Project was based on, but differed from, the Northeast Gateway Energy Bridge 

Project. 

CO02-29 See the response to comment AG06-27. We do note that the public can review any 

public filings by Aguirre LLC and submit comments as they deem necessary.
CO-28

COMPAÑÍAS Y ORGANIZACIONES

CO02 – Comite Dialogo Ambiental, Inc. part of Iniciativa de 

Ecodesarrollo de Bahia de Jobos, Inc. (cont’d)

CO02-30 See the response to comment AG06-28.

CO02-31 See the response to comment AG02-28.

CO02-32 Environmental Justice analysis is required when it is determined that an action results 

in disproportionately high and adverse effects on minority and low-income 

populations. Our research has not demonstrated that this Project would result in 

adverse effect on any one community. 

CO02-33 Formal consultation with NMFS should result in no reduction of managed reef 

fish/coral stocks. Section 4.7.7 addresses this issue.

CO02-34 Comment noted. See the response to comment AG02-08.
CO-29

COMPAÑÍAS Y ORGANIZACIONES

CO02 – Comite Dialogo Ambiental, Inc. part of Iniciativa de 

Ecodesarrollo de Bahia de Jobos, Inc. (cont’d)

CO02-35 Comment noted. See the responses to comments AG02-08 and AG02-16.

CO02-36 Comment noted. See the responses to comments AG02-08 and AG02-16.

CO02-37 Comment noted. See the responses to comments AG02-08 and AG02-16.
CO-30

COMPAÑÍAS Y ORGANIZACIONES

CO02 – Comite Dialogo Ambiental, Inc. part of Iniciativa de 

Ecodesarrollo de Bahia de Jobos, Inc. (cont’d)

CO02-38 See the response to comment AG02-08.

CO02-39 The final EIS has been prepared in accordance with the guidelines and requirements 

of NEPA. In section 4.8.5, we conclude that U.S. Census data are sufficient to 

analyze the socioeconomic impacts. The proposed action replaces fuel oil with 

natural gas at an existing power plant, thus improving air quality in accordance with 

the EPA Mercury and Air Toxics Standard Rule. Current employees of the power 

plant will remain employed. It is not anticipated that this Project would result in an 

increase in the poverty rate of the area. 
CO-31

COMPAÑÍAS Y ORGANIZACIONES

CO02 – Comite Dialogo Ambiental, Inc. part of Iniciativa de 

Ecodesarrollo de Bahia de Jobos, Inc. (cont’d)
CO-32

COMPAÑÍAS Y ORGANIZACIONES

CO02 – Comite Dialogo Ambiental, Inc. part of Iniciativa de 

Ecodesarrollo de Bahia de Jobos, Inc. (cont’d)
CO-33

COMPAÑÍAS Y ORGANIZACIONES

CO02 – Comite Dialogo Ambiental, Inc. part of Iniciativa de 

Ecodesarrollo de Bahia de Jobos, Inc. (cont’d)
CO-34

COMPAÑÍAS Y ORGANIZACIONES

CO02 – Comite Dialogo Ambiental, Inc. part of Iniciativa de 

Ecodesarrollo de Bahia de Jobos, Inc. (cont’d)

CO02-40 Sections 4.7.5 and 4.8.3 acknowledge that the number of fishers in the area are 

estimates and may vary based upon who is providing the count of total fishers. 

However, we maintain that our analysis of impacts on recreational and commercial 

fishing is valid. Given that there are alternative fishing areas that could be accessed 

during construction, there is a relatively small construction and operational footprint 

of the pipeline in and around Jobos Bay, and we are recommending in section 4.7.7 

that access through the Boca de Infierno and within Jobos Bay be maintained 

throughout the construction process, we anticipate that these effects would be minor 

and short term.
CO-35

COMPAÑÍAS Y ORGANIZACIONES

CO02 – Comite Dialogo Ambiental, Inc. part of Iniciativa de 

Ecodesarrollo de Bahia de Jobos, Inc. (cont’d)

CO02-41 Section 4.7.5 was updated to show that the entire Project area and surrounding area 

may be used for commercial fishing.

CO02-42 Section 4.7.5 concludes that qualitative impacts on fishing would be minor; therefore,

the impacts on fishers would be minor even if the quantity of fishers in the area is 

higher than originally estimated. 

CO02-43 Section 4.8.5 addresses the sources used for socioeconomic data and confirms that the 

best available information was used. Given the scope of in-water construction and 

our recommendation for a construction access plan, we determined that these 

additional economic indicators were not necessary to properly analyze the impacts.

CO02-44 As discussed in section 4.8.5, we disagree with this claim of disproportionate impacts. 

Also see the response to comment CO02-01.
CO-36

COMPAÑÍAS Y ORGANIZACIONES

CO02 – Comite Dialogo Ambiental, Inc. part of Iniciativa de 

Ecodesarrollo de Bahia de Jobos, Inc. (cont’d)

CO02-45 We corrected section 3.5 and replaced Cayo Morrillo with Cayo Matias. We also 

updated section 4.8.5 to include analysis of visual impacts on tourism and the 

potential impacts on the local economy.

CO02-46 Section 4.7.4 has been updated to explain that the list provided is a sample and may 

not list all water-dependent activities within Jobos Bay. The EIS was based on the 

most current federal and local agency information sources, although these sources 

may not provide a comprehensive list of the water-dependent activities, most of 

which are likely small-scale. We maintain that the associated impacts of construction 

and operation of the Project on the coastal communities, in conjunction with our 

recommendations, would result in less than significant impacts on the livelihood of 

the host coastal communities.
CO-37

COMPAÑÍAS Y ORGANIZACIONES

CO02 – Comite Dialogo Ambiental, Inc. part of Iniciativa de 

Ecodesarrollo de Bahia de Jobos, Inc. (cont’d)

CO02-47 See the response to comment CO02-43.

CO02-48 The existing vessel traffic through the Boca del Infierno would not change due to the 

presence of the pipeline because we are recommending that the pipeline be 

constructed either by HDD through the Boca del Infierno pass or be rerouted, 

primarily to avoid impacts on coral resources in this area. Further, we are 

recommending in section 4.7.7 that Aguirre LLC develop a Construction Access Plan 

to minimize the impacts on the community during construction of the facilities.
CO-38

COMPAÑÍAS Y ORGANIZACIONES

CO02 – Comite Dialogo Ambiental, Inc. part of Iniciativa de 

Ecodesarrollo de Bahia de Jobos, Inc. (cont’d)

CO02-49 Section 4.7.7 was updated and states that navigation of incoming LNG carriers would

be coordinated with the USCG and broadcast to local boaters (e.g., Notice to 

Mariners).

CO02-50 We are recommending in the EIS that any installation of the pipeline through the 

Boca del Infierno pass be completed using the HDD construction method. This 

construction method would result in a buried pipeline through the area and would 

address the concerns raised in this comment.

CO02-51 Section 4.8.1.2 addresses the local temporary and permanent employment plans for 

the Project. It is noted that Aguirre LLC has signed an affidavit stating its application 

materials are known to be true. The socioeconomic impacts on the local community 

are presented in the final EIS.
CO-39

COMPAÑÍAS Y ORGANIZACIONES

CO02 – Comite Dialogo Ambiental, Inc. part of Iniciativa de 

Ecodesarrollo de Bahia de Jobos, Inc. (cont’d)

CO02-52 We concur with the commentor that the North Equatorial Current and longshore 

current are not the same thing as implied in Resource Report 6 appendix 6A. We 

have independently reviewed the information provided in the resource reports and our 

Project analysis has been based upon that review. 

CO02-53 We concur with the commentor that the statement that no landslides have be recorded 

in the Muertos Trough should have been qualified by adding "in historical times.” 

We have independently reviewed the information provided in the resource reports and 

have determined that the wave height generated by potential storm surge (section 

4.1.4) at the offshore terminal location is substantially greater than the potential 

tsunami wave height generated from both earthquake fault offsets and marine

landslide-triggered tsunami sources for the same design return periods. Hence, the 

wave height generated from storm surge governs the design of the offshore terminal. 

CO02-54 Potential hurricane-generated storm surge elevation at the offshore terminal location 

is substantially greater than estimated tsunami wave elevation. We do not state that 

tsunamis are insignificant but, because the predicted storm surge wave height (section 

4.1.4) is greater than the predicted tsunami wave height, the storm surge height 

governs the design of the offshore terminal. The effects of current scour on the 

offshore terminal piling and pipeline will also be considered in the design. We have 

independently reviewed the information provided in the resource reports, and our 

Project analysis has been based upon that review. 

CO02-55 Comment noted. We have independently reviewed the information provided in the 

resource reports regarding design and wave loadings, and our Project analysis has 

been based upon that review. 

CO02-56 We recognize that further work needs to be performed in defining the design wave 

loading for the offshore terminal and are recommending in section 4.1.4 of the EIS 

that Aguirre LLC update its offshore wave analysis prior to construction. 
CO-40

COMPAÑÍAS Y ORGANIZACIONES

CO02 – Comite Dialogo Ambiental, Inc. part of Iniciativa de 

Ecodesarrollo de Bahia de Jobos, Inc. (cont’d)

CO02-57 We recognize that further work needs to be performed in defining the design wave 

loading for the offshore terminal and are recommending in section 4.1.4 of the EIS 

that Aguirre LLC update its offshore wave analysis prior to construction. 

CO02-58 In section 4.1.4 of the EIS, we state that the offshore marine terminal, including 

pilings, would be designed for a greater than 40-foot wave loading. See also the 

response to comment CO02-51. 

CO02-59 We agree that the San Felipe Seguendo Hurricane occurred in 1928 and not 1876. 

However, that difference does not affect the hurricane design wave loading analysis.

CO02-60 See the response to comment CO02-56.

CO02-61 See the response to comment CO02-50.

CO02-62 Comment noted. 
CO-41

COMPAÑÍAS Y ORGANIZACIONES

CO02 – Comite Dialogo Ambiental, Inc. part of Iniciativa de 

Ecodesarrollo de Bahia de Jobos, Inc. (cont’d)

CO02-63 Section 4.1.4 of the EIS recommends a condition that an updated offshore wave 

analysis be performed that should include all pertinent factors necessary to establish 

design wave loads and effects. The results of this analysis would be used as the basis 

for design of facilities structures, systems, and components. 

CO02-64 We are recommending in section 4.1.3.1 that the Seismic Hazard Analysis Report be 

revised to include both the Great Southern Puerto Rico Fault Zone and Salinas Faults, 

which would be consistent with the location and seismic characterization of these 

faults provided in the May 2014 Bureau of Reclamation reports, which were prepared 

to evaluate the seismic hazards on dams in southern Puerto Rico. 

CO02-65 We are recommending in section 4.1.3.2 that the pipeline route and seafloor angles 

and liquefaction potential of the alignment be provided prior to construction. We are 

also recommending in section 4.1.4 that a special inspector be employed by Aguirre 

LLC to observe the work performed to assure the quality of the performance of the 

seismic resisting systems. 

CO02-66 Information on the design, installation, and commissioning of the proposed systems

was provided in Resource Report 13, as filed in the initial application and 

supplemented in data responses. This engineering information includes descriptions 

of the facility equipment, the design basis, process systems, safety instrumentation, 

security systems, plant layout drawings, piping and instrumentation diagrams, spill 

containment, fire protection measures, hazard detection and control equipment, 

firewater systems, and electrical systems. This information has been reviewed and 

verified by staff and is summarized in the EIS. As stated in section 4.11.3 of the final 

EIS, information regarding the development of the final design would need to be 

reviewed by FERC staff before equipment construction at the site would be 

authorized. To ensure the final design would be consistent with the safety and 

operability characteristics identified in the Front End Engineering Design (FEED), we 

have included numerous recommendations in the section. If authorization is granted 

by the Commission, the next phase of the Project would include development of the 

final design, including final selection of equipment manufacturers, process conditions, 

some safety-related issues, and satisfying our recommendations (which at this point 

would be mandatory conditions). It is unlikely that the detailed design information to 

be developed would result in changes to the basis of design, operating conditions, 

major equipment selections, equipment design conditions, or safety system designs 

that were presented as part of Aguirre LLC’s FEED.
CO-42

COMPAÑÍAS Y ORGANIZACIONES

CO02 – Comite Dialogo Ambiental, Inc. part of Iniciativa de 

Ecodesarrollo de Bahia de Jobos, Inc. (cont’d)

CO02-67 See the response to comment CO02-63.

CO02-68 See section 4.11.7.1, under "Hazards": Although the Project does not have a defined 

waterway, LNG carriers would be boarded by a pilot in the open ocean about

2 nautical miles due south of the offloading facility. The pilot would board the LNG 

carriers to supervise safe transit to the offloading facility and coordinate use of tug 

boats as necessary. 

CO02-69 As stated in section 4.11.7.1 of the final EIS, if the Project is approved and the 

appropriate resources recommended by either FERC or the USCG are not put into 

place, then neither the FERC nor the USCG would allow the Project to commence 

service.

CO02-70 As stated in section 4.11.7.1 of the final EIS, if the Project is approved and the 

appropriate resources recommended by either FERC or the USCG are not put into 

place, then neither the FERC nor the USCG would allow the Project to commence 

service.

CO02-71 Comment noted. We agree.
CO-43

COMPAÑÍAS Y ORGANIZACIONES

CO02 – Comite Dialogo Ambiental, Inc. part of Iniciativa de 

Ecodesarrollo de Bahia de Jobos, Inc. (cont’d)

CO02-72 Comment noted. See the response to comment AG02-28.

CO02-73 Comment noted. Sea turtle survey and mitigation measures would be determined in 

consultation with NMFS. Local employment of marine observers could be noted in 

the mitigation plan if determined necessary.
CO-44

COMPAÑÍAS Y ORGANIZACIONES

CO02 – Comite Dialogo Ambiental, Inc. part of Iniciativa de 

Ecodesarrollo de Bahia de Jobos, Inc. (cont’d)

CO02-74 Sections 4.5.3 and 4.6 summarize steps that would be taken to establish the 0.3-mile 

zone of exclusion around general construction activities if a marine mammal or sea 

turtle is observed in the area; however, see responses to comments AG02-25, AG05-

04, and AG05-11.

CO02-75 We updated section 4.6 to reflect the coral listing status and the potential effects of 

the proposed activity on all ESA resources. 

CO02-76 Offshore surveys were conducted after consultation with federal agencies. State 

agencies may continue to request additional surveys prior to the issuance of state 

permits if necessary. 
CO-45

COMPAÑÍAS Y ORGANIZACIONES

CO02 – Comite Dialogo Ambiental, Inc. part of Iniciativa de 

Ecodesarrollo de Bahia de Jobos, Inc. (cont’d)

CO02-77 Section 4.5.2 provides a summary of the draft Benthic Resources Mitigation Plan (see 

appendix D) that includes mitigation for permanent impacts on coral reef resources. 

The mitigation plan will be finalized after consultation with the appropriate regulatory 

and local authorities. 

CO02-78 Section 4.5.2 provides a summary of the draft Benthic Resources Mitigation Plan 

(appendix D) that includes mitigation for permanent impacts on coral reef resources. 

We are also recommending that Aguirre LLC finalize this plan in consultation with 

the appropriate agencies, as well as recommending that an HDD be used across the 

Boca del Infierno, if feasible.

CO02-79 Aguirre LLC will file all required plans, which will be available to the public for 

comment on the FERC’s eLibrary system.

CO02-80 Comment noted. Appropriate consultation with NMFS will be completed prior to 

commencing construction, as summarized in section 4.6.

CO02-81 See the response to comment AG02-08.
CO-46

COMPAÑÍAS Y ORGANIZACIONES

CO02 – Comite Dialogo Ambiental, Inc. part of Iniciativa de 

Ecodesarrollo de Bahia de Jobos, Inc. (cont’d)

CO02-82 Our recommendation to install the pipeline via the HDD construction method or 

reroute it within the Boca del Infierno pass, primarily to avoid impacts on coral 

resources in this area, addresses this concern.

CO02-83 Comment noted. See the response to comment AG02-28.

CO02-84 Comment noted. See the response to comment AG02-28.

CO02-85 We revised section 3.5 to explain the scope that we established for reasonable 

offshore alternative sites. The final EIS provides additional information on the 

alternative terminal sites to support the analysis. Site selection criteria show that the 

proposed site ranked well in meeting the site selection criteria. We are 

recommending an alternative construction method or pipeline route that would 

substantially reduce impacts on sensitive benthic resources. 
CO-47

COMPAÑÍAS Y ORGANIZACIONES

CO02 – Comite Dialogo Ambiental, Inc. part of Iniciativa de 

Ecodesarrollo de Bahia de Jobos, Inc. (cont’d)
CO-48

COMPAÑÍAS Y ORGANIZACIONES

CO02 – Comite Dialogo Ambiental, Inc. part of Iniciativa de 

Ecodesarrollo de Bahia de Jobos, Inc. (cont’d)
CO-49

COMPAÑÍAS Y ORGANIZACIONES

CO03 – James Goodman, PhD
CO-50

COMPAÑÍAS Y ORGANIZACIONES

CO03 – James Goodman, PhD (cont’d)
CO-51

COMPAÑÍAS Y ORGANIZACIONES

CO03 – James Goodman, PhD (cont’d)

CO03-01 In order to comply with the U.S. Department of Transportation’s pipeline standards, 

Aguirre LLC revised its construction method to include pipeline burial by hand 

jetting, although we considered alternative trenching methods in section 3.6. As such, 

we updated section 4.2.3.2 with the results of the sedimentation analysis provided by 

Aguirre LLC on September 29, 2014 (Accession number: 20140929-5220) and the 

results of our own analysis to demonstrate the associated impacts of pipeline burial. 

Finally, we are recommending that Aguirre LLC use the HDD construction method 

through the Boca del Infierno pass, if it is determined to be feasible. 
CO-52

COMPAÑÍAS Y ORGANIZACIONES

CO03 – James Goodman, PhD (cont’d)
CO-53

COMPAÑÍAS Y ORGANIZACIONES

CO03 – James Goodman, PhD (cont’d)
CO-54

COMPAÑÍAS Y ORGANIZACIONES

CO03 – James Goodman, PhD (cont’d)

CO03-02 Section 3.6 provides additional information on alternative pipeline routes to minimize 

impacts on coral resources.
CO-55

COMPAÑÍAS Y ORGANIZACIONES

CO03 – James Goodman, PhD (cont’d)

CO03-03 Most agencies request relevant surveys of resources along a proposed route to aid in 

the decision of approval of the Project. If an alternative is determined to be 

preferable, additional survey work may be required. We would point out that we 

requested additional benthic surveys along the pipeline alternatives discussed in the 

EIS. Further, we refined one of the pipeline alternatives (Alternative Route 6) to 

further minimize impacts on coral resources. We are recommending that, if use of an 

HDD is found to likely be unsuccessful, Aguirre LLC use Alternative Route 6 to 

substantially reduce impacts on coral resources. 
CO-56

COMPAÑÍAS Y ORGANIZACIONES

CO03 – James Goodman, PhD (cont’d)

CO03-04 Aguirre LLC has proposed to bury its pipeline with the exception of at the Boca del 

Infierno pass where Aguirre LLC proposes a direct lay of the pipeline. We are

recommending that the pipe be installed in this area using the HDD method or be 

rerouted to minimize impacts on coral resources.
CO-57

COMPAÑÍAS Y ORGANIZACIONES

CO03 – James Goodman, PhD (cont’d)
CO-58

COMPAÑÍAS Y ORGANIZACIONES

CO03 – James Goodman, PhD (cont’d)
CO-59

COMPAÑÍAS Y ORGANIZACIONES

CO03 – James Goodman, PhD (cont’d)
CO-60

COMPAÑÍAS Y ORGANIZACIONES

CO03 – James Goodman, PhD (cont’d)

CO03-05 In accordance with CEQ regulations, we determined that the proposed site was 

feasible and would not result in a significant environmental impact. To make this 

determination, we considered Aguirre LLC’s mitigation plans, agency comments 

received, and our recommendations within this EIS. Based on our analysis of the 

proposed site and the alternative sites, we found no compelling reason to review 

additional alternative sites.
CO-61

COMPAÑÍAS Y ORGANIZACIONES

CO03 – James Goodman, PhD (cont’d)

CO03-06 See response to comment CO03-05. 
CO-62

COMPAÑÍAS Y ORGANIZACIONES

CO03 – James Goodman, PhD (cont’d)
CO-63

COMPAÑÍAS Y ORGANIZACIONES

CO03 – James Goodman, PhD (cont’d)
CO-64

COMPAÑÍAS Y ORGANIZACIONES

CO03 – James Goodman, PhD (cont’d)
CO-65

COMPAÑÍAS Y ORGANIZACIONES

CO04 – Mount Sinai Hospital, Pediatric Environmental Health 

and Specialty Unit
CO-66

COMPAÑÍAS Y ORGANIZACIONES

CO04 – Mount Sinai Hospital, Pediatric Environmental Health 

and Specialty Unit (cont’d)

CO04-01 See the response to comment CO02-06.

CO04-02 See the response to comment CO02-07.

CO04-03 See the response to comment CO02-08.

CO04-04 See the response to comment CO02-09.
CO-67

COMPAÑÍAS Y ORGANIZACIONES

CO05 – Puerto Rico Fishermen’s Federation and Defenders of 

the Sea, Inc. 

CO05-01 We have determined that our analysis in sections 4.5 and 4.6 fully describe the 

impacts on the wildlife resources in the Project area. In addition, we are including 

recommendations to minimize the associated impacts from the Project on sensitive 

marine wildlife and associated habitats.

CO05-02 In our analysis, we did find that the construction of the pipeline crossing of the Boca 

del Infierno pass, as proposed, is environmentally unacceptable. To this end, we are 

recommending that, if Aguirre LLC determines that an HDD of the pass is unlikely to 

be successful, Aguirre LLC should adopt Alternative Route 6 as its proposed route. 

To ensure that impacts on boating and fishing are minimized during construction, we 

are recommending in section 4.7.7 that Aguirre LLC prepare a Construction Access 

Plan that demonstrates areas that would be required to be avoided by marine users, 

discusses duration and public restrictions, and details methods of communication of 

restrictions to the general public.
CO-68

COMPAÑÍAS Y ORGANIZACIONES

CO06 – Puerto Rico Manufacturers Association

CO06-01 While some information was still pending at the time of issuance of the draft EIS, the 

lack of this final information does not deprive the public of a meaningful opportunity 

to comment on potential substantial adverse environmental effects of the Project or to 

suggest a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such effects. The EIS includes sufficient 

detail to enable the reader to understand and consider the issues raised by the 

proposed Project and addresses a reasonable range of alternatives. The final EIS has 

been updated with new information where it is available.
CO-69

COMPAÑÍAS Y ORGANIZACIONES

CO07 – Mesa de Dialogo Energetico de Puerto Rico
CO-70

COMPAÑÍAS Y ORGANIZACIONES

CO07 – Mesa de Dialogo Energetico de Puerto Rico (cont’d)

CO07-01 Comment noted. The energy policy in Puerto Rico and practices by PREPA are 

outside of the scope of this environmental analysis. However, our EIS reiterates the 

comment that one of the Project’s objectives is to contribute to energy price 

stabilization in the region.
CO-71

COMPAÑÍAS Y ORGANIZACIONES

CO07 – Mesa de Dialogo Energetico de Puerto Rico (cont’d)
CO-72

COMPAÑÍAS Y ORGANIZACIONES

CO07 – Mesa de Dialogo Energetico de Puerto Rico (cont’d)
CO-73

COMPAÑÍAS Y ORGANIZACIONES

CO07 – Mesa de Dialogo Energetico de Puerto Rico (cont’d)

CO07-02 Comment noted. PREPA was present at the FERC's comment meeting to receive this 

comment.
CO-74

COMPAÑÍAS Y ORGANIZACIONES

CO07 – Mesa de Dialogo Energetico de Puerto Rico (cont’d)

CO07-03 Our determination of impacts is based on a review of the information provided by 

Aguirre LLC and further developed from data requests; field investigations; scoping; 

literature research; alternatives analysis; and contacts with federal, state, and local 

agencies and individual members of the public; as well as our recommendations to 

avoid or reduce certain environmental impacts. As part of our review, we developed 

specific mitigation measures that we conclude would appropriately and reasonably 

reduce the environmental impacts resulting from construction and operation of the 

Project. Specifically, we are recommending that if Aguirre LLC determines that an

HDD across the Boca del Infierno pass is unlikely to be successful, it should adopt 

Alternative Route 6 as its proposed route in order to substantially reduce impacts on 

coral resources along the pipeline route.

CO07-04 The generation and consumption of the electricity supplied by PREPA to Puerto Rico 

is outside of the scope of this EIS.
CO-75

COMPAÑÍAS Y ORGANIZACIONES

CO07 – Mesa de Dialogo Energetico de Puerto Rico (cont’d)

CO07-05 PREPA was present at the FERC's comment meeting to receive this comment.

CO07-06 Comment noted.
CO-76

COMPAÑÍAS Y ORGANIZACIONES

CO07 – Mesa de Dialogo Energetico de Puerto Rico (cont’d)

CO07-07 We developed specific mitigation measures that we conclude would appropriately and 

reasonably reduce the environmental impacts resulting from construction and 

operation of the Project. In addition, we are recommending that our mitigation 

measures be attached as mandatory conditions to any authorization issued by the 

Commission.

CO07-08 The Jobos Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve has been engaged in the review 

and permitting of the Project through representation of the federal and state agencies.

CO07-09 Our determination of impacts is based on a review of the information provided by 

Aguirre LLC and further developed from data requests; field investigations; scoping; 

literature research; alternatives analysis; and contacts with federal, state, and local 

agencies and individual members of the public; as well as our recommendations to 

avoid or reduce certain environmental impacts.

CO07-010 Each federal agency has the option of enforcing penalties if the applicant fails to meet 

its permit conditions.
CO-77

COMPAÑÍAS Y ORGANIZACIONES

CO08 –Puerto Rico Manufacturers Association

CO08-01 Comment noted. The Aguirre Power Complex is under the jurisdiction of PREPA, 

and FERC does not have jurisdictional authority over the facilities operated by 

PREPA. Therefore, the comments raised here regarding operation of the Aguirre 

Power Complex are outside the scope of this EIS.
CO-78

COMPAÑÍAS Y ORGANIZACIONES

CO08 –Puerto Rico Manufacturers Association (cont’d)