Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

Non-Intemet Public 

Figure 4.11.2-1 

(Page 4-135) 

Public access for the above information is available only 

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

public.referenceroom~. 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

TAB~.E 4.11.2-2 

F.xlsl~I Nobe I.mm~ at the Clae¢~ Nc~e Scmdmm m 

NSA 1 54.2 58.3 52.2 59.5 

NSA 2 54.2 56.3 52.2 59.5 

NSA 3 542. 56~ 522 59.5 

NSA 4 542. 56.3 52.2 5g.5 

 ghets and Miagnd 

Conmuction of the LNG tetmh~ would occur over approxinmtely 3 years. Pile driving for the 

LNG stooge tanks end the pier would be the most significant noise generating activity during the 

consm~on period. Pile driving would occur intermittently for approximately 6 to 8 months dung 

daytime hours only. The overall intensity of noise at nearby recelx(xz wc~Id vary based on the type of 

equipment operating, the mode of operation, the amount of equipment in use, and the distance between 

constx~ctien equilm~ent and the sensitive receptor. As a result, noise hnpacts from cong~'fion ~tivities 

me difficult to estimate. It is known that the noise associated with these ~on mctivitles would be 

int~mittent, as equipmeat would be operated on an as-needod basis. Construction activities at the I.,NG 

terminal would generate short-term increases in sound levels predominately duzing daylight hours, when 

the most significant consu'uctinn activities would occur. Generally, noise at a large cca~troctlon site is 

about 95 dBA at 10 feet. Based on a 6 dBA reduction pet doubling of distance and approximately 2,300 

feet to the nearest receptc¢, the constng, fion noise level at the nea.,-'est NSA would be 47.8 dBA ~ and 

45.7 dBA I,e.. This equates to a total nohe level of 55.1 dBA/,.¢cu) and a noise increase of 0.9 dBA at 

the nearest NSA when ~on activities are occuning. The increase in noise would be perceptible to 

the nearby residences due to noise level fluctuations from such activities as pile driving; however, the 

equivalent noise increase would not be significant because ~ increase would only occur during 

co~en activities. 

Construction of the proIx)sed pipeline would require opera~mg comaruction equipment close to 

rm6dential ~ over a period of several months. With the exception of specific activities such as 

hydrostatic testing and critical singes of HDD, pipeline conStrUction activities would occur hugely during 

dayfight honn. Pipeline comtraction is like having an assembly line, with c~ws conducting separate but 

sequential activities, each generally proceeding at rates ranging from several hundred feet to a mile per 

day. Depending on the distance between each crew in the assembly fine, con~x~on ~:fivifies in any 

one area could last fzom several days to several weeks on an intermment ~is. While ~ in the 

immediate vicinity of the cenmucfion ~ctivities would experience an ~ in noise, this effect would 

be tempotm7 and local. The average noise level gm~r~d by the construction equipment that would be 

used for pipeline constngfion activities ranges between about 79 and 89 dBA at a distance of 50 feet 

(EPA, 1971). Therefore, the 124 residents located closest to the pipeline route would experience a noise 

level of approximately 89 dBA at peak noise conditions. An 89 dBA noise level for 8 hours a day is 

equivalent to an I.e. of 84 dBA. Because noise levels diminish rapidly with distance, this noise level 

would be of limited duration and would decrease significantly as the construction equipment moves away 

from the residence. 

4-136 
]nofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

Stationary equipment at the proposed LNG terminal would also generate noise during operation 

of the LNO facilities. The primary stationary noise generating equipment at the LNO terminal would 

include water/ethylene-glycol healers and pumps, boil-off gas compressor, high-pressure flare, LNG 

sendout pumps, and emergency equipment. The expected noise generated by each stationary source and 

the type of noise mitigation are listed in table 4. l 1.2-3. 

TABLE 4.11.2-3 

I.NO Sendcxd Pump 7 <85 

Bol-o(f Gea Compceuo¢ 3 82 

HCtH='~=~n Re'e I I0~" 

Bo~l-off Gas Boww 3 95 

Electdc Rrevmt~ Pump 1 90 

tY, eaot ~tawatar Pun'o (Cat e~,e) I 100 

WateolEtt~e~-Glyco4 Heater (Blowers) 10 g5 

W~lt~r/1Etl~le~P(3tyc~ Circt~tlon Pump 4 92 

Warm Wate~/Ethyte~P(3ktc~ Circulation Pump 2 90 

Warm Water, l~ene-Q.'y~ Coo~ 6 85 

Wan'n Watm/E1hy~ene-Glyool Clrcu~bon Pump 3 go 

l~m~InsU'umlmt Air ~ 2 80 

Main Boo~t~ Ak C.,omlxeem~ 2 85 

BaW, oed Nitrog~ Compms=m¢ 2 85 

Emeq~ncy Genemto~ (D~s~) 1 toe 

Total Noise from Dally Operating 101.4 

3.3 No She~ter 

3.3 Bol-off Shelter 

50 /~ 5P/~ter 

3.3 Boll-off St~ter 

3.3 Ubllty Shelter 

33 UIC~y She/ter 

3.3 HeaWr She~ter 

3.3 Heat~ She~ter 

3.3 Heeter She~e¢ 

3.3 No St~t~ 

3.3 Heat~ Shelter 

3.3 UBIty Slitter 

3.3 NO Sharer 

3.3 No Sheltm 

3.3 Weather Protection 

23 Weather Protectk~ 

3.3 

a/ 

b' 

The emecge~y equipment ~ tn itaJics) a~ not in~uded In the no~e ~aly~ becauu the eq~ ~d ~ 

operate dumg no~nal ddy p4ant operation. 

"l~e ove¢~l noise le~ relxe6e~ 'die toQd no~e from the equipme~ ¢ategow lind doee ~ ~ f~ ~ 

reductions flora b~ eeck~Jfes and dike interference. 

Noise impacts associated with stationary sources were estimated using spreadsheet-based 

caJcu{ations which assume 6 dBA reduc¢io~ per doubling of distance. The msulls of this analysis arc 

summarized in table 4. ! 1.2-4. 

TABLE 4.11.2-4 

r=atlmat=d NOI~ Imlmct from Pmpoud LI~ Tecmlnal 

DisUmce to E.,d~lg No~e I.e~ I.e~ ~ to 

NSA (file() (dBA) Project (dBA) To~ll ~ (d6A) Future Ingreese 

NSA N L~ L= ~ L. L.~ L~ (dBA) b' 

1 2,312 54.2 59.5 44.5 50.9 54.6 80.1 0.4 

2 2,488 54.2 59.5 43.9 50.3 54.8 60.0 0.4 

NSA 3 3,841 54.2 59.5 40.1 48.5 54.4 59.7 0.2 

NSA 4 4,432 54.2 59.5 38.8 45.2 54.3 59.7 0.1 

Jl/ Me~u~d flora the center o~ th@ LNG SllO~0e tank to the NSA. 

~/ Bued ¢~ the inmease In 24,-hour equhtaJent so~xI le~. 

NSA nolse sem,~ ame 

dBA dectbe~ of the A-we~hted 1tale 

24-1"o Jr equlvakmt sound level 

~. day night sound leve~ 

4-137 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

These results suggest that the maximum predicted I.~ and L~.4~ attributable to the operation of 

the LNG facilities would be 50.9 and 44.5 dBA, respectively, and would occur at NSA 1. In addition, the 

predicted noise increase would be no more than 0.4 dBA at any noise sensitive area. The noise level 

attributable to the proposed LNG terminal would be less than 55 dBA I.~ (i.e., the FERC noise criterion) 

at all NSAs and the estimated I.~(~) noise level would be less than 50 dBA (i.e., the NJDEP noise 

criterion for nighttime noise) at all nearby residential properties. Because the proposed LNG terminal and 

pipelines do not include the addition of new compressors, no perceptible increase in vibration at any NSA 

is anticipated under normal operating conditions. 

Because the noise analysis is based on preliminary design, and to ensure that the proposed LNG 

terminal operates in compliance with these guidelines, we recommend that: 

• Crown Landing make all reasonable efforts to assure its predicted noise levels from 

the LNG terminal are not exceeded at the NSAs and file noise surveys showing th/s 

with the Secretary no later than 60 days after placing the LNG terminal in service. 

However, if the noise attributable to the operation of the LNG terminal exceeds S5 

dBA L~ at an NSA or 50 dBA ~ at a residential property line, Crown Landing 

should file a report on what changes are needed and should install additional noise 

controls to meet the level within 1 year of the in-service date. Crown Landing 

should confirm compliance with these requirements by firing a second noise survey 

with the Secretary no later than 60 days after it installs the additional noise controls. 

4-138 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

4.12 RELIABILITY AND SAFETY 

The operation of the proposed LNG terminal poses a unique hazard that could affect the public 

safety without strict design and operational measures to control potential accidents. The primary 

concerns are those events that could lead to an LNG spill of sufficient magnitude to create an offsite 

hazard. However, it is also important to recognize the stringent requirements for the design, construction, 

operation, and maintenance of the facility as well as the extensive safety systems to detect and control 

potential hazards. 

With the exception of the October 20, 1944 fire at the LNG facility in Cleveland, Ohio, the 

operating history of U.S. LNG facilities has been free of LNG safety-related incidents resulting in adverse 

effects to the public or the environment. The 1944 Cleveland incident was attributed to the use of 

materials inadequately suited for cryogenic temperatures and the lack of spill impoundments at the site ~. 

More recently, an operational accident occurred in 1979 at the Cove Point LNG facility in Lnsby, 

Maryland, when a pump seal failed, resulting in gas vapors entering an electrical conduit and settling in a 

confined space. When a worker switched off a circuit breaker, the gas ignited, resulting in heavy damage 

to the building and a worker fatality. Lessons learned from this accident resulted in changing the national 

fire codes, with the participation of the FERC, to ensure that the situation would not occur again. The 

proposed facilities would be designed, constructed, and operated in compliance with these codes. 

On January 19, 2004, a blast occurred at Sonatrach's Skikde, Algeria LNG liquefaction facility 

that killed 27 and injured 56 workers. No members of the public were injured. Preliminary findings of 

the accident investigation suggest that a cold hydrocarbon leak occurred at Liquefaction Train 40 and was 

introduced to the high-pressure steam boiler by the combustion air fan. An explosion developed inside 

the boiler fire box which subsequently triggered a larger explosion of the hydrocarbon vapors in the 

immediate vicinity. The resulting fire damaged the adjacem liquefaction process and LPG separation 

equipment of Train 40, and spread to Trains 20 and 30. Although Trains 10, 20, and 30 had been 

modernized in 1998-1999, Train 40 had been operating with its original equipment since start-up in 1981. 

Although there are major differences between the equipment involved in the accident at Skikda 

and that of the proposal by Crown Landing (i.e., high=pressure steam boilers that power refrigerant 

compressors would not be used here nor are they used at any LNG facility under FERC jurisdiction), the 

sequence of cascading events identifies potential failure modes that warrant further evaluation. As a 

result, we recommend that: 

• Crown Landing provide a technical review of its facility design that: 

8. Identifies all combustion~enttlstion air Intake equipment and the 

distance(s) to any possible hydrocarbon release (LNG, flammable 

refrigerut~ flammable Hqulds, and flammable gases); and 

b. Demomgratu that these areas au~ adequately covered by hazard detection 

devices and indicates how these devices would isolate or shutdown any 

combustion equllmtent whose continued operation could add to or sustain 

an emergency, 

For a detcrip¢ica ~'the incideat and the findiags of the inv~tigation, ge "U.S. auartau of Mia~. ~ ~ ~ M~m ~ ~ ~ g 

the Liquefacti~x, St~gagr, and Regastficafim Plant of the Easl Ohio Gas Co., Cleveland, Ohio, ~ ~, 1944, ~ 1946." 

4-139 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

Crown Landing should l'de this review with the Secretary for review and written 

approval by the Director of OEP prior to ronstructign. 

A discussion of the principal properties and hazards associated with LNG is presented in section 

4.12.1. A summary of our preliminary design and technical review of the cryogenic aspects of the LNG 

terminal is presented in section 4.12.2. Storage and retention systems are discussed in section 4.12.3. An 

analysis of the thermal radiation and flammable vapor cloud hazards resulting from a credible land-based 

LNG spill is presented in section 4.12.4, while the safety aspects of LNG transportation by ship is 

discussed and summarized in section 4.12.5. A discussion on security awareness related to terrorism is 

presented in section 4.12.6. The reliability and safety issues related to the natural gas pipeline are 

discussed in section 4.12.7. Additional safety issues identified in scoping are addressed in section 4.12.8. 

Conclusions on safety issues arc in section 4.12.9. 

4.12.1 LNG Hazards 

LNG's principal hazards result from its cryogenic temperature (-260 ° F), flammability, and vapor 

dispersion characteristics. As a liquid, LNG will neither burn nor explode. Although it can cause freeze 

bums and, depending on the length of exposure, more serious injury, its extremely cold state does not 

present a significant hazard to the public, which rarely, if ever, comes in contact with it as a liquid. As a 

cryogenic liquid, LNG will quickly cool materials it contacts, causing extreme thermal stress in materials 

not specifically designed for ultra cold conditions. Such thermal stresses could subsequently subject the 

material to brittleness, fracture, or other loss of tensile strength. These hazards, however, are not 

substantially different from the hazards associated with the storage and transportation of liquid oxygen 

(-296 ° F) or several other cryogenic gases that have been routinely produced and translxa'ted in the United 

States. 

Methane, tbe primary component of LNG, is colorless, odorless, and tasteless, and is classified as 

a simple asphyxiant. Methane could, however, cause extreme health hazards, including death, if inhaled 

in significant quantities within a limited time. At very cold temperatures, methane vapors could cause 

freeze burns. Asphyxiation, like freezing, normally represents a negligible risk to the public from ].,NG 

facilities. 

When released from its containment vessel and/or transfer system, LNG will first produce a vapor 

or gas. This vapor, if ignited, represents the primary hazard to the public. LNG vaporizes rapidly when 

exposed to ambient heat sources such as water or soil, producing 620 to 630 standard cubic feet of natural 

gas for each cubic foot of liquid. LNG vapors in a 5 to 15 percent mixture with air are highly flammable. 

The amount of flammable vapor produced per unit of time depends on factors such as wind conditions, 

the amount of LNG spilled, and whether it is spilled on water or land. Depending on the amount spilled, 

LNG may form a liquid pool that will spread unless contained by a dike. 

Once a flammable vapor-air mixture from an LNG spill has been ignited, the flame front will 

propagate hack to the spill site if the vapor concentration along this path is sufficiently high to support the 

combustion process. An unconfined methane-air mixture will bum slowly, tending to ignite combustible 

materials within the vapor cloud, whereas fast flame speeds tend to produce flash bums rather than selfsustaining ignition. 

LNG is not explosive as it is normally transported and stored. However, LNG vapors (primarily 

methane) can explode if contained within a confined space, such as a building or structure, and ignited. 

There is no evidence, however, suggesting that LNG is explosive in unconfined open areas. Experiments 

to determine if unconfined methane-air mixtures will explode have been conducted and, to date, have all 

been negative. Unconfined methane-air mixtures will burn but will not explode. Nevertheless, a number 

4-140 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

of experimental programs have been conducted to determine the "amount of initiator charge" required to 

detonate an unconfined methane-air mixture. 

Over the years, various parties have occasionally expressed the energy content of an LNG storage 

tank or L.NG ship in equivalent tons of trinitrotolnene (TNT), as an implied measure of its explosive 

potential. However, such a simplistic analogy fails to consider that explosive forces are not just a 

function of the total energy content but also of the rate of energy release. For an explosion to occur, the 

rate of energy release must be nearly instantaneous, such as with a TNT charge initiated by a blasting cap. 

Unlike TNT or other explosives which inherently contain an oxidizer, an unconfined vapor cloud must be 

mixed with oxygen within the flammability range of the fuel for combustion to occur. For a large 

unconfined vapor cloud, the flammability range tends to exist at the mixing zone at the edges of the cloud. 

When ignited, flame speeds about 66 to 82 feet per second (20 to 25 meters per second) and local over 

pressures up to 0.2 psig have been estimated for methane rich fuels, well below the flame speeds and over 

pressures associated with explosion. 

A rapid phase transition (RPT) can occur when a portion of LNG spilled onto water changes from 

liquid to gas, virtually instantaneously. Unlike an explosion that releases energy and combustion 

products from a chemical reaction as described above, an RPT is the result of heat transferred to the liquid 

inducing a change to the vapor state. The rapid expansion from the liquid to vapor state can cause locally 

large overpressures. RPTs have been observed during LNG test spills onto water. In some test cases, the 

overpressures generated were strong enough to damage test equipment in the immediate vicinity of the 

LNG release point. The sizes of the overpressure events have been generally small, and are estimated to 

be equivalent to several pounds of TNT. Such a small overpressure is not expected to cause significant 

damage to an LNG vessel. However, the RPT may increase the rate of LNG pool spreading and the LNG 

vaporization rate. 

4,12.2 Cryogenic Design and Technical Review 

The cryogenic design and technical review emphasizes the engineering design and safety 

concepts as well as the projected operational reliability of the proposed facilities. The principle areas of 

coverage include: materials in cryogenic environments; insulation systems; cryogenic safety: 

thermodynamics: heat transfer, instrumentation; cryogenic processes; and other relevant safety systems. 

Study and evaluation of information for the proposed design and installation of the Crown 

Landing LNG terminal has been performed by FERC staff. The design and specifications submiRed for 

the proposed facility to date are considered to be preliminary but would be the basis for any detailed 

design to follow. A significant amount of the design involving final selection of equipment 

manufacturers, process conditions, and resolution of some safety related issues would be completed in the 

next phase of the project development if authorization is granted by the Commission. This informafon 

would need to be submitted to FERC staff for review and approval. 

As a result of the technical review of the information provided in the submittal documents, a 

number of concerns were identified by staff relating to the reliability, operability, and safety of the 

proposed design. In response to staffs questions, Crown Landing provided written answers prior to the 

site visit and technical conference on January 11-12, 2005. However, several areas of concern are noted 

that require additional consideration and/or action on behalf of the company. Follow up on those items 

requiring additional action should be documented in reports to he filed with the FERC. As a result, we 

recommend that: 

The facility design and construction details should be filed with the Secretary for 

review and approval by the Director of OEP either: prior to Initial site construction; 

4-141 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

prior to construction after final design; prior to commissioning; or prior to 

commencement of service as indicated by each specific recommendation. 

Procedures should be developed to measure, monitor and if necessary, remove 

water from beneath the pile cap, to prevent freezing and frost heave, during 

construction. Procedures should be filed prior to initial site con~ruction. 

An evaluation of the relief and flare systems should be made and filed prior to initial 

site construction. 

A complete plan and list of the hazard detection equipment should be filed prior to 

initial site construction. The information should include a list with the instrument 

tag number, type and location, alarm locations, and shutdown functions of the 

proposed hazard detection equipment. Plan drawings should clearly show the 

location of all detection equipment. 

A complete plan and list of the fixed and wheeled dry-chemieal, fire extinguishing, 

high expansion foam, hazard control equipment should be filed prior to initial site 

constructign. The information should include a list with the equipment tag number, 

type, size, equipment covered, and automatic and manual remote signals initiating 

discharge of the units. Plan drawings should clcorly show the planned location of all 

fixed and wheeled extinguishers. 

Facility plans showing the proposed location of, and area covered by, each monitor, 

hydrant, deluge system, bose, and sprinkler, as well as piping and Instrumentation 

diagrams, of the fire water system should be filed prior to Initial site construction. 

The final design of the hazard detection equipment should Identify manufacturer 

and model. 

The final deslun of the fixed and wheeled dry-chemical, fire extinguishing, high 

expansion foam hazard control equipment should identify manufacturer and model. 

The final design should include equipment and instrumentation for the 

measurement of translational and rotational movement of the inner vessel for use 

during and after cool down. 

The final desiwn should include details of the boil-off gas flow measurement system 

provided for each tank. 

The final design should Include detaii~ of the LNG flow measurement system 

provided for the top and bottom fill to each tank. 

The ~ deshm should include a minimum of three onsite seismic instruments that 

would have the capability of actuating an automatic plant wide ESD in the event of 

seismic activity approaching the site Operating Basis Earthquake. Crown Landing 

should specify the set point to be used. 

The final design should include a reliable measurement system to monitor 

deflections during the hydraulic test. At a minimum, this system should include two 

slope indicator ducts which bisect the tank in mutually, perpendicular directions, 

4-142 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

monitoring points at the terminals of these ducts, and other monitoring points along 

the perimeter of the concrete shell, so that sag, warping, tilt, and settlement can be 

monitored. Tolerances for sag, tilt, and shell warping should meet or exceed the 

limits specified by the tank manufacturer. 

The final design should include details of the LNG tank tilt settlement and 

differential settlement limits between each LNG tank and piping and procedures to 

be implemented in the event that limits are exceeded. 

The final design should include drawings and specifications of the spill protection 

system to be applied to the LNG tank roofs. 

The final des]un should include a discretionary vent for each tank, to be operated 

through the DCS. 

The final design should Include provisions to measure the discharge flow of each 

intank pump. 

The final design of the vaporizers should include double block isolation on the 

suction and double block isolation and check valve on the discharge of each 

vaporizer. One of the valves on the suction and one valve on the discharge should be 

automatically actuated. 

The f'mal de,dan should include provisions to ensure that hot glycol/water 

circulation is in operation at all times when LNG is present in the LNG booster 

pump discharge piping or when the temperature in the LNG inlet channel to any 

vaporizer is below 0 ° F. 

The final desi2n should include detection instrumentation and shut down 

procedures for vaporizer tube leak, shell side overpressure, or busting dlse failure. 

The final design should Include temperature measurement of the vaporizer common 

discharge header which should alarm the low temperature condition. 

The final design should include provisions to recover boil-off gas, under all 

eonditions, in the event that the send out vaporization system is not in operation. 

The final deshm should include automatic shutdown valves at the suction and 

dlseharge of the each bolioff blower and each bolioff compressor. 

The final design should ensure that air gaps are Installed downstream of all seals or 

Isolations installed at the interface between a flammable fluid system and an 

clectrlcal conduit or wiring system. Each air gap should vent to a safe location and 

be equipped with a leak detection device that: would continuously monitor for the 

presence of a flammable fluid; would alarm the hazardous condition; and would 

shutdown the appropriate systems. 

The final design should include a fire protection evaluation carried out in 

accordance with the requirements of National Fire Protection Association 

Standards for the Production, Storage, and Handling of LNG 59A, chapter 9.1.2. 

4-143 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

In the event that open path detectors are used in the final design, they should he 

calibrated to detect the presence of flammable gas and alarm at the lowest reliable 

set point, in addition to the required 25 percent lower explosive limit set point. 

• The final desi.g.n should include details of the shut down logic. 

The final design should Include emergency shutdown of equipment and systems 

activated by hazard detection devices for flammable gas, fire, and cryogenic spills, 

when applicable. 

Security personnel requirements for prior to and during LNG vessel unloading 

should be filed prior to commissioning. 

Operation and Maintenance procedures and manuals, as well as emergency plans, 

emergency evacuation plan and safety procedure manuals, should be filed I~rior to 

commissioning. 

Copies of the Coast Guard security plan, vessel operation plan, and emergency 

response plan should he provided to FERC staff prior to commissioninu. 

The contingency plan for failure of the outer LNG tank containment should be filed 

prior to commissioning. 

FERC staff should be notified of any proposed revisions to the security plan and 

physical security of the facility prior to commencement of service. 

Progress on the proposed construction project should be reported In monthly 

re~rts filed with the Secretary. Details should Include a summary of activities, 

problems encountered and remedial actinns taken. Problems of significant 

magnitude should be reported to the FERC within 24 hours. 

In addition, we recommend that the following inspection and reporting measures be applied 

throughout the life of the facility: 

The facility should be subject to regular FERC staff technical reviews and site 

Inspections on at least a biennial basis or more frequently as circumstances indicate. 

Prior to each FERC staff technical review and site inspection, Crown Landing 

should respond to a specific data request including information relating to possible 

design and operating conditions that may have been imposed by other agencies or 

organizations. Up-to-date detailed piping and Instrumentation diagrams reflecting 

facility modifications and provfsfon of other pertinent information not included in 

the semi-annual reports described below, including facility events that have taken 

place since the previously submiRed annual report, should be submitted. 

Semi-annual operational reports should be filed with the Secretary to Identify 

changes in facility design and operating conditions, abnormal operating experiences, 

activities (including ship arrivals, quantity and composition of imported LNG, 

vaporization quantities, boil-off/flash gas, etc.), plant modifications including future 

plans and progress thereof. Abnormalities should include, but not be limited to: 

unloading/shipping problems, potential hazardous conditions from offsite vessels, 

storage tank stratification or rollover, geysering, storage tank pressure excursions, 

4-144 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

cold spots on the storage tanks, storage tank vibrations and/or vibrations in 

associated cryogenic piping, storage tank settlement, significant equipment or 

instrumentation malfunctions or failures, mm-sch4gtuled maintenance or repair 

(and reasons therefore), relative movement of storage tank Inner vessels, vapor or 

liquid releases, fires Involving natural gas and/or from other sources, negative 

pressure (vacuum) within a storage tank and higher than predicted boiloff rates. 

Adverse weather conditions and the effect on the facility also should be reported. 

Reports should be sulmfltted within ~ after each period ending June 30 and 

December 31. In addition to the above Items, a section entitled "Significant plant 

modifications proposed for the next 12 months (dates)" also should be included in 

the semi.annnal operational reports. Such information would provide the FERC 

staff with early notice of anticipated future constructlon/mulntenanee projects at the 

LNG facility. 

In the event the temperature of any region of any secondary containment, including 

imbedded pipe supports, becomes le~ than the minimum specified operating 

temperature for the material the Commission should be notif~l within 24 hours 

and procedures for corrective action should be specified. 

Significant non-scheduled events, including safety-related incidents (i.e., LNG or 

natural gas releases, fires, explosions, mechanical failures, unusual over 

pressurization, and major injuries) and security-celated Incidents (i.e, attempts to 

enter site, suspicio~ activities) should be reported to FERC staff within 24 hours. 

In the event an abnormality is of significant magnitude to threaten public or 

employee safety, cause significant property damage, or interrupt service, 

notification should be made immediately, without unduly interfering with any 

necessary or appropriate emergency repair, alarm, or other emergency procedure. 

'l'nis notification practice should be inrorporoted into the LNG facility's emergency 

plan. Examples of reportable LNG-related incidents Include: 

a. fire; 

b. explosion; 

c. estimated property damage of $50,000 or more; 

d. death or personal Injury necessitating in-patient hospitalication; 

e. free flow of LNG for 5 minutes or more that results in pooling; 

f. 

g. 

h. 

unintended movement or abnormal Inading by environmental cans~, such 

as an earthquake, landslide, or flood, that impairs the servleeabllity, 

structural Integrity, or reliability of an LNG facility that contains, controls, 

or proeesees gas or LNG; 

any crack or other nmteriai defect that Impairs the structural integrity or 

reliability of an LNG facility that contains, controls, or processes gas or 

LNG; 

any malfunction or operating error that causes the pressure of a pipeli~ or 

LNG facility that contains or processes gas or LNG to rise above its 

4-145 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

maximum allowable operating pressure (or working pressure for LNG 

facilities) pins the build-up allowed for operation of pressure limiting or 

control devices; 

i. a leak In an LNG facility that contains or processes gas or LNG that 

constitutes an emergency; 

j. inner tank leakage, ineffective insulation, or frost heave that impairs the 

structural integrity of an LNG storage tank; 

k. any safety-related condition timt could lead to an imminent hazard and 

cause (either directly or indirectly by remedial action of the operator), for 

purposes other than abandonment, a 20 percent reduction in operating 

pressure or shutdown of operation of a pipeline or an LNG facl/ity that 

contains or processes gas or LNG; 

I. safety-related incidents to LNG vessels occurring at or en route to and from 

the LNG facility; or 

an event that is significant In the judgment of the operator and/or 

nmnagen~nt even though It did not meet the above criteria or the guidelines 

set forth in an LNG fncillty's incident management plan. 

In the event of an incident, the Director of OEP has delegated authority to take 

whatever steps are necessary to ensure operational reliability and to protect human 

life, health, property or the environment, including authority to direct the LNG 

facility to cease operations. Following the initial company notification, FERC staff 

would determine the need for a separate follow-up report or follow-up in the 

upcoming semi-annual operational report. All company follow-up reports should 

include investigation results and recommendations to minimize a reoccurrence of 

the incident. 

4.12.3 Storage and Retention Systems 

LNG storage tanks come in a variety of categories. The following are descriptions of the tank 

designs most commonly used world wide: 

• Single containment cylindrical metal tanks (predominately used in the United States); 

• Spherical storage tanks (predominately used in LNG can'iers); 

Double containment cylindrical metal inner tank and metal or concrete outer tank 

(commonly thought of as an LNG tank with a high wall dike); 

Full containment cylindrical metal inner tank and metal or concrete outer tank (two 

authorized by the Commission; several applications currently proposed to the 

Commission, including Crown Landing); 

Pre-stressed cylindrical concrete tank with an internal metal membrane (membrane tank). 

(None in the United States); and 

4-146 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

Cryogenic cylindrical concrete tank; internal cryogenic tank and pre-stressed concrete 

outer tank (one operational in the United States; the remainder worldwide). 

These tank categories are described in Annex H of the European Standard for LNG facilities (EN 

1473) and other publications which are reproduced and/or summarized below for information purposes. 

Some of the terminology is new to the Unites States; e.g. the terms "double containment" and "full 

containment" are not used in any U.S. code or st~dard associated with LNG facilities. 

H.I Single containment tank 

A single primary container and generally an outer shell designed and 

constructed so that only the primary container is required to meet the low 

temperature ductility requirements for storage of the product. 

The outer shell (if any) of a single containment storage tank is primarily 

for the retention and protection of insulation and to contain the purge gas 

pressure, but is not designed to contain refrigerated liquid in the event of leakage 

from the primary container. 

An above ground single containment tank shall be surrounded by a bund 

(dike) wall to contain any leakage. Examples of single containment are given in 

Figure H.I. 

H.2 Spherical storage tank 

A spherical single containment system consists of an unstiffened sphere 

supported at the equator by a vertical cylinder. The cylinder is monolitically 

connected to the tank by a profile in the tank wall. Both sphere and outer shell 

are normally made of aluminum alloy. 

For spherical onshore tanks, the lower part of the support cylinder is 

made of concrete and the tank is protected by a domed concrete cover (roof). 

The land application is shown in Figure H-2. 

An aboveground spherical tank shall be surrounded by a dike wall to 

contain any leakage. 

tL3 Double containment lank 

A double containment tank is designed and constructed so that both the 

inner self supporting primary container and the secondary container are capable 

of independently containing the refrigerated liquid stored. To minimize the pool 

of escaping liquid, the secondary container should be located at a distance not 

exceeding 6 meters from the primary container. 

The primary container contains the refrigeramd liquid under normal 

operating conditions. The secondary container is intended to contain any leakage 

of the refrigerated liquid, but it is not intended to contain any vapor resulting 

from this leakage. 

4-147 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

Examples of double containment tanks are given in Figure H.3. Figure 

H.3 does not imply that the secondary container is necessarily as high as the 

primary container. 

H.4 Full containment tank 

A tank designed and constructed so that both self supporting primary 

container and the secondary container are capable of independently containing 

the refrigerated liquid stored and for one of them its vapor. The secondary 

container can be 1 or 2 maters distance from the primary container. 

The primary container contains the refrigerated liquid under normal 

operating conditions. The outer roof is supported by the secondary container. 

The secondary container shall he capable both of containing the refrigerated 

liquid and of controlled venting of the vapor resulting from product leakage after 

a credible event. Examples of full containment tanks are given in Figure H.4. 

H.5 Membrane tank 

A membrane tank should be designed and constructed so that the primary 

container, constituted by a membrane, is capable of containing both the liquefied 

gas and its vapor under normal operating conditions and the concrete secondary 

container, which supports primary container, should be capable of containing all 

the liquefied gas stored in the primary container and of controlled venting of the 

vapor resulting from product leakage of the inner tank. 

The vapor of the primary container is contained by a steel roof liner 

which forms with the membrane an integral gastight containment. The action of 

the liquefied gas acting on the primary container (the metal membrane) is 

transferred directly to the pre-stressed concrete secondary container through the 

load bearing insulation. Examples of membrane tanks are given in Figure H.5 

H.6 Cryogenic concrete tank 

A cryogenic concrete tank is either a double containment tank (see H.3) 

or a full containment tank (see H.4). For this type of tank. the walls of the 

primary and secondary containers are both constructed of pre-stressed concrete. 

Examples of cryogenic concrete tanks are given in Figure H.6 

4-148 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

External ~-. Outm" 8heu 

In~JI4U~ \ j ~ , j ~ . (water 

Outer shell 

(not ~ to 

Flsu~ ~2 Examples of single eonLalument tan,Its 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

Ouler she, 

\ 

/ 

Prfm~y c,~dner 

! 

\ / 

\ / 

\ / 

\ / 

~ 1t Primary cofX"iner 

ii 

Outer 

,Saconcll~ c:~dah~r 

(lrn~x~nng am) 

Figure H.2 £x~LmpJes of spherical ir.orqe tanks 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

Roof If Suspended ,~eck 

Dike wll 

Roofff ~spended ded( 

reo,,Zred. (insulated) 

(not al~e to ,-- " ......... . -- 

contain j 

kluld) y container 

Loose ~1 

~nsufatJon B 

FIs~e H~ Examplu of double ~nminment tanlm 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

Reinforced SuN~ndld 

Inlluill]on on - -- .... 

~='Y ~ I ...... I I~m 

~'"~°' B I .- .... " ..... I I 

Bk~amd 

lrlgure H.4 Examples of fudl eonUUnment Umka 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

Outer steel roof 

Imml~km on 

ml~de of 

cogmdll~X 

dde~ 

Bwm InwJJaSon 

Reinforced 

InmJ~Uon on oono~ 

container Primary container s 

~ Zz~nplw or magnbrau* 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

R~rfforcKl 

¢orcrete ro~ 

Loo~ NI 

S~s~u~ld deck 

Pnmmued 

Catb~ steel 

Wner 

Base ~udallon 

Outer st~ root Suspended dock 

~mtnlum d~) 

!1| ,''N"~ II I I ~...,,.~ ~" 111 / II I~ insulago~ ore 

• ,:,~" .., ."~--~ I~:",~%v~"! 

Figure I-!.6 Example8 of cryolenlc concrete tanks 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

Single-, double-, and full-containment LNG storage tanks have been authorized by the 

Commission for use at new LNG import facilities or expansions of existing terminals; and single- and 

double-containment tanks have been constructed and operated. Although construction of fullcontainment tanks has not yet started in the United States, approximately 50 have been constructed world 

wide. During the review of earlier proposals, a number of issues have surfaced concerning the 

applicability of existing codes and regulations to full-containment lank. Specifically, the term "full 

containment" does not appear in U.S. codes or standards for LNG facilities, including the Federal Safety 

Standards in 49 CFR Part 193, NFPA 59A, or American Petroleum Institute 620. As a result some have 

made the assumption that to design and construct a full-containment tank in accordance with the EN 1473 

will satisfy the U.S. code and standards. 

For example, it has been suggested that thermal exclusion zones are not required for a fullcontainment tank because EN 1473 does not consider a tank fire scenario for full-containment tanks with 

a pre-stressed concrete wall and concrete roof. The staffs of the FERC and Office of Pipeline Safety 

(OPS) do not agree because neither NFPA 59A nor Part 193 exclude full containment from thermal 

exclusion zone requirements. As a result, a thermal exclusion zone analysis is required for an LNG 

storage tank fire at the top of the secondary container (see section 4.12.4). 

Further, EN 1473 does not specify a minimum distance to the property line for full-containment 

tanks because no tank fire scenario is considered. However, NFPA 59A requires a separation of 0.7 times 

the diameter from the property line. The proposed tanks for the Crown Landing project n~et the 

separation requirement. 

Another issue regarding the full-containment design is that the tank outer wall (secondary 

containment) serves as the impoundment, a concept allowed under Pa~s 193.2161 and 193.2167, and 

under the "exception" in figure 2.2.2.6 of NFPA 59A. A specific concern is the dual function of the 

concrete secondary container - it serves both the operational function of holding the insulation and gas 

pressure, and a safety function of containing liquid in the event of an inner tank failure. Conversely, in 

single- and double-containment tanks, independent systems provide operational and safety functions. 

While recognition must be given to the benefits of a concrete secondary container with respect to external 

events, such as projectiles or small aircraft, its ability to provide the dual functions while retaining its 

integrity has not been convincingly supported for all scenarios. This becomes increasingly important as 

proposed site acreage is reduced and buffer zones between adjacent properties are minim'ned. As such, 

FERC staff considers prudent design practice to provide some form of barrier to prevent liquid from 

flowing to an unintended area (i.e. outside the plant property) in the event that the storage tank primary 

and secondary containers fail. 

Concerns have also been expressed that the barrier could he considered a containment and 

prohibit certain equipment being located within the barrier and/or ruay conflict with other parts of the 

various codes with ~t to hazardous and electrical code classifications. Other concerns are that the 

barrier could he considered an impounding mea that would require new thermal and vapor cloud 

calculations. The purpose of the barrier is to prevent liquid from flowing off the plant property, and it is 

not the intent to define a containment or impounding area for thermal radiation or flammable vapor 

exclusion zone calculations or other code requirements. 

Crown Landing has proposed to install an ~ barrier around all three of the LNG tanks. The 

structure would have a height of 10 feet and would enclose an area of approximately 780 feet by 900 feet. 

The structure's volumetric capacity would exceed 100 percent of a single LNG tank's n~ximum liquid 

capacity. Rainwater collected by the harrier would be drained into a sump and pumped out in accordance 

with 49 CFR 193.2173. This barrier would confine LNG on the project property in the event of any 

hypothetical catastrophic event. 

4-155 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

4.12.4 Siting Requirements - Thermal and Dispersion Exclusion Zones 

Regulatory Reauiremant~ 

The LNG facilities proposed in this project must comply with the siting requirements of 49 CFR 

193, subpan B. On March 30, 2000, DOT revised 49 CFR 193 to incorporate NFPA 59A (1996 edition) 

into the LNG regulations. On April 9, 2004, DOT further revised 49 CFR Part 193 to incorporate the 

2001 edition of NFPA. The following sections specifically address offsite hazards: 

Part 193.2001, Scope of Part, excludes any matter c~hcr 0urn siting provisions 

pertaining to marine cargo transfer systems between the marine vessel and the last 

manifold or valve immediately before a storage tank. 

Part 193.2051, Scope, states that each LNG facility designed, replaced, relocated or 

significantly altered after March 31, 2000, must he provided with siting requirements in 

accordance with Subpan B and NFPA 59A. In the event of a conflict with NFPA 59A, 

then Pan 193 prevails. 

Part 193.20S7, Thermal radial/on protection, requires that each 1.2qG container and 

LNG transfer system have thermal exclusion zones based on three radiation flux levels in 

accordance with Section 2.2.3.2 of NF'PA 59A. 

Part 193.2059, Flammable vapor-gas dispersion protection, requires that each LNG 

container and LNG transfer system have a dispersion exclusion zone in accordance with 

Sections 2.2.3.3 and 2.2.3.4 of NFPA 59A. 

For the following LNG facilities that are proposed for this project, we have identified the 

applicable siting requirements from Pan 193 and NFPA 59A: 

Three 5,579,717 gallon (158,000 m J) LNG storage tanks - Parts 193.2057 and 2059 

require the establishment of thermal and flammable vapor exclusion zones for LNG 

tanks. NFPA 59A Section 2.2.3.2 specifies four thermal exclusion zones based on the 

design spill and the impounding area. Sections 2.2.3.3 and 2.2.3.4 specify a flammable 

vapor exclusion zone for the design spill which is determined in Section 2.2.3.5. 

One marine LNG unloading berth and a cargo transfer system consisting of three 16- 

inch-diameter unloading arms, and one 44-inch-diameter transfer line to the storage tanks 

- Parts 193.2001, 2057, and 2059 require thermal and flammable vapor exclusion zones 

for the transfer system. NFPA 59A does not address LNG transfer systems. 

Nine 3,770 gpm low-pressure in-tank pumps (three in each tank) and seven 1.920 gpm 

high-pressure sendout pumps (one spare) - Parts 193.2057 and 2059 require thermal and 

flammable vapor exclusion zones. NFPA 59A Section 2.2.3.2 specifies the thermal 

exclusion zone and Sections 2.2.3.3 and 2.2.3.4 specify the flammable vapor exclusion 

zone based on the design spill in a process area. 

• Seven vaporizers (one spare) - Same requirements as for LNG pumps. 

The incorporation of the NFPA 59A requirements into Part 193 has resulted in some confusion 

and possible misinterpretation in applying the siting requirements. Parts 193.2057 and 2059 require 

exclusion zones for LNG transfer systems, which are defined to include transfer piping. However, NFPA 

4-156 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

59A only requires exclusion zones for "transfer areas °, which are defined as the part of the plant where 

liquids are introduced or removed from the facility such as truck loading or ship unloading areas. The 

definition of transfer area in NFPA 59A specifically excludes permanent plant piping. Additionally, 

NFPA 59A section 2.2.3.1 (2001) specifically excludes transfer areas at the water edge of marine 

terminals. When the DOT incorporated NFPA 59A into its regulations, it removed the requirement for 

impounding systems around transfer piping (old Part 193.2149). In the preamble to the final rule, the 

DOT determined that the most likely sources of leaks within LNG plants are LNG storage tanks, cargo 

transfer areas, and vaporizers and process equipment, which are all addressed in NFPA 59A section 

2.2.1.2. The result is that while Part 193 retains exclusion zones for LNG transfer systems, neither Part 

193 nor NFPA 59A requires the impoundment from which to base the calculations. We do not believe 

that this was the intent, nor do we believe that omitting containment for transfer piping is a sound 

engineering practice. FERC staff will continue to require containment for all LNG transfer piping within 

a plant site. 

The incorlxnation of NFPA 59A also changed the way in which design spills and impotmdment 

capacities may be determined. Under section 2.2.2.2, the capacity of impounding areas for vaporization, 

process, or LNG transfer areas must equal the greatest volume during a 10-minute period from any single 

accidental leakage ~ource or during a shorter time period based upon demonstrable surveillance and 

shutdown provisions acceptable to the authority having jurisdiction. Similar criteria appear in section 

2.2.3.5 for determining the design spill used in thermal and flammable vapor exclusion zone calculations. 

Prior to the in~tion of NFPA 59A, the design spill in Part 193 assumed the rumure of a single 

transffr pipe with the greatest overall flow capacity, for not less than 10 minutes (old Part 193.2059(d)). 

As a result, the spill rate for vaporization, process, or LNG transfer areas may he assumed to he a 

"leakage source" rather than a full pipe rupture; however, the spill duration must be 10 minutes unless the 

authority having jurisdiction (i.e., DOTs OPS) determines that a shorter time is acceptable. Again, given 

the confusion in applying the two requirements, FERC staff will continue to utilize the 10-minute spill 

criteria at the maximum flow possible for containment sizing. This will ensure that impoundments are 

sized for a catastrophic failure, while recognizing that less conservative spill scenarios may be appropriate 

for exclusion zone calculations. In giving recognition to the integrity of all-welded transfer piping, the 

determination of the single accidental leakage source should he based on an evaluation of all small 

diameter attachments to the transfer piping for instrumentation, pressure relief, recirculation, etc., and any 

flanges that may be used at valves or other equipment, in order to determine the largest spill rate. This 

approach is the result of discussions with DOT OPS concerning the basis for design spills and application 

to exclusion zone determinations for pt'oposals before the Commission. 

Impoundment Sy$|¢ms and Design Spills 

The calculations of thermal and flammable exclusion zones for the proposed LNG facilities are 

based on the dimensions of the proposed impoundment systetm and the spill volumes specified by Part 

193 and NFPA 59A. Part 193.2181 specifies that the impoundment system serving a single LNG storage 

tank must have a volumetric capacity of 110 percent of the LNG tank's maximum liquid capacity. Crown 

Landing's proposed LNG storage tank impoundments would he furl containment storage tanks with a 246 

foot inside concrete wall diameter surrounding a 238 foot inner tank diameter, approximately 246 feet 

3 3 high at the apex. The volumetric capacity of 6,250,696 ft (177,000 m ) would exceed the 110 percent 

requirement by 670,978 cubic feet (ft 3) (19,000 m3). The site would also be surrounded by an earthen 

berm with dimensions ofg00 feet wide by 780 feet long and 10 feet tall and an encompassing volume of 

70100,000 R'. 

The design spill for an LNG storage tank with no penetrations below the liquid level is 

determined in accordance with section 2.2.3.5 of NFPA 59A and is defined as the largest flow from any 

single line that could be pumped into the impounding area from the tank withdrawal pumps at full rated 

capacity over a 10-minute period. Each LNG storage tank would be equipped with three in-tank pumps, 

4-157 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

individually rated for 3,770 &,pin. The rupture of the in-tank pump discharge header would result in a spill 

rate of 11,310 gpm. For a 10-minute spill, the volume would be 113,335 gallons after accounting for 

increased flow due to the line break. This spill would be contained in the LNG tank header sump, which 

has dimensions of 83 feet long by 83 feet wide with a depth of 3 feet. The volume capacity of this sump 

would be 154,600 gallons. 

The largest single line that can he pumped into each tank impoundment is the 44-inch-diameter 

Lransfer line from the marine unloading berths. The piping for the marine cargo la'ansfer system would be 

contained within an impoundment trough that is sloped to a collection sump located northeast of the LNG 

storage tanks. The unloading line sump would be sized to contain a 10-minute spill from the 44-inchdiameter transfer line that connects the dock to the LNG storage tanks. The design flow through transfer 

line would be 70,915 gpm. The 10-minute design spill would be 1,098,087 gallons after adding the 

existing volume of LNG already in the O-inch-diameter transfer line to the line's design flow rate. This 

design spill would be contained by the unloading line sump, which measures 240 feet wide by 171.2 feet 

long, with a depth of 4 feel The design capacity of the sump would be 1,229,438 gallons. 

The area containing the vaporizers and sendout pumps would be curbed and graded so that any 

LNG spill would flow back to the process area sump to the n~t, located approximately midway 

between the process area and the earthen berms and inside the unloading line sump. This process area 

sump is 32 feet wide by 32 feet long, with a depth of 4 feel The process area sump would have a 

capacity of 30,640 gallons. The design spill for the vaporizers and sendout pumps would be 21,992 

gallons, a lO-minute spill of the full flow rate from a broken l-inch-diameter pipe downstream from the 

booster pumps. The process area sump would accommodate this spill. 

Table 4.12.4-1 presents the design spill rates and impounding areas that are used in subsequent 

calculations of thermal radiation and flammable vapor-gas dispersion exclusion zones. 

TABLE 4.12.4-1 

Imp(~ndm~lt ~ for I.NG Spills 

Design $p~ Size Impoundment Size 

Source (gelone) Jmpour~am~ Syamm (gellona) 

I.NG Storage Tank 41,739,184 LNG Full Co~ainrnent Dike 46,758,453 

In-tank LNG Puml~ 131,335 Tank Header Sump 154.600 

Marine Transfer Line (44-inch 1,098,087 Unloeding I.me Sump 1,133.276 

I~ne) 

Marine Transfer S011 (1 -inch line) 4,300 Dock Area Sump 4,308 

Smx~lout Pumps and Vaporizers 18.900 Proceu/uee Sump 30.640 

Thermal Exclusion Zone 

If a large quantity of LNG is spilled in the presence of an ignition source, the resulting LNG pool 

fire could cause high levels of thermal radiation. Exclusion distances for various flux levels were 

calculated according to 49 CFR 193.2057 and section 2.2.3.2 of NF'PA 59A, using the "LNGFIRE 111" 

computer program model developed by the Gas Research Institute. Thermal radiation distances were 

determined for 1,600 to 10,000 British thermal units per square foot per hour (Btu/ftLhr) incident flux 

levels for a fwe from the full impoundment area surrounding the tank. In addition, the thermal radiation 

distances were also determined for the 1,6(X) Btu/ft2-hr incident flux level centered on the both the 

process area and the dock area sumps. 

NFPA 59A establishe, s certain atmospheric conditions (0 miles per hour (mph) windpseed. 70 ° F. 

and 50 percent relative humidity) which are to be used in calculating the distances. However, Part 

4.158 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

193.2057 supercedes these requirements and stipulates that wind speed, ambient temperature, and relative 

humidity which produce the maximum exclusion distances must be used, except for conditions that occur 

less than 5 percent of the time based on recorded data for the area. For its analysis, Crown Landing 

selected the following ambient conditions to produce the maximum distances: windspeed of 27 mph; 

ambient temperature of 18 ° F; and 30 percent relative humidity. These conditions yield longer distances 

than the 0 mph wind speed, 70 ° F ambient temperature, and 50 percent relative humidity specified in 

NFPA 59A. 

The application for the proposed LNG terminal contained a thermal radiation analysis for a 10- 

minute design spill into the process area sump within the sub-impoundment. Crown Landing selected 

design spills based on an accidental release from a broken l-inch-diameter pipe downstream of the highpressure sendout pumps. The design spill sizes, flowing at full capacity for 10 minutes, for this accidental 

release would be 21,992 gallons. 

However, staff performed a preliminary evaluation of any small diameter attachments to the 

transfer piping for instrumentation, pressure relief, recirculation, etc., and any flanges that may be used at 

valves or other equipment, and determined that a design spill from the 2-inch-<liameter line downstream 

from the LNG booster pumps would be a more appropriate credible single accidental leakage source. 

However, because of Crown Landing's sump design, this accidental leakage source is still contained with 

the sump system. This 2-inch-diameter line leak would overflow the process area sump, but would be 

contained within the tank header sump. 

FERC staff calculated thermal radiation distances for incident flux levels ranging from 1,6(X) to 

10,000 Btu/ftLhr for an LNG storage tank fire. The following conditions were selected to produce the 

maximum distances: wind speeds of 18 to 27 mph; ambient temperature at 18 ° F, and 30 percent relative 

humidity. These thermal exclusion zones are governed by a fire from the full impoundment area 

surrounding the tanL Thermal radiatio~a distances were also determined for 1,600 to 10,000 Btu/ftLhr 

incident flux levels centered on the both the process area and the dock area sumps. 

Table 4.12.4-2 presents the calculated maximum distances for incident flux levels ranging from 

1,600 to 10,000 Btu/ft2-hr as calculated by FERC staff. 

TABLE 4.12.4-2 

Thml Exclusion Zones 

Area NFPA 59A Inckle~t Flux ~lo~ 

So~ue ~ 2-2.3.2(a) (Btu~ hr) I/ Zone (feet) 

Proceq~ arlm sump Pr~ line that can be built upon. 1,800 13~ 

Dock area sump P~oefty llne tlvlt c~in be bolt upon. l,e00 62 

LNG st0cl~e tank Ot~doo¢ SS(N~ area occq)~d by 50 or rnom peon. 1.800 426 m~rn~t 

LNG stooge tank impoundment o~te smx:/ums used for (x~-~uen~ or r,,s~x;e*. 3,000 727 

LNG ~orl~p 'tank Propecty line tt~ can be built Ul3On. 10,000 gG3 ~xx~ndment 

IV The 1,600 I~'~-hr flux le,~ i8 mmoc~ed w~ an eq~md peqon e.q~)deno~g I:~ns w~lln ~ 30 ~m(:onds. N 

3,000 Btuth~-hf, an expoud peomn wo~d existence I~Jnw wtlh~ 10 second$, ~ a wooden 61n~-tu~ w~d 

not be expe~ ~ bum and Id~o~a jxot~on to 8hes'temd I~mmns. At 1O,(XX) Btt~-hr, do~g lind ~x~l can ignite 

s~mou~. 

4-159 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

Vapor Dispersion Zone 

A large quantity of LNG spilled without ignition would form a flammable vapor cloud that would 

travel with the prevailing wind until it either dispersed below the flammable limits or encountered an 

ignition source. Part 193.2059 and sections 2.2.3.3 and 2.2.3.4 of NFPA 59A require that provisions he 

made to minimize the possibility of flammable vapors from reaching a property line that can be built upon 

and that would result in a distinct hazard. Part 193.2059 requires that dispersion distances he calculated 

for a 2.5 percent average gas concentration (9"a the lower flammability limit (I..FL) of LNG vapor) under 

meteorological conditions which result in the longest downwind distances at least 90 percent of the time. 

Alternatively, maximum downwind distances may be estimated for stability Class F, a wind speed of 4.5 

mph, 50 percent relative humidity, and the average regional temperature. The section allows the use of 

the DEGADIS Dense Gas Dispersion Model, or the FEM3A model, to compute dispersion distances. 

Design spills into impounding areas serving LNG containers, transfer systems and piping are to he 

determined in accordance with section 2.2.3.5 of NFPA 59A. 

In accordance with section 2.2.3.3 of NF'PA 59A, an average concentration of methane in air of 

50 percent of the LFL cannot cross the property line from a design spill into each tank impoundment. In 

this case, compliance with section 2.2.3.3 would also meet the requirements of section 2.2.3.4 of NFPA 

59A. 

According to table 2.2.3.5 of NF~A 59A, the design spill is the largest flow from the container 

(i.e., storage tank) withdrawal pumps for a IO-minute duration at full rated capacity. The design spill 

would therefore be a rupture of the 18-inch-dian~tcr tank withdrawal line. The total amount of volume of 

LNG lost in the spill would be 17,557 ft 3. Assuming complete vaporization, the resulting vapor cloud 

would be totally contained within the earthen berm surrounding the LNG storage tank area. Therefore, 

the LNG tank impoundments are in compliance with 49 CFR 193.2059 by considering the provisions for 

containing vapors under section 2.2.3.2 of NFPA 59A. 

Crown Landing's application contained a vapor dispersion analysis for the process area sump and 

dock area sump. An average regional temperature of 85* F, 50 percent relative humidity, and 4.5 mph 

wind speed were used as input conditions. 

The process area sump would receive spills from the vaporizer and sendout pump area. In its 

application, Crown Landing selected a l-inch-diameter pipe downstream from the booster pump as its 

design spill. For an accidental line break of the l-inch-diameter line, the total volume of LNG lost would 

he 2,940 ft ~. Assuming complete vaporization, the volume of gas would overflow the process area sump 

but would still he contained by the earthen herin surrounding the LNG storage tank area. 

As previously discussed, FERC staff finds that a design spill from the 2-inch-diameter pipe 

downstream from the LNG booster pumps would be a more appropriate credible single accidental leakage 

source. Based on the Crane flow through orifices formulas supplied by Crown Landing in their 

application, the total flow out of this source would he 9,802 ft 3. Using the same a cold vapor to liquid 

volumetric ratio of 1:235 as Crown Landing did, staff calculated that 2,303,470 ft 3 of cold vapor would 

result from the vaporization of the high-pressure sendout pump withdrawal through the 2-inch-diameter 

line. This vapor, however, would still he contained within the earthen berm surrounding the LNG storage 

tank area. 

Crown Landing also modeled vapor dispersion using a flange gasket failure on the shore/pier line 

as the design spill. The largest diameter line on the flange is a 4-inch.-diameter line. The mass flow of 

LNG from this leak is 5.97 pounds per second 0h/s). Using SOURCE5. FERC staff calculated a source 

strength of 0.44 kg/s with a pool radius of 1.12 meters. Using DEGADIS, FERC staff calculated a vapor 

4-160 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

cloud 22 meters wide and a distance of 60 meters from the center of the sump resulting in a vapor 

exclusion zone of 210 feel 

Although these impoundments technically comply with 49 CFR 193.2059, the issue of the 

lengthy distance from potential spill locations to the process and dock area sumps needs to be addressed. 

While it is an appropriate design philosophy m direct potential spills away from process equipment to 

remote impoundments, and it is technically correct to base exclusion zone calculation on these 

impoundments, it is also relevant to consider the control of vapors produced in the channels or trenches 

leading to these sumps. Long U'enches increase the surface area available for heat transfer and, 

correspondingly, increase vapor generation. A number of vapor control options are available including: 

vapor fences; fixed high expansion foam generators; reduced trench lengths and/or surface area; and 

additional sumps at intermediate locations along transfer piping. As a result, we recommend that: 

Crown Landing examine provisions to retain any vapor produced along the transfer 

line trenches and other areas serving to direct LNG spills to assodated 

impoundments. Measures to be considered my include, but are not limited to: 

vapor fencing; Intermediate sump locations; or trench surface area reduction. 

Crown Landing sheeld file final drawings and speci/leations for these measures 

with the Secretary prior 19 fonstmctlon. 

4.12.5 Marine Safety s 

The hazards associated with the marine transportation of LNG differ from land-hased hazards. 

Whereas the land-based facilities have features to both limit the duration of I.,NG spills and contain 

credible spill volumes, an LNG spill on water may be unconfined and may vaporize rapidly due to heat 

input from the water. 

The history of LNG shipping has been free of major incidents, and none have resulted in 

significant quantities of cargo being released (see section 4.12.5.3). No incidents have occurred at 

existing LNG terminals during the 50 years of operation that resulted in any significant quantities of 

cargoes being released. However, the possibility of an LNG spill from a ship over the duration of the 

proposed project must be considered. Historically, the events most likely to cause a significant release of 

LNG were a ship casualty such as: 

• a vessel colliding with an /.,NG ship in transit; 

• an LNG ship alliding g with the terminal or a structure in Delaware Bay or River; 

• a vessel alliding with an LNG ship while moored at the terminal; or 

• a grounding sufficiently severe to puncture an LNG cargo tank. 

However, the attacks on September 11, 2001, have made the public keenly aware of additional 

risks that must be considered in the evaluation of marine safety and security: 

• a deliberate attack on an LNG ship by a terrorist group. 

s "l%is sectlon was written with the cooperation and axtistJmcc o( the U.S.C.ot.q G~, M~ ~y ~I~, ~ ~a. 

"AJllsio~" is lhc ac~/oa ~ dashin S agmnsl or slnkmg upon • smlionm'y objecl (c.8. , lhc runmu s of oue ship ~ anolhcr ship ~ is docked) 

- di~insuishcd f~om "coll~oo". which is reed u~ rcfea to t~o rnoving shlps sU~kmg one an~. 

4-161 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

Any of the above events would have to occur with sufficient impact to breach the LNG ship's 

double hull and cargo tanks. Previous incidents with LNG ships have primarily involved grounding, and 

none of these have resulted in the breach of the double hull and subsequent release of LNG cargo. 

The following discussion provides a chronology of the LNG ship voyage from the liquefaction 

facility to the import terminal, disclosing the risks at each step and how they are managed. Details and 

analysis are provided in subsequent sections. 

LNG Ships and Ocean Voyage 

Imported LNG could be obtained from exporting terminals throughout the world and delivered by 

LNG ships to the proposed terminal. Exporting countries include Algeria, Australia, Brunei, Indonesia, 

Malaysia, Nigeria, Oman, Qatar, Trinidad, and United Arab Emirates. In 2003, LNG imports to the 

United States included: 72 percent from Trinidad, 12 percent from Nigeria, 10 percent from Algeria, 3 

percent from Qatar, 2 percent from Oman, and 1 percent from Malaysia. Crown Landing anticipates that 

the proposed LNG terminal would receive LNG from Trinidad and West Africa (Nigeria or Algeria). 

The LNG ships used to import LNG to the United States would be constructed and operated in 

accordance with the IMO Code for the Construction and Equipments of Ships Carrying Liquefied Gases 

in Bull the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS). and 46 CFR Part 154, which 

contain the U.S. safety standards for vessels carrying bulk liquefied natural gas. Foreign flag LNG ships 

are required to possess a valid IMO Certificate of Fitness and a Coast Guard Certificate of Compliance. 

In 1993, amendments to the IMO's Code for the Construction and Equipments of Ships Carrying 

Dangerous Chemicals in Bulk require all tankers to have monitoring equipment with an alarm facility 

which is activated by detection of over-pressore or under-pressure conditions within a cargo tank. In 

addition, the cargo tanks are heavily instrumented, with gas detection equipment in the hold and interbarrier spaces, temperature sensors, and pressure gauges. Fire protection must include the following 

systems: 

a water spray (deluge) system that covers the accommodation house control room and all 

main cargo valves; 

a traditional firewater system that provides water to fire monitors on deck and to fire 

stations found throughout the ship; 

• a dry chemical fire extinguishing system for hydrocarbon fires; and 

a carbon dioxide system for protecting machinery, including the ballast pump room, 

emergency generators, and compressors. 

As a result of September 11, 2001, the 1MO agreed to new amendments to the 1974 SOLAS 

addressing port facility and ship security. The International Ship and Port Facility Security Code was 

adopted in 2003 by the IMO. This code requires both ships and ports to conduct vulnerability 

assessments and to develop security plans. The purpose of the code is to prevent and suppress terrorism 

against ships, improve security aboard ships and ashore, and reduce t_~ risk to passengers, crew, and port 

personnel on board ships and in port areas, for vessels and cargoes. All LNG ships, as well as other cargo 

vessels 300 gross tons and larger and poRs servicing those regulated vessels, must adhere to these IMO 

and SOLAS standards. Some of the IMO requirements are as follows: 

For the ships, these requirements must include: 

4-162 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

• Ships must develop security plans and have a Ship Security Officer:, 

Ships must be lxovided with a ship security alert system. These alarms tmmmit ship-toshore security alerts to a competent authority designated by the Administration, which 

may include the company, identifying the ship, its location end indicating that the 

secmity of the ship is trader threat or it h~ been comimm~d; 

Ships nmst have a ~ive security plan for international port facilities, focusing 

on an~s having direct contact with ships; and 

Ships may have certain equipment cmboard to help maintain of enhance the physical 

security of the ship. 

For the port facilities, the req~nts must include: 

• Port facility security plan; 

• Facility Security Officer (FSO); and 

Certain secta-ity equipment may be required to maintain or enhance the physical secm'ity 

of the facility. 

Both ships and ports must include the following: 

• Monitoring and controlling access; 

• Mcmitorin8 the a~ivities of people and ~.go; 

• Ensuring security communicatiees and that they are readily available; and 

• Completloe of the Declatafim of Security. 

LNG Ship Transit in the Delaware River 

An interm~onally recosnim/Traffic ~ea Scheme e~blished by the IMO serves vessel 

tra/~c in the ~h to the Delaware Bay and River. This provides inbound and outbound rota~ which 

an~ separated by a central ~ zone. All foreign-registered and many U.S. fia88ed lari~ ships entering 

Delaware Bay and River me boarded by a pilot from the Delaware River Pil~ w~ ~ ~ ~t ~ 

one of the destination docks at Wilmington. Marcus Hook. o¢ ~ph~. 

I..NG ships would au:eu the propoe:d LNO terminal via the navigatim channel in the Delaware 

Bay and Rivez (see figu~ 4.12.5-1). One pilot woeld dh'ect the I..NG ship from Cape Henlo1~--n on 

Delaware Bay to just downstnutm of the Delaware Memm'ial Bridge. From this location, • docking pilot 

and u'actor tug would escort the I..NG ships up the Delaware River to the Marcus Hook ~ ~a. 

where two sddifioml tractor rags would join the escort fo¢ docking at the Wopo~d unloading facifity. 

4-163 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

Non-Intemet Public 

Figure 4.12.5-1 

(Page 4-16q) 

Public access for the above information is available only 

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

public.referenceroom@ferc.gov. 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

The LNG ship would normally transit Delaware Bay and River on a rising tide during The daylight 12qO

Docking, L.NG cargo unloading, and undocking would take approximately When 24 hourS, the bow of leaving the herth, 

hours. • " " rotate the stern to line the ship would normally depart during dayhght hours on the second day 

the LNG ship would be moved forWard !nto the turning basin while the tugs 

ship up for the exit down the Delaware Rtvcr. Coast C-card would control the transit of the I.,NG 

In addition to the Delaware River Pilots, the cun-endy exercises control over 

and while unloading cargo. The Coast Guard vessel through the harbor --- ..,;,bin the Delaware: River and Bay through enforcement of a RNA 

• us car ut~ .... Typical Coast Guard requirements for other vessels carrying dangero g expected that controls placed on LNG ship transits would at a 

promulgated in 33 CFR 165.510. R is 

minimum reflect requirements cOntained in the cUrrent RNA" • • " arrival at which time 

LNO import terminals include 96- and 24-hour advance noUficaUon of the ship 

Coast Guard persounel may board the L,NG ship offshore for an inspection of the ship safety systems and 

a security sweep. Ot~r requirements may include: establishment of a moving safety and security zone 

around the vessel while on route and during unloading operations; an inspection of the duck safety 

systems prior to commencing cargo transfer, and monitoring all operations until the vessel depae, s. the facility in cooperation with 

• local -uncles as described in the Fact|try Security plans (see section 4.12.6). Maintaining security of the dock a,d vessel will he the responsibility of 

odor federal, state, anu ag 

LNG Ve~el C-~ es 

The operational controls by the Coast Guard and the Delaware River pilots, as well as the 

characteristics of Delaware Bay and River, minimize the possibility of an LNG cargo spill from 

groundings, coUisiuns, and allisions. The Coast Guard would enforce a moving safety and security zone the channel of all vesSels in the vicinity of the LNG ship to reduce 

would clear __J ....-a reouked to cause an LI';G spill 

around the LNG ship that.. . • those of the tonnage aria ~p,--.."~ . 70 miles to tic 

• • of any collmons, including . • ..... h-.,-d extends approxtraately 

the hkeh.hmO~d 4 12 5 3) The deepwater federal navlgauo- ~"'~ The navigatiOn 

Marcus Hook area and approximately 86 miles to the port of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. (see secuon .... maintained navigation depth of 40 feet and a width of 800 

channel downstJv.am of Marcus Hook has a feet. The navigation channel has been authorized to be deepened to 45 feet but the channel deepening 

project has yet to he conducted. 

Deliberate Attack on an LNG Vessel 

In addition to ~ing the potential hazards from LNG vessel incidentS, the possibility of a 

deliberate attack on an LHG ship by a terrorist group must also be considered. Security of the LNG 

vessel and the vessel is the responsibility of the ownedoperator and the master of the vesSel. Security 

facility is the responsibility of the ownerluperat~ of the facility. Crown Protection Lading of the scurity LNOstaff, and state 

personnel from the Coast Guard, security zone around the LNG 

import terminal would involvT~ e Coast Guard would establish a safety and the Captain of the port 

and local law enforcement. Only personnel or vessels authorized by 

vessels in transit and while docked. 

would be permitted in the safety and security zone. 

• ,, , - the marine terminal according to a Facility Secufi.'ty 

in would provtde security for ,~-- ¢ t Guard C~tain of the port (see secuon 

Crown Land g .... ~ and ~nnroved by -~- Coas 

Plan prepared un~ 33 CVg t'an ~w --rr 

4.12.6). Some of the r~luh~n~nts include: 

• a Facility Security Assessment to identify sit* vulnerabilities, possible security threats, 

conSequenCes of an attack, and facility protective measures; 

• a Facility Security plan with procedures for responding to security incidentS; 

4-165 
Jnofficial FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

a designated FSO responsible for implementing and periodically updating the Facility 

Security Plan and Assessment; 

sealable security measures to provide increasing levels of security at increasing Maritime 

Security (MARSEC) levels; 

• security exercises at least once each calendar year and drills at least every 3 months; and 

• mandatory reporting of all breaches of security and security incidents. 

Security at the facility would be provided by both active and passive systems. The entire site 

would be surrounded by a protective enclosure (i.e., a fence) with sufficient strength to deter unauthorized 

access. The enclosure also would be illuminated with not less than 2.2 lux between sunset and sunrise. 

Intrusion detection systems and day/night camera coverage would identify unauthorized access. A 

separate security staff would conduct periodic patrols of the plant, screen visitors and contractors, and 

assist in maintaining security of the marine terminal during cargo unloading. Crown Landing would be 

required to submit their Facility Security Plan to the Captain of the Port 60 days prior to commencement 

of operations, in order to ensure that the responsibilities of Crown Landing's security staff enhance 

overall security, we reemnmend that: 

Crown Landing coordinate with the Coast Guard to define the responsiblfities of 

Crown Landing's security staff in supplementing other security personnel and in 

protecting the LNG ships and terminal. 

A detailed evaluation of the consequences of a terrorist aUack on a modem membrane LNG 

vessel was prepared by Lloyds Register of North America for the Weaver's Cove LNG project (see 

section 4.12.5.4). This analysis provides a basis for estimating the potential magnitude of a hazard from a 

successful terrorist attack, and for developing LNG vessel and waterfront facility security plans. In 

addition, the DOE released a study by Sandia National Laboratories, Guidance on Risk Analysis and 

Safety Implications of a Large Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Spill Over Water (Sandia Report) December 

2004. The report included an LNG cargo tank breach analysis using modem finite element modeling and 

explosive shock physics modeling to estimate a range of breach sizes for credible accidental and 

intentional LNG spill events. The analysis of accidental events found that gronndings and low speed 

collisions could result in minor ship damage but not a cargo spill; while high speed collisions could cause 

a 0.5 to 1.5 m 2 cargo tank breach area. For intentional scenarios, the size of the cargo tank hole depends 

on the location of the ship and source of threat. Intentional breach areas were estimated to range from 2 

to 12 m 2. In most cases, an intentional breaching scenario would not result in a nominal hole of more 

than 5 to 7 m z, which is a more appropriate range to use in calculating potential hazards from spills. 

The methodology described in the ABSG Consulting Inc. (ABSG) study, Consequence 

Assessment Methods for Incidents Involving Relea.~es from Liquefied Natural Gas Carriers, and revised 

in staff's responses to comments on the report (issued June 18, 2004), was used to calculate the thermal 

radiation and flammable vapor dispersion distances for several holes ranging in diameter from I meter to 

3.9 meters. Using the methodology, we have estimated distances for a nominal 2.5-meter diameter hole 

to range from 4,495 feet for a thermal radiation of 1,600 Btu/ftLhr, the level which is hazardous for 

persons located outdoors and unprotected, to 3,463 feet for 3,000 Btu/ftZ-hr, an acceptable level for 

wooden structures; and to 2,060 feet for 10,000 Btu/fiLhr, a level sufficient to damage process equipment 

for these size holes respectively. 

These estimates of an average most probable "'worst case" scenario provide guidance in 

developing the operating restrictions for LNG vessel movements through Delaware Bay and the federal 

4-166 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

navigation channel in the Delaware River, as well as in establishing potential impact areas for emergency 

response and evacuation planning. The transit within the navigation channel would pass by Delaware 

City, New Castle, Wilmington, and Claymont, Delaware and Pennsville and Penns Grove, New Jersey. 

Some areas of development along the shoreline in these communities could be within a potential hazard 

area during the LNG vessel transit. Assuming an LNG ship would transit the Delaware River at 

approximately 11 knots, the adjacent communities would be exposed to a potential transient hazard for an 

estimated 8 minutes. In addition, a temporary hazard would exist around the ship unloading facility 

during part of the 16- to 17-hour period when the LNG ship is at the dock and unloading cargo. The 

operational restrictions to be imposed by the Delaware River pilots on LNG vessel movements through 

this area, as well as the requirements that the Coast Guard would impose in its operating plan would 

minimize the possibility of a hazardous event occurring along the vessel transit. 

Emergency Response and Evacuation Planning 

Prior to commencing service, Crown Landing would prepare emergency procedures manuals, as 

required by 49 CF'R Part 193.2509 that provide for: (a) responding to controllable emergencies and 

recognizing an uncontrollable emergency; (b) taking action to minimize harm to the public including the 

possible need to evacuate the public; and (c) coordination and cooperation with appropriate local officials. 

Specifically, section 193.2059(bX3) requires "Coordinating with appropriate local officials in preparation 

of an emergency evacuation plan..." Typically, the manuals are prepared at the later stages of the 

construction process and submitted to the FERC as a requirement ~rior to placing the facility in service. 

While the worst-case scenarios evaluated for the onshore facility in section 4.12.3 and for marine 

spills in 4.12.5 provide guidance on the maximum extent of potential hazards, they should not be assumed 

to represent the evacuation zone for eve~ potential incident. As with any other fuel or hazardous 

material, the actual severity of the incident will determine what area needs to be evacuated, if any, rather 

than a worst-case maximum zone. It is anticipated that the emergency evacuation plans will identify 

evacuation distances based upon increasing severity of events. 

On several LNG import terminal proposals, a number of organizations and individuals 

commented on the need to consider emergency response procedures. While recognizing that preparing 

emergency procedures typically occurs at the end of the construction phase rather than at the draft E1S 

stage, there remain a number of issues concerning the viability of emergency evacuation that have not 

been satisfactorily resolved. Therefore we reconmaend that: 

Crown Landing develop emergency evacuation routes for the ar~s along the rou~ 

of the LNG vessel transit in conjunction with the local emmergency and town officials 

and fide the routes with the Secretary for review and approval by the D/rector of 

OEP prior to ¢mmtr~ 

In addition, we recommend that: 

Crown Landing develop an Emergency Response Plan Ondudlug evacuation) and 

coordluate procedures with local emergency planning groups, fire departments, 

state and local law enforcement, and appropriate federal agencies. ~ plan should 

include at a minimum: 

a. deslgnated contacts with slahe and local emergency response agenc/es; 

4-167 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

b. scalable procedures for the prompt notification of appropriate local officials 

and emergency response agencies based on the level and severity of potential 

incidents; 

C. procedures for notifying residents and recreational users within areas of 

potential hazard; 

d. evacuation routes for residents along the route of the LNG vessel tran~t; 

e. locations of permanent sirens and other warning devices; and 

I'. an "emergency coordinator" on each LNG vessel to activate sirens and other 

warning devices. 

The Emergency Response Plan should be filed with the Secretary for review and 

approval by the Director of OEP prl?r to f~lmenccment of service. Crown 

Landing should notify FERC staff of all meetings in advance and should report 

progress on its Emergency Response Plan at 6-month Intervals starting at the 

commencement of construction. 

Federal Oversight 

Three federal agencies share in the oversight of the safety and security of LNG import terminals: 

the Coast Guard, the Research and Special Programs Administration of DOT, and the FERC. The FERC 

authorizes the siting and construction of LNG import terminals and is the lead federal agency under 

NEPA to analyze the environmental, safety, security, and cryogenic design of proposed facilities. The 

Coast Guard has authority over the safety of the LNG vessels and the marine transfer area. The Coast 

Guard also has authority over the security of LNG vessels and the entire LNG facility. The DOT has 

exclusive authority to promulgate and enforce safety regulations and standards over the onshore LNG 

facilities beginning at the last valve immediately before the LNG storage tank(s). 

In February 2004, the three participating agencies entered into an lnteragency Agreement to 

assure that they work in a coordinated manner to address the full range of issues regarding safety and 

security at LNG import terminals, including the terminal facilities and tanker operations, and to maximize 

the exchange of information related to the safety and security aspects of the LNG facilities and related 

marine operations. The Interagency Agreement ensures a seamless safety and security review by the three 

federal agencies. 

4.17..5.1 Delaware Bay and River and the Marcus Hook Area 

Delaware Bay and River combine to form a sizable body of navigable water open to the sea and 

accessible to large oceangoing vessels of varying types and sizes up to 100,000 tons. 

An internationally recognized Tra~c Separation Scheme established by the IMO serves vessel 

traffic at the entrance to the Delaware Bay. This provides inbound and outbound routes which are 

separated by a central buffer zone. All foreign-registered and many U.S. flagged large ships entering 

Delaware Bay are boarded by a pilot from the Delaware River Pilots, who directs the transit to one of the 

over 60 waterfront facilities located along the Delaware River. 

One pilot would direct the LNG ship throughout the entire 67 nautical-mile transit of Delaware 

Bay and River to the LNG terminal site. The LNG ships would enter the channel during a rising tide to 

4-168 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

ensure sufficient water depth for safe navigation. A tug would make fast to the LNG ship to aid in passage 

beneath the Delaware Memorial Bridge. Once the LNG ship arrives at Marcus Hook, two additional 

tractor tugs would escort the ship to the LNG terminal. 

The three tugs would maneuver the LNG ship to the dock and assist with berthing. After the 

LNG is offloaded, the ship would be detached from the unloading arms and mooring and breasting 

dolphins, moved from the berth with tug assistance, and then proceed seaward under the supervision of a 

Delaware River Pilot. At least one tug would remain on standby to assist in emergency situations, for 

example the breaking of mooring lines. Other potential emergency situations would be evaluated on a 

case-by-case basis and would determine if the LNG ship would remain at the dock or be towed down the 

Delaware River, depending on the nature of the hazard, weather conditions, tides, and other factors. 

Current Ship TraIY~ 

Table 4.12.5-1 provides a summary of large commercial vessels transiting the Delaware Bay and 

River from 1999 to 2002. The ship traffic data are separated into ships that transited from the mouth of 

Delaware Bay to the Delaware Memorial Bridge, the Marcus Hook berths, and the Port of Philadelphia. 

In total, the commercial traffic entering Delaware Bay averages roughly 9 to 10 commercial vessels per 

day with traffic declining steadily over the past few years. 

TABLE 4.12.5-1 

Number of C~nmerctll Vlmmis Tranllung ~ Bay and RIvM 

Dest~a~on 1999 2(~00 2001 2902 

De~a~re MemodaJ Edge 244 1~ 206 194 

Mamus Hook Beahs ~ 837 741 685 

Port o~ Philadelphia 2.317 2,335 2.309 2.237 

TotaJ 3,388 3,370 3.256 3.116 

Three types of vessels are included in the above ship traffic data: crude oil tankers, LPG ships, 

and other commercial vessels (e.g. barges). The majority (approximately 80 percent) of the vessels 

transiting to the Port of Philadelphia are I~rges. Less than 1 percent of the total ship traffic on the 

Delaware River are I.,PG ships. 

In addition, there ~rc several passenger ferries, cruise ships, and water taxi services operating 

within Delaware Bay and River. These vary from year to year depending upon demand and economic 

conditions. There are no specific data available on the density of recreational tralTtc in the Delaware Bay 

and River but it is a yachting center and contains many marinas. 

Fulure Ship Trglll¢ 

The proposed project would result in one additional vessel entering the Delaware Bay every 2 to 

3 days, for a total of about 120 to 180 ships each year. This n~ of additional ships is approximately 

double the current number of deep draft coal ships delivering to the Logan Pier at Marcus Hook. 

However, even taking into account the proposed project's anticipated shipping activity, impacts on 

current ship traffic is expected to be minimal (see section 4.9.4.2). 

4-169 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

Ship Tra/'~ in the Navigation Channel 

There are a number of factors that influence the movement of ship traffic in Delaware Bay and 

River. These include: 

Channel Depth - The channel has a depth of 40 feet. Crown Landing would dredge the 

berth at the LNG terminal to a depth of 40 feet. To ensure adequate navigation depth, 

LNG ship traffic would enter the bay and river at high tide, as is currently the case with 

all deep draft vessels transiting the river. 

Tugs - LNG ships delivering cargo to the proposed terminal would have tug support from 

the Delaware Memorial Bridge to the LNG terminal, during phases of arrival and 

departure, channel navigation, and for standby and fu'e fighting duties during LNG 

unloading operations. Crown Landing proposes providing three dedicated tractor tugs 

with firefighting capability. These tugs would be available for use by other shippers 

when not assisting LNG vessels. 

Moving Safety Zone - The Coast Guard currently imposes a moving safety zone around 

vessels carrying dangerous cargoes (i.e. LIN3 ships) up the navigation channel. The 

details of this zone are outlined in RNA requirements for the Delaware River and Bay 

under 33 CFR 165.1.50. It is anticipated that at a minimum, the regulations currently 

affecting vessels carrying dangerous cargoes within the Delaware River and Bay would 

also apply to LNG ships. 

Reduced Visibility - The Delaware Bay and River experiences fog mostly during spring 

and fall months. Vessels are not allowed transit during times when visibility is, or is 

expected to be, less than 2 miles. Impacts from fog on the LNG shipping schedule are not 

expected to be significant given the small number of ships annually. 

High W/rids - Based on initial simulations, Crown Landing believes operations could he 

conducted safely at wind speeds up to 20 knots hut that high winds may delay operations. 

Impacts from wind on the LNG shipping schedule arc not expected to be significant 

given the snmll number of ships annually. 

Pilotage - A licensed Delaware River Pilot would advise the LNG ship Captains on the 

navigation of the ships on the Delaware Bay and River. In addition, a Docking Pilot 

would board each ship at the Delaware Memorial Bridge to navigate the ship upriver to 

the LNG terminal berth as well as navigate the ship back down river upon departure. 

Additional navigational safe W measures may be necessary for LNG ships based on results of a 

risk assessment currently being conducted by the Coast Guard. 

4.12.5.2 Requdrements for LNG Ship Operations 

The arrival, transit, cargo transfer, and departure of LNG ships in the Delaware River would 

adhere to the procedures of an Operations and Emergency Manuals to he developed by Crown Landing in 

consultation with the Coast Guard Marine Safety Office, Group Philadelphia. These procedures would be 

developed to ensure the safety and security of all operations associated with LNG ship transit and 

unloading. The manuals would contain specific requirements for the LNG ship, pre-arrival notification, 

transit through the Delaware Bay and River, the waterfront facility, cargo transfer operations, Coast 

4-170 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

Guard inspection and monitoring activities, and emergency operations. The Coast Guard Marine Safety 

Office, Group Philadelphia would monitor each LNG ship in accordance with these manuals. 

Some of the anticipated key provisions of the manuals would be the establishment of a moving 

safety and/or security zone for all inbound, ontbo~md, and moored LNG ships; the use of tugs to assist in 

the Delaware River and to maneuver the ship into the bet&; and one tug to remain with the LNG ship 

while it is moored at the berth. Additional provisions may be necessary based on the results of the Coast 

Guard risk assessment. 

The Coast Guard regulations in 33 CFR 127, apply to the marine transfer area of waterfront 

facilities between the LNG ship and the last manifold or valve located immediately before a storage tank. 

Title 33 CFR 127 regulates the design, construction, equipment, operations, inspections, maintenance, 

testing, personnel training, fire fighting, and security of LNG waterfront facilities. The safety systems, 

including the communications, emergency shut down, gas detection, and fire protection must comply with 

the regulations in 33 CFR 127. Under 33 CFR 127.019, Crown Landing would be required to submit two 

copies of its Operations and Emergency Manuals to the Captain of the Port - Group Philadelphia. 

Title 33 CFR 127 separates cargo transfer operations into three distinct phases: Preliminary 

Transfer Inspection (section 127.315); Declaration of Inspection (section 127.317); and LNG Transfer 

(section 127.319). These different sections require specific actions to be completed prior to and during 

the transfer. Additionally, there ate specific actions required in the case of a release of LNG (section 

127.321). 

In accordance with 33 CFR 127.007, Crown Landing submitted a Letter of Intent to the Consl 

Guard on July 30, 2004. On December 3, 2004, the Coast Guard issued a notice in the Federal Register, 

requesting comments on the maritime operation and waterways management aspects of the proposed 

LNG facility. The Coast Guard held a public meeting on January 11, 2005, which was attended by about 

80 people. The Coast Guard's comment period ended on January 18, 2005. The Coast Guard is currently 

conducting a risk assessment to analyze navigation and waterway safety issues related to this project. 

Upon completion of their review, the Coast Guard will issue a Letter of Recommendation to address the 

suitability of the Delaware Bay and River for LNG transport with respect to the following items: 

• Density and character of marine Urafflc; 

• Locks, bridges, or other manmade obstruction; 

• Depth of water, 

• Tidal range; 

• Protection from high seas; 

• Underwater pipes and cables; and 

• Distance of berthed vessels from the channel. 

While the Letter of Recommendation wottld address the suitability of Delaware Bay and River for 

LNG ship transportation, it would not constitute a final authority to commence LNG operations. Issues 

related to the public impact of safety and secority or exclusion zones would be addressed later in the 

development of the Coast Guard's LNG Incident Action Plan. This plan would be developed in 

conjunction with state and local law enforcement and emergency response communities. In addition, the 

4-171 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

Coast Guard would establish a safety and/or security zone under 33 CFR 165 for LNG vessels in transit 

and while docked. Only personnel or vessels authorized by the Captain of the Port are permitted within 

the safety zone. 

Impact of Vessel and Facility Security Requirements 

Measures that the Coast Guard may apply to ensure the safety and security of LNG vessels in the 

Delaware Bay and River will be determined after a series of Coast Guard sponsored workshops are held 

to seek the input of port stakeholders from federal, state, local, and conm~rcial sectors. The workshops 

will provide the basis for developing measures to responsibly manage the risks associated with LNG 

traffic. These measures complement the Maritime Transportation Security Act regulations enacted on 

July 1, 2004. The Coast Guard will then identify protocols to mitigate specific risks and create an 

Incident Action Plan, which will become the basis for appropriate security measures for each Maritime 

Security threat level. Although the specific requirements will not be defined until this process is 

complete, which is anticipated prior to the issuance of the final EIS for the Crown Landing LNG project, 

general requirements that may be applied can be evaluated for the potential impact on other users of the 

waterway and on the adjacent shoreside public. 

Based on the Coast Guard's experience in controlling the movements of LPG vessels in Delaware 

Bay and River and LNG vessels in other ports, potential impacts can be evaluated for several general 

security requirements: (1) moving safety and security zones fix inbound and outbound LNG vessels; (2) 

safety and security zones around a moored LNG vessel; and (3) other measures as deemed appropriate. 

Crown Landing's proposed 150 cargo deliveries per year would average about 2 to 3 per week for each 

inbound and outhound transit. 

Applying a movina safety and secud|y zone similar to that imposed on LPG vessels would 

restrict other vessels 1,000 yards ahead and behind, and 500 yards on either side of the I.,NG vessel. The 

Captain of the Port currendy places these restrictions on all vessels carrying dangerous cargees, which 

also applies to LNG vessels, by regulation in 33 CFR 165.510. The LNG vessels would transit the 

majority of the 67-nautical-mile transit from the Delaware Bay entrance, through the Delaware River to 

the LNG terminal at average speeds of 10.5 to 11 knots. Crown Landing anticipates that a tug would be 

made up to an I.,NG vessel at the Delaware Memorial Bridge at RIM 60. Two additional tugs would be 

made fast as the LNG vessel approaches the LNG terminal to assist maneuvering and berthing. A 5.5- 

hour transit time through the Delaware Bay and River is imposed by the pilots for inbotmd deep draft 

vessels that call on Marcus Hook Berths. It is assumed that LNG vessels would have a similar transit 

time to the proposed Crown Landing LNG terminal. 

The Coast Guard may establish safety/security zones around the Crown Landing's LNG terminal, 

one when an LNG vessel is docked and another when no vessel is present. There is currently a 100 yard 

zone for moored or anchored vessels carrying dangerous cargo (33 CFR 165.510). The Delaware River is 

over 3,800 feet wide at this point, allowing the passage of commercial or recreational vessels around the 

safety/security zone to or from upstream docks. 

The Delaware Memorial Bridge is the only bridge that crosses the LNG vessel route to the 

proposed LNG terminal site. The bridge consists of two spans that have horizontal and vertical 

clearances of 2,150 and 188 feet, respectively. The horizontal distance between the outer bridge lane, s is 

about 300 feet. At speeds ranging between 4 to 10 knots it would take about 1 to 3 minutes for a 1,000 

foot long LNG vessel to transit under both spans of the bridge. While bridge closures are one of the many 

tools available to the Coast Guard, it should no_..! be assumed that bridge closures would be used. Other 

alternatives to a complete bridge closure include closing the outboard lanes only, placing law enforcement 

4-172 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

officials on the bridge at strategic locations, or employing technology that provides suitable security 

alternatives. Closure of the Delaware Memorial Bridge is not currently used for passing LPG ships. 

The moving safety and security zone, the safety and security zotae at the terminal, and one-way 

traffic would affect other commercial, ferry, and recreational traffic using the hay and river. The 

magnitude of the effect would also be influenced by three other factors: the amount of time it takes to 

obtain a pilot, other competing ship traffic in the federal navigation channel, and interaction with ferry 

traffic. 

The moving safety and security zone may have the effect of temporarily limiting some 

commercial shipping routes in the Delaware Bay and River to one-way traffic. This presently occurs with 

vessels carrying dangerous cargo (i.e., ~) which can sometimes delay other vessels using these 

waterways as they wait or anchor at suitable locations to allow these vessels to pass. It is expected that if 

the proposed LNG terminal is constructed, as wany as 120 to 180 LNG ships could potentially move in 

and out of Delaware Bay and River every year. This is a 5 percent increase over the existing 3,000 

ves,~ls per year currently transiting these waterways. 

To evaluate current conditions and the potential impact of LNG vessels on existing commercial 

ship traffic, Crown Landing retained Moffatt & Nichol International (MNI). The purpose of MNI's 

Delaware Bay and River Traffic Study was to assess the impact of LNG operations on barge traffic to and 

from the Logan Generating Station, which is located adjacent to the proposed LNG terminal site. 

The study assessed six case scenarios, three of the cases modeled variations of current conditions 

(without proposed I..NG terminal) and three of which modeled variations of future conditions (with LNG 

terminal). Vessel types included in the study were future LNG carriers, LPG carriers, crude oil tankers, 

other vessels, and coal barges to/from Logan power plant. The simulations included over 3,000 vessels 

per year to ports in the Delaware River up to Philadelphia, 150 I..NG vessels per year, and 70 coal barges 

per year to Logan. Tugs were not counted as separate entities because it was assumed that they travel as 

an integrated entity with the barges. Recreational boats were not included in the simulation; however, it 

can be assumed that the impacts on recreational boaters would be less than on deep draft vessels since 

recreational boats have shallower drafts and are less restricted on where they can travel in the bay and 

river. 

The MNI study concluded that the introduction of I.,NG operations into the Delaware Bay and 

River would have a minor effect on the Logan power plant operations. MNI found that: 

The presence of LNG vessels slightly increases the delays caused by the moving safety 

and security zone requirement; however, the delays are not significant at 4.4 hours per 

year. 

The in-bound and out-hound delay of barges at Marcus Hook Range as a result of 

maneuvering crude oil tankers and LNG carriers increase by a factor of 2 to 3, at 22 hours 

per year. This represents a 15 minute delay per barge. 

The impact on ferry traffic would generally be small because most of the ferry mutes only cross 

the LNG ship route and conflicts could be managed by schedule coordination. Commercial fishing boats 

might also be affected by the security zones imposed by the Coast Guard as LNG ships transit the 

Delaware Bay and River, particularly if the width of the security zone encompasses a large portion of the 

width of the waterway. However, the majority of the Delaware River is over 1 mile wide, except a 

portion near the Wilmington area or the Delaware Memorial Bridge. Additionally, the security zone 

would be a moving zone around the ship, so these impacts would be temporary and of short duration at 

4-173 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

any given point along the shipping route. In addition, depending on their individual drafts, commercial 

fishing boats might be able to go around the LNG ships at points in the river that are sufficiently wide for 

them to be outside oftbe security zone. To mitigate the impacts of security zones, the Coast Guard would 

routinely provide Notice to Mariners prior to the arrival and departure of LNG ships as the Coast Guard 

currently does for ~ vessels and for other activities. The notification system includes broadcasts on 

radio frequencies used by mariners and loudspeaker announcements made from Coast Guard, police or 

other agency boats that precede the ship. 

Operation of the LNG terminal could also affect recreational boating and fishing during the 2 to 3 

LNG vessel transits per week and unloading of the I_.NG ships. The safety and security zone around a 

moored LNG ship may prevent recreational boaters from boating or fishing in the vicinity of the moored 

ship for approximately 24 hours. In most areas, the waterway that would be traveled by the LNG ships is 

sufficiently wide to allow recreational craft, which generally are not confined to the channel, to navigate 

around the LNG ships without significant delay. To estimate what kind of delay might result from a 

passing LNG ship in areas where the waterway is narrower, we identified the locations where the moving 

safety and security zone has the greatest potential to encompass the majority of the waterway width. For 

an LNG vessel in transit at 10 knots, recreational craft attempting to travel in the opposite direction at one 

of the narrow locations may need to wait up to 16 minutes for the LNG ship to pass before proceeding on 

its way. Although LNG vessel maneuvers into and out of the LNG terminal berth are estimated to range 

from 2 to 3 hours, the Delaware River in this location is about 3,100 feet wide. Recreational vessels 

should have ample room to pass by or have only minor delays. 

The development of safety and security plans for the project has been initiated by Crown Landing 

and the Coast Guard. The safety and security plan development process has been divided into three subprocesses: (1) a Port and Waterway Safety Assessment Workshop (2) a Security Workshop; and (3) a 

Consequence Management Workshop. The results of these three workshops will facilitate the 

development of Operations and Emergency Manuals which the facility operator is required to submit to 

the Coast Guard, as well as an LNG Operations Plan which covers operational safety, security, and 

consequence management issues for the project and communities located along the vessel transit route. 

Once these plans are finalized and the resources required to implement them have been identified, 

Crown Landing will be able to more specifically discuss the funding of such resources. In order to better 

define the potential burden on the local communities, we recommend that: 

Crown Landing provide a plan Identifying the mechanim for funding projectspecific security/emergency management costs that will be Imposed on federal and 

state agencies and local communities. Crown Landing should file the plan with the 

Secretary ~o later than the comment period of the draft EIS so that the information 

can be included in the final EIS. 

4A2,~.3 LNG Ship Safety 

Since 1959, LNG has been transported by ship without a major release of cargo or a major 

accident involving an LNG ship. Starting in 1971, LNG began arriving at the Distxigas facility in Everett, 

Massachusetts. To date, more than 450 cargoes, with volumes ranging from 60,000 to 125,000 m 3, have 

been delivered into the Port of Boston withoet incident. During 2003, a total of 506 billion cubic feet 

(204 cargoes) of LNG was imported into the United States. For 30 years, LNG shipping operations have 

been safely conducted in the United States. 

The world's LNG ship fleet numbers 151, with an additional 57 ships contracted for delivery by 

2006. During the last 40 years, LNG ships have made over 33,000 voyages and safely transported over 

4-174 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

2.72 billion cubic meters of LNG. This includes over 1,500 voyages to or from United States ports. 

Currently, all of the ships in the LNG fleet operate under a foreign flag with foreign crews. A foreign flag 

ship must have a Certificate of Compliance inspection by the Coast Guard to ensure compliance with 

International safety standards. 

History 

During the 33,000 voyages that have been completed since the inception of LNG maritime 

transportation, there have been only eight significant incidents involving LNG ships, none of which 

resulted in spills due to rupturing of the cargo tanks. These incidents are described below: 

Pollenger had an LNG spill onto the steel cover of cargo tank number one during 

unloading at Everett. Massachusetts in April 1979. The spill caused cracking of the steel 

plate. 

Mostafa Ben Bou/aid had a check valve fail when unloading at Cove Point, Maryland. in 

April, 1979, releasing a small quantity of LNG onto the ship and causing some minor 

fracture of the deck plating. Activation of the ship's safety systems (i.e., the emergency 

shutdown system and water spray system), along with excellent response of the crew, 

kept the incident from propagating, thus minimizing any serious damage. 

El Paso Prod Kayser grounded on a rock in June 1979 in the Straits of Gibraltar during a 

loaded voyage from Algeria to the United States. Extensive bottom damage to the ballast 

tanks resulted; however, the cargo tanks were not damaged, and no cargo was released. 

The complete cargo of LNG was subsequently transferred to another LNG ship and 

delivered to its United States destination. 

LNG L/bra's propeller shaft fractured while the ship was en route to Japan with a full 

cargo in October 1980. The ship was taken under tow. and the cargo was safely 

transferred to another LNG ship and delivered to its destination. 

LNG Taurus grounded in December 1980 near the entrance to Taboata Harbor, Japan. 

The grounding resulted in extensive bottom damage, but the cargo tanks were not 

affected. The ship was refloated and the cargo unloaded. 

Isa/~//a had LNG spill onto its deck due to a cargo tank overflow in June 1985, causing 

severe cracking of the steelwork. The spill had been attributed to a cargo valve failure 

during discharging of cargo. 

Te///er was blown from its docking berth at Skikda, Algeria in February 1989 during 

severe winds causing damage to the loading arms and the ship and shore piping. The 

cargo loading had been secured just before the wind struck, but the loading arms had not 

been drained. Consequently, the LNG remaining in the loading anus spilled onto the 

deck causing fracture of some plating. 

Norman Lady was struck by the USS Oklahoma City nuclear submarine while rising to 

periscope depth near the Strait of Gibraltar in November 2002. The 87,000 cubic meter 

LNG tanker, which had just unloaded its cargo at Barcelona, Spain, sustained only minor 

damage to the outer layer of its double hull but not to its cargo tanks. 

4-175 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

There have also been some incidents that involved the release of small quantifies of LNG, such as 

minor leaks from seals and gaskets, some of which required that operations be temporarily stopped in 

order to rectify the malfunction. 

Ship Construction 

In 1980, at the initial peak of LNG import activity in the United States, the Coast Guard 

published the report, L/queried Natural Gas and Liquefied Petroleum Gas - Views and Practices - Policy 

and Safety. The report summarized the Coast Guard's extensive research into the safety hazards of LNG 

and its view that "...the nature of both LNG and LPG presents an acceptable risk for transportation in 

maritime commerce." This is due to the fact that LNG ships are well constructed, robust vessels designed 

to withstand low-energy type incidents that are prevalent in harbors and during docking operations. 

Moreover, safety measures, both equipment and training, are planned and designed into these LNG ships 

to prevent or control all types of potential incidents. 

The insulation of cargo tanks on LNG carriers is a complex assembly of many layers. The relief 

valve capacity of LNG ships is designed to compensate for over-pressure caused by fire. The potential 

that impingement by a cryogenic liquid could cause brittle fracture of the ship's hull was known to the 

Coast Guard in the mid-1970s when the U.S. regulations for I_.NG ships in 49 CFR Part 154 were being 

developed. Accordingly, the regulations require the use of special crack-arresting steel in strategic 

locations throughout the vessel's hull. LNG carriers used in the U.S. waters must also he constructed in 

accordance with the IMO Code for the Construction and Equipment of Ships Carrying Liquefied Gases in 

Bulk. This standard requires that the vessel inner hull adjacent to the cargo tanks be protected against 

contact from liquid cargo through a combination of proper material selection, adequate insulation, and use 

of heating systems. 

As required by the IMO conventions and design standards, hold spaces and insulation areas on an 

LNG ship are equipped with gas detection and low temperature alarms. These devices monitor for leaks 

of LNG into the insulation between primary and secondary LNG cargo tank barriers. In addition, hazard 

detection systems are also provided to monitor the hull structure adjacent to the cargo tank, compressor 

rooms, motor rooms, cargo control rooms, enclosed spaces in the cargo area, specific ventilation hoods 

and gas ducts, and air locks. 

LNG carriers are equipped with a firewater system with the ability to supply at least two jets of 

water to any part of the deck in the cargo area and parts of the cargo containment and tank covers abovedeck. A water spray system is also available for cooling, fire prevention, and crew protection in specific 

areas. In addition, certain areas of LNG ships are fitted with dry chemical powder-type extinguishing 

systems and CO2 smothering systems for fighting fires. 

Unlike many conventional crude oil tankers, all LNG ships used to deliver LNG to this proposed 

project would have double-hull construction, with the inner and outer hulls separated by about 10 feet. 

Furthermore, the cargo tanks axe normally separated from the inner hull by a layer of insulation 

approximately l-foot thick. As a result, many grounding incidents severe enough to cause a cargo spill 

on a single-bottom oil tanker would be unable to penetrate both inner and outer hulls of an LNG ship. An 

earlier Federal Power Commission (FI~, predecessor to the FERC) study estimated that the doublebottom of an LNG ship would be sufficient to prevent cargo tank penetration in about 85 percent of the 

cases that penetrated a single-bottom oil tanker. 

The probability of an LNG ship sustaining cargo tank damage in a collision would depend on 

several factors - the displacement and construction of both the struck and striking vessels, the velocity of 

the striking vessel and its angle of impact with the struck vessel, and the location of the point of impact. 

4-176 
Jnofficial FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

The previous FPC study estimated the additional protection afforded by the double-hull would be 

effective in low energy collisions, overall it would prevent cargo tank penetration in about 25 percent of 

the cases that penetrated a single-hull oil tanker. 

In 1995, to assist the Coast Guard in San Juan, Puerto Rico, EcoEI6ztrica L.P. prepared an 

analysis oftbe damage that could result from an oil tanker striking an LNG ship at berth (FERC, 1996). 

The analysis assun~d a 125,000 m s LNG ship and an 82,000 dead weight ton tanker carrying number 6 

fuel oil without tug assistance. The analysis determined the minimum striking speed to penetrate the 

cargo tanks of an LiNG ship for a range of potential collision angles. Tbe resulting minimum striking 

speeds are presented in table 4.12.5-2 for the two principal cargo systems. 

TABLE 4.12.5-2 

I~mlmum 8Ulldng 8prod to Penam~ LNG Cargo Tanks 

M~um ~ Sped (kno~) 

Angle of Impact Slot~Ical Tanks Membrane Tanks 

Greater than 60 ~ 4.5 3 

48~ 6.3 4 

30 degra~ 9 e 

15 degmee 18 12 

For membrane tanks, the critical beam-on striking speed is 3.0 knots, and for spberical tanks, the 

critical on-beam speed is 4.5 knots. For both containment types, lower angles of impact result in much 

greater minimum striking speeds to penetrate LNG cargo tanks. In the July~August, 2002 issue of the 

"LNG Journal", the SIGTTO General Manager provides a table that shows the critical speed necessary for 

a 20,000-ton vessel to puncture the outer hull of an LNG carrier is 7.3 knots. For a 93,000-ton ship, the 

impact speed is 3.2 knots. In neither cusc does such an impact result in damage to the LNG cargo 

containment system or the release of LNG. 

Hmmrds 

In the event of a collision or allision of sufficient magnitude to rupture an LNG cargo tank, it is 

likely that sparks or flames would ignite the flammable vapors at the spill site. In a grounding of 

suff'iciem magnitude to rupture an I_aNG cargo tank, the damage would occur under water and the 

potential for ignition would be less than for collisions or allisions. In this case, an LNG spill would 

rapidly vaporize on water and form a potentially flammable cloud. If not ignited, the flammable vapor 

cloud wonld drift downwind until the effects of dispersion would dilute the vapors below the lower 

flammable limit for methane. The maximum range of potentially flammable vapors (i.e., the distance to 

the lower flammable limi0 is a function of the volume of LNG spilled, the rate of the spill, and the 

prevailing meteorological conditions. If the flammable vapor cloud encountered an ignition source, the 

cloud would burn back to the spill site. 

The final EIS for the Calcasieu LNG Project (Lake Charles, LA) (September 1976) analyzed the 

maximum range of a flammable vapor cloud and hazardous radiation levels from an instantaneous onetank spill. As was coasistent with risk analyses at that time and for nearly 25 years thereafter, the 

instantaneous spillage of one cargo tank was considered to be the "worst case" scenario. Physical 

constraints on maximum vessel speeds and maximum depths of penetration required to rupture one LNG 

cargo tank render the possibility of an instantaneous release of more than one cargo tank to be 

implausible. This is not to imply that the loss of multiple cargo tanks could never occur, but that the 

extent of the hazard would not exceed that of the instantaneous spillage of one tank. 

4-177 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

For an instantaneous 

estimated that a '-- - one-tank s-" 

°eote. of,he spi; ous w.h ig i,io. 

Pacific LNG" - " For an insta..o- on level of 5 a,~ .. ~ EIS for ,-- ~ - 

-'" " ,u m,.I.._. _ " "~"~3) es d .... v Will,out i"--:-" ^wna 3,59¢ ¢ . --a-~, 

""v- wlna and p. • ...~au~ that -- ~.uon, the ~ • ~, ieet rrozn .c Yplcal atmos-~,..-, l~°tentiallv fl ..... nnal EIS for .c_ . . me 

v,,~nc stability. J ",tanaOle vapors cou'- t.¢ YUkon 

~a travel up to 

In October 2001, the use of 

examined by Quest Co a one-tank 

with reo, .:mu!tams. +.c. Jmt taneous rel , ..... 

' ', ZUOl. It Was ~,e~.,ng the Distrit, as ~ ~.~'J. as part of an e¢¢~--?" '~ me 'Worst ..... 

/13Oe~ ~_ uclerlTlJno.~ ,t ~- "-,,,+1,] lm",~--- "=~',l Oy the, rx,-~.-. ~ See/In,q^ 

ra,~]..'=~CuratelY sirnula,= ',.~...ma. ! time-release .v~..=.~ mrminal follow;--':'~ ,-,~t: to deterrni,. 7" u Was re- 

• -ulat/on ha~,o..,_ ~ clL'~hn/e "W'---- ~plIIS throu~.k , "g U]e terror/,,* ~ ,,~ trl¢ haZard¢ 

,.._~. ---~=u+s we,.., _ , 0 ,~31 C~en" ++ +s- l-n~e._ - o,oL ar/n,.l.o _.. ~ -~ 

"'-X,mUmdistan,..,^ "~ ~a,.CU|ated for th-'~ _~.. geSeenar/,~'"~" ann . 5-n~terdi.~-"-.~'uI3eptemher 

Water without ;~'-.~.:~' a radmm flux le..-;"- ~w° Spdl SCena,~,.. ~°;.;~aX~mum f/a.....~ '~'tar holes woa/d 

response to ~_,r~nuon, a t'lamma~,~_ .c, or 1,500 Btu/fdJ,~ ~'" *+or a Spill o .... ,,,me Vapor cloud - 

LNG o-:- ~"mments Cone.---+ ~:~ vapor cloud ,,r -, ..'" was est/mat,,~ ._ on Water with i~:.: and 

m-'-:" +1,ms restdtinp fro-- ,.-,rag Its October ",,~,." g.a miles Was --.~. ,u ee 1,770 feet r: ~"'u°n' the 

~,nct thespreaa; o v,. a collision .,.,c ~ax, l Study, r~,._. . '~sornated. h '~" • COrn spill on 

""g OtLNG on w .... .,,,m a large shin ;. ~,,cs~ ClariFied tha, :. ~ovember 2003 ;. 

• ,tc~. +" '" OOSton% ,~ , ~[S StU(~,, ^ • , '- 

" ° ~Uter Harbor wh~n,°a ~y applied to 

,c Waves would 

. DUring the past year, the 

WOrst case" SCe-a,q~ .~ re has g-- 

Would res,l,%"2" e r ooo of s,u.,. 

• ~,mal radiation I.,,. , ~ar8°" Distar..... .,vm a de/ihera," . "~ oy vario.~ ... . 

targe-scal~ L. -,--e~ of 1,500 n, ~,~+ nave been --.. "~, terrorist at,o~t ~ pan+es to d~,r, 

- -- ---.. /]ISlO/.~Cal ;_ ._ --otU/It -~r D--- . ~£1rn~l~ to -- .+m.#~ on arl Tk~ . ----he 

event. Thi. : . " mcl~tRs, an d ,,._ • • ,u~ or the n-~,..,_ ,- ~ange from ~ -,-,. "~"~ snip and rk,. 

examnu. " inevitably lea,4.. "~.. um need tO e~..,,--_, ''v" mr the a~na .... :,','u to 4,200 re.f; "" 

. . --~'~, some ,.,..., . "* ,o aiffe,~. "-=polat~ er..ll +' z'--'-ut UISCr~a._ . , "'.,'~l lot 8 

doles, while ,~h.L~ e's ca/culate a ti ~''g.c°nservative ass.~'~j-SCale ~elcl ,.o~,/ctes ~s the lac~ or 

~"~'~ asSUme tha~ ,~- "+c-re/ease carp^ ~' --mPtlOns a/n~. "~" uala tO a W"~- 

• "~ umCat~O~o.). . ~u (;/ISCharEe ,L ~',g t/~ vat/o- '.~t ca~ 

'+"+~ empties instantan~,,".. +~rough l-meter or ¢.s Parties. For 

,,ous~y. "'meter diameter 

. As a r~suh, the r:~,-.-. 

~te.ratore on experimen ",~t: co.mmission - 

Spills% 1,p,,,, and by ons+ 

• ~ narrtmab)- diet. Further .. -''"~nCe teeth-. • , rants to sea~'- • 

releases durin-..- 'Y vapor and t/x-,-,...,' me goal of the s,..~ tmologms that ate .__~. n.ancl review the 

incid~, - 6 uanslt an,+ ...t.. -'-"~ radial;,.- • may wa~s to :~ .- aPpliCable tn ..... 

...,,~ars lnvoluinr, n - - Walle at h,.,t. __ "~' n,~3U'd ,4;.,.. tuent~ly aDm.n...: . "~ ,,a~elln 

• .e; nele "+, m. Jl~e . -.~nces fi "'-" ~v, ,ale g 

aeay 14, 2004. r~. .. ase~ from LiOuen.., ,, reSuhm~ st.a, .~ or Potential ~ xr,-, methods for 

were issued .v".'une 18, 2004 ..~-a,=u ~vatUral Ga~'r~ -".~, t'Onsequen... . -- "~'"J Vessel ^-- 

asse~©,,.~_~-" ~s dISCus~,d :_ • +~a~i s re.Sponse~ .^ "" ~-arriers, woe --, ": "tSse~sment M+,L ~arg o 

.~_ -+,,.~nt method..t- .-"" " greater de,.,:, - o ,o COnurmn,. ^_ .'+ ,c+eased for ,,.L,. ----,-oas for 

u,e methodol.,...." . ,,,OgZes Were rew;,,.~., [,,u~ In staffs ree..^- " ~! tl'l~ con~..^ euollc con'l/71e 

sized hm ;'.'~ tot calculaa .... .:,,,.u eased on co.,,.--'_ "e'"~ses, various e~.~J "~nce aSseSSme nt on 

,_ .--'es; (2) the s .... --"s. tz) the ra~,= ^¢ . ~'',==nts received .~-"mponents of--- nt methods 

t+J~l/'ly insl~,.,,^ ~"r'a~tllg Of S" - ~" ~,J reteas~ of/Kr.~ " ~ne revio~.~ ,,,e ConseCtuenr., the-- . --,,caneous,, .., " ttnconfi..~ , .._ -"'~ frO,,,, .. +~a methc~,,.,! -- "-~ 

-,,~,tmal radi+,;^ - ,' ,me-ases; (3~ ,L "".~ ~.~(.i nc~l ^ .., a Cargo tm,,~- -- ~,,ogy provid,., 

dis,-- .~un aislan .... .., ,.e rate of .- ,---- un Water fn- -- - "" p~netrati..- . - :--+ 

,daces. ,-~s for LNG n,-..., .- vapor generation ¢-- u~ eoth continuouo - ~-~'. zor various 

-, ou weter and ;;,;P2 rapid 

untamable va-- +er; (4) 

,,/.,or dispersion A detailed evaluation of the con 

Under tanker Cr/t~cal ,was Prepared Ener by Lloyds Register NSo~rrorUences of a ~'rorist , l 

on an LNG toni,.. ~ nfrastructm.e l.e^_ nh America for .L . attack on a -.^~ 

Vari . --,,~- oy rnis • "''mat/on v, me Wen , ,,~u~w.rn me 

ous s~d cha .... s~les and exnl.,+:- (CEII). The s,,.#, v.er s Cove LN~ ,x- mbrane LNG 

wateflin~ ,.. . "~ on both ,h. r .,o,ves. Finite ,.~ "~Y evalua,,,..~ .~ .-, lh'ojeet a--' ", 

as~,-+-:\- was round to h~ ,~,_"'~ °Uter a--n._nd lane- ~.. ,, ~'ement analysis ,.._"~ me Consequem.,.. ~'~ n,ed 

"~aul~nts. '~,t. • ~ LII~ aV ~- " IIUIIS. ~ I ~" was Uead • -'~'~'° Olal+l++--L 

caused grea,,- *~,s finding is con:+.'~._ ge most probable ,~,..+1 meter diameter ~, m ev.alUate the ef;~,,~_~ 

"~' man a 5.rr., .... +,..L+mm with th= _.. worst Case" =+^+ :,u~c Olthe inner g . ~-.ut 

---,--or mar/leter h^~ -" auack on ~k.., ~cnano for k__ -uu at the 

~+e on the outer h,. ~ uouble-hull of + ,~azard COnse~uen,.o 

• '-- out Only minor fl~ ~_ [an~er l~'r~erg wh~"~ 

=,,=age to the in ....... 

ner hull. A 

4-178 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

failure modes and effects analysis was used to understand internal LNG release characteristics; and a 

residual strength analysis used to investigate damage scenarios fora loaded LNG tanker. 

In December 2004, the DOE released a study by Sandia National lad3oratories, Guidance on Risk 

Analysis and Safety Implications of a Large Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Spill Over Water (Sandia 

Report). The report included an LNG cargo tank breach analysis using modern finite element modeling 

and explosive shock physics modeling to estimate a range of breach sizes for credible accidental and 

intentional LNG spill events. The analysis of accidental events found that groundings and low speed 

collisions could result in minor ship damage but not a cargo spill; while high speed collisions could cause 

a 0.5 to 1.5 m 2 cargo tank breach area. For intentional scenarin~, the size of the cargo lank hole depends 

on the location of the ship and source of threat. Intentional breach areas were estimated to range from 2 

to 12 m 2. In most cases, an intentional breaching scenario would not result in a nominal hole of more 

than 5 to 7 m 2, which is a more appropriate range to use in calculating potential hazards from spills. 

The Sandia Report also included guidance on risk management for intentional spills, based on the 

findings that the most significant impacts to public safety and property exist within approximately 500 

meters (1,640 feet) of a spill due to thermal hazards from a fire, with lower public health and safety 

impacts beyond 1,600 meters (5,250 feet). Large, unignited LNG vapor releases were found to he 

unlikely, but could extend to 2,500 meters (8,200 feet) for nominal intentional spill. 

Cascading damage due to brittle fracture from exposure to cryogenic liquid or fire-induced 

damage to foam insulation was evaluated and while possible under certain conditions is not likely to 

involve more than two or three cargo tanks. Cascading events are not expected to increase the overall fire 

hazard by more than 20 to 30 percent (1,920 to 2,080 meters) (6,300 to 6,825 feet), but will increase the 

expected fire duration. Rapid phase transitions are possible for large spills but the effects would be 

localized near the spill sottrce and should not cause extensive structural damage. 

The methodology described in the ABSG study and revised in staff's responses to comments was 

used to calculalc the thermal radiation and flammable vapor dispersion distances for several holes ranging 

in diameter from 1 meter to 3.9 meters. Based on the penetration of the largest cargo tank of a 140,000 

m J LNG ship, a potential spill of 23,000 m 3 is estimated for the volume of I.,NG above the waterline. The 

estimated pool spread results and thermal radiation hazard distances are identified in table 4.12.5-3. 

Thermal radiation calculations are based on an ambient temperature of 18" F, a relative humidity of 30 

percent, and a 20 mile per hour wind speed. 

TABLE 4.12.5-3 

LNG Spllle on Watw 

LNG ReUme erie S~md 

HO~ (l~¢Itet~ 1.0 m~er 2.5 rnete~ 3.0 nlebzm 3.9 meteq; 

H~e emm 0.8 rneter a 5 metenz e 7 meten~ 12 metm~ 

Spin ~me 94 rnlnutR 15 mlnutm 10.4 minutes 8.2 mb'mt~ 

Pool Fire 

Man, urn i:x~ radial 340 tee( 810 hmr B39 fe~ 1,102 fee( 

Fife duration 94 minutes 15 mlnut~ 10.7 minutes 6.5 rnlnut~ 

Distance Io: 

1,600 BZu/f~-hr 2,267 feet 4,495 fe~ 5,020 feet 5,691 feet 

3,000 BtWItZ-hr 1,767 feet 3,463 feet 3,881 feet 4,370 feet 

10,000 Btuffta-t~ " 1,083 fee( 2,0~0 feel 2,286 flze( 2,578 fee( 

4-179 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000-- " 

Flammable vapor dispersion calculations were based on an ambient temperature of 49 ~F, 50 

percent relative humidity, a 4.5 mph wind speed and atmospheric stability class F. Based on a I-meterdiameter hole, an unignited release would result in an estimated pool radius of 421 feet. The unignited 

vapor cloud would extend to 10,128 feet to the lower flammability limit and 13,677 feet to one half the 

lower flammability limit. It is important to identify certain key assumptions of conditions that must exist 

in order to achieve the maximum vapor cloud distances. First it would be necessary for an event to create 

a l-meter-diameter hole by penetrating the outer hull, the inner hull, and cargo containment without 

~. Far more credible is that the event creating a 1-n-~er-diameter hole would also result in a 

number of ignition sources which would lead to an LNG pool fire and subsequent thermal radiation 

hazards. It is also unlikely that a flammable vapor cloud could achieve its maximum distance over land 

surfaces without encountering an ignition source, and subsequently burning back to the source. 

Flammable vapor dispersion for larger holes was not performed since, realistically, the cloud would not 

even extend to the maximum distance for a l-meter-diameter hole before encountering an ignition source. 

As mentioned previously, the LNG ships would pass by several communities along the ship route 

and some areas of development along the shoreline in these communities could be within a potential 

hazard area during the LNG ship transit. However, the adjacent communities would be exposed to a 

potential hazard for an estimated 8 minutes. In addition, a temporary hazard would exist around the ship 

unloading facility during the period when the ship is offioading LNG. 

The operational restrictions to be imposed by the Delaware River Pilots on LNG vessel 

movements through the Delaware Bay and River. as well as the requirements that the Coast Guard would 

impose in its operating plan would minimize the possibility of a hazardous event occurring along the 

vessel transit. 

By focusing on the average most probable "'worst case" scenario for LNG transportation, there is 

a tendency to dismiss the potential hazards for other fuels and products commonly transported on our 

waterways. Some of the previously identified studies that calculate long hazard distances for LNG cargo 

fires also estimate similarly long distances for gasoline, propane, and jet fuel cargo fires. Also, it should 

not be assumed that the hazard distances identified are the assured outcome of an LNG ship accident or 

attack, given the conservatisms in the models and the level of damage required to yield such large scale 

releases. Further, these estimated average most probable "worst case" scenarios should not be 

misconstrued as defining an exclusionary zone. Rather the average most probable "worst case" scenarios 

provide guidance in developing the operating restrictions for LNG ship movements in the Delaware 

River, as well as in establishing potential impact areas for emergency response and evacuation planning. 

4.12.6 Terrorism and Security Issues 

The security requirements for the onshore component of the proposed project are governed by 49 

CFR 193, Subpan I - Security. This subpart includes requirements for conducting security inspections 

and patrols, liaison with local law enforcement officials, design and construction of protective enclosures. 

lighting, monitoring, alternative power sources, and warning signs. Requirements for maintaining safety 

of the marine terminal are in the Coast Guard regulations in 33 CFR Pan 127. Requirements for 

maintaining security of the marine terminal are in 33 CFR Pan 105. 

In the aftermath of the terrorist attacks that occur~t on September 11, 2001, terrorism has 

become a very real issue for the facilities under the Commission's jurisdiction. The FERC, like other 

federal agencies, is faced with a dilemma in how much inforrnatiun can be offered to the public while still 

providing a significant level of protection to the facility. Consequently, the FERC has removed energy 

facility design plans and location information from its website to ensure that sensitive information filed 

under CEIl is not readily available (RM02-44)00 and PL02-1-0(O issued February 20. 2003). 

4-180 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

Since September 11, 2001, the FERC has been involved with other federal agencies in developing 

a coordinated approach to protecting the energy facilities of the United States. The FERC continues to 

coordinate with theses agencies, specifically with the Coast Guard to address this issue. The Coast Guard 

now requires arriving ships to provide them with a 96-hour advance notice of arrival that includes key 

infornmtion about the vessel and its crew which allows the Coast Guard to conduct a terrorism risk 

assessment and put in place appropriate mitigation before the ship reaches the ship channel. In addition, 

interstate natural gas companies are actively involved with several industry groups to chart how best to 

address security measures in the current environment. A Security Task Force has been created and is 

addressing ways to improve pipeline security practices, strengthen communications within the industry 

and the interface with government, and extend public outreach efforts. 

In September 2002, the DOT's OPS issued non-public guidelines to LNG operators that direct 

them to develop new security procedures for onshore facilities. Operators were required to prepare a 

security plan within 6 months that responds to the five threat levels defined by the Office of Homeland 

Security. OPS conducts subsequent on-site reviews of the security procedures. 

On October 22, 2003, the Coast Guard issued a series of six final rules that promulgated the 

maritime security requirements of the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002: Implementation of 

National Maritime Security Initiatives; Area Maritime Security; Vessel Security; Facility Security; Outer 

Continental Shelf Facility Security; and the Automatic Identification System~ The entire series of 

rulemakings establishes a new subehapter H in 33 CFR. In support of the rulemakings, the Coast Guard 

applied a risk-hased decision making process to comprehensively evaluate the relative risks of various 

target and attack mode combinations and scenarios for those vessel types and port facilities that pose a 

risk of a security incident. This approach provides a mere realistic estimation of risk than a simple 

"worst-case outcome" assessment. Risk management principles acknowledges that while risk generally 

cannot be eliminated, it can be reduced by adjusting operations to lower consequences, threats, or 

vulnerability, recognizing that it is easier to reduce vulnerabilities by adding security measures. 

On December 29, 2003, terminal owners or operators subject to 33 CFR Part 105 were required to 

submit a Facility Security Assessment and Facility Security Plan to the Coast Guard Captain of the Port 

for review and approval. The Facility Security Plans were required to be implemented no later than July 

1, 2004 or for facilities constructed after July 1, 2004, 60 days prior to operations. Some of the principal 

owner or operator responsibilities include: 

designating a FSO with a general knowledge of current security threats and patterns, risk 

assessment methodology, and the responsibility for implementing the Facility Security 

Plan and Assessment and performing an annual audit for the life of the project; 

conducting a Facility Security Assessment to identify site vulnerabilities, possible 

security threats and consequences of an attack, and facility protective measures; 

developing a Facility Security Plan based on the Facility Security Assessment. with 

procedures for responding to transportation security incidents, notification and 

coordination with local, state and federal authorities, prevent unauthorized access; 

measures and equipment to prevent or deter dangerous substances and devices, training, 

and evacuation; 

implementing scalable security measures to provide increasing levels of security at 

increasing MARSEC levels for facility access control, restricted areas, cargo handling, 

vessel stores and bunkers, and monitoring; 

4-181 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

conducting security exercises at least once each calendar year and drills at least every 3 

months; and 

• reporting of all breaches of security and security incidents. 

Increased security awareness has occurred throughout the industry and the nation. President Bush 

established the Office of Homeland Security with the mission of coordinating the efforts of all executive 

departments and agencies to detecL prepare for, prevent, protect against, respond to, and recover from 

terrorist attacks within the United States. The Commission, in cooperation with other federal agencies 

and industry trade groups, has joined in the efforts to protect the energy infrasm.,cture, including the more 

than 300,000 miles of interstate natural gas transmission pipeline and associated LNG facilities. 

Safety and security are important considerations in any Commission action. The attacks of 

September 11, 2001 have changed the way pipeline operators as well as regulators must consider 

terrorism, both in approving new projects and in operating existing facilities. However, the likelihood of 

future acts of terrorism or sabotage occurring at the proposed LNG import terminal, or at any of the 

myriad natural gas pipeline or energy facilities throughout the United States is unpredictable given the 

disparate motives and abilities of terrorist groups. The continuing need to construct facilities to support 

the future natural gas pipeline infrastructure is not diminished from the threat of any such unpredictable 

acts. 

4.12.7 Pipenne Facilities 

The transportation of natural gas by pipeline involves some risk to the public in the event of an 

accident and subsequent release of gas. The greatest hazard is a fire or explosion following a major 

pipeline rapture. 

Methane, the primary component of natural gas, is colorless, odorless, and tasteless. It is not 

toxic, but is classified as a simple asphyxiate, possessing a slight inhalation hazard. If breathed in high 

concentration, oxygen deficiency can result in serious injury or death. 

Methane has an ignition temperature of 1,000 ° F and is flammable at concentrations between 5.0 

percent and 15.0 percent in air. Unconfined mixtures of methane in air are not explosive. However, a 

flammable concentration within an enclosed space in the presence of an ignition source can explode. It is 

buoyant at atmospheric temperatures and disperses rapidly in air. 

4.12.7.1 Safety Standards 

The DOT is mandated to provide pipeline safety under Title 49. U.S.C. Chapter 601. The 

Research and Special Programs Administration's (RSPA), OPS, administers the national regulatory 

program to ensure the safe transportation of natural gas and other hazardous materials by pipeline. It 

develops safety regulations and other aplxoaches to risk management that ensure safety in the design, 

construction, testing, operation, maintenance, and emergency response of pipeline facilities. Many of the 

regulations are written as performance standards which set the level of safety to he attained and allow the 

pipeline operator to use various technologies to achieve safety. RSPA ensures that people and the 

environment are protected from the risk of pipeline incidents. This work is shared with state agency 

partners and others at the federal, state, and local level Section 5(a) of the Natural Gas Pipeline Safety 

Act provides for a state agency to assume all aspects of the safety program for intrastate facilities by 

adopting and enforcing the federal standards, while section 5(b) permits a state agency that does not 

qualify under section 5(a) to perform certain inspection and monitoring functions. A state may also act as 

DOT's agent to inspect interstate facilities within its boundaries; however, the DOT is responsible for 

4-182 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

enforcement action. The majority of the states have either 5(a) certifications or 5(b) agreements, while 

nine states act as interstate agents. 

The DOT pipeline standarda are published in Part~ 190-199 of Title 49 of the CFR. Part 192 of 

49 CFR specifically addresses natural gas pipeline safety issues. 

Under a Memorandum of Understanding on Natural Gas Transportation Facilities (Memorandum) 

dated January 15, 1993 between the DOT and the FERC, the DOT has the exclusive authority to 

promulgate federal safety standards used in the transportation of natural gas. Section 157.14(aX9Xvi) of 

the FERC's regulations require that an applicant certify that it will design, install, inspect, test, construct, 

operate, replace, and maintain the facility for which a certificate is requested in accordance with federal 

safety standards and plans for maintenance and ~tion, or shall certify that it has been granted a 

waiver of the requirements of the safety standards by the DOT in accordance with section 3(e) of the 

Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act. The FERC accepts this certification and does not impose additional 

safety standards other than the DOT standards. If the Commission becomes aware of an existing or 

potential safety problem, there is a provision in the Memorandum to promptly alert DOT. The 

Memorandum also provides for referring complaints and inquiries made by state and local governments 

and the general public involving safety matters related to pipeline under the Commission's jurisdiction. 

The FERC also participates as a member of the DOT's Technical Pipeline Safety Standards 

Committee which determines if proposed safety regulations are reasonable, feasible, and practicable. 

The pipeline and abovegronnd facilities associated with the Logan Lateral Project must be 

designed, constructed, operated, and maintained in accordance with the DOT Minimum Federal Safety 

Standards in 49 CFR Part 192. The regulations are intended to ensure adequate protection for the public 

and to prevent natural gas facility accidents and failures. Part 192 specifies material selection and 

qualification, minimum design requirements, and protection from internal, external, and atmospheric 

corrosion. 

Part 192 also defines area classifications, based on population density in the vicinity of the 

pipeline, and specifies more rigorous safety requirements for populated areas. The class location unit is 

an area that extends 220 yards on either side of the centerline of any continuous 1 mile length of pipeline. 

The four a~a classifications arc defined as follows: 

Class I ~tion with I0 or fewer Imildings intended for human occupancy. 

Class 2 Location with more than 10 but less than 46 buildings intended for human 

occupancy. 

Class 3 Location with 46 or more buildings intended for human occupancy or where the 

pipeline lies within 100 yards of any building, or small well-defined outside area 

occupied by 20 or more people on at least 5 days a week for 10 weeks in any 12- 

month period. 

Class 4 Location where buildings with four or more stories aboveground are prevalent. 

Class locations representing more populated areas require higher safety factors in pipeline design, 

testing, and operation. Pipelines constructed on land in Class 1 locations mug be installed with a 

minimum depth of cover of 30 inches in normal soil and 18 inches in consolidated rock. 

4-183 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000" 

Class 2, 3, and 4 locations, as well as drainage ditches of public roads and railroad crossings, 

require a minimum cover of 36 inches in normal soil and 24 inches in consolidated rock. Class locations 

also specify the maximum distance to a sectionalizing block valve (e.g., 10.0 miles in Class l, 7.5 miles 

in Class 2, 4.0 miles in Class 3, and 2.5 miles in Class 4). Pipe wall thickness and pipeline design 

pressure, s, hydrostatic test pressures, maximum allowable operating pressure, inspection and testing of 

welds, and frequency of pipeline patrols and leak surveys must also conform to higher standards in more 

populated areas. Preliminary class locations for the Logan Lateral Project have been developed based on 

the relationship of the pipeline eenterline to other nearby sla'uctures and manmade features. The proposed 

project would be located within Class 1, 2, and 3 locations. Texas Eastern has indicated that it would 

construct the entire pipeline in accordance with the specifications for Class 3. 

Congress recently passed an act to strengthen the Nation's pipeline safety laws. The Pipeline 

Safety Improvement Act of 2002 (I-IR 3609) was passed by Congress on November 15, 2002, and signed 

into law by the President in December, 2002. No later than December 17, 2004, gas transmission 

operators must develop and follow a written integrity management program that contains all the elements 

described in §192.911 and addresses the risks on each covered transmission pipeline segment 

Specifically, the law establishes an integrity management program which applies to all high consequence 

areas (HCAs). The DOT (68 FR 69778, 69 FR 18228, and 69 FR 29903) defines HCAs as they relate to 

the different class zones, potential impact circles, or areas containing an identified site as defined in 

§ 192.903 of the DOT regulations. 

OPS published a sea'ies of roles from August 6, 2002 to May 26, 2004 (69 Federal Register 29903), 

that defines HCAs where a gas pipeline accident could do considerable harm to people and their property 

and requires an integrity management program to minimize the potential for an accident. This definition 

satisfies, in part, the Congressional mandate in 49 U.S.C. 60109 for OPS to prescribe standards that 

establish criteria for identifying each gas pipeline facility in a high-density population area. 

The HCAs may be defined in one of two ways. In the In'st method an HCA includes 

• current class 3 and 4 locations; 

any area in Class 1 or 2 where the potential impact radius j° is greater than 660 feet and 

there are 20 or more buildings intended for human occupancy within the potential impact 

circle ~; or 

• any area in Class 1 or 2 where the potential impact circle includes an identified site 12. 

In the second method an HCA includes any area within a potential impact circle which contains 

• 20 or more buildings intended for human occupancy; or 

• an identified site. 

*0 The po~tial impact raddm is cakubaed as the product at" 0.69 and the uluare root of the maximum allowable upentting pressure of the 

pipeline in p~i mul~iplied by ~ pipeline ~ in inche~. 

" The po~tial imlp~ circle is a c~cle of r~us equal to the potemal impact ~. 

*2 An identified ml~ i$ an outside area or open slmcture that is oocupied ~ 20 ~ ~ ~ ~ at I~ ~ ~ m ~y 12-~ ~; a 

building that is occupied by 20 or rnm~ ~ on at least S days a week for any 10 wocks in any 12-m~th peaiod; o¢ • facility that is 

occupied by pe~ons who ire con freed, ar~ of impaired m~ility, o¢ would be difficull to evaguale. 

4-184 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

Once a pipeline operator has determined the HCAs on its pipeline, it must apply the elements of 

its integrity management program to those segments of the pipeline within HCAs. The DOT regulations 

specify the requirements for the integrity management plan at § 192.911. 

The pipeline integrity management rule for HCAs requires inspection of the entire pipeline in 

HCAs every 7 years. 

Part 192 prescribes the minimum standards for operating and maintaining pipeline facilities, 

including the requirement to establish a written plan governing these activities. Under section 192.615, 

each pipeline operator must also establish an emergency plan that includes procedures to minimize the 

hazards in a natural gas pipeline emergency. Key elements of the plan include procedures for:. 

receiving, identifying, and classifying emergency events, gas leakage, fires, explosions, 

and natural disasters; 

establishing and maintaining communications with local fire, police, and public officials, 

and coordinating emergency response; 

• emergency shutdown of system and safe restoration of service; 

making personnel, equipment, tools, and materials available at the scene of an 

emergency; and 

protecting people first and then property, and making them safe from actual or potemiat 

hazards. 

Part 192 requires that each operator must establish and maintain liaison with appropriate fire, 

police, and public officials to learn the resources and responsibilities of each organization that may 

respond to a naUzral gas pipeline emergency, and to coordinate mutual assistance. The operator must also 

establish a continuing education program to enable customers, the public, government officials, and those 

engaged in excavatio~ activities to recognize a gas pipeline emergency and report it to appropriate public 

officials, Texas Eastern would provide the appropriate training to local emergency service personnel 

before the pipeline is placed in service. No additional specialized local fire protection equipment would 

be required to handle pipeline emergencies. 

4.12.7.2 Pipeline Accident Data 

Since February 9, 1970, 49 CFR Part 191 has required all operators of transmission and gathering 

systems to notify the DOT of any reportable incident and to submit a relXn't on form F7100.2 within 20 

days. Reportable incidents are defined as any leaks that: 

• caused a death or personal injury requiring hospitalization; 

• required taking any segment of transmission line out of service; 

• resulted in gas ignition; 

caused estimated damage to the property of the operator, or others, or both, of a to~al of 

$5,000 or more; 

• required immediate repair on a transmission line; 

4-185 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

• occurred while testing with gas or another medium; or 

in the judgment of the operator was significant, even though it did not meet the above 

criteria~ 

The DOT changed reporting requirements aRer June 1984 to reduce the amount of data collected. 

Since that date, operators must only report incidents that involve property damage of more than $50,000, 

injury, death, release of gas, or that are otherwise considered significant by the operator. Table 4.12.7-1 

presents a summary of incident data for the 1970 to 1984 period, as well as more recent incident data for 

1986 thr~gh 2003, recognizing the difference in reporting requirements. The 14.J-year period from 

1970 through June 1984, which provides a larger universe of data and more basic report information than 

subsequent years, has been subject to detailed analysis, as discussed in the following sections, j3 

TABLE 4.12.7-1 

Natund G~ 8ervk:e Inctden~ by Cause 

Cause Inotcle~ per 1,000 mllee of Pipellfle (pea:e~mge) 

1970-1984 1966-2003 

Outsk~elo~e 0.7O (S3.0) 0.10 (38.4) 

Co~ 0.22 (le.SI O.Oe (23.1) 

~orrnatedaldefect 0.27 (20.8) 0.04 (1S.4) 

o.11 (8.5) o.oe (23.1) 

Total 1.3O 0.26 

During the 14.5-year period, 5,862 service incidents were reported over the more than 300,000 

total miles of natural gas transmission and gathering systems nationwide. Service incidents, defined as 

failures that occur during pipeline operation, have remained fairly constant over this period with no clear 

upward or downward Wend in annual totals. In addition, 2,013 test failures were reported. Correction of 

test failures removed defects from the pipeline before operation. 

Additional insight into the nature of service incidents may he found by examining the primary 

factors that caused the failures. Table 4.12.7-1 provides a percentage distribution of the causal factors as 

well as the annual frequency of each factor per 1,000 miles of pipeline in service. 

The dominant incident cause is outside forces, constituting 53.8 percent of all service incidents. 

Outside forces incidents result from the encroachment of mechanical equipment such as bulldozers and 

backhoes; earth movements due to soil settlement, washouts, or geologic hazards; weather effects such as 

winds, storms, and thermal strains; and willful damage. Table 4.12.%2 shows that human eZTOr in 

equipment usage was responsible for approximately 75 percent of outside forces incidents. Since April 

1982, operators have been required to participate in "One Call" public utility programs in populated areas 

to minimize unauthorized excavation activities in the vicinity of pipelines. The "One Call" program is a 

service used by public utilities and some private sector companies (e.g., oil pipelines and cable television) 

to provide preconstruction information to contractors or other maintenance workers on the underground 

location of pipes, cables, and culverts. The 1986 through 2003 data show that the portion of incidents 

caused by outside forces has decreased to 38.4 percent. 

u Jo~ DJ., G.S. Knuu~, DN. Gideca. a~l RJ. ,~b~, 1986. "An Amdy~s of Reportable b~id~z~ fcr NaZuxzl Gas Tr~on znd 

C~zZhe~ng L~es 19"/0 T]~ June IC~4." NG- 18 Rq~ort N~ 158, Pilpeli~ P.~em~h CommJ~ of ~ A~ Gas Aslcc~doQ. 

4-186 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

The pipelines included in the data set in table 4.12.7-1 vary widely in terms of age, pipe diameter, 

and level of corrosion control. Each variable influences the incident frequency that may be expected for a 

specific segment of pipeline. 

TABLE 4.12.7-2 

Outllldo Forem Inddeltts by Cauu (tgTO-1N4) 

Cau~ Poccent 

Eq~llx~t o~oemted ~ o~¢~ pe~y ~7.'r 

Equlpme~t of~cated by or fo¢ opera,or 7.3 

Earth movecn~t 13.3 

Wee~or 10.8 

Othe¢ 1.5 

The frequency of service incidents is strongly dependem on pipeline age. While pipelines 

installed since 1950 exhibit a fairly constant level of service incident frequency, pipelines installed before 

that time have a significantly higher rate, partially due to corrosion. Older pipelines have a higher 

frequency of corrosion incidents, since corrosion is a time-dependent process. Further, new pipe 

generally uses more advanced coatings and cathodic protection to reduce corrosion potential. 

Older pipelines have a higher frequency of outside forces incidents partly because their location 

may be less well known and less well marked than newer lines. In addition, the older pipelines contain a 

disproportionate number of smaller diameter pipelines, which have a greater rate of outside forces 

incidents. Small diameter pipelines are more easily crushed or broken by mechanical equipment or earth 

n~ove~nL~. 

Table 4.12.7-3 clearly demonstrates the effectiveness of corrosion control in reducing the 

incidence of failures caused by external corrosion. The use of both an external protective coating and a 

cathodic protection system, required on all pipelines installed after July 1971, significantly reduces the 

rate of failure compared to unprotected or paxtiaily protected pipe. The data shows that haxc, cathodically 

protected pipe actoally has a higher corro6ion rate than unprotected pipe. This anomaly reflects the 

retrofitting of cathodic protection to actively corroding spots on pipes. 

TABLE 4.12.7-3 

ebmcna0 ~ by Lm~ of Contm~ (IgTO-1R4) 

Corxo61~ ~ Inclclor~ per 1,000 miles p~Yur 

~ 0.42 

Ca~'~o~k: protec~on on/y O,8Z 

Coltod on/y O.40 

CO~I~KI and cathod k: pcoto¢~ 0.11 

4.12.7.3 Impact on Public Safety 

The service incident data summarized in table 4.12.7-1 include pipeline failures of all magnitudes 

with widely varying consequences. Approximately two-thirds of the incidents were classified as leaks, 

and the remaining third classified as ruptures, implying a more serious failure. 

Table 4.12.7-4 present~ the average annual fatalities that occurred on natural gas transmission and 

gathering lines from 1970 to 2003. Fatalities between 1970 and June 1984 have been separated into 

employees and nonemployees, to better identify a fatality rate experienced by the general public. Of the 

total 5.0 nationwide average, fatalities among the public averaged 2.6 per year over this period. The 

simplified reporting requirements in effect after June 1984 do not differentiate between employees and 

4-187 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

nonemployees. However, the data show that the total annual average for the period 1984 through 2003 

decreased to 3.8 fatalities per year. Subtracting two major offshore incidents in 1989, which do not 

reflect the risk to the onshore public, yields a total annual rate of 2.9 fatalities per year for this period. 

TABLE 4.127-4 

Annuld A~Cllge Fltalltle~ - Nldtlrll ~ Trlmlmtklsl~1 ICKI ~dl~llng Sy~lhNnl IZ, b/ 

Year Eml01oyee~ Nonempkoyee~ ToUd 

1970-June 1984 2.4. 2.6 5.0 

Ig64-2003 ¢,/ 3.8 

lg~4-2003 f~ 2.9 ~J~ 

Iv 

¢v 

1970 ttwo~t, Jur~ 1984 - Ame,'ican Gas Associate, 1966 

DOT Hazardous Mate~ds Infon~abon Syatem 

t~o~vm not available aftra June 1984. 

Wl~lout 18 oSId'mce fatalltiea occ~ i~ 1989 ~ 11 fatalities ruuRod from a f~dling ve~J~ sttking an o~'shore i~P~ino 

and 7 fatalities reeulted fn~m eR~o61on on an olhdloce pcoductl~ platfocm. 

The nationwide totals of accidental fatalities from various manmade and natural hazards are listed 

in table 4.12.7-5 in order to provide a relative measure of the industry-wide safety of natural gas 

pipelines. Direct comparisons between accident categories should be made cautiously, however, because 

individual exposures to hazards arc not uniform among all categories. Nevertheless, the average 2.6 

public fatalities per year is relatively small considering the morn than 300,000 miles of transmission and 

gathering line, s in service nationwide. Furthermore, the fatality rate is approximately two orders of 

magnitude (I(30 times) lower than the fatalities from natural hazards such as lightning, tornados, floods, 

earthquakes, etc. 

The available data show that natural gas pipelines continue to be a safe, reliable means of energy 

transportation. Based on approximately 306,000 mile, s in service, the rate of public fatalities for the 

nationwide mix of transmission and gathering lines in service is 0.01 per year per l,O00 miles of pipeline. 

Using this rate, the Logan Lateral Project might result in a public fatality every 9,090 plus years. This 

would represent a slight increase in risk to the nearby public. 

TABLE 4.12.7-5 

Natlom,dde Accldem~ I~sths M 

Type of Aocidont Falalltl~ 

All acctd~ts 90,523 

Motor versicles 43,649 

Falls 14,g65 

Dro~ing 3,488 

Pokloning 9,510 

Fir~ and bums 3,791 

S uffoca~on by k~ested otYj4~ 3.206 

Tornado, flood, e~Vcluako, e¢. 181 

(I ~4-93 average) 

All liqu¢l and gas 10/¢~i¢1~ 27 

(1978-87 average) _b/ 

: Gas tmnsmis~,on and galtleCtn g llrms 2.6 

N~err~pdoyees only (1 gTO-e4 avenge) 

JV All data, utdess o(hecvAso no/od, rmlocts 1996 m~tlcs from ~ U.S. Del~rlcnect of Commerce, Butoau of the 

Ceclsus, "Stal~cal Abstract of the Unlt~ Stat~ 118~h Edi8oc." 

U.S. Depadmect of Transpoctatloc, "Annual R~od on PIl~ine Safe~ - Calendar Yeer 1987." 

Amedcsn Gla8 A~oc~lon, 1988+ 

4-188 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

4.12.8 Additional Safety Im~ Identified During Scoping 

Go.s Quality - Several commentors and interveners have raised LNG gas quality and 

interchangeability as a potential safety issue in the Crown Landing LNG Project. Crown Landing has not 

proposed to remove any of the heavier hydrocarbons such as ethane, butane, and propane that are present 

in untreated natural gas at various levels depending on the source. High amounts of the heavier 

hydrocarbons raise the Btu content of the natural gas. Also, the heavy hydrocarbons can potentially 

condense as liquids in pipelines and natural gas powered equipment causing malfunctions, reducing 

efficiency, or causing damage to the equipment. Crown Landing has proposed to add up to 4 percent 

nitrogen gas to reduce the Btu value, but has not designed gas treatment into its facility to remove the 

heavier hydrocarbons if present in higher quantifies. 

Typically, LNG suppliers do not treat the natural gas at the source to remove the heavier 

hydrocarbons prior to converting the gas to LNG. Crown Landing may mix LNG from different sources 

having varying quantities of the heavier hydrocarbons to reduce the overall heavy hydrocarbon content, 

although it has not specified its sources of LNG. Crown Landing has stated that it intends to comply with 

the gas quality provisions for each of the three pipelines it is planning to interconnect to its LNG terminal. 

The FERC will be considering this issue further as part of the proceedings in this project. 

Previous Shipping Study - In December 1976, the FPC (FERC's predecessor) issued a 

Suovleffg:nt to the [:ingl Environmental Im~ct Statemfp~ f~ the C4m~tructio;I {~n40peratign of an LNG 

Import Terminal at Raccoon Island Gloucester C,~unty, Nfw ~Iersey. The study was performed at a time 

when the operating history of LNG vessels was very limited, and therefore was based on casualty 

statistics for petroleum tankers. 

The knowledge and operating experience acquired during almost 30 years since the previous 

study shows a mote accurate data set to extrapolate. During the last 40 years, I..NG ships have made over 

33,000 voyages around the world that has safely transported over 2.72 billion cubic meters of LNG. This 

includes over 1,500 voyages to or from United States ports. During the 33,000 voyages that have been 

completed since the inception of LNG maritime transportation, there have been only eight significant 

incidents involving LNG ships, none of which resulted in spills due to rupturing of the cargo tanks. 

Additionally, in 1980, at the initial peak of LNG import activity in the United States, the Coast 

Guard published the report, Liquefied Natural Gas and Liquefied Petroleum Gas - Views and Practices - 

Policy and Safety. The report summarized the Coast Guard's extensive research into the safety hazards of 

13¢G and its view that "...the nature of both LNG and I..PG presents an acceptable risk for transportation 

in maritime comngrce." This is due to the fact that I-.NG ships are well constructed, robust vessels 

designed to withstand low-energy type incidents that are prevalent in harbors and during docking 

operations. Moreover, safety measures, both equipment and training, are planned and designed into these 

LNG ships to prevent or control all types of potential incidents. Ship design and the operational 

restrictions placed on these vessels, as well as the waterways they transit are described in more detail in 

section 4.12.5. 

The December 2004 Sandia Report estimated a range of cargo tank breach sizes for both credible 

accidental and intentional LNG spill events. The analysis of accidental events found that groundings and 

low speed collisions could result in minor ship damage but not a cargo spill; while high speed collisions 

with a large ship could cause a 0.5 to 1.5 square meter cargo tank breach area. The Coast Guard 

requirements for one-way uaffic and the moving safety and security zone around an LNO vessel will 

avoid the potential for a high speed collision with a large ship. 

4-189 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

The operational restrictions to be imposed by the Delaware River Hlots on LNG vessel 

movements through the Delaware Bay and River, as well as the requirements that the Coast Guard would 

impose in its operating plan will minimize the possibility of a hazardous event occurring along the vessel 

transit. 

Nuclear Power Plants/Risk- We received comments concerned with the proximity of the Salem 

1 and 2 and Hope Creek Nuclear Power Plants to and the risks associated with L,NG vessels transiting the 

Delaware River. The edge of the ship channel is about 6,000 feet (over 1 mile) from the power plants. In 

the vicinity oftbe power plants, the depth of water is about 30 feet outside the ship channel, thereby being 

too shallow for a 37-font draft I.,NG vessel. The combination of distance and shallower water virtually 

eliminates impacts from accidental or intentional casualties of LNG vessels on the nuclear power plants. 

Marcus Hook Anchorage - The COE is concerned with possible impacts from I..NG vessel 

operations to the existing anchorage adjacent to the proposed slip. The anchorage is trapezoidal in shape 

with its longer edge running along the ship channel and its shorter edge running parallel to the New Jersey 

shoreline. The anchorage is about 0.43 mile wide with its channel side about 3.38 miles long and its 

shoreline side about 1.85 miles long. The overall area of the anchorage is about 720 acres. The 

southwestern diagonal edge leading from the shoreline side towards the channel lies just off the proposed 

LNG vessel slip and crosses between the slip and channel. LNG vessels would need to travel through the 

southwestern tip of the anchorage during docking/undocking maneuvers. In addition, possible Coast 

Guard safety/security zones around the slip and vessel may overlap a portion of the anchorage making it 

unavailable. Therefore, we recomanend that: 

Crown Landing consult with the COE and Coast Guard regarding possible impacts 

to the Mmrcns Hook anehornge area from LNG vessel operations. 

4.12.9 Conclusions on Safety Issues 

Much of the recent safety debate has centered on the perceived size of worst case scenarios; the 

distance to various thermal radiation heat levels for LNG fires; the range of potentially flammable vapors; 

and the population and infrastructure that are located within the various hazard areas. These are 

components of a consequence analysis. 

However, the evaluation of safety is more than an exercise in calculating the consequences of 

worst case scenarios. Rather, safety is a determinaflon of the acceptability of risk which considers: 1) the 

probability of events; 2) the effect of mitigation; and 3) the consequences of events. 

Accidental Causes - Based on the extensive operational experience of LNG shipping, the 

structural design of an LNG vessel, and the operational controls imposed by the Coast Guard and 

the local pilots, the likelihood of a cargo containment failure and subsequent LNG spill from a 

vessel casualty - collision, grounding, er allision - is highly unlikely. For similar reasons, an 

accident involving the onshore LNG import terminal or LNG trucking from the terminal is 

unlikely to affect the public. As a result, the risk to the public from accidental causes should be 

considered negligible. 

Intentional Attacka - Unlike accidental causes, historical experience provides little guidance in 

estimating the probability of a terrorist attack on an LNG vessel or onshore storage facility. For a 

new LNG import terminal proposal, having a large volume of energy transported and stored near 

populated areas, the perceived threat of a terrorist attack may be considered as highly probable to 

the local population. 

4-190 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

However. at the national level, potential terrorist targets are plentiful, many having national 

significance, while others with a large concentration of the public (major sporting events. 

skyscrapers, etc.) or critical infrastructure facilities. Currently, the United States has over 500 

chemical facilities operating near large populations. U.S. waterways also transport over 100,000 

annual shipments of hazardous marine cargo, including Ltg3, ammonia, and other volatile 

chemicals. Many of these substances pose a similar hazard to that of LNG. 

Risk Management - While the risks associated with tim transportation of any hazardous cargo can 

never be entirely eliminated, they can he managed. For potential targets where the threat is 

perceived to be high, resources can be directed to mitigate possible attack paths. Such efforts 

may deter potential attacks on one target, but shift efforts to those that an: less protected. As a 

result, the issue is how to best direct finite resources. 

For the proposed project, it may be possible to apply risk management resources to manage 

realistic threats; however, an even greater level of resources may be required to manage the threats as 

perceived at the local level. The issue for the decision makers is whether the resources required to 

manage the risks are justified by the benefits, while recognizing that the risks cannot be entirely 

eliminated. 

4-191 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

4,13 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 

Cumulative impact results when impacts associated with a proposed project are superimposed on, 

or added to, impacts associated with past, present' or reasonably foreseeable future projects within the 

area affected by the proposed project. Although the individual impacts of the separate projects may be 

minor, the effects from the projects taken together could be significant. 

Existing environmental conditions in the project area have been influenced by human industry, 

activities, and development, which have permanently altered the natural ecosystems within the Delaware 

River watershed. 

Table 4.13-1 provides a list of other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future projects or 

activities that have impacted or may cumulatively impact resources that would be affected by construction 

and operation of the Crown Landing I_.NG and Logan Lateral Projects. These projects and activities 

include primarily those located in the vicinity of the proposed projects. More distant projects are not 

assessed because these projects generally do not have regional effects and, therefore, do not contribute 

significantly to cumulative impacts in the proposed project area. Potential impacts associated with the 

projects that are most likely to be cumulatively significant are related to aquatic resources, upland or 

wetland vegetation, infrastructure and public services, vehicular traffic, ship traffic, land use, and air 

quality and noise. Cumulative impacts that could be most directly associated with the Crown Landing 

LNG and Logan Lateral Projects are discussed below. 

Aquatic Resources 

The Delaware River aquatic ecosystem is made up of a variety of habitats including open water, 

soft bottoms, tidal flats, subtidal shallows, and rocky shores. The fish community within the Delaware 

River system includes estuarine species and coastal migrant fishes such as striped bass. The river system 

also provides habitat to various benthic organisms (both epifauna and infauna), including snails, 

amphipods, and polychaete worms. 

The COE began maintaining the federal navigation channel within the Delaware River in 1896 

and has maintained the river at the current depth of 40 feet since World War H to allow the safe passage 

of commercial and recreational boat traffic from Delaware Bay to Philadelphia. Dredging of the ship 

channel, marinas, and ship berths as well as associated coastal developments (e.g., piers, marinas, 

waterfront structures) have altered habitats within the Delaware River. 

Historically, the Delaware River has been affected by various water quality problems. In the late 

1970s, the COE described the water quality of the river as poor. Since that time water quality in the river 

has improved, although the proposed project area still does not support all of its designated uses. The 

impairment of water quality within the river comes from both point and non-point sources of pollution. 

Point sources of pollution include air deposition and industrial and municipal point sources. Non-point 

sources of pollution include runoff from agricultural, residential, commercial, and industrial areas. 

Regardless of the source, the introduction of pollutants continues to have a variety of ecosystem impacts. 

The presences of some pollutants create potential human health risks primarily through the consumption 

of contaminated seafood. Nitrogen introduced into the Delaware River can result in excessive plant 

growth (algal blooms). When the algae die, they are decomposed by bacteria that consume dissolved 

oxygen, which can suffocate fish and other organisms. Bacterial nitrification of ammonia discharged by 

wastewater treatment facilities can also deplete waters of dissolved oxygen. 

4-192 
Jnofficial FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

TABLE 4.13-1 

Past, Prlm4mt, and Future ProJect111~t Co4dd Cumukltlv~y Impa¢l RNour¢~ of 

Concern Nut the Cro,am Llmdlng LN~ lind Logml Latlmll ISroJects 

Prtnan/F.J~ Impact 

I~sl and ~t Acttvffimt/Pro~¢~ 

R~t~A?,omme~d Vetou~ devek~me~ and 

Developments re~eve~m~m~ In Delm~ere Caunty, PA 

~nU G~me~ Count, hU. 

Com~tmaJ 

F~ 

H~oricaJly, cornmecc~ I~ occurred 

In ~he ~ Rlver nntl cur~ s4~r~ 

rocro~tJo~al fl~ng doe~ occur m me 

ri~r. 

Regional Sto~v~ter and 

Sev~ Systems and Nvmge to the D~aware Rkmr 

symm 

~ Dev~om~ 

M~m Dm~ 

Rm Deve~o~ 

I~xx)sed S~kx Home/~ve 

~lult Ccmmun~ Developmem 

Pmpo~ o~e ~ 

Fast Food Restaurant 

Bn Pad( 

Equ~t~Vn Park 

The Wharf ~1 the Boerd~eJk de~ 

p41mned near MP 4.5 d 'die ~ LalMaJ 

n:ete. F.,,Cect~ to be COml~e',ed fd 

2004. 

The ship ctvuv~, msdnes, ~d k~lustflel 

rn~t~ nev~0ationaJ de~. 

Pmpoeed dev~e~t aplxo~matey 2 

m41~ no~'te~t of ~'m I.NG twmin~ ttb. 

1,0OO f~R no~llwe~ of Te~lm FJmtom'o 

Che~or Junc~o~ 

A 10,000 ~ere foot o~e buk~g B 

i~lenned belwee~ Wtltlenlan Avenue imcl 

Edgemoclt AvenL~ In Chlotlw, PA. 

Ke~uclrf Frill Chlcklm rllnlurant 

i~tnned ¢o~ ~ Argue 

adjacent to T~ El~em% e~hg ~gl~- 

of-way. 

Busma p~ web nine ~ pWe~ 

In Cheeler To~ non11 of Con¢o~ 

Roed ~ 68 ec~e. 

Cheerer Chart~ Sche~ plans ~m 

e.,ceneloe o~ an edm~g unuud facJ~ on 

~ Av~m~ in Chlls~" To~lhlp. 

~r(y ~- i~.v~o me conve~ of a 

d~e ~ steam an eq.~ ~ 

south o( Raccoon Cme~ end we~ of U.S. 

Route 130. 

¢" 7' ,/ ¢' ~ ¢~ .4 

¢" 

~¢ 4" ¢" ¢" 

¢" ./ ¢~ 4 

¢' ¢" ¢. 

4 

¢~ / .4 

¢" ,t ¢~ 

4-193 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000"- 

TABLE 4.13-1 (cotlt'd) 

Put, Prm~ml, ~ Futu~ I~ ~ Could Cumulal~ Impact I~lo¢lrce~ of 

Co,teem Nmr t~z Cram L~dlng LNG and Loilaa ~ I~oJect~ 

Ac~,~ym~jec~ De~c~on 

Pr~na~y En~0ement~ ~oact 

Meter County ~q~t 

E~q~a~ 

Rm'wvay 17-36 Extensio~ 

Project 

Capec~ En~wcement 

Program 

D~aware River MaJn Chann~ 

D~e~ng Proj~t 

Marine TerminaJ 

DIst~ Center 

Futuxe Road or C.,Ity Steer 

Pn~jects 

Meroer County has pmposecl a new 4 4 4 4" 

44,000 square foot te~nk',al Ixddmg for 

Trenton-Men::er AJrpo~ as ~ as mulUple 

t, mx~ay enlargements, parking fsoill~es, 

roed rWignmect. ~ an equk0n~ct 

stooge bu=d~no. 

Plannecl exte~lo~ of Runt~y 17-35 at ,~ 4 / 

Planned a¢flekl redevelopment l~xoject at ." 4 

l"t~ COE m piartrdng to dee~m the main ~ / 4 

¢t~nnel of 81e Delawere Rtv~ end to u~e 

po~ons o~ Raccoon ~and ~ dredge 

G~ County Improvement Aulho¢~ V' ,- 4' 

Wopo~m ~o dr~ge 10 scum of ne~shore 

habilat In Ihe Delavmre River ne6r 

PRulstx~o, NJ. 

None currently ~ 4 / 

4-194 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

In the foreseeable future, there will likely be other projects or activities such as the COE's 

proposed Delaware River Main Channel Deepening Project and the Gloucester County Improvement 

Authority's proposed Marine Terminal Logistics Distribution Center in Paulsboro, New Jersey that could 

result in additional stresses on the aquatic resources of the Delaware River. Construction of the Crown 

Landing LNG Project would also contribute to the adverse affects on surface water quality and biological 

resources within the Delaware River (see sections 4.3.2 and 4.6.2). 

Specific project activities during construction and operation such as dredging, the clearing of 

vegetation, the grading of disturbed soils, and prop wash associated with LNG ships and/or tugs could 

result in a variety of impacts on aquatic resources, including: 

the loss of shallow water habitats; 

increased water turbidity and resuspension of sediments; 

surface runoff/erosion; 

disturbance to benthic substrates; and 

potential spills of hazardous substances. 

Crown Landing and Texas Eastern would minimize the potential for these impacts by complying 

with our recommendations, the mitigation ~ures contained in our Plan and Procedures, and the 

measures proposed in their project-specific SESC Plans and onshore and offshore SPCC Plans. 

Nevertheless, the Crown Landing LNG Project could contribute to cumulative impacts on water 

quality and aquatic organisms when considered in relation to past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

impacts on the Delaware River, particularly if dredging occurs at the same time as other significant 

dredging projects (e.g., Delaware River Main Channel Deepening Project). However, we believe these 

impacts would primarily be short term and/or minor and would be effectively minimized through 

implementation of appropriate mitigation measures, including adherence to time-of-year dredging 

restrictions. 

Vegetation and Wildlife 

When projects are constructed at or near the same time, the combined construction activities 

would have a cumulative impact on vegetation and wildlife living in the immediate area. Right-of-way 

clearing and grading and other conslruction activities associated with the Crown Landing I..NG and Logan 

Lateral Projects along with other constru-'tion projects would result in the removal of vegetation, 

alteration of wildlife habitat, displacement of wildlife, and could have other secondary effects in the 

project area such as increased population mrnss, predation, and establishment of invasive plant species. 

These impacts would be greatest where other projects are constructed within the same time frame and 

areas as the proposed facilities. Additional vegetation clearing along existing rights-of-way (electric 

transmission, pipeline, or railroad) can have the additive effect of creating cleared corridors of significant 

widths. 

Construction of tim proposed LNG terminal and pipeline facilities would result in the removal of 

vegetation and wildlife habitat, which would contribute to the cumulative impact on these resources. 

However, the net cumulative effect of the project on these resources would be smell. Crown Landing 

would reduce impacts on vegetation and wildlife by locating the terminal facilities within mostly 

agricultural fields, which would reduce tree clearing and the long-term alteration of habitats. Crown 

Landing is also working with the NJDEP to develop appropriate mitigation for the habitat impacts of the 

project. Cumulative impacts of the pipeline on vegetation and wildlife would be reduced by Texas 

Eastem's proposal to locate much of the Logan Lateral within or adjacent to other existing rights-of-way 

or disturbed areas, which would minimize the creation of a new utility corridor (see section 4.8.1.2), and 

4-195 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

would restore the construction right-of-way to preconstruction conditions. Texas Eastern would install 

the pipeline across Chester Creek, Delaware River, Raccoon Creek, and Birch Creek using HDD 

techniques, which would minimize the clearing of riparian vegetation. Texas Eastern has also indicated 

that it would provide mitigation to compensate for wetland impacts. 

Infrastructure and Public Services 

The cumulative impact of the Crown Landing LNG and Logan Lateral Projects and other projects 

on infrastructure and public services would depend on the number of projects under construction at one 

time and the specific services required for each project. The small incremental demands of several 

projects occurring at the same time could become difficult for police, fire, and emergency service 

personnel to address. This problem would he temporary and occur only for the length of construction. 

The operation of the proposed LNG terminal and associated facilities is not expected to have a major 

impact on public services since it would not result in the construction of new public roads, extensive new 

sewer or water systems, or significant changes in local population levels. 

There is, however, a concern that an incident at the LNG terminal could exceed the current 

response capacity of the local fire and police departments. Although the specific details regarding the 

role of the police and fire departments in the event of an incident are not available at this time, Crown 

Landing would coordinate with local fire departments to develop an emergency response plan to he used 

in the event of an incident at the LNG terminal. In addition, Crown Landing would have its own firefighting equipment at the facility, which would reduce the potential demand of the project on local 

emergency services. See section 4.12 for additional discussion of fire and public safety impacts and 

Crown Landing's liaison program with the area emergency response departments. 

Vehicular Traffic 

As discussed in section 4.9.4.1, construction and operation of the LNG terminal would increase 

traffic on local roads. Construction activities at the LNG terminal site are estimated to generate about 650 

vehicle trips per day related to construction employees (based on the peak workforce of up to 650 workers 

traveling to and from the site during LNG terminal construction and dredging activities). Additionally, 20 

vehicle trips per day related to construction equipment and materials delivery (including concrete) are 

anticipated during a normal day, with a peak of 100 trips a day during construction months 2 through 6 

for the delivery of fill material. The workers and delivery vehicles would access the site via U.S. Route 

130 and would also use Center Square Road within the Pureland Industrial Complex. Crown Landing has 

indicated that it is evaluating two mitigative measures to minimize traffic impacts during construction: I) 

increase the length of the left turn lane on U.S. Route 130 into the entrance road to accommodate larger 

trucks and/or multiple cars; and 2) install a temporary traffic signal at the intersection of U.S. Route 130 

and the entrance road to he used during peak construction periods. The increased traffic levels would be 

temporary and limited to the period of construction (about 3 years) and would be minimized by 

implementation of the mitigative measures discussed above. 

During operation of the LNG terminal, up to 60 employee vehicle trips are estimated per day 

during average operating conditions, which would represent an increase in the existing road traffic. 

However, the anticipated traffic volume resulting from operation of the LNG terminal, even when 

considered in terms of projected future traffic volumes and in relation to reasonably foreseeable future 

projects, would not significantly increase the existing traffic volumes on local area roadways. 

According to the New Jersey Department of Transportation (NJDOT), no capital improvement 

projects are proposed along U.S. Route 130 adjacent to the proposed LNG facility through the year 2007. 

Planned and current projects along U.S. Route 130 a~ located more than 5 miles from the construction 

4-196 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

site. Some of these NJDOT projects could impact the daily commute of construction workers to and from 

the site or could be affected by the increased traffic from construction of the LNG terminal. 

The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PADOT) currently has one project ongoing 

through December of 2005 in the proposed project area of the Logan Lateral Project. 

However, construction activities, consisting of widening U.S. Route 291 to five lanes, are limited to the 

portion north of the Conun~ore Barry Bridge, approximately 3 miles from where the proposed pipeline 

crosses U.S. Route 291. Additionally, the future widening of U.S. Route 322, which crosses the 

Delaware River via the Commodore Barry Bridge is not scheduled to begin until 2008, following the 

scheduled completion of construction of the Logan Lateral Project. Therefore, since overlap of proposed 

PADOT projects and the proposed Logan Lateral Project is not likely, cumulative impacts on lzaffic 

patterns and flow are not expected. 

There is potential for cumulative traffic impacts if other projects such as road improvements or 

in-street utility projects are scheduled to take place at the same time and in the same area as the proposed 

LNG and pipeline facilities. Currently, we are not aware of any other planned road improvement or 

utility projects that would cumulatively add to construction traffic associated with the proposed project. 

Moreover, several factors would minimize the potential for cumulative traffic impacts, including the area 

over which the proposed project is spread and the tendency for construction workers to frequently share 

rides and travel to and from work during off-peak hours. The pipeline would be installed by boring 

beneath many of the paved roads, which would minimize impacts on traffic. Where roads must be open 

cut, Texas Eastern would attempt to keep at least one lane of traffic open. Traffic lanes and home access 

would be maintained except for the temporary periods essential for laying the pipeline. Texas Eastern 

would also implement appropriate control measures such as detouring traffic where possible, signnge, and 

flashing lights. 

Due to the number of road crossings and amount of in-street work proposed along the proposed 

pipeline route, some traffic congestion on city streets is likely during construction. This effect, however, 

would he temporary and localized to the immediate construction area. Where the pipeline would be 

installed within or adjacent to city streets, Texas Eastern would generally use the stovepipe or drag 

section construction methods to minimize traffic-related impacts. Pipeline trenches in or adjacent to these 

streets would he backfilled or covered with steel plates daily. Impacts on local traffic would be temporary 

and limited to the period of construction. 

Ship Tramc 

CurrenOy, commercial ship traffic entering the Delaware River averages about 3,000 ships 

annually. The Orown Landing LNG Project would result in one additional vessel entering the Delaware 

River every 2 to 3 days (an additional 120 to 180 slfips per year). This would be a snutll addition in terms 

of existing ship tra~c. However, security zones around LNG ships may constrain vessel movements 

within the Delaware River ternporarily during LNG ship transits (see section 4.12.5). 

Land Use 

There are a variety of reasonably foreseeable residential, commercial, industrial, and 

transportation projects in the vicinity of the proposed LNG terminal and pipeline facilities (see table 4.13- 

1). Although the Crown Landing LNG Project would affect existing land uses in the area, the project site 

is zoned for industrial use and the ~ facilities would he consistent with current land use plans and 

zoning ordinances. Consequently, the immediate cumulative land use effects of the project have already 

been considered during development of local and regional land use plans and zoning ordinances. 

4-197 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

Air Quality/Noise 

Construction of the proposed projects and some of the reasonably foreseeable projects and 

activities listed in table 4.13-1 would involve the use of heavy equipment that produces noise, air 

contaminants, and dust. Operation oftbe proposed LNG facility would also contribute cumulatively to air 

emissions and noise in the project area. 

Over the long tenn, the proposed LNG terminal and pipeline facilities would not contribute 

significantly to current air pollution levels. Although the LNG terminal would emit NO2, CO, SO2, 

PMI0/PM25, VOC, and Pb, the proposed terminal would not be a major source of air emissions under the 

PSD regulations for CO only (see section 4.11.1). The LNG terminal would however he subject to the 

nonattainment NSR regulations because emissions associated with operation would be less than 25 tpy 

(see section 4.11.1). The CO and NO, emissions from the facility would be minimized by the application 

of emission controls necessary to meet the NJDEP SOTA requirements. In addition, Crown Landing 

would need to obtain NO, emission offsets or demonstrate that the project would not have a negative 

effect on the local air quality. This could be done through SIP provisions or dispersion modeling. NOx 

and VOCs emissions from the proposed I.,NG terminal would contribute to regional ozone concentrations. 

However, these emissions would be small in comparison to the total NOx and VOCs emitted by existing 

sources in the area (e.g., power plants, vehicle emissions) and the emissions anticipated from new 

sources. For example, the NJDEP NOx emission budget for the 2004 ozone season included 820 tons for 

new source growth in the area and a budget of 6,970 tons for existing sources. 

Natural gas is a relatively clean and efficient form of energy compared to other fossil fuels. By 

burning natural gas rather than other fossil fuels such as coal or fuel oil, it could be possible to reduce the 

emissions of regulated pollutants (e.g., NO~, SO2, and PMl0) or unregulated greenhouse gases (e.g., CO2). 

As such, it is possible that the Crown Landing LNG and Logan Lateral Projects could cumulatively 

improve air quality in the region by providing a competitively priced source of natural gas that could 

replace the dirtier forms of energy that are currently being used. 

Additional noise produced during construction of the Crown Landing LNG and Logan Lateral 

Projects and other projects could create short-term annoyances to nearby residences. These noise impacts 

would be localized and would attenuate quickly as the distance from the noise source increases. 

Therefore, cumulative noise impacts associated with construction would be unlikely unless one or more 

of the projects occur at the same time and close proximity. The operational noise generated by the LNG 

facility would have a predicted noise increase of approximately 0.4 dBA at the nearest residence. Such a 

noise increase is not perceptible by the human ear. 

4-198 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

5.1 SUMMARY OF THE STAFF'S ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 

The conclusions presented are those of the environmental staff of the FERC. The Coast Guard 

will present, in its Letter of Recommendation and LNG Operations Plan, its own conclusions and 

recommendations, prior to construction and operation. The Letter of Recommendation will address the 

suitability of the Delaware River for LNG ship transportation, and the Coast Guard's LNG Operations 

Plan will address issues related to the public impact of safety or security zones for LNG vessels. 

Likewise, the COE will present its own conclusions and recommendations in the dredging and wetland 

permits it may issue pursuant to section 10 ofthe River and Harbors Act and section 404 ofthe CWA. 

The EPA has the authority to review and veto the COE decisions on the section 404 permits. 

We (the Comrmssion's staff) have determined that, with the use of Crown Landing's and Texas 

Eastern's proposed mitigation and the addition of our recommended mitigation measures, consmlction 

and operation of the Crown Landing LNG and Logan Lateral Projects would result in limited adverse 

environmental impacts. Our conclusions are based on information provided by Crown Landing and 

Texas Eastern, and data developed from data requests; field investigations by Commission staff; literature 

search; alternative analyses; comments from federal, state, and local agencies; and input from public 

groups and individual citizens. The impacts discussed in section 4 and summarized below would be most 

significant during the construction period. As part of our review, we developed mitigation measures we 

believe would appropriately and reasonably avoid or minimize environmental impacts resullmg from 

consu'uction and operation of the proposed project. We are, therefore, recommending that our mitigation 

measures be attached as conditions to any authorization issued by the Commission. 

The discussion below summarizes the environmental impacts and the proposed or recommended 

mitigation for each resource analyzed in this draR EIS. 

Geology 

Construction and operation of the proposed projects would have minimal impact on geologic and 

paleontologic resources in the area, and the potential for geologic hazards or other natural events to 

significantly impact the projects is low. 

Analysis of existing geologic materials at the LNG temnnal site determined that. without 

foundation improvement, excessive settlement would occur beneath the proposed LNG tanks and process 

area. To address this concern, the LNG tanks would be consm~ed on deep piles which would be driven 

to suitable soils at an approximate depth of 100 feet below the ground surface. Preliminary foundation 

designs for the process equipment area include mat foundations in conjunction with surcharging and piles. 

Crown Landing would conduct additional field tests to finalize foundation designs for the LNG tanks and 

other heavy loads at the site. However, based on preliminary engineering analysis, it appears that the 

potential for excessive settlement to occur at the LNG terminal site can be effectively mitigated through 

foundation design. Preliminary engineering analysis also indicates that the stability of slopes to be 

created at the site can be ensured by implementing sound engineering and conslnmtion practices. 

The likelihood of a major earthquake occurring in the project area during the operating life of the 

LNG facility is low. To mitigate the risk of damage from an earthquake, the LNG tanks would be 

constructed in a manner to allow for safe shutdown during an earthquake with a recurrence interval of 

10,000 years, rather than 5,000 years as required by NFPA 59A. Seismically induced soil liquefaction is 

not expected to occur at the LNG terminal site; however, the installation of deep pile foundations beneath 

5-1 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

the LNG tanks and other heavy loads would further reduce any potential for liquefaction to affect those 

structures. Seismic hazards do not pose a significant risk to the proposed Logan Lateral Project. 

The proposed LNG terrmnal site could be subject to flooding by O'opical storm surge or high 

rainfall events. To mitigate this risk, most of the LNG terminal structures would be constructed on a 

finished grade at or above the 1,000-year flood elevation for the site. While the base of the proposed 

LNG tanks would be at an elevation below the 1,000-ycar flood elevation, the top of the earthen 

containment dike, which would completely surround the LNG tanks, would be approximately 6 feet 

abovc the 1,000-year flood clevation. Potential effects associated with high rainfall events during 

construction activities would be mitigated by implementing our Plan and Procedures and site-specific 

SESC Plans prepared by Crown Landing and Texas Eastern. 

Soils and Sediments 

Soils at the proposed LNG terminal site consist largely of dredged material that was placed onsite 

during dredging of the Delaware River, primarily between the 1930s and 1960s (USDA, 1962). The 

remaining soils on the LNG terminal site include loamy sands, sandy loam, and tidal marsh. None oftbe 

soils on the LNG tcrrmnal site are classified as prime farmland. Laboratory analyses of soils from the 

LNG terminal site indicate elevated concentrations of TPH, SVOCs, arsonic, and dieldrin in a few 

isolated areas. Only TPH and a single SVOC compound (benzo(a)pyrene) arc substantially greater than 

the non-residential NJSCC criteria. 

To minimize the risk and to protect construction workers from exposure to contaminants at the 

LNG terminal site, Crown Landing proposes to fia'thcr delineate the extent of TPH- and SVOCcontaminated so, ls and excavate and dispose of the contaminated soils and associated abovcground tanks 

at a pcrmitte.d disposal facility prior to construction. Crown Landing would also further delineate thc 

areas of elevated arsenic and dieldrin contamination and consult with the NJDEP regarding whether any 

remedial actions other than the removal of the 1,500-gallon storage vessel and/or institutional controls 

(e.g., restricting any future residential use of the LNG terminal site) would bc necessary to mitigate the 

arsenic and dieldrin contamination. Because most ofthc cxisting soils in the proposed developed portion 

of the LNG terminal site would be buried by a significant volume of fill material (i.e., about 150,000 

cubic yards) placed to raise the site grade and to create the containment berm for the storage tanks, the 

contaminated soils would be effectively isolated from future human exposorc. 

Initial site preparation (grading and othc~ soil-disturbing activities) could increase the potential 

for soil erosion on the LNG terminal site and sedimentation in adjacent watcrbodics and wetlands. Crown 

Landing would minimize the potential for erosion and sedimentation by implcrnenting thc measures 

specificd in our Plan and in a site-specific SESC Plan that would require approval from the Gloucester 

County Soil Conservation District. Following construction, Crown Landing would permanently stabilize 

disturbed soils on the site by establishing a vegetative or gravel cover and installing other appropriate 

landscaping. 

Soils along the pipeline route would be subject to various impacts. About I0 percent oftbe soils 

that would be affected by pipeline construction are designated prime farmland (all in Pennsylvania). 

Most of the prime farmland soils arc within or directly adjacent to commercial or residential 

developments and none of these soils are actively cultivated or availablc for fanning; thcrcforc, impacts 

on prime farmland would not be significant. Soil compaction and erosion impacts along the pipelinc 

route would generally be minimal due to the limited area of soils susceptible to thcsc impacts. Texas 

Eastern would control erosion and sedimentation, and minimize compaction by implementing the 

mitigation measures in its SESC Plan. 

5-2 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

About 16 percent of the soils that would be affected by pipeline construction activities exhibit 

poor revegetation potential. All of these soils occur m Pennsylvania. Texas Eastern would mitigate the 

effects of poor revegetation potential by applying fertilizer, pH modifiers, and using mulch (where 

appropriate) in areas with poor rcvegetation potential in order to create a favorable environment for the 

re-establishment of vegetation. Texas Eastern would further enhance revegetation potential by using seed 

mixes approved by local soil conservation authorities to reseed the right-of-way following construction. 

Contamination from spills or leaks of fuels, lubricants, and coolant from construction equipment 

could adversely affect soils. The effects of contamination would typically IX minor because of the low 

frequency and volumes of spills and leaks. Texas Eastern has developed an SPCC Plan that specifies 

cleanup procedures in the event of soil contamination from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, coolants, or 

solvents. Crown Landing has indicated that it would develop an SPCC Plan. 

Construction of the LNG terminal would require dredging about 800,000 cubic yards of sediment 

to create the berth area for the ship unloading facility. Based on coring research conducted for the COE 

from nearby locations along the Delaware River, the sediments at the LNG terminal site are probably a 

mixture of organic silts and intetsizahfied sands and silty sands. Chemical analyses of the proposed 

dredged sediments determaned that eight metal contaminants were identified at elevated concentrations. 

The concentrations of most metals in all samples were below the TEL criteria, indicating that the 

sediments would not be expected to pose a threat to the aquatic envtronnwat Only the concenwations of 

arsenic, cadtmum, and nickel exceeded the TEL screening criteria. However, these three metals are all 

well below their PEL criteria, suggesting limited potential for adverse impacts. 

To minimize the resuspension of sediments during dredging, Crown Landing would primarily use 

hydraulic cotterhead dredging to excavate the berth area. Dredged material would IX transported by 

pipeline directly to an existing, permitted upland confined disposal facility located about 4 males upstream 

of the berth area. Dredging operations to excavate the ship berth would suspend sediments and affect 

water quality. In general, dredging-related water quality impacts would include both the physical effects 

of suspended sediment and alterations of water chemistry due to the release of various chemical 

constituents associated with the sediment. 

Water Resources 

Groundwaeer 

Construction and operation of tix proposed LNG terrnmal and pipeline facilities would not 

significantly affect groundwater quality or quantity in the project ar~ Most groundwater impacts would 

be avoided or minimized by use of standard construction techniques set forth in our Plan and Procedures 

and by implementing project-specific SESC and SPCC Plans. 

Shallow groundwater at tlm LNG terminal site contains elevated concentrations of arsenic. 

Crown Landing will further investigate the elevated arsenic lcwels and consult with the NJDEP regarding 

mensm'es to mitigate tix arsenic impacts. These measures could include renmdia/actions and/or the use 

of institutional controls to prevent potential exposure to the arsenic. 

Contaminated groundwater could also Ix encounte~,zd dunng construction of the proposed Logan 

Lateral. We have recommended that Texas Eastern develop a Plan for tha Discovery and Management of 

Contaminated Soils and Groundwater. Implementation of this Plan would protect the safety of workers 

and ensure that any contaminated media encountered during constnJction are properly managed in 

accordance with applicable regulations. 

5-3 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

It appears that one water supply well is located within the construction right-of-way of the 

proposed pipeline. Texas Eastern is working with the well owners to determine potential project impacts 

on the well and necessary mitigation measures to be implemented during construction. Six other water 

supply wells were identified within 150 feet of the proposed consa'uction right-of-way. For all wells 

located within 150 feet of the right-of-way, Texas Eastern would provide pre- and post-construction 

monitoring of well yield and water quality at the landowner's request, and would return any wells to their 

pre-construction condition if damaged by construction activities. 

Construction of the proposed LNG terminal and pipeline could affect groundwater by increasing 

turbidity, causing fluctuations in ground water flow, and disrupting groundwater discharge. These and 

other potential construction-related effects would be localized and temporary, and would not be expected 

to affect the deeper Potomac-Rantan-Magothy aquifer, an EPA-designated sole source aquifer. Crown 

Landing and Texas Eastern would avoid or minitmze these impacts by implementation of our Plans and 

Procedures and project-specific SESC Plans. The potential for hazardous rr~terial spills to occur or affect 

groundwater resources would be also avoided or minimized by implementing project-specific SPCC 

Plans. 

$~'facc Water 

Construction of the Crown Landing LNG Project could adversely affect surface water quality in 

the Delaware River dunng dredging operations, construction of the ship unloading facility, and the 

appropriation and discharge of hydrostatic test water. The primary impact on water quality associated 

with dredging would be the resuspension of sediment into the water column. The suspended sediment 

could: reduce light penelration and lower the rate of photosynthesis and aquatic productivity of an area; 

inU'oduce organic material and/or nutrients which could lead to an increase in biological oxygen demand 

and reduce dissolved oxygen; and release chemicals constituents, such as metals, contained in the 

sediment. In addition, an accidental release of fuel or other hazardous materials during construction could 

degrade water quality. 

Crown Landing proposes to use primarily hydraulic dredging to remove approximately 800,000 

cubic yards of sediment from the Delaware River. Based on computer modeling of dredging-toduced 

sediment impacts, suspended sediment concentrations would be expected to exceed background 

concentrations for only several hundred feet and would be limited to bottom of the water column. The 

COE conducted modeling in the project area as part of a study to predict the dissolved contaminant 

concentration of arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, and zinc in the water 

column from hydraulic dredging. The model assumed that 80 percent of the sorbed metals could be 

dissolved in solution. Based on this conservative model, most metals were shown to be below chronic 

exposure water quality criteria at 0.5 meter or higher in the water column. Only chromium, lead, and 

mercury exceeded chronic exposure criteria at 0.5 meter above the river bottom at the edge of the 60- 

meter mixing zone. 

Land-disturbing activities during construction of the onshore facilities of the proposed LNG 

terminal could also affec~ water quality of the Delaware River. Stormwmer runoff fi'om ",.he site could 

affect water quality in the river by increasing suspended sediment and turbidity levels. Erosion and 

sedimentation at the site would be controlled and mitigated through implementation of the measures 

specified in our Plan and in a site-specific SESC Plan. Crown Landing would also construct stormwater 

management facilities to control and treat stormwater ronoffduring operations of the facility. 

Construction of the Logan Lateral Project would require crossing eight perennial waterbodies, 

including the Delaware River and four internuttent streams. Texas Eastern proposes to install the pipeline 

across Chester Creel Delaware River, Raccoon Creek, and Birch Creek using the HDD consU'uction 

5-4 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

technique. The HDD cons~ction technique is a trenchless method that avoids disturbing the bed or the 

banks of the watedxxly. For the remaining waterbodies, Texas Eastern would install the pipeline using 

the open-cut construction technique. The impacts of the open-cot construction method on perennial 

streams would generally be localized and short term. Clearing, grading, and trenching within and 

adjacent to these streams would affect water quality. Sediments would be resuspended by in-stream 

consWaction activities and/or by erosion of cleared stream banks and riparian areas. Turbidity resulting 

from the resuspended sediments could reduce light penetnttion and the corresponding photosynthetic 

oxygen production. Resuapension of deposited organic material and inorganic sediments could cause an 

increase in consumption of biological and chemical oxygen, decreasing available dissolved oxygen. 

Texas Eastern would be required by our Procedures to complete most in-stream work within 24 hours for 

minor waterbody crossings and within 48 hours for intermediate water crossings. Other measures in 

specified in our Procedures and Texas Eastern's SESC Plan would minimize impacts on waterbodies 

crossed by the pipeline route. 

Wetlands 

Crown Landing designed its proposed facility to avoid wetlands located on the LNG terminal site. 

As a result, no wetlands would be IXa'nmnently filled or dra'med as a result of construction of the LNG 

terminal. Construction of thc Columbia Gas pipeline interconnect on the site would temporarily impact 

about 0.3 acre of palnstrin¢ emergent wetland. Following installation of this intercoonecL the disturbed 

wetland area within the construction right-of-way would be restored to original contours and allowed to 

naturally revegctate. 

Although construction of the LNG terminal would not permanently impact wetlands, the LNG 

terminal would affect approximately 5.5 acres of wetland transition area. Transition areas provide an 

ecological transition zone from uplands to freshwater wetlands and provide ten'~rary refuge for wildlife 

during high water episodes, critical habitat for animals dependent upon but not resident in freshwater 

wetlands, and slight variations of freshwater wetland boundaries over time due to hydrologne or 

climatologic effects. The NJDEP indicated that impacts on transition areas, especially the area adjacent 

to Wetland D, which provides wintering and foraging habitat for bald eagles, would require nutigation. 

Crown Landing is evaluating three options that could be h-nplermmted to compensate for transition area 

impacts, including: 

planting native tee species along Oldmans Creek to provide a buffer and habitat for bald 

eagles and enrolling undeveloped portions of the LNG terminal site into a conservation 

easement program; 

restoring habitat such as planting trees along Oldmarm Ditch, controlling the spread of 

Phragrattea australia, and/or creating inlets to improve tidal flow and fish and wildlife 

habitat within adjacent wetlands; and 

purchasing land in the vicinity of the LNG tca'mmal site and enrolling it into a 

conservation easement program to protect fish and wildlife habitat. 

We have recommended that Crown Landing continue to consult with federal and state agencies 

regarding the above mitigation options and file a wetland transition area mitigation plan prior to 

construction. 

Construction of the Logan Lateral Project would disturb about 22.4 acres of wetlands. However, 

no wetlands would be permanently filled or drained as a result of construction and the access roads that 

would be used would not affect wetlands. The primary impact of pipeline construction and right-of-way 

5-5 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

maintenance activities on wetlands would be the temporary alteration of wetland vegetation and the 

permanent conversion of forested wetland to scrub-shrub or emergent wetlands. About 2.4 acres of 

scrub-shrub and forested wetlands in the permanent right-of-way would be permanently maintained in an 

herbaceous state. Pipeline construction activities could also affect wetland hydrology and water quality. 

Operating heavy equipment could compact wetland soils, create ruts, and result in increased 

sedimentation and turbidity. In addition, the pipeline trench could act as a conduit for subsurface flow 

which could impact wetland hydrology. To minimize these impacts, Texas Eastern would adhere to the 

protective measures specified in our Procedures and its SESC Plan, including: 

limiting the construction equipment operating in the wetland to that necessary to 

complete construction; 

facilitating revegetation by leaving existing root systems in place except over the trench 

and where safety considerations requires their removal; 

• segregating topsoil from subsoil in unsaturated wetland soils; 

installing and maintaining sediment barriers across the entire construction fight-of-way 

and along the edges of the right-of-way as necessary to prevent sediment from entering 

wetlands; and 

• installing trench breakers as necessary to prevent the draining of wetlands. 

Vegetation 

The proposed LNG terminal site is located on an undeveloped parcel consisting of agriculhn'al 

land, emergent wetlands, and scattered areas of open, forest, and shrub lands. The LNG ternunal would 

be primarily constructed within cropland; however, about 1.5 acres of shrub land and 1.7 acres of open 

land would be permanently converted to industrial uses. Following construction, portions of the site that 

are not developed with buildings, roads, gravel, or other hard sm'faees would be restored and revegetated. 

Construction of the proposed pipeline would disturb about 125.7 acres of vegetation consisting of 

50.8 acres of agricultural lands, 35.0 acres of open lands, 23.4 acres of forests, and 16.5 acres of nonforested wetlands. Impacts on open lands, emergent wetlands, and agricultural areas would be temporary 

and short term. Impacts on trees and other woody vegetation would be longer term and about 8.5 acres of 

forest land on the permanent right-of-way would be permanently cleared. Texas Eastern would avoid 

most impacts to forest land adjacent to Chester Creek and Raccoon Creek by using the HDD technique to 

install the pipeline at these stream crossings. 

Following construction, the portions of the construction right-of-way that are not required for 

pipeline operations would be seeded and allowed to revert to their previous preconstruction condition 

through natural succession. The permanent right-of-way would also be restored and revegetatcd, and 

operational impacts on vegetation would be minimized by the vegetation maintenance practices specified 

in our Plan and Procedures and Texas Eastem's SESC Plan. 

Wildlife and Aquatic Resources 

Construction activities associated with the proposed LNG terminal and pipeline could affect 

wildlife habitat through the cutting, cleanng, and/or removal of existing vegetation within the 

construction area. Wildlife would be temporarily displaced from these areas during construction. Other 

than the permanent loss of habitat at the LNG terminal site and forested habitat along the pipeline, we do 

5-6 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

not expect wildlife to be impacted by operation of the LNG terminal and pipeline. Crown Landing would 

confine its development activities primarily to an existing agricultural field. Texas Eastern would 

minimize permanent impacts by constructing the pipeline within or adjacent to other existing rights-ofway where possible and by implementing its SESC Plan and our Plan and Procedures. 

The proposed dredging activities associated with construction and future maintenance of the ship 

berth would have both direct and indirect impacts on aquatic resources. Potential adverse effects on 

aquatic resources include impairment of water quality, desa-uction of benthic habitat and communities, 

and direct and indirect impacts to fish and their prey species. Dredging also has the potential to introduce 

deleterious compounds currently in the bottom sediments into the water column. Use of a hydraulic 

dredge would reduce turbidity, sedimentation, and the release of deleterious compounds associated with 

dredging. However, hydraulic dredging could entrain or impinge juvenile fish, fish larvae, and eggs 

during certain times of the year. To minimize this impact, Crown Landing revised its dredging schedule 

to avoid anadromous fish migrations and spawning periods. Crown Landing is also consulting with 

applicable resource agencies to develop a mitigation plan for potential impacts on shallow water habitat 

as the result of dredging the deeper ship berth. 

During operation of the LNG terminal, prop wash from LNG ships and tugs could temporarily 

increase suspended sediments and turbidity within the ship channel and ship berth. Ballast water retakes 

could also entrain and/or impinge juvenile fish, fish larvae, and eggs. To avoid or minimize impacts 

associated with ballast water intake, we recommend that Crown Landing coordinate with appropriate 

resource agencies to determine the need for additional conservation measures. 

Construction of the Logan Lateral Project could directly affect aquatic resources present in the 

waterbodics crossed by the project. An madvetlent chemical or fuel spill in or near a watertxxty could 

release contaminants, which could adversely affect fish and other aquatic organisms. The use of tim HDD 

method to cross select waterbodies, including the Delaware River, and the implementation of mitigative 

measures specified our Procedures and Texas Eastern's SESC and SPCC Plans would minimize the 

potential for adverse impacts on aquatic resources during construction of the pipeline facilities acruss or 

near waterbodies. 

Although the proposed LNG terminal site, ship unloading facility, and pipeline crossing are north 

of designated EFH in the Delaware River, nine managed species with the potential to occur in the 

Delaware River have at least one life stage that may be found within the project area. These species 

include: winter flounder, windowpane flounder, Amm-ican plaice. Atlantic sea herring, bluefish, 

butterfish, summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass. This draft EIS includes an EFH Assessment as 

neces~ for compliance with the MSA. As a result of our analysis as presented in the EFT] Assessment, 

we have concluded that dredging associated with the proposed project could affect open water, shallow 

water, and benthic EFH in the project area. Activities within the Delaware River also have the potential 

to affect anadromoua fish, a primary prey group for managed fish species. The suspension of sediments 

during dredging could temporarily affect the use of the water colunm by managed species and their prey 

in the area. Dredging of the ship berth would result in permanent alteration of existing shallow water 

habitat to deeper water habitat within the dredging footprint. However, implementation of the 

conservation measmx-s discussed in this EIS, including Crown Landing's continued coordination with the 

applicable resource agencies to develop appropriate mitigation for project impacts, would likely avoid or 

minimize adverse impacts on managed fish species and EFH. 

Threatened and Endangered Spedes 

Consultations with the FWS, NOAA Fisheries, PADEP, NJDEP, and DNREC identified 11 state 

and/or federally listed species that could potentially occur near the proposed project. These include the 

5-7 
,~,~.d ~,'~'~':" ..,. ~ 10 , ~-;~:~'A 9 ~''" ..= sin; ~'" oo.t,.m~u,~' 

. ..,~ ~,~,~ ;=~,~ r~ ~'~,,= v~ ~"" .^~,~,,o~-~; ~=~: ~ =,~ 

~+~°~ ,,~ =o~ ° ~',.~ ~'~ ~'~_.~,~ o~ ~r- -~, ~,~ ~ 

-- ~..,n~0~ ~ o~,~ .,.n tfigZ ~'*" _.~0/~ %~.--~ . ,~ ~u~ ~. 0%%~ 

.-0m ~q ?X" ,,oco~) ~-.--~ ,.~ ~u~- • "~ ~'-" ,,o~o0 ~" " ,,,cns~ ~9 "°~ 

t '~n ~O+~t'" .%~'~m,-'~ +_ ~ +zv~ r- -- .mOrn .S%11~4 ~ ++ _..,, %~tg* 

--~ ~ ~ "-- ~0~ F" " ,am 9 ~ "" ~.~ om~-.- • --,~1"~ ~*~"- " 

s~ ~-. ~l'~ m4~ ...,~x ~.~, _. ~o~'~ ~ _.~o~*t ~ • .. 

_, ~i~ ~ u,~,= ~ ~ . _., ,,%,moo ^ ,,,no~ 1 '~- ._,.,.~'~1 ~ 

po--- _.. - 

~'~'~ ~',xs qm °s ~'~ 

~ 3 ° ~. _.o =~ m ~'~- ... S~e~ a~. "~"~;u~m~a~ 

o~%u"~ .~u~, _~a~s ~u.~ ,. ,_..,,n o: %.~ ., o~,~ s u ~,.mssX ~ ~,,~ ~soU~V'~ 

• ,tOASt 0% t '+" ~p '~.~ -.~S ~.O~t.,~- _.,,,t~ ~2, u+ =, ttt% }0 ~'- ' "~0 ~a*'*~ ~ml~L 

Y" -^.,~ /'0 ~ " ,:,%~m. ~.u%~ ^ ~OU~"~-, -. ,.z~ s.,s,, -^I~ rm.~t~ %~t 

,~u.o3 uau-, -- o! ,+(I ~I'I " - u~ XI n~'" ~ 3t+ '. '_+...~ Su~rq'.,., u$'Oott~ 

+o~, ~..,m ~ ~a.,~,. o.:<,~+ .~+~.,. mX~.,.+9~+.~+-odo~ .m++ ,.+.+._ ~,~o~ s'a~++"+ ' __ ,-,+,, ,(~+. o++'+' 

0 OS~ .t ~.LU o~'~ • -- u r " 

P +"C -o .+~o+,+- +-~m.~ ~+'+ w. __,~ao,.~ ~." " _ ,~., S~O "~'+, ~..,~"*'+" 

+$CoJ .~=,,, +ze ~ --, t+",~q. V~+'- -~sc~. +u,+ v =...mom u+ r- ~" ~a 

d,~ All~ "" .~ ~,,,t%On.~uu ~ "" ,~a~ -'~- ..,,~ SO~.o~,-, r? < .~I~ .... ,mO~ c~ 

-~ X~q laag+ -^ omo~',+ - -o s~oI:~' ..^,r, ~ ++~" _. +~to~ ~.,,~ zo ~t ~'~-~ 

...... ~oua++ __.,~m4Y+ .m~o}J o.,~tox~ +-, ..~%%.~,+" ~,t~.adsa~-+ ,~ o1~,1~. ..+.x~'.0¢~',"-'~++q~U+" .+, ,,+,m~+w+'+"--" ,o~9"xno +'' _'+.,,+,o~oS'.'. , ,+:~,~b,'. 

sn~ "--, ~Ot t ~.+ - .~Ca~ ~+ ,-,re'a+ zO e,,~--+ ,~ m~% +re, x:,- _5, mn )0 ,.. ..~ ~mgO 

.a6~ ~a*- .~. ~0~.5 /~,~ ~.u-- . ~Xo~- -. ,~$~a 91 ~'* +~ o ,~nm~ ~ '- ";=~, S%ow ,~ • ~ ~Os, j " ,,~.0%D%" -- i%t~O TM " ..,~uS ~% <,*,~ "++~ ~..~% 1~" 

s-~ . s~s~u mP "~' ~',, s~ '. o+b~ "~; o~ ,~o~o.,,'- _~,,~SSox ~'~,,~ ,~X~ + 9x~ 

,. ., ~.~ v+ +-~s'al "m~ ,~ ~U.u~"-- 

000-11~-~0d9 :#~aMOOQ UT §00Z/81/Z0 93S0 9~33 ~q panssi Z900-ZZZ0g00Z ~o ~Qd pB~Bua~D-DH33 IeTOT~OUN 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

3.1 miles would be located within existing roadways, and 0.2 mile would be located within an existing 

railroad right-of-way. Texas Eastern proposes to modify and upgrade one existing aboveground facility 

and would construct two new aboveground facilities. Construction of the pipeline facilities would disturb 

a total of about 177.3 acres of land. Open land would be the primary land uso affected by construction of 

the pipclinc facilities totaling about 51.5 acres (29 pereent). The remaining land uses that would bc 

disturbed consist of 50.8 acres (29 percent) of agricultural land, 23.4 acres 03 poroent) of forest land, 

17.7 acres (10 percent) of roadway/railroad, 16.8 acres (9 percent) of commcreial/industrial land, 15.4 

acres (9 percent) of other land, 1.4 ac~s (I percent) of residential land, and 0.3 acre (<l percent) of open 

water, 

About 20 residences are located within 1 mile of the entrance to the proposed LNG terminal site. 

The closest residence is approximately 2,300 feet from the proposed LNG terminal. Potential impacts on 

nearby residential and commercial areas during operation of the LNG terminal include increased visibility 

of aboveground structures associaw.d with the facility, increased traffic, changes in air quality, and safety 

hazards. Texas Eastern's proposed construction area for the pipeline facilities (i.e., construction right-ofway and temporary exWa workspaces) would be located within 50 feet of 147 residences or residential 

structures (e.g., garages, sheds) and 9 conurercial/industrial structures. Texas Eastern would implement 

several ~ to mininuze consla'uction-related impacts on residences and other structures located 

within 50 feet of the construction right-of-way, including the preparation of site-specific residential 

construction mitigation plans. 

There are no planned residential, commercial, or industrial developments within 2 miles of the 

proposed LNG terminal site. Seven planned developments have been identified as being crossed or 

located within 0.25 mile of the proposed pipeline route. In addition to these planned developments, two 

dredge disposal sites proposed by the COE for its Delaware River Main Channel Deepening Project could 

be affected by the proposed Logan Lateral Project. 

The Crown Landing LNG and Logan Lateral Projects are subject to a federal Coastal Zone 

Consistency Review because they would 1) involve activities within the coastal zones of New Jersey, 

I~laware, and Pennsylvania, respectively;, and 2) requLre several federal permits and approvals. Crown 

Landing has not yet completed the process for the federal consistency certification with either the NJDEP 

or DNREC and Texas Eastern has not yet compleled the process with either the NJDEP or PADEP, but 

would need to demonstrate consistency with each state's coastal zone management program and obtain 

concurrence of consistency from these agencies prior to the FERC approving the start of any construction. 

In a letter dated February 3, 2005 from DDNREC to Crown Landing, the DNREC issued a 

Coastal Zone Act Status Decision, which determined that the proposed LNG off-loading pier in the 

Delaware River is prohibited by the State's Coastal zone Act. The DNREC Decision has a 14-day appeal 

period, which was ongoing at the time of printing of this draft EIS. Regardless, Crown Landing would 

still be required to file documentation that the project is consistent with each affected states' coastal zone 

management program before any construction of the project could begin. 

No hazardous waste sites have been identified within the proposed LNG terminal site; however, 

eight potential areas of concern were identified through site reconnaissance and a prior Phase I 

Environmental Site Assessment. Soils arotmd two of the sites contained elevated concentrations of TPH 

and one site contained elevated concentrations of arsenic. No contamination was found at the remaining 

five of these sites. A total of 30 hazardous, potentially hazardous, and solid waste sites have been 

identified as being crossed or located within 0.25 mile of the proposed pipelme facilities. Construction 

and operation of the project facilities are not expected to significantly affect recreational activities in the 

project area. 

5-9 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

The most prominent visual feature of the proposed LNG terminal would be the LNG storage 

tanks. The tanks would be about 250 feet in diameter and about 175 feet high. From most vantage 

points, views of the LNG terminal would be far ground or distant views. Near ground or close views 

would be limited to views from the Delaware River from commercial ships and the few recreational boats 

that use the area near the LNG terminal site. While the LNG terminal would be visible and permanently 

impact visual resources in the area, the overall aesthetic effect would be minor. 

Construction and operation of the modified and new aboveground facilities associated with the 

pipeline would have a permanent impact on visual resources. However, the modifications at Chester 

Junction would occur within the limits of the existing facility so no significant impacts on visual 

resources are anticipated. The site for the new Crown Landing meter and regulation station is currently 

undeveloped but would be part of the proposed 175-acre LNG terminal site. The meter station would be 

located adjacent to the buildings and facilities associated with the LNG terminal so they would not have a 

significant impact on visual resources. 

Socioeconomies 

Conslruction and operation of the Crown Landing LNG and Logan Lateral Projects would have 

short- and long-term socioeconomic Lrnpacts. Construction of the projects would result in a temporary 

increase in population, traffic, and demand for temporary housing and public services. Due to the 

temporary and limited nature of these impacts, they are not considered significant. Construction and 

operation of the projects would have beneficial impacts on local tax revenues and economics. 

Sufficient law enforcement and fire response services are located within the project area to the 

extent that temporary impacts on these serwccs arc anticipated to be minimal. However, fire and other 

emergencies at the proposed LNG terminal could require the services of local fire departments and 

emergency response units. Crown Landing has committed to coordinating with local emergency service 

providers to ensure efficient and sufficient response to potential emergencies. 

The increase in vehicular traffic during construction of the proposed LNG terminal could 

temporarily affect traffic levels on U.S. Route 130. To minimize these impacts, Crown Landing has 

indicated that some conma'uction workers would park in an offsite parking lot and be shuttled to the 

construction site. In addition, Crown Landing is evaluating two other mitigative measures at the site 

entrance to alleviate potential traffic impacts. The Logan Lateral Project could also temporarily affect 

traffic during construction across or within roads along the pipeline route. Texas Eastern has indicated 

that it would implement appropriate mitigative and traffic eon~'ol rncasures to avoid or minimize these 

impacts. 

Construction and operation of the proposed projects would not result in disproportionate adverse 

impacts on environmental justice communities. The projects are expected to gancrate temporary and 

permanent employment opportunities, taxes and other revenue sU'eams within the project area and would 

not result in significant adverse impacts on the local environment and natural resources. Although some 

of the neighborhoods crossed by the proposed pipeline route have lower incomes than average, the 

potential impacts would affect all of the communities crossed by the pipeline and would not 

disproportionately impact only the environmental justice areas. 

Cultural Resources 

Crown Landing conducted an aboveground cultural resources survey of the LNG terminal and its 

viewshed. The survey documented 32 built resources within the viewshed. Of these, one resource (a 

1936 truss bridge) was listed in the NRHP in 1992, and another (a ca. 1900 farmstead) was recommended 

eligible for the NRHP. Crown Landing concluded that construction ofthe LNG terminal would not affect 

5-I0 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

either resource. Each of the remaining built resources was recorded ineligible for listing in the 

NRHP. The New Jersey SHPO concurred with the results and recommendations of the survey. 

Crown Landing also conducted a terrestrial archaeological survey of the LNG terminal and an 

underwater archaeological survey of the associated pier and berth'mg areas in the Delaware River. The 

terrestrial archaeological survey relocated a previously documented prehistoric site (28GL241) 

recommended eligible for listing the NRHP. Crown Landing subsequently redesigned its consmaction 

plans to create a no-work buffer zone within 100 feet of this site. As a result, no additional testing ofthe 

site was recommended. No sites were identified as a result of the underwater archaeological survey. The 

New Jersey and Delaware SHPOs concurred with the results and recommendations of the surveys. 

Texas Eastern conducted an abovegroond cultural resources survey of the pipeline facilities m 

Pennsylvania and New Jersey. One resource (a mid-nineteenth century train trestle) was identified in 

Pennsylvania and recommended ineligible for listing in the NRHP. The Pennsylvania SHPO concurred 

with the survey results and recommendation. No built resources were identified in New Jersey. The New 

Jersey SHPO has not yet commented on the survey results. 

Texas Eastern also conducted terrestrial archaeological surveys of the pipeline facilities in 

Pennsylvama and New Jersey. The survey in Pennsylvania, which exarnmed the entire pipeline corridor 

and an alternative, documented five archaeological sites, two ofwhich (Sites 36DE25 and 36DE26) were 

reconmacnded eligible for listing in the NRHP. Site 36DE25 contains the remains of a historic farmstead, 

and Site 36DE26 is a prehistoric artifact scatter. Texas Eastern concluded that both sites are located 

outside the construction corridor and would not b¢ affected by conslruction of the pipeline facilities. No 

additional testing of these sites was recommended; however, installation of an avoidance fence at Site 

36DE26 was reconunended. The three other sites, which were identified during survey of the route 

alternative, were recommended ineligible for inclusion in the NRHP. The Pennsylvania SHPO concurred 

with the results and recommendations ofthc surwy. 

In New Jersey, the survey investigated a majority of the pipeline facilities and an alternative; 

however, about 1.2 miles of the pipeline facilities were not examined. Although archival research and 

fieldwork by Crown Landing at the LNG ternunal site indicated that Site 28GL241 is located adjacent to 

the pipeline facilities, no sites were identified. Texas Eastern recommended the installation of an 

avoidance fence along the edge of the construction right-of-way in the vicinity of this site, and no 

additional testing was recommended. The New Jersey SH'PO has not yet commented on the results and 

recormnendations of the survey. 

Texas Eastern needs to complete the survey of the pipeline facilities in New Jersey. 

Consequently, we have recorded that Texas Eastern defer consl:'uetion of tbe pipeline facilities until 

the survey is completed, and the survey report, any required treatment plans, and the New Jersey SHPO's 

comments on all reports and plans arc filed with the Commission for review and approval by the Director 

of OEP. 

Air Quality and Noise 

Construction and operation of the proposed LNG terminal and pipeline would result in air 

emissions, including fugitive dust, onshore and offshore construction cqtapment tailpipe ermssions, LNG 

mack and ship emissions, tug boat emissions, and stationary source emissions (from the water/glycol 

heaters, flares, and reciprocating engines). These emissions would include PMjo, SOz, NO~, VOC, and 

CO as well as small amounts of HAPs. The fugitive dust and tailpipe emissions during construction 

activities would be temtmrary, intermittent, and vary in location over time. These emissions would not 

5-11 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

result in a long-term impact on air quality. Fugitive dust would be minimized using water application for 

dust suppression and construction equipment would be operated on an as-needed basis. 

The primary pollutants emitted during operation of the LNG terminal would be NO~ and CO. 

The operational air emissions from the LNG terminal would be minimized by using ultra dry low NO~ 

burner systems on the water/glycol heaters and would meet the LAER requirement under the NSR 

regulations. A final LAER determination would be required from the NJDEP dunng the preconstruction 

permitting process. The NO, emissions generated by the LNG terminal would also be required to obtain 

emission offsets from other sources within the air basin; thereby minimizing any air quality impacts from 

these stationary sources. To ensure that the low level of air emissions identified in this draft EIS are met, 

we have recommended that the final air emission specifications and NJDEP approval of such 

specifications be provided prior to commencing construction. In addition, the proposed project is subject 

to the general conformity determination requirements. This determination will he provided after issuance 

of this draft EIS and will demonstrate that the project would not delay the attainment of the ozone 

standard in the project area. 

Noise receptors in the immediate vicinity of construction activities would experience an increase 

in noise levels. In most areas the increase in noise would be localized, ten'g~rary, and limited primarily 

to daylight hours. Noise associated with construction activities would be the most noticeable with a 

potential noise impact of 89 dBA under peak conditions for very short periods oftime (when construction 

equipment is close to the residence). This noise would be limited to daylight hours. The operational 

noise from the LNG terminal stationary sources would be about 50.9 dBA Lea at the nearest residence, 

which equates to a noise increase of 0.4 dBA. This noise impact is less than the FERC's 55 dBA L~ and 

the NJDEP nighttime noise criterion of 50 dBA I~. In addition, the noise increase from the sources at 

the LNG terminal would not be perceptible at nearby residences. 

Reliability and Safety 

We evaluated the safety of both the proposed facilities and the related LNG vessel transit through 

the Delaware Bay and River. As part ofoor evaluation, we performed a cryogenic design and technical 

review of the proposed terminal design and safety systems. Several areas of concern were noted with 

respect to the proposed facility, and specific recommendations have been identified to be addressed: prior 

to initial site construction; lmor to construction after final design; prior to commissioning; or prior to 

commencement of service. 

Thermal radiation and flammable vapor hazard dist~ces were calculated for an accident or an 

attack on an LNG vessel. For 1-, 2.5-, 3.0-, and 3.9-meter-diameter holes in an LNG cargo tank, we 

estimated distances to range from 2,267 to 5,691 feet for a thermal radiation level of 1,600 Btu/hr/ft 2, the 

level which is hazardous to unprotected persons located outdoors. Based on a l-meter-diameter hole, an 

unignited release would result in an estimated pool radius of 421 feet. The unignited vapor cloud would 

extend to 10,128 feet to the lower flammability limit and 13, 677 feet to one half the lower flammability 

limit. Flammable vapor dispersion for larger holes was not performed since, realistically, the cloud would 

not even extend to the maximum distance for a 1-meter-diameter hole before encountering an ignition 

source. However, the evaluation of safety is more than an exercise in calculating the consequences of 

worst ease scenarios. Rather, it is a determination of the acceptability of risk which considers: the 

probability of events, the effect of mitigation, and the consequences of events. Based on the extensive 

operational experience of LNG shipping, the structural design of an LNG vessel, and the operational 

eonu'ols imposed by the Coast Guard and the local pilots, the likelihood of a cargo containment failure 

and subsequent LNG spill from a vessel casualty - collision, grounding, or allision - is highly unlikely. 

For similar reasons, an accident involving the onshore LNG import terminal is unlikely to affect the 

public. As a result, the risk to the public from accidental causes should be considered negligible. 

5-12 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

As part of our marine safety analysis, we eonsidc~d how vessel secmJty requirements for LNG 

ships calling on the proposed LNG teraunal might affect other ship and boat traffic in Delaware Bay and 

River. Based on the Coast Guard's longstanding experience in controlling the movements of dangerous 

cargo vessels in the Delaware Bay and River and LNG vessels in other ports, potential impacts can be 

evaluated for several general security requirements: 1) moving safety and security zones for inbound and 

outbound LNG vessels; 2) safety and security zones around a moored LNG vessel; and 3) other measures 

as deemed appropriate. The moving safety and security zone, and the safety and security zone at the 

terminal, may affect other commercial, ferry, and recreational traffic using the bay and river. Based on a 

navigation simulation study conducted by MNI on behalf of Crown Landing, the addition of 150 LNG 

ships per year would have minor effect on barge traffic associated with the Logan Generating Station 

operations. The impact on ferry Waffle would generally be small because most of the ferry routes only 

cross the LNG ship route and conflicts could he managed by schedule coordination. 

The extent of the impact on recreational boaters would depend on the number of boats in the 

project area during the two to three LNG vessel transits per week when LNG ships would call on the 

LNG terminal, and on several other variables such as the stzc of the Coast Guard-imposed safety and 

security zone and the width of the channel at the point where a boat encounters the LNG ship. Using 

certain assumptions, we estimate that a recreational craft attempting to travel in the opposite direction of 

an LNG ship at one of the narrower locations within the navigation channel might need to wait up to 16 

minutes for the LNG ship to pass. To minimize potential impacts on other marine traffic, the Coast Guard 

is expected to use a program of aonoun~ts to give advance notice of each safety and security zone 

schedule and could schedule the transit of LNG ships for times of day less likely to affect recreational 

boaters. 

Unlike accidental causes, historical experience provides little guidance in estinmting the 

probability of a terrorist attack on an LNG vessel or onshore storage facility. For an LNG import terminal 

proposal that would involve having a large volume of energy transported and stored ncar populated areas, 

the perceived threat of a terrorist attack is a primary concern of the local population and requires that 

resources be directed to mitigate possible attack paths. While thc risks associated with the transportation 

of any hazardous cargo can never be entirely eliminated, they can be managed. 

An issue that has developed for several LNG terminal projects is a concern that local 

communities would have to bear some of the costs of ensuring the security/emergency management of the 

LNG facility and the LNG vessel while in transit and unloading at the dock. The potential costs will not 

be determined until the specific security needs have been identified, and the t~"sponsibilities of federal, 

state, and local agencies have been established in the Coast Guard's Incident Action Plan. Crown 

Landing and the Coast Guard have formally initiated the process for development of the safety and 

security plans for the LNG facility. This process will involve three sub-processes: 1) the Port and 

Waterway Safety Assessment Workshop; 2) a Security Workshop; and 3) Consequence Management 

Workshop. The results of these three workshops will facilitate the development of Operations and 

Emergency Manuals which the facility operator is required m submit to the Coast Guard, as well as an 

LNG Operations Plan which covers operational safety, security, and consequence management issues for 

the project and communities located along the vessel transit route. 

Once these plans are finalized and the resources required to implement them have been identified, 

Crown Landing will be able to more specifically discuss the funding of sueh resources. In order to better 

define how the potential burden on local communities would be addressed, we have recommended that 

Crown Landing provide a plan that identifies the mechanisms for funding project-specific 

security/emergency management costs that would be imposed on state agencies and local communities. 

5-13 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 ..... 

Alternatives 

We evaluated the alternatives of no action or proposed acnon, system alternatives, alternative 

LNG terminal coastal areas, alternative LNG terminal sites, pier alternatives, and pipeline route 

alternatives. 

While the no action or proposed action alternative would eliminate the environmental impacts 

identified in this EIS, the project objective of providing a new source of natural gas to the Mid-Atlantic 

market would not be met. This might lead to alternative proposals to develop natural gas delivery and 

storage infrastructure, increased conservation or reduced use of natural gas, and/or the use of other 

sources of energy. 

Denying or postponing a decision on Crown Landing's and Texas Eastern's applications could 

limit access to new supplies of natural gas in the future, which could in turn con~bote to higher natural 

gas prices. Higher prices could potentially result in customers consenqng or reducing the use of natural 

gas. Although additional conservation measures may have some affect on the demand for natural gas, 

conservation efforts based on E/A analyses are not expected to significantly reduce the long-term 

requirements for natural gas or effectively exert downward pressures on gas prices. On the other hand, it 

seems more likely as described by Alan Crreenspan in 2003 that higher natural gas prices would adversely 

influence the regional economy by reducing realized household incomes and business profits. 

Denying or postponing a decision on Crown Landing's and Texas Eastern's applications could 

also force potential customers of the natural gas provided by the project to seek regulatory approval to use 

other forms of energy. Nuclear or renewable energies such as hydroelectric, wind, or solar are not 

commercially viable substitutes able to replace or significantly offset the demand for natural gas over the 

next 20 years. Furthermore, each of these forms of energy involves significant environmental issues such 

as the disposal of toxic materials, alterations to hydrological/biological systems, and visual impacts. For 

example, compared to other fossil fuels such as coal or oil, natural gas is a relatively clean and efficient 

fuel that can reduce the emission of regulated pollutants (e.g., ni~'ogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, and 

particulate matter) or unregulated greenhouse gases (e.g., carbon dioxide). Given the environmental 

consequences of these options (including air quality impacts), we do not believe the no action or 

postponed action would provide a clear environmental advantage over the proposed projects. 

We considered existing LNG facilities and pipelines as alternative systems that could be used to 

meet the objectives of the Crown Landing LNG Project. Crown Landing is proposing a facility that 

would have the capabilities of unloading and stonng imported LNG and delivering approximately 1.2 

Bcfd of natural gas into the Mid-Atlantic region. Because the capacity of each of the existing LNG 

import terminals is fully committed (including their current expansion proposals), use ofan existing LNG 

terminal to meet the proposed project objectives would not be possible without significant expansions 

and/or modifications to thetr unloading, storage, and delivery systems and possibly substantial expansion 

or looping of the existing sendout pipeline(s). The additional facilities required for expansion would 

likely result in as much if not more environmental impact as Crown Landing's proposed LNG terminal. 

From a commercial perspective the best location for an LNG terminal is close to the market it is 

intended to serve. We determined that the great distance of the existing Southern LNG and Trunkline 

LNG terminals from the project area (a distance of at least 800 miles) efl~ectively limits them from serving 

the Mid-At/antic market. The existing Dis~gas and Cove Point LNG terminals are closer to the proposed 

LNG ternunal (within 200 miles). The Distrigas LNG facility, however, has physical constraints (e.g., 

small site size, insufficient space for additional storage tanks, etc.) that make it unsuitable to supply the 

natural gas volumes proposed by Crown Landing. Dominion has recently proposed an expansion of the 

Cove Point LNG facility that would significantly increase both the LNG storage and the natural gas 

5-14 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

sendout capacity of this facility. This expansion would include the construction of about 161 rmles of 

pipeline which would result in as much if not more environmental impacts than the proposed projects. 

The expansion of existing pipeline systems, even if combined with the use of an existing, modified, or 

proposed LNG facility, would not provide a clear advantage over the Crown Landing LNG Project. 

We reviewed other recently approved, proposed, or planned LNG terminals to determine if they 

might be environmental preferable to the proposed project. We d~ermmed that all of the recently 

approved and most oftbe proposed and planned LNG projects are too far from the Mid-Atlantic region to 

efficiently provide the natural gas delivery volumes proposed by Crown Landing. Additionally, the use 

of the Gulf Coast, Canadian, and Bahamian projects as alternatives would likely require substantial 

expansion of existing pipeline systems, which could have significant environmental impacts. 

We examined the four closest proposed and planned projects to the Mid-Atlantic region in more 

detail. We determined that each of these projects has site-specific environmental issues and/or safety 

concerns. Moreover, we found that none of these projects would individually provide the storage or 

sendout capacity proposed by Crown Landing. We also concluded that although a combination of these 

projects could provide the sendout capacity and storage capacity proposed by Crown Landing, it seems 

unlikely that these projects could effectively serve the Mid-Atlantic regmn. Based on recent projections 

of natural gas demand in the New England region, by 2009 there will be an increased demand for natural 

gas in New England and New York above what the current infrastructure is able to provide during peak 

penods of use. Consequently, even if more than one of these projects are authorized and constructed, 

much of the capacity of these projects would likely be used to satisfy the increasing demand for natural 

gas in the New England and New York markets and would be unavailable for the Mid-Atlantic region. 

We considered alternative locations for an LNG import terminal in the Mid-Atlantic region. We 

determined that while there may be some safety and environmental advantages to locating the LNG 

terminal offshore, there are environmental, economic, and technical factors that make an offshore LNG 

terminal impractical as an alternative to the facilities proposed for the Crown Landing LNG Project. We 

identified and evaluated seven onshore alternative LNG terminal site locations in New Jersey along the 

Delaware Bay and River. We concluded that all of these sites have environmental drawbacks and that 

none would provide a clear environmental advantage over the proposed site. 

Our alternative analysis included the evaluation of pier and berth configurations and orientations 

that might avoid or minimize impacts associated with the construction of these facilities. We determined 

that locating the pier farther from shove would increase potential ship hazards. Conversely, locating the 

pier closer to shore would increase the amount of dredging required and would impact more shallow 

water habitat. We have concluded that the proposed pier configuration, which was developed after 

consultations with federal and state agencies, offers the best balance of increased safety and reduced 

environmental impacts. 

Finally, to avoid or minimize environmental impacts from construction of the pipeline, we 

examined four major route variations and three minor rome variations to the proposed pipeline mute. We 

determined that none of the major route variations would be environmentally preferable to the proposed 

route. Our review of the minor route variations lead us to concur with Texas Eastems' adoption of one 

route variation prior to filing its application, reject one route variation, and recommend that Texas Eastern 

adopt the third variation (the Ward Street Variation/%) between MPs 3.33 and 3.67 to avoid impacts on 

Veterans Memorial Park. 

5-15 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

5.2 FERC STAFF'S RECOMMENDED MITIGATION 

If the Commission issues any authorization for the proposed project, we recommend that the 

Commission's Order include measures 1 through 74. We believe that these measures would further 

mitigate the environmental impacts associated with constJ'uction and operation of the proposed project. 

I. Crown Landing, L.L.C. (Crown Landing) and Texas Eastern Transmission, L.P. (Texas Eastern) 

shall follow the construction procedures and n~tigation measures described in their applications, 

supplemental filings (including responses to staff data requests), and as identified in the 

environmental impact statement (EIS), unless modified by the Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission's (FERC or Commission) Order. Crown Landing and Texas Eastern must: 

a. 

b. 

C. 

d. 

request any modification to these procedures, measures, or conditions in a filing with the 

Secretary oftbe Comnnssion (Secretary); 

justify each modification relative to site-specific conditions; 

explain how that modification provides an equal or greater level of environmental 

protection than the original measure; and 

receive approval in writing from the Director of the Office of Energy Projects (OEP) 

before using that modification. 

. For pipeline facilities, the Director of OEP has delegation authority to take whatever steps are 

necessary to ensure the protection of all environmental resources during construction and 

operation of the project. This authority shall allow: 

a. 

b. 

the modification of conditions of the Commassion's Order, and 

the design and implementation of any additional measures deemed necessary (including 

stop work authority) to assure continued compliance with the intent of the environmental 

conditions as well as the avoidance or mitigation of adverse environmental impact 

resulting fi'om project construction and operation. 

. For liquefied natural gas (LNG) facilities, the Dtrector of OEP has delegated authority to take all 

steps necessary to ensure the protection of life, health, property, and the envu'onment during 

construction and operation of the project. This authority shall include: 

a. 

b. 

stop-work authority and authority to cease operation; and 

the design and implementation of any additional measures deemed necessary to assure 

continued compliance with the intent of the conditions of this Order. 

. Prior to any construction, Crown Landing and Texas Eastern shall file an affirmative statement 

with the Secretary, certified by semor company officials, that all company personnel, 

environmental inspectors (Els), and contractor personnel will be informed of the Ei's authority 

and have been or will be trained on the implementation of the environmental mitigation measures 

approprmte to their jobs before becoming involved with construction and restoration activities. 

. The authorized facility locations shall be as shown in the EIS, as supplemented by filed alignment 

sheets, and shall include the staffs recommended facility locations. As soon as they are 

available, and before the start of construction, Crown Landing and Texas Eastern shall file 

with the Secretary revised detailed survey alignment maps/sheets at a scale not smaller than 

1:6,000 with station positions for all facili6es approved by this Order. All requests for 

modifications of environmental conditions of this Order or site-specific clearances must be 

written and must reference locations designated on these alignment maps/sheets. 

5-16 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

. 

. 

Crown Landing and Texas Eastern shall file with the Secretary detailed alignment maps/sheets 

and aerial photographs at a scale not smaller than 1:6,000 identifying all mute realignments or 

facility relocations, and staging areas, pipe storage yards, new access roads, and other areas that 

will he used or disturbed and have not been previously identified in filings with the Secretary. 

Approval for each of these areas must be explicitly requested in writing. For each area, the 

request must include a description of the existing land use/cover type, documentation of 

landowner approval, whether any cultural resources or federally listed threatened or endangered 

species would be affected, and whether any other environmentally sensttive areas are with'm or 

abutting the area. All areas shall be clearly identified on the maps/sheets/aerial photographs. 

Each area must be approved in writing by the Director of OEP before ¢ou~a'netton in or near 

that area. 

This requirement does not apply to mute variations recommended herein or minor field 

realignments per landowner needs and requ'ucments that do not affect other landowners or 

sensitive environmental areas such as wetlands. 

Examples of alterations requiring approval include all route realigrmaents and facility location 

changes resulting from: 

a. 

b. 

C. 

d. 

implementation of cultural resources mitigation measures; 

implementation of endangered, threatened, or special concern species mitigation 

measures; 

recommendations by state regulatory authorities; and 

agreements with individual landowners that affect other landowners or could affect 

sensitive environnvmtal areas. 

At least 60 days before the start of eoustrection, Crown Landing and Texas Eastern shall file 

initial Implementation Plans with the Secretary for the review and written approval by the 

Director of OEP desen'bing how the coropanies will implement the mitigation measures required 

by this Order. Crown Landing and Texas Eastern must file revisions to their respective plans as 

schedules change. The plan shall identify: 

a. 

b. 

C. 

d. 

e. 

f. 

g. 

how Crown Landing and Texas Eastern will incorporate these requirements into the 

contract bid documents, construction contracts (especially penalty clauses and 

specifications), and construction drawings so that the mitigation required at each site is 

clear to on,site consla'uetion and inspection personnel; 

the num~ of Els assigned per spread, and how the company will ensure that sufficient 

personnel are available to implement the environmental mitigation; 

co~y personnel, including EIs and contractors, who will receive copies of the 

appropriate material; 

what training and insm~tions Crown Landing and Texas Eastern will give to all 

personnel involved with construction and rastoration (initial and refresher training as the 

project progresses and personnel change), with the opportunity for OEP staff to 

participate in the training session(s); 

the comt~my persoonel (if known) and specific portion of Crown Landing and Texas 

Eastern's organizations having responsibility for compliance; 

the procedures (including use of contract penalties) Crown Landing and Texas Eastern 

will follow if noncompliance occurs; and 

for each discrete facility, a Gantt or PERT chart (or similar project scheduling diagram), 

and dates for: 

5-17 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

. 

. 

10. 

i. 

ii. 

iii. 

iv. 

the completion of all required surveys and reports; 

the mitigation training of onsite personnel; 

the start of consla'uetion; and 

the start and completion of restoration. 

Texas Eastern shall each develop and implement an environmental complaint resolution 

procedure. The procedure shall provide landowners with clear and simple dtrections for 

identifying and resolving their environmental mttigation problems/conCerns dunng construction 

of the project and restoration of the right-of-way. Prior to constrnctlon, Texas Eastern shall 

mail the complaint resolution procedures to each landowner whose property would be crossed by 

the project. 

a. In its letter to affected landowners, Texas Eastern shall: 

i. 

ii. 

iii. 

provide a contact that the landowners should call first with thetr concerns; the 

letter should indicate how soon a landowner should expect a response; 

inmruct the landowners that, if they are not satisfied with the response, they 

should call Texas Eastern's hotline; the letter should indicate bow soon to expect 

a response; and 

instruct the landowner that, if they are still not satisfied with the response from 

Texas Eastern, they should contact the Commission's Enf~t Hotlme at 

(888) 889-8030. 

b. In addition, Texas Eastern shall include m its weekly status report a copy of a table that 

contains the following information for each problem/concern: 

i. 

ii. 

iii. 

iv. 

the date of the call; 

the identification number from the certified alignment sheets of the affected 

property; 

the description of the problem/concern; and 

an explanation of how and when the problem was resolved, will be resolved, or 

why it has not been resolved. 

Crown landing and Texas Eastern shall each employ a team of Els. The Els shall be: 

a. 

b. 

C. 

d. 

f. 

~ible for monitoring and ensuring compliance with all mitigation measures 

required by this Order and other grants, permits, certificates, or other authorizing 

documents; 

responsible for evaluating the construction contractor's implementation of the 

environmental mitigation measures required in the contract (see condition 6 above) and 

any other authorizing document; 

empowered to order correction of acts that violate the environmental conditions of this 

Order, and any other authorizing document; 

a full-time position, separate from all other activity inspectors; 

responsible for documenting compliance with the environmental conditions of this Order, 

as well as any environmental conditions/perrmt re.quirements imposed by other federal. 

state, or local agencies; and 

responsible for maintaining status reports. 

Crown Landing and Texas Eastern shall each file updated status reports prepared by the El with 

the Secretary on a weekly basis until all construction and restoration activities are complete. On 

5-18 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

I1. 

12. 

13. 

14. 

15. 

request, these status reports shall also be provided to other federal and state agencies with 

permitting responsibilities. Status reports shall include: 

a. 

b. 

C. 

d. 

e. 

f. 

the current construction status of the project, work planned for the following reporting 

period, and any schedule changes for stream crossings or work in other environmentally 

sensitiw areas; 

a listing of all problems encountered and each instance of noncompliance observed by the 

environmental inspector(s) during the reporting period (both for the conditions imposed 

by the Commission and any environmental conditions/permit requirements imposed by 

other federal, state, or local agencies); 

corrective actions implemented in response to all instances of noncompliance, and their 

cost; 

the effectiveness of all corrective actions implemented; 

a description of any landowner/resident complaints which may relate to compliance with 

the requirements of this Order, and measures taken to satisfy their concerns; and 

copies of any correspondence received by Crown Landing and Texas Eastern from other 

federal, state, or local permitting agencies concerning instances of noncompliance, and 

Crown Landing's and Texas Eastern's response. 

Crown Landing and Texas Eastern must each receive written authorization from the Director of 

OEP before commencing service of the project. Such authorization will only be granted 

following a determination that rehabilitation and restoration of the right-of-way is proceeding 

satisfactorily. 

Within 30 days of placing the certificated fadlitles in service, Crown Landing and Texas 

Eastern shall each file an affirmative statement with the Secretary, certified by a senior company 

official: 

a. 

b. 

that the facilities have been construe'ted in compliance with all applicable conditions, and 

that continuing activities will be consistent with all applicable conditions; or 

identifying which of the certificate conditions Crown Landing and Texas Eastern have 

complied with or will comply with. This statement shall also identify any areas along the 

right-of-way where compliance measures were not properly implemented, if not 

previously identified in filed status reports, and the reason for noncompliance. 

Texas Eastern shall incorporate Ward Street Variation A into the proposed mute. Draft EIS 

section 3.5.3 1 

Texas Eastern shall prepare a Plan for the Discovery and Management of Contaminated Soils and 

Groundwater. This Plan shall comply with applicable state and federal regulations and shall 

provide for management of eontatmnants at known sites and include procedures for the 

identification and management of unknown contaminants in other locations. The Plan shall be 

filed with the Secretary for review and approval by the Director of OEP prier to construction. 

Draft EIS section 4.2.1 

Texas Eastern shall prepare a site-specific crossing plan identifying all areas that would be 

disturbed by construction if alternate crossing methods are proposed at Chester Creek, Delaware 

River, Raccoon Creek, or Birch Creek. Texas Eastern shall file this plan with the Secretary 

concurrent with its application to other federal and state agencies for a permit to construct using 

i The italicizlxl numlg'rs at the end ofa rccommtmdcd .castro: is the section the mcasunt aplxars in the EIS. 

5-19 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

16. 

17. 

18. 

19. 

20. 

21. 

22. 

23. 

the alternate method. The Director of OEP must review and approve this plan in writing prior to 

construction. Draft EIS section 4.3.2 

Crown Landing shall continue to consult with the New Jersey Department of Environmental 

Protection (NJDEP), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and other approlmate agencies, and 

prepare a wetland transition area mitigation plan. This plan shall include details regarding the 

amount, location, and forms of mitigation proposed; a monitoring plan with clearly defined 

criteria for determ/nmg if and when the mitigation is successful; and remedial measures, as 

necessary, to ensure that compensatory mitigation is successful. Crown Landing shall file the 

wetland transition area mitigation plan with the Secretary prior to construction. Draft EIS 

section 4.4 

Texas Eastern shall consult with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE), FWS, NJDEP, and 

Pennsylvania Deparlment of Environmental Protection (PADEP) and other appropriate agencies 

on wetland mitigation requircnnents. If the agencies determine that compensatory wetland 

mitigation is required, Texas Eastern shall prepare a wetland mitigation plan describing the type 

of mitigation proposed, the location and size of the mitigation site, and any monitoring 

requirements that would be required to ensure the successful implementation of the compensatory 

mitigation. Texas Eastern shall file its wetland mitigation plan with the Secretary prior to 

construction. Draft EIS section 4.4 

Crown Landing shall continue coordinating with National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration (NOAA) Fisheries and other applicable agencies in developing plans to mitigate 

for impacts on shallow water habitats. The plan, along with agency concurrence, shall be filed 

with the Director of OEP for review and approval prior to lnltiatlng dredging activH~ in the 

Delaware River. Draft EIS section 4.6.2 

Crown Landing shall consult with federal and state agencies to determine the need for additional 

measures to further avoid or minimize impacts on aquatic resources as the result of pile-driving 

activities. Copies of consultations with these agencies shall be filed with the Secretary prior to 

¢onstractton. Draft EIS section 4. 6.2 

Crown Landing shall consult with federal and state agencies to deternune the need for mitigative 

measures to avoid or minimize impacts on aquatic resources as the result of LNG ship ballast 

water intakes. Copies of consultations with these agencies shall be filed with the Secretary prior 

to construction. Draft EIS section 4.6.2 

Crown Landing shall coordinate with NOAA Fisheries to determine the appropriate speed for 

LNG ships and file copies of related correspondence with the Secretary prior to Commencing 

operations. Draft EIS section 4. 7.1 

Crown Landing shall continue coordinating with the FWS and NJDEP to develop appropriate 

plans to mitigate for potential impacts on bald eagle foraging habitat. Crown Landing shall file 

final mitigation plans, including copies of correspondence with applicable agencies, with the 

Director of the OEP for review and approval prior to construction. Draft EIS section 4. 7.1 

Crown Landing shall monitor the outlet at the dredge disposal site to determine whether sturgeon 

are being entrained. If monitoring indicates that sturgeon are being entrained, suspend dredging 

operations until NOAA Fisheries and the FERC are contacted and provide guidance on how to 

proceed. Draft FAS section 4. 7.1 

5 -20 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

24. 

25. 

26. 

27. 

28. 

29. 

30. 

Crown Landing shall not begin construction activities until: 

a. 

b. 

C. 

FERC staffreceives comments from the FWS/NOAA regarding the proposed action: 

FERC staffcompletes formal consultation with the FWS/NOAA; and 

Crown Landing receives written notification from the Director of the OEP that 

construction may begin. Draft EIS section 4.7.1 

Crown Landing and Texas Eastern shall file documentation of concurrence from the NJDEP that 

the projects are consistent with the New Jersey Coastal Management Program with the Secretary 

prior to construction. Draft EIS section 4.8.3.1 

Crown Landing shall file documentation of concurrence from the Delaware Department of 

Natural Resources and Environmental Control that the project is consistent with the Delaware 

Coastal Managerrtcnt Program with the Secretary prior to construction. Draft EIS section 

4.8.3.2 

Texas Eastern shall file documentation of concurrence from the PADEP that the project is 

consistent with the Pennsylvania Coastal Zone Management Plan with the Secretary prior to 

construction. Draft EIS section 4.8.3.3 

Texas Eastern shall defer conslruction of the pipeline facilities until: 

a. 

b. 

C. 

d. 

e. 

Texas Eastern files the New Jersey State Historic Preservation Officer's (SIH~) 

comments on the New Jersey cultural resources management report; 

Texas Eastern completes the outstanding cultural resources surveys of the pipeline 

corridor and ancillary use areas; 

Texas Eastern files with the Secretary all additional required cultural resources survey 

reports and any treatment plans, and the New Jersey SHPO's comments on all reports and 

plans; 

Texas Eastern adds the St. Regis Mohawk Tribe and Onondaga Indian Nation to the list 

of tribal contacts in its unanticipated finds plan; and 

The Director of OEP reviews and approves all cultural resources reports and plans, and 

notifies Texas Eastern in writing that it may proceed with treatment measures or 

construction. 

All material filed with the Secretary containing location, character, and ownership information 

about cultural resources must have the cover and any relevant pages therein clearly labeled in 

bold lettering: "CONTAINS PRIVILEGED INFORMATION - DO NOT RELEASE." Draft 

E1S section 4.10.4 

Crown Landing shall provide to the Commission a copy of the final manufacturer's guarantees 

and NJDEP final permit prior to construction. If the estimated potential to emit for carbon 

monoxide (CO) or volatile organic compounds (VOC) is determined to be greater than the major 

source threshold, additional information regarding the method of compliance demonstration shah 

also be provided. This may include air dispersion modeling for CO or an lowest achievable 

emission rate determination for VOC. Draft F, IS section 4.11.1 

Crown Landing shall make all reasonable efforts to asstue its predicted noise levels from the 

LNG terminal are not exceeded at the NSAs and file noise surveys showing this with the 

Secretary no later than 60 days after placing the LNG terminal in service. However. if the 

noise attributable to the operation of the LNG terminal exceeds 55 decibels of the A-weighted 

5-21 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

scale (dBA) day-night sound level at an NSA or the noise increase exceeds 65 dBA 24-hour 

equivalent sound level at a residential property line, Crown Landing shall file a report on what 

changes are needed and shall install additional noise controls to meet the level within 1 year of 

the in-service date. Crown Landing shall confirm compliance with these requirements by filing a 

second noise survey with the Secretary no later than 60 days after it installs the additional noise 

controls. Draft EIS section 4.11.2 

3 I. Crown Landing shall provide a technical review of its facility design that: 

a. 

b. 

Identifies all combustion/ventilation air intake equipment and the distance(s) to any 

possible hydrocarbon release (LNG, flammable refrigerants, flammable liquids, and 

flammable gases); and 

Demonstrates that these areas are adequately covered by hazard detection devices and 

indicates how these devices would isolate or shutdown any combustion equipment whose 

continued operation could add to or sustain an emergency. 

Crown Landing shall file this review with the Secretary for review and written approval by the 

Director of OEP prior to eonstructlon. Draft EISsection 4.12 

Crown Landing shall file facility design and construction details with the Secretary for review and 

approval by the Director of OEP either: prior to initial site construction; prior to construct/on after 

final design; prior to commissioning; or prior to commencement of service as indicated by each 

specifle recommendation (conditions 32 through 64). Draft EIS section 4.12.2 

32. Crown Landing shall develop procedures to measure, monitor and if necessary, remove water 

from beneath the pile cap, to prevent freezing and frost heave, during constnmtion. Procedures 

shall be filed prior to lnRial site construction. Draft EISsection 4.12.2 

33. Crown Landing shall evaluate the relief and flare systems. A report of the evaluation shall be 

filed with the Secretary prior to inltinl site construction. Draft F, IS section 4.12.2 

4. Crown Landing shall file a complete plan and list of the hazard detection equipment with the 

Director of OEP prior to lnithtl site construction. The information shall include a list with the 

instrument tag number, type and location, alarm locatmns, and shutdown functions of the 

proposed hazard detection equipment. Plan drawings shall clearly show the location of all 

detection equipment. Draft EIS section 4.12.2 

35. Crown Landing shall file a complete plan and list of the fixed and wheeled dry-chemical, fire 

extinguishing, high expansion foam, hazard control equipment with the Director of OEP prior to 

Initial site construction. The information shall include a list with the equipment tag number, 

type, size, equipment covered, and automatic and manual remote signals initiating discharge of 

the umts. Plan drawings shall clearly show the planned location of all fixed and wheeled 

extinguishers. Draft EIS section 4.12.2 

36. Crown Landing shall file facility plans showing the proposed location of, and area covered by, 

each monitor, hydrant, deluge system, hose, and sprinkler, as well as piping and instrumentation 

diagrams, of the fire water system with the Director of OEP prior to Initial site construction. 

Draft EIS section 4.12.2 

5-22 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

37. 

38. 

39. 

0. 

41. 

42. 

43. 

4. 

45. 

46. 

47. 

48. 

49. 

Crown Landing's final design of the hazard detection equipment shall identify manufacturer and 

model. Draft EISsection 4.12.2 

Crown Landing's final design of the fixed and wheeled dry-chemical, fire extinguishing, high 

expansion foam hazard control equipment shall identify manufacturer and model. Draft EIS 

section 4.12.2 

Crown Landing's final design shall include equipment and instrumentation for the measurement 

of translational and rotational movement of the inner vessel for use during and after eonl down. 

Draft EIS section 4.12.2 

Ch'own Landing's final design shall include details of the boil-off gas flow measurement system 

provided for each tank. Draft EIS section 4.12.2 

Crown Landing's final design shall include details of the LNG flow measurement system 

provided for the top and bottom fill to each tank. Draft EIS section 4.12.2 

Crown Landing's final dealgn shall include a minimum of three onsite seismic instruments that 

would have the capability of actuating an automatic plant wide ESD in the event of seismic 

activity approaching the site Operating Basis Earthquake. Crown Landing shall specify the set 

point to be used. Draft EIS section 4.12. 2 

Crown Landing's final d~lgm shall include a reliable meamxronmnt system to monitor deflections 

during the hydraulic test. At a minimum, this system shall include two slope indicator ducts 

which bisect the tank in mutually perpendicular directions, monitoring points at the terminals of 

these ducts, and other monitoring points along the perimeter of the concrete shell, so that sag, 

warping, tilt, and settlement can be monitored. Tolerances for sag, tilt, and shell warping shall 

meet or exceed the limits specified by the tank manufacturer. Draft EIS section 4.12.2 

Crown Landing's final design shall include details of the LNG tank tilt settlement and 

differential settlement limats between each LNG tank and piping and procedures to be 

implemented in the event that limits are exceeded. Draft EISsection 4.12.2 

Crown Landing's final design shall include drawings and specifications of the spill protection 

system to be al~lie.d to the LNG tank roofs. Draft E.IS section 4.12.2 

Crown Landmg's ~ design shall include a discretionary vent for each tank, to be operated 

through the DCS. Draft EdS section 4.12.2 

Crowns Landing's final design shall include provisions to measure the discharge flow of each 

intank pump. Draft EIS section 4.12.2 

Crown Landing's final design of the vaporizers shall include double block isolation on the 

suction and double block isolation and cheek valve on the discharge of each vaporizer. One of the 

valves on the suction and one valve on the discharge shall be automatically actuated. Draft EIS 

section 4.12.2 

Crown Landing's final desiga shall include provisions to ensure that hot glycol/water circulation 

is in operation at all times when LNG is present in the LNG booster pump discharge piping or 

when the terrggTature in the LNG inlet channel to any vaporizer is below 0* F. Draft EISsection 

4.12.2 

5-23 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

50. 

51. 

52. 

53. 

54. 

55. 

56. 

57. 

58. 

59. 

60. 

61. 

62. 

63. 

Crown Landing's final design shall include detection instrumentation and shut down procedures 

for vaporizer tube leak. shell side overpressure, or busting disc failure. Draft EISsection 4.12.2 

Crown Landing's final design shall include temperature measurement of the vaporizer common 

discharge header which shall alarm the low temperature condition. Draft EISsection 4.12.2 

Crown Landing's final design shall include provisions to recover boil-off gas, under all 

condtftorts, in the event that the send out vaporization system is not in operation. Draft EIS 

section 4.12.2 

Crown Landing's final design shall include automatic shutdown valves at the suction and 

discharge ofthe each boiloffblower and each boiloffeompressor. Draft EISsection 4.12.2 

Crown Landing's final design shall ensure that air gaps are installed downstream of all seals or 

isolations installed at the interface between a flammable fluid system and an electrical conduit or 

wiring system. Each air gap shall vent to a safe location and be equipped with a leak detection 

device that: would continuously monitor for the presence of a flammable fluid; would alarm the 

hazardous condition; and would shutdown the appropriate systems. Draft EISsection 4.12.2 

Crown landing's final design shall include a fire protection evaluation earned out in accordance 

with the requirements of National Fire Protection Association Standards for the Production, 

Storage, and Handling of LNG 59A, chapter 9. 1.2. Draft EIS section 4.12.2 

In the event that Crown Landing uses open path detectors in the final design, they shall be 

calibrated to detect the presence of flammable gas and alarm at the lowest reliable set point, in 

addition to the required 25 percent lower explosive limit set point. Draft EIS section 4.12.2 

Crown Landing's final design shall include details of the shut down logic. Draft EIS section 

4.12.2 

Crown Landing's final design shall include emergency shutdown of equipment and systems 

activated by hazard detection devices for flammable gas, fire, and cryogenic spills, when 

applicable. Draft EIS section 4.12.2 

Crown Landing shall file security personnel requirements for prior to and during LNG vessel 

unluading with the Director of OEP prior to commissioning. DraflElSsection4.12.2 

Crown Landing shall file Operation and Maintenance procedures and manuals, as well as 

emergency plans, emergency evacuation plan and safety procedure manuals, with the Director of 

OEP prior to enmmissloning. Draft EIS section 4.12.2 

Crown Landing shall provide copies oftbe U.S. Coast Guard security plan, vessel operation plan, 

and emergency response plan to the FERC staff prior to commissioning. Draft EIS section 

4.12.2 

Crown Landing shall file the contingency plan for failure ofthe outer LNG tank containment with 

the Director of OEP prior to commissioning. Draft ~ISsection 4.12.2 

Crown Landing shall notify the FERC staff of any proposed revisions to the security plan and 

physical security of the facility prior to commencement of service. Draft EISsection 4.12.2 

5-24 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

4. 

65. 

66. 

67. 

68. 

Crown Landing shall report progress on the proposed construction in monthly reports filed with 

the Secretary. Details shall include a summary of activities, problems encountered and remedial 

actions taken. Problems of significant magnitude shall be reported to the FERC within 24 hours. 

Dealt EIS section 4.12.2 

The facility shall be subject to regular FERC staff technical reviews and site inspections on at 

least a biennial basis or more frequently as circumstances indicate. Prior to each FERC staff 

technical review and site mspection, Crown Landmg shall respond to a specific data request 

including information relating to possible design and operating conditions that may have been 

imposed by other agencies or orgamzations. Up-to-date detailed piping and instrumentation 

diagrams reflecting facility modifications and provision of other pertinent information not 

included in the semi-annual reports described below, including facility events that have taken 

place since the previously submitted annual report, shall he submitted. Draft EISsectio, 4.12.2 

Crown Landing shall file semi-annual operational reports with the Secretary to identify changes 

in facility design and operating conditions, abnormal operating experiences, activities (including 

ship arrivals, quantity and composition of imported LNG, vaporization quantities, boil-off/flash 

gas, etc.), plant modifications including future plans and progress thereof. Abnormalities shall 

include, but not be limited to: unluading/shq)pmg problems, potential hazardous conditions fi'om 

offsitc vessels, storage tank stratification or rollover, gcyscring, storage tank pressure excursions, 

cold spots on the storage tanks, storage tank vibrations and/or vibrations in associated cryogenic 

piping, storage tank settlement, significant equipment or instnunentation malfunctions or failures, 

non-scheduled maintenance or repair (and reasons therefore), relative movement of storage tank 

tuner vessels, vapor or liquid relcases, fires involving natural gas and/or from other sources, 

negative pressure (vacuum) within a storage tank and higher than predicted boiloff rates. Adverse 

weather conditions and the effect on the facility also shall he reported. Reports shall he submitted 

within 4S days after each period ending June 30 and December 31. In addition to the above 

items, a section entitled "Significant plant modifications proposed for the next 12 months (dates)" 

also shall he included in the semi-annual operational reports. Such infommtion would provide the 

FERC staff with early notice of anticipated future construction/maintenance projects at the LNG 

facility. Draft EIS section 4.12.2 

In the event the ~ture of any region of any secondary contaimqz, n4 including imbedded 

pipe supports, becomes less than the minimum specified operating temperature for the material, 

Crown Landing shall notify the Commission and specify procedures for corrective action within 

24 hours. Draft EIS section 4.12.2 

Crown Landing shall retx~ to the FERC staff any significant non-scheduled events, mcluding 

safety-related incidents (i.e., LNG or natural gas releases, fires, explosions, mechanical failures, 

unusual over pressurization, and major injuries) and security-related incidents (i.e., atterapts to 

enter site, suspicio~s activities), within 24 hours of the event. In the event an abnormality is of 

significant magnitude to threaten public or employee safety, cause significant property damage, 

or interrupt service, notification shall be made imn~diately, without unduly interfering with any 

necessary or appropriate emergency repair, alarm, or other emergency procedure. This 

notification practice shall he incorporated into the LNG facility's emergency plan. Examples of 

reportable LNG-related incidents inchidc: 

a. 

b. 

C. 

d. 

fire; 

explosion; 

estimated property damage of $50,000 or more; 

death or personal injury necessitating in-patient hospitalization; 

5-25 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

69. 

70. 

71. 

72. 

e. 

f. 

g. 

h. 

i. 

j. 

k. 

l. 

m. 

free flow of LNG for five minutes or more that results in pooling; 

unintended movement or abnormal loading by environmental causes, such as an 

earthquake, landslide, or flood, that imt~irs the serviceability, structural integrity, or 

reliability of an LNG facility that contains, controls, or processes gas or LNG; 

any crack or other material defect that impairs the structural integrity or reliability of an 

LNG facility that contains, controls, or processes gas or LNG; 

any malfunction or operating error that causes the pressure of a pipeline or LNG facility 

that contains or processes gas or LNG to rise above its maximum allowable operating 

pressure (or working pressure for LNG facilities) plus the build-up allowed for operation 

of pressure limiting or control devices; 

a leak in an LNG facility that contains or processes gas or LNG that constitutes an 

emergency; 

inner tank leakage, ineffective insulation, or frost heave that impairs the structural 

integrity of an LNG storage tank; 

any safety-related condition that could lead to an imminent hazard and cause (either 

directly or indirectly by remedial action of the operator), for proposes other than 

abandonment, a 20 percent reduction in operating pressure or shutdown of operation of a 

pipeline or an LNG facility that contains or processes gas or LNG; 

safety-related incidents to LNG vessels occurring at or en route to and from the LNG 

facility; or 

an event that is significant in the judgment of the operator and/or management even 

though it did not meet the above criteria or the guidelines set forth in an LNG facility's 

incident management plan. 

In the event of an incident, the Director of OEP has delegated authority to take whatever steps are 

necessary to ensure operational reliability and to protect human hfe, health, property or the 

environment, including authority to direct the LNG facility to cease operations. Following the 

initial company notification, FERC staffwould determine the need for a separate follow-up report 

or follow-op in the upcoming semi-annual operational report. All company follow-op reports 

shall include investigation results and recommendations to minimize a reoccurrence of the 

incident. Draft EJS section 4.12.2 

Crown Landing shall examine provisions to retain any vapor produced along the transfer line 

trenches and other areas serving to du'ect LNG spills to associated impoun&nents. Measures to 

he considered may include, but arc not limited to: vapor fencing; intermediate sump locations; or 

trench surface area reduction. Crown Landing shall file final drawings and specifications for 

these measures with the Secretary prior to construction. Draft EISsection 4.12.4 

Crown Landing shall coordinate with the U.S. Coast Guard (Coast Guard) to define the 

responsibilities of Crown Landing's security staff in supplementing other security personnel and 

in protecting the LNG ships and terminal. Draft EISsection 4.12.5 

Crown Landing shall develop emergency evacuation routes for the areas along the route of the 

LNG vessel transit in conjunction with the local emergency and town officials and file the routes 

with the Secretary for review and approval by the Director of OEP prior to ¢onstrnctlon. Draft 

EIS section 4.12. 5 

Crown Landing shall develop an Emergency Response Plan (including evacuation) and 

coordinate procedures with local emergency planning groups, fire departments, state and local 

law enforcement, and appropriate federal agencies. This plan shall include at a minimum: 

5 -26 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

73. 

4. 

a. 

b. 

C. 

d. 

e. 

f. 

designated contacts with state and local emergency response agencies; 

scalable procedures for the prompt notification of appropriate local officials and 

emergency response agencies based on the level and severity of potential incidents; 

procedures for notifying residents and recreational users within areas of potential hazard; 

evacuation routes for residents along the route of the LNG vessel transit; 

locations of permanent sirens and other warning devices; and 

an "emergency coordinator" on each LNG vessel to activate sirens and other warning 

devices. 

The Emergency Response Plan shall be filed with the Secretary for review and approval by the 

Director of OEP prior to commencement of service. Crown Landing shall notify FERC staff of 

all meetings in advance and shall report progress on its Emergency Response Plan at 6-month 

intervals starting at the commencement of eonsta'uetion. Draft EISsection 4.12.5 

Crown Landing shall provide a plan identifying the mechanisms for funding project-specific 

security/emergency management costs that will be irrtposed on federal and state agencies and 

local communities. Crown Landing shall file the plan with the Secretary no later than the 

comment period of the draft EIS so that the information can be included in the final EIS. Draft 

EIS section 4.12.5.2 

Crown Landing shall consult with the COE and Coast Guard regarding possible impacts to the 

Marcus Hook anchorage area from LNG vessel operations. Draft EIS section 4.12.8 

5-27 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

APPENDIX A 

DRAFT EIS DISTRIBUTION LIST FOR THE 

CROWN LANDING LNG PROJECT 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

APPENDIX A 

DRAFT EIS DISTRIBUTION LIST 

Fed,~ral C.,overnment Aeencies 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, CO 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, DC 

Director Cultural Resources 

Army Corps of Engineers, DC 

James Hand 

Army Corps of Engineers, PA 

William Jenkins 

Frank Cianfrani 

Center for Disease Control and Prevention, GA 

National Center for Environmental Health 

Kenneth W. Holt, MSEH 

L'mda Anderson 

Council on Environmental Quality, DC 

Department of Agriculture, DC 

Forest Service 

Director. Environmental Coordination Staff 

Natural Resources Conservation Service 

National Environmental Coordinator 

Office of Finance and Management 

Department of Agriculture, NJ 

Natural Resources Conservation Service 

Anthony Kramer, State Conservationist 

Department of Agriculture, PA 

Natural Resources Conservation Services 

Robin Heard, State Conservationist 

Department of Commerce, DC 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

Director of Ecology and Conservation 

Department of Commerce, MA 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - Fisheries 

Kristen Koyama, Protected Resources Division 

Department of Commerce, NJ 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

Stanley.W. Gorski, Field Offices Supervisor 

Department of Defense, DC 

Department of the Air Force 

Environment and Safety 

Department of Energy, De 

Office of Environmental Compliance 

Office of Intergovemmental Affairs 

Steve Letter 

Depann~nt of Homeland Security, PA 

U.S. Coast Guard 

Patrick Keffler 

LCDR Timothy E. Meyers, 

A-l 
Jnofficial FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

APPENDIX A (cont'd) 

Federal Government Atencies ~cont'd) 

Captain John Sarubbi 

Department of Housing and Urban Development. DC 

Director of Environment 

Department of Justice. De 

Land and Natural Resources Division 

Department of Labor. DC 

OWtce of Regulatory Economics 

Department of Safety and Homeland Security. DE 

Secretary James Ford. Jr. 

Department of State, De 

OWice of Environment/Health 

Department of the Interior. IX: 

National Park Service 

Office Environmental Policy and Compliance 

Director 

Department of the Interior. N5 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

Steve Mars 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - Fisheries 

Anita Riportella 

Department of the Interior, PA 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

Jennifer Kagel 

Maria Tur 

Department of Transportation, De 

Director of Environment & Policy 

DOT/RSPA/Eastem Region 

Alex Dankanich, CATS 

Office of Pipeline Safety 

Tom Former 

RSPA/OPS/Eastem Region 

William Oute, Director 

Environmental Protection Agency, De 

Office of Federal Activities 

Director 

Environmental Protection Agency, NY 

Region 2 

Lingard Knutson, Environmental Scientist 

Grace Musumeci, Chief - Environmental Review Section 

Environmental Protection Agency. PA 

Region 3 

William Arguto 

Kevin Magerr 

Barbara Okorn 

Interstate Commerce Commission. De 

Chief of Energy and Environment 

Library of Congress, De 

Exchange & Gift Division, Federal Documents Section 

A-2 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

APPENDIX A (cont'd) 

Federal Government Agenel~ (cont'd) 

Nuclear Regulatory Comm/ssion, PA 

Greg Smith 

Senate, DC 

Committee on Energy and Natural Gas 

F~leral Representatives anqt ,~engDrs 

Congressman Michael N. Castle 

Kate Rohrcr, Congressman Mike Castle's Office 

Steve Scango, Legislative Assistant to Congressman Mike Castle 

Carrie Casey, Office of Senator Carper 

Jim Riley, Office of Senator Carper 

Senator Joseph R. Biden 

Senator Thomas Carper 

Tonya Baker, Office of Senator Biden 

New Jersey. 

Representative Robert E. Andrews 

Senator Frank R. Lautonberg 

Senator Jon S. Corzine 

P#nnsylvania 

Carl Fitzgerald, Delaware County Staff Director for Congressman Robert Brady 

Congressman Curt Weldon 

Congressman Robert A. Brady 

Senator A.rlen Spector 

Senator Rick Santorum 

State Reoresentatives and Senators 

Representative V. G-tmrge Carey 

Wayne Smith, House Major/ty Leader 

Representative Robert J. Valihura Jr. 

Senator Catherine A. Cloutier 

Senator David McBride 

New Je v 

Assemblyman John J. Burzichelli 

A-3 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

APPENDIX A (cont'd) 

~tate Reuresentattves and Senators (cgnt'd) 

Assemblyman Douglas H. Fisher 

Senator Stephen M. Sweeney 

Pennsylvania 

Representative Thaddeus Kirkland 

Senator Dominic F. Pileggi 

Ngglve American Groups 

Charles D. Enyart, Chief, Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma, MO 

Mark Gould, Nanticoke-Lenni Lenape Indian Center, NJ 

Chief Roy Crazy Horse, New Jersey Commission on An~rican Indian Affairs, NJ 

Brian Patterson, Bear Clan Representative, Men's Council, Oneida Indian Nation, NY 

Clint Halftown, Heron Clan Representative, Cayuga Nation, NY 

Anthony Wonderlcy, Oneida Nation Historian, Oneida Indian Nation, NY 

Leo Henry, Chief, Tuscarora Nation, NY 

Irving Powless, Jr., Chief, Onondaga Indian Nation, NY 

Onondaga Nation, N'Y 

Kathleen Mitchell, THPO. Seneca Nation of Indians, Seneca-lroquois National Museum, NY 

A. Francis Boots, Historic Preservation Officer, St. Regis Mohawk Tribe, NY 

Emerson Webster, Chief, Tonawanda Band of Seneca Indians, NY 

Delaware Executive Committee, Delaware Nation, Oklahoma, OK 

Rhonda Fair, NAGPRA Contact, Delaware Nation, Oklahoma, OK 

Dee Ketchum, Chief, Delaware Tribe of Indians, OK 

Jennifer Makaseah, Cultural Preservation Officer, Absentee-Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma, OK 

James Lee Edwards, Governor, Absentee-Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma, OK 

Bruce Gonzalez, Tribal President, Delaware Nation, Oklahoma, OK 

David M. Scholes, M.A., NAGPRA Director, Delaware Nation, OK 

Jim Rementer, NAGPRA Contact, Delaware Tribe of Indians, Oklahoma, OK 

Brice Ohermeyer, NAGPRA Director, Delaware Tribe of Indians, OK 

Lcroy Howard, Chief, Seneca-Cayuga Tribe of Oklahoma, OK 

Tina Danforth, Chin, Oneida Trihe of Indians of Wisconsin, WI 

Robert Chicks, Tribal Chairman, Stockbridge-Munsec Community of Wisconsin, Wl 

Stockbridge-Munsee Tribal Council, Wl 

Oneida Business Committee, Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin, WI 

Sherry Sirgens, Cultural Preservation Officer, Wl 

State Government Aeenci~ 

Delaware 

A-4 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

APPENDIX A (cont'd) 

Governor Ruth Ann Minner 

Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control 

Phil Cherry, Director of Policy and Planning 

John A. Hughes, Secretary 

Ben Anderson 

Robert Palmer 

Accidental Release Prevention Program 

Bob Banish 

Air Quality Management Section 

Paul Foster 

Coastal Zone Act Program 

Dennis Brown 

Susan Love 

Division of Fish & Wildlife 

Craig Shirey 

Jeff Tiusman 

Karen Bennett 

Division of Water Resources 

Bill Moyer 

Laura Herr 

Emergency Management Agency 

Jame~ Turner r., Director 

Historical Society of Delaware 

Office of the Governor 

Philip Cabaud, Jr., Homeland Security Advisor 

River and Bay Authority 

Lt. Jack Cawmann, Counter Terrorism Coordinator 

State Historic Preservation Office 

Faye L. Stocum. Archaeologist 

Division of Historical and Cultural Affairs 

Daniel Cniffith 

Tri-S1ate Maritime Safety Association 

Doeg Dillon 

New Je~v 

Governor James E. McGreevey 

Chamber of Commerce 

James F. Leonard, Vice President, Gov't Relations 

D~Imrtn~t of Community Affain 

Division of iv'we Safety 

Lawrence Petrillo, Fire Marshal 

Department of Environmental Protection 

Ken Koschek 

Deborah Fimbel 

Bradley Campbell, Commissioner 

Bureau of Tidelands Management 

Rich Castagna, Commissioner 

Gary Sondermeyer, Chief of Staff 

Land Use Regulation Program 

A-5 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

APPENDIX A (cont'd) 

~tate C/,overnment A2encies (cont'd) 

Mark N. Mauriello, Director 

Patricia Chmlow, Coordinator 

Natural and Historic Resources, Historic Preservation Office 

Dorothy Guzzo 

Office of Dredging and Sediment Technology 

Suzanne Dietrick, Chief 

Office of Pollution Prevention 

Ruth W. Foster, Ph.D. 

State Historic Preservation Office 

Robert C. Shinn, Jr. 

Office of Counter-Terrc¢ism 

Sidney Caspersen 

Soil and Water Conservation Society 

Firman E. Bear Chapter 

State Police 

Marine Police 

It. Dean Rainier 

Office of Fire Department Preparedness 

Michael Gallagher, Emergency Response and Planning Specialist 

Michael Hall, Assistant Supervisor 

The New Jersey Historical Society 

Pennsylvania 

Governor Edward G. Rendell 

Department of Community and Economic Development 

SE Regional Office 

Department of Conservation and Natural Resources 

Michael DiBerardinis, Secretary 

Department of Environmental Protection 

John Kennedy 

Ron Drake, Program Director 

Kathleen A. McC_finty, Secretary 

Coastal Zone Management Program 

John Hines, Executive Director 

SE Regional Office 

Joseph A. Feola, Regional Director 

Department of Health 

Emergency Management Agency 

Eastern Region 

Tom Nervine 

Historical & Museum Commission 

Chart Funk 

Historical and Museum Commission 

Wayne S. Spilove, Chairman 

A-6 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

APPENDIX A (cont'd) 

Coenty Government Aeencles 

New Castle County, DE 

Chief Administrative Officer 

New Castle Historical Society 

Thomas P. Gordon, County Executive 

Gloucester County, NJ 

Bill Krehs 

Charles E. Romick, Director 

Dr. Warren S. Wallace 

Frank J. DiMar¢o 

Gloucester County Historical Society 

Gloucester County Sheriff 

Gloucester County Soil Conservation District 

Helene M. Reed 

J. Thomas Butts, Emergency Management Courdinator 

James N. Hogan 

John H. Fisher, III 

Joseph A. Brigandi 

Margaret Miners Smith 

Robert M. Damminger, Deputy Director 

William E. Rieger, Jr. 

William Reager 

Salem County, NJ 

Carl Wentzell 

Delaware County, PA 

Delaware County Historical Society 

Ed Magargee 

Haverford Township Historical Society 

Joseph F McGinn, Sheriff 

Ma.rple Newtown Historical Society 

Museum of the History of Delaware County 

The Delaware County Comn~rce Center 

Tim Murtaugh, Chairman of the County Council 

Town Government Agencies 

Erick Haley, F/re Chief, Claymont, DE 

Andy LoveU0 Logan EMS, BridgapoR, NJ 

Art Smith, Couneiiperson, Logan Township, Bridgelx~ NJ 

David P. Fanslau, Township Administrator, Township of Logan, Bridgeport, NJ 

Frank Minor, Mayor, Logan Township, Bridgeport, NJ 

Gary Whalen, Executive Director, Logan Municipal Utilities Authority, Bridgeport, NJ 

George Fisher, Chairnum, Logan Township Planning Board, Bridgeport, NJ 

Logan Township Police Department, Bridgeport, NJ 

A-7 
r . 

Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

APPENDIX A (cont'd) 

Town Government A~en~ies (cgnt'd] 

Marsha Gaventa, Councilperson. Logan Township, Bridgeport. NJ 

Mayor John C. Wright, 125 Main Street, Bridgeport, NJ 

Michael Smith, Chief, Logan Township Police Department, Bridgeport. NJ 

Patrick Spring, Fire Chief, Bridgeport Volunteer Fire Department, Bridgeport, NJ 

Phyllis Atkinson, Construction Official, Township of Logan Construction Office, Bridgeport, NJ 

Veronica Bills, Councilperson, Logan Township, Bridgeport, NJ 

Warren Rodgers, Deputy Mayor, Logan Township, Bridgeport, NJ 

William Tetes, OEM Director, Logan Township Office of Emergency Management. Bridgeport, N] 

Brian Murscell, President BFD, Bridgeport Fire Department, Swedesboro, NJ 

Mayor Dave Azzari, Swedesboro, NJ 

William Baltzel, Chief, Repaupo Volunteer Fire Department. Swedesboro, NJ 

Mayor Ralph Crarzia, Borough of Brookhaven, Brookhaven, PA 

Upland Police HDQRS, Brookhaven, PA 

Bill Payne, Director of City Planning, City of Chester, Chester, PA 

Commissioner John Finnegan, Chester Police Department, Chester, PA 

Mayor Wendell Butler, City of Chester, Chester, PA 

Albert Argentine, Council President, Municipal Building. Marcus Hook, PA 

Brace A. Dorbian, Borough Manager, Municipal Building. Marcus Hook. PA 

Bumie Gallows, Director Public Safety, Marcus Hook. PA 

George McClure, Mayor, Municipal Building, Marcus Hook. PA 

Jay Smith, Code Enforcement Officer, Marcus Hook, PA 

Joseph Manerchia, Fire Chief, Marcus Hook, PA 

Mervin Boyer, Council Vice President, Municipal Building, Marcus Hook, PA 

Brandywine Branch of the New Castle County Library, DE 

Gloucester County Library System, NJ 

Aston Public Library, PA 

J. Lewis Crozer Library, PA 

Media 

Shawn Wagner, Newark Review. Newark, DE 

The New Journal, Wilmington, DE 

Adam Fifield, Philadelphia Inquirer, South Jersey Bureau, Cherry Hill, NJ 

Daniele Cruz, Gloucester County Times, Woudbury, NJ 

Frank Gargano, General Manager. Gloucester County Times. Woodbury, NJ 

Gene Vernacehio, Courier-Post. Cherry Hill, NJ 

Jeanne Ridgeway, Courier Post. Cherry Hill, NJ 

Lisa Grzyboski. Courier-Post, Woodbury, NJ 

WPPX-TV, Swedesboro, NJ 

Chester News, ~r. PA 

A-8 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

APPENDIX A (cont'd) 

Orzanlzations and Individuals 

Ruth Celler Gold, lrvine, CA 

St. Francisville, LLC, Eureka, CA 

Peter E. O'Rourke, Sparber and Associates, Inc., Washington, DC 

Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Dept. of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC 

Ross Abson, New Castle, DE 

Tom Bacon, Newark, DE 

Skyla Barlow, Claymont, DE 

Dr. Kenneth Bell, Dover, DE 

Dick Berwick, Dover, DE 

Daniel Bockover, President, Council of Civic Organizations/Brandywine Hundred, Wilmington, DE 

Ms. Karen Emory Brittingham. Milford, DE 

Kevin D. Brown, Claymont, DE 

Eileen Butler, Delaware Nature Society, Hockessin, DE 

Bruce A. Cabo, Wilmington, DE 

C. Carey, Wilmington, DE 

Ms. Jean Conway, Council of Civic, Wilmington, DE 

Christina Cook, New Castle, DE 

William L. & Eileon P. Creighton, Middletown, DE 

Mr. Cuba Astronomical Observatory, Inc., Greenville, DE 

Mr. Mike D'Amico, Nassau, DE 

George J. Danneman, Wilmington, DE 

Mrs. Mary Dantzler, Smyrna, DE 

Mr. Matt Del Pizzo, President, Port Penn, DE 

John L. Deming, Vice President, Gov't Relations, Ciba Specialty Chemicals, Newport, DE 

Dr. AI Demio, Newark, DE 

Allen A. Denio, Phi), Newark, DE 

James Dennis, Dover, DE 

Rev Charles Dennis, Ellendale, DE 

Mr. Jim Dodd, Smyrna, DE 

Mr. James Falk, College of Marine Studies, Rehoboth Beach, DE 

Mr. Donald Farrell, Wilmington, DE 

John Flaherty, Wilmington, DE 

Ms. Lorraine Fleming, Hockessin, DE 

Richard Fleming, Delaware Nature Society, Wilmington, DE 

Mr. Robert Frederick, Dewey Beach, DE 

Attn: Juana Fuentes-Bowles, Director, Div. of Human Relations, Dept. of State, Jaines Wins State Service 

Center, Dover, DE 

Richard Gardner, Dover, DE 

Ms. Irene Goverts, Wilmington, DE 

Ms Joanne Griffin, Wilmington, DE 

Hagley Museum. Wilmington, DE 

Simeon Hahn, Wilmington, DE 

Dr. Bethany Hall-Long, Middletown, DE 

Ms. Barbara Harbin, Claymont, DE 

Mr. Holger H. Harvey, Odessa, DE 

Jeremiah & Ruth Hear0ey, Claymont, DE 

Debbie Heaton, Conservation Program Manager, Sierra Club Delaware Chapter, Wilmington, DE 

A-9 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

APPENDIX A (cont'd) 

Organizations and lndlvidua~ (~ng'~l) 

Ms. Debbie Hcaton, Middletown, DE 

Raymond G. Heinzelmann, Ph.D., Gahagan & Bryant Associates, Inc., Wilmington, DE 

Ray Hester, Clayrnont, DE 

Mr. Paul l-lirseman, New Castle, DE 

Ms. Margaret A. Ingrain, Legislative Liaison, Dover, DE 

Mr. Alden Jenkins, Wilmington Waterfront Watch, Wilmington, DE 

Mr. Roger L. Jones, The Nature Conservancy, Delaware Chap~r, Wilmington, DE 

Cathe Kalisz, Motiva Enterprises, Delaware City, DE 

Ms. Regina Katz, Wilmington, DE 

Kent Conservation District, Dover, DE 

Mr. Charles O. King, Wilmington, DE 

Kathy Klein, Partnership for the Delaware Estuary, Wilmington, DE 

Wallace Krerner, Wilmington, DE 

Mr. Jacob Kreshtool, Wilmington, DE 

Lisa & Michael Lasher, Millsboro, DE 

Max M. Levy, Wilmington, DE 

James Lockwood, Claymont' DE 

George Losse, President, Claymont Community Coalition, ClaymonL DE 

June D. MacArtor, Bear, DE 

Mr. Ed Malin, Bear, DE 

Gerald & Colleen Manley, Claymont, DE 

Mr. Mike McDowell, President, Middletown, DE 

Elder L. McDuffy, Hamilton Park Advisory Council, New Castle, DE 

Mary Anne McGonegal, Wilmington, DE 

Ms. Meredith McGregor, Wilmington, DE 

Ms Pamela Meitner, Wilmington, DE 

Mr. Robert Melson, DE Academy Science, Newark, DE 

Ms. Dorothy P. Miller, Newark, DE 

Ms. Martha Miller, Dover, DE 

Chris Motoyoshi, Executive Director, Tri-State Bird Rescue and Research, Newark, DE 

Alan Muller, Executive Director, Green Delaware, Port Penn, DE 

Irene Murray, Lewes, DE 

New Castle Conservation Dist., Newark, DE 

Mr. Tim O'Connor, Wyoming, DE 

Ms. La Vaida Owens-White, Wilmington, DE 

Jim Parks, Wilmington, DE 

Ms. Grace Pierce-Beck, Dover, DE 

John & Marie Pittenger, Env. Activities, Wilmington, DE 

Ms. Til Pornell, Millsboro, DE 

Michael Riska, Executive Director, Delaware Nature Society, Hockessin, DE 

Ms. Leah Roedel, DE River & Bay Shrln, Wilmington, DE 

Seth Ross, Delaware Nature Society, Newark. DE 

Bill Satterfield, Executive Director, Delmarva Poultry Industry, Inc., Georgetown, DE 

Ms. Glenda Scott, Georgetown, DE 

Mr. Donald Sharp, United Auto Workers, Newark, DE 

Ms. Gwynne Smith, Wilmington, DE 

Mr. David Sokola, Newark, DE 

Mr. Carl Solberg, Dover, DE 

A-10 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

APPENDIX A (cont'd) 

Orsmnizations and Individuals (enat'd) 

Nicholas Staikos, Wilmington, DE 

Sussex Conservation District, Georgetown, DE 

Mr. Marvin Thomas, Wilmington, DE 

Mr. Dave Timmons, Newark, DE 

Mr. Stephen Tindall, Wilmington, DE 

Pat Todd, Wilmington, DE 

Tri-State Bird Rescue, Newark, DE 

Mr. Harold Truxon, Ellendale, DE 

Ms. Rim M. Vista, Wilmington, DE 

Ms. Carol Walsh, Newark, DE 

Wini Walton, Dover, DE 

Ms. Dolores A. Washam, Urban Environmental Center, Wilmington, DE 

Watch our Waterways, Dover, DE 

Mr. Winston Wayne, Wilmington, DE 

Lyman Welch, Wilmington, DE 

Ms. Teresa Whitaker, Dover, DE 

Mr. Newlin E. Wood, Jr., Wilmington, DE 

Morton J. Berman, Boca Patten, FL 

Eugene Mori, Miami, FL 

Salvatore & Cecilia Roma" c/o Eleanor Smith. POA. Ocala, FL 

Mr. Ron Spencer, Mgr. Real Estate, CSX Real Property, Jacksonville, FL 

Gregory J. Bertha PE, Chicago Bridge & Iron Company, Plainfield, IL 

J.D. Lormand, Executive Director, Rocky Mountain Pipeline Contractors Assoc., Lafayette, LA 

Eddie Soileau, Eunice, LA 

Leon Bowdoin, Fall River, MA 

Gus McLachlan, Duke Energy Gas Transmission, Waltham, MA 

C-ene Muhlherr, Duke Energy Gas Transmission, Waltham, MA 

Realty Associates Fund Vi, LP, Boston, MA 

Army Corps of Engineers Baltimore, MD 

Claire Hlemyr, Silver Spring, MD 

Jim Grant, Soil Safe, Inc., Columbia, MD 

Dave Keifer, Sierra Club of Delaware, Dover, MD 

Mr. Walter Kennell, Soil Safe Inc., Baltimore, MD 

Susan Peterson, Elkton, MD 

Randy Duncan, Natural Resource Group, Inc., Minneapolis, MN 

Jeff Thommes, Natural Resource Group, Minneapolis, MN 

Nancy Allen, Logan Township, NJ 

John Ambcose, Ferro Plant Manager, BHdgeport, NJ 

Marlene Z. Asselta, President, Southern New Jersey Development Council, Tumersville, NJ 

Donald D. Bell. President, Siegfried (USA), lnc., Pennsville, NJ 

Mr. Michael Bogdan, Carpenter Environmental, Ramsey, NJ 

Richard and Kimberly Bond. Logan Township. NJ 

A-II 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

APPENDIX A (cont'd) 

Orsmnizations and Individuals (eont'd) 

Dominick Borrelli. Logan Township. NJ 

Joseph and Eleanor Borrelli. Logan Township. NJ 

Joseph and Eleanor Borrclli, Pedricktown. NJ 

Todd Bosco. Logan Township, NJ 

Ida M. Bouhinghouse. Bridgeport. NJ 

Robert Cassidy. Pedricktown, NJ 

David Charles, President and CEO, Revere Industries I.,I.,C, Clayton, NJ 

Alfard D. Collier Jr., Swedesboro, NJ 

Anthony Conte, Gibbstown, NJ 

Robert Costello, Logan Township, NJ 

Robert Costello, Logan Township, NJ 

Romeo and Jennie Costello, Logan Township, NJ 

Joanna Crane, Logan Township, NJ 

Joel and Margaret Cressman, Sr., Logan Township, NJ 

Brendan Daly, Swedesboro, NJ 

Rakesh Darji, Remington & Vemick Engineers, Haddonfield, NJ 

David Dorsey, Enterprise Transportation Co., Pedricktown, NJ 

Kathleen A. Davis, Executive Vice President, Chamber of Commerce of Southern N J, Voorhees, NJ 

Elizabeth Davison Hyde, Roux Associates, Inc., West Deptford, NJ 

Corby Dee,~, Jr., Logan Township, NJ 

Debra P. DiLorenzo, President, Chamber of Comn~rce of Southern NJ, Voorhees, NJ 

Charles Dippo, Folsora, NJ 

Jennie Dobrowolski, Logan Township, NJ 

Gene Dougherty, Franklinville, NJ 

David Warren DuRon St., Logan Township, NJ 

David Warren Dutton, St, Logan Township, NJ 

Duttons" Pedricktown. NJ 

Mr. Charles M. Evans, Solutia Inc. & Ferro Corp., Bridgeport, NJ 

Estate of Vincent Faulls, David Faulls, Executor, Bridgeport, NJ 

New Jersey Environmental Federation, Belmar, NJ 

Solutia Inc. Ferro Corp., Tax Dept., Bridgeport, NJ 

Willard & Dorothy Folker, Bridgeport, NJ 

Bruce D. Fusello, Bridgeport, NJ 

Marsha Gaverta, Logan Township, NJ 

Leo & Doris Gillen, Bridgeport, NJ 

Mr. Bob Golden, TRC Environmental, Lindhurst, NJ 

George S. Hawkins, Chair, NJ Council of Watershed Associations, Pennington, NJ 

Jerry Hemandez, Logan Township. NJ 

Margaret A. Hollifred, Bridgeport, NJ 

Estate of Raymond Hughes, Charles Hughes, Executor, Logan Township, NJ 

David R. and Rob'in L. Hunt, Logan Township, NJ 

Samuel and Mary Kille, Logan Township, NJ 

Marcia Ledford, Soil Safe, Logan Township, NJ 

James L. Lee, Thorofare, NJ 

Alice L. Licciardello, MICKLETON, NJ 

Logan Township Municipal Utilites Authority, Bridgeport, NJ 

Beth MacWatters, Thorofare, NJ 

Stephen P. Magenta, General Maintenance and Labor, Inc., Thomfare, NJ 

A-12 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

APPENDIX A (cont'd) 

Organizattpns and Individuals (epnt'd) 

Josephine Magnanti, Sicklerville, NJ 

James Maley, Jr. Esquire, Gloucester County Improvement Authority, Marlton, NJ 

Victor M. & Zaida M. Martinez, Camden, NJ 

Mr. David Meiskin, Logan 529 Group, LLC, Freehold, NJ 

Rick Meng, Supervisor of Pemfits, New Jersey Department of Transportation, Cherry Hill, NJ 

Paul and Candace Mogavero, Logan Township, NJ 

Owen Morris, New Jersey Department of Transportation, Cherry Hill, NJ 

Edwin Mccrow, Logan Township, NJ 

Pat Mulligan, President/Chairman, Oldmans Creek Watershed Association, Mullica Hill, NJ 

Floyd and Josephine Muntz, Logan Township, NJ 

Liz Murphy, DE River Port Authority, Camden, NJ 

Mike Nichols, Woolwick Township, NJ 

Margie Norton, Bamsboro, NJ 

Linda NothdurfL Logan Township, NJ 

William J. O'Connor, Delaware River Port Authority, Camden, NJ 

Oldmans 130 Realty LLC, HOLMDEL, NJ 

Eugene N. & Linda L. Osward, Jr., BRIDGEPORT° NJ 

Bob Otten, Logan Township, NJ 

Keystone Urban Renl, Ltd. Parmership, Can~ys Point, NJ 

Gary Patterson, Comm/ssioner, DE River Port Authority, Camden, NI 

Robert & Ruth Paz, Bridgeport, NJ 

Michael F. Perch, Vice President, Valero Paulsboro Refinery, Paulsboro, NJ 

William C. Pickett, Pedricktown, NJ 

Samuel A. Pignatelli, VP, South Jersey Gas Company, Folsom, NJ 

Elmer F. & Steven Powell, Logan Township, NJ 

David Pringle, Campaign Director, New Jersey Environmental Federation, Marlton, NJ 

Manager-Corporate Properties Public Service Electric and Gas Company, Newark, NJ 

Jay Rodgers, Logan Township, NJ 

John M. Rowley, Vice President of Operations, Troemner, Thorofare, NJ 

Mr. Mike Salvador, National Energy & Gas Transmission, Swedesboro, NJ 

Mr. Richard Santo, Solutia Inc. & Ferro Corp., Bridgeport, NJ 

A. & Ramos B. Santos, Logan Township, NJ 

F. Savetchy. Est., C/O J. Dobrowolski, Logan Township, NJ 

Mary Schubert, Bridgeport, NJ 

Leakadia Sieracimski, Logan Township, NJ 

New Jersey Sierra Club, Trenton, NJ 

Joseph Smyk, Logan Township, NJ 

Jim Soosa, Logan Power Plant Manager, Swedesboro, NJ 

Tony Spadaccini, Swadeshoro, NJ 

William and Joan Sparks, Logan Township, NJ 

Charles E. Spires, St., Swedasboro, NJ 

William J. & Donna M. Stewart, Logan Township, NJ 

Fred Sting, Westmonl, NJ 

Bill Sullivan, Westville, NJ 

Felicia Thomas-Friel, Esq., Managing Attorney-Gas, State of New Jersey Division of Ratepayer Advocate, 

Newark, NJ 

Kim Thompson, Logan Township, NI 

Jeff Tittle, New Jersey Sierra Club, Trenton, NJ 

A-13 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

APPENDIX A (cont'd) 

Qrganizations and Individpal~ (~:gnl['O) 

Richard R. Trout, Operations Di~ctor, Johnson Matthey, West Deptford, NJ 

John Tull, Logan Township, NJ 

Andrew & Mary I. Valesky, Bridgeport, NJ 

Charles R. Ward, Port Services. LLC, Sewell, NJ 

Deborah Weiner, Swedesboro, NJ 

Artis R. Williams, Plant Manager, Air Products and Chemicals, Inc., Panlsboro, NJ 

Robert Winzinger, Inc., Hainesport, NJ 

Madge & George Wright, C/O Doris Wright, Bridgeport, NJ 

J. Wright & S. McCormick, Logan Township, NJ 

Jim Wrynn, Public Service Electric and Gas Company Service Corp., Newark, NJ 

Dan DuBois, Albany, NY 

Transcontinental Gas Pipeline Corp.. Tulsa. OK 

Aaron Tahemacle Church, Bishop William Blackwell, Sr., Chester, PA 

Lawrence J. Abadie, Brookhaven, PA 

Sbawn S. & Dolores S. Adamek, Brookbaven, PA 

Capt. Greg Adams, USCG (Ret.), Maritime Consulting Solutions, Drexel Hill, PA 

Felix O. Agbiro, Chester, PA 

James E. Ailes, Brookhaven, PA 

Michael F. Alloway, MFA Properties, LLC, Boothwyn, PA 

Thomas Annas, TA Truck Sales, Chester, PA 

Lawrence A. Jr. & ParWicia D. April, Glen Mills, PA 

Philip A. & Eileen J. Askey, Wallingford, PA 

Paula Atwell, Brookbaven, PA 

James J. & Eileen P. Babenko, Brookhaven, PA 

John Bachle, Linwood, PA 

Perry M. Rosemary Bannister, Chester, PA 

Richard Bant& Boothwyn, PA 

Andrew S. & Patricia L. Barolo, Brookhaven, PA 

Carol L. Bedrosian, Brookhaven, PA 

Edwin H. Beisel, Brookhaven, PA 

Arthur Bell, Elaine Bell, Brookhaven, PA 

Joseph E. Benton, McAIlister Towing of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA 

Jesse A. Berry, Gertrude Phillips, Chester, PA 

Helene D. Bilson, Brookhaven. PA 

Stephen H. Bixby, Wallingford, PA 

John Jr. & Donna Blosinski, Gradyville, PA 

Edward M. & Wanda Bogucki, Brookhaven, PA 

George & Maria Borhegy. Brookhaven. PA 

Victor M. & Mattie B. Bowes, Chester. PA 

Lawrence Bowman, Chester. PA 

Henry A. Boyd, Chester, PA 

Margaret V. Boyle, Brookhaven, PA 

Brandywine Conservancy, Cbadds ford, PA 

Brandywine Valley Association. West Chester, PA 

Jason E. Breeden, Brookhaven, PA 

Karen Brooks, Brookhaven, PA 

A-14 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

APPENDIX A (cont'd) 

Qrganlzatigns gnd lndivklpals (cont'd) 

Alfred & Jeanne Brower, Brookhaven, PA 

Carl T. & Debra Jean Brown, Broold~van, PA 

James T. & Jo~phine Brusenham, Chester, PA 

Ella D. Bryant, Chester, PA 

Walter M. Burch, Jr., Chester, PA 

David Burk, Brookhaven, PA 

James T. Jr. & Cheayl L. Burke, Brookhaven, PA 

James B. & Paula M. Cadden, Brookhaven, PA 

Mr. John Campanelli, Glenn Mills, PA 

Anthony & Joan Canci, Brookhaven, PA 

Michael D. Cannon, Wallingford, PA 

Kevin Carroll, Chester, PA 

Chester Township, Chester, PA 

City of Chester, Veteran's Memorial Park, Chester, PA 

Arthur E. Colby Jr., Brookhaven, PA 

Community of Christ, Light of Hope, Rev. James Reed, Philadelphia, PA 

Lou Cordivari, PennDot, Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, Media, PA 

John J. Coscia" Executive Director, Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission, philadclphia, PA 

Sophie R. & Renald J. Crepack, Brookhaven, PA 

Mr. B. Crimmins, VP Facilities, Chester Community Hospital, Brookhaven, PA 

George Crum, Southwest Delaware County Municipal Authority, Asten, PA 

Debra Culhert, Brookhaven, PA 

William E. Dallam, Chester, PA 

George H. Daly, Havertown, PA 

Steve D'Angelo, Danbro L.P., philadelphia, PA 

William R. & Terry E. Davis, Chester, PA 

Terence C. Davis, Donna McParflan, E. Fallowfield, PA 

Alvin D. Daviston, Jr., Chester, PA 

Linda A. Dawson, Chester, PA 

Dante N. Deannuntis, Media, PA 

Ralph Delorenzo, Brookhaven, PA 

William & Patricia DeMaio, Brookhaven, PA 

James F. & Deborah A. Devlin, Brookhaven, PA 

Roger Dickson, Rhonda D. Dickson, Brookhaven, PA 

Joe Digulia, VP-GM Delaware County, Come&st Cablevision of Southeast PA, Inc., Wallingford, PA 

Theo Dobrowolski, Brookhaven, PA 

Mr. Barry Dony, American Atlantic Company, King of Prussia, PA 

Michael J. & Mary Ann Dougherty, Brookhaven, PA 

Don Dowd, Anthony's Home Improvement, Inc, Chester, PA 

Dorothy M. Drape, Chester, PA 

Nellie Duke & Fahd R. Youssef, Chester, PA 

William J & Elsie G. Dunn, Brookhaven, PA 

David A. & Michelle V. Duplicki, Brookhaven, PA 

James, Ruth & Gilbert Emerson, Chester, PA 

Gregory O. Evans, Mickael K. Evans, Chester, PA 

Helen Evans, Clw~ter, PA 

Otis & Helen L. Evans et al, Chester, PA 

James T. Faley, Jr., Evelyn Faley, Chester, PA 

A-L5 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

APPENDIX A (cont'd) 

Qmanizatlom and lmiivtdtals (cont'd) 

Thomas M. Fasbinder, Brookhaven, PA 

William N. Fenimom, Brookhaven, PA 

Allen Egner Beers, Brookhaven, PA 

Robt E. & Claile Finucane, Brookhaven, PA 

Derek R. Flanagan, Brookhaven, PA 

Mike Floyd, Philadelphia, PA 

Joseph P. & Jean Foster, Brookhaven, PA 

Maureen Patricia Oallagher, Brookhavon, PA 

LTC George Gallenthin, Philadelphia, PA 

Joseph & Rose Garrity, Brookhaven, PA 

Mayor Ralph Garzia, Borough of Brookhaven, Brookhaven, PA 

Stephen & Louise Gogatz, Brookhaven, PA 

Anthony Grasso. Dec, con Buildings, Drexel Hill, PA 

George G. & Patricia A. Grief, Chester, PA 

Thomas J. Gt~ck, Chairman, Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission. The Brouse Building. 

Philadelphia, PA 

James & Dorothy T. Hall, Chester, PA 

Albert A. & Tonya D. Haman, Chester, PA 

Sylvia Handy, Chester. PA 

Stephen J & Genie L. Harm,an, Brookhaven, PA 

Frederick & Mary J. Harmer, Brookhaven, PA 

David & Marietta Harper, Chester, PA 

Garrett R. & Debbie A. Hartzell, Brookhaven, PA 

Marcus W. & Joanne Haselfine. Brookhaven, PA 

Thomas Hemingway, Chester, PA 

Donna Henry, Chester, PA 

John W. Jr. & Thersa A. Henry, Brookhaven, PA 

Joseph & Maxine Honson, Chester, PA 

David Hessil, Brookhaven, PA 

Christina Hill, Chester, PA 

Robert & Sheryl Hoffman, Brookhaven, PA 

Richard Holmes et ux, Brookhaven, PA 

William Houpt, Jean E. Hoopt, Ridley Park, PA 

John Huczko, Brookhaven, PA 

Housing & Urban Development, Philadephia, PA 

Frank J. Huessen, McAIlister Towing of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA 

Jerry Hunt, Manager of Philadelphia Zone Operations, Frito Lay, Inc., King of Prussia, PA 

Catherine R. Huppman, Brookhaven, PA 

Joseph & Patricia Iacono, Brookhaven, PA 

Cero & Elizabeth lannucci, Brookhaven, PA 

Samuel & Joan Impagliazzo, Brookhaven, PA 

Joshua L. & Denise L. Irvan, Brookhaven, PA 

Eugene J. Jablowski, Jr., Chester, PA 

Raymond & Marlene Jackson, Chester, PA 

William J. Jennings, Brookhaven, PA 

Howard & Kathleen Johnson, Brookhaven, PA 

Mae B. Johnson, Brookheven, PA 

William & Lydia Johnson, Brookhaven, PA 

A-16 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

APPENDIX A (cont'd) 

Oraanlzatlon~ and Indlvidp~ls (cont'd) 

Willie L. & Anna B. Johnson, Chester, PA 

Edward & Lisette Jones, Brookhaven, PA 

Ms. Jan Kalb, White Clay Watershed, Landenberg, PA 

Patrick Killian, Executive Directc~, Redevelopment Authority of Delaware County, Media, PA 

Cottman Kirkwoed, Myrtle Starkey, Chester, PA 

Andrey D. & Vent Kisha, Brookhaven, PA 

Stanley Klemaszewski, Brookhaven, PA 

Mahnmud Kneifati, ~ter, PA 

Michael Kolar, Rivenown Developers LP, Conshohocken, PA 

John P. Koliba` Brookhaven, PA 

Edward T. Kozlowski, Brookhaven, PA 

Mr. Phil Kraus, Landenberg, PA 

Jay S. & Harriet W. Kravitz, Brookhaven, PA 

Donald Krupa` Chester, PA 

Maya Kvan-Rosanm, Delaware River Keepers, Washington Crossing, PA 

Carolyn J. Langley, Brookhaven, PA 

John F. & Mary L. Larison, Brookhaven, PA 

Wm & Eliz C. Lawlor, Brookhavcn, PA 

Helen Lawrence, Chester, PA 

Marcus A. & Heather J. Leclerc, Brookhaven, PA 

Richard Lehr, Manager/Secretary, Aston Township, Aston, PA 

Charles H. Leslie, Brookhaven, PA 

Hal Lindsay, Faith Baptist Church, Wayne, PA 

Hal Lindsay, Faith Community Church of Brookhaven, Wayne, PA 

Hal Lindsay, Strategis Property Trust LLC, Wayne, PA 

Walter A. Linewicz, Brookhaven, PA 

James & Sonia Long, Wailingford, PA 

Tamara Long, Wallingford, PA 

Stephen M. & Nichole A. Lorenski, Brooldmven, PA 

Hardy D. & Ella R. Lundy, ~ter, PA 

Howard W. & Christine E. Maier, Brookhaven, PA 

Moses Manley, ~ter, PA 

Samuel Manley, Chester, PA 

Paulette Mapp, West Grove, PA 

Christine Margetich, Brookhaven, PA 

Victor M. & Zaida M. Martinez, Brookhaven, PA 

Marc Marusco, Linwood, PA 

George & Olga Matuszewski, Brookhaven, PA 

Robert J. & Christine May, Aston, PA 

Lcmma Mayer, Brookhaven, PA 

Vemel Mayo, Chester, PA 

John H & Ann Marie McCarthy, Brookhaven, PA 

James & Judith McClain, Brookhaven, PA 

Willie & I.,oeise McClairen, Chester, PA 

Mary C. & Carol A. McCloskey, Brooklmven, PA 

Carl P. McCollough, Brookhnven, PA 

John A. McDermott Jr., Brookhaven, PA 

John M. & Bridget E. McGill, Brookhaven, PA 

A-17 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

APPENDIX A (cont'd) 

Or1~nlzaflom aqd In~Iivlduals (cont'd) 

Joseph & Barbara McGonigle, Brookhaven, PA 

Edward J. & Doris A. McKay, Brookhaven, PA 

Norfolk SouLtwxn Railway Company, c/o James McKay, DMJM+HARRIS, Harrisburg, PA 

Oliver McNair, Foster H. McNair, Chester, PA 

Foster McNair et al, Chester, PA 

Raymond P. Meloni, Norwood, PA 

Joseph R. Metzger, Jr., Joseph Skulski, Jr., Glen Mills, PA 

Robert A. Michaliszyn, Brookhaven, PA 

James D. Miller, West Chester, PA 

Veneta N. Miller, Brookhaven, PA 

Doreen Miller, Bessie White, Chester, PA 

Joseph J. Monroe, Brookhaven, PA 

David Montella, Brookhaven, PA 

William J. Moran, Media, PA 

Doug Moser, Boothwyn, PA 

Kent Murphy, Exelon Business Services Company, Philadelphia, PA 

Frank & Mellissa Myers, Brookhaven, PA 

Ronald J. Jr. & Christine D. Probert, Brookhaven, PA 

Wilfred & Doris R. Negron, Brookhaven, PA 

Cary Nicholas, Executive Director, Audubon Pennsylvania State Office, Harrisburg, PA 

Raymond E. Nowsatha, Brookhaven, PA 

Christopher J. Oakley & Carolyn Fry, Brookhaven, PA 

Alice M. Obrien, Chester, PA 

Michael O'Brien, Brookhaven, PA 

Bernard J. Orensky, Brookhaven, PA 

Bill On', Real Estate Supervisor, Verizon, Upper Darby, PA 

Thomas W. & Alethea Ouderkirk, Chester, PA 

Michael T. Oziraky, Brookhaven, PA 

Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, District 6, King of Prussia, PA 

Armand C. Pace, Media, PA 

Paolella Construction Company, Lawrence J. Sr. & Melinda K. Paolella, Media, PA 

Shantibhai & Bhanuben S. Patel, Brookhaven, PA 

William T. III& Cheryl A. Peabody, Brookhaven, PA 

Nerissa Pepito, Stroehmann Bakeries, L.C., Horsham, PA 

Carl A. & Mary S. Petka, Brookhaven, PA 

Donald B. Phillips, Brookhaven. PA 

Bill Pisarek, Township Manager, Chester Township, Chester, PA 

Gerald Piscotty, Brookhaven, PA 

Robert L. Polishuk, Media, PA 

Jay R. Pollard, Brookhaven, PA 

Mark & Cathy M. Pollock, Brookhaven, PA 

Denise Ponle, Brookhaven, PA 

Frank Potter, Chester, PA 

George R. & Blanche M. Price, Chester, PA 

David Prox, Brookhaven, PA 

Annette Pyatt, Chester, PA 

Bill Quinn, Area Supervisor, Texas Eastern Transmission, LP, Uwchland, PA 

Robert J. & Stacey L. Raker, Brookhaven, PA 

A-18 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

APPENDIX A (cont'd) 

Organizations and Individuals (cont'd) 

William J. & Lisa M. Raven, ~ter, PA 

Stephen & Beth Ann Reinhart, Brookhaven, PA 

Jacqueline L. Rinaldi, Brookhaven, PA 

Heriberto & Mary Rosario, Chester, PA 

Paul Royer, Duke Energy Gas Transmission, Uwchland, PA 

Richard A. & Karen M. Ruark, Brookhaven, PA 

Richard N. Rudolf, Chester, PA 

Patricia Salvadore, Frances Brady, Brookhaven, PA 

Donald R. & Caterina F. Salvino, Brookhaven, PA 

Nicholas Sanbe, Ronald P. lee, Che,qer, PA 

Richard W. & Agnes D. Sands, Brookhaven, PA 

John Savoy, SMS, Inc., Aston, PA 

David Allen & Lynn M. Saxton, Brookhaven, PA 

Peter C. Schlett, Chester, PA 

David Scioechitti, Executive Director, Redevelopment Authority of ~ter, Chester, PA 

Jane Segal, Merrill Sporkin, Villanova, PA 

Charles J. & Kristen D. Seitz, Brookhaven, PA 

Joseph P. Shannon, Havertown, PA 

Patricia J. Shober Dubolino, Brookhaven, PA 

Edward J. & Nora H. Short, Chester, PA 

Elizabeth Jean Shrobak, Brookhaven, PA 

Edward J. Siedleski, Brookhaven, PA 

Sierra Club Pennsylvania Chapter, Harrisburg, PA 

Walter D. & Kathleen Siko, Brookhaven, PA 

James W. & Theresa L. Silva, Brookhaven, PA 

Joseph R. Simeone, Rosemary Simeone, WaJlingford, PA 

Larry Simmons, Brookhaven, PA 

Robert C. & Elizabeth P. Single)', Brookhaven, PA 

Michael & Gina Skinner, ~ter" PA 

John K. & Dixie Skolnicki, Brookhaven, PA 

James & Ann Skulski, Brookhaven, PA 

John A. & F. Kristine Skulskl, Brookhaven, PA 

Rodney Stark, Exelon Generating, LLC, Philadelphia, PA 

Gretchen R. Starkey, Chester, PA 

Mary F. Stroffolino, Brookhaven, PA 

Sun Pipeline Company, Philadelphia, PA 

William & Julia Tabron, Chester, PA 

Delaware County Tax Claim Bureau, Media, PA 

Delinquent Tax Claim Bureau, Delaware County, Media, PA 

Anne Taylor, Bronkhaven, PA 

Bruce A. & Suzanne M. Tharp, Brookhaven, PA 

Steven D. & Pamela Tbeisen, Boothwyn, PA 

Clarence C. & Therest Thomas, Chester, PA 

Robert & Clara Thorms, Chester, PA 

Albert A. & Kim Y. Thompson, Chester, PA 

Sylvester & Arcisa Thompson, Chester, PA 

Philip M. Tigne, Asum, PA 

Joseph H. Tran, Kim Ngnyen, Brookhaven, PA 

A-19 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

APPENDIX A (cont'd) 

Oraala~tloas and Individuals (cont'd) 

Pasquale Travaglini, Brookhaven, PA 

Thomas V. Travaglini, Brookhaven, PA 

Michael Trout, Brookhaven, PA 

James R. & Mary A. Turk, Brookhaven, PA 

Robert N. Turner, Brookhaven, PA 

Walter Twardowskl Jr., Boothwyn, PA 

McKinley & Barbara Tyler, Chester, PA 

Robert & Michalle Velez, Brookhaven, PA 

Daniel B. Vicario, Brookhaven, PA 

Rosemade Walls, Brookhaven, PA 

Charlie L. Warren I1, Chester, PA 

Hector A. & Pamela D. Watson, Chester, PA 

Dr. Joyce Wells, Principal, Toby Farms Elementary School, Chester, PA 

Karl Westerville, Project Leader, Rivertown Developers, LP, Conshohocken, PA 

A. Simeon & Victoria Whitehill, Lima, PA 

Robert Wicker, Brookhaven, PA 

Kimberly Wilcox, Chester, PA 

Curtis Williams, Chester, PA 

Thomas & Sallie Williams, c/o Richard Berry, Chester, PA 

Kevin P. Williamson, Brookhaven, PA 

Margaret Williamson, Chester, PA 

James & Betty L. Wilson, Chester, PA 

John J. Jr. & Lotto'me M. Wilwert, Brookhaven, PA 

Isabel Wimmer, Aston, PA 

John B & Patricia A. Winters, Brookhaven, PA 

Jonathan & Alana Winters, Brookhaven, PA 

Charles Witomski, Bridgewater Associates, Chester, PA 

Ronald & Dorothy C. Wood, Brookhaven, PA 

Lloyd Yarnell, Brookhaven, PA 

John E. Youngdahi, Amtrak, Philadelphia, PA 

George Zagama, Jr., Brook.haven, PA 

Ehab M. & Tina Zahran, Brookhaven, PA 

Nell Gutierrez, Duke Energy Regulatory Affairs, Houston, TX 

J. PatTick Tielborg, Pipeline Contractors Association, Dallas, TX 

A-2O 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

APPENDIX B 

TYPICAL RIGHT-OF-WAY CROSS SECTIONS 
PI~OPO/I~D LOGAN 

PROI~G~ED LOGAN LAll;RAL PERM ROW 

EXI~'IING 14" TETCO ~NCLAIR PIPIELIN~ PERMANENT ROW 

EXIS'~ING 14" 't~'t'CO ~IC LAJI~ PtP~L.IN~ 

PR(:P(~I~ ~ LOGAN LATERAL CL 

ExI/rrlNG 14" l~rrco ~NCLAIR I~I~.LINE PERMANENT 

PROPOSED LOGAN LATERAL p~ ROaN • 

t(t¢O t r It0w 

m i:tA~ 

MP 0.00 TO 0.10 

Appendix B 

Logan Lateral Project 

Typical Right-of-Way Cross Sections 

Configuration Parallel to Existing 14-inch Pipeline sheetlof181 

0 

fl 

M 

I 

fO 

fO 

0 

t~ 

Q 

Q 

Q 

t~ 

t~ 

t~ 

I 

Q 

Q 

t~ 

fO 

M 

0 

M 

Q 

t~ 

t~ 

Q 

Q 

0 

fl 

fO 

P0 

0 

I 

I 

0 

0 

0 
,I . 50' 

~ I 25 I 

_ ~ , ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 

PROPOII~D LOGAN "t~ 

PROPOIIED LOGAN LATERAL pERM 

PROPOSED 30" LOGAN LATIBRAL CL 

EXIS~NG 14"I~'TCO ~INCLAIR PIPELINE PERI~I~NENT 

EXISTING 14" TETCO SINCLAIR PIPELINE 

EXIIrnNG 14" TETCO SINCLAIR P/PELINE PERMANENT ROIN 

PROPOSe) LOGAN LATERAL pEI~I~ ROAN& 

LEgeND 

Tf IrCO 1 411" wow 

........ LOG,IN T I~ Bp,I:~ lW y 

WO~X ~; ['A£I~ 0'W'J ) 

MP 0.10 TO 0.21 

MP 1.21 TO 1.23 

Appendix B 

Logan Lateral Project 

Typical Right-of-Way Cross Sections 

Configuration Parallel to Existing 14-inch Pipeline Sheet 2 of 18 

0 

fl 

M 

I 

fO 

fO 

0 

t~ 

Q 

Q 

Q 

t~ 

t~ 

t~ 

I 

Q 

Q 

t~ 

fO 

M 

0 

M 

Q 

t~ 

t~ 

Q 

Q 

0 

fl 

fO 

P0 

0 

I 

I 

0 

0 

0 
==================

~ LOGAN 1Rh~ 

PROPO~D LOGAN LA'nERAL PERM ROW 

P ROPO~EO ~0" LOGAN LATERAL CL 

PROPO~B) LOGAN LATERAL PEI~ ROW& "IWll 

MP 0.21 TO 0.30 

NOTE: PROPOSED PIPr=UNE ROUTED THROUGH AN 

E)~'TING, PAVED PARIONG LOT 

m~ 

........ LOOA~ T E tIPCI~A~' 

v~w~ SPJC~ ~) 

Appendix B 

Logan Lateral Project 

Typical Right-of-Way Cross Sections 

Configuration of New Right-of-Way S~eet 3of 18 J 

0 

fl 

M 

I 

fO 

fO 

0 

t~ 

Q 

Q 

Q 

t~ 

t~ 

t~ 

I 

Q 

Q 

t~ 

fO 

M 

0 

M 

Q 

t~ 

t~ 

Q 

Q 

0 

fl 

fO 

0 

I 

I 

0 

0 

0 
LEGEND 

TETCO 14" ROW 

L 0 G:,~ ROW 

P P ELINE 

LOO.~ TE MP L.-~..o~'~, 

WO, R P~ SPACE ffWS.~ 

MP 0.30 TO 1.19 

MP 2.71 TO 2.92 

MP 2.95 TO 3.15 

MP 3.71 TO 4.00 

MP 4.02 TO 4.20 

0 I-~ 

I-~ 

I-,. Q 

I-,. 

EXISTING ROAD ROW 

PROPOSED LOGAN LATERAL BY PERMIT 

PROPOSED 30" LOGAN LATERAL CL 

30" PIPELINE TO BE PLACED WITHIN ROADWAY. 

ACTUAL LOCATION WILL BE BASED ON EXlSITING UTILITIES. 

EXISTING ROAD ROW 

PROPOSED LOGAN LATERAL BY PERMIT 

I'0 

0 

0 

01 

0 

I'0 

I'0 

I'0 

I 

0 

0 

0'~ 

I'0 

0 

I'0 

I-~ 

CO 

I'0 

0 

0 

01 

I-i. 

0 Q 

0 

O 

o kb. 

I kb. 

I O 

O 

O 
I I i I iliili i llil lilll i iillil i i~ill I I 

::I--:I: ::i:,::; 

NOTE: SEPARATION /

~IWEEN UNES MAY 

CHANGE IN CON~IOS~ATION 

OF THE CONSTRUCTION 

MEIHOO ~UECTED FOR 

11-1E CHESlIER CREEK 

CROSSING 

~ee~mee, 

25' 

25' 

MP 1.23 TO 1.63 

.................. ~ LOGAN LAI~RAL PEI~I ROW 

........... ExI~rlNG 14" T~'TCO II Na.AIR PIPI~INE PERM ANENT FIOIN 

EXtlIIING 14" I~-'TCO INCLAIR Pt~IKUINE 

PtltGPG4i~D 30" LOGAN LATERAL CL 

EXIS*IING 14" TETCO mNCI./UR PtPEMNE PERMANENT R~N 

PROPOSED LOGAN LAI~RAL PERI4 ROW 

........ ~ lie MP 0RR~f 

Appendix B 

Logan Lateral Project 

Typical Right-of-Way Cross Sections 

Configuration Parallel to Existing 14-inch Pipeline Sheet 5 of 18 I 

0 

fl 

M 

I 

fO 

fO 

0 

t~ 

Q 

Q 

Q 

t~ 

t~ 

t~ 

I 

Q 

Q 

t~ 

fO 

M 

0 

M 

Q 

t~ 

t~ 

Q 

Q 

0 

fl 

fO 

'0 

O 

I 

I 

O 

O 

O 
, PROPOSED LOGAN 

............................................................ PROPOSED LOGAN LATERAL PERM ROW 

' ~ L ____~ ............ EXlS~NO 14" I~-'TCO SINCLAIR PIPELINE PERMANENT RCflN 

......... EXI S'TING 14" 11~TCO SINCLAIR PIPELINE PERMANENT ROW 

65' 25' 

..................... 1 : ...... 11[ ....... PROPOSED LOGAN LATERAL PERM ROVV 

:/ 

NOTE: S~'~1"10 

BE;~EN UNES MAY MP 1.63 TO 1.66 

CHANGE IN CONSIDERATION 

OF THE CONS'IRUCIION 

ME]HOO SELECTED FOR 

THE CHESTER CREEK 

CROSSING 

Ir¢o 14" RO~t 

------------~.*e LOQ~I4 ROq~V 

pIP0ZI~2 

........ LOOJIM TEMPGff~Ry 

Appendix B 

Logan Lateral Project 

Typical Right-of-Way Cross Sections 

Configuration Parallel to Existing 14-inch Pipeline Sheet 6 of 18 

0 

fl 

M 

I 

fO 

fO 

0 

t~ 

Q 

Q 

Q 

t~ 

t~ 

t~ 

I 

Q 

Q 

t~ 

fO 

M 

0 

M 

Q 

t~ 

t~ 

Q 

Q 

0 

fl 

fO 

PO 

0 

I 

I 

0 

0 

0 
++25' ,~+ -- i .... 

i 

2~ 

f 

EXIS'TING 14" T~'TCO IItIICLAIR PII)I~UNE PERMANENT ROW 

35' 50' T~ 5,.30, 25' 100' 

, ~' . 50' 

65' 

"I III II. ill. Ill I I III. I I 

P._ 

PROPOSED LOGAN Irli~ 

PROPt[DI;D LOGAN LATERAL PERM ROVV 

liXt~'nNG 14" ~'TCO IINICLAIR PII~'UNE 

PROPOSED 30" LOGAN LAll~RA L CL 

................. EXI~II~I~ t 4" TiTCO INCI.AIR PIIPEUNE PERMANENT ROW 

25' 

: ...... ] : ....... ........... PR~FO~EO LOGAN LA~I~RAL PERM ItO~f 

.... PR~I~D~I~O LOGAN Tt~ 

MP 1.65 TO 2,29 

............. t~Q~w R~ 

fll+Eul~ 

........ ~ TEMPOraRy 

Appendix B 

Logan Lateral Project 

Typical Right-of-Way Cross Sections 

Configuration Parallel to Existing 14-inch Pipeline Sheet 7 of 18 I 

0 

fl 

M 

I 

fO 

fO 

0 

t~ 

Q 

Q 

Q 

t~ 

t~ 

t~ 

I 

Q 

Q 

t~ 

fO 

M 

0 

M 

Q 

t~ 

t~ 

Q 

Q 

0 

fl 

fO 

PO 

0 

I 

I 

0 

0 

0 
25' 

25' 

50' 

P 

65' 

~(~ 

I 

LOGAN LATERAL ~ ROAN& 

"IW8 

PROPOI~D 30" LOGAN LATER CL 

PROPOSED LOGAN LATERAL PERM ROW 

PROPOSED LOGAN "IVP3 

LE ND 

....... 11EIr¢o i ~. R0W 

........ LOO~N TENOR ~y 

MP 2.29 TO 2.47 

Appendix B 

Logan Lateral Project 

Typical Right-of-Way Cross Sections 

Configuration of New Right-of-Way Sheet 8 of 18 1 

0 

fl 

M 

I 

fO 

fO 

0 

t~ 

Q 

Q 

Q 

t~ 

t~ 

t~ 

I 

Q 

Q 

t~ 

fO 

M 

0 

M 

Q 

t~ 

t~ 

Q 

Q 

0 

fl 

fO 

'0 

0 

I 

k-

k-

I 

0 

0 

0 
25' 

25' 

*em~eaDeem~ee 

5' 

50' 

r 

)ee~ le ms~eem*ee~ 

75' 

)ee~ee ~ee~eeq~eem*eem ee ~om 

PtR~O LOGAN 

~OIm© LOGJ~N LATERAL ~ ROWli 

PROPt~ED 30" LOGAN LATERAL CL 

~ LOGAN LA11~RJkL ~ ROIN 

ltrf¢O t 4- I~N 

mEM~ 

........ LO4)Jkl TEIIle~A~y 

MP 2.47 TO 2.56 

Appendix B 

Logan Lateral Project 

Typical Right-of-Way Cross SecUons 

Configuration of New Right-of-Way Sheet 9 of 18 

0 

fl 

M 

I 

fO 

r~ 

fO 

0 

t~ 

Q 

Q 

Q 

t~ 

t~ 

t~ 

I 

Q 

Q 

t~ 

fO 

M 

0 

M 

Q 

t~ 

t~ 

Q 

Q 

0 

fl 

fO 

r~ 

(3 

0 

I 

I 

0 

0 

0 
............................... I~. I I: ....... ~ PROPOSED LOGAN 

~ PROPOSED LOGAN LATERAL PERM 

f 

~-~-~- 25' t35' PROPO~IEO 30" LOGAN LA'IT¢RAL CL 50' 

__..~. ...... .~ .................. EXlSTINGEXI rnNG R(WV12. I :r" TETCO I~TCO PIPELINIE PIPEUNIE PERIAMBiT 

.......................... ! ........ 2~. .................. ,m,o~so to~, L~ ps~ ~ow 

..... BO~NO Ir'rE'rco ~m.~.= ~.~u,~m ~ow 

LE~ND 

YE 1C*O I ~" ROW 

w¢~ ,mAC~ 0wsl 

MP 2.55 TO 2.71 

Appendix B 

Logan Lateral Project 

Typical Right-of-Way Cross Sections 

Configuration Parallel to Existing 124nch Pipeline Sheet 10 of 18 1 

0 

fl 

M 

I 

fO 

r~ 

fO 

0 

t~ 

Q 

Q 

Q 

t~ 

t~ 

t~ 

I 

Q 

Q 

t~ 

fO 

M 

0 

M 

Q 

t~ 

t~ 

Q 

Q 

0 

fl 

fO 

r~ 

P0 

0 

I 

I 

0 

0 

0 
) o (i)~) (D (i) ~) ,~) ) ) ( 

25' 

5' 

I I O  ̧ 

• 4~ IbQ~t&OIg " ~O Q~ O ~ m ~ OIQ. ID O ~ re.Q! ~Q~ O~ I 

5(7 

OOlI~IQ~m Q ~lO~g~ V mO I 

F'II~OPO~ED LOGAN LATERAL pII~M ROW 

PROPOSED 30" LOGAN lATERAL CL 

PItOPO~ED LOGAN LA'ItERA L PERM ROW 

NOTE: "P~/S IS 

IRREGULARLY SHAPED. 

PLEASE REFER TO THE 

PROJECT ALIGNMENT 

SHEETS. 

........ tO(kqd tlllPGt~qRY 

MP 2.92 TO 2.g5 

MP 3.44 TO 3.71 

MP 4.20 TO 4.45 

Appendix B 

Logan Lateral Project 

Typical Right-of-Way Cross Sections 

Configuration of New Right-of-Way ~eet 11 of 18 1 

0 

fl 

M 

I 

fO 

fO 

0 

t~ 

Q 

Q 

Q 

t~ 

t~ 

t~ 

I 

Q 

Q 

t~ 

fO 

M 

0 

M 

Q 

t~ 

t~ 

Q 

Q 

0 

fl 

fO 

¢3 

0 

I 

I 

0 

0 

0 
.... I 40'-- -- -- 

25' 

25' 

letJteEtlJ4 etl~teitm I 

10' 

r )eem***m*~m~m*** 

100' 

L 

PROPO/~D LOGA N "lrw8 

PROPOSED LOGAN LATERAL PERM ROW& 

1WS 

PROPOSED 30" LOGAN LATERAL CL 

PRO~ LOGAN LATERAL PERM ROW 

PROPO~L=D LOGAN 

TE~'CO 14" ROW 

~**~*m**m*** LOOm ROW 

........ LO~M T| W~OR#Y 

MP 3.15 TO 3.44 

MP 7.35 TO 9.03 

Appendix B 

Logan Lateral Project 

Typical Right-of-Way Cross Sections 

Configuration of New Right-of-Way Sheet 12 of 18 1 

0 

fl 

M 

I 

fO 

fO 

0 

t~ 

Q 

Q 

Q 

t~ 

t~ 

t~ 

I 

Q 

Q 

t~ 

fO 

M 

0 

M 

Q 

t~ 

t~ 

Q 

Q 

0 

fl 

fO 

P0 

0 

I 

I 

0 

0 

0 
65' 

_ _!L L 

Ir~tco t 4, Row 

m t,~ ROw 

........ LOG.IN TEI~O~A~Y 

MP 4.00 TO 4.02 

PROPOSED LOGAN 

I:~OPOIED LOGAN LATERAL PERN ROW 

PROPOSED 30" LOGAN LATERAL CL 

PROPOIIED LOGAN LA'I~'RA L PERIl ROW 

PROPOSED LOGAN 

Appendix B 

Logan Lateral Project 

Typical Right-of-Way Cross Sections 

Configuration of New Right-of-Way Sheet 13 of 18 

0 

fl 

M 

I 

fO 

fO 

0 

t~ 

Q 

Q 

Q 

t~ 

t~ 

t~ 

I 

Q 

Q 

t~ 

fO 

M 

0 

M 

Q 

t~ 

t~ 

Q 

Q 

0 

fl 

fO 

0 

I 

I 

0 

0 

0 
25' 

5O' ~ 

25' 

p 

.°.~.. .. .. 

PROPOI~D LOGAN LATERAL ~ ROW& 

P~OPOSEO XI" LOGAN LATERAL CL 

PROPO8 rn LOGAN LATERAL PERM ROW & 

TW8 

--. YEICO 14" It04~ 

m**m*- m***~**, t.~ ROW 

........ ~OOm TEIPC~A~Y 

MP 1.19 TO 1.21 

MP 4.45 TO 5.44 

MP 6.90 TO 7.35 

MP 9.03 TO 9.28 

Appendix B 

Logan Lateral Project 

Typical Right-of-Way Cross Sections 

Configuration of New Right-of-Way Sheet 14 of 18 

0 

fl 

M 

I 

fO 

fO 

0 

t~ 

Q 

Q 

Q 

t~ 

t~ 

t~ 

I 

Q 

Q 

t~ 

fO 

M 

0 

M 

Q 

t~ 

t~ 

Q 

Q 

0 

fl 

fO 

0 

I 

I 

0 

0 

0 
I Ill e ~IIID ~lt It t ttl t ~ II tl~ t t It~t 

i" i  ̧!,!!i 

~ ; ~ .: •;;;i • • ;~: ;:~ %••~i•~i!! ~•:i;; • ••• :: ;; i 

20' WIDE PAVED ROA DWAY 

• .... 

0 

I-,. 

0 I-,. 

I-, 

MP 5.44 TO 6.90 

EXISTING ROAD ROW 

PROPOSED LOGAN LATERAL BY PERMIT 

PROPOSED 30" LOGAN LATERAL CL 

30" PIPELINE TO BE PLACED WITHIN ROADWAY. 

ACTUAL L OCATION WILL BE BA SED ON EXISIT1NG UTILITIES. 

EXISTING FIBER OPTIC CABLE 

EXISTING ROAD ROW 

PROPOSED LOGAN LATERAL BY PERMIT 

LEGEND 

TETCO ~4" ROW" 

LOG~ ROW 

PtP EUI~.; 

LOGAN T E MP 0/~' ,e,R y 

WOIRK SPACE ~WS) 

I'0 

0 

0 

(.n 

o 

I,O 

I,O 

I,O 

I 

0 

0 

O~ 

I'0 

0 

I'0 

I-~ 

O0 

I'0 

0 

0 

(.n 

I-i, 

t9 

0 

0 

0 

o 

¢= 

I 

¢= 

i-t 

i-t 

I 

o 

o 

o 
4O' 

50' 

10' 

 EeFJ 

ttl'CO o4" ROW 

........ LOOA~ 1EIIpORA~Y 

100' 

35' 

15' 

MP 9.28 TO 10.33 

PROPOSED LOGAN 

PROPOSED LOGAN LAllERAL pERN ROW& 

1WS 

EXISTING WLL~M8 11RANSCO PERM. ROW 

P ROPC~ SO 30" LOGAN L.ATL=RN. CL 

CL EXISI1NG ~MLLIAM$ 31RA NSCO PIPELINE & 

PROPOSED LOGAN LAlrlERAL PERM ROW 

PROPO~=O LOGAN 

EXI811NG VMLLIAM8 "I1RANSCO PERM, ROW 

Appendix B 

Logan Lateral Project 

Typical Right-of-Way Cross Sections 

Configuration Parallel to Existing Transco Pipeline Sheet 16 of 18 1 

0 

(3 

M 

I 

fO 

fO 

0 

t~ 

Q 

Q 

Q 

t~ 

t~ 

t~ 

I 

Q 

Q 

t~ 

fO 

M 

0 

M 

Q 

t~ 

t~ 

Q 

Q 

0 

(3 

fO 

PO 

0 

I 

I 

0 

0 

0 
~ O Q i Q O ~iE0 (* E* ite I 

40' 

25' 

50' 

25' 

10' 

100' 

).o~ieQ eDe )~ele ~. ~=~ e e~in, e. ~n= e )i 

15' 

iN~rco t(l, ~ 

l'lll~ll(e 

........ t.c~.,m Tem~m~ 

MP 10.33 TO 10.89 

PItOPOIIE~ LOGAN "1~ 

P~D LOGAN LATERAL PERM ROW& 

PROI~IlliD ~ LOGAN LATi~ ~L & 

IMI.MAMI TRANICO PERIL ROW 

PRO~ LOGAN LA'I~I~ L pER~ 

CL E](Nrr]NG *~LUAM$ TRANSCO P1PELIN~ & 

P R~ LOGAN 

EXI~'ING '~ILLI~, Idl TRANtCO PERM. ROW 

Appendix B 

Logan Lateral Project 

Typical Right-of-Way Cro6s Sections 

Configuration Parallel to ExisUng Transco Pipeline Sheet 17 of 18 

0 

l=~ 

fl 

M 

I 

fO 

fO 

0 

t~ 

Q 

Q 

Q 

t~ 

t~ 

t~ 

I 

Q 

Q 

t~ 

fO 

M 

0 

M 

Q 

t~ 

t~ 

Q 

Q 

0 

fl 

fO 

0 

I 

I 

0 

0 

0 
EXIliNG IUN O(L COIIIPANy pERM ROW 

24' 

• 60' ~. CONTAINS ~ SUN off. COMPANY P1PEUNES 

A 

-~e-- _-- _- ..:: -:?~'--_2_ ..... :¢ o,o~,,.,~ 

.................................. PROPOSED LOOA N LAll~RAIL PE Rill ROWI, 

EXIIrI1NG BUN OIL COUPANY PIIPIBJNE 

51 50' 

L 

25' 

0' 

100' 

21 

EXIITING SUN OIL COMPANY PERM. ROW 

PROPOSED I0" LOGAN LATIER CL 

.................. IlfiO ~ LOGAN lATERAL ~ 

o--o.-- --oo --.o--. 

PROPOIIEO LOGAN 

LEe~D 

....... 111(;O re" RO~q 

--.° .°--** o~° 

MP 10.89 TO 1100 

Appendix B 

Logan Lateral Project 

Typical Right-of-Way Cross Sections 

Configuration Parallel to Existing Transco Pipeline 

Sheet 18 of 18 

0 

fl 

M 

I 

fO 

fO 

0 

t~ 

Q 

Q 

Q 

t~ 

t~ 

t~ 

I 

Q 

Q 

t~ 

fO 

M 

0 

M 

Q 

t~ 

t~ 

Q 

Q 

0 

fl 

fO 

PO 

0 

I 

I 

0 

0 

0 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

APPENDIX C 

TEMPORARY EXTRA WORKSPACES AND 

ACCESS ROADS 
]nofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

TABLE C-1 

Temllomry F.xtn, Wwluq:~u AISOehltI¢I W~, th~ Logan LaWal Prolect 

State M~ Ow=~aon O~n~e~m (feeq 

PENNSYLVANIA 0.00 Water ~ acce~ 165x50 0.19 

0.19 Staging fo( road cto~rng 25x100 0.05 

0.28 Stag~ fix road crowing ~egular 0.09 

1.23 Stag/rig fix road c:m~blg 110x300 0.68 

1.27 Stag~g fo~ HDD 75x330 0.57 

1.57 Stag~g for HDO 100x200 0.42 

1.85 Stag'~g for ~ 35x100 0.08 

1.97 Stag~g fix ned crowing 35x136 0.10 

2.O0 Staging fix ~ irmgu~r 0.52 

2.1 a Staging fix co~ i~ 0.07 

2.42 Staging fix RR a~ea~ng 50xl O0 0.11 

2.46 Sta~ng fix RR c~ 25x100 0.05 

Off-sl~ ~ mg~NuWard Jn'egul~u' 4.83 

2.95 Staging fix ~ cn0eslng irregular 0.19 

3.01 Staglng fix ~fflot-kly irregular 0.17 

3.06 Staglng fix street-kly 75x110 0.18 

3.06 Stag~g fat s~met4ay 75x200 0.35 

3.41 ~ fix street-kly 25x100 0.06 

3.44 ~ Irreg~u 6.14 

3.71 Staging for RR c~ irregular 0.55 

3.84 Staging for ~Nmet-lay 75xl 60 0.27 

3.80 Staging fix street-lay 125xl 30 0.37 

4.01 Staging fix RR and congutJon irregular 0.39 

4.13 Stagingtt~reyard irregular 5.33 

4.37 Stag~g fix HDD irregular 0.71 

Pennsytvsnla To(aJ 22.46 

NEW JERSEY 5.37 Acce~ for ~t~" source inegular 0.22 

5.39 Staging for HDD Irregular 0.80 

6.47 ~ Itaglng for HOD b'mgt~r 6.26 

6.g~ ~ for HDO ~g~ar 2.99 

7.36 Stag~g fix HDO 100x300 0.68 

7.38 HDO p~lbe~ area 50xl ,700 1.99 

8.61 HO0 mamdaJ ~ y~d ir'mgdar 28.78 

8.gQ stag~0 for HOO ,rreg~ar 0.4S 

9.31 Stagdng fix HDD 100x200 0.46 

0.54 Smg~o fix reed or~ 35x100 0.08 

g.SS Smg,~g fix me~ oram~g 35x100 0.08 

0.73 Staging for road c~W, ng 3SxlO0 0.08 

9.75 Staging for rosd ccea~g 35x100 O.O8 

9.88 Sta~ng fix RR cm~ng 35x100 0.08 

9.88 Stllg~g for RR cm~klg 35x100 0.08 

10.00 Staglng fix ro~KJ C~Oab~g 50X100 0.11 

10.0~ Smg~ng fix road c~amg 50x100 0.11 

10.22 Staging for wate~my ¢ro(mlng 65xl O0 0.14 

C-l 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

TABLE C-1 (coNt'd) 

Temlxxury Extra W~ AmmcJatN wtth the Logln Latm~ ~ 

D~mensions State M~oo6t D~mceCeoe (f~) Ac~ 

New Jersey Tolal 

Project To~ 

10.28 Stll~ng fo~ wlltll~4iy c~ 35x100 0.08 

10.81 Slaglng fol" vmtervmy croe~ng 35x350 0.28 

10.83 Slag~ng for watlm~y cmmdng 50x100 0.11 

11.00 SWgJ~g for me~rk~ station 100x100 0.23 

43.15 

65.61 

C-2 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

TABLE C-2 

,~,:¢.~ Roads AmmcmN w~ t~ Logan Latend Prol.ct 

Wkah Len~ Acr~ 

ste~ ~ ~ t ~ ~ (f,mt) (feet) 

PENN~YLVANUt 0.00 PAR-O.00 Permanent s~ce~ road. 15 187 0 05 

1.68 TAR-1.66 T~ sccea I. 15 1,992 0 68 

F_.~dm~ p~,vate ro~, p=t pe,,,~ 

sncf p~ gm,,~. 

2.11 PAR 2.11 Pemtanent mx:e~ road. 15 273 0.09 

F_.~ng pe,~ld paddng lot and 

~ of r~w. 

2.64 TAR-2.64 Tempor~y acceu road. 15 333 0.11 

E.x~ng pdvm ro~. 

4.41 PAR-4.41 Pem~ammt access roed. 15 350 0.12 

F.xl~ng peve¢l mad. 

1.06 

8.62 TAR-8.82 Temflotlry scceu road. 15 3,361 1.15 

F.,~at~ private dirt road. 

9.06 TAR-0.06 Temponuy scc~s mad. 15 B88 029 

~ ~te road, part peved 

and pert dirt. 

8.40 TAR-9.40 Temporety accea road. 15 70 0.02 

p,,~te dirt ~d. 

0.58 TAR-0,56 Temlxxsry acce~ road. 15 50 0.02 

private dirt road. 

9.74 TAFF.74 Tempocary Ilcceu road. 15 230 0.07 

F.xjsttng pr~t, pev~d toed. 

10.0~ T.~O, - Tenq)oraty accNs rc4~d. 15 5,211 1.79 

10.~ ~~ 

P~ 

ToCld 

~J~ 

New Jersey To(al 3.34 

Project Torsi 4.39 

I/ Mod.~a~ t~¢~l on~ be rn~e to ~avsl ro~e anti wou~ onty oons~ ot the sdcUtJon ~ ~. 

C-3 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

APPENDIX D 

TEXAS EASTERN'S SOIL EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION 

CONTROL PLAN 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

EROSION AND 

SEDIMENTATION 

CONTROL PLAN 

~p~y: Texas Eastern Transmission, L.P. 

Project: 

Location: 

Logan Lateral Project 

Pennsylvania and New Jersey 

Env/ronmen~ Cc~m~on Pem~tttnS 

54OO Westheimer Court, SP-777 

I.~ Tc~s 77056-5310 

end 

ENSR International 

2005 Cabot Boulevard 

West Suite I00 

Lenglzm~ Pmmfflvania 19047-1810 

Effective May I, 2004 

Rc~d.- ~'¢bqua~ 23, 200~ 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

. 

2. 

. 

INTRODUCTION. 

l.l Purpose ofth/s Plan 

1.2 Guidelines and Requiremmm 

1.2.| Vsriance fium FERC Requlremmts 

1.2.2 Variance flora Stale Requirements 

! .3 Surveys, Permits, and No¢ificmions 

1.4 Inqu/ e, 

SUPERVISION AND INSPECTION 

2.1 Res~nsibilit/es of the Enviromneatal Inspector 

2.2 Environmental Train/n8 for Construction 

CONSTRUCTION TECHNIQUES FOR NATURAL GAS PIPELINES 

3.1 Typical ROW Requirernmts 

3.2 Acce~ Roads 

3.3 Pipe and Contra~or Wareyards 

3.4 Off-ROW Disturbance 

3.5 ~on Sequence 

3.5.1 Clearing 

3.5.2 Install/ng Temponu7 Sediment B,~rie~ 

3.5.3 Grading 

3.5.3.1 Topsoil ~ion 

3.5.3.2 Tree Stump Removal and Dispcaal 

3.5.3.3 Rock Disposal 

3.5.4 Installing Temporary Interccpt~ Dikes 

3.5.5 Trenching 

3.5.5.1 Teraporary Trench Pluss 

3.5.6 Trench Dewatering 

3.5.7 Pipe lnstallati0~ 

3.5.7.! Suingin8 s~d Bending 

3 .5.7.2 Wdding md Weld In.on 

3.5.7.3 Low~ing-in 

3.5.8 Back:filling 

3.5.8.1 Pe~eat Trench Plugs 

3.5.9 Hydmsta~ Te~ting 

3.6 ROW Reston~on and Final Cleanup 

3.6.} Permm3ec! Ermion Control 

3.6.1.1 Permanent Inte~eptor Dikes 

3.6.1.2 Em~on Cretin31 Fabric 

3.6.2 Rev~on ecd Seeding 

3.6.3 Mulch 

3.6.4 Winter Stabilization 

1-1 

l-I 

1-I 

1-2 

I-2 

1-17 

1-17 

2-I 

2-I 

2-2 

3-I 

3-I 

3-! 

3-2 

3-3 

3-3 

3-4 

3-5 

3-5 

3-5 

3-6 

3-6 

3-7 

3-8 

3-8 

3-8 

3-9 

3-9 

3-9 

3-9 

3-9 

3-10 

3-10 

3-12 

3-13 

3-13 

3-13 

3-14 

3-15 

3-15 

Table of Content., Fa8 eli Apper, d= D 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

4. 

. 

6. 

o 

8. 

3.7 Unauthot'ized Vehicle Acccss to ROW 

SPECIAL CONSTRUCTION METHODS 

4.1 Agricuttund Areas 

4.1.1 Drain Tiles 

4.1.2 Inigation 

4.1.3 Soil Compaction Mitigation 

4.2 Road Crossings 

4.3 Residential Areas 

4.3.1 ~on Pmcu~ures 

4.3.2 Constriction Techniques 

4.3.3 Cleanup and Restoration 

WATERBODY CROSSINGS 

5.t Wam.body Definitions 

5.2 General Waterbody 

5.2.1 Tune W'mdow for Construction 

5.2.2 Temporary Equipment Bridges 

5.2.3 amring and Orading 

5.2.4 Installing Tcmporery Fa~o~ ead Sedimmt Comm[ 

5.2.5 Various Types of Crossings 

5.2.51 General Cromin8 Procedures 

5.2.5.2 FlumedCmsaing 

5.2.5.3 Dam and Ptanp Cmssin8 

5.2.5.4 Wet Crossin 8 

5.2.6 Res:orafion 

WETLAND CROSSINGS 

6.1 Definition 

6.2 General Procedures 

6.2.I Clearing and Grading 

6.2.2 Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control 

6.2.3 ~ Procedure 

6.2.4 Cleanup and Restoration 

SPILL PREVENTION CONTROL 

POST CONSTRUCTION ALWIV1TIF~ 

8.1 Post-Consm.xetion Monitoring 

8.2 Pos;~ Maintmanee 

8.2.1 Uplands 

8.2.2 Waterbodies and Wetlands 

s.3 Repor~ 

3-16 

4-1 

4-1 

4-1 

4-1 

4-1 

4-2 

4-2 

4-2 

4-2 

4-3 

5-1 

5-1 

5-I 

5-2 

5-2 

5-3 

5-3 

5-4 

5-4 

5-5 

5-6 

5-7 

5-8 

6-1 

6-I 

6-I 

6-I 

6-2 

6-2 

6-3 

7-1 

8-1 

8-1 

8-2 

8-2 

8-2 

8-3 

Table of Consen~ Page ill Ap~ D 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

APPENDICES 

APPENDIX A- FIGURES 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

I0 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

Typical ~ion Width# A~luifin8 New Pe~naneat Right-of-Way 

Typical Constm~on W~hs Not Acquiri~ New Permanent Right-of-Way 

(Mult/ple Lmo System) 

Typical ~on Widths Not Acquifin8 New Permanent Right-of-Way 

(Sin~e Li~ Sy~m) 

Acc~s Road Cmss Section 

l~ock Acc~s Pad lnstal/afion and Maimmance 

Typed Tmlpora~ Acc~s Road Through W~b~ds 

Silt F¢~c¢ lnstaUadon and Main~aanc¢ 

Straw [~a]¢ Installation and Malntemm~ 

Straw Bale XnstaU~ion ~" a Chcck Dam in a Dra/nag¢ Way 

Storm Dra/n fntet ProCection 

ROW Topsoil Sesx~dion Techniques 

InUxceptor Dike Install~on and 

Typical Trench Detail 

Temporary Trench Plugs 

Filter Bag 

Permanent Trench Plugs 

Trench Plug Detail 

Dewat~ing Structure for Hydrmtatlc Testing 

A]tern~c Dcw~enng Stricture for Hy~mafic Teatin8 

Chevron Intcn~ptor Dike Installation end Maimenan~ 

Rock-Lined Drainase Swale Installation and Maintenance 

Typical Martins on Slope, 

Erosion Cont~l Fabric lns~allaIion 

T~le of Co~ Pa,~ h, ~ D 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

APPENDIX A - FIGURES (CONT.) 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

Drain Tile Rcpa/r Procedure 

Typical Pav~d Road Crossing Conu'ol Measun~s (Open Cut) 

Typical Paved Road Crossing Control Measures (Bored) 

Temporary Rquipmmt Bridge (Equipmem Pads and Cu, lvn~) 

Temporary Equipmu'~ Bridge (Crushed Stone and Culver~) 

Temporary Fxpfipmmt Bridge (Flcxi.-float or Portable Bridge) 

Typical Flumed Crossing 

Typical Dam and Pump Crossing 

Typical W¢~ Crossing 

Typical Matting of Str~mbanks 

Pip pap P L : cnt frypi ) 

APPENDIX B - SEED MIX RECOMMENDATIONS 

APPENDIX C - SPILL PREVENTION CONTROL AND COUNTERMEASURE (SPCC) PLAN/ 

PREPAREDNF_~.~ PREVENTION, AND CONTINGENCY 0PPC) PLAN 

Tab~ o/C~.:t~ Page v Appe.nd~ D 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

lo 

1.1 

1.2 

INTRODUCTION 

of thh Phm 

This Erosion end Sedimmtaficm Control Plan (Plan) has bccn pr=~ for use by Texas Eamem 

T~on, L.P. (Texas Eastern or Company) and its contmctom as a guidance manual for 

minimizing erosion of disturbed so/Is and ~ansporUtti~ ofsed/memm offthe dght-of-way (ROW) and 

into sensitive resources (wetlm~ $trem~$, and residential areas) ¢hn'in8 nahn'xl gas pipcJine 

consm~ction. The pmccdm~ devdoped in this Plan, which represent the Company's best 

~ pracficc~ m'e desisned to ~ vaxyin8 fickt conditions whilc maintainin8 rigid 

minimmn standards f~ the pt~ect~on of cnvimmnentally senmtive areas. 

This Plan is designed to pmvidc specifications for the installation and implunmtm~ of soil am~ 

and sediment oontrol measurm while permitting adequate flexibility to use the mo~ appropriate 

tmmmm= baaed on dt¢-~c conditions. The intmt of this Plan is to prov/dc general info~ 

on the pipeline construction im3cem and to dcscn'b¢ specific ~ that will be employed during 

and following construction to minimize impacts to the ¢avimnmmt along the pipelin© ROW. 

The goal of this Plan is to prem've the integrity of cnvironmmtally sensi~vc areas and to maintain 

eximing water quality by implcmenting the following objec/ives: 

• Minimize the extem and duration o f dismfoam:e; 

• Protein exposed soil by divining nmoff m slabilimi arcas; 

• Install temporary and permanent erosion control measures; and 

• Establish an effective inspection and maimem0nce program. 

Guidelines and Requirements 

The meemum described in this Plan have beeu developed based on guidelines fzom thc Federal 

Em~y Regtdato~ Commission (FERO, United States Army Cot~ of Ensinem (ODE), the United 

Since Fish and W'ddlife Service (USF&W), the United Sines Depefanent of Asricultu~ and the 

Natural Rmomx)e Conservation Service, as well as fix)m the Compeny's significant exp~emce and 

practical knowledge of pipeli~ construction and effective emvinmmen~ lm3te~on measures. 

Les~m and imlghts gained during pipeline constm~on projects along the Company's pipeline 

system and comments from agency ~tatives are aim incorporated into thJs Play_ 

Any deviation fn~n the p~ of the structures spet~ed in the mnsmumoa ¢kawings, or changes 

in the design of control measures as set forth in this Plan, must be approved by the Company's 

Envittmmmtal Coestm~on Permitting Department and must have the concunm~ from the 

appropriate permitting agency. 

Imtroduction Page f-! Append/.x D 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

L2.1 Varlance from FERC Requirements 

Pursuant to chanses in the FERC regulation& interstate pipeline companies are now required to 

comply with the FERC's Upland Erosion Control, Revegcta/ion, and Maintenance Plan end the 

FERC'$ Wetlmld ~ Waterbody Construction and Mitigation Procedun~ (Plmt and Proccdur~, 

1/17/2003 Vernon), unless approval to deviate from the Plan and Proeedures is rec~ved from the 

Wpropr~ rote aSmcy. 

The following identifies the differences b~ween this Plan and the FERC's Plan and Procedures as 

weJl m ~¢ reasons behind the diffcrcaccs: 

. FERC Plan (Section V.C,I and V.C.3): Pca'focrn ~ testing in r~ick~ial areas disturbed 

by construction activities and perform appropriate soil compect/on mkigmiotl in sevezely 

~ r~sid~ areas. 

Compmtioo testing end mit/ption me not required in res/dential area& 

Reuon to Deviat~ This Plan requin= that topso'd ctth= be segregated or replem~d in rem~ 

area& Topsoil that is segregated or replaced results in little compaction and pluvid~ a suitable 

medium fix gras& Most yard areas thaz ~e sown in gross ¢k~ not require deep root penetration. 

In the evmt that the grass needs deeper mot pa~nfion, the subsequ~t freeze4haw ~.=.les of ~ 

upper portions of the subsoil will provide natural milig~on of my comImcted areas of the ROW 

within 2-3 years. Posl-.constm~on monitoring will be conduced durin 8 this timefi'amc as 

discussed in Section 8.1. 

L2.2 Varlances from State Requirements 

In developing this Plan, Texas Eastern has reviewed soil and erosion controls s~uulards 

established in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. For Pennsylvania, Texas Ea~em has reviewed the 

Penmylvania Department of Enviromnmltal Protection (PADEP), Bm~m of Water Quality 

Prote~on's manual entitled "Underground Utility Line Consm~on, Typical Erosion and 

Sediment BMP's (document number 363-2134-012). For New Jersey, Texas F.utexn has 

reviewed the New Jersey State Soll Conservation Committee's manual entitled "Standards for 

Soft Erosion and Sedimmt C~.trol in New Jersey". Although this Plan is consist~t with both 

states' overall erosion and sediment oontrol programs, several variances are proposed to reflect 

FERC end project spec/fic requinmamts. The proposed varianc~ to the Pennsylvania and New 

Je~,sey standards are smnmarized in Tables 1.2.2-1 and 1.2.2-2, respectively. It should be noted 

that mo~ vLdam:es to the New Je~-.y ~dm~ are proposed becau~ the a~oc'mted mmu~d is 

not specifically tailored for utility line constm~on, es is the PADEP manual 

Introduction Pa8~ I-2 Appendix D 
0 

fl 

I 

fO 

TABLE I-~.2-I 

PROPOSED VARIANCES FROM TI~ PADEP'S UNDERGROUND UTILITY ~ CONSTRUCTION, TYPICAL EROSION AND 

SEDIMENT BMP'S 

No. VAR/ANCE RATIONALE 

I 

2 

3 

""4 

Subiect No. 8: M,~,,~,~ofa~- Uponoomple6on of earth 

~ activities on the project (0~ while ~ on the 

~ht-of-way is halted for winter), Texas Eastcs'n proposes to 

inspect BMPs wm/kiy o¢ after' m~or ra/n evmts (I/2 inch rain or 

mort:). 

Subiect No. I0: Rock ~Entrance- Te~am ~ 

pmpos~ to use Rmr to six inch rock on/y for rock acceu pad 

~on. NoAASHTONo. l rockwitlbcused 0~igu~5). 

Subject No. 11: Acceu Rosd ~ of Paved Road-Temm 

F_Ju~ • mquem that tlm s~z~ of thz flume pipe be de/etmin~ by 

the l~t[m~ sinmtion (i.~ could be less tlmn 12 inc.hes in 

di~m~U~, b~ not lem than 6 ~ in diamct~) (Fii~-e 25). The 

size of the l~pe will be ~ to lxeve~ b~.kwmr flooding or 

roadwayxUna 

Upon completion of the earth moving a~ivities (either ¢~mplet/on of 

comor suspmmon of ac~vity for the wint~), the ~auO./on 

is mbilized and will need less fmque~ mon/mring. 

Use of mallet than 4 to 6 innh rock, which may be included in the 

AASHTO No. 1 rock, could result in tracking of sediment/smnller stone 

m~o roadways. 

The ~ze of the p~ z~:emary to convey wter in a l~¢ d/tch may/mpact the 

ab'~y foe ~ to safely a~er and cxit m~lwuy~ Too larg~ 

of a pipe would create a hump in tl~ ~ce~ road cau~ng a potential 

impctimmt to continuous U-avei and may ~ the ab~ty for 

equ/pmmt/vehides to ~fely e~er and exit rom'way~ 

SubiectNo. 12: A,,~-~t R,*~ ~~wlth Pi~e Culv~'x Use of smaller than 4 to 6 inch rock, which may be included in the 

-Texu ~i)mposestoase foutto six inch rock on/y f~ AASHTONo. I me.k, couldramlt intredd~ of~smaller stone 

aoceasl~e&.NoAASHTONo. I zoekwilIbeus(xL(Figmu28), omomadwayL 

c~ 

~0 

0 

Fo 

0 

0 L~ 

0 

Fo 

Fo 

Fo 

I 

0 

0 

Fo 

),,,4 

fO 

M 

0 

M 

Q 

t~ 

t~ 

Q 

Q 

0 

~0 

c~ 

pu 

o 

i 

).., 

l~n Page ]-J 4p~ D I 

0 

0 

0 
0 

fl 

I 

fO 

TABLE 12.1-1 (m~hmed) 

PROPOSED VARIANCES FROM THE PADEP'S UNDERGROUND UTILITY LINE CONSTRUCTION, TYPICAL EROSION AND 

SEDIMENT BMP'S 

No. 

5 

6 

7 

VARIANCE 

Subiea No. 12: .A,"~o,,*~ Road Sm,'am ~o with Pine Culver~ 

T~ Eastern p~ th~ ¢quipramt bridges be optional for 

~g minor (watt, width at the time of constna~on equal or 

less thaa 10 fea), non-.al~s designated fish.ca. Such waters can 

indude intmnittmt draina~ ditch~ and sucams. 

SubieaNo. 12: AccessRosd StresmC-'rossin~ withP/De Culverts 

- Texas F~cm proposes one pass chmush streams with 

cquipmmt ncr.csaax7 for cleating and to build the cquipmmt 

bridge. 

Sub~ec~ No. 14: Swale/Ditch/Channd/Wate~wav Croasin~ - 

Wh,:a'c appl/cable (in m'cas whcn~ banks an." suff]c, imfly mnbk and 

where waterways are less than 15 feet wide), Texas Eastern 

proposes to use, as an option, mat bridges in lieu of flume pipes 

for the aoce~ road (Figu~ 27). All mats will I~ placed such that 

th~ will go fz~m bank to bank. 

Subiea No. 14; SwalorDitch/~nnel/Watcrwav ~ino - 

Teus East~ pmpo~ the dam aM pump meO~ (Figure 31 ) as 

an ~err~ive dry ~n c:xming procedure to the tlume mining. 

RATIONALE 

Texas Eastern does nxluire a~Jipmmt bTidges for al! aato-dmigna~ 

fisheries and all meatus roga~caa of fialm~ classifi~aion that have a water 

width gn~at~ than l0 fee~ at the time of constmoion. 

Construction of an cquipmmt bridge to support the load of the equipment 

utilized in this type of ooomxta:~o~ rcquir¢~ the ckaring of banks a~ ac~ss 

to both sides of the stzcam to handle tim bridge consm~oo materials. 

For smallcr wataways aad channe~ use ofa n~t bridge will result inle~ 

d~'upfon to the w~rway or channel than a flume pipe crossing. 

This m~txl is intended for usc at pen:nnial watcrbod/es (minor aad 

intemacd~) up to 30 f~ widc and ~ dcsqimaxi fiMxcdes. Tl~ dam md 

pump procedmz allows for mc~ spa~ m~d fl~Jbility during ~z~n8 and 

pipe inmll~n, which shoe~ ~ dmmion of ~nc sp~t at the watcrbody. 

c~ 

~0 

0 

Fo 

0 

0 

0 

Fo 

Fo 

Fo 

I 

0 

0 

Fo 

fO 

M 

0 

M 

Q 

t~ 

t~ 

Q 

Q 

0 

~0 

c~ 

O 

I 

b., 

b., 

I Introdu~oa Page 1-4 .~pt~u~ D o 

O 

O 
0 

fl 

I 

fO 

TABLE 1.23-1 (e~ztla,ed) 

PROPOSED VARIANCES FROM THE PADEPS UNI)ERGROUND UTILrl'Y LINE CONSTRUCTION, TY]PICAL EROSION AND 

SEDIMENT BMI~S 

No. VARIANCE RATIONALE 

9 SubiectNo. l$: S[ooe~Dikes/WaterBarg- Asficulttmdmvlre~lmfiallandowne~oflent~questthat,theslc~ebresken 

Texas Emcrn will not install penument slope brmke~ in nmbeimtalledwheretheywillbetillingormowing. 

residen~ or cultivated areas unlms specifically directed 

otherwise in writing by ~e lendo~m- ('Figurm 12 and 20). 

10 SubiectNo. 15: Slcoe~or~a~.Bars- Railtv~sa~usuallyc~medbyboring. Rcgazdlcss, Texas East~m will 

Texas Eamea-n does not typiml propose ingalling slope install all controls as required in the crossing pamit. 

breakendintczc¢~ dtT~ in the fonn of silt fence and/or sa'aw 

bales m milm~. 

lI Sul~ectNo. 16: TrmchBzzakez~nmchPl~-To.asEastczn Table3ofSul~ectNo. 16 ooly indicates the use of sai~te on tnmch slopes 

proposes to allow for the use of sand bags, sakret~ mul/or earth of 100% ~ mon~. Sakre/e may be required at lms¢= slopes. Also, for 

bags. protection of the pipe coating and for providing a more stable seal, sand 

bags ~ ot~. more effective tlum earth fiUed bag~ Sand ba8~ take lees 

thnc to immtl thsn sacks fillnJ with mrth aZ the consa'u~on site. 

12 gubiectlqo. 17: S1zawBalcBan-iem-TcxasEastempmlx~that The l2-inch (typical) stakc dept~ a]ong with the bale being anchored in 4 

each stake be inslaJ"~ed typicaUy 12 inches below the ground : inches below ground, is sufficient to adequately stabilize each bale on 

(Figure 8). constm~on right-of-way. 

r~ 

~0 

0 

Fo 

0 

0 

0 

Fo 

Fo 

Fo 

I 

0 

0 

Fo 

fO 

M 

0 

M 

Q 

t~ 

t~ 

Q 

Q 

U1 

0 

~0 

r~ 

O ,,% 

I ,,% 

),., 

),., 

I /m'n~.:~on Page 1-5 4ppexab~ D o 

Q 

Q 
0 

b~ 

fl b~ 

I 

fO 

TABLE 1.2.2-1 (coatlnued) 

PROPOSED VARIANCES FROM THE PADEP'S UNDERGROUND UTILITY LINE CONSTRUCTION, TYPICAL EROSION AND 

SEDIMENT BMP'S 

No. 

13 

14 

15 

16 

VARIANCE RATIONALE 

SubieaNo. 17: Su.awBaleBan.iers-Tc~sEutemproposesto TexasEm~-a~illmonitortheconditionofthcemsioucontzol sa-uam-~ 

use s~raw bales for more than 3 months during winter at least monthly during the ~ deteriorating straw bales will be 

stabilization, replaced, as necessary. 

Each check dam would comist of two rows of raked-in s~raw bale ban'ie~s 

acm~ the channel to provide adequate support in anm~ of iaten~.ttem 

concemrated flows. 

Sub~ectNo. 17: SWawBaleBan'ie~-Te~asEastem~o 

me m-aw bal¢~ for check dams in di~es and drainage ~w~l¢~ 

(Figurc 9). 

Sgbie~No. 17: Straw BaleBm'riews- Texas ~im~o~s 

that hay b~les be allowed for use, in lieu of slmw balm, und¢~ 

certain rmUiaioa.~ 

~tlbiectNo. 17: Straw BaleBan'ie~ -Tegas Eastem proposes to 

use CommonwceJth of Penmylvania's ~ spacing when 

using maw bales or ahmmtc conu~is (ecoberm) as temporary 

in~ffiu:ptor da~ oa ~ laad~ unk~ ~ff~d~y ~ 

otherwise in writing by the lw, down~. 

Hay balm would net be uzcd for mulchh~ m~l the C.¢mlra~oz" ~s zespcms~le I 

for the z~zoval and ~ of all lmy ba]~. I 

Agric~ltund and ~ lm~wnm~ often r~umt that tl~ ix~r~tor 

d~es no~ be inmdlod when~ they will be fflling or mowing, i 

17 Subkx~ No. 17: Straw BJde Barner - In rock ~ Tcx~ ~ Wh~'e ax:k prev~aLs lhc abili W w drive stakes ia~ ~hc ground and 

pmp¢~¢~ to uac nmiv¢ aofl m backfill up-dope of fl~ bale. t~aching in of the bah~ uad bag~fl'elc c~a pcovide m~iliz~ for the 

filter fal~ic. 

18 Subkr~No. 18: Filt~FabdcFeace-Texas~~to Thcmi~x'diff~indcpcb~ahouldnoCaffectthcsmbiliwofthcsih 

typ~:allyimU~3-fooCkx~ak~ 12~bdowgv~md~igta'c f~b~Tier. 

7), ia~md of 18 inch.. 

l~o~tion Page 1-6 Appead~ D 

cr 

~0 

0 

Fo 

0 

0 

0 

Fo 

Fo 

Fo 

I 

0 

0 

Fo 

fO 

M 

0 

M 

O 

t~ 

t~ 

O 

O 

b~ 

0 

fl 

fO 

c~ 

PU 

0 

I 

t-' 

t-' 

I 

0 

0 

0 
0 

fl 

I 

TABLE 1.2.2-1 (coaliaum') 

PROIN~]gD VARIANCES FROM THE PADEP'S UNDERGROUND UTIIATY LINE CONSTRUCTION, TYPICAL EROSION AND 

b'EDIMENT £tM~S 

No. VARIANCE RATIONALE 

19 SubiectNo. 18: FikerFabficFence-TeguEaman~th~ Sand baggmkrete can pmvide ~ilizatio~ for the ~ter fabric. 

z~lt fence be pcnni~ in ~ where rock lZ~Vm~ the full and 

md~m dep~ andzz~ng ~e mur fabd~ whm u~ed m 

c~un~ w~h m~ ba~e~ ~igffiz 7). 

20 SubicctNo. 19: ReinforvedFilterFahricFe~e(withStrawBal© Rciaf~:bEtl~tf~withbal~is~~tb~gu~8iso~y*n 

~ - WI~ ~1 in ~i~n w~a silt f~, add~ mc~su~ av~dlable to th~ F.nviromn~mal ~. It doa no¢ allow 

Te~lmEam~mxpmpom~th~th~belmbcplnccdui~lopeoffl~w~l~ gn~t~rqmc~ngbc~wembam~onaskq~asTablcSofSubj~tNo. 19 

fmce b*ni~ m~d do not need to be mmchcd in (Figu~ 8). allows wlum th~ ~'x~don cont~l is im~dlcd in acccm:lam~ wifl~ this ga~ 

standard (bale on dovnudope a~de of dlt feace and staked in). 

21 SubiectNo, 23: UtilitvL/neSUeamCrossin~w/thDamand Typicatly stream cm,m/ngs less than l0 feet w/de can be completed within 

~-For~ 10~widv~rk~ifmckis ~ the 72 horus, however, if rock is c~otum:rcd addifimud time may be 

~ b~d~g or hm~cms, m~m mm~up (fx~m ~m:ing 

~ mmplaion) may requ~ move tl~m 72 houri. 

fO 

~0 

O. 

0 

0 

0 L~ 

0 

I 

0 

0 

o~ 

)..4 

fO 

M 

O 

M 

O 

¢0 

O 

O 

U1 

0 

fl 

fO 

O 

I 

I 

O 

O 

O 
0 

fl 

TABLE L2.1-2 

PROPOSED VARIANCES FROM THE NEW JERSEY STATE SOIL CONSERVATION COMMI'rTF~'S STANDARDS FOR SOIL 

EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL IN NEW JERSEY 

Na. VARIANCE RATIONALE 

I Pa~es3-l: St~n,t~rdfg~l~'-~/-i-~V~,m-TexasEastem Thevegetafion, whichpennanmflyestablishe~intheconstrcctionrish~-ofdoes not proposes to test soil for lime requiremc~s every two to way. is expected to be native for that area and capable of surviving in 

threeyear& existing soil conditions. Revoge~on efforts (such as fertilizing ar 

rmccdins) coatin is m =ssf , 

2 Pane4-1: Standard forPennanemVe~e~.iveCovq-Texas TcxasE~:mwillsogrcga~atopsoilinallr~sidcntialarcasandwhanthe 

Eag(rapmpoa~ to plow u~ve,'ely compazCxt soils in agficuitm~ co--on ROW is wider than 30 fee~ in mmual cultivated or rotated 

areas only, prior to revcgcU~ion, agricultural ]ands, cultivated puturm, hayfields, and other ~ at the 

l~k~vn~r's or land managing age~y's request. The ~ of topsoil 

up to 12 inches dcpth will minimi~ compact. 

3 Pa~e 4-1: Standsni for P~a-.~em Ve~,emtive Cover - Tezas This practice is to avoid nu~ant loading into w~and ~. Ptu~ d~ 

Eastern does not propose applying lime or fertilizer in wetland need for lime and fenilia)r is offset by topsoil segregation ia wettmds. 

areas, which rcnam topsoil to the surface layer. 

4 Pat.e4-1: St~-4*~forPem~snen) Vee~iveCovef-Te~as The proposed applica~ion ratm m.e higher than thosc specified in the Nl 

Eastera propou:s to apply lime at 4 tons per ac~e and fertilizer at s~Is. 

I000 Ibs. per so, re (10-20-20). 

5 Pa~e 4-2: Stzndard for Pe~,n~'~t Vet, ete~ive Cove'- The Plan In lmtctive, the difference between the Plan and state standard is negligible. 

specifies working lime and f~'tilizer into the top 2 inches of the The Plan rcquires a seedbed preparation of 4 inches. 

soil. not 4 inches. 

I 

Pa~e 4-2 and Table 4-2: pa~nsn,-~ Ve~et~ive Cover - p~ 

F~C requinm~nts, Texas F~tcro pruposes 1o seed a/l wetland 

areas with annual rye at 40 Ibs. per acre. The Plan prov/des a 

recommended upland conservation seed m/x in Appendix B, 

which does differ from the Table 4-2. However, Texas Ea~ern 

will use a/teraate upland seed mixes provided in writing by 

]andownen and land managem,mt agencies. 

Annual rye quickly ¢~lishes a temporary vege~ve cov~ until native 

veget~ion from the seedbed (rv-es~li~=d flora topsoil segregation in 

wctla~ an~) can re-colonize tbe ~ an~ 

I 

~0 

(-,

~J 

0 

Fo 

0 

0 

UI 

0 

Fo 

Fo 

Fo 

I 

0 

0 

oh 

Fo 

).=4 

fO 

M 

0 

M 

Q 

t~ 

O0 

t~ 

Q 

Q 

0 

fl 

fO 

c~ 

Q 

0 

I 

Inmod~ctlon Page !-8 Append~ D 
0 

0 

TABLE 1.2.1-2 (continued) 

PROPOSED VARIANCES ]FROM THE NEW JERSEY STATE SOIL CONSERVATION COMMITTEE'S STANDARDS FOR SOIL 

I~OSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL IN NEW JERSEY 

7 Paa= 4-4: ~,-'~,~ for Pe,'m~,'~t V,,~-~ive Cov~ - The plan This practice is to avoid mxtxicm loading into wctland systcv~. 

dora im:ludc thc use of Iklukl nmlch bindm, s, lint cgcludm its use 

within 1 O0 [Vet of~ md w~t~bodics. 

8 Pue 4-4: ~ ~ p~wam,-~ Vem~tative Coyly" - Te~as Woodchipocanonlybeappl/edw/ththeap~oftheCh~f~or 

~ pmposm tl~ use of wood chips u an optic~ fl~r mulch ~ In~ector, m~d bc npplicd no morn thm~ one (1) t0n per ~ 

eov~ during ~ ~tm. with the equival~ of 11 IbL pro" acre available nitro~ added. 

9 Pa~ 4-5: ~h,n,,i~d for pM~n,.~ Ve~tafive Cover - Tcmas 

Eastern ~ th~ soccc~£ul xevqp~stion in upland arms be 

as: 1) un~o~m 70 pe~ent vegetative covet in non- 

~icu~m~ ~ (~ coodaio~ ¢=o~ ~or exi~ag 

t=,,=); rod. 2) ram,p= yid<h ='e =n~" to =dime= =di==~ 

portiom ia the rome field. 

10 Prom7-1: Sum,l~afotTeumcntvV~Cov~-Te:cm 

II 

Kmtcrn pmpc~ t0 plow sevc~ly ¢cmlmcCed soi~ in agricultm-al 

only. ~or to m,,cgam~ 

FERC ~ent~ define mournful revegetation as 70 pmcent tmffcm 

coverage in uplm~ end 80 pc~cvt uniform covmt~ in wetlmd~ Wetlands 

trod to v~egetate quick~ and more dmse eum uplandL 

Texas Famt¢~ will m~rqp~ topmil in aU rmidcmial rams and when Uu: 

cc~tm~c~ ROW is wider than 30 feet in ammal culfiv~ed or roaV, ed 

agri~uasl ~ cultivmed p~m¢~ hayfield~ and c~hcr rams = the 

landowncr's c~ land manasin8 agc=cy's requeet The segn~miou of top~oiI 

up to 12 inches depth will ~ compact. 

Pa~7-1: Stan~forTenmonuvVemlativeCover-Temm Theptoposedapplicmionratmarehighert~tho~spcx~fiediatheNJ 

Eamra propom= to appty lime at 4 tom per a~¢ taxi fertilizer m =tandm~ 

1000 lb=. per a¢~ (10-20-20). 

(3 

I 

0 

Fo 

0 

0 

UI 

0 

Fo 

Fo 

Fo 

I 

0 

0 

oh 

Fo 

).=4 

fO 

M 

0 

M 

Q 

t~ 

t~ 

Q 

Q 

0 

0 

fO 

/n~oducUon Pa~ I-9 ~ D 

0 

I 

I 

0 

0 

0 
TABLE 1.2.1-2 (eontlaned) 

PROPOSED VARIA~L"~ FROM TI~ NEW JERSgY STATE SOIL CONSERVATION COMblITrEE'S STANDARDS FOR SOIL 

EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL IN NEW JERSEY 

12 Pue7-2: StandardforTem~orarvVeeetafiveCoveJ'-TheP~ ln~thediffa~ncebetweo3thePlanandstttestmdardisnegiisible. 

specifies woddng lime and f¢~dlJ~ into the top 2 inches of the The Ptm requires a aeedbed l~lmration of 4 ind~ 

soil, not 4 inchm. 

13 Annual rye ouiddv establishe, a ~ vegetative cover tu~ native 

14 

15 

Pate 7-3 and Table 7-2: Standard for Tc~morm-v Ve~tative 

~ve* - Per FERC requirement& Texas Eastern proposes to seed 

all wetland arms with ammal rye at 40 lbs. per a~e. 

Not~. The Plan provides a tevommmded upland conservation 

seed mix in Appendix B. T~ Eaatm~ will me akcn~e upland 

seed mixes provided in writing by landowners and land 

namgcmcat agcmi~ 

Pate 8-2: Standard for T~oilina,- Tam ~ dora not 

hauls in to oi to reph ,x t at may be disp xt 

fxmn grading the consmmtion ROW. 

p#gf ) |.~; Stmd~rd for C~nne~ Stabil~z~tlnn - Texas Eastern 

propeam to return all wate~dy ba~s to ~ 

contours or to a stable angle of repose as aplx'~ved by the 

Envirccmm~ Impcc~ in aecoldancc with this Plan (Fistm:s 33 

i and 34). No stability analysis is proposed in this Plan. 

rye quickb porary veg( native 

vegetmion fiem the seedbed (re-established fi~m topsoil segregation in 

wetland m-eas) cam re-colonize the digu.d~ area. 

Topsoil will bc segn~p~t in re~lmtml areas, wethu~ and when the 

consttucUon ROW is widez than 30 feet in ammally o.flfivaled or rotated 

agricultmal lands, culth, m:d pasmn:a, hayfidd and other areas at the 

landown~ or land managin8 aSmcy's reque~ 

The NJ slandard does not require a stability analysis for utitRy crossings 

provided the fma/~ou sectimml at~a of the sa~un renm~ the sm~e. Texas 

Eastern intmds to return sin:am channels to ~e.pcoject contours, hewers, 

it may be ~ to modify the channel contours to stabilize the banks. 

0 

fl 

M 

I 

fO 

fO 

0 

t~ 

0 

0 

0 

t~ 

t~ 

t~ 

I 

0 

0 

t~ 

fO 

M 

0 

M 

0 

t~ 

t~ 

0 

0 

0 

fl 

fO 

0 

I 

Page 1-10 A~ D 

I 

0 

0 

0 
0 

fl 

I 

TABLE 1.2.1-2 (continued) 

PROPOSED VARIANCES FROM THE NEW JERSEY STATE SOIL CONSERVATION COMMITTEE'S STANDARDS FOR SOIL 

EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL IN NEW JEi~EY 

16 Pmzei'l-5: StandardforChann~lSlab~cm-Te~tm'Ea~em 

17 

proposm to ~ppiy rock rip-rap lining in accordance with 

Fis~e 34. 

pate 11-~; ~qtmx4m~d for C?l~nn~l ,~,hili~,mi~ - Texas Eastern 

pmpmm to Eme, fm~ze, ~ and mul~h riparian erem in 

~:cordm~ce wi~ ~ B of thi~ PIm. Te~s F,m~rn will me 

altmme uplmd seed mix~ provided in wrying by lm~dow~cr~ 

md lind nm~gmm~ agm¢~. 

Is ,Pat, e]4-~: SmndanlforDewaU=h~- De~ata~mgaoddi~har~ 

loom.iota ~ not be shown on ~ plans. The 

ichm~ceticm, of such locatiom will be determined during 

cc~Uuc~ Dewatm~ wm be done in ~ with SecUre 

3.$.6 and Figure 15 (F'dtez Bag). 

19 pate 15-2 and Tabl~ 15-2: Sv~.vl~d for Dive~i,~'~ - Texaa 

Emern wiU not imUdl pcnnmm~ slopc tnmkczs in rcsida~ial or 

cultivated mmm unlms spccific~y din~ed othaw~ in writing 

by the lmdow~ 

S~ vm-iances propos¢~ for the Standard for Rip-rap (Section 23). 

Soc variances l~ for the Standard for Pm'mmxe~ Vcgcta~ve Cover 

(Section 4) and the Standant for Temw<muy Vepmlive Cover (Section 7). 

Sumdm'd for Dewatering is not ~pUcable for dewatcri~ as 

commuxm does uo~ involve dewmcnng for "Ion~ periods of dine at any 

giv~ Ioca~on along the alisnmmt. Hydm~aic intake and discharge 

Iocmions will b¢ ~own on the conmuctiou plan taxi done in 8¢cordance 

with llm Plan end applicable pemxit couclJtionx 

A~ and ~ laodownen olh:a requel that the sk~e break=~ 

nol be imudled where they will be tiUing or mowins. 

fO 

c~ 

0 

Fo 

0 

0 

UI 

0 

Fo 

Fo 

Fo 

I 

0 

0 

oh 

Fo 

),=4 

fO 

M 

0 

M 

0 

O~ 

0 

0 

0 

fl 

fO 

c~ 

lntrodu~oa Page loJ l 

~m 

Ap,~z D 

C3 

PU 

0 

I 

i-t 

i-t 

I 

0 

0 

0 
TABLE 1.2.1-2 (¢o~inued) 

PROPOSED VARIANCF, S FROM THE NEW JERSEY STATE SOIL CONSERVATION COMM]TI'EE'S STANDARDS FOR SOIL 

F-.ROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL IN NEW JERSEY 

20 

21 

22 

Pa~es 15-2 & 15-6 and Table 15-2: Standard foc Diversions - 

Texas Eastern proposes to size mzd space temporary and 

permanent diversions on the consm~on fight-of-way in 

accordance with Figures 12 and 20. No drainase analy~ to s~e 

the diversions are proposed. 

Pa~e 15-9: Sumdatd for Divisions- Texas Eastern ~ to 

lime~ fertilize, seed and mulch divm~dons in accordance with 

Appendix B oftbe Plan. Texas Enstem will use altnm~ upland 

seed mixes provided in writin8 by ]m~downen and land 

manasem~t asencim. 

PaLe 25-1: SUmdani for Sediment I~rim's -Texas Eastern 

~ to install satinamt barriers at the ba~e of tlo~ adjacem 

to road c~ssinSs and at all we,re'body and wedand crnssin ~ . 

The proposed intm'eeptor dike/slope breaker dime~dons are sui~ble for 

slowing the velocity and n~,~ctin8 runoff~o adjac~ upland vegetaUd 

areas. The propmed si~ and specing of the~e dJva~ms are consist~ with 

indmuy ~ndards for pipeline commu~on e~d FERC mmda~ds. The 

proposed divcnion requirements are alto Brutally eonsistent with the 

PADEP ¢romon cont~l ~ for etility line constmctio~ The 

Envimmnmml Inspector can requi~ ti~ spacing of diversions if tidal 

conditions wammu 

See varimces proposed for the Standard for Pennaneat Vegetative Cover 

(Section 4) and the Standard for Temporary Vegetmive Cover (Section 7). 

Based cm right-of-way conditions, it may not be pc~le to locate the 

sediment banler where it is at lea~ 30 feet up gradient is 5 percent or tess 

slop¢~ In ereas of active comm~c~ioo, tbe sedimem braziers w~l be respected 

and maintained daily to enmm'e that ~aw.h con~ls are f~m~ontng properly. 

0 

f) 

h.J 

M 

I 

FO 

M 

FO 

0 

t~ 

0 

0 

0 

t~ 

t~ 

t~ 

I 

0 

0 

t~ 

FO 

M 

0 

M 

0 

h-

¢0 

0 

0 

0 

f) 

FO 

0 

I lnnmluc~n PaS~ 1-12 

I 

0 

0 

0 
0 

fl 

I 

TABLE 1.~.1-2 (coutMued) 

PROPOSED VARIANCES FROM THE NEW JERSEY STATE SOIL CONSERVATION COMMITTEE'S STANDARDS FOR SOIL 

EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL IN NEW JERSEY 

23 

24 

25 

26 

Pa~e 25-1: Standard for Sedim~ Barrim -Texas Eastern 

propoaes to spa~e eedimcat berriera in the c~astmction right-ofway on dopes in accotda:u:e with Figure 12. 

Pa~ea 25-3 and 254: Standard for Sediment Barriers - T~um 

Eastern ptoposm to inmdl silt fence and ~raw/lmy bales in 

a~ordanoe with FiSute 7 and Figure 8, respectively. Both fisurcs 

show the gakes being driv~a (at a minimum) 12 inches below 

8xolmd, immmd of 24 ind3~. 

Prom 25-2: Samd~al for ~dim~mt E~via~ - UI~n co~dca of 

emh dlmutmnt~ a~iviti~ ca the project (or while ocaaUuetica 

on the right-of-way is halted for wint~), Texas Eastern I~ 

to inspect BMI~ weddy ot after major rain cvcnts (1/2 inch rain 

Pa=e 27-1: Standard for Slooe Protection - Texas Eamm~ does 

not prolm~ tlmu~ offlum= for slope pmtectica. 

The proposed stinting of sediment batri¢~) arc suitable for slowing the 

velocity and ~ nmoffimo adjacent upland vegetated areas. The 

proposed spacing is consist¢~ with indm~ standards for pipeline 

ummuction and FERC smnda~. The ptopo~l macing of sedime~ 

ban'iem is also generally consis~mt with the PADEP exosion control 

~ for etilRy line camm~o-- "rhe Envimnmmtal Insp~or ~an 

require fighter spacing if field ¢ond~cas warrant. 

The proposed minimum mdce depth of 12 inches, in ocajunction with the 

inspection end -=;-)-~-~, program, are sufficient to anc,~ the sediment 

barriers. The anchor depth of 12 inches in Figure 7 (silt fence) is baaed on 

a 3-foot long ~dcc. If 4-foot long stakes are used, then the 2-foot anchor 

depth can be achieved. 

Upoa completion of the earth moving activities (either completion of 

¢onsa'ucfica or ~ca of activity for the winter), the constmcfioa site 

is stabiliz~ and will need Im f~qucal monitoring. 

Tc:tas ~ ptopo¢~ to use tcmpot~~ diversion dikcs and 

slope btcakcn (Figure 12 end 20). ~ ~ are suitable for dowing 

the velocity and rc-ditectiag rcaoffinto adjac~t upisM vegetated areas. 

fO 

r~ 

~q 

0 

bo 

0 

0 

0 

bo 

bo 

bo 

I 

0 

0 

o~ 

bo 

)..4 

fO 

M 

0 

M 

0 

t~ 

t~ 

0 

0 

U1 

0 

fl 

fO 

r~ 

0 

I 

]na,adz~.~on Page 1-13 Appmd~ D 

I 

0 

0 

0 
TABLE 1.2.1-2 (eemthtud) 

PROPOSED VARIANCES FROM THE NEW JERSEY STATE SOIL CONSERVATION COMMITrEE'S STANDARDS FOR SOIL 

EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL IN NEW JERSEY 

27 

28 

29 

31 

Pa~e 28-7: Standard for Soil Bioeneine~ino - Texas Eastern 

prupos~ to lime, fertilize, seed and mulch riparian areas in 

accordanoe with Appendix B of the Plan. Teaas Eastern will use 

alternate upland seed mixes provided in writing by lmadowne~ 

and land management agencies. 

Pa~e 29-h Stabilized Consm~on Access - Texas Eastern 

prolx3ses to use fore- to six inch rock only f0f rock pad imlallafion. 

No ASTM, size No. 2 (2 1⁄2 to 1 'A inch) rock will be used 

(Figure 5). 

Pa~e 29.h Stabilized Constn~on Access - Texas Eastern 

propos~ to size and space temporary diversions on the 

comtn~on right-of-way up slope of rock acce~ pads in 

with Figures 12 trod 20. Staked straw bales or 

driveable berms, which are smaller versiora of int~xeptor dikm 

construaed of comtmaed soil or mind bag~. may be placed ca~ss 

the width of reek pad~ and other etmy points to the right-of-way. 

Pa~c 29-1: Stab'dized ~/umess - Texas Eastern does 

not propose a stabilized base counte of b'mmxinous concrete 

umtadying its ~ck acce~ pads (See Figun: 5) m aress 8rester than 

5 percent slope. 

Pa~e 31-1: Standard for Temnorarv StJeam Crt>mino,~ - Texas 

Eastern protmua one pass through streams with equipment 

neceutary for clemin8 and to build the equipment btidg~ 

See variances proposed for the Standard for Permanent Vegetative Cover 

(Seetion 4) and the StaMard for Temporary VegetstiveCov~ (Seotion 7). 

Use of smaller than 4- to 6-inch rock can remflt in tracking of 

sedimmt/amalle* stone onto roadways. 

Thc staked maw balm and/or drivesble begins across ped~n3ads will 

prevent runoff fzom moving off-s/to via the rock acces~ pad untreated. 

The me of larger rock (4- to 6-inoh rock), which are lem su~q~le to offtlte movemtmt, shouid negate the need for a bituminous concrete base. 

Constn~on of aneqm~-p~ bridge to support the load of the equipmeat 

utilized in this type of constnmtion requires the clearing of banks and access 

to both sides of the stnmm to handle the bridge cotmru~on materials. 

0 

fl 

M 

I 

fO 

c~ 

fO 

0 

t~ 

Q 

Q 

Q 

t~ 

t~ 

t~ 

I 

Q 

Q 

t~ 

fO 

M 

0 

M 

Q 

t~ 

t~ 

Q 

Q 

0 

c~ 

o 

Page 1-14 Appen,~ D I 

t-

t-

I 

0 

0 

0 
TABLE 1.~.1-1 (eoathucd) 

PROPOSED VARIANC~ FROM THE NEW J]~RSEY STATE SOIL CONSERVATION COMMrlTEE'S STANDARDS FOR SOIL 

~ROSXON AND SEDnVtm~T CONTROL IN NEW JZt~SgY 

32 Pat, e31-1: St~,~dforTenmomrvStmamC'm,mln~-Texa~ 

lO feet), non-ntate designated fu~eti,'~ Such water can include 

inta'mi~m drai~e ditahm and/ntamitte~ m-eam~ 

33 Pat, es3l-2&3l-5: StandardforTmmorm'vStrmmCrmsin~- 

Te~ Easun~ ~ muse crushed ~oe-wRh an a~aSe size 

of 4 to 6 inchm (Fisum 28), which ~. larger than the l ~-~2 1⁄2- 

in,:h ~tone ~ecif~ by the mm mndmi f~ equit~ c~ominga 

34 Pal~e 31-6: ~mmdanl for T~n~n~rv SU~am C~no - Secfioo 

52.1 of e~ Plan ~ eme windows for pipeline ~ 

in ~ faha~ which & vary (not signmumUy) 

from tho~ specified on Page 31-6. Under the Phm. the~e time 

windows do not apply to the imtaIla~n or removal of equ/pment 

~dg~ 

35 l~me 31-6: ~ for Tm~'arv Stream ~, - T~.as 

36 

Ea~=~ doa not inopme l~8 ~'fabr~ on the m=m boaom 

m ~ w~h imud]in8 -- eqeipnm~ bddSe with cleao. 

czushed swae and flumm (F~gure ~S). 

Pa~ 34-1: St~tmxi for l~x,~na Tmbidltv Barrier - Texas 

Emtem l, mposes to fscRime pipel/ne ~ scram fishe~ ~ 

under d~y oond~m by etezr m~me ~,~ (~ 30) ~r dam 

end pump cram/riBS. (Figtwe 31 ). where oonditiom allow. These 

cnn~g maho& ,eperate the in-~mn work erea end d/ms'bed 

sedimems from the sUeem flow. No ~eing ing turbidity barriem 

mpropo~ 

I 

Equipmmt Imidsm woukl typicaUy n~t be use for muth minor wa~ if they 

have a substrata and bank capable of mpporting the weight of equipment 

w/th l/rOle or no channd dimubance. 

"rhe larger sized ~tcce should reduce settl,'ment a~l improve stability of the 

Equipment bridges pmgx~d on Fisures 27, 28, and 29 should not 

significantly impair spawning or migration. Nevm'theless. Texas Eastern 

will sdtzre to permit conditiom or other resUictiozs ext~mai In w~ing on 

a site-specific basis resardio8 io-strea~ work a~viti¢~. 

"rl~ "drf c~n~g metht~ nm d~ignod to ~ do~ flow 

=~ all timm and to i~ohtte tl~ ~ssma:t~m zone from t~ m-earn flow by 

cimnneding th~ water flow thnmgh a flume plpe or by damming the flow 

and lmmping tim wat~ ammtd dm omum~on area. Bo~h measur~ 

minimi~ the nmvemmt o f scxflmmm into do~ warns. 

0 

fl 

M 

I 

fO 

fo 

0 

t~ 

Q 

Q 

Q 

t~ 

t~ 

t~ 

I 

Q 

Q 

t~ 

fO 

M 

0 

M 

Q 

t~ 

t~ 

Q 

Q 

0 

fl 

fO 

0 

ImPs Page I-I$ Appendix D I 

I 

0 

0 

0 
I) Not all oflhe standards in the NJ manual relale to lhe specific project location. For in,mince, lhe p~ ~ ~ ~ ~ to ~ ~y ~ 

soils or dunes and; tht~'fore, th/$ Plan does not contain reinsures for numagmg constmcUon on these fmtures. 

2) Pipeline ¢enahing doe~ not involve dzwater/ng for a long duration at ~ny given location and; therefoee, this standard is not applicable to th¢ 

Project. N~ ~ Plan i~ consistent with all dewat~ing mmda~ regarding fl~ protection of wetland reso~u~.e~ Te~s Ea~em will show 

the intake and ~e location~ for ~c teating on co--on pl~ts and permit aRpEcation~ ~ ~. 

3) The Plan pmpo~e~ to install rock ~cms pads that arc typically 50 feel in lmgth (Figu~ 5), regardless of soft type. In practice, the Chief 

Inapector oc F~vironmen~ Ilxgpe~or can tecicixe a longer pad l~h to ugflev~ ~ ~o~ 

0 

fl 

M 

I 

fO 

fO 

0 

t~ 

Q 

Q 

Q 

t~ 

t~ 

t~ 

I 

Q 

Q 

t~ 

fO 

M 

0 

M 

Q 

t~ 

t~ 

Q 

Q 

0 

fl 

fO 

c3 t~ 

o 

l~tos Page. 1-16 A~ D I 

I 

0 

0 

0 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

1.3 

1.4 

Sin-re.v=, Permit=, and Nellflcaeiea= 

The Company shall pe~nn the requix~ e~vimmnental field aucveys and acquire the neceesa.~ 

envi.mnmm~.al pemli'ts prior to start of ¢onetm~on of the project. The Company shall notify the 

appmp~e federal end =ate agmeim prior to, during, and/or subsequent to the ¢on~t~tion of the 

project, es identified in the Clearan~ Package/Permit Book. 

Inqulrl== 

Inquiries regardin8 this Plan ~ould be addressed to the Manaser , Environmental Cotmmetion 

Pcrmittin 8 DepmUn¢~ shown on the fz~t eove~, P.O. Box 1642; Houston, Texas 77056. For field 

conditions req~ an immediate ~ contazt the Area Manager at the address shown on the 

fi'ont cover. 

Imrodm:tion P~e 1-17 ~pptndbt D 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

. 

2.1 

SUPERVISION AND INSPECTION 

To effcctivdy mitipte project-related impacts, the Plan must be pmpedy ~e~ted in the fie~d. 

Quick and ~e decisions in the field resardJng c~tical ~ atw.h as stream and we/land 

cmmtnSs, placem~bfemsion cont~ls, mmch ~ q~oil ccntaihment, and oth~ 

~ehted items are e~al. 

To emure that the Phm is properly implemen~d, at least one Envim,mumtal Inspector (EI) will be 

deslSnated by the Convey f~ e~ eomemlon ,p~d dung eU/ve ~on o~ ~ The 

1~ wlU have peer status with all oth~ activity tnspec/ors and wiU report ~y to the ~i~ 

EnSine~ Chid Impea~ who Im ovmdl eethcnity on the c~'e~on ~eed. On ~Iler projec~ 

the E] role may be canied oat by the Resident En~eed Chief Im0e¢~ ~ a Craft ~r, as 

designated by the Company. The EI will have the authority to stop activities thal violate the 

envimnmmtal conditiom of the FERC certificate (if applicable), other federal end state permit,, or 

landown~ requin~nmts, and to ~ corrective action. 

lte~poDlbUlt~ of the Environmental Inspector 

At a minimum, theEI shall be responsible for:. 

1. Ensuing comp~ with the m of this Plan, the constn~on drawinss, the 

e~v/ronmen~ ~ of the F~C o~ficete (if~pl/cable), p~oeed ~tisati~ mee~ 

other federal or m~te en~ permits and approvals, and envi~nmental requirements in 

landowner e*se~nt agreements; 

2. Identifyin 8, docememin~ and oversedn8 corrective actions, as ue~sea~y to bring an activity 

back into eompliene~ 

3 Verifying that the limim of aullmdzed con..~xt~o~ work ereea and locations of acce~ roads are 

properly maxked before dearins; 

4 Verifytn8 the location of signs and hishly visible flNlstn8 ~ the botmdaries of retire 

reJource era,a. ~e,. wettend~ or mm with q~-iat requ/reazm alo~ the o~ruetion 

work area; 

5 Identifyin8 erosion/sediment control and stabilization needs in an areas; 

6 ~ iece~m fo¢ dewatering ~ end ~ ch~ to e~me they will not direct 

water iato known cultural re~ourc~ s/te~ or locations of semifive 

7 Vm~yin8 that ~ activities do not re~t in the depc~c~ of umd, stir, and/or 

ta~xmt t~ar t~ po~ of dighu~ into a wetland or ~tm%~ty. ff~ clepot~m ia oco~mng. 

8 E~m'tn8 ~lue ~mbsoil m~t topso~ me t~cd b~ aericuh~rel m~ms ~o m~mm~e comt~ction emd 

determine the need for COheSive action; 

.~¢,0, ~,d I~p,~f~o~ P~ 2-1 ,~ D 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

21 

9 Advisia8 the Chief Inspeaor when conditions (m~ as wet wcathe0 make it advi~le to r¢~ 

comtn~on activities to avoid ¢~cessive ruttins; 

I0 Ensuring restoration of contours and topso"d; 

I 1 Verifying that ~ soils imported for agricultural or residential me have been certified as free of 

noxious weeds and soil pests, unless otherwise approved by the landowne¢; 

12 Detemmfi~ the need for md cmmin8 that ~on vontrola an: ~ installed and ~ 

daily if~ to prevent sediment flow into wetlands, wate~t~es, senmtive areas, and onto 

roads; 

13 lmpecfi~ temporary erosion control meamres at least: 

a. On a da/ly basis in areas of active cons~uction or equipmem operation; 

b. On a weeldy basis in areas with no constm~on or equipmmt operation; and 

c. Withln 24 houm ofeech 0.5 inch ofminf~l. 

14 ~ the repair of all ineffective temporary ¢w~ion control meamr~ within 24 hours of 

identification; 

15 Identi/~m8 a~m that should be giwm special ~on to e~sure stabilization and gestation afl~ 

the comm~on phase; 

16 F.mm'in8 that the Contractor implc~nents and complim with the Company's Spill Prevevtion 

Control end C, ountcmneasure ($PCC) Plea; end 

17 Keeping records of compliance with the environmental conditions of the FERC certificate (if 

applicable), pmp0e~ mitigetion mcamree, and other Federal or state ¢~tvironmen~ permits 

during active construction m~d re.oration. 

Environmental Training for ComflrucOou 

If required by the FERC certificate, environmental trainin8 will be givm to both the Company 

personnel end contractor pengmnd whose activities will impact the environment durin8 pipeline 

consngtio~ The kvel of training will be commmmntte wi~h the type ofd~m ofthe penom~. All 

¢omtrt~on ~ fi~m the chief impector, E], craft imtpectors, conmtctor job ~edntendent to 

logge~, wekl~, equipment opemtom, and labo~ will be Oven some form of environmental 

training. In addition to the EI, all ocher con..qrtgtion pegaonne/an: expected to play an ~ m~ 

in ~ strict compliance with all permit conditions to protect the ~vironment during 

constngtiovu Tndnin8 will be given lxior to the st~t of ~ and throushout the cocstruct~ 

as needed, and will cover the following issues: 

,, The ~cifica of this Plm and the SPCC Plan; 

• Job or activity specific permit mquireme~s; 

• Company poticies and ¢ommitmmts; 

• Cultural resource ~ and restrictiom; 

Superv~ton and IrJl~,ction Page 2-2 Appendix D 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

• Thn~tcuedandendangercdspe~mmlrictions;and 

• Any other p¢~neat in~rmation t~lted to the job. 

~. aid Is~Aio. Page,7-3 Appendix D 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

3~ 

3.1 

3.2 

CONSTRUCTION TECHNIQUES FOR NATURAL GAS PIPELINES 

Typical ROW Requlrements 

Pipeline ~oa workspace requ/remcmts are a fmg~on of pipe diameter, equipment size, 

topography, geological rock formatiomk locaticct of coas/ng~on such as at road crossings or river 

c~msing~, pipel/ne ~vers. methods of consmu~ion stw.h as bor/ng or open-c~ co~n. or 

existing sod cond/tiom encountered during con.~'uct/on. As the dim~cr of the pipeline being 

installed ~ so do~ th© dq~th of trmch, eae~wt~d spoil material, equipme~ ~ and 

ulflmate/y th~ amount ofcoe.s/n~on work space that will be required to construct the project. AH 

conatnu~on activities an~ res;ricted to the ROW limits ide~fiod on the construction drawings. 

However. in limited, non-wetland arem. the construction ROW width nmy be expanded by up to 25 

lea wi~bou~ approval fzom the FERC for the following situ~ion~: 

1. To ~ccommod~e fall ~ ROW topsoil segreg~on; 

2. To ensure ~u~ ~ where topog=ph~ condltiom C~e., sMe-dopes) or soil limitafiom 

¢ais~; and 

3. For ~ mm-amunds where no reasonable alternative access c~its in limited, non-we~hmd 

or non-forested areas. 

Use of these fimited mcaz is subject to landowQer W~ova/and comp~ce with s/l ~mb~ ~, 

miti~io~ and repo~i~ n~cm~. 

I~ U.S. Depart,',* of Tnmspo~t/on (DOT) and Occup~om/~f~y and Ha~th Adm/n/st~on 

(OSHA) have established minimum size and area rcqu/rements for worknr safety involving 

~ms~ion sc~vitics. See Figures I, 2, and 3 for typical cons~'uc//on ROW widths. Additional 

construction ROW may be ~ at specific locations to con.~mc¢ a p/pc:line includ/ag, but no¢ 

limited to, steep sid~ or vertical slopes, road ~ crossovers, areas r~dring topsoil ~ 

md staging a~m assoclated with w~md and wm~oody crossings. "l'nmc lotions are shown on the 

draw~L 

A~ Roads 

All ac~m 1o thc ~on ROW will be limit~ to md~ng roads amt minimiz~ in wcfl~mds to 

the ~tmt pr~tic~ Additional ~ roKIs to the ROW a~re r~uL,~! st v~ious points along the 

project ROW wh=e other toed cms~mg, (l~ved or gravel/suee/loeal n~ls)do not ex/st. Examples 

of typea of acceu used include abandoned town made. railroad ROW~ powedine service roads. 

logging roads and fiwm roads. Impmvemmts to ac~ss roads (i.c., grading, placing gravel, 

replacing/in,ailing ~ and tr~mm'u~ ovedumging vegetation) may be v=quired due to the si~ 

and nature of the ecluipment that would utilize the road (Figure 4). 

Coswtra~ctio~ Tec~ Pa~ 3-/ Logan l~tera/ EdtSCP 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

1. Access to the ROW during conmuction and restoration activities is permitted only by the new 

or existing access roads identified on the constnu~ion drawings. 

. Contn~or shall maintain safe conditions at all road ctouings and access points during 

comtnu:tion and'm0.omioe. All acceu rinds will be ~ dhring oo~ by gnuting 

and the addition of gravel or stone when necessary. 

3. Contractor will implement all appropriate ero~on and sedimentation control mcasures for 

conam~t/on/impmvemmt of access roads. 

4. Conln~or shall ensure that all paved road surfaces utilized during consm~on are kept free of 

mud and debrm to the extent practical. 

. If rock access pads are required by the permitting agencies in residential or active agricultural 

arcas, rock shall be placed on nonwoven geote~ttil© fabric to facilitate rock removal afl~ 

comaruetion (Figure 5). 

6. All access roads across a waterbody must use an equipment bridge in accordance with Section 

5.2.2. 

. The only access roads, unless otherwise permitted, that can be used in wetlmds other thaa the 

~on ROW are those existing roads requiring no modification and no impact on the 

weOand. 

. Limit ccmsax~on equipment operating in wetland areas to ti'~t needed to clear the ROW, dig the 

trench, fabricate and inslall the pipeline, backfill the trench, and restore the ROW. All other 

construction equipmem shall use access roads located in upland areas to the maximmn extent 

practical. Where access roads in upland areas do not provide reasonable acce~a, limit all other 

conmuction equipramt to one pass through the wetland using the ROW, whenever practical. 

9. For a~e~ ~ a saturated wetland, unle~ ~ aut~rized by agm~ permits, use timber 

mats or an equivalent (Figure 6). 

33 Pipe and Contractor Wareyards 

Pipe and contractor wateyards are required for storing and staging oquipment, pipe, fuel, oil, pipe 

fabrication, and other construction related materials. The Contractor shall perform the following 

measures at pipe end contractor wareyards: 

I. S~p and segregate topsoil in agricultural lands; 

2. Install erosion control stmetuxm as ditecled by the El, outlined in this Plan, or identified on the 

construction drawings, and maintain than throughout construction ~ restoration activities; 

3. Implement and comply with the SPCC Plan; and 

Co~tructton Teclmiqu4z Page 3-2 Logan Lateral E&SCP 
Jnofficial FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

4. Re,ore and reveget~e all disturbed areas in accordance with the measm~ ¢mtUned in this P~ 

and u din~ed by the EL 

3.4 Off-ROW Disturbance 

With certain ex~on~ wl~h are required in order to comply with FERC Plan and Procedures, all 

comm~on activities m~ restriO.ed to within the limits idn~tificd on the construction drawings (exceptions 

the inmllation ofd~pe ~ ~ of energy "-dmipatin8 device, inmll~ion ofdewatedn8 

muctu~ a~l drain tile repah" which are m~bjea to appikzble ~vey mluin:nm*s). Howev~, in the ev~t 

th~ off-ROW di~m~a~vc occu~ the following meamu"as will be implemented: 

1. The EI will immediately report the ~ to the Chiefln~pector and ROW Agent; 

2. Th~ eouditio~ that cm~d thv disau'mmce will be evah~ed by the Chief ~ and thv EI, 

~ ~ey will dcl~rmim~ wl~fl~- work ~" ~ loc~ioa ~m i~m~l ~%r tlmsc condifi~ ~ 

. If deemed neceasmy by the Chief Inspectc~ and El. one or mo~ of the followin8 ~ 

actions will be take" immediate restorat~ of the original comoun, seeding and mulching of ~ 

distm'oed ~ and/or immll~ion of en~ion control d~icas. The Company's Envimnmcntal 

Constm~on Permitting Department will be notified as soon ,,*practical. 

3.5 Constractlon Sequence 

Natural gas pipefinm are imlalled umng conventional overland buried pipeline constntction 

tecJmiqueL Whase activities aro nccesmh'y for the installation of a stable, safe, and reliable 

facility comi~mt with DOT requL,~amts and regulations. This ~ction providm 

overview of the equip~t end operetiom nec~uuy for the installation of a natural gas pipeline, 

~ potc~al inve~ tim may oc~r from eech opemtim~ end i&ntiflm the measur~ that wiU 

be impimmm~ to control theae potm~l impa~ 'I~ section aho ~ in detz.il the e~'mi~ ~ 

scdimcvt control techniques that apply to each ~on activity including clcaring, grad~ 

tn=ching, Iowerlng-in of pipe, backfilling, and hydrostatic testing. ROW restoration will be 

eddreeaed in Section 3.6. 

in an asaembly line or "mainli~ ~ The spacing between the individual c-~ws responsible for 

each ~mdependmt activty is based ou eeticipeted rate of pe~ess. The activism listed below are 

non~ly performed in the following eequeuce: 

• Survey and Flag the ROW; 

• Cl~in8 the ROW; 

• Ixmallin8 tm~a,'7 ~dimmt bardcm; 

• Gradi~ theROW; 

• Inmdl~ tm~porary imceqXor dikas; 

• Trenc~,/ex=v~i~the 

• 

• Weld~-~ end weld ~q~ti~; 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

• Tnmch dcwatefing 

• Lowering the p/pc into the tram, h; 

• Back~ing the trtnch; 

• aydrom c resins ofpip and 

• ROW reaoration and clean-up. 

Obstacles to the mainline technique are oaea enootmteaed and are not comidered to be out of the 

ordinary. These ola~acle% which include side hill ¢ro~n8% rock, wetland& su"eamg roads, and 

residential areas, do not normatly intemapt the assembly line flow. 

3.5.1 Clearb~& 

Clearing opmaiom will iadude the mnoval of vegetation within the commotion ROW. Various 

clearing methods will be employed depending on tree e~e., contour of the land, and lhe ability o f 

the ground to support clearing equipment. Vegetative clearing will either be ac~3mp~ by 

hand or by cuttin8 equipme~. The following procedures will be standazd practice during 

clearing: 

I. Prior to beginning the r~noval of vegctatkm, the limits of clearing will be established and 

idmtified in accordance with the ¢onsm~ion drawings; 

2. All ¢om~ax~on activities and ground disturbenc¢ will be confined to within the ROW shown on 

3. Clearly mark and lnmect tre~ to be saved as per landowner requeats or as otherwise required; 

. All bruah and treee will be felled into the conduction ROW to minimize damage to trees end 

~'ucCmcs adjacent to the ROW. Trees that tuadvmently fall beyond the edge of the ROW will 

be immediatdy moved onto the ROW and diatmbed areas will be immediately stabilized; 

5. Trees will be chipped or cat into lengths idcatified by the landownff and then stacked at the ~ 

of the ROW or r~aoved; 

6. Brush and limbs may be disposed of in one or more of the following ways depending on local 

restriction& applicable lmmits, con~axa~ion Line List ~pulations, and landown~ agreements: 

a. Stockpiled along the edge of the ROW; 

b. Bta'ned; 

c, Chipped, sl~ead across the ROW in upland areas, and plowed in; or 

d. Hauled off site, 

7. Existing surface drainage pett~ will not be altered by the placement of timb~ or brush piles 

at the edge of the consm~ion ROW. 

Coaauucdon Teclurifuea Pag~ 3-4 Logan Lateral Ed~CP 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

3.£2 la~talllag Temporary Sediment Bo~rle~s 

Sedimmt l~eriem, whid~ are ~ eroflo~ conuols intended to minimize the flow of sediment 

and to prevmt the dvpmit~ of ~diment~ into mtlve t~otuvet, shall be ins~dled following 

vegmfiv© cleming .olmmfiov~ They may bc ~ of matevial~ v, xJ~ as ailt fmce~ stflr, vd s~raw 

bala~ ~mp~ct~ ~uth (~g. dm~blc bcnm ~rou t=vd lan~), sandbag~ o~ an equiva1~ ~ 

as idmtificd by the EI (Figtm= 7, 8, 9, 10). Hay baler may be uted in lieu of slraw bales wi~ ~ 

following vm~'ictim~ - hay bales shall aot be uaed foe nmlrJ3h~ and the Conlrac~ ia respom~e for 

thch. rcraoval and dislx~. 

I. Install te~oom'y scdimem [~Ttm m tl~ b, me of dopes ,,aj~=t to ro~ ~ ~ m 

wateflmdy and wetland c~uins~ in a~mtance with Scions $.2.4 and 6.2.2 respective. 

2. Do not st~cc or tn~:h in pl~c ~'aw bales usai on ec/uipma~ bridg~ c~ on mats ac=~ ~ ~ 

lane. 

. Inspect tempmary Ndlment ben'im daily in areas of active construction to em~ prOliX 

fim~ontn8 md maintenm~ Iu other ar~, sedim~ ba'rkn will be ~ md maintained 

on a weekly ba~s ~ eonatn~tion, and ~thin 24 hoe~ following atorm event~. 

4. Maintain all temporary sediment ban'ie~ in place until permanent revegetation meamtrm are 

successful or the upland areas adjacent to wetlands, watetimdies, or roods are stabilized. 

5. Remove tm~otaty sediment barrie~ from en mea when rephu:ed by pe~mammt em~an oo~! 

measu~rm or wh~ the area has been su<r.e~l~y reetored as specified in Section 8.1. 

3.SJ Grad/a e 

The ~ ROW will be graded m needed to provide a level workspa~ for safe operation of 

heavy equipmmt uaed in pipeline ccmU~tion. The following tnocedur~ will be standard practice 

dur~g greah~. 

~,~J.l ToesoU Smret~/os 

Topmfl eeglt'Safian ~ will be used in all veaidenttaI areas and whe~ the ~mg~:tion ROW ia 

widar tim 30 f,~t in rurally culfi~t~l or rotmxl ~oaltuml ImP, culfi~ ~, ~ 

and ot~ ~ at th¢ lmdowncr's or la~i -~,,~,~2 a~'y's requmt. 

IL Prevent the mixing oftop,oil with ~oil by m~pin8 top~ from either the full work area ~ 

from the mmch line and subsoil ~nse area (ditch plus spo'd side method) as ~uleted in the 

Conmuction Contr~ or Line List (Figure 1Z). 

b. Segzcgateatlc~12incl~oftapmilindeepsoLlawithmorethanl2inchesoftopsofl. Insoibl 

less than 12 inches of topsoil, make every effort to g~'gete the entire topsoil layer. 

Co~u'uc~. T~ Page 3-3 ~ L~eml IK, g,~CP 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

c. Wh¢~ topsoil segregation is required, maintain separation of salvaged topsoil and subsoil 

throughout all constm~on activities. 

d. For wetlmdg ~gregate the top 12 inehea oftopm'd within the ditdaline, e~cept inare~ where 

standing water is'la~=t or so/Is are utumed or frozen. 

e. Leave gap* in the topsoil piles for the immllaflon oftempom~ intaceptor dikes to allow water 

to be diverted off ROW. 

f. Topsoil replacement 0.e., importation of topsoil) may be used u an alive to topsoil 

seKn:gation ifeppmved by the landowner and Chief Impecmr. 

g. Neve~ use topmil Jot padding, bee, kfiR of Umach pktp. 

&£J.2 7h, e ~m~w Remov~ a.d D/soma/ 

st Remove tree stumpe in upland an~m alo~n8 the entire width of the permanent ROW to allow 

adequa~ ~ for tl~ mf~ ~ of ~ md equipment. Stump6 within tim temixmm 7 

ROW will be removed or ground to a suitable height that will allow the safe passage of 

equipmu~ as stipulated by the Chief Impector or EI. 

b. Dispose of stumps by one of the following ~ pendln8 ~ by the Chief Inspex:tor and 

the landowner, and in accordan~ with rcgulat~ requiremm~: 

• Bur/ed at a ~y-appcoved off-rote lo¢llfion (¢~celg in wetlands and asrioJ1tural an~s); 

• Burned; 

• Chipped, spread acwm the ROW in upland areas, and plowed in; or 

• Ground to grade in wethmds, excess chips will be t~moved for proper disposal. 

Grading ~ and U'~ stump removal in wetland arms will be conducted in u:conhn~ with 

Section 6.2.1. 

3.&&3 Eock D/~mm/ 

Rock ('including bhua rock) will be disposed of in o~ or more of the following ways: 

a. Buried on the ROW or in approved eomaxtction work arem either in the ditchline or m ~ ~ 

grade eat restoration in accordan~ with the ~¢tion specifications. In oaltivetecF 

agrioaluual lmda, wetlmdg and reaidmtial areas, rock may only be Imekfilled to the top of the 

bedrock pmfil~ 

b. Windrowed per wriRm laadowae~ agreement with the Company; 

c. Removed and fflsposed of at a Comlmny.approved site; or 

Co~tn~tion T~Ani~s Page 3-6 Logan L~eml EdL~,F 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

d. Used as riprap for stream benk stabilization whcrc allowed by an applicablc rcgulato~ agency(s) 

(Figure 34). 

3.£4 Installls s Temporary Interceptor D~es 

. Temlmrary interceptor dikes, which are temi~raty erosion control meastmm intended to reduce 

mnoffvelocity end divert water off the cesmmction ROW, shall be installed followin8 gtadin8 

operations (Figure 12). The intctceptor dikes arc to be installed on all disturbed areas as 

to avoid ~tcessive erosion. Temporary interceptor dikes may be consm~ed of 

such as compacted soil, silt fence, staked straw bales, or sand bags. Hay bales may be 

used in lieu of maw beles with the following reatriOions - hay bales shall not be used for 

mulchin8 and the Contractor is responst"olc for their ren~val and disposal. 

Temporary slope breakeas must be installed on slopes greater than 5 ~ wbere the base of 

the slope is less than 50 feet f~om waterbody, wetland or road camsmg at the s Dac.in$ indicated 

below (closer spacin8 should be used ff necessary). Where the base of the slope is equal or 

gnmer than 50 feet from a waterbody, wetland, or road crossing, install interceptor dikes at a 

spacing necessary to avoid em~essive aosion. 

(%) Sead~ (tea) 

<5 No Strucmre 

5 - 15 300 

> 15 - 30 200 

> 30 I00 

. Direct the ouffall of asc, h ~ interceptor dike to a stable, well vegetated e~ea or constant 

an energy-diuipatin8 device (silt fence, staked maw bales, erosion control fabriO at the end of 

the inter~ptor dik~ 

3. Position the outfaU of each temporary intaceptor dike to prevettt sediment discharge into 

wetlands, watcrbodics, or other sensitive 

4. hmtall teml:m~y intercepter dikes acrou the esttisc ROW at all watctbody and wetland cax3esin~ 

es well as the base of slopes adjecem to roads, when directed by the El. 

. Drivable bera~ which m.e smaller vetuiom of interceptor d/kes ~ of compmte:l ~oil or 

sand bag% may be used in place of staked straw bales at the entrances and exits of travel lanes at 

road c~ waterbodies, end wetianda. They ant installed the width of the travel lane at the 

stm~ of the equipmem ~ing and made low enough to allow equipmatt and other vehicles to 

pass. Yet, they reduce and divert water runoff from seasitive mvironmental ~. 

. Inspect temporary interu:ptor dikes deily in trees of active comtmction to insure prope* 

fxmctioning and maimemmce. In otber ar~s, the interceptor dikes will be inspected and 

maintained on a weekly basis thnmghou! construction, and within 24 hours following storm 

evm3ts. 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

3.$.5 Trenc/dng 

The trench cemerline will be staked after the consmWion ROW has been pv~ared. In general, a 

tnmch will be excavated to a depth that will permit Ixn.ial of the pipe with a minimum of 3 fect of 

cov~ (F~ 13)..Ovedas~ t~ mey be aecomplished mdug a ~ baddxm or a mtmy 

whorl-ditching machine. In shale or rocky areas where the use of the Wned-dflching machine is 

limited, a tractor-drawn ripper will be employed to break and loosen hard sx~staatmn matm~l. In 

arms where rock cannot be ripped, drilling and blasting may be required. A backhoe may than be 

used to remove rock and soil from the ditck 

The following pmcedm~ will be standard prectice during ditd~ing: 

1. FLag draJnage tilee damaged cluring ditching activities for repair;, and 

2. Place spoil at least lO feet upgradicnt fzom the edge ofwateabodim. Spoil will be contained with 

erosion and sedimentaXiou control devic~ to ptevem spoil mata'ials or heavily silt4aden water 

from transferring into watedxxHm and wetlands or off of the ROW. 

3.£$.1 Temnorarv Trenck Piu~ 

TemporaIy trcnch plugs are barricn within the ditch that segment the continuous open trench. They 

typically consi~ of compec~ed subsoil or sandbags (soft) pieced across the ditch or composed of 

unexcaveted portions of the ditch (hard). Along Iteep dopes, they ~=ve to reduce erosion and 

sedimcvmtion in the trench and minindze dewatcflng pmblen~ at the base of slopes where ~e 

environm~ts ~ as waterbodies and wetlands are frequently located. In addition, they provide 

access ac~ou the trench for wildlife and livestock. 

a. Do not use topsoil for installing temporary soft trench plugs. 

b. Coctdimte with the landown~ to identify optimal locations for the placement of tc~nporary ha~ 

tren~ plugs deigned to lm3vide access for live~ock. 

¢. Tcv3porazy trench plugs may be used in conj~ with intcrceptor dikes to pre-cenl water in the 

trench from overflowing into sanddve resource areas (Figure 14). Attempt to ~vert trench 

overflow to a wetl-vesctated off-ROW location or construct an energy-dissipating device. 

3,5.6 Trench Dewatetln& 

Trench dewatefing may be periodically required along portions of the proposed pipeline prior to 

and/or ~Jb~qu~t to ~ation of the pipeline to remove collected water from the trench. 

. Trench dewatedng will be cond~ed (on or offthe constru~on ROW) in such a manner that 

do¢~ not cause erosion and does not rcsuk in heaviby sik-laden wator flowing imo any w~ 

or wctiand. 

Cocvoucgon Teclod, qu~ Page 3-8 Logan Lateral £&SCP 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

2. The intakes of the hoscz used to withdraw the wat~ from the tnmch will be devated and sc=emed 

to mlnimi~ pumping ofdep~ted u~mmt~ 

3. Wat¢~ may be discharged into areas wh~'e adequate vegetation is IXesent adjac~ to the 

constn~on R .OW to function m a filter meditnn. 

4. Where vegetat~ is abaent or in the vicinity of waterbody/wetland areas, watez will be puml~ 

i.to a filter bag (Figure 15) or thmush a gructum compmed of sediment Ixwdws. When us/rig 

filter bags, secme the discharge hoee m the bag with a clamp. 

5. Rm~ove deweterin 8 sln~m~ m soon as pmm'ble after the completion ofdewacefin8 activities. 

3.$.7 P/pe Im~M/at/o~ 

Following trench excavation, pipe sections will be delivered to the ¢xmstmction site by truck or 

tracked vehicle, and smm8 out along the ~ Indlvkhml pipe saXicms will be placed on t=q~orary 

supporU or wooden skids and staggeml to allow room for work on the exposed ends. Certain pipe 

~ctiom will be beat, as necemary, to conform to changes in slope and dinx~on of the ~ 

~5.Z2 W~bt ~ Wdd I~/o. 

Once the bending operation is complete, the pipe ,ectiom will be welded together on supporm using 

approved w,4 ding pmcedurm that comply with Compeny weldin8 specificat/ons. Afl~" welding, lh¢ 

welds will be inspected radiographica]ly or ultrasonically to ensure their structural integrity. 

3,~,7.3 Lowerine-~ 

Lowering-in consists ofldacin8 the compl~ed p'~ine seaions ~ the trench where a fie-in weld 

will be made. Lowefing:m is usmdly accomplbhed with two or more ~dcboom tractors acting in 

unison and ~ed .o as n~ to buckle or othcnvi~ damage th~ pip~ The pip¢l~ will be lifted from 

t~ suplxxts, swu~ out ova" t~ tn~.,h, a~d lowen~d dLre~y into tbe In-oh. TI~ ~lUil~mt uses 

a "leap frogs/n~' tedm/qu~ ~ su~c/m¢ a~m to mfdy mow around ocher tngax~ wtth/n ~ 

conatmcfi~ ROW to gain an advanced poe~fion on the pipe. 

3.£8 S~g 

Beckfillin8 ~ of covering the pipe with the earth removed f~m the Uen~h or with other f'dl 

~ hauled to the s/re where the e~ U'enc~ spoil is not adequate for backfilL l~c&filling will 

follow lowering:m of the pipeline as close as is practical. 

In areas where the uench bottom is ir~guhtrly shaped due to cotmofidated rock or where the 

excavated spoil materials ere unacceptable for btgkfillin8 around the pipe, padd'm8 material may be 

Comrmwtton ~feclmiqu~ Page 3-9 Logan Lo~ml E&SCP 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

required to prevent damage to the pipe. This padding material will generally consist of sand or 

screemed spoil materials fi'om ~ excavatio~ 

1. ~ no circumatano~s shall topsoil be usad as l~dding ma/¢rial. 

2. Exceas rock, including blast rock, may be used to backfill the trench to the top of the existing 

bedrock profile in acootdance with Company g~cificationL Rock that is not used to backfill the 

trench will be treated as described in Section 3.5.3.3. 

3. Any excess material will be spt'cad within the ROW in upland m'em mid land contours will be 

rot~u=d-in to match adjacent topography. 

4. The trench may be backfilled with a crown over the pipe to compensate fez compaction and 

se~2ing. Openings willbc I~ in the completad trench crown to restore pm-comuuc1~ drainage 

~. Crowning shall not be used in wetland areas. 

J.$,~l rcrmammt ~,em~.h Plu~s 

Permanent laench plugs m~ intended m slow subsurface wa~ flow and e=osion along ~ ~ ~ 

amund the pipe in sloptngtemfin(Figures 16, 17). Pennanem trench plugs will be constru~ed with 

sand begs or an equivalent as identified in the penn/t requimmmts. On severe slopes greater than 

30 percent, "Sak~e" may be used at the discr~ion of the Chief Inspector. 

a. Topsoil shall not be used to constn~ tnmch ptugs. 

b. Pmmanem trench plugs, which am used in conjunction with interceptor dikes, shall be installed 

at the locations shown on the construction drawings or as dexerrnined by the El. If not shown, 

use the following spacing:. 

(°/.) ~ (f~) 

<5 No Smu~um 

5 - 15 300 

> 15 -30 200 

>30 100 

c. Trench plugs shall be installed at the base of slopes adjacent to waterbodics and wmlaads, and 

wh¢~ nccdad to avoid draining ofa rmourc¢. 

3.&9 Hydrostatic Testing 

Om~ the pipeline is completed and before it is placed into serv~ it will be hy~ ~ ~r 

m'mmn~ integrity. Hydrmtatic testing involves filling the pipeline with dmn wat~ and main~ 

a te~ pre~mre in excess of normal operating pressures for a spccified period of tim© (typically 8 

hours). The testing procedure involves filling the pipeline with test water, performing the pressure 

test, and discharging the tes~ water. 

Construcclon T~ Page 3-10 Logan Lateral E&.SCP 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

I. The EI shall notify appropriate atate agt~'ies (as identified in the Hydn:matic Teat Pw.kage) of 

the inttml to use specific test water sources at least 48 hotu~ before testing activities (unlms 

waived in writing). 

2. Pumlm used for .bydtmtatic tinting within IO0 fett ofany wat~ or wt~mxl slmll be Otmlted 

and refueled in accordance with tho SPCC Plzo. 

. Do not use atato-designated e~ceptiocal value watem, waterbodies that provide habitat for 

federally listed thnmemed or endangered species, or waterbodtes designated as public water 

supplies, unless appwprime fedend, ~ and/or load pertaining agemim grant written 

Use only the water sources identified in the C~ Package/Permit Book. 

4. Sclcen tlg intake hose to Wcvent cairn/murat of fish and otlgr aquatic lik. 

. 

. 

, 

8. 

. 

10. 

Maintain ambia'g, downstream flow rates to protect aquatic life, provide for all watcrbody uses, 

and provide for downsmaun withdrawals of watm- by ex/ating usera 

Locate hydroatafic test num~lds outs/de wetlands and dp~'ian ~ to the great¢~ ext~t 

practical. 

For an overland discharge of teat water from a new pipeline, dewater into an energy dissitmtion 

device comma:ted of straw bales (Figures 18, 19). 

For an overland discharge of tat water from an twisting pipeline, d~wat,~r into m energy 

di~pation device constructed ofmaw balm and al~orl~mt boorm (Figure 18). [frequ/~by 

the appropriate permitting agency, the test water may be discharged through an appropriate 

filtration system including ~ tanks end/or carbon filtz-s. 

Dewatcr only at the locations shown on the ~on drawings or locations identified in the 

Hydmatafic Te~ Package. 

locate all dewatering stngtur~ in a well-vegetated and ~ ~ ifptact/cal, and att~ 

to ~ at least a 50-foot vegetated buffet- from edjscent waterbody/wetland areas. If an 

adequate ~ is not available, sediment b~-riers or ~mai]ar w0s/on con~ol measure must be 

insUdled. 

11. Rel~l~e disclu~e r~, use ~ dimil=tion device(s), and ~ sediment banien, as 

necessary, to p~'ve~t wos/on, stn~ambed scour to aquatic ~ suspc~on of sed/mm~ 

ftoodi~ or excess/v© sm~am flow. 

12. Do not di~ into s/ato-designated excepc/onal value watent, waterbodies which provide 

habitat for federally Ks/ed threatened or endangered species, or watctbcdie8 dgsignated as public 

water ,uppI/~ unleu ~ feden~ ~te, and Iota/penmtt/ng agenc/es gnat wr/ttm 

penniuio~ 

13. The El shah utmple and teat the so~rce wateg and dhcha:ge watez in sccorda/ge with the ~ 

requiremmts. 

Coeutregtlon Teclmlques Pa&e 3-11 Logan Lateral EdSCP 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

3.6 ROW Restoration ud Fimgl Cleanup 

Reatoration of the ROW will begin after pipeline construction activities have been completed. 

~ measure8 include th© ~em of final grades and dmimse petum~ as well as the 

installation ofpenmmcnt erosion and sedimentation conl~l devices to ~ post-construction 

el'csio~ Residential areas will be restored in ~ with Section 4.3.3. PIcpetty siren be re~ored 

as dose to its original condition as practical unless otherwise specified by the landowner. 

I. The ~r shall make every teemmtble effort to complete final cleanup of an Lea (including 

final grading end installation of permanent erosion control stmcturm) within 20 days after 

backfilling the trench in that area (within 10 days in residential areas). If ae~onal or other 

weather conditions prevent compliance with these time frames, maintain tem~rary en~on 

controls (te~pormy interceptor clikes uld sedime~ berri¢~) until conditio~ allow completion 

of cleanup. 

2. The disturbed ROW will be seeded within 6 working days of final grading, weather and soil 

conditions pmaitting. 

3. If final cleanup and seeding cannot be completed and is delayed mxtil the next rlconmumded 

growing season, the winter stabilization measures in Section 3.6.4 shall be followed. 

4. Grade the ROW w p~constt~ion contours. 

5. Spread ~ted topsoil back ~=x~ss tbe graded ROW to its original profile. 

. P,J~nove ¢:mess rock from at least the top 12 inch~ of soil to the ¢=tent practical in ~ ~ ~ 

permanent cropland, hayfidds, pastur~ re~dcotial areas, and other a~m at the landowners 

request. The size, deputy, md ~'bution of rock on the construction ROW should be similar 

to adjacent areas not disturbed by conscuc~icv. The landowner may g~ov¢ other pmvisiom in 

writing. 

. A travel lane may be left open temp~ to allow acocm by comtmction traffic ffthe temporary 

erosinn conteol sC~clures are installe~ regubrly inspected and maintained. When acce6s is no 

longer required, the travel lave must be removed end the ROW rmored. 

. Remove all construction debrb (used filter beg% skids, trash, etc.) from the ROW unle~ the 

landowner or land managing agmcy approvm otha'wise. Grade or till the ROW to leave the soil 

in the proper condition for planting. 

Co~n~clion Tec~d~w~ Page 3d2 Log, an Laterol £d~CP 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

3,6.1 Permanent Erosion Control 

&~l,! Pfra~#s~nt l~terc~tor Dites 

Permanent ;nt~ d~e~ a~ inta~%d to reduce nmoff velocity, dlve~t wat~ off the 

ROW, and I~VCnt scdinu~t deposition into semitivc rczomce~ 0vigu~ 12). Pcrmanmt inte:rccptor 

dikes will be constructed of compacted soil. Send bags or some functional equivalmt may be used 

when directai by the EL 

a. Ins~t/J. pamanmt/maccptor d;kcs in aU re'ms, mcept cultivated re'ms and lawns, at thc locmiom 

shown on thc consm~on drawinss or as directed by theE/. If not shown, use the spscin8 

outlined fort~ int~ dike installation in Section 3.5.4. 

b. IrHall ~ inmveptor dik~ ecrms the entire ROW at all ~ and wetland cros~ 

and at the base of slopes adjacent to roads. Whm the ROW paraUe;s an e0dsting utility ROW, 

penmnent interceptor dikm may be ingailed to match existin8/ntezceptor dikes on the ~j~t 

pipdinc ROW. 

C,. Constn~ in~ceptor dik~ with a 2 to 8 pe~ ouL~lope to divot ~ flow to a stable 

~v~ anm without ceus~ng v~.~ to Ix)ol c¢ cmdc bchi~ thc ~ dike. In the al~ax,'c 

ofa stablc vegetative area, in.qall ~a~ energy-dissipatin8 device at the end of the in~r, cptor dike 

O i tc ]2). 

d. Inmmq0~f dikes may extend slightly (about 4 feet) beyond ~ edgc of the constrn~on ROW 

to ~ dra/n wa~ off~ d/~dxd ram. Whc~ ~ d/kes ~md beyond the edge 

of the ~ ROW, they ere subject to complimce with all g3pficable survey requirements. 

e. Install ch~wron-~ylc ~m:cp/or dikes on stol~ wl~n dkected by the El (Figun: 20). 

£ Immll a rcek-lined drmmge swale along the ROW wi~ mmicUxl dmina~ feanu~ whm din~ed 

by the EL The drainage swale is generally 8 fcet wide and a max/mum of 18-24 ~ dc¢~ 

 igum 21). 

g. On slopes src~ than 30 patent, im~ail tntaceptor dikes with emston contm~ fidxic on the swale 

sidr. 

~tKl.2 E~om Co~rot Fmbd¢ 

a. lnstaU a'osion control fabric at ~ dikc outlets and dre/nagc swaMs as nece~try or as 

dire~ed by the EI (Figure 12, 21). 

b. lnsmil esmton control fabric or maUing on slopcs grcatcr than 30 percent adjacent to roeds or 

watabodics (Figure 22). Anchor thc croslon conCol fabric or mattin8 with staplcs or otha 

appropriate dcvices in accordance with the manufacturers' recommmdation~ 

CoeL~tmctton T~,clu~l*~a Page 3-13 logan Lm, wol E&SCP 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

c. The EI will direct the installation of hish-velocity e~rosion control fabric on the swale side of 

peanmem interceptor dikes (Figure 23). 

3.6.2 Revegetation ud Seeding 

8uc¢¢mful r*veg~iion of soils ~ by project-related a~tivities is essential. Seeding will Im 

conducted using the following tcquircmcats: 

. Fertilize and add sod pH modifia,s in accordance with the recommendations in Appendix B. 

Incorpo~e rccommendcd soil pH modifier and fcrtilizcr imo the top 2 iw, hes of soil as soon as 

practical after application; 

2. Seed all disturbcd ar~s within 6 working days of final grading, weather and soil conditions 

penni~mg; 

3. Pmpar* secdbod in disturbed atms to a depth of 3 to 4 inches to provide a firm scedbcd. When 

hydroseeding, scarify the seedbed to facilitate lodging and gemxinmion of seed; 

4. Seed diam'bed areas in accordam~ with the seed mixes, rates, emd datm in ~ B, except 

in upland areas where landown~s or a land ~ agca~cy may request alternative seed 

mixes. Seed~ is not requited in actively cultivated croplands unlcss requestcd by the 

landowner. 

. Perform seeding of pcm~nt vegct~ion within the n~ommcndcd seeding dates as outlined in 

Appcmdix B. if seeding canno~ bc done widen those datm, use appropriate temporary erosion 

contzol mcema'~ discumed in Section 3.5.2 and pro'form seeding of l~mancr~ vegetation at the 

beginning of the next rccommcndcd seeding season. Mulch in aco:mtancc with Se~ion 3.6.3. 

Lamms ma'y be ~ on a scJ~dulc c~,b|id'lcd with the ~ownc~, 

6. BmeseedingratmonPureLivcSeed(PLS). Uscseedwith~nl2monthsofscedtesdng; 

. Trcat lqp~me seed with im inocuJant specific to tim species using the manufacturer's 

rccommmd(x/ rate of ~ appropriate for the seeding method (broadcast, drill, or 

hydrosecding); and 

. Uniformly apply and ¢ov¢¢ seed in accordance with ~ B. In the ~ of any 

recommmdations from the local soil ¢onaczvation authorities, landowner, or land managing 

agcc~ to the contraxy. A seed drill equipped with a cultipacker is tncfcrred for application, but 

broadcan 0¢ hydrosceding can be uscd at double the recommended seating rates. Whe~ sced 

is btosd~ ftrm the sced~ with a cultipackcr or n)llcr after secding. In rocky soils, or where 

sitc conditions may limit the e~vcacu of this equipment, otl~cr alternatives may be 

al~e (e.g., use of a chain drag) to lightly cover seed after applicadcm, as approved by the 

EI. 

Cons~cHon Tec/u~ue~ Page ~I 4 Logan/~eroi E&SCP 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

3.6.3 Mulch 

MuMh is ~ to stab/lize the soil surfitce and shall consist of weed-free straw or hay, wood Eba 

hydmmulch, erosion conUol fabric, or some functional equivalent as appcoved by the El and Chief 

Inspector. Hay ~ll-not bemed for mulch. 

t. Mulch beam seed/rig ~ 

& Final clemmp, in~ Eml grading end irstallation of pennane~ aoeion comml ~ 

is not completed in ~n area within 20 days aRe~ the Uench in that area is backfillcd (10 days 

in rmidmt/e/arms); or 

b. ~r~o~ ~ rm~*~y ~* ~m~d ~ ex~rz~d ~od~ ~h u ~ ~-~ 

be compl~ed due to seeding p~i~. n~ri~ons. 

NOTE: Wbmmulchingbe~mcseeding,~ncrememukhspplicatioaonsll slopes within 100 feet 

of w~'lx~lim and wetlands to a rme of 3 tons/ac~e of straw or equivalent. 

. 

~e~ ~edi~, where ~cm~'~,, to ~b~L~e the soil ~ce ~ to reduce wL,,,d ~d w~ cn~io~ 

Spread mulch tmifonnly over the ROW at a rate of 2 tons/~re of straw or equivalent. 

. Mu/ch w/ex woodchips on/y under the following conditions with pxior appcoval from the Chief 

Inspec~ c~ the EI: 

a. Do not use morc titan 1 ton/acre; and 

b. Addthoequivalcntoftl Ibs/acreavedlablenitrogm(etlmstS0%ofwhichisslowrcleasc). 

. Ermue ~at nndch is ~ to ~ loss by wind and watcr. ~ may be echieved 

by wet soll conditiccs (when ~ppmved by the El), mechanical means, or with liquid nu~ch 

binders. 

5 W~a~m~o~iw~Uqu~muk~l~das, uaenm~m~mmdedbytbemuu~Uucr. Donot 

m~ liquid mald~ btuda'~ wiIJld~ 100 feet of wetbuu~ ud watm'bodla~ 

. [nmall and m~chof ermlon comurol fabric, such as ju~e tlutldxing, or bonded fiber blm~ets, on 

watcrbody b,mks at tbe time of final bank ra:outour~ng. Anchor the amiou conUol fabric with 

st~ple, c~ other appropriate devices. 

In the ~t tl~ the fi~ p~ of ~mcti~ oc~u mo line in tl~ y~t for cl~ ~ w 

w~tt~ approval fi~m the FERC, a ~ plan if ~o~ coutinua imo the wimu season 

where conditiom could delay successful deeompactioo, toptoil replacemem, or seeding until the 

following spring. 

T~quer ~ 3-/3 t.o~ t.~¢m~ Ecr~CP 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000-- 

3.7 

I. In'all permmm~ intm:eptor dikm ~ spocified intervals on sll s/opes, or as ~ed by the EI; 

2. Im¢~ ternpomy ~ Inm'i~ adj~ent to stn~n ~nd weflmd ~, ~ weU ~ other 

critical ~; 

3. Seed nnd mulchfi2z ROW and seed ~ topsoil pil¢~ m ~cordanae with Append~ B; md 

4. Remove flumes f~,m wsterbody ~ to reestabliah natund stream flow. 

Unauthorized Vehicle Access to ROW 

The Comply wiU off~ to install and maintain measures to con~l ~ vehicle acce~ to 

tl~ ROW b~I on requ~ by tl~ m~er ~ own~ of for¢~ hinds. '11~t~: m~sur~ troy me, hi&: 

• Sign~ 

• Fences with locking gates; 

• Sluh ead timber barrien,, pipe bmrlez's, or a line of boulde~ ac~u the ROW; or 

• Colfifers or other app~ shrubs with a matttre height of 4 feet or less a~= the ROW. 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

. SPECIAL CONSTRUCTION METHODS 

The ~ will utilize the following specialized construction pmcedu.~ for agricultural excel, mad 

~dz~s. and ~demlal ~ alonS the pipellne project The pmjcc~ cmmr~on drawing, Liae Lira, and 

ConsU~ion Conm~ will iMi~e the locations where specialized conmuction methods will be used. 

4.1.1 Drain TY~ 

1. Attanpt to lootte existing d=in tilcs and irription systans. 

2. l~op procedu~ ~or comtruct~ throuSh drain tiled are~ ~ irri~tion *~st~ 

duri~ ~on, md nq~ring drain ~iles and irrigation ~/s~ms a/t~r ~o~ 

3. Engage qual/fied dra/n tile spec/alis~ as needed, to c,o~uct or momtor repain, to drain tile 

systems afl'ecU~d by consUuc//on. U-- drain t/Ic specialist fi~n the project area, if available. 

4. Probe all dmln~© tile r/starts within the a~= of distmban~ to e, heck for dam~c. 

. R~0~r dam~ed drm ~I~ to their original ~lition (Figu~ 24~ Fil~-cove~l d~i~ til~ m~ 

~x be us~l unk~ fix local ~oil co0m~ ~l~it~ ~1 tl~ lmdow~ agns= m wr~ng ~ 

to com~xuc~o~ 

. Emure tl~ ~ depth of cova ov~ ~ a~-w p~ b mi~acian to s~id int~fa-~m~ wi~ ~ 

~c sy~u~m (~ orpmpos~. For ~'~ l.p~tne loo~ tn ~ric~unl sra~ iraqi! tl~ 

~.~ l~oe~ with M ks~ the mine depth of cov~ M the ~ ~s). 

4.1.2 Irrigation 

1. ~muVmwW,~flowiaczopiz~e~oaDt=~,mzl~sgn~ff~wi~haffeC, ed~ 

2. Repairmydamagetothesyc~ns--~onaslnc~caL 

4.L3 Soil CmwpactioR Mtta~gmtion 

. Tcat topsoil 8rid subsoil fix" co~ st rc~dm" int~ in ~cultuml E~s disturb~ by 

cacsstruc~on tctivitictc C, onduct tom on the ~ soll type unda shnibr n~istum cond~io~ in 

uadLm~sl ~ to id~tii~ ~ W~omuuct~ cooc~om. Um lx~m~U~ or o~l=r 

at~oWim ~-vi~ to coquet ~ 

. r'Jow scvac~ axnpected .r~ ~ with a pa~k~w ~ odzr deep ~ implan~ In 

ams wb~ to~oil hm bem NSn~m~ pk~w the s~aoU bc~xe repla~ tbe scp~ted tops~ 

~, make ~ with the lmxlowncr to phmt taxi plow unda" a "8n:cn mmm~ 

czop, such m alblb, to dcczuuc soil Ixdk dcmi~ and impmvo wil stmctu~ If subeequmt 

consm~ction md ch=msp ~ctivitim reJult in further compa~on, conduct additional tilling. 

,~ ~ MekodJ P~ 4-! Aped 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

4.2 Road Crmsimgs 

Unpaved lmvate and pubi/c rinds mppo./ng ndn/mal U'aff~ volumes are u..qudly aossed by boring 

or by means of an open cut, ff this method is approved by the owner or ~ mad t'rmmgeme~ 

agency. An open oJt ~'x)ming may revolve closing the reed to M1 tmf[ic.and comm'uoing an adequate 

detoza." m'~nd the crossing area, or excavating one-half of the road at a time allowing through tmf~ 

to be maintained 

(Figtwe 25). The trench for an open oat czoming is excavated with a backhoe or similar equipment, 

MI backfiU is compacted, md the road ~ All stme, natiotml, and intetmSe highways m well 

al all raikoads must be cros.~d by boring (Figure 26), unlet~ the c~oeain8 pmait allows an open cut 

crossing. ~ roads shall be used m ac~ordan~s with Se-tion 3.2. 

4.3 R~Identlal Area* 

4.3.1 Coastructlan Preeedara 

Spc~ialized o0emaau:tiou ~ures will be utilimd in m'em of heavy residential or commercial/ 

industrial ¢xmgestion where residetr.es ~ business emablislm~ms lie ~eeter than 25 feet but lem than 

50 feet from the edge of the conmuoJon ROW. 

1. Install safety fetme at the edge of the ommtruction ROW for a distmu~ of 100 feet on either side 

of the residmce or busimss establiaxmem. 

. Atten~ to maimam a mininxu~ distmce of 25 feet betwem ~y mtidence/bes~mt emabUalmmnt 

and the edge of the ~tm work mea for a distance of I00 feet on either tdde of the 

r~i~ emablithment. 

. Atma~ to leave mattce tree~ md lamlscapin8 L,m~ wi@dn the co~ woA area tmless the 

trees and landscaping interfere with the installation techniques or pt'escnt unsafe working 

condition& 

4,3.2 Constructlon Tecknlqu~ 

In addition to the previmudy identified specialized im3oedmxa, tmaall~ "spreads" of labor and 

equipme~ opaatin8 ~ of the mainline work ~ will utilize either the ~love pipe or drab 

seOion pipdine mnm'u~ion teeJaniquee in throe arem of ~mSetfion whe~ a minimum distance of 

25 feet cannot be maintained betwetm the residence(or business establishment) and thc edge of the 

comma~tion work area. In no case shall the temporary work a~a be located within I0 feet of a 

residetme tmlem the landowner astzt* in wridns, or the a~a is within the exitttin8 ~ ROW. 

The followin8 tee2miques ttmU be utilized for a distance of 100 feet on eith~ side of ~ ~ ~ 

business eetabtid3m~tt at the locations identified in the ~on Contract and/of Line List. 

l. The stove pipe oomm~ion technique is a less efticierd altmuttive to the mainline method of 

consm~on, typically used when the pipeline is to be insm]led in very close proximity to an 

Spec~ Co~rructmn tt~&~Is Page 4-2 Ap~ D 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

exis/~n8 structure or when an open tnmch would advenudy impact a comma'cial/industdal 

eszablbhma:~ The tedmique involves installing one joint of pipe at a ~e w~ the wetdins, 

wdd inspection, and coatlng activities mm all Imffomml in the opqm trench. At the end of each 

day after the pipe is lowered-m, dm trea~ is bect~tted and/or cm~l wi~b *reel p~ ~ ~ 

ma~ 1he le~ of excavation pe~foma~ each day ca~zot exceed'the ammmt of pipe imtalled. 

. The drag section canmuction teclmiquc, while 1~ cfficia~ titan the mainline method, is 

noansUy I~ef~rai over the stove pipe altanativ~ This tzchniquc involvm tbc trenching, 

instaUei~n, and bockl~ o f a prefabricated lmsth of pi;¢ conUdni~ mvcral segmmls ~ in one 

day. At the end of ew.h day aflcr the pipe is lowered-in, the treech is bsck6Ued and/~ ~ 

w~h,me/p~ms or timbcr ram. Usc onlz drag sectioa tech-~luc wiU typ~ey mp,irc .dequ.cc 

emM outaide of the residential and/or commatqal]indamial conga~on fro" assembly of 

0= p~br~ed .e~onL 

4,3.? Cleanup and Restoratioa 

1. 'R~ all disa.u~ lawns with a seed n~ scoelY.abl© to la~ or comlmmblc to the 

mSolmg ~vn. 

2. ~ shall be compamt~ for dmmq~ to ormuncoml shmlm aod other landacapc 

pla~ based oo the appraised value u ~t 6yrth in the Cmide fi~r Plant Apprs/ml, nuflm~d ~ 

thc Council ofT~ec md ~ ~ (CTLA), 8Q F-A~on and Imblishod/n 19g2 by the 

Imeutiomkl Society of A~oriault~. 

3. Landowaen tag be compeatted for dmzmip~ ia a fair ~ roeomble ze~zr, and tt ~xl 

tn the danmm pmv~ withln the oomrolling au~za~ on ea~h pmlxsW, 

,~ Comrtrtu:t~a ~ Pose4-3 Aped 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

. 

8.1 

WATERBODY CROSSINGS 

The following sec~n demn%es the am~untion pnx~edmes and mitigmion meemres that will be used 

for pipeline imudlatiom at wata-lx~es. The hlmt ofthese pmmha'~ is to rn'mimize the ex~nt end 

duration of project m~tted dima'bances within ~embodies. 

Waterbocly lk~altiom 

The term "wate~od~ u meal in thia Plan includes any harm1 or mlfufial meem, t~er, or drainase 

wlth.lxm~tibl© flow a~ the t~me of crosain~ and other pemrmne~t waterbodim su~ as pc:m~ and 

lakes. In th~ Phm, watedmdies are ~ into three main integrates depaxling on the wklth 

ofll~e weterbody. The mtegodes are u follows: 

• A ~ti~e~ waterbedy ~ inchuim all watedx~es leu than or equal to 10 feet wide at the 

wat~'t edse at the tm3e o f cons~m~on. 

• An "latevmedlate wateabedy~* include, all watedx~dies gz~ater than I 0 feet wide but leu 

ths~ ~ equtl to 100 feet wide-* the wxt~"s edgem fl~e time of constm~on. 

• A'ma~r ~ ~ all wambcxlim greater than I00 feet wide e/the wa~s edge 

at the time of comm~ot~ 

• &"state da/pat~i waterbedy" inchtdes sll penmm~ watt=bodies that support coldwlter 

fitheries taxi wannwttm ~ cxxmdt=ed ti~ifitaat by the statt 

• A "me-row d**h~d ~ h~da ~unn~=t dnmge d~he~ ~-~nm~m 

muum. and ptmmial wmnwatcr .thrum mt oomidtml t~ac~t by ti~ mt~. 

The wttethody woaing pmoedmt= dacn'bed in this Plan comply with the Scgi/cn 404 Nationwide 

permit ~ terms and conditiom O3 CFR Part 330). 

5~ Gmeral Waterbody Preeedarm 

Piptane mmrmgtim mines watetbody dmmels nuty reeult in tdxm tmn wet~ quality ~ 

Dc~im~ teSa.,ding wettflx~ =mina ~ win be treed on ~'y ootmitX'mm 

Mobi]izsticc of eons/nu~m ~ Ue~h excavsfio~ ud backftllinli will be performed in a 

mmn~ thst will minimize the potm~ far en~an md sedimmtetian within the watabody dmmeL 

Ermim w~ml meagre w~ be in.mined ~ umflae vnt= quali~/impem wifl~ the hnmed~ 

~o~a azea and to minimi=e impa~ to down~t~u~ m'em. The lemgth of the ct~matn8, the 

egm~vity of the area, ex~in8 conditlom at the time of the ¢~'msins, and pmntt requitemems will 

detente the mint appmwiate memures to be u~l. 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

£2.1 Time Wisulow for Con*truction 

1. UnJess exlm=sly permitted or further restt~ted by the appropriate stme asem'y in writing on a 

site-specific baeis, insm=m work, ~ct~pt that XtXlulX~! to install or remov* cquiprmmt bridges, 

must occur drain8 the following time windows: 

& Coldwmer Fiahenm - June 1 thn3ush September 30; and 

b. Coolwatcr and WarmwaUr Fisheries- June ! through November 30. 

£2.2 Temporary Eq.lpment BridLes 

A temporary equilmmnt bridse is a smmtm~ that may be instaned acrom a watetbody to provide a 

meam for ccmm~on equllmmm to crc~ the memn while r-~;-~,~_ ~ to the channd bottom 

or banks. 

. Until the equlpm~ bridge is installed, only clearing equipment and equipment necessary for 

of equipment bcidg~ may cross the waterbody and the amber of c=msings shall be 

limited to one c:~sing per piece of equipmmt, unleu odm'wise authorized by the appropriate 

permittm8 e~-y. 

2. Con.qm.~t eq~ b~ ~ maintain tmretfic/ed flow end to ~ soil fi'om cnta'irq~ dz 

wata'body. E.xmnplm of such bridges include: 

L Eq, i~mt ~ mi mlwm (Figut, 2D; 

b. Clean mmdm~d stone and culverts (Figure 28); 

c. Fill-float or pombh~ bridsm (Pigu;e 29); or 

d. Equipment pads or rail:rod car bt-idgm without culv=ts 

3. ~ ¢zomin~ u e.lo~ to pcqm,dimlar to tim axiJ of the ~tc~oody clmmd. 

4. Dcsisn ami nmin~n csch equlpmmX bridge to wid~md the bighm flows thin would occm-. 

Align culva'ts/flumcs to prevmt b,mk a'osion or ~bed scour. If'necessary, install axa2y 

dimpefing dcvic~ do~ ofdxc culva'ts. 

5. Do nm u~ toil to ommmt or t~bili= tXlulpmmt bridge. 

6. DcmSn mxhmiatain ¢quipmmt brids= to ln=vmt rail from ~t~ing the ~. 

7. Re, nave equipmmt bridgm u soon m practical after ~t seeding uulem ageacy ~i~ 

aulhofized that the bridge remaim in pl~e. 

. Iftlx~ will b¢ mo~ thtm I month bct'w~n from ¢ltmmp ~xl the begitmi~ of ptttmmtm Im¢ding 

trod rtm~able altcmativ, ~ccm to the ROW is ~ndlabl¢, rm~vc oquipmmt bridgm m toon m 

lm~ml afl~ final cltanup. 

W~ C~ P~ ~-2 Ap~ D 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

S.2.3 Cleuin& and Grading 

I. ~ oomdzuc~on activitim and gotmd ~ to within the ROW boundarics shown on 

the consU-uct/on drawings. 

2. Sem~ extra work areu (inch u rosin8 a~m and additional ~x~il m~n~e arm~) to those ehown 

o~y on the constmc~on drawings. All extra work areas must be located at least 50 feet away 

from the watts edge, except where the adjacmt uplmd cona~ts of actively cull/rated ~ ~ 

cropland or other ~ land. If s~c-specific condit~ns do not penuit a 50-foot set~ck, the 

Compeny cm receive writtm approval from the FERC to locate these e~a work m'e~ do.Jet ~ 

50 feet from the w~t~'s edge. 

3. If the pi~ pamllek a wa~, attempt to maintain at lemt 1 $ fz~ of und'u~;urbed vcgctation 

be/worn the ~ (and any adjacmt wetknd) -rid t/w ROW except at the ~ms/ng location. 

4. CleartheROWe~vcenttoallweta'boc~uptothehtghwat~rbank(whc~vdimmm'ble). 

5. Immed~ remove all cut trees and ~ that inadvme~fly fall/nto a waterbody at~d 

m~ckpile i~ ~a upl~l ~ onROW for dispo~. 

6. Grote the ROW edjeceat to wetedx~e~ up to wlt~n l O f~et of ~ ~ ~" ~ leaving an 

unSntbbed vege~ve mip 

. Ckmmg mad grading opm~om may proceed tlzrough the 1 O-foot veget~ve m~p mdy on I~m 

world~ dde of tl~ ROW in order to in~ll the equipmmt bridge end travel lane. U~m 

tmqmrmy sed/mmt bsn~m ~o prevent the flow of bank spo/I into ~e w~body. 

8. Mtint~i~ ada~.ute fl~w ~e~ t~ l~r~cc~ squ~ 1~ md p=~e~ ~ ~erru~ of ~ 

£2.4 lnstallla~ Temporary Erosion a~! Sedime~ Control 

I. Iuull mtlmmt I=nlm ~ ~" imti~ dimMzm~ of ~ w~xxty cx id'~ upl~d. 

Sedimmt Iz~ nnun be pmpedy mzinmmxi tim~aghom ~ md rrirumdled -, 

n~m'y (~h u after lz~fllll~ of tl~ tm~), ur~l n~pl~mmt by pm~m~m mzioa 

coe~k or r~oration of ~ljl~t uphmd mre~ is oomplete. 

. Inmd] sedimen/b,m, tam across the a'~m construc/~a ROW at all watubody cro~6nl~ wSen: 

necessary to preve~ the flow of sedimmta into the wa~'body. Temporary or n~novable 

sediment bITkn, such as inter~ptor dikes o~ drivsble benns as descr~c~l in Sec6on 3.5.4 ~ 

be umi m/ira of ~ bQzr/cn in frcrat ofequ/pmmt Ix/dges or t~nber m~ ~oas the ~ 

lane. The~ ~ ~l/mmt bsnim ~n be rrmoved duri~ the ~ d~y, but mu~ 

be reimu~ed after conmu~oa has stopped for the day and/or when heavy preeipit~ion is 

Wam'~ ¢,'os~nr page 34 App,m~ tJ 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

3. Irmall sedimmt barrie~ as necessary alon8 the edge of the consmu~on ROW to contain spoil 

and sediment within the ROW when: waterbodies are adjacent or parallel to the construction 

ROW. 

4. Use trm~ plugS-at all waterbody c~msings to prevent diversion of water into upland portions of 

the pipeline tzelgh and to keep any alx:umulated lrench water out of the walerlxxly. Trench phtgs 

shall be of mfli~ent size to withstand ut~lope water pressure. 

5.2.5 Yario.s ?~pes of Crossi~gs 

con~n~ton at waterbodim will be co~w~d urns two ~,nci~ cr~e~ nzthod~ a"ch-/' cr~ang 

and a "wet" cretins. The "dr/" cmu6ng procedure iu furtha- divided into a flumed ctoesing and a 

~ aucl ~zp ~mns. The~ meth,~ are de~ned to maintain ~ flow ~ ~1 tin~ md 

to isolate the ~ zone from tbe mreem flow by channeli~ tbe wamr flow through a flume 

pipe or by cht~a~ the flow and pumpi~ the watch" ~-ou~d the coastmction area. The overall 

objective is to minimize siltation of the waterbody and to facilitate trench ernavafion of saturated 

qx3il. Unless ~upm~ed oChaw~ by the Wpmpdate state agency, pipeline ccmtngtlon and 

inmdhaim nnm occur u~ing one of tbe two ",ky" c~w~=~8 methock for waterbod~ uate.da~gamt 

aa either coldwate~ or significant coolwat~ or wsnnwata- flahe~e~. Thc flumed md dmn and pump 

chain8 methodg me applimbl¢ to waterbodim up to 30 feet wide at tbe water's edge at the time of 

comcu~o~ The two "dry" cn3ains~ are furth~ described below in Sections 5.2.5.2 and 5.2.5.3. 

The "wet" mn~ p~eahae hwolve, opm ,~ng the w~xiy v~thout i~t,~ng the conmmlon 

zone from the ~u~m flow. The objective of thh mathod is to oomplete the wnta'body crouLng m 

quiddy ~ gactical in o~er to minimize the duration of impam to attic meoerceL Atl~ 

their elamfication~ timing window~ md cfouing procedures wiU be idmtifled in ~ CI~ 

Package/Permit Book md on the c~mm~tion drawin~ Table6-1 ouOinmthegeneml lm3cedutes 

to be followed at aLl waterbody cromings. 

,$.2.£1 Gom'aI Crma~ Proeedttra 

1. Dewater txene.h in acmrdan~ with the Frocedurm de~ribed in Se~on 3.5.6. 

2. For minor wat~oodies: 

a. Place all g~ofl fnnn tbe watezbody within the congmctiou ROW at leegt I0 feet from the 

water's edge or in tbe exCa work arem ~mwn on the consmunioe drawinp. Use ~diment 

barriel~ to prevent flow of ~x~il or heavily eih-leden water into the ~. 

3. For ~e watetoodim: 

a. Lea than 30 feet in width, plaoe all spoil from the waterbody within the ~oe ROW 

at leaat 10 fee~ fi~m tbe waters edge or in tbe extra work are~ show~ o~ the conam~on 

dntwin~. Use ~liment I~rie~ to pt'event flow of e~oil or lzavily ~t-lsden water into the 

war=body. 
Jnofficial FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

b. C,~atcr ll'ma 30 ~ in wid~ spoil my be ~l~omrily ~leca~ into the wate~body provichxl 

~ sh© specific ~,roval i~ rec~ved from ~e appmprime p~xi~ agency. 

4. For major waterbodies: 

a. Place al/ ui2md bank spoil f~omthema=bodywithmtheconmuctionROWst lem 10 f~ 

fr~n the wat="s edse o~ in the extra wock an~s shown o~ the con~tn~ion dmwinss. U~: 

sediment ban~era to prevent tknv o f ~uoi] or hezvily slit lad~. wah~ into the wat=d~ody. 

b. sideomi~ i~ pmui~ed in m~0~ w~m~ ~on q~rov~ ~om ~b~ ~ppx~i~ pcm~in~ 

a~m. 

5. Restore and ttabil/ze the banks end channel in accordance with S~tio~ 5.2.6. 

£2 af 

Toe ~moed c~s~ method miliz~ a ~ume plpe(s) to trampon m~m Oow ecru Ib= dimub~ ~ 

and allow, umch/~ to be done in drier cood/uom ~iS~¢ 30). T~ flume p/pc(s) immIled ~ ~ 

mmch will be sized to accommod~e m~c/pmed mmm flow~ Th/s omhod is ufl]/zed for Im~cnial 

watedx)d/es (minor md h~=medime) up to 30 fe¢~ wide chat an= s/~e ~ flshaies ~ 

¢oldwm~ fisha~ md w~ fld)a/es comhleml ,i~o~aot by the m~e. Flumes a~ s~cndly 

no¢ n~ommmded for use on a wa~com~e wlth a Inoml unconfined chaon~, ummble banks, a 

pmmmble ~ excms/ve stream flow, or whae th¢ immllmioo sod commotion of the flume 

ct~min8 will edvem~y afl'e~ the bed or Imnla of the meem. 

I. Ooa all m/nor wa~bodies tha¢ ~= smCe.de~gna/ed fishers, m idem/fied in the CI~ 

Packa~ Petit Sook, um~ a dry ~ tec~n/q~ 0~isur~ ~0, 3 ]). 

2. All co0mu~oo cqmpmmt must crou mto<k~gaaU:d fidu=im on an ~pm,',- bridg~ u 

spec/~ed in Section 5.2.2. 

4. Th= Ouau~ ~'os~ ~hal] be inmdled m follow," 

a. Iomll flare,= pi~(1) d=r b~ =~I ,xh,= ro~k Im~l~oS m=umz~ (ffnxpanxl), bu~ before 

b. Prepay alip flume 0ipe(s) m pmv=m b~Qk =zo~on md a~0~d a~ur; 

c. U~e sand bN~ or ¢quivelcm dmn divcmion m~tm~ to provide a seal i either end of ~ 

flume to charred water now (mine modifioU/om to the mmm bottom may be nx[uimd to 

achieve an effectiw seal); 

d. Do sa remow 6ame pipe dm-iog tnmchi~, p/pc layi~ (flwesd pipe andemmth the flume 

p/pe(a)~ or back~ mivi~ or ini~al mcmbed n~or~on ¢ffom unlms mthc~¢d by 

I~'y Imm~ md 

R=move aU flume pipm and dams that are no/also pa~ of the equipment bridge as won m 

6hal cleanup of the su~m~ bed and bank is comple/e. 

w,~,~o~ ~ eat, s4 A.~ o 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

The dam and pump method is presented as aa altenxative d~y crossing pr~lure to the flumed 

chaining. The dam and pump =ossing is accomplished by utilizing pumps t0 ~ stmm~ flow 

across the disturbed ~q~a (Figure 31). This method involva placing san~m~ aca~oss the ~dafing 

sU'eam charnel upsUmm 5-ore the proposed crossing to stop wat~ flow and downmmm frmn the 

c:mssing to isol~c the work areal Pumps are used to pump the wa~cr acmu the d~m~ocd area and 

back into the mcam fiut~ downsmaun. This method is intended for use at im~uial waterbodies 

(minor and intmnediate) up to 30 fe~ wide and st~e de~ed flshen,'- includin~ ¢oldw~ 

ff~mc, and wm~w~ f~h~'i~ comide~d si~n/fica~ by the ~¢ The d~m md pump ~ 

~ows for more space and flexibility dm.ing ~ and pipe installation, which shomms the 

duration of ttm~ ~t at tho w~. 

1. The dam and pump method may b¢ used fo~ c=cain~ of watcrbodics wh¢~ lmmps can 

advquatcly tnmsfer ~tam llow volumm around the work area, and wh¢~ thevv arv no conc~'m 

about ~mitive species pusa~ 

2. Impleme~ation of thc d~m m~l. l~tmp c~ n~thod wlll meet the follow~ p~f~ma~ 

crit~ia: 

a. U~ mfltcicm pumps, tnclu~iag onait¢ backup pamp~ to maintain dowmmama flows; 

b. Commm dams with matcrlah tl~ prcvcm sediment axl oth= pollutmts from mt~ ~¢ 

w~body (e.g., ~ or clean gravel with plastic liaer); 

c. Scre~ immp/nmkm 

d. Prcvc~t Srmmbed scour a~ pump ~ a~d 

e. Monitor the dam aod pum~ to insure Wop~ ~ throughout the w~ c~os~g. 

3. The dam and lmmp crossing ~aall be imtaUed m foUows: 

a. Ingall Id properly ~| mndbags mth¢ upstnmm and downatremn locatica of the crossing; 

b. Cte~ gn in-mean ~ using mxlb~ ff a meural ~m~p is unawilable fur the imaim ho~ 

c. Initiate pumping of the mere ~md the wodc ~ prior to ex,=vating the m~; 

d. Scree~ all intnke ho~s to prevent tl~ cntzainmmt of fish and other aqu~ic life; 

e. Dire~ aU dir.lm-~ fTom the pumps thn~gh mergy dimit~een to minim~ scour md 

f. Monitor Immpl ~ ~1 fima umil comtmcfion of the crosmng is completed; and 

g. Followin 8 cotatngtion, t~ove the equipm~t m~ing aml sandbag dams. 

wo~o~ cn,n,~, P, wf 54 ,4~0~ 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

This ~ t~chnique is typically usecl to =ore wmzbodim that a*e non rote-designated as wetl 

as imcmmdhu¢ and major wamtx~cs with subsUmtial flows O~ carmo~ be ~*,n~.vely ~dvu'~d or 

pumped around the comtm~on zone using the ~ crossing techniques (Figure 32). Non-state 

dmismted wm~ood/es include perennial wm'mwmr memm um conside~d ,/guitkant by the state, 

~'emxittent dminage d/tc~e~ mxd intmnittmt summa, 

The wet-ditch crossing shall be in.died u follow.- 

I. For m/nor watabod/es: 

a. Equipment brldsm me not requlred at nc~ ,uae-designmed fishme, (c.S. agricultund or 

intermittent drainage ditches). However, if an equipmmt bridge is used, it must be 

coumueted in t~cordance with ~ 5.21; 

b. Limit use of equipmmt opcrsting in the wsterbody to thst needed to comm~ tl~ ~ 

c. Compete tnmci~ag emd ~ In the w~:rlx~y (no~ including bh~ing md oLher n:~ 

~aking meum=) with/n 2~ cme/nuo~ boun~ s~d 

d. If a flume is installed within the ws~hody durm~ mainline sctivifi~ it ~n be r~aoved jus~ 

p~ior to lowmin8 in the pipclin~ The 24-hour ~ ma-ts m ~oon a~ the flm~e is 

removed. 

2. For ~ waterbodies: 

a. L/m/t tree of equipment ~ in tl~ waterbody to tl~t needed to consm~ the cross/rig. 

AI/other ~umuction equ/pmmt mu,t c~ou c~ ~u oquipmem bridse u spez/fied in S~ion 

~.2.2; stud 

b. Aum~ m ooam~ m=,:i~ng and ba~Cln wock wi~u ~ wate~x~y (not including blast/rig 

m~ other rock Inmld~ mmmms) within 48 ocztimmLm bourn, unlms ai~.spem~ condiXiom 

mako ~pleticm within 48 hours ~'ble~ 

3. For mgc~ waterbodim: 

b. C¢~-~t fl~ cz~ming In aecotdm~ with th~ mmsme8 oonutiz~d in ~us plm m tl~ 

~tmt pr~ad. 

wa.,~dy ~ P~ ~7 Aa~.a~ D 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000- 

£2.6 RestoratioR 

I. Return all waterbody banks to ~ conlou~ or to stable angie of repose as alYproved 

by the EI. 

2. Ute clean gravel or n~ve cobbl.es fi3r the upper 12 inch~ of trendx back611 m sll wut~ 

identified in the Clearance Packase/Pmnit Book m coldwater Cud~eries. 

. For wet cz~mings, atabifize watefbody banks and install temporary sediment berriers within 24 

holm of oon~leti~ t~ a~mn& Fe~ d~ ~n~L, ~lae bank a~ili~fi~ ~ ~m~m/~g 

flow to the waterbody clmnne]. 

4. Limit the phtcanent of ripmp to the sinpea along the dismrb~ w~ c~smg. 

5. Install eemiom control fabric along watabodies with low flow ¢ondi~mm (Fisu.re 33). 

. ~ dimut~ ripedam areas with conmvaeoo grimm and iegumm tn acumJance with the 

recommemded Uplmd Seed Mix in Appazlix B. In the evem that final clemmp is defen-ed more 

than 20 days at~z ,,he tr~ch ht backf~ed, aU glopes within 100 feet of wuterb~li~ ~1 ~ 

mulched with 3 tom/acze of maw. 

7. Remove aU temporary sediment I~ricn when replaced by permame~ eme~on co, role or w~ 

re~torafion of adjacaxt uphmd areas is su~emful as specified in Section 8.1. 

. ImteH a perman~t interm:ptor dace and a Ueech plug at the base of slopes near each watertxxly 

cmmed. Locate the trench plug immediately ul~lope of the interceptor dike. P~t 

interceptor dikes may not be im~led in agriculUmd areas. 
Jnofficial FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

Table S-1: General Waterbod~ Cro~m i Proeedares 

WATERBOD¥ CROSSING 

ACTIVITIES 

rXmed Cn~ng 0~Y) 

J.2.~'.2, F/gur¢ .10 

$~.~¢0n J.2.J.£ F~t,v 31 

W~Cmuing 

.~m &2.&4. F~gurt 32 

Consm~on timing window du~g the year 

Sccaon &2.1 

Ttmc to complete ~on of~msi~ 

(not inc~Ung b~stin~ • 

F~tuipmmt bridge requixed' 

WATERBODY TYPE 

MINOR 

uon-Stm l Smt# 

Oms~,d Om~p~d 

X 

X 

X 

X 

24 Horns 

X 

~on-Sm~ Su~ 

Om~u~d 

X 

X 

X X 

X 

45 Hotm 

X X 

MAJOR 

Non-Sum~ Sm~ 

Om~nmd 

X X 

X 

X X 

, Includes ag~ultural Inmmiunxt drainage dito~e~ inmmmem streams, and ~ warmwater stmum not 

considered signili~nt by the state.. 

, Includes all p~mnial watmrbodim that support coldwater fisherlm and wannwater flsherim considered s~gnific~ 

, Includm pemmid wamwater mwm not con.idmsd sign~mnt by the state. 

°Ira flxm~ is imtalled wlthln tl~ wmmbody dualng nmhdin~ amivltlm, it can be rmmved jwt palm" to Iow~ ~ ~ 

pip.he. The 24-hour tinm~'m~ mm m sooa u ~ flumo is n:mov~L 

' An equ/pmemt brldge may not be requitml for a wstmbody be/rig cnm,ml by a bot-izotgal dlmc/ion~ drill. 

Wanm~a'y c~m~, Pa~ 5-9 Appo.d~ D 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

l 

6.1 

WETLAND CROSSINGS 

Deflaitien 

The term "Wethtnd." as used i, this Plan includes my anm that satisfies the requiremects oftbe 

cummt Federal methodoio~ for identifyin8 and delineating wetlands. Wetlmd arms have been 

delineated prior to constn~ction and are identified on the constntction drawinss. 

The wetland crossing pt'ocedures descn'bed in this Plan comply with the Section 404 Nationwide 

pe~nit prosram terms and conditions (33 CFR Part 330). The requiremmts outlined below do not 

apply to wetlands in actively onlt/vated or rvlated c~pland. Standmd upland protective messurcs 

including wod~paoe and topsoiling requiremmt& will apply to these agricultural wetlands. 

6.2 General Preeedures 

¢2,.1 Clearer and Grading 

I. Limit ~mm~cdon scdvity and gnmmi disturbance in wedmd rams to a ~ ROW width 

of 75 feet or as sbown on the oonstmctton drawinst. With written al~pmval from the FERC for 

dte-speci~c conditions, oonetructinn ROW width within ~te bounder/ca of folcrally ddinmted 

wetlm~Is may be exlxmded beyond 75 feet. 

2. Wetland bourn/aries and buffelm must be clearly marked in the field with signs and/or highly 

visible Ra88in 8 until ccrmrt~ion-related ground dlmn'bin8 activiti,m are oomplete. 

. Resei~ ex~ woA m~s (inch a mtging eress md add/t/onsl spoil ~ ~e~ss) to tbe~ shown 

only on the constriction drawinsL All extra work atom must be located at least 50 feet away 

fi'om wetle~d botmdaries, except where the adjacent upland comi~t of ac~ivdy cultivl~ted or 

rotated cropland or other disturbed land. If I~m-speci~c oond/t/ons do not permit a 50-foot 

setback, the Company can receive wriRen approval from the FERC to locate these ext3.a work 

areas closer than 50 feet fiem the wetland. 

4. Abov~ facilifia shall not be located in my wetland, except u permitted or where the 

location of ~ fi¢ilitieu o~taide of wetlanda would prohibit compliance with DOT t'~ 

5. If stmdht8 water or saturated soils are pce~ra, or if consmletion equ~ eatmes ruts or mixin 8 

of the topmil and mb~U in wetlands, use low-gmtmd-welght ~ equipment or openae 

normal equipm~ on timb= rip~, ~ eq~tiOm~ mm or tree ram on the work~ 

side oflhe ROW during cleating operations. Do not use mo~ than two layers of timber tiptop 

to stabilize the ROW. 

h. C~ vegdafion jus* above 8ronod level and grind stm~ps to ground level, leaving ~ root 

~ysl~ts in place. Immediately n~nove all cut u~es and branches from the wetland and stociq~ile 

m an upland area on ROW/'or disposal. 

Wrtlnnd ~s,Jssin~s Pcl~ 6-1 4Fpendt~ D 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

7. Limit puUing of t~e tmmxps and grading w~ivities to directly over the ~ Do not grade 

or re~xove stumps or root systems ~ the rest of the ROW in wetlands unless the Chief 

Inspector aml El determine th~ safety--rcJated constnu:t~n comttraints requite r~move/of uee 

slumps from under the wod~ s/de of the ROW. 

8. Do not cut erees outside of the ~ ROW to obtain timber for t~tp or equipmmt mats. 

9. Ck~ed mat=i~ (dmh, Ios~ brush, wood ch~) ~ not be permanently placed w/thin wethmd 

~t-MaS. 

6.2.2 Temporary Eroaiom and Sediment Co~roi 

I. Install sedirnalt barrios immediately ~ initial grotmd disturbance at the followin 8 locati~: 

a. Within the ROW at the edge of the boundazy betwee~ wetLmd mul upland; 

b. Acro~ the eulite ROW immediate/y ut~lope of the wetland boundary to prevent scdimmt 

flow into the wettm~ 

c. Akmg the edge of the ROW, whae the ROW slopee tt~vard the wetland, to prmect adjecent, 

off ROW w~lmd; end 

d. Aloug the edge of the ROW ~ nece~try to conudn tq~oil ~d ~mlima~ within th~ ROW 

thrush wetlands. 

. Ma/ntain all sediment bemers thmugba~ aonstmction and reinstall as ~ (inch u at~ 

backfilling of the mmch) until replaced by pennment emeion ~n~ls or re*tmmion of edjac~t 

upland ar~ is compla© in ~ with Section 8.1. 

#.2.3 Cross/agProced~re 

I. Minimize the length of time that topsoil is se~ and the trench is open. 

2. Do not use rodk, 8oiI imported fium outside the waland, tree ,tumlx, or bru~ nprap ~ ~ 

the ROW. 

3. Perform topsoil segregation in a~ofdance with Section 3.5.3.1 and trench &watering in 

a,~lance w/th Sw, tion 3.5.6. 

4. Anm~bte the ptpdine in au upland Eea unlets the wet]w.d is dry enough to adequlely sup0ort 

,kids and pipe~ 

5. Use"push pull" cf "float" t~ to place ~he pipe in the ~'cnch wh~ wat~ and oth~ site 

conditions allow. 

6. Inst~ u-erich plugs and/or seal the trench bottom as neceuary to maintain the ofigL-ml w~end 

hyd~logy at lomt/ons where the p/peline ~ may drain a wethmd. 

W~d Oo~u~p P~,f 6-2 A~ D 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

. Install a ~ ~or dike and a tnmch plug at the base of dopes na~r the boundary 

bawc~o the wetland and .djac¢~ upland rams. In addition, inmaU sedimem Imria~ as outlined 

in Scctic~ 3.52. Permanmt imaceptor dikes Mmll not be installed in agricultural m~ca~ 

s. Rcsmrcscgn~mpsoinoitsodgin~pomtio.~qcrbackfi,~isco~l~ W~mrcquired, 

Klditiomd fill smSaial impomxl fnnn offtkc ROW must be q~rov~ by the EL The original 

wcttmd co~m.s m'~l flow mgimcs wiU bc rcsmral to the ~mt practical. 

&2.4 Cleanup and Rzstoratlos 

1. Revcg~a~ the ROW with wmual rye-ms m 40 Ib~aa'c PLS o~ wiLh tt~ ~ We~md 

Seed Mix in Appmdix B, unless sumdin8 wster is prcsa~ 

2. Do not ute lime or fertilizer in wetland stem. 

3. Mulch the disturbed ROW only when requital by the appropriate land mmasement or state 

ageoc'y, u identified in the Clearance Packet Book. 

. In the event that final clmnup is ~ mote than 20 days a~ the Ucnch is backfilled, ~i 

slopes adjac~t to wetlands si~ll be muldzd with 3 tons/acre of straw for a minimum of I00 feet 

on each side of the cr~ 

5. Ranovc all timber tiptop and prefabricated equipment ma~ upon cc~olction ofconmuction. 

. Dcvdop spccific procah.m in coordin~on with the eppmlnia~ land managcramt ~ sUzt© 

agency, wha¢ ~, m prew~ the invasion or qm~ of undadrable ex<Xic vczcL~ (such 

as puIplc loose strife and phntgmites). 

7. ,V~p.tre zhaZ aU distmb~ areas pcnnmzmfly mvegetazc in accordance with Section 8.1. 

8. Remove tcmpomz7 ~dimeni ba=tevz locaU:d at the boundary bc~wom wetland and ~jK:~t 

upland axcm after upland zcvqp~io, and stabilization of adjece~ upland m~as arc mcceuful 

as specified in Section 8. l. 

W~/~ C~ Page 6-3 A~ D 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

e 

7.1 

SPILL PREVENTION CONTROL 

IIII 

The Coutract~" Mini/ac~ere to the Con~y's SPCC Plan at all times. 

. Do no* ~orc ~hm~ardou8 ~ ch~xic~*~ ~ ~ lul~ricatin8 oi~ W/thin 100 fe~ of my 

wetland, watedxxly or within any designated muni~*l wmenhed axea whexe fumible, lfd~e 

100-foct sctback cacnot be n~t, Ih/s sct/vity ca~ be i~n'fonned within the 100-foot setback, w/~ 

El app~val, if dora tn acco~m~ w~h the STCC PI~. 

. R.efi~ all mmtnu:tkm equipmem at least 1 O0 feet frem any wetl~d or" waterbody, whe~'e 

• mible. If thc 100-£uot Kthsck ~ be m~, this sc~/vity ~ be im-lmned within the 100-foo~ 

sctb~k, with El approval, if done in sccotthmr~ with the SPCC Phm. 

3. Do not 1~rfunn fimdu o¢ ¢oaa~c co~ing s~ivifies ~ 100 lea of any w~ ot wamb<x~. 

If the 1 ~0-foo¢ setback ¢amnot be me/, these acfivitim can be performed withln th~ 100-foot 

.ctbsc~ with ~ q~proval, if done in sccordancc with the SPCC Plan. 

• pYl ~ and Cos~ol P~ 7-1 App~d~ D 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

,* 

8.1 

POST CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES 

I 

Po~t-,Com.ruetion Monitor'mg 

All pmjec/s conducted under this Plan, with the exception of ~ pipe replacemmts (i.e. DOTmmdated rep~em~ tree k,wer~g~ a~l mmah, mpein). ~en mea the mmitoring .~.em~ 

set fm~h m thb ~ctio~ Company pemonn~ zha][ perform the followins: 

I. Establish end impkmmt a program to mon/tor the sucee~ of restoration upon completion of 

comlmclion ~ restoration m:tivides; 

. 

. 

. 

6. 

7. 

Conduct follow-up impeaio~ of all dimnt~d upland a~em after the finn lpowie8 u:asoa and ff 

necemary, the second 8mwin8 seescn (normally 3 to 9 mon~ and 15 to 21 mondut afl~ ~eedins. 

,:~c~ivd, y) to delemxine IIae ~ of ~im~ 

Revegetation in non asriculttmd zreas ~Jl be considered succest~ if the vegetative cover is 

m~ficien/to prevent the ¢~fiou of mUa o~ the dilurbed ROW and demity md cov~ me eimflar 

to tlud in ~dj~ undbau'bed area. Sufl~.ient coverage in upland erem is de6ned when 

vesamion hu a tmffonn 70 paee~ vega~ve covm~e. In aSziazltund an~, ~ shall 

be comdda-ed m~ccmful if czop yidds are similer to adjacent ~ pot-tions of the ~ 

field. ~on cffo~ (such u fmili~g or re~edinl0 will continue until revcsc~eion is 

successful; 

~on ~ be considered stJ~c4~mfitl if the ROW am'face condition b ~milm to adjace~ 

~ lands, construc~on debris b removed (unlem re~ otherwise by the lind own~ 

or lane managing agency), ~veget~ion is moce~ful, md pm;~ drainage hm been rmoml; 

Monitor and correct problems with drainase and irrigation sy~ems resulting from pipeline 

constmc6on in active agricultural arem um'd rmoration is a~.eea ful; 

Make efforts to control unauthorized off-mad vehicle use, in cooperation with the landowner, 

ttmmsho~ the life of the project Maintain signJ, gates, and vehide tra/ls u neceuary; 

Mom~or and n:cord the mcccu of weamd re,,qma~cn a~mm~ for the ~ 3 vea', (or m nxp~xt 

by petal) .ft~ conmucd,:~ or longer, un~ wettmd ~-vcS,:u,~n is ~c¢,~L Wc~md 

~ve~ w~l be con~la'ed mccemful whm the rover of~ md/m" woody specks is 

at lemt 80 l~C~l of the type, demiLy, and ~K~n'tmtkm of the vegetatim in adjacent wetknd a'eu 

that wez~not ~ by ~ If rev~ is not mcee~Wul at the end of 3 yeem, the 

~ sb~ devekp and implemmt (~n comuIml~n with a ~ wetlmd emlogist) a pkn 

W m:~ely ~-.wgeta/e the welhmd w'[th native w~ h¢~ snd woody pL.mt spcc/m; and 

. Inspect all mupomy retaining ¢eusicm and usd.inmme/c~ conUuls du~ng n~ut/ne puu~ls to amuc 

lmSxr~ Any~ fouudwillbcn~omxlandccnectedmneeded. Oncethem 

h~ n~ md ~ ~e erosion coeUols will be n:moved. 

Poe C.o~au'uc~ Ae~:na Pog. 8-.t Appms,d/,r D 
Jnofficial FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

8.2 Po~t-CoMtruction Maintenance 

All project~ txmducted undcr th/s Pimp, with the cxceptkm of im/tu pipe replaccrnen~ (i.e. ~- 

mlnd~ed r~ line lowcr~ and ~tnaly repai~), shall meet the m~/ntmancc 

rcquinzm~ set forth in ~ m:tion. The ~ollowing requiremmts rc~'ict theamount of vegetatkm 

ma/nlcmm:e t.h~ c~n occur on new p/pc/ine fiw/litics. Where the newly czl~bl/shed p/pc/ine ROW 

is locz/~d on oth~ t~b/in~ ROWs not ~dY~t~l w~ th~ ~, the c~mmt hold~r cr ow~r will 

continue to nu~ta/n their ROW, ~ proc~m:~ ~ezified in the~ reserve mmagement 

prognlm¢ 

Routh¢ ~ of the ROW iJ Rqu/r~ to allow com/nu~ s~¢¢~ for roudne pipei/ne palxols, 

mdntainmg aacem tn the evmt of eme~'g~cy rep~,'% and vidb~ty d~-ing areal ~b. In uplmd 

arms, m~dntem~ce of the ROW will i~volve clec,~g the retire ROW of woody vegetation. 

1. Rmxdnc vq~tation ~ clem'ing ahall I~ couductzd no mote fx~dy than ~ m~n, 

3 ves~. Howev~, to facilitmz periodic coeroam, and le~ mm~y~, a lO-foot wide corridor 

cemered on the p/peli~ may be ma/nt~d annually in a herbw~m sm~ 

2. Innocasesh~lroutinevcgetlt/onmaintmmcecle=rlngocc~betwemApdllSsndAugu~ ! 

of any yew. 

8.2.2 W~'bod~ ~ W~kmd.~ 

. Vegetation mai~mm~ pn¢6¢~ on the commotion ROW adjacem to watedx~m will ¢om~ 

of mch~hm28 a dl~'bn slrlp that mc~un~ 2.5 fret beck from d~ mean high ~cr mark. This 

rlpad~ arm will be allowed to pamanmdy revegetate wilh native p]anl sixci~ across tl¢ ~ 

ROW. 

2. Vcge~ion ms/ntms~e practices over O~e full width of the oomtmction ROW in we0mds h 

pm]~'bited. 

. To ficil/tcc pmod/c common a~d leak surveys st wetlmds and watcrbodie% a 10-foot widz 

conidor cmim:d on the pipctine may be ma/nta/ned in ,- hcrbsceo~ ¢a/¢. Tre~ aM ~2m~ 

gtmter th~ 15 feet in height tlmt are loczted within 15 fcgt of the pipeline may be cut and 

removed fi'om the ROW. 

4. Herbicides or pest/tides shall n~ be uKd in or wilhin I00 ~e/ofa we~md or wa~body, excc~ 

m specked by th© ~/~e ~ ~ o~ sine ~c7. 

Po,.~ Como'~c~n Actt~Jes Pale 8-2 Ap~nd~ D 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

8.3 Reporthtg 

The Company shall maint~ reconts that iflmtify by milepom: 

I. MeO~od of application, application rate~ and type of fatiHa=, pl-[ n~ agent, seed, and 

mulch used; 

2. Ac~age tn:med; 

3. Detm of ~ and seeding; and 

4. Names of landown~ requesting special seeding txe~memt and a descaiption of the follow-up 

acfmax 

For the FERC-.m, lificated projem& the Company will file quarterly a~ivity reports do~unenting 

p~lems, inc.luding throe idemified by the landowner, and mn'emivc ac~mm taken fo*" ~ ~ 2 yearn 

following conmuc~on. 

A wetland rewgc~tioa monitoring report tde~fyin8 the status of the wetlm~ nsvegmm~on efforts 

will be filed I the end of 3 years following consfft.,~ion, and ammaUy thereat~" xmtil revegetation 

is sucemsful. 

Po~t Co~ A~v~ies Prise 8-$ App~nd~ D 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

APPENDIX A 

FIGURES 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

! 

NUNBER 

FIGClIE #~ 

FIGUI~ #11 m 

Idnl 

IqGUM 011 

FIQUlm t14 

FIGUIIE #17 

IqQUIm #M 

FtQUM ~n 

IqQURE #n 

F~u~m 

~UM ~Q7 

IqGUM @~ 

F~UMm 

FIGUM B31 

IrtANDAI~ NUMBER ORAW~ Tn1~ 

~PICN. CQ~TIKJCTI~ ~DI'~ ,4¢Q~qlNG NEW 

n~NI"-CF~WAY 

~qCAL CQ~SWK~IGN ~0"~1 NOT ACQUtqlNG NL~W PEML4NE/(T 

mql~'-.0F.~V IkU.~q.! UNE 

TvlqCAL CON~mJCTICN V~II NOT ACQUmlNG NIW 

IIGHI"-.GFJWAy ~ ~ 

ACC888 IqO~ CIKI8 88C'/!~ 

RQCf, ,~18 I~D I~TN.LAlIQN ANO Id~4~N~ 

T~IqCAL llldl~UlY AC~8 IIOAO 1~glOUaH VRTL,4M~ 

81LT FENCI INITN.LA'~C~I ANO MAWTEIM.'qCE 

STRAW BAUE INSTALLAIIQN AND MNNTIgL4JqCI 

IJ~IIAW EAIJ IN~I"ALLA~ION ~ A CHECK DAM I~ A I~AINAGE WAY 

liTOIIM ~IIMI mLElr ~ 

II.O.W. TQPIaL MGIMGATIIGN 111CNMGUII 

01Ki INITALLAIION AND 

I~IlqC4L 11~EI~N [~I"NL 

~ 11mira Iq.uG~ 

~LTIA ILta 

11q~Clt Iq~e 0l'rM. 

ALTENIA~il ~eNA~IIING ~ F~I HYDItG~rAT]G 1EITING 

¢NIh~ON IMIBICIPTGI 011~ II~I"NJ~ION N~D ~ 

UNED DRNI4~ I~m.Z lmTN.~TKN N~D MNHTENAkCE 

TYI~.N. MAI"nI~ ON 

IIt01oN CoWTIq~ F~IC IITALLAT1ON 

O~AIN 11L! I~PAJII IqtO¢l~UR! 

TYFr, N. PA~AD nO~D CIIC4~N8 CGhlIIOL ~ f0PEN C~11 

l~lqCN. PAVED ~ ~ C~IflROL W.ABXlES 

~ f~t.mqdENT MmGE (t~,mqt~ P~ ~qO ~A.VlfftTm 

~ ~t,~'MENT mtmo~ 4CmmH~D ~ A~O Cut.~t~Tm 

T~IqC~. D~M AND I~ll~ at~llNG 

TYt~.~L t~T CIt0~IN8 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

~ n 

m ~ 

R.O.W. 

VARIN lr o 

*"-- R~. IM.'P~'Y 

" " 

vA/qm8 

I' ~ O-W 

TIgrdPQRARY R.O.W. 

&O.W. 

I~OIL Sl01 .~ WOmgNa II1~ 

¢ONSTlqUCTIGN ILO~W~ 

ItO.W. 

~ m WOnloNIm~ 

~ m N N 

~-~ m m N 

m n 

(I-- I. ALTI~UQN THIE DININN[~8 IIHQAqq AM TYIqCAL. 8~q8 VARATI~ MAY E3~T ~IE TO 81TIE WuIK~C GON~TN3~ 

UNUI~ OTItHWN INDC, ATIlD ON lrxl N,.l~ldINl" g04a~'l& TI.IE IkMX~id ~ Oil ~4E ¢~mll.n~N IqlGHT-~.WAY 

IHALL M AS IllOWN N 1Hil TABLE II~i THE APPRQIqlATiE PIMI 0MMErTIIIL 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

m sloEw(~e 

~Tx ~1H 

COUNt3mma~ coum'laW4m~ 

wuqEI 18' 

• .41 

r OaHA --~ 

MG. IuUq[TY 

21" ~ m' ~ W 

O-W ~ IggSllNg Iq[AIJANSNI" ILO.W. TIEM~qAw ItO.W. 

SPOL lll~ ~ WQ~ING SOE * 

CONBITIt.IC111~ ILO.W. 

If,PaL lll0l W011m~ 8101 ¢~II111UCIION 

I'TJ IVrJ n,.O.W. 0rrJ 

If GII ~ B 14 "/S 

14" - M" i M m 

ar - 42" B iio m, 

NOT~ 

1. N.I14O(J~ 1141 DIABaCXl SHQ~I ~.ql T'tlqC~ 8C~I VA/IM1QNI I~Y £Xlllr DU! TO srNI ZI~OI~ ~ 

~".~ ,1. ToIql~ NiD ll~l~. D~&L IE ~11D~ '~11NIO. 11118em~ A~ICU£TUI~ pNmJl~. H, WFIE.D~. 

B-~ A~NO O11t81A/IEAIB AT ~ Oil LANO MANAQ~a A4EN~I"Ill iqEQLJIBT. 

If 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

OLaAMT~ 

14"-~r 

.11"-4,1" 

M 

IWOa. B~ WOF~k~ B)I ~ 

p'T.! fTJ P.O.W. I~TJ 

18 m 

i M 76 

m .N 74 

m wa 74 

I. ,4tI.'IHCXJOH THE 01klEN81C~I SHO~W MI l"Y1qr.N, lIOMi V,I~T1ONB MAY IU01T DUE 70 glTli SPECIFIC CO~q(NTN)~. 

~'i| AND OTHIBI AiqlAll AT LANDO~mll at LANO M~qdl~ ~QI~CY'II ImOUE~T- 

[• ]. IF TMli V~lKllq B~ 18~T M ~Tllll TH~ "~J V~IL~I ~ IN ~i TAILli. ~M~NV 1~6T Iq~L41~ 

°22:2 . 
u~ m 

ii J I:~"~ * 

\, 

0 

fl 

M 

I 

fO 

r~ 

fO 

0 

t~ 

Q 

Q 

Q 

t~ 

t~ 

t~ 

I 

Q 

t~ 

13

t~ 

(3 

0 

M 

Q 

t~ 

t~ 

Q 

Q 

0 

fl 

fO 

r~ 

0 

I 

I 

0 

0 

0 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

i, 

I- 10 Irr.~ L0 

'"'"'" -k 

m qlm:a~0~ 

~.ImDNI Illl - r-r iA~.lCllmm) ~ 

I. ,ILIL Iff011l ImJIl" I! ~ I~1NQN-WOI~II GEOllXU II,UlI¢ IF LIED IN 

IIUlIINI&~ OR /~'I1VII AI~ICUL1UII~ AJIEAL 

I. Llmlm~ .. m/Y mll'OOl" TYIqr.,4L (il Imrll ~Nallmm ~J.om 

&~. IIIX Ill INC~I mNiMUM. 

lj il. ALL IUIIFACI WAlllII lUl.OtWl8 Cll OlvgmB TOWAnD CONsIlnlUCTIOll ISMItANCi 

IKAU E Pl'IO AC~II TI! gmwi¢l. IP I~INI m ~A 0IWlAIU 

Um ~q Onqllt 11M~IAItY IInOllON ~mltm. ~ CAN m Ull. 

;. IHI INI1M/I~ IIMIJ. m ~Y ~ A/dO IdOW/lrA~ED IN A ¢~t~moil THAT 

Idll(ll~B 11qAO¢1~ OR Iq.OtW~ OIr IB~eVlr ONTO I'LRIU¢ PUG~ll-4~VAY. lilAWTBiA/d~ 

MA.V liCI.UEE l'BliO0~ TOP OiEUl~ ~114 ND~m~ I)TQNE Qll ~li I~NIq/q=.ENeCX~ 

OF ANY 14EAIURN ulaD TO "mAP IDiMENT, ANY 8EOqI4NT 11qAT IN 81qI.LED, []l~ffID, 

~.~41d~ ONTO luqLJILE IqlgHTII-OF-WAY IdUiST BE ~ All 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

IIUJI~ IqPII 

~ R~UIMD 

: ~ i:i :~ ̧ ̧~ i  ̧ ̧ !~i~i I 

i ~ ,~i ~i ~,,!~'!~ili ,~!i~ii!/ii! ~!i~ 

~i!i!~i~,~!i!~ i ~ 

~:/" ! .... 7 ! . 

~iii~iil i~ ~, !~ ~, ii 

IMLT ~ J~D/OR 

STJ4J(IO STRAW M 

VI[W 

IILTJk 

ORm~ 

CAOSS S~ZI~N 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

"iii~ii'i!i~iii!i 

pa.~ [] I I 

II~iTAi.LAT',¢~ IqEQUIREMENTS: 

e V~IN UII~ I&T Iqm~. Iq.Ac8 iT: 

e 8ETlitgm~ DI~UIED ~EA8 ,4KD DOtfR64LG~ 

EN~RGMJNTAL R~OUIt~ NW.~ 

CROS8 SECT'K~ 

eWmT~ 

• ~R.Y m NW.A8 CP ACTI~ C:C~STIt,JC~GN 

* WILLY m Ml~ Y41~ NO CONS'mUCTION 

e AT THI I,qm Olu ALL IILGPIm NmX'T TO V41T~NDL 

• ITI~Y O JqLrT I'YGNO THE TGE ~ ~4E SLQPl • II~I TO 

TO I]IVI THE I NGQM TO CCU.ICT ~AII 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

Jr*z J~ IITNW8 

ANnUl PIIqS'T 8'TAKII ~ 

UP II,~PII TO 00NTAIN U~ 

~ I~ A4nma.ll~4 PI.AN V~ 

• ~CUIII.Y 1lEO ~ 

N.QN~ 1H ¢ONT0~ 

ml 

MI.m 

IN~TN~.ATION REQUIREtAENTB: 

. v~mH 11~1B1~ IIN0~ 111HTI.Y Mur[~G ~ I~Nm00W m Tlgl 

. ULrlr~m ~ST%JMED N~.AII A~O m~4,4LW~ I~r~l~m0NMB~. 

PSI~U~8 ~lqB~ 

. AT T~I IIM~ OF A.LL II.JDt~8 I~CT TO ML~.,~r~D~ 

~L41rlllmOaR, NdD nOAD 

ii , AT M ruLEr A~O 0U~ ~ ~ ~ STRI.~'~N~ 

, ~I~(NA~I.y Q FEEt BEY(~O THE TO! Of M 8L(X'e 1~ 

(~1 M 8~WIT IIO~1 TO ¢OLUI~. 

. KEy ~ 1HI iorlloB (~ T141 IIAUL t Nq~ VNf.M rT Ul NOT 

~mL! TO T~mCH rr w ILm~L nOC~ SaL LMM T~I 

k4NNTE~ I~QIJIREIdENTS: 

elI~U 

* DNLY IN NW.M ~ ACIM CGNEIllIJ¢~ 

* VVWlQ.Y IN AMA8 V~I1H NO ¢ONIlllUL~ 

* V411dlM M ~ JrOU,,~ EACH JdkJON 

L~. 

e I~E~ 0N MPt~ II, N.JI~I NI NLq~qO. 

* RB,~Oq,1 A¢O, Jl~lO MDI~ TO AN 

UPt.~ AI~ ,q NIE~. 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

I I 

I I 

I I 

I I 

N.T~L 

I~lml A tk~L M Hl~m T~I I~NT I 

A A 

B ~ SUMAC 

ff.TJ. 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

'~'~ F:.ii-:ii:: ::: ~i!ii: 

~ :.':,~ ::'~ :." ~ :--°:--.:,.. 

~ V ,.m~.~ an : .;:- • : . z . ,':~"'~ ~'... " " " 

"-.'-.;.: !i ;: 

.." :',.'.:'..: : 

n~m, Aw ,'--',:",:'- ~ --.:--.: :""~ ::'.:"' 

<i:; i:i ii :;12i:;}ii:;i}i:ii2i }2iJil 

4ULN~ OA COHPNW NqqK~ll 

EQUNN.IENT TO N~ 

PAVEMENT OR CGMFACT SUHFA 

~nAu~ TO BJTT 

TOqk'TNm 

WI 

% m S'mEIT ~qNN4tGI ~ INLET V41H 

m Filial TO CGNBTNJCnQN A/O MAINT~4UN UNT1L 

CCXdmlJCNGN I CQttqErl~ 

~. non SN.I FLACID C~ PAVlmm~r ~ CGMDJCT IUaP, tCiB, 

Iq.AcE IUItND OR COtIPANY API~OVID IEQUWAUENT I~/~l 

PAVEMB~r M IIN.L 

~W ACCUm~UIJ~ W. 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

CQei~IUCTIal IqlGHT-~ILWAY 

~DTX OP TOPOOL ~ 

F 

/I /-L F--v---- 

III~L IIIDa W~IK 8iOJ 

qL ms~m 

DITCH PtLJ0 Si~ILSIOIE TOP8(~I. 88GRL~AlrIGN 

CQNrf~JClr~N RiQY~-O~WAY 

W 

qL m~:H 

O 

RiLL fliGHT-(~r,-wAY TQilIJOIL 

L_ 

~1 T* TOPIOIL IdAY ill ~ W LOC&lI(~m All SHOWN 

Oil AT OTH~ COtli~l#Y ~ LOCI.TIQql 

Wfn4N TTiE CO~II111ilJCYN~ R~W. 

~1 s. t.ZAW M W m,m. PUO ~'on WAtln nUN-~. 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

I A WAIo~ ~ ~ I 

ATM~ ~ ~ 

~?,1 >a m ~io w~! ~IPAm AI I 

,.~.m i IIAUgl. ILT RE~I. on 9(I. r.Gq TI~MPOA4~ (Xq C~IPAC11~ OII1WICllON~ 

i--! ~r. A.o noac ~ mu, v~ 

I_1 • sr~ ~o ~XCH mit~s~ w~ axn 

• RLI"IR ~ WA11~ It' ~ 11 oulrtll' 

W A WIJ. "K;01TA111 ITAIII~ AJIA, 01~ IY UIINQ 

AN ~ IA~ ~ ~IILT ~ ~ 8N,.E~ 

I C0N~t01. F~ ~I DIIL'1119 IN 1~I 

im'o ~mltANOI. WA~ OI~ On.fiR IIRIINI 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

:.:.:.:.: 

|lq', 

m 

. ._ r~,,..o'm~._ 

.. _~.~ ~'" 

B'a t RO~ II 

WIN I~IEI~H 

V MINIMUM M g~l. 

r MII~MUM IN I~a( oR A WA~ O10~1~ 

Ri 

_~J i~XClllpr Ill ~l'1%ANOIb A cnQqMql M~I~Y J | ~ ACIDOUIIT I~(~il OITCI( IlieTllJNL All ~ 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

~u~ 

• O 
Ig.blW ~ 9V m0(~ 9W mr%L~V~ gNIME~V~0 B~V~V ~ 

~nlldOV,a m a'i,~o -~ 

\ 

II~VJI.II It~(]~O~..--~ / ~: :: :" " " ::: :~ ," :": " " " " 

,dlW~'J ig(~oN -.-// ........ 

NOH iIDW~m:3~IQ dlM~ld -- 

~,LII U'-'-~: I 

II NQ,A.¥~ .an 

~al MilTdld NO ID'V'II ~ 

OVll 113d NO~ ieU~H~IIQ INO .IJRIrl :IU,~I~I 

I 

- ' I 

&a 

000-11~-~0d9 :#~BMOOQ UT §00Z/81/Z0 9~SO 9~ ~q pBnssi Z900-ZZZ0g00Z ~o ~Qd pB~BUBg--D~ IeTOT~OUN 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

i=P ~,, 

"k.~, c., ( 

F J ""----j 

'IPELIME 

W-, 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

11mNCH t~ tl~ H OA 

W 

L~DW! QF DiTC~ 

W 

~1 D- PIPE Bl~611ill 

D1 - ~111LY 14 B 

Oe - NqqwomMTILy IrrMILIN 

Oa. Aiqq~oaMATTLy IT 

t "° . 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

Z ~ IIAaD~I IIUO~T 011 

nlsct~lm Iq~ 

,NELL VWETA~D 

~ 8TAQ~IfO II~PJ 

n ~ J~ID ~ 

~A'nlmNa 

I~I~N PllqlUNf 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

mlmJ~eO I-" ON PAT ~ USE ST,~(m 

............ r'-- I.OCN. DRNNA~ 6WAUl 

UM II~CX~I Iucxlrr oA 

i m.Jwl TO ANOIOR 

UPIN 

ImlIL PI.A111 O~ 

woaolm MATI 

Of~ 

!I - 

L~ OLuWA~ ~CA/U CDdqgl.Y U t,lliEI0~ ~ f~d/4.l. OaCH~dqGEI 

~ U I~q4Bi A I, IYIDIIOITA~ "lY.ln" ~ HAl I¥O]" |IBN 

1 ~ ALTERNATE FIGLIRI~ #19 
]nofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

VI~ITATED 

IN11~4¢mWt~ ~1~ J ',,. ~.~'~ ..,~ 

- 

o INII"N.L W ALL ,A~AII EXCIPlr MIJOEF~IAL OIq 

,AG~CUi.'I%JRAL IMNLEgO AIJT[NIOglI2ED IIY ~ 

01~ LN~D IdANA~01q~ A~ 

o COWeS'T/IUCT Urn40 ENWH PLU~D~ S,I,CXS OLql S3"NCED 

6"rw, A~V II, Al.FdJ 1'(3dl ~ Olq COM~ ~ 

~ ~ ~ PSIWdlAItdE~'T. 

o INSTALL W5114 A 2 - 0'15 ~AU. N, IQLL 

~ ~MF'~N~EDfO. 

o KIEiI~ 'IHE CNA/#i4L RqJl[ Og~ ~ ~ 

Otm:Al.i. ~ iqLtVigqfl, gmqMENT ~ ~ IA~TLN~O& • ~ AItID MA,CIf ~ ~ DOKIEII 

WA~ till O~r14111Smdlil?blf IqEgGUIICEL ~~ 

• FILTER IIUI~4~F WA'NBI BY ¢~WIRt~"TII~ AN OUTLET 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

mY ILImD 

~ulm 

t ~ C~gand~NEUI cav~# N ~ VWTI,# ~ ~ ~ 8'#I ~ W, aNPWp.aU~ff. 

~&"r~ cl4a~glm, nNLET ImGgq~ll ~ INITAU. OUI%ET ~ ~ Pi~IHI]~DI ~ O~amwqNB. UNSTN.LA'Z~N. 

1. INmaDffl' QtW~II. DOAINO ,~1~O laCttOAINO COII'I~uffrIoN AI~O MAI~ ~NIm All lqfB~D. 

]~ Z I~lP THE CHANNB. FmR ~ I~m18 AqO GIJTIIUCt~ONL 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

I~el TO I~M 

O~L4P 

a AT TOP 

I1[~! 1~ IDGI 

m 

L ~ I:ONTI~L MATT~IG IILANI~lmlIHAI~ BE UIED AT L0CAI~ONE IO~NTllqED IN 11tR PLAN ANDGA A8 DIRECTED BY THE 

ENWIGL~N~ITAL INIPEL~¢~" 

~ I[IK~I~ COKIII~ MATIING IHN~ MElT M lqlGUIMlilt~ IIPE¢IMD I¢ TH! Plan ANI~II NI D4WCITD Iy THI 

& ITNqJI 8HN~ BE MAD! OF ~ GNJGI M~U41IAPIID ~ r IJM~ AND A r cl~u~ ST/IPLI~ 8HALL M DIll/IN INTO THE 

GI~JND FI~ THI FULL ~ G~ 111 iTA~L~ LIG~ 

• MATI1NG ~ H INITNJ~D ACC(~Dt~ TO liNCUFAGIIJI~ IIFEClRCATIGNI OR All ITATI~ B~.OW: 

ii ID(IllNO TII~P OF ~ I FEET PNIT M UPPIR I1~1 0~ 1HII IIIJ~P~ 

*/~CHOII I~IE~) THI UI~lll I~[~1 OF THI! II~l(IT INTO TH! li~MI I~IM A r DI~ TM~:N N~ N01~ ~111LNIG~ 

1HI HIII~ B(XAI~I ITN~II IL~IRY 11" III1~11 ~ AND COMP~GIWI 

• AV~IO ~ ~ CON~N~ ~111NG ItOOIIL~l ~ WITNJ~(X~ 

[~ 

iI.. 

L WOm~ WASMa;~k ~Dtl NI~GN~ ~ MO~NO~" ~ ~ ~" 
unorrlclal ~EMc-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

~f~~ I~m.u~i ~ Cm~ 

C. IURY A~D T~U~ uIq~! END Q~ U~A~q 

I~IP All m *A'~ "It. o~lqi.Np l~ ~NI) TNt AJ~II ImIPi IN 8L~r "~m~. 

"* ~ .... ~ ---- IITAI%I ~ 

~"'/..... ~'~~~_~.=/~ ,~, ~,~ 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

PI.AN ~ 

N.TJI. 

IqBw~I IXP, gUD OIq ~ 

TILll A MINNUItl OP a4" ~ " 

EIT~gBI ~ QI~ "m~PdO4 ~ 

A ~'I1DIAC'I1DflY 

mum~ 

m #m"P M 

~T~ 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

II 

.................... FT ...... ---~------ 

k2~-I 

I mFl ~I NI~JgAIY m I I 

I~ ~S~W ~ , I 

i--f ..... f- .... 

i / J 

iii~i 

~------- ~ Dmm 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

..... ---- ""'~ ............ T-- 

_ .~ J 

I 

i , 

l:Od~1110L llIMmI.I 

:i~::~IIII, rt'ItAw I 

• .'~I 

:+: +. __ 

i 

( , 

~lIII I I Ii , 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

i 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

F'b 

i 

, I ! " - - 

! I r't--- .oM .ou ~-- ..~n, ,mm= 

' ~X~X ,~all" {1YPJ !! ~ A'i~ -'-'--" . 

I I 

, I I ~-~-,---,.... i~ I 

i Ilt TO ~ II.TA~ON ON m~ 

/:i 

, ! 

_ _-~ !_/ / ~L 

'~,.-~. T%ll. MAJOA RO/43 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

~ tmollOl~ 

CO~'mOL IomvL~,m,~ 

IBMI, II11~WI.~UJtm 

i*i:!i 

O~ll I~II NiiCESSAR~ 

i 

/ 

PLAN VlEW 

- EQUPM~ 

• LM~ 

IP~TAU. m m 

msm 

~CIIIUSI4ED ~ PAD 

IrroN~ 

SECllON "A~A ° 

:. AOO,~ef,~ mu~em~r p,~s cA~ m Pro" moG w ~ w txlx,~ ~MO*H m ~. 

Z ~CZ~PMB~" P,~ ~.W~V ~ oF H~DW~, MtJt ,~CmtV00~TE mE tWO.ST ~ ram. 

.~ ~UmA MNNUW ~m~Tm ~wmM 
]nofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

i;ii 

ii , 

/ 

o1(I I~11~I¢IU4J~ 

! / 

IF" (AV~] OISJEHED IIT[~l~ 

m 

m 

- MOIIINI" lIMIIml (,41 NICI[I&MIY 

TO FIIIEVIEMT mLTATION IN 

WA~ 

°o °*" ° ° ~* .8 **- 

• ° • ° • to ~8 ° ° ° 

I ° * ;o ° 

~ANNI. ---" 

1..lt~N I~Afl[ Iql~l TO I~IWJIT m AI~O M I¢~.11. 

I§ 
• Az.~ 6~00-S] .m I~ISY.LgO, I gO J.YO'MIX:J~) [F[ 

II 

• ,lnNv'~m ON~O mx)lvg gaol, ml 7 

"INO~ VO g~VlKmiVII Ifl~ IlaO~ ]~II~',UI "L 

m Irll~.w~l 

000-II~-~0d9 :#~BMOOQ UT §00Z/8I/Z0 9~S0 9~ ~q pBnssi Z900-ZZZ0g00Z ~o ~Qd pB~BUBg--D~ IeTOT~OUN 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

PLON 

i i: ~!~i ~ !ii! ~ ~i~!i ~ ~ ::~i~:~ ~i!:! 

m BA4~ TO 

CHAIgl. SllV.AM 

R.OW IAe m 

~m 

CO0~eL (~W~Ul 

melMO, m Um III.UMff PIPE 

(,r p4i~,, 

.~'~ :~ ~--nem.~u~ 

W 

m 

miami. I~le) 

m 

DKII ~11NECINAIIVl 

1%--- TEMPOIIARy 

S'~B. CULVWIT 

| C~" MUOa.l" 

'~ ~'T~A& m OF PUJIdl ,~D CULVIRT 

PPMU TO Mm ilY 

mlW.AM Vf~L 

%~ ~TiVpOR4.qY 8~O&iRNT &klmlBI Ci; H.T FTNC~ ~d~'OR S11qAW IIAI.ES. 0~ OTHn 

APPROPIffAT! MATI~ALL 

2. ~ BAGS MUIIT R ~ ~ SAND IqlE! OF SILT. ~IGANICL A.~ OTTIBI MATEIW~ 

~1 & ALION ~ TO PIIE"VI£NT ilAH( I~qO410N AND ~ 

4. CGIdOUCr AI.L IPI-InlW.AM ACIlVITY ilEXC:IPlr IL4Slllq 011 0114EII IIO0( lill~0JOMm 

W~H THI ~ li Iq, ACI. R.LI4 IqM~ll MAY NqT N IEMOVED IIOR ~ II ~il 

IP~IAI. ~mW.4,MINO ll;TOIIA~ON EFFOIllt 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

INTAKE HQN-~ I~ 

, \! , w 

A 

~AN V~W 

f ~- r B~NI ~L 

JA-~ m 

Mm~ 

% (~ TI~IP~RNIY M~MEI~r ~ OF ILT FENCI AND'GI! IITRAW IhM.B~ 011 0"IHEII NqqlQPRIA11E MATIBIINJI 

& IN.ALL NqD SEAL BA/43~Gll UPISTIlFJ~4 AND D~dkwmEAM QF THIE CIqOUdN& 

& C~IEATIE NI ~ IUl~ tJIIB~ ~ IF I~T1UIML BUMP I UNAVNLABLA I~11 ~li INTAKE HO4~ 

• EXCAVATE ~ ~EAM CIMJIN~ ~ WATER 

•J i D° N°T IIEl~m" °111rr~lE ~JEI" wll~m le° FEEt °If IHI WAllmI°°Y' mtBIE ~'AIIRIL 

MOMT~ ~Mm AT A~ nU~ D~G STEAM ~OmmNO mO~MA~ 

I ~ L NUMmR ~ R4JME PIFN F~I IK3LIIqd~T IIIIO~ ~LL VARY ~lqg~NQ ~ 8/11e COMXT1QI~ 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

""--'--'-"1 I" 

'++'':"'":" -TRENCH P~ I 

i : : ! .+;~ i!• • ! + • 

10' pm& 

i" !! !~ ~ ~ .... ~': ~: !~ "" iii:~:ii ~ 

Wm 

,c(3Nnw)q. m 

U M SAI.! 

W 

m 

{WWOEI. nUClEI 

'TllM'OIV.AIW U 

Dim IAS m m OJl.~lmT 

I~ OJi.) ° 

"TOql' Of 

* ACTt,~4& MIJMIWl OIt ~ AND q~UL~q[RT 

~~ NOEIIRMI6m) IIY 

m 

I.(~ TF.J~W~qAI~r gf.0~T IIAAI~fR OF SLT RINal A, INOqDR ITIqAW B~ILN.OR ARIAOPIqlATIE I~I, TIIRLa~JL 

! T~c.~ ~ ~os~,G F~s~:32 ,. 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

U 

~N~N 

STAXE TO 

VM14 8TAIqJ~ 

I~O TO I~O 

OV~t~ Ir IAm 

i 

Ul 

m CONTItOL FAAHI¢ 

IDOE TO I~GII 

OV~LAP Ir pal~) 

A 

% I[MGmON CONm~& IA~,~ 1114ALL N lq.~l~ll ON 11~1 glAIWUI Ogl ~ ~ ~ VlRIrrAI~O~6 14All m~qlN 

MIUOVlO Og~ All ~ IIY Tl.I INVmONMII~TAI. INa0~CTq~A. 

& llT,41utE8 8HALL ma~ ~ ~ ~ GNJ~II WIIW. U-lll4~du~9 V~II~ f Urn8 ~ A r CII~VWL lWAM, IS 81.UUj, ma~ ~ ~ ~ 

~TTIP~ 

pIENNT ~ 1HE APPIqOAO~ 81.OFL II~SN ~I~E mANKEr 0N ~HIE ~ ~ 0F ~I~IE ~ 0IKI£ 

e IN~TALL ~AClqQ~8 TNIE ~ IN 111 ~ OFTIG WATIBI ROW. 

o AIICItQ~ Clqff3 T~E UIqlTIWAM B ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Air DBP TII~IO~ DOUgUI 

IlT.~uqJI B~IW tr' ~ ~ ~ ~ TImNO4 

ao ,4NCI, IOR IKIE~ ~IE UP'~H ED~ ~ TI~E ILA/~IIT INTO 11~ 8LQ~ IANNG A r D~ TI~H, G(~qlLIE S*TAPLIE 

eVlW 1~ BEFOgI~ BACIOqUJ~ AHO COMPACTING TII~L 

1 o ~ImLAP TNIE r:DQ~ QF @AJU~LLIEL ~ A MNllA~ Qf r. PLACE ~HIE UI~EII ILA/dliET GVEIt ~I4E LOWI~ nLAMCET 

(~e~UI SWUII~ID STAPLE INn~ WALON8 l~li UING~ OF 11q IIOGL 

o~qlEN mLAMqkT 8i8e A/W t~/CIND. Iq~cl TNE UPMIqEAM alLAi~lff 0~11 THE ~iSllqL4N IU~IUET 

qtlI4NSUE STYIJU~IH A/~ItG~m~lIILy f CF OVI~qLAP ANO IITAIqJI THHOUm4 114n OVlmLAPPED A/qEA ~ It. 

. sT~qJi UO~l ~IE CENTIE~ ~ 7)1E ILANKETIL THME STAI~ES IN L~Y SQUAJIE yNIO. 

L IN LIb~'TGCK AIq~ll WHIE~ ImCIC~ ~NI'IqO. MAI"MNG 18 ~ TO TIqlE ImqB~MBAI~ pnB~c~G ~LL anw U~ i F 

! .'l-n. OF s'rm l Ks F GS #33 " 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

PIlOPOS(O PlPTl.lqE 

• 5' (URN.) 

J IZ' (WLX.) 

S" (Ugh. ! 

(UU. 

PLAN 

&V(RAG( D(PTH 

SECTION 

r• (~JSIC YARD PI~ ~ FOOT. 

I J 3. mp-~Lo UST~.LAnOI S~U.L U ~ ¢OtBU~C( 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

APPENDIX B 

SEED MIX RECOMMENDATIONS 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

SEED MIX RECOIMbIENDATIONS 

"NORTHERN ZONE 

Lime 

Fertilizer 

Mulch (Wheat Straw) 

4.0 tom/~ 

I000 lbsYacre (10-20-20) 

3.0 tom/sc~ 

1. Uulud Seed Mix 

 muesmm 

Red FescuO 20% 

Kentucky 31 Tall Fescu~ 15% 

Redtop 10% 

Perennial zyegnms 20% 

ciova" 5% 

Bi.'dafoot Ttg:foil 0Ainimmn 2(P/o lurd seed) 10% 

2. Pmmu'e Mix 20 Ib~acre PLS 

. 

75 lbe./acre Pure Live See~ (~) 

2O% 

(For use only In d~Jed pasture arms ~ landowner "s ~n.) 

Kmtucky Bluegr~ 31% 

Medium Red clover 26% 

North Trefoil 17% 

Poly Pmal Rye 26% 

l~dMM~m mlndl~J SIMDdhll I)m'lbm~ 

(For the establisttment of temporary or ~nt vegetation.) 

Spfi~: March 15 - May 30 

Fall: August I - October 15 

WINTER STABILIZATION 

If restoration can not occur wior to Octoba 15, ~ed the ROW with 1.5 bud.s per acze of winter rye of 

aimil~ variety of rye u ~ by the landownen Mulch ROW at 3.0 tom per acre with wheet s~raw, 

includh~ mas adiacent to stremns m~d wetland c~minSs. Seed ~ top6oil pi]m with wima- rye and 

mulch at a rate of 3.0 Urns per s~m~. 

DO NOT USE LIME OR gEgrnJZIgR !11 

Mulch (Wheat Straw) 3.0 tom/awe 

1. Wctiud Seed Mix 

Annual Ryegnm 40 Ib~acre PLS 

' The Nogttaau Z~e is $emmd~ ckflaed u exteading nocth from the Northern bmdm~ of Arkamm tnd Teaaemee. 

'Fm~e m~m be emdo~yte-fiee. 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

SEED MIX RECOMMENDATIONS 

"SOUTHERN ZONE "~ 

Lime (agricultural limc onv) 

Fertilize (6-I 2-I 2) 

Mulch (Oats,W'ne~ or Bermudagrus Straw) 

2.5 tom/ac~ 

950 IbsYa,~e 

3.0 tongacre 

i. I xt re 

So.hum, Stm nm, or 

Sudangnm Hforid¢ 

Kentucky 31 Tall Fe~cae' 

Big Bluate~ 

lnd/argn 

Sericea 

White Clov~ 

Birdsfoot Trefo/l' 

2. Reeommmded xedhm ~tm: 

(For e~tablt~ment of temporary or permanent vegetatiott ) 

Spring: 

Fall: 

40 Ibe/a~e Pure Live Seed (PLS) 

10 lbs/acnv PLS 

10 lbs/acrePLS 

10 lbs/acrePLS 

10 lbs/acrePLS 

l0 lbe/acrc PLS 

5 lbe/acrePLS 

10 lbs/ecrePL5 

March 15 - May 30 

,~mglm I - O~ober 15 

STAB~TION 

Ifrestorafio~ can not ommr lzdm'to Octobm" 15, seed the ROW with 1.5 bushels per acre of wimer rye or 

similar variety of rye as voque~xi by the lamtowner. Mulch ROW at 3.0 tons per acre with wheel straw, 

includin8 areas adjacent to slream and wetland mmmngs. Seed segregated topsoil piles with wint~ rye and 

mulch at a rate of 3.0 tom per acre. 

WETLAND AREAS 

DO NOT USE LIME OR I~RTILIZER It! 

Mulch (Oats, Wh~ or Bmnudagrass Straw) 3.0 tons/ac~ 

I. WeOamd Seed Mix: 

Annual P.ycgram 40 Ibs/ac~e PLS 

' The Southern Zone i~ genenflly defined as exte~ south from the Nccdwm bcnden5 o f ~ ~nd Telme~sc¢. 

~ An altmat/ve seed mixtme may be reque~ed by the kndewner(s). 

J The~ spec, iea may be ~okl under lhe folio'wing lrsde nsme6: DeKs]b SXI 7, ~ If, Gre~treat IH, T~ 

DR, Tssmmtl~ II~ FFR202, or Sord~ 79. 

' Fe~te mmtt be eedophy~fi'ee. 

, Legumes should be treated with a specim specir~ inocula~ pr/or to secdlng. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

APPENDIX C 

SPILL PREVENTION CONTROL AND 

COUNTERMEASURE (SPCC) PLAN/ 

PREPAREDNESS, PREVENTION, 

AND CONTINGENCY (PPC) PLAN 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

Pa~ Duke Energy Gas Tmnsrnission 

DUKE ENERGY GAS 

TRANSMISSION 

SPILL PREVENTION CONTROL 

AND COUNTERMEASURE (SPCC) PLAN/ 

PREPAREDNESS, PREVENTION, AND 

CONTINGENCY (PPC) PLAN 

Prepared By:. 

Env'n'orenen~ Consauc~on Pern~tfing 

5400 Wemheime¢ Court, SP-777 

Houston, TX 77056-5310 

~ September 8, 2004 

tfor Louvre Late~] Proie~'t) 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

Duke Energy Gas Transmission 

Table of Coaea(s 

I.O General Description ........................................................................................................ 2 

2.0 Comrolled Copy List of Contingency Plans ................................................................... 2 

2.1 Amendments to the Contingency Plan ....................................................................... 3 

3.0 Material and Waste Inventory ........................................................................................ 3 

4.0 Spill and Leak Preparedness and Prevention .................................................................. 3 

4.1 Employee Training ..................................................................................................... 4 

4.2 Security ....................................................................................................................... 4 

4.3 Prevention and Preparedness ...................................................................................... 4 

4.3. i Tanks .................................................................................................................. 5 

4.3.2 Containers ........................................................................................................... 5 

4.3.3 Loading/Unloading Areas .................................................................................. 6 

4.3.4 Concrcte Coating Areas for Field Joints ............................................................ 7 

4.4 Emergency Equipmcnt ............................................................................................... 8 

5.0 Contingency Plan and Emergency Procedures ............................................................... 8 

5.1 Responsibilities Of Company And Contractor Personnel .......................................... 8 

5.1.1 First Reaponder ................................................................................................... 8 

5.1.2 Contractor EC Responsibilities .......................................................................... 9 

5. 1.3 Company Responsibilities .................................................................................. 9 

5.1.4 Company EC Responsibilities ............................................................................ 9 

5.1.5 Division Environmental Coordinator (DEC) Responsibilities ......................... 10 

5.1.6 Environmental Consmzctio. Penmtting (ECP) Responsibilities ..................... I 1 

5.2 Spill Clean-Up/Waste Disposal Procedures ............................................................. 11 

5.2.1 Oil/Fuel Spills ................................................................................................... 11 

5.2.2 Hazardous Substance Releases ......................................................................... 1 I 

5.2.3 Unanlicipaled Release of Hydrostatic Test Water ............................................ 12 

5.3 DisposaJ of Contaminated Materials/Soils ............................................................... 12 

5.4 Equipment Cleaning/Storage .................................................................................... 12 

6.0 Ho~aekeeping Program ................................................................................................ 13 

7.0 External Factors ............................................................................................................ 13 

8.0 Unanticimted Hazardoes Material Discovery Plan ......................................... 13 

APPENDIX "A" - TABLES .................................................................................................... 14 

TABLE I - Material And Wa~e Inventory ............................................................................... 15 

Spill Response: ................................................................................................................. 16 

Fire Protection: ................................................................................................................. 16 

Personnel Protection: ........................................................................................................ 16 

TABLE III - Key Emergency Contacts ................................................................................... 17 

TABLE IV - Tank And Container Storage Exception Areas ................................................... 19 

TABLE V - Project Site Specific Security Information .......................................................... 20 

TABLE VI - Areu for Potential Lea~ and Spills .................................................................. 21 

APPENDIX "B" - MSDS SHEETS ......................................................................................... 22 

Spill Preventinn Control and Cotmter Measure Plan Page I 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

Duke Energy Gas TransmtssJon 

1.0 ~ Descr/ptioa 

Duke Energy (3as Tran~m~c~ ICompany) has prepared a Slm|l P~en~on Conuol and 

Countermea.~re (SPCC) Plan which incorporates the Preparedmaag Prevent, on, and Contingency 

(PPC) Plan, as well as ern~gency provisions. The Company's overall objectwe is to develop a 

func'aonal contingency plan that meets all applicable federal, sxate, and local em~gency response 

prngrmns. Thin plan is dsmgned to minimLze hazards to human health and/or ,.he environment from 

any unplanned sudden or non-sudden r~leases of oils. toxic, hazardous, or other polluting materials to 

the air, soil. sm'fac~ water or groundwater. This plan also addre~es unanticipated release of 

hydrostanc ~ water, aspe¢/ally in areas where the pipelm¢~s have b¢.¢n t:e.ated w,th mercalmm md in 

areas of ~own PCB contaminaOon. 

The Company's objective is to develop a functional connngency plan to be used on pipeline 

construcUon projects in accordance with all federal, state, and local emergency response programs. 

This plan was prepared to meet the requtrexnents of the: 

• Fedm'al Water Pollution Control Act 

• Comprehensive Envlmnmental Response, Comperm,qtton. and Liabihty Act of 1980 

• Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 

• Toxic Substances Control Act 

This plan identifies: 

• Type and quantity of mawris] handled 

• Meastm~ taken for spill p~eparcdnea mad preventicc 

• Company and Contrm:tor emergency raspom¢ procedures 

• Reepoasibditi¢~ of des/gnated emergency coordinators 

• Emergency Evacuation Plan 

• Spill incident reporting p~ocedur~ 

• Anangemente with local emergency response tean~ 

2.o Con~ed Cop~, Lm of Coml~[~x T i*m. 

The Environmental Con~uctwn Permitting (ECP) gronp in Engineenng Services is responsible fo¢ 

the accuracy of the plan related to regulatory iu'ues, cooedin~ion m~l dism~bution of the plan, and the 

p~epam~on of any neneasm~ rev~ions to the plan. 

A copy of the contingency plan and any revisions will be: 

• Maintained at the consXruction field office 

• Maintained by Company Emergency Conrthna*o* (EC) 

• D~b~d by ECP to the engineering u~uns and to the transmLsmon field offices 

• Distributed by the enginee~ng teams to the approplrlate local repre~ntatlves 

Spill Prevention Control and Counter Measure Plan Page 2 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

Duke Energy Gas Transmission 

The conlrolled copy list of holders of the contingeqcy plan represeming the Wtmary respees¢ units 

includes; 

Environmenta] Consmction PecrniVang Hm~on 

Housto~ Envi~L Health & Safe'e/(Hmmo~ EHS) Hom~on 

Engineering (Project Team Director) Various 

Transmiemon (Director. Technical Services) Hou~on 

Trmmmission - Division Envn"mu'nemal Coordinator (DEC) Division Office 

Transmumion (Area Supermtandem) Area Office 

Police Deparm~nt Local 

Fire Department Local 

Hospital Looal 

Emergency Medical Team Local 

2.1 Amendmeutt to the Coatiugeuo/Phm 

The cuntmgcocy pl~ will be amended when one of the following occurs: 

• Plan proves to be ineffective m an emergency 

• Material ~rld wuta inventory needs updating 

• Changes to Federal or State resulatiuns 

• CMmges to Local resulabons where applicable 

At least once every five ye~n there ~nll be • review, evaluation, and re-certificatiun of the 

plan to be ~ordmated by the Manager of ECP. P~o~ of this plan not affecting the overall 

scope or demgn may be changed withom re-ce~fi~abon. 

3.0 Material sad Waste Inveutor~ 

The Material and Waste Inventocy (Appendix A, Table I) will be completed by ~¢ Cunm~tor pno¢ to 

~un. This table provides • lust of chemicals used or stored at the |/ta that have the potantial 

of caucus en~rm~nemal ~ or et',,d~gctmem of pubhc t~O.th and sa~:ty tht~h s~ctckmtal 

releases. This list includes mmien~, ~ as fertil~'~rs and sanitary wastes; solid waste, such as scrap 

metals, numomy pmdu~ and other coosm~on raw materials and debris; conmn~oo chemicals, 

such m pmnts, soll eddltivce and acids for cleamm3; pe~oleum products, such as fuels and lubricators; 

md o~her materials including ~ wash from mixem, explmwce, etc. 

Matanal Saf¢~ Data Sheets fo¢ all lugardous s~ listed in Table I will be included in Appendix 

A and are to be l~,'nded by the conuactc~. Odin' pctemial wame from ~ rata, not inc|uded m T~|e 

I. would include co~mm'm~ on debrm, rock and ex~ soil. 

The purpose of thls sectiun is to dt.mo~tmta that the ~un sita is adequately equ/pped to m~et 

p~epmedn~m amd irarvemioo requimnems, as required ~ the Hazazdons Waste Mm=gemem 

Regula~ons. 

Spill Prevention Control and Counter Measuz¢ Plan Page 3 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

Duke Energy Gas Transmission 

4.1 Employ~ 'rraln/ag 

Contractors and company pef~nel are to be trained m haT~rdouts wa~e management 

procedures ~ wdl enable lhem to respond effe~tvely to emergenc/es by famdmrmng them 

with emergency procedures, emergency eqmpment, and emergency commumcation systems. 

Perumnel who handle, sample, or come in direc~ conUtc~ with ells (x hazardous matter are to 

undergo b~sic munmg sU'asaing the imp~mnce of pollution conU'ol. Spill prevent/on control 

procedures are In be thoroughly explained during the training briefings which wdl be 

conducted by the Contractor Superimendent (Cone'actor Emergency Coordinator) m~d the 

Company Chief lr~pecmr (Company Emergency Coordinator) or fl~eir designated 

rcpresenumve on the tob site. The Company Emergency Coc~nator (EC} m responsible for 

maintmning verification of the training. 

Before coestn~ction, all p~oject Chief Inspec/ors and Environmental Inspectors will receive a 

copy of thin SPCC Plan and an ~ved list of emergency respome conmtctors (see Table 

IH). Inspectors will be trained regarding eqmpment mainUmance, fuel and hazardous rnaterml 

handling, spill prevention procedures and s~ll response, as specified harem. 

All personnel involved in the consU'ucuon of the Ixoposed facilities will be •ware of the 

SPCC/PPC Plen. Regular training briefings will be conducted on an as required basis by the 

Cont~wtor Stwenntendent and the ~y Chief Inspector on the job site. These boefings 

shall mchtde U~e following: 

• Precautionary mas,sures to pcevent spills 

• Potential sources of spills, including equipment failure or rnalfimction 

• SUmdard operadng p~ocedures in the event of a spill 

• Applicable notification reqmrements 

• Equipment, materials and supplies available for clean-rap of • spill 

4.2 Se,'=r~ 

No~e: Include project site specific sec~mty mform~on here (see Appendix A, Table V). 

Hazardo~as wasU~ and waste containing PCBs greater than 50 ppm will be s~o~red in a secured 

location (i.e. fenced, locked, etc.). Fuel s~age areas will be located to minimxze, as much as 

po~ible, tampenng by mmu/h~ized porsonnel dunng nml-oper~o~J bou~, 

4.3 Prevmflon mind PreparedmeM 

It is umlikely that • discharge from the comsm~on site into waters of the state will occur. The 

construction site should have onsite sp/fl prevention and conwol facilities, xs well as routine 

inspe~ons of tank and co, miner s~mgn areas that help reduce ~ potential f~ oil and 

hazardous mamial relemes to the soil or surge waZers. In areas wbere hazardous nmterials 

are required to be gored or utilized within • wetland, the aclu's'mr is reqmred to prepare and 

submit for ~mvM • secondary contaieenent plan prior W working m the wetland are~ 

Generally. minor spills ~ leaks v, qll be ccmmned within secondmy comamment areas. Areas 

where pote~si spills and leaks may ~ ,~e hsted in Appendix A, Tab)e VI (lis@ng to be 

completed by Company F£). 

Spill Prevention Control and Counter Measure Plan Page 4 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

Duke Energy Gas Transmission 

4.3.1 Tanks 

The Contractor will take the following precautions to prevent a spill from occurring 

w.hm tank storase arca,s: 

• Operate c~ly those tanks for fuel and material storage, which meet the approval of 

the Coml~my; 

• Single wall tanks shall be l~OVlded with temporary secondary enmaimnenl that 

will hold at le~t 110% of the tank capacRy of the largest tank inside the 

containment ~re•; 

• Remove any pn~pl[atJon from the containment area to maintain the jvaJlable 

containment voha-n¢ at ll0% of the volmne of matorlal stored. Inspect the 

i~'e~ipRat/on first for evidence of oil, including a sheen, or o~e~ contaminants. If 

a sheen or other indicators ofoil or contamination is presemL collect the material 

for proper dispco~ off-site; 

• Use only self-suppcrong tanks constzuctod of cm'bon steel or other matemds 

compatible with the contents of each tank; 

• PCB (50 ppm or greater) storage umks shall be double-walled or have secondmy 

conlmnment that will hold 200% capacdy of the tank; 

• Elevate tanks a maximum of two (2) feet above grade; 

• Tank s~ornge shall be located in areas that am at least I00 feet from all waterbodies, wetlJmds, ~md designated municipal wstes~hed areas; and located at least 

200 f~et from • private water supply well and 400 feet from a commtmity or 

pubVxc water ~ly well. Cetutm exoegtions az approved F.,CP end EHS ate limed 

in Appendix A, Table IV; 

• All tanks shall be respected daily for leaks and de/enormion by the Contra~or EC 

or designee. The nmult, of all inspncUom shall be recorded on tbe "lnspe~on 

Log" (~ EHS SOP Fonn# 19-18). Copiez of form 19-18 for 

unsatisfacto~ s~r'age area inspec~ons are to be distnbutod to Houston EllS and 

the project manngef. Leaking and/or deteriorated tanks shall be mp4umd or 

rephtced as sonn as tbe condition is first detected; 

• Keep tanks tnd seconda~ containm~t drains closed when not in use; 

• Ensure vehicle mounted tanks axe eqmpped v, qth flame/spark arrestors on all vents 

to pt'event self igmt/on; 

• Do not store mc~ble mltenals in sequence in tanks prior to deconUunination. 

(A Sene'ml list of lme~tially mcompaU'ble mato~als that may be used during 

co~on are included in Appendix A, Tal~e I); 

• Decontaminate tanks used to store hazardous materials prior to uae at a different 

constxlaction location if them is the po~ontial to contmninate the next material to be 

p~ced m L~e tm~L Tke tmdut shotdd always be deeontanm,,ated if they tre to be 

reeorned to a vendor. The tm~l eJ1oald allo be de¢ontlmtinated if they tre being 

returned a Caml~my ym'd and no tmmediato specific same serv/ce use is 

s~bedu]ed; 

• If • tank contae~ • ~do~t Mztomd, then tXl.eSport~ioe should follow tbe 

atel~ omlmed in Env/ronmen~ SOP Chapte~ 4 - Waste T~c~. 

43.2 Cou~lxa's 

The Conm~or win take the fotlo~nS lmlaD~ ~ prevent • ~ill ~ 

container stor~c area*: 

Spill Prevention Control and Counter Measure Plan Page 5 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

Duke Energy Gas Transmission 

• For drum s~orage, reference Enwronrnenud SOP 3-D (Drum Specifica1|ons) and 

Appendix B of the SOP's (explanaUon of DOT Dn~re Mar'kmgs). Company EC is 

to have a copy of the era'rent Environmental SOP's; 

• Ensure container~ remain closed when no¢ m use; 

• All con~uners with a storage cap~mty of gren~r than 55 gallons shaJl have 

tempocary cuntalnment (see Appemdlx A. Table 1 for type of tempom,-y 

containment); 

• Sma]i cans of gasoline, die~el, solvents, etc., should be stored wRhin the 

lemponu7 containment or within secored mulcts or vehicles when not in use; 

• Do n~ more incompatible materials in sequence in containers prior to 

decontemination. (A general li~ of potenhally incompa~ble materutls that may be 

used dunng cons~xuc~on are included in Appendix A, Table I); 

• Deconuuninate c~ta/nms used to store hazardous rnatenals Imor to use at a 

different consm~uon location if there is the potentzal to contaminate the next 

material to be placed m the conlainer. The contalncrs should always be 

deconuumna~d if they are to be resumed to a vendor. The conmners should aLso 

be deeontaminated if they are being retmxeed a Company yard and no immediate 

specific sm~e service use is scheduled: 

• If a container comains a H~zardous Matend. then mmsporta~on should follow the 

steps outlined in Environmenud SOP Chaptor 4 ~ Waste Trarmpo~a~on; 

• No mcomp~tge material shall be stored together in the same conUunment area; 

• Lea~mg and/or detenonUed containers shall be replaced as soon as the condinon 

is f~ deleted; 

• Contmner stocage shall be locared in areas tl~ are ar least tO0 feet from all warerbodies, wedands, and designan~d municipal watemhed areas; and located at least 

200 feet fn~m a lmvate water supply wall and 400 feet from a community or 

public water supply well. Certain exce~ons as spproved ECP and EHS are lisled 

in Appendax A, Table IV; 

• All container s~l"~ge and contmm-nent m b~ng used to store wa.~e of pgoducts 

shall be per the gmdelines described in SOP- 10, Facility Impeeliom. 

4.3.3 I.,oaclt~lVLT~doadlug 

The Conm~or w/If take the below listed pveca~ons to prevent a sl~ll from ocom'mg 

within loading and unloading m when throe areas are located at the consa-u~on 

sfle. Company personnel shall be presct~ during loading and mdoedmg acUviUes. 

• Transfm'rmg of liquids mad refueling shall only occur in pre-deslgnated and preapproved locatiom that are at least 100 feet from all wator-bodi~ and wethmds; 

and loca~d at le~t 200 feet ~om a pnva~ water supply well and 400 feet ~ a 

corammmy or public water ~,pply wall. Excepfiom may be approved by the 

EnvercmnenUd lr~pector if no reasonable at;ematives ~ available and ~mdary 

containment is uf~d. Cor~n exceptior~ are }is~,d in Appen~nx A, Table IV; 

• All loading/unloading areas will be closely monitored to prevent any leaks and 

sp~l~ 

• The area bene~h Imd/ng/un]o~ubng Incat/on shall be respected for spills before 

and sfle~ each use; 

Spill Prevention Control and Counter Measure Plan Page 6 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

Duke Energy Gas Transmission 

All hme monectiom grdll u~l~ drip pans at the hose comux:tio~ while 

Ioedinl~unloading liqmd~. If a leak or spill oco~nt, the Ioading/~lmding 

opc~al~on will be stopped lind the spill will be contained, clegned up and colleeted 

prior to continuing the operabon; 

All onflete of the tank U'ucks shall be inspected prior to leaving the Imding and 

unloading aret to prevent po~ible leakage from the truck while in Iranmt; 

Each ref~elin$ vehicle ~udl have a sufficient number of shoveht, bmol~, 10 roll 

polyethylene sheeting, and fire protection equipment to c4~tain a moderate 

Any service ve~ick uaed to ~ lubricanta and fuel must be eqmpped w~th 

an emergency ve~powe kit. At a minimum, this kit must include: 

- 25 Ib~ of grmmlar oil absurbem 

10, 48" x 3" oil sock~ 

$, 17" x 17" oil pfl]ow~ 

l, I0" x4" oil boom 

20, 24" x 24" x 3/8" oll mat= 

Garden ~ze, 6 rail, polyethylene bags 

10 pmr of latex gloves 

t, 55-gallc~ polyethylme open-head 

In addition, • smailer chemical ~ kit shall be available which contains: 

1 b~g oflooee du~nic~l p~lp 

2 to 3, 17" x IT* chemic~tl pillows 

2.48" x 3" chemical aoclct 

5, 18" x 18" • 3/8" achorbent mats 

garden-uze. 6 rail, polyethylene bags 

I 0 ~ of }atex gloves, 

1.30-gallun polyethylene open-bead drum 

hazaldo~ wa~e labels. 

43A Coacret¢ C*=ttal Ar=~ for Flcld JotntJ 

Concrete coabng of field jointx ~tll be performed at le~t 100 feet from the edge of 

neeeuitate application of c~mcv~e coaUng within 100 feet ofa wat~4mdy, sufficient 

containment measures shall be implemented so u to elinfmate the apill of m'ty 

concrete mating matmiaht into a wetland ee watt. Containmem such ts the 

following (or eqmvalem I~ approved by Coml~ny ECm a seeondary ¢ontaimnent 

plan to be submi,ed by the Cone,'tot) =~ag be use¢ 

• Concrete coQImg materials shall be tempor~ly stored in a~ earthen Ix, m with a 

polyethylene tmderling lining of 10 n~l thickness, of in a potable c~nlairm~nt 

tray ~ of •teel plate meam~ng • mirdmum of fore" (4) feet aquae by one 

(l) foot deep; 

• Potable-mechanical mixing equipment, if reqmmd, dudl be operated within a 

coftmmment area ~mu~t~ed of ~mpont~ egnben be.ms and polye~ylene 

undeding lining • minimmn of I0 mil thicknma; 

• Mamufl m~ing of concrete materials in a pon~le c~'tttin~ (~ch u a $5 gMIon 

drum cut in half. or equlvak.m) ~t]l be peffomP..d within m e.Jcthee ben~ with 

polyethylone tmdeding lining of lO rail thic~ of wi'thin a portable 

Spill Prevention Conl~ol and Counter Measure Plan Page 7 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

Duke Energy Gas Tmnsmis#on 

containment tray co~ ofs~l p~are, measunng • minimuan of four {4) feet 

square by one (1) foot deep. 

4A Emerlten~Eqtlpmeat 

The c,c~a~tion siteJcor~actor ware yard will have adequate manpower and eqmpment 

neccma~ to divert any spill from ~¢hmg water bodies and wetland areas. Eme~ency 

equipment shall include, but is not limited to shovels, back, boas, dozent, from.end loa(L-*re, oil 

absorbent booms, pillows, sod~ end/or mats. granular oil ~t and t~'temical absorbent 

pulp. A list of emergency response equipmcm and personal protective equipment is provided 

in Appendix A, Table I1. 

5,0 Cmth~e~'y Ptmt tad Emerseocy IPre~lm'~ 

Emergency ~tme procedures have been developed for this cormtnmtion project to provide guidance 

in responding to firm. explomons, oils or hazardous waste, or hazasdous waste constituents to the air. 

land or wate~ of the state regardless of the quantity involved in the inct denL 

For unanticil~ted release of hy(kostanc tesx waters, the company wall utihze Best Manasernent 

Pracuces. mt describe([ in the Company Eromon ~ Sediment Control Plan as ~ as possible after 

the release. 

5.1 Req~omlblMfles Of Cempany Aad Coah'a¢~o¢ PefJoanel 

The Contractor and Company on-rote persurmel have respomnbilities for spill preve~,on. 

contro~ end ¢otmterme~umres. For some projecet, as specified by the Con~uany. a Company 

Area Field Consm~on Office. staffed with app~olmate environmental compliance personnel. 

will perform the ECP msponmbilities. 

If notificarion is given that an evacuarzon ts necessary, aJl personnel will evacuate the 

cons'a'tt~ion area via the primary evacuation ro~e Irate spemfic map with evacuation route to 

be atttched for plant projects) and awmt further instructions from the EC. If chrect access to 

the primary evacuation ronte is res~cted by fire. spill, smoke, or vapor, facihty personne; will 

evac~Ue the facility via alternate evacu~on routes to the neare~ acce~mible open are& 

$.1.1 l~nt P.al~tda" 

Any tndivld~d who first observes •sptll or any other imminent or actual eme~lteney 

sitltafion will take the following s~ps: 

• Aasees the siUumon to determine if the situation poses su immediate threat to 

honum health or the envlrorunent. 

• |dentify hazardous substances itwo~vecL if eny. 

• Report the emergency or spdl to the Comply and Contractor EC(s) immediately. 

• Standby ar a safe distance and keep odlers away. 

• Achvate emergency shutdown, if~. 

The Contrac~ Sepenntendent will act is the EC for the Conwactor. The Chief 

Inspector will act as the EC for the Company. The responmbdines of the EC will be as 

follows: 

Spill Prevention Control and Counter Measure Plan Page 8 
]nofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

Duke Energy Gas Transmis~on 

5.1.2 Comtrtetor EC R~)oadbiUt/es 

The Contractor EC will coordinate the respome to all spills which occur u • n:sull of 

Conmg, t~ operations. The Conm~or will no~ coordmate the response of slalls of 

plpeline liquids, hazardous was~t, or the tmanticipated release of hyd~mafic test 

watecJ, these sptlls will be ~3ordinated by the Company EC. 

Contractor EC Responmbilitiea: 

• Determine any Immediate threat to hmnm health, the onvlronment, and the 

neighboring cm-nrmm/ty; 

• Ensure personnel s~few and eva~ate if necessatV. 

• Identify source, character, amount, and extent of release; 

• Determine if hazardous sulmances are revolved; 

• Inform •be Company EC and follow instructior-~; 

• Direct a~d document remcdiation el~o~ to comain and control spill releme, 

• Docen~nt remedial efforts; 

• Coordinate cleaning and ~ •ctiviues; 

5.1.3 Compmty RetpemtbiUfle* 

The Company EC will be ~ble for coordinating the clean up of all spdls of 

pipeline liquids, hazardous wastes, and my uramticipeted rele~e of hydrmwa¢ test 

wateL 

5.1.4 Compaw/EC Rmpe~/b~itles 

Upon n~ification of pipeline liqmd spdls, ~ materials spills, or the 

urumtlclpeted release of hydix~atic test waters: 

• Assets situation fo¢ potentitl thtx'at to honum health, envirmnonnt and the 

neighboring community;, 

• Implement evacuation, ifnecelta~; 

• Activate enuag~ shutdown, ifnecewuV; 

• Ensure personnel stfety, 

• Control ~ ts cond/tiom warnmt; 

• Notify rmmediately the Eme~-gency Spill Hotline at 1-800-735-6364 (select 

the al~ate transmission division) and those listed in Appendix A~ Table 

III immcd~tely for spills flint meet the follown'~ criteti~ 

& one (1) pound or more of • solid maleria/(excluding HDD mud) 

willed on land 

b. five (5) gallons or more of• liquid spilled on land 

c. creates a sbeon on wltef 

d. unamicipe~d release ofhydi'c~t~c test 

• If necesea~, notify ~e local fire department, law enforcement authority, or 

health authority u appropriate. The following reformation shoeld be 

pa~d~ 

Spill Prevention Control and Counter Measure Plan Page 9 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

Duke Energy Gas Transm~ssion 

& name of the c~dler and callbeck nornber 

b. the exact location and nature of the incidem 

c. the extent of pet~ormel injuries and damage 

d~ the extent of rele~e 

e. the material involved, and upprol~ate safety information; 

• Ensm~ that waste or product which may be moompatible ~ • released 

material m kel~ away from the affected area; 

• Keep any potentml tguinon source away from emergency area. tf spilled 

mamria] is flammable; 

• Minimize affected area wRh appropriate contaimm~t or diking; 

• A.memble reqmred spill respon~ equ,,pment as reqmred (.vromctive clothing, 

gear. heavy eqmpment, puml~t , al~urbem material, empty dnmm, elc.) 

• Place spilled nutte~al in app¢opnate contamet~ in mumfdance with the 

Envimrmlent Sumdm'd Operating Procedures; 

• Label and store co.airier* in accordance with the Envirom~tal Standard 

ope~mns Procedur~ 

• Coordinate waste ~ rout equipment decontamtmttion with Houston 

EHS; 

• Terminate response; 

• Emlure that all emergency reuporme eqtlipmem is fully fimctional. Any 

eqmpment that cannot be reused shall be replaced, 

• For spqlls of PCB's, conta~ Hot~oo EHS for specml spill response 

requiremenm related to PCB spills; 

• ~ with the coordination of cleanup and disposal activities as described in 

Sectimm 5.2. 5.3 and 5.4; 

• If necessary, cc~tact oulside remediation serwces, in coordinanon with 

Hom'mn EHS, m ~ w~ clean up; 

• Comple~ Waste Removal Storase and Dislx~l Record Form (WRSDR and 

WDR Forms to be obmmcd from Houston EHS) to U'ack wm~e generated 

during this projecl; 

• Complete Field Spill Report (Environmental SOP 19-6) and dignbute 

accordingly; 

• For unanticipqtted release of hydroetatic test waters, noufy stale cootact if 

required by s~tte permit in w~.orditnce with tuneframes reqmred by state 

• When reqmred by permit, m'nmge for u~mediale sampling of the test water 

(from the pipe or a repres~t•five sample of relemed wmer where possible), or 

soil where the te~ waler was released, and water from adjlcent water-body if 

test water was released into the wateT-body. Anal~s of the samples will be 

in accordance widi hych'mmtic te~ dischm'ge permit criteria plus, where 

applicable, mefcaptso~ 

• Local Right of Way *gent will notify township manager and/or mayor. 

5.1.5 I)tviden Eovtronmenml Coordinator (DEC) R~pemdbi0itle* 

• Provide u~mical assisUmce on spill cleanup p~u~ures 

• Detm~the if the release requires reporting to non-project specific regulatory 

asenc,es 

• Provide wnnen and verbal reports to the above reg.•tory asencies 

Spill Prevention Control and Counter Measure Plan Page I0 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

Duke Energy Gas Transmission 

• Contact oumide remediation asmces ffffou~h c~tabon wtth Homton El-IS 

• Coordinate with Hc~tston EHS and arr~ge for the mmsport of hazardous waste 

and waste containing PCB's 

• Coordinate with ECP relative to any project specific pmTmt reqmrements 

5.1.6 Environmental Comlrme/lon Permittlmg OgCP) RaspondbiUflas 

• Determine if the release reqmres reporting to any project spectfic permimng 

agencies 

• Provide writlen and verbal repor~ as required 

• Coordinale with DEC 

$.2 Spill Clean-Up/Wa~te Wmpmal Procedare* 

The follow/rig ide~ofies the clean-up and control measles to be util/zed in the event ofa spfl] 

of oil. fuel or a hazardous subs~mce or tmantlcipated rele~tas of bydrc~tatic test water. 

5.2.1 OiltYud Sl~l~ 

• Ensure no inunedm~ thre~ to surroumdmg landowners or enwronment; 

• Remedlate small spills and leaks as ~n as feasible. Use adsorbent pads 

whenever lx~sible to reduce the amount of contaminated articles; 

• R.es~c~ the spill by stopping of diverting flow to the ml/fuel tank; 

• If the release exceeds the containment sysXem capacity, immediately conmruct 

additiorud cmmimnam using asndbass or fill mate~al. Every effort must be made 

to prevent the ~epege ofoil into soils and waterways; 

• If a release occt~ into a facility drain or nearby slre~n, m'mlediately pump any 

floating layer into drunm. For hilph velocity streams, place oil booms or hay belas 

between the reMase area and the site boxmdary and ~ of a.tTecxed area~ 

As SOon as poanble, excavate contsmmaled soils and sediments; 

• A/~" all recoverable oil has been collected and dnmnned, place contaminated 

soils and arbcles in cmdainer~ 

• For larger quantities of soils, construct tempora W waste pales using pbun/c liners 

placing the cmltaminated sods on top of the plastic and cove~l by plastic. 

Plastic-lined roll-off bins should be leaasd for stonng this material as ~on as 

feamble; 

• ~ the drum following the proccdm'es outlined in the Compeny's 

Envu'onmentsl Procedures Munual; 

• Move ~ to asctwe stsgmg or grouse ar~ 

• Document and report cleanup activities to the Company EC as soon as feasible. 

• If envlromnantslly senmuve reaomrces (w~flands. watt-bodies) exist in the area. 

ensure that Beat Management Practices as de~n'bed in Company's E&SCP are 

utilized to mimmize imlmct to these resource; 

5.2.2 Haxardom Subetam~ R~e~m, 

• F.m~ no imm~lia~ O~t ~ ~m.q~0xmdinu landown~ ot en~ 

• Identify the nultena] and qtumtity released; 

Spill Prevention Control and Counter Measure Plan Page 11 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

Duke Energy Gas Transmission 

• Block off drain~ and containment areas to limit the extent oflhe spill. Never wash 

down a spill with watet~, 

• Engn'e that Personal Protective Equipment and contamem are compatible wllh the 

substance; 

• Collect and reclaim as much of the spill as possible using a hand pump or mmilar 

device. Containerize contaminated soils m an appropriate DOT container m 

accordance with the Company's Envwonnvemal Standard Operauog Procedures 

Manual (Noee: En,nronmental SOP's ere located in all division and area off'ices 

and kept by all engineenng tern.) Never place inoompallble materials m the 

same drum: 

• Sample the subeUmce for anaJy3ts and waste profiling, according to intmgnons 

from the Houston EHS" 

• Decontaminate all equipment in a contained area and collect flm.4~ in drums; 

• Label the chum following Houston EHS SOP's; 

• Move the d.mm to secure ~ging or storase area; 

• Docmnem and repoO, activities to Houston EHS as soon as feasible. 

• If en~entally sensitive resmtrces (wetlands, water-bndiea) exh,'t in the area, 

ensure that Best Management Practices as desortbed in Comp~y's E&SCP are 

utihzed to minimize impact to these rusourc1~; 

S.2.3 Unanticipated Rel~s¢ of Hydrmtatic Test Water 

Ensure no immediate threat to SmTotmding landowners or environment: 

If enviromnentally sensitive rasma'ces (wethmds, water-bndie~) exist in the area, 

e/~glre that Beat Management Prag~ices as dmcrthcd m Company's F.~r.SCP are 

utilized to minimize rmpa~ to ~ resom'~; 

S.3 Dismal of Contamiaated MatetlalgSells 

• The Coma'actor shail work with the Houston EHS to characterize wa~ generated durra 8 

this preject. All wastes generated, as a relmlt of spdl ~ aotivmes will be analyzed 

to determine if ha,~lrdotts, or if PCBs are greater than I ppm Knowledge of the 

contaminant(s) may be applied to classify the w'as~/gpill materials as determined by 

Hc~ston EHS; 

• The Contraclor is responsible for the proper disposal of wastes generated during this 

project thin is d~m'aned by Houston EHS to be non-hazardo~ and to contain PCBs less 

than 1 ppm. This includes obtaining applicable anthoriz~ora, and regas~tions per 

Enwronmental SOP 1 -D-3 for waste disposal; 

• Ho~ton EHS is ~ble for the proper distx3ul of hazardous wustes and PCB wastes 

containing PCI~ greater than I ppm gen~ated during this project, including obtaining 

applicable EPA ldentifi~ttion Numbers; 

• Hazardous wa~es and waste containmg PCBs shall be stored in a secLwed location (i.e. 

fenced, locked, etc.) tmt~l such time u this material is trans~rted off-site. At no t/me wtll 

hazardous waste be stored for a panod exceeding 90 days nor a waste with PCBs greater 

than 50 ~ be gored for a penod exceeding 30 days. 

$.4 Eqttpaent GetnJnl/Stonte 

Spill Prevention Control and Counter Measure Plan Page 12 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

Duke Energy Gas Transmis~on 

• Upou c~mple~ion of rerned/al activities, the Conlza~or shall be reversible fo¢ 

decon~Ttina~ng emergency respon~ eqmpment used to remediate • spill resulting from 

lhen operations. The Comply will be t'espcc~ble if the spill is ~ material, 

pipeline liquids, or hydrc~a~ic test warn-;, 

• Wa~e ~ for my com~nimted was~ ge~entted as • resu~ of ~he decontam/nat~on 

process shill be the rezpom~bility of Houston El-IS. 

• The Contractor shall be respomlble for replacing all spent e~nergency response eqmpmeut 

prior to resuming cot~wa~on activibez if spill re.tiled from their opefatiocs; 

• Re~sab~e personal pm~ectwe eqmpmem shall be tested 8nd inventoried by the Contractor 

prior to being p~Iced back mlo service; 

6.0 HouNk/t'plnz Program 

The const~ctwn area will be mmntmned in • ne~ and ~deriy manner. Solid was~s, such u food 

wrappings, cigarette btmz ~d l~u:keet, styrofomn ~ snd plates, and mm/lar waste* wall be 

of off-s~te, not in the ~ excavation are& Any spdls o¢ leaks will be cle4med up as 

expeditw~ly u Ix3~ible. Trlh will be routinely collected for off-site d~l~tal. Con~Liner storage 

are.~ will be maintained m • nea2 ~d orderly manneT. 

7.0 Extental Factors 

There will be no direct effect ~ the con~u~on site due to a power outage of mtowstorm. In the 

event of a flood or strike, all tanks and ¢ontaine~ wotJld be removed from the right-of-way and placed 

in a sec~[e are& 

LO Umddptted Ihardou Mtta'ltl i)i,¢~very 

Texas F..u~m is developing an Unamicipaled Hazardot~ M~'nal Discovery Plan for incltmon into 

the SPCC/PCC plans that ~ procedures for lumdl/ng conU,m/nited soil ,rod/groundwater (both 

known and tmanticipmed) e~oumeted throng consm~on. The Unaraicipated ~ MaUmal 

Disc, ove~ Plan vail include lance that Texas Eastern will advise im Environmental Inspectors and 

consu'u~c~ contractors imor to ~on on potential loc~om where ¢ontaminat/on may be 

en¢otmtered end pmcedm'~ developed to prolxt~ lumdle contaminated soil Jmd/or groundwater 

din'rag conslnt~aon in accordance with applicable federal and state regulations. Texas Eastern 

propos~ m s~mi¢ the revised SPCC./PCC with the Uh~mticipaxed Ha~mrdotm Material Discovery Plm3 

to the FERC for review and approval as part of the pcoje~'$ Implemmtat/otl Plan. 

Spill Prevention Control and Counter Mea.~we Plan Page 13 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

Duke Energy Gas Transmission 

APPENDIX "A" - TABLES 

Spill Prevention Control and Counter Measure Plan Page 14 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

~ImJfW~% 

TABLE | - Malerhd And Waae hrventory 

Oil and Fuel to be used or stored on site daring cont~'tion: 

Commercial Chemicals to be used or stored on site dunng ¢xmsm~tion; 

Hazardous and Nen-Hazardoui Wastes to be ~ or stored on site during commotion: 

lnc~mpa6ble Materials to be used or stored on site during contm~-'tion: 

Type of Tempora:y Conl~mlment containert to be used: 

I TABLE I TO BE COMPLETED BY CONTRACTOR [ 

Spill Prevention Con~-ol and Counter Measure Plan Pag© 15 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

Duke Energy Gas Transmission 

TABLE [I - Emergency Response And Personal Protective Equipment 

s~ a,,t,o,~: 

~=~t ~ t.o~o. 

Fkc l~'otectiom: 

~ L,~io~ 

Pertomud ~: 

q~i~ ~:=io. 

TABLE II TO BE COMPLETED BY CONTRACTOR EC 

Spill Prevention Control and Counter Measure Plan page 16 
Jnofficial FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

Duke Energy Gas Transmission 

TABLE Ill - Key Emergency Celta~a 

The Im of key pe~enel who will be contacted in the event oftn emergency or ~ill incident include the 

following: 

J. ~mmmv Emereency ~Jetacts COmtL~ NNIIQ Ph~ Number 

2. 

3. 

4. £mvl~mmmenOd k~m¢ 

5. 

1. Company Emr.zgeacy Coordinator 

(within 15 mira.,~ of incident) 

2. ?.A-hour spill emesrgmcy hotline 

(DEC NLqam 8rid Divis~) 

(within 15 minut~ of incid~t) 

3. Pmjecs Ma~ 

4. Prqtect E=vmom~mml LeKI (PEL) 

(wi~m 60 minutes of mcida~) 

5. Field Commmdoa (l.fou~on Offce) 

Coatraete¢ ~ner~mev Cmt tad 

1. Coauactor ~ C~ 

/.~gAut~m~sa~mm~ 

l~aama 

State Pobce 

Local Police 

Local F~ DcCattm~ 

Ho~i~ll 

Ambulam:e 

Numbe, 

1-800-735-6364 

Notificatmn to be made by DEC and PEL n~prea~tm~e 

pelen~l 0 Envirommemal Remedial Servtee Ceatraetors (vmfv mior to tm~hw Dm~ ~ecific 

S~C Pt~ 

Clean H.trbo~ ~ Serv~et, Inc. -Howaxd Alexander (800) 782-8805 

Safety-Kleen (IS), Inc. Edward A. Mitchell (281) 478-7700 

U. S. A. Envimomem - Cesta" Cmrcm (713) 425-6925 or cell phone (832) 473-5354 

WRS InfrasmtcSu~ and Envlmemem Inc. Steve Maxwe41 Cell pbooe 281 731-0886 

Spill Prevention Control and Counter Measure Plan Page 17 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

Duke Energy Gas Transmission 

I TABLE Ill TO BE COMPLETED BY COMPANY EC [ 

Spill Prevention Control and Courtier Measure Plan Page ! 8 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

Duke Energy Ga,~ Transrn~ssion 

TABLE IV - Tuk Aad Coala/aer Storage Ez~pdeJ Areal 

Tank and conUtinar storage shall be locaxcd in areas that are at least 100 fcet fi'om all 

waler-bodies and w~ands, and at least 200 feet from a I~vate water supply well and 400 

feet from a commtmily or public water m~pply well. 

The below exceptions have been approved by ECP and EHS. 

I. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

Spill Prcvcnfion Control and Counter Measure Plan Page 19 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

Duke Energy Gas Transmission 

TABLE V - Project Site Sl~¢t~ Security lnformafmo 

Spill Prevention Control and Counter Measure Plan Page 20 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

Duke Energy Gas Transmission 

TABLE VI - Arem for Potential Leda tad Splb 

l. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

Spill Prevention Control and Couarter Meuure Plan Page 21 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

Duke Energy Gas Transmission 

APPENDIX "B" - MSDS SHEETS 

Spill Prevention Conuol and Counter Meamxre Plan Page 22 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

APPENDIX E 

ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT ASSESSMENT FOR THE 

CROWN LANDING LNG PROJECT 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

APPENDIX E 

Essential Fish Habitat Asses~aent 

Crown Landing LNG Project 

1.0 INTRODUCTION 

The 1996 amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act 

(MSFCMA) mandated the idontification and protection of important marine and anadromous fisheries 

habitats. The regional fishery management councils, with assistance from the National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), arc required to delineate essential fish habitat (EFH) in Fishery Management Plans and 

associated amendments for all federally managed fisheries. Federal agencies which fund, permit, or carry 

out activities that may adversely impact EFH are required to consult with the NMFS. 

On September 16, 2004, Crown Landing, LLC (Crown Landing) f'ded an application under 

section 3(a) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). in 

Docket No. CP04-411, Crown Landing seeks authorization to site, construct, and operate a liquefied 

natural gas (LNG) terminal in Logan Township, Gloucester County, New Jersey. On September 17, 

2004, Texas Eastern Transmission, LP (Texas Eastern) filed an application under section 7(a) of the NGA 

seeking a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (Certificate) to site, construct, and operate new 

natural gas pipelines and ancillary facilities to connect the prol~a~ LNG terminal to its existing 

interstate gas transmission system (Docket No. CP04-416-000). Texas Eastem's proposed pipeline, 

called the Logan Lateral Project, would involve construction and operation of facilities in Gloucester 

County, New Jersey and Delaware County, Pennsylvania. Crown Landing's proposed LNG terminal and 

Texas Eastero's proposed pipeline ate being evaluated together by the FERC. Because construction of 

the project in estu~ne habitats could adversely affect EFH, the FERC is consulting with the NMFS and 

prepared this EFH Assessment to comply with the MSFCMA. Texas Eastem's pipeline facilities are not 

expected to affect EFH; therefore, although this EFH Assessment addreames the Crown Landing I_.NG 

Project, the focus is on the I.,NG terminal rather than the associated pipeline facilities. 

Sections 2.0 through 4.0 are discussions of the proposed project as well as EFH and managed fish 

species found in the Crown Landing LNG Project area. Section 5.0 provides a discussion of impacts 

associated with the project. Additional project information to support this EFH Assessment is included in 

section 4.6 of the draft ~vironmental Impact Statement (EIS). 

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 

Crown Landing proposes to construct and operate an LNG import terminal consisting of facilities 

capable of unloading LNG ships, storing up to 450,000 cubic ngtets of LNG (9.2 billion cubic feet of 

natural gas equivalent), vaporizing LNG, and sending out natural gas at a rate up to 1.2 billion cubic feet 

per day. The I.,NG terminal facilities would consist of: 

a ship unloading facility with a single berth capable of receiving I.,NG ships with cargo 

capacities of up to 200,000 cubic rreters (m3); 

• three 150,000 m ~ (net capacity) full containment LNG storage tanks; 

• a closed loop shell and tube heat exchanger vaporization system; and 

various ancillary facilities, including administrative offiee, s, warebonse/maintenanee 

building, main control center, guardhouse, and a pier control room. 

E-t 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

The draft EIS includes a comprehensive discussion of the facilities as well as an evaluation of 

alternatives (see seclions 2.0 and 3.0 of the draft E1S). See figure 2.2-1 in the draft EIS for the general 

project location. 

Although the proposed terminal site comprises about 175 acres of land in New Jersey, the project 

would only affect about 39 acres of that area for terminal facilities. Additionally, about 29 acres of the 

Delaware River riverbed would he affected by dredging or construction of the associated marine facilities, 

near River Mile (RM) 78. 

3.0 MANAGED FISH SPECIES 

NOAA Fisheries Northeast Regional Office (NOAA Fisheries, 2004a) FH designations tables 

were reviewed to identify n-amaged species for which EFH could potentially occur within the project area. 

The EFH designation tables do not extend up the Delaware River past Oldmans Creek and thus EFH has 

not been designated north of that point. The proposed terminal site and ship unloading facility are north 

of OIdmans Creek and consequently outside of designated EFH. However, nine managed species with 

the potential to occur in the Delaware River have at least one life stage that may be found in the mixing 

zone between freshwater and saline waters. These species are listed in table 3-1. We also completed an 

additional review of the habitat requirements for those managed species occurring in the larger Delaware 

River estuary system to determine if habitats at the LNG terminal site have the potential to support 

managed fish. Through this multi-layered review, we determined that managed fish species do not have 

EFH designated in the project area and the likelihood of managed species occurring in the project area is 

low. 

TABLE 3,-I 

8allnlty Rangm for the LI~ 8~ of Managed Fl~'t 8peckm Potmtlally Occurrlno In ~le 

T~,cal 8aJiniIv Rsnae ol Occurrence (DOt b~ 

Idart~cl Species E~ Larvae Ju~nll~ Adults 

Wint~ floun0~ ( P~,~onect~ amer fc~3) 10-32 3.2-30 19-21 15-33 

- 15-33 5.5-36 

p~tce (ee~0pooL, o~d~ ~t~) 

Summer eo~m~¢ (Para~th~ d~Cmm) 

Scup (Ste~a, om~ cr~em~l 

Bac~ ~ ~ (~ ~ata) 

ll/ Mixing zc¢~ u ~ofinod by NOAA Fmhorl~ (2004) 

W ppt = ~ ~-thou~ 

No~s: s~my ml~le~are~is gem~y ~ ~ 1 R~. 

>32 

26-32 

23-33 

3.0 - 37 

22-35 

>15 

>18 

>25 

18-35 

The primary factor restricting managed species from inhabiting the project area is the low 

salinity. The salinity in the project area is generally less than 1 part per thousand (ppt). The U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers (COE, 1997) characterized four salinity zones within the Delaware River Estuary: 

polyhaline with salinity levels of 18 to 30 ppt from the mouth of Delaware Bay to about RM 34; 

reesohaline with salinity levels of 5 to 18 ppt from about RM 34 to RM 44; oligohaline with salinity 

levels of 0.5 to 5 ppt from about RM 44 to RM 79; and freshwater with salinity levels of 0.5 ppt and less 

upstream of RM 79. NOAA Fisheries (2004b) classifies salinity zones as follows: saline zone with 

E-2 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

salinity levels greater than 25 ppt; mixing zone with salinity levels between 0.5 to 25 ppt; and freshwater 

zone with salinity levels below 0.5 ppt. Finally, EPA (1991) divided the reach of the Delaware River 

estuary that is tidally influenced into three zones based generally on salinity: bay (salinities more typical 

of marine water), transition (low saline levels, generally 0.5 to 5 ppt), and tidal fresh (salinities less than 

0.5). The tidal fresh zone starts near RM 80. Thus, although it can vary with season and weather events, 

based on COE (1997), NOAA Fisheries (2004b), and EPA (1991), the LNG terminal site is located at the 

usual upstream edge of saltwater intrusion into the Delaware River and upstream of the site is considered 

freshwater. 

Overall, managed species generally occurring in the Delaware River estuary typically occupy 

areas of higher salinity, including Delaware Bay and some lower stretches of the Delaware River 

downstream of the project area, but these species generally do not tolerate the low salinity levels found in 

waters at the project site (see table 3-I). Nonetheless, the project area is known to provide feeding and 

refuge habitat for several anadromous species that serve as prey to managed fish species during 

migrations. Prey for managed fish species comprise a critical component of EFH. Therefore, since 

impacts associated with the proposed project could indirectly affect managed species through direct 

impacts on prey species and their habitats, NOAA Fisheries requested that the FERC prepare an EFH 

Assessment. 

NOAA Fisheries has also requested that this EFH Assessment he expanded to include other 

species for which EFH may not he designated but for species that have Fishery Management Plans and 

thus are either commercially important or sensitive in some other manner. Species fitting these criteria in 

the vicinity of the proposed LNG terminal include menhaden, bluehack herring, alewife, American shad, 

and striped bass. Occurrence in the project area and potential impacts on these species are discussed in 

section 4.6.2 of the draft EIS. 

4.0 ESSENTIAL FISH HABITATS 

As defined in the MSFCMA, "Essential fish habitat means those waters and substrate necessary 

to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity. For the purpose of interpreting the 

definition of essential fish habitat: 'waters' include aquatic areas and its associated physical, chemical, 

and biological properties that are used by fish, and may include aquatic areas historically used by fish 

where appropriate; substrate includes sediment, hard bottom, structures underlying the waters, and 

associated biological communities; 'necessary' means the habitat required to support a sustainable fishery 

and the managed species' contribution to a healthy ecosystem; and 'spawning, breeding, feeding, or 

growth to maturity' covers a species' full life cycle." 

Although designated essential fish habitat does not extend upsUeam of Oldmans Creek along the 

Delaware River and, therefore, does not occur at the proposed LNG terminal site, aquatic habitats that 

would he affected by the project support prey for managed species. The primary areas inhabited by prey 

species near the proposed LNO terminal site include open water, shallow water, and benthic habitats. The 

presence of these habitats within the proposed project area and the potential impacts on them are 

discussed below. Also, section 4.6.2 of the ~ EIS provides additional discussion on these resources 

and potential impacts on them from the proposed project. 

4.1 OPEN WATER/SHALLOW WATER HABITAT 

The open water habitat inelud~ all of the waters channelward of the subtidal shallows. This 

habitat ranges from 4 feet deep to more than 40 feet deep at mean low water (MLW) and is characterized 

by turbid, low-salinity (brackish) water over a substrate of sand and mud. The open water in the vicinity 

E-3 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

of the proposed LNG terminal site serves as habitat for various life stages of several fish species by 

providing habitat for spawning, breeding, feeding, growth, and shelter. 

The open water in the area of the Delaware River near the proposed LNG terminal site also 

supports seasonal migrations of anadromous species that are important commercial and recreational 

fisheries. Additionally, seasonal migrations by prey species for managed fish species occur near the 

proposed project area within the Delaware River. 

Although the open water in the deeper portions of the Delaware River (i.e., Marcus Hook 

Anchorage) provides habitat for many species, the nearshore shallow water habitats are typically more 

productive and valuable to life stages of more species and thus are more important biologically to the fish 

inhabiting the river. The areas between the spring high water line to a depth of 4 feet below MLW 

include IxXh shallow water habitat (subtidal shallows) and those areas exposed during low tide (intertidal 

shallows). The subtidal shallows in the Delaware River extend an average of 550 feet channelward from 

the mean low water line and are characterized by moderate wave action, generally turbid conditions, and 

silt or mud substrate. In the project area, the slope and width of the subtidel and intertidal zone is 

relatively uniform along the Delaware River and the substrate is a mix of sand, gravel, sparse cobble, and 

silt. The wave action along the shoreline results in generally higher dissolved oxygen levels in the 

shallow water areas and thus increases the habitat value oftha area to fish. 

The Upper Delaware River provides key spawning and nursery habitat for the American shad 

along its entire length. Also, the proposed LNO terminal site is located within a section of the Delaware 

River considered as a critical nursery area for striped bass. The value of subtidal shallows as nursery 

habitat for young fmfish generally relates to the abundance of food in these areas and availability of 

refuge habitat. The abundance of macroinvertebrates is a direct indication of the availability of food for 

the juvenile fish. Studies conducted for the project indicate that macroinvertebrates are not abundant in 

the shallow areas surrounding the proposed LNG terminal site. The subtidal shallows in the project area 

may provide limited refuge from large predatory fish due to the extremely shallow depths and the nearly 

complete lack of submerged aquatic vegetation, woody debris, and other large habitat features. Shallow 

water and the lack of structure in the area also increase the vulnerability of juvenile fish to avian 

predators. The limited availability of food and lack of refuge habitat likely limits the value of subtidal 

shallows in the area as nursery habitat. Also, juveniles of several of these species are commonly found in 

nearshore open water and to a lesser extent deapwater, especially in the upper reaches of the Delaware 

River estuary, and would be likely to inhabit the area following dredging. 

Effects of Dred~,in~ 

Generally, migratory fish populations can be impacted by increased concentrations of suspended 

sediments if dredging activities occur during migratory periods. High concentrations of suspended 

sediment may delay or divert migratory passage and in some instances could cause total avoidance of an 

area by fish. These potential effects could be exacerbated if the migrating fish are in generally poor 

condition and under stress by other factors. Disturbance of migratory fish patterns, including the patterns 

of pelagic species that serve as prey to downstream managed species, could also adversely affect fish and 

their ability to find food resources. Decreased foraging success could have physiological effects on fish, 

including lowered reproductive rates, decreased competitive fitness, and increased risk of mortality. 

We do not believe that the increased turbidity that would result from this project would 

significantly disrup~ migr~ory fish. These fish generally ascend rivers when flows and turbidity are high 

and are quite tolerant of high turbidity levels. Additionally, the sediment plumes associated with the 

proposed hydraulic dredging would likely be rest'leWd to the eastern half of the Delaware River near the 

proposed project site and would not encompass the width of the entire river. Thus migrating fish could 

E-4 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

and likely would avoid the plumes to reach undisturbed spawning areas upstream of the construction 

activities. 

Dredging could affect all life stages of the smaller, common resident species (e.g.. eastern silvery 

minnow, banded killifish, tessellated darter, and mummichog), juveniles of the large resident species, and 

juveniles of anadromo~ species. However, the larger polybaline species, such as brown bullhead, white 

caffmh, channel catfish, yellow perch, white perch, Norfolk spot, and Atlantic croaker, are more 

commonly found in deep, open water habitats. Thus dredging associated with the project would likely 

have only a limited effect on the adults of these species as they would be able to use the deep habitat 

created by the dredged ship berth. 

Use of a hydraulic dredge would reduce turbidity and sedimentation associated with dredging 

and limit tim extent of impacts on aquatic resources. However, dredging could entrain or impinge 

juvenile fish, fish larvae, and eggs if it occurs during certain times of the year. To address this potential 

impact, resource agencies have recommended that Crown Landing adhere to specific dredging windows. 

In response to these recommendations and to protect anadromo~s fish during fish migration and 

spawning, Crown Landing revised its dredging schedule to avoid dredging and other in-water 

consu'uction activities from Match 15 to August 1. 

The resource agencies have also indicated that mitigation would be necessary to offset the loss 

and permanent conversion of shallow water to deepwater habitat as the result of dredging a deeper ship 

berth. NOAA Fisheries stated that mitigation should involve creation of shallow water habitat in an area 

near the proposed project. Crown Landing is cur~ntly working with the applicable resoume agencies to 

develop a mitigation plan for potential impacts on shallow water habitat. The plan may include creation 

of shallow water habitat near the proposed project and conducting or funding studies that would further 

the understanding of sensitive aquatic resources in the Delaware River. 

[ff~cts of Water Withdrawal~ 

LNG ships would be equipped with a ballast water system that pumps water into ballast tanks as 

cargo is unloaded. The maximum ballast demand for a 138,000 m 3 and 200,000 m 3 LNG ship is about 

13.7 million gallons and 19.8 million gallons, respectively. Typical LNG ships have three ballast water 

intakes, each with ballast pumps rated at 3,000 m3/h. Two of the pumps are generally operated during 

ballasting with the third as a back-up in case of failure of one of the primary pumps. The average intake 

rates arc about 5,200 m~/h for a 138,000 m 3 ship and about 7,500 m 3 for a 200,000 m 3 ship. Thus the 

likely intake rates for the 138,000 m 3 and 200,000 m 3 ships are estimated to be about 23,000 gpm and 

34,000 gpm, respectively. The total sama of the two lower intake openings is 3.55 m 2. Openings are 

protected by bar-type grids having 4.5 nun bars spaced 25 nun apart, reducing tim clear flow area to 2.36 

m 2. The highest and lowest points of the openings are about 8.4 and 9.5 m below the ship's waterline, 

respectively. 

Because LNG ships would unload LNG at the proposed terminal about 150 times annually and 

during all seasons, each time requiring alxmt 13.7 million gallons of ballast water at the marine terminal, 

it is likely that ballast water intakes would result in the enWaimnent, impingvmenL or loss of aquatic 

resources, especially larvae and eggs. The NJDFW and NOAA Fisheries have expressed concern about 

the proposed ship berth functioning as a collection basin for eggs and larvae transported by tidal 

movements from adjacent shallow water habitats and the potential for higher rates of entrainment, 

impingement, or loss of these organisms during ballast water intake from within the marine terminal. 

To assess the po~ntial impacts of ballast water withdrawals on fish populations within the 

Delaware River, we reviewed data included in EPA (2002) and used in the EPA's analysis of potential 

E-5 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

impacts from cooling water intake sU'uctures within the Delaware River system. In the Delaware River 

case study (F-,PA, 2002), actual impingemcm and entrainment data were available only for the Salem 

Nuclear Generating Station. The EPA extrapolated potential impingement and entrainment losses at other 

facilities withdrawing water from the Delaware River system using the actual data from the Salem 

facility. One of the facilities the EPA estimated potential impacts for was the Logan Generating Station, 

which is located immediately north of and adjacent to the proposed I_.NG terminal site. The Logan 

Generating Station withdraws about 730 million gallons annually from the Delaware River. Using a 

simple extrapolation formula based only on volume of water and assuming 150 ships would visit the 

Crown Landing LNG terminal annually, each requiring 13.7 million gallons of ballast water, for a total 

annual water withdrawal volume of about 2.1 billion gallons, we were able to estimate annual fish losses 

from ballast water intakes associated with operation of the proposed LNG terminal (table 4-I). 

TABLE 4-1 

~ of I~tm~i Iml~¢~ of Ballaat Water Withdrawal by LNG 8tripe Ullng the Pfopoud LNG Terminal a*t ~ 

i~ta ~ i. m. Dt~,.,m m,,tr ~ 

Alew~e 42 

American Shad 3 

A~anttc Croaker 54.043 

A~ultJc Menhaden 7,630 

Bay Ancr, ovy g66.693 

Blue Crab 5,561 

Blue.ok Herrk~ 185 

Silvenllde 35O 

Spot 78,~2~ 

.Sa~d Bass 1,456 

WmkflWl 4.287 

White Pe~l 4.287 

Non-RfS ~ Speckle 

I/ 45,800 

NoneS Fomoe S~ 

~/ 27,202 

~ Total 

F.JI11nll.ed byLNO ~ 1,188,861 

F.~rnalmd Total 

F.ntnCnm Ily Ol~wa~ 

mv~ r-~am~ (p& 

Yield Lo~ (pounds) ~J Production Foregone Coounds) ~V 

0 3g 

0 28 

11,004 30.722 

3,830 666 

0 22,912 

176 1.038 

0 101 

0 0 

8.772 21.140 

2,0~2 10,489 

3.368 12.292 

6 1,137 

4,091 52,748 

0 978 

tS4~ 

~W,7~1~1.201 16,671),018 61.21S,b'70 

IV 

b' 

l/ 

Amumrng on average150 LNG Shil~ would Vtldt the 10~ LNG ta~nlnaJ annuaBy and that each ~ ~ i~e 

about 13.7 million gallons of beJlmd ,~eten 

"Age-1 Equlvaler~s" are ~e numb~ o~ im~ end entralrted IndWdua~ that would othe(wise have surVNed ~ ~ ~ 1 

plus tt~e numl~ ot ka~gm inctlvtctuUs whlch art assumed Io be impmoect at age 1. 

"flek:l I_o~" bJ a n~emJre of t~te amount of fl~ c~ ~te41/l~ ~at Is not ~ because the ~h am ~ ~ ~ 

and m~ndnmer¢ 

~ ~" m a'~e eaq0ectm tot~ amou~ o~ fua~e Wow~ ol IndWcl.als met wou~ be Iml~g~ or e~ 

had mey not I~n ~ or ~. Forgone I~od,~cc for k~aoe spe~s ~s used to mW ~e su~seque~ 

rsd~n in ~ s~clm yt~d th~ rm~s horn a dscrmse ~ the ~ s,p;W. 

RIS are "ncteetlonllly important Sl~" as de~led by EPA (2002). See EPA (2002) fo( a II~t of spec~e~ in 1here 

cat.go~ 

Th~ elB'rsa~on ~¢lclud~l 12 ottle~ curm~y operWl~ facllitkl~ aloog the De~w~'e River. See EPA (2002) k~" addltJo~lJ 

deeails on mese faculties. 

E-6 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

To avoid or minimize impacts associated with ballast water intake as presented in table 4.1, we 

recommend in section 4.6.2 of the draft EIS that Crown Landing consult with federal and state agencies to 

determine the need for mitigative measures to avoid or minimize impacts on aquatic resources as the 

resuLt of LNG ship ballast water intakes. 

Crown Landing would hydrostatically test each of the three proposed LNG storage tanks to insure 

their structural integrity. A total of approximately 25 million gallons of water would be required for each 

storage tank test. Approximately 250,000 gallons of additional water would be used to flush each LNG 

storage tank following hydrostatic testing. Crown Landing proposes to withdraw the water needed for 

hydrostatic testing from the Delaware River. Onsite wells would provide the flushing water. 

The FERC Procedures generally prohibit the use of waterbodies like the Delaware River, which 

contain federally listed species, as hydrostatic test water sources except where permitted in writing by 

appropriate permitting and resource agencies. However, in this case, the Delaware River appears to be 

the only practicable source capable of providing the necessary volume of water for testing the tanks. 

There would be no consumptive loss of water, as the water would be returned to the river following 

completion of the tests. 

Water would be appropriated from the Delaware River over a 2-week period at an intake rate of 

approximately 2,000 to 4,000 gallons per minute (gpm). Similar to ballast water withdrawals by I..NG 

carriers during operation of the proposed I..NG terminal, withdrawal of hydrostatic test water from the 

Delaware River during construction would result in entrainment and impingement of ichthyoplankton. 

Using the same analysis technique as discussed above for ballast water, we were able to estimate 

enlrainment and impingement losses from hydr~tatic test water withdrawals (table 4-2). Unlike ballast 

water withdrawals that would occur throughoet the year and repeat annually, water withdrawals for 

hydrostatic testing of the J.,NG tanks would only require a withdrawal of 25 million gallons once per tank. 

However, since the estimates presented in table 4-2 are based on a propo~on of the losses at the Logan 

Generating Plant which occur tiu'oughout the year, the actual number of individuals that are lost due to 

hydrostatic test water withdrawals could increase or decrease depending on whether test water 

withdrawals were conducted during periods of high or low ichthyoplankton densities, respectively. 

E-7 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

TABLE 4-2 

EsUmate of Pot~ttlal ~ of H~ TulWNm" Wlthdmmd ¢lmlng ~ of Ihe Profmeed LNG Ten.lnal on 

8ellctml I=b~ 8peckm In the Dalmmm River JV 

~ Age-1 Equlva~nts ~) Yield Lm~ (l:mJnds) Produclkm r-(m~one (pounda) 

2 0 ! 

Amedcan Shad 0 0 1 

At~mbc C¢oeke~ 1 .g30 3g~ 1,097 

Metlhad~1 273 137 24 

Bay Anctlo W 34,188 0 818 

Blue Crab 199 6 37 

B~uebac~ H~ 7 0 4 

Saventlde 13 0 0 

Spot 2.797 313 755 

Ba~ 52 72 375 

W~ 153 120 439 

Wh~ Petoh 268 0 41 

Non-R~S F~ Spec~ 

~t 1,636 146 1,884 

N<x~R~S Fore ~ 

~/ 972 0 49 

Total 42,470 1,187 5,525 

t/ 

r# 

As~Jmee three I.NG s~o~age tlu~ wo~Id be hy~m~abcaly telte¢l and that eec~ tank would require ~ ~ ~ 

about 25 milion galiom ot vmU~" from me De~v4nt l:ev~. 

"AQe-I Equhral~'~ am '~e number of ~o~ged and ~tmlned Indlv~dual* '~at would ottum~se have sue/d,,~:l ~ ~ a~1 

plus the number of [rr~ indhtldusls whlch are immmed to be In~ at age 1. 

"Yletd I.o~ is a m4uum of ttm amou~ o~ f~ o¢ s~llf~ ttmt is not ~ becausa ttm ~ am ~t ~ ~ 

and eatnllnnmat 

"Production Focegoae" Is tt~ expected total emount o~ future gm,,~h of indlvldtmls l~at would be ~ ~ ~ 

had e~ey not bern ~ee or entner~. ~ ~oOu~on tx forage epec~e ~. used to ee~mate the e~ee~u~t 

~ in twvemsd ~ yte~ tt~t nmul~ f~m a docmam in ttm food ~u;~ty. 

RIS am "mcnletk3cmlly im~3clan~ u~tci~" as defined by EPA (200~). SO~ EPA (2002) for a list of speci~ in tt~eeo 

cmTx~. 

To minim~ entrainment and impingement of aquatic organisms, particularly eggs and larvae, 

Crown Landing would screen the intake with a 2 millimeter wedgewire screen and limit the velocity at 

the intake to 0.5 feet per second pursuant to the recommendations of NOAA Fisheries. Crown Landing 

proposes to withdraw the water from the dredged berth area at a depth of 6 to 8 feet below the water 

surface. 

Effects Qf pifr Construction 

The pier for the ship unloading facility would be supported by approxirnately 80 steel piles, each 

3 feet in diam~ and 100 to 120 feet long. Construction of the pier and breasting dolphins would result 

in a loss of approximately 1,900 square feet (0.04 acre) of benthic substra~ within the footprints of the 

individual pilings, of which 1,800 square feet would occur in the intertidal or subtidal shallows. 

E-8 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

The pier would be constructed using driven steel piles, which would produce sound waves that 

could injure fish. The degree to which an individual fish exposed to sound waves would be affected is 

dependent upon variables such as the peak sound pressure level and frequency as well as the species, size, 

and condition of a fish (e.g., small fish are more prone to injury by intense sound waves than are larger 

fish of the same species). In some cases, sound pressure levels greater than 155 decibels can illicit 

avoidance behaviors or stun small fish (NOAA Fisheries, 2003). Sound levels greater than 190 decibels 

are thought to physically injure some fish (Hastings, 2002). The presence of predators can also influence 

how a fish might be affected by pile driving (e.g., fish stunned by pile-driving activities may be more 

susceptible to predators, and predators entering the area to prey on stunned fish have the potential to be 

stunned). 

The intensity of the sound pressure levels produced during pile driving depends on a variety of 

factors including, but not limited to, the type and size of the pile, the firmness of the substrate into which 

the pile is being driven, the depth of water, and the type and size of the pile-driving hammer. For 

example, driving hollow steel piles with impact ~ produce intense, sharp spikes of sound that can 

injure fish. In some cases, fish may he startled by the first few strikes of an impact harnruer. However, 

this response can wane and the fish may remain in the area (NOAA Fisheries, 2001). As such, the 

potential effect on fish from impact hammers could be magnified because fish would not only be exposed 

to intense sound waves but may not avoid pile.driving activities, which would prolong their exposure to 

the potentially harmful sounds and increase their risk of injury or death. 

It is anticipated that the majority of the piles would be installed with a Delmag D46-32 diesel 

impact hammer. Each pile would take approximately five hours to install. However, the actual driving 

time per pile would only he about 30 to 45 minutes depending on the load criteria and the soils 

encountered. Additional time would be required for berge positioning, pile handling, and bracing for the 

batter piles. The entire pile driving operation would take about 6 to 8 months to complete. 

Driving tubular steel piles with an impact hammer in similar settings has been shown to generate 

sound levels from 192 to 194 decibels ~, which are above the level that is thought to injure some fish. 

Depending on the specific conditions at the site, these sounds can have a transmission loss rate of 0.021 to 

0.046 decibels per foot (Nedwell and Edwards, 2002; Nedwell ct el., 2003). Based on these values, the 

use of an impact hammer during construction of the proposed ship unloading facility could generate 

underwater sound levels of 190 decibels as far as 190 feet from a steel pile and sound levels of 155 

decibels as far as 1.860 feet from a steel pile. Although the sound waves of the greatest intensity would 

be limited to the immediate vicinity of the piles, sound levels of 155 decibels could extend out into the 

Delaware River while piles for some oftbe mooring dolphins are being driven. 

Although some fish may become acclimated to certain sounds, acoustic disturbance c~uld cause 

other fish to avoid the constru~on me& If pile installation occurred during anadromous fish migrations, 

the avoidance of the nearshore ~ could restrict migrating fish to deepwater areas that are less suitable 

for some species, which could in turn increase the susceptibility of some smaller species to predation. 

Although given the small area that would be affected by acoustical disturbance, it seen-~ unlikely that 

these effects would subetantially alter migration patterns, the relationship of predator or prey species, or 

their abilities to find shelter or forage, respectively. Crown Landing has committed to avoiding 

construction activities in the Delaware River between March 15 and August I to avoid impacts on 

migrating and spawning fish species. In addition, we recomng~ in section 4.6.2 of the draft EIS that 

All sound levels are expressed as decibels at a reference pressure of I micropascal. 

E-9 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

Crown Landing consult with federal and state agencies to determine the need for additional measures to 

further avoid or minimize impacts on aquatic resources as the result of pipe-driving activities. 

4.2 BENTHIC HABITATS 

Benthic habitats may consist of intertidal shallows (inundated during high tides) and subtidal 

substrates (permanently covered by water). Intertidal mudflats occur between spring high water line to 

the mean low water line and serve as important nursery and feeding areas for many bird, fish, and 

invertebrate species. Subtidal substrates that occur in the shallow water areas am important feeding 

habitats for fish and benthic species that feed on polychaete worms and mollusks inhabiting these areas. 

The deeper river bottom benthic substrate is comprised of sand and mud. Little to no vegetation grows in 

any of the benthic habitats near the project site; however, debris such as logs provide structure for 

invertebrates and demersal finfish. 

During operations of the proposed facility, I.,NG ships would continue to disturb the benthic 

substrate during transit of the ship channel. Prop wash could also affect the substrate within and adjacent 

to the navigation channel and could limit the recolonization of benthic species in those areas. As 

indicated in section 4.6 of the EIS, there is no commercial shellfishery or abundance of commercially 

imlxn'tam shellfish species in the project area. Project dredging would primarily affect the Asiatic clam 

(Corbicula fluminea), as well as various oligochaetes, amphipods, and isopods. These benthic 

invertebrates are a food source for demersal species of finfish during part or all of their life cycles. 

The benthic macroinvertebrate data collected at the project site for the channel and shallow water 

zones suggest that the species composition of the benthic communities in both areas is impoverished and 

similar. Additionally, the relative i~ of the major taxa in terms of biomass in the shallow water 

zone and the channel is nearly identical. 

The direct alteration of the benthic substrate via dredging would remove the existing benthic 

community and may adversely affect finfish through loss of or changes in prey species abundance or 

availability. However, pioneering benthic invertebrates would likely begin to colonize the dredged area 

soon after completion of dredging. Also, conversion of shallow benthic habitat to deeper, channel-like 

benthic habitat would not likely alter the benthic community in the project vicinity. 

5.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 

Cumulative impact results when impact associated with a proposed project is superimposed on or 

added to impact associated with past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future projects within the area 

affected by the proposed project. Although the individual impacts of the separate projects might be 

minor, the additive effects from all the projects could he significant. 

Existing environmental conditions in the project area reflect extensive changes based on past 

projects and activities. For example, substantial impacts have occurred and continue to occur because of 

water quality degradation from point and non-point source pollution along the Delaware River. 

Residential, commercial, and industrial developments are directly impacting EFH by dredging or by 

affecting the watershed. Point source discharges from industry, wastewater treatment plants, and existing 

power plants, combined with septic tank leechates, stormwater runoff, and oil and chemical spills have 

historically contributed to lower water quality and degraded fishery habitats. However, in recent years, 

water quality within the Delaware River has been improving. 

The draft EIS provides a detailed environmental analysis of the effects of construction and 

operation of the LNG Project and our recommendations to mitigate environmental impacts within the 

E-IO 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

Delaware River, The draft EIS also includes an assessment of potential impacts from construction and 

operation of the Logan Lateral Project. Because the Logan Lateral Project is not expected to have 

impacts on the aquatic resources within the Delaware River, this cumulative section only discusses the 

Crown Landing LNG Project. 

Construction of the O'own Landing LNG Project would adversely affect surface water quality 

and biological resources associated with the Delaware River. Specific project activities such as dredging, 

prop wash, dredge disposal, hydrostatic testing, and upland cleating/grading could result in a variety of 

impacts related to aquatic resources that include: 

• increased water turbidity and resuspension of sediments; 

• surface runoff/erosion; 

• loss of wetland ur upland vegetation; 

• noise impacts from pile driving; 

• distu.,bance to henddc subslrates; 

• entrainment and impingement of aquatic organisms; and 

• potential spills of hazardous substances. 

Although mitigation would lessen these impacts, gradual and cumulative impacts that could result 

from the construction and operation of the proposed project and other projects in the area and within the 

near future would result in some unavoidable adverse effects on the existing environment. However, the 

cumulative impact of dredging and other damage to benthic habitats, when comple~ in accordance with 

Crown Landing's proposed plans and our recommendations, would be relatively minor and short term in 

comparison to available habitats in the Delaware River. 

Operation of the proposed facility could also affect aquatic resources during ballast water intakes 

by LNG ships while offluading LNG at the terminal. NOAA Fisheries has expressed concern about the 

severity of this impact, particularly during spring, when considered with other facilities along the 

Delaware River. As shown in table 4-1, annual ballast water intake would impinge of entrain the 

equivalent of over 1,185,861 age-1 fish, would reduce fish harvest by over 33,269 pounds, and would 

result in over 154,286 pounds of production foregone. Although these losses would be in addition to 

other existing intake related losses along the Delaware River, the impacts associated with ballast water 

intake by LNG ships at the proposed LNG terminal are not likely to result in adveme population level 

effects on managed species, other recre~orudly important fish species, c¢ forage species. 

6.0 CONSERVATION MEASURES 

Crown /.amding proposes to adhere to agency-recommended timing windows for dredging 

activities. Avoiding dredging during critical spawning and migratory periods would avoid many of the 

potential direct impacts on managed species associated with the project. Use of a hydraulic dredge, as 

proposed, is an important measure to reduce the extent of potential impacts on habitats at the proposed 

project site as well as downsUeam of the site. The placement of dredged ruaterial in an onshore area is 

another important measure proposed by Crown Landing to minimize potential impacts on federally 

managed fish species and l~l-I, including prey species. Also, Crown Landing is working with the 

E-ll 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

applicable resource agencies to develop mitigation that would compensate for the impacts on shallow 

water habitats from dredging. 

Crown Landing's implementation of our recommendations relating to consultations with federal 

and state agencies on mitigative measures for the withdrawal of ballast water intake and pile-driving 

activities could also serve to minimize potential impacts on aquatic re,umrees, especially eggs and larvae. 

These conservation measures are discussed in additional detail in section 4.6.2 of the draft EIS. 

7.0 CONCLUSIONS 

Dredging associated with the proposed project could affect open water, shallow water, and 

benthic habitats in the project area. Activities within the Delaware River also have the potential to affect 

anadromous fish, a primary prey groups for managed fish species. The suspension of sediments during 

dredging could temporarily affect use of the water column by managed species and their prey in the area. 

Dredging of the ship berth would result in permanent alteration of existing shallow water habitat to deeper 

water habitat within the dredging footprint However, implementation of the conservation measures 

discussed above, including Crown Landing's continued coordination with the applicable resource 

agencies to develop appropriate mitigation for project impacts and implementation of our 

recommendations as discussed in section 4.6.2 of the draft EIS, would likely avoid or minimize adverse 

impacts on managed fish species and EFH. Therefore, we believe the proposed project would have 

negligible effects on EFH. 

8.0 REFERENCES 

COE. 1997. Delaware River Main Channel Deepening Project, Supplemental Environmental Impact 

Statement. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Philadelphia District, North Atlantic Division. July 

1997. 

EPA. 1991. An assessment of key biological resources in the Delaware River estuary. U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency. Prepared by Versa;, Inc. June 1991. 

EPA. 2002. Case Study Analysis for the Proposed Section 316('o) Phase H Existing Facilities Rule. U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency - Office of Water. EPA-821-R-02-002. 

Hastings, M.C. 2002. Clarification of the meaning of sound pressure levels and the known effects of 

sound on fish. Unpublished document prepared in support of Biological Assessment for the San 

Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge East Span Seismic Safety Project. 8 pp. 

Nedwell, J. and B. Edwards. 2002. Measurements of underwater noise in the Anm River during piling at 

County Wharf, Littlehampton. Unpublished report prepared for David Wilson Homes Ltd. by 

Subaconstech Ltd. 26 pp. 

Nedwell, J., A. Turnpenny, J. Langworthy, and B. Edwards. 2003. Measurements of underwater noise 

during piling at the Red Funnel Terminal, Southampton, and observations of its effects on caged 

fish. Unpublished report prepared for Red Funnel by Sub~oustech Ltd. 33 pp. 

NOAA Fisheries. 2001. Biological opinion for the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge East Span 

Seismic Safety Project. Southwest Region. Admin. Rec. 151422SWR99SR190. 

E-12 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

NOAA Fisheries. 2003. Non-fishing Impacts to Essential Fish Habitat and Recommended Conservation 

Measures. NOAA F'~heries, Alaska Region-Northwest Region-Southwest Region. Editors: J. 

Hanson, M. Helvey, and R. Strach. 75 pp. 

NOAA Fisheries. 2004a. Guide to Essential Fish Habitat Designations in the No~'dwalstern United States. 

http'.//www.nero.noaa.gov/hed/'mdex2a.htm. 

NOAA Fisheries. 2004b. Guide to Essential Fish Habitat Designations in the Northeastern United States. 

http://www.nero.noaa.gov/hcd/webinlxo.hunl. 

E-13 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

APPENDIX F 

RESIDENCES AND OTHER STRUCTURES WITHIN 50 FEET 

OF THE CONSTRUCTION WORK AREA FOR THE LOGAN 

LATERAL PROJECT 
]nofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

TABLE F-1 

Rwk~nces and Other 8tnK:~ume Wlthin 80 F44~ of the Cm~k)n Wod( ~ee for the Logan La~ra/ 

State 

prolm 

O~nmce fr~n Edge 

MUepoet Feature of ~ 

ROW (~) 

PENNSYLVANIA 0.00 ~ lg House - adj. to stereo 

0.00 Residence 48 House - adj. to ste~ng 

0.03 I:~sldecce 4 House 

0.04 Res~e~e 32 Ho~e 

0.07 Ru~dence 14 

0.07 ~ 4.5 HO~Se 

0.14 Garage 15 Garage 

0.19 ~ 0 Kentucky Frk)d Chk~e~ 

0.29 Bulclrng 45 emokhavlm Shopp~ Cent~ 

0.33 Residence 43 Ho~Jse 

0.34 ~ 44 House 

0.36 Re~dence 31 House 

0.3~ Flesk:rence 46 Ho~e 

0.37 Res~de~e 42 

0.38 R~k:J~ce 38 

0.3~l Reslc~'~ce 40 House 

0.40 ~ 38 

0.41 ~ 40 House 

0.41 ~ 38 

0.41 ~ 43 

0.42 Reeldence 38 House 

0.43 Residence 37 House 

0.44 Ruldence 38 House 

0.45 Residence 37 

0.46 RN~dence 38 

0.46 F~ddence 38 House 

0.48 ~ 38 

0.49 R~ 31 House 

0.51 Reeider~e 41 

0.51 P.NJd~ce 42 House 

0.51 Residenoe 42 

0.S2 Re~dence 38 

0.52 Re~dence 36 

0.53 ~ 37 14ou~ 

0.54 RNkJenoe 37 House 

O.56 ~ 43 House 

0.57 Res;denoe 37 House 

0.57 R~id~ce 43 House 

0.57 ~ 40 House 

0.68 ~ 38 

0.59 Re~deqoe 41 House 

0.5g ~ 38 House 

0.5g ~ 43 

0.61 ~ 36 House 

0.61 ~ 38 Howe 

0.61 ~ 42 

0.~ ~ 38 

0.63 ~ 37 HOU~ 

0.63 R~ldee~ 37 

0.64 ~ 38 House 

0.66 ~ 41 House 

0.65 I:~s,ldecce 43 House 

0.66 ~ 38 House 

0.67 ~ 40 

0.68 ~ 40 Ho~e 

0.68 ~ 38 House 

0.7O I:kl~%~nce 39 

0.7'1 ~ 33 Hou~ 

0.71 Ruk~nce 39 House 

0.73 ~ 38 House 

0.73 ~ 41 HOU~ 

0.76 P,e~dence 38 House 

F-I 
]nofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

TABLE F-1 (co~'d) 

Rmldemces and Othw 8b'ucl:urm Wl~ln 60 Fwt of the Cormb'uc~lon Work Anm fo¢ the Logan Lateral 

D~tence fn~ Ec~e 

State Mi~ Feedum o~ Co~ D~ptio~ 

ROW ~.) 

0.?7 R41~detce 41 

0.78 I~Jeldecce 37 House 

0.81 Reeiderlce 40 

0.81 R4~ld4w~e 43 

0.82 ~ 39 

0.84 R(mldence 39 House 

0.85 Resk:Jemce 40 House 

0.85 ~ 39 House 

0.86 ~ 46 House 

0.88 Residence 47 

0.89 Ree~denoe 36 House 

0.91 ReelderlCe 41 Itotnle 

0.91 R~idence 41 

O.92 ~ 2g House 

O.gQ R~i01e~ 37 House 

0.94 Residence 48 

0.95 ReekJec¢o 41 House 

0.96 RelkJence 39 

0.97 ~ 42 

0.98 ~ 39 House 

O.g6 Relk:Mmce 41 

0.~ ~Idence 42 

1.00 Reg~donce 36 House 

1 .~ Re~dec¢o 35 Hotm~ 

1.02 Ro4k~nce 41 I'fous~ 

1.02 FleeJdeoc~ 41 House 

1.04 R~Idec¢o 41 House 

ID4 ~ 46 House 

1.04 RN,~ce 40 House 

1.05 Resk~ence 38 House 

t06 Ftes,ld~ 39 House 

1.07 R~ 40 House 

1.07 Resk~ce 43 House 

1.0g ~ 4O 

1 .og Re~4mce 33 

1.10 Res~tx:e 43 House 

1.11 R~ 38 ~o 

1.14 Re,defoe 35 

1.15 Reok:limce 32 House 

1.10 Roside~co 34 House 

1.16 R~d~lce 33 House 

1.18 RN.k:kmce 33 House 

1.22 R~ld~lce 8 House 

1.23 Gom~ e Geraoe 

1.23 Re~d~ce 48 House 

134 Bufldlng 0 Upland Sct¢~ Bus and 

Mauntenance Building 

2.o5 Bu~mg 10 Bake~ 

2.10 Shed 23 Small Storage shed 

2.12 Bu~ 30 Truck~g Term~md 

2.18 8u~:~ng 0 Ve~zo~ Bu~r~g 

2.65 Buiding 0 Indusmm Budl~g 

2.68 Bulldlng 0 Indt~llNd Buik:ling 

2.72 Rosk:kmce 29 House 

2.74 ~ 32 Hocme 

2.75 Residence 32 House 

276 R, esldence 30 

2.76 Resk~ce 24 Hc~Jse 

277 ~ 37 House 

2.77 Re, dolce 16 HoUSe 

279 R~ldemce 38 House 

F-2 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

State 

NEW JERSEY 

TABLE F-1 (o0,nt'cl) 

Ruk;~ncee lind Oth~ ~ Within 50 Feet of the Co~d~ucUon Work kl4 fo¢ the L.oglm LMaral 

D~tance ~m edge 

Ml~ Feature of C<xuwtmSon I:~ 

2.80 Reside~e 22 

2.82 ~ 30 House 

2.82 Re4tdence 34 

2.82 Fkmk~ence 30 Hou~ 

2.84 Fteek~n~ 4 House 

2.86 ~ 31 House 

2.86 Reeldence 34 Duplex 

2.87 ~ 34 House 

2.88 Re61dence 20 House 

2.88 Residence 30 

2.g0 ~ 32 House 

2.g0 P, cs,t~ce 28 O~ex 

2.gl ~ 34 

2.g~ Re~dence 0 

2.g~ Residence 0 

3.03 Residence 25 

3.05 Residence 23 House 

3.07 ~ 17 House 

3.10 ~ 30 House 

3.15 ~ 10 HOmNJ 

3.17 Re61derlce 10 

3.71 BuJk:l~ 9 Indu~lal Building 

3.75 Residence 10 House 

3.78 ~ 8 

3.78 ~ 2 I'lotnm 

3.79 ~ 7 House 

3.82 Res~ence 8 Hou~ 

3.82 Residence 46 House 

3.84 Residence 8 House 

3.8g R~idtmce 8 House 

3.g4 Resk;'Wce 4 House 

3.96 ~ 0 Hou~ 

444 Reeldence 43 House 

7.23 Residence 10 House 

F-3 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

APPENDIX G 

REFERENCES AND CONTACTS 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

APPENDIX G 

REFERENCF~ AND CONTACI~ 

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. 2003. ToxFAQs for Aldrin/Dieldrin, as listed 

October 29, 2003. Available online at: hitp://www.atsdr.edc.gov/ffactsl.htnd. 

American Bureau of Shipping. 2002. Guidance Notes for Building and Classing Offshore I..NG 

Terminals. May 2002. 43 pp. 

Andrle, R.F., and J.R. Canoll. 1988. The arias of breeding birds in New York State. Cornell University, 

Ithaca, New York. 551 pp. 

Atlantic Sturgeon Status Review Tean~ 1998. Status Review of Atlantic Sturgeon (Aeipenser 

oxyrinchus oxyrinchus). Atlantic Sturgeon SR (7/24/98) - 2. 

Black and Veatch Waste Science, Inc. 1996. Results of Berthing Area Vibracore Sampling along the 

Delaware River from Beckett Street Terminal in Camden, NJ to Sun Oil Refinery in Marcus 

Hook, PA. Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District, under Contract 

Number DACW61-94-D-0013, Delivery Orders 0005, 0006, and 0009, available online at: 

(http://www.nap.usace.army.mil/cenap-pl/w5.pdf) 

Blais, D., and D. Simpson. 1997. The effects of a buried natural gas pipeline on water quality, stream 

habitat, and biotic populations within high quality cold water strean-~ in upstate New York. In: 

Sixth International Symposium on Environmental Concerns in Rights-of-Way Management. Eds. 

J. Willian-~, J. Goedrich-Maboney, J. Wisniewski, and J. Wisniewski. New Orleans, Louisiana. 

Elsevier Publishers, N'Y. 

Brcetzke, D. 2004a. Phase I Cultural Resources Report for the Texas Eastern Logan Lateral Project in 

Gloucester County, New Jersey. Environment and Archaeology, LLC, Florence, Kentucky. 

Breetzke, D. 2004b. Phase 1 Cultural Resources Report for the Texas Eastern Logan Lateral Project in 

Delaware County, Pennsylvania. Environment and Archaeology, LLC, Florence, Kentucky. 

Bryngelson, R. 2004. Conservation Law Foundation, Conference on LNG Terminal Siting, July 29, 

2004. Available at: htw://www.clf.orf./benert/LNG confBrvn~,e|son F.0tcelerate Enert, v.vdf 

Buchman, M.F. 1999. NOAA Screening Quick Reference Tables, NOAA Hazmat Report 99-1, Seattle, 

WA. Coastal Protection and Restoration Division, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, 12 pages. 

Cartisano, Linda A. 2004. Letter dated November 19, from IAnda A. Cartisano (City Solicitor) to John 

Sheridan (Duke Energy). 

Charles River Associate. 2002. The Abifity to Meet Future Gas Demands from Electricity Generation in 

New York State, Final Report. July 2002. 

Child, C., K. Meier, M. Williams, J. Maymon, D. Grouse, and J. Pelletier, and D. Wagner. 2004. 

Cultural Resources Survey for the Proposed Crown Landing Project, Logan Township, 

Gloucester County, New Jersey, and New Castle, Delaware. R. Christopher Goodwin & 

Associates, Inc., Frederick, Maryland. 

G-! 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

APPENDIX G (cont'd) 

Clark, J., S. Mars, and D. Wilkinson. 2004. Telephone communication on September 13 between Dave 

Blaha and Julia Tiros (ERM) and J. Clark (NJDEP), Steve Mars (FWS), and Don Wilkinson 

(NJDEP). 

Cleven, B,, and M. Williams. 2004. Architectural Survey for the Proposed Crown Landing Project, 

Logan Township, Gloucester County, New Jersey and New Castle County, Delaware. R. 

Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc., Frederick, Maryland. 

Connecticut Depamnent of Environmental Protection. 1999. Wildlife in Connecticut. Endangered and 

Threatened Species Series: Kemp's (Atlantic) Ridley Sea Turtle. 

Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control. 1998. The Pea Patch Island 

Heronry Region: Special Area Management Plan, July 1998. 

Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control. 2001. The Pea Patch Island 

Heronry Region: Special Area Management Plan, Progress Report - Three Years of Strategy 

Implementation. June 2001. 

Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control. 2003. Delaware State Public 

Boat Access Areas, Tidal Water Fishing/Boating Access Areas. Available at: 

http:llwww, dnrec, state, de. us/fw/fisharea, htm. 

Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control. 2004a. Informal consultation 

letter from DNREC to Crown Landing regarding their review of the Draft Environmental 

Resource Reports for the Crown Landing I_,NG Import Terminal. September 2, 2004. 

Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control. 2004b. Delaware Coastal 

Programs. Document No. 40-07/01/09/02 

Delaware River Basin Commission. 2004. The Delaware River Basin. Available at: 

httv://www.state.ni.us/drbc/thedrb.htm 

Delaware State Historic Preservation Office. 2004. I~ter dated September 16, from F. Slocum 

(Archaeologist) to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. 

Energy Informatioo Adrmnistration. 2003. Annual Energy Outlook 2003 with Projections to 2025. 

Energy Inforn~tion Administration - Report #:DOE/EIA-0383(2003). January 9, 2003. 

Enviroweb 2003. Raccoon Creek Watershed Factsbeet. Available at:http://www.sjwatersheds. 

org/watersbedorgs/raccoon.htm. 

Environmental Resource Management. 2003. Field data collected at the site during surveys conducted in 

April, May, August, and September 2003. 

Farrar, J. S., et al. 2001. Oldmans Confined Disposal Facility Water Quality Analysis. Prepared for the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District, DACW61-00-D-0009, Task Order 0007. 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. 2001. Phase IIl/HubLine Project - Final Environmental Impact 

Statement. Docket Nos. Ct~1-44300, CI~1-5-000, and C/~1-8-000. November 2001. 

G-2 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

APPENDIX G (cont'd) 

Federal Energy Regulatory CommissicaL 2002. Islander East Pipeline Project - Final Environmental 

Impact Statement. Docket Nos. CP01-384-000 and C~1-3874)00. August 2002. 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. 2003. New England Natural Gas Infrastructure. Docket No. 

PL04-O 14300. Staff Report of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. December 2003. 

Federal Register. July 13, 1994. Changes in Hydric Soils of the United States. Washington, DC, (current 

Hydric Soil definition) Vol. 59, No. 133. 

Fenneman, N.M., and D.W. Johnson. 1946. Physical Divisions of the United States. U.S. Geological 

Survey. Scale 1:7,000,000. 

Fusco, M. 2003. Personal communication on November 25 between I-L Striffler (ENSR) and M. Fusco 

(Friends of Chester Creek). 

Glaholt, R.G., M. Nunas, and S. Orig. 2000. An investigation into the influence of marine pipelines and 

cables on benthic ecology and biodiversity. Report prepared for Georgia Strait Crossing Pipeline 

Limited and filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in Docket No. CP01-176- 

000. 

Goodrich, L.J., M. Brittingha_m, J.A. Bishop, and P. Barber. 2003. Wildlife Habitat in Pennsylvania: Past, 

Present, and Future. http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/wlhabitat/acknowledge.htm. 

Greenspan, A. 2003. The Economic Outlook. Testimony of the Federal Reserve Board Chairman, Alan 

Greenspan, before the Joint Economic Committee - U.S. Congress. May 21, 2003. 

Hampton, H. 2003. Personal communication on November 18 between Texas Eastern and H. Hampton 

(Zoning Officer, Borough of Brookhaven). 

Hastings, M.C. 2002. Clarification of the meaning of sound pressure levels and the known effects of 

sound on fish. Unpublished document prepared in support of Biological Assessment for the San 

Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge East Span Seismic Safety Project. 8 pp. 

Hayes, D. P. and C. Je. 2000. Dredge Model Users Guide. Prepared by the Department. of Civil and 

Environmental Engineering, University of Utah for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 

Waterways Experiment Station. 

Jenkins, R. E. and Buridmad, N.M. 1994. Freshwater fishes of Virginia. American Fisheries. 

Kane, R. 2001, Phragmites Use by Birds in New Jersey. Available at:http://WWW.njanduboo.ore/ 

Conservation/oviniona/05-O 12.html. 

Livingston, S.A., C.S. Todd, W.B. Krohn, and R. B. Owen. 1990. Habitat models for nesting bald eagles 

in Maine. Journal of Wildlife Management. 54(4):644-653. 

LNG Express. 2002. ABS Issues Guidance Notes for ConsU'uotion Classing of Offshore LNG 

Terminals. LNG Express - June 2002. Volume )Hl, No. 6. 

LNG Express. 2003. Offshore LNG Terminals Become Focus in Wake of Terrorist Threats. LNG 

Express - July 2003. Volume XIII, No. 7. 

G-3 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

APPENDIX G (cont'd) 

Moffatt & Nichol International. 2003. Liberty LNG Import Terminal. Delaware Bay and River Traffic 

Study. December 2003. 

National Fire Protection Agency Standard 59A, 2001 Edition. Standard for the Production, Storage, and 

Handling of Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG). NFPA. Quincy, MA. 

National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1991a. Recovery Plan for U.S. 

Population of Atlantic Green Turtle. National Marine Fisheries Service, Washington, D.C. 

National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1991b. Recovery Plan for U.S. 

Population of I_.oggerheatd Turtle. National Marine Fisheries Service, Washington, D.C. 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 2003. Personal Communication with Anita Riportella, NMFS and 

Beth Wyke. ERM. September 15, 2003. 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2003. Tsunami Research Program - Frequently 

Asked Questions. Available at http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/taunami/Faq/. 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2004a. National Data Buoy Center, NDBC Station 

44025. Available at: htm:llseaboard.ndbc.noaa.~,ovlstationAmL, e.nhv?station--44025 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2004b. U.S. Mainland Hurricane Strikes by State, 

1900-1996. Accessed on September 9. 2004 at hup:llwww.pmel.noaa.gov/paststate.html. 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 20044:. Advance Notice of Proposes Rulemaking for 

Right Whale Ship Strike Reduction. Federal Register, vol. 69, no. 105. pg. 30857-30864. June 1. 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - Fisheries. 1996. Biological op'mion for Dredging 

Activities within the Philadelphia District. Northeast Region. November 26. 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - Fisheries. 1998. Final Recovery Plan for the 

Shor~ose Sturgeon. 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - Fisheries. 2001. Biological Opinion on the Impacts 

of the Army Corps of Engineers proposed rock blasting during the construction of the Delaware 

River Main Channel Deepening Project on endangered shortaose sturgeon. 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric AdminisUation - Fisheries. 2003. Non-fishing Impacts to Essential 

Fish Habitat and Recommended Conservation Measures. NOAA Fisheries, Alaska RegionNorthwest Region-Southwest Region. Editors: J. Hanson, M. Helvey, and R. Strach. 75 pp. 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - Fisheries and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998. 

National Marine Fisharies Service & US Fish and Wildlife Service. Atlantic Sturgeon Status 

Review. September 1998. 

National Park Service. 2004. 

httD:llwww.nvs.eovlfiversl 

National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. Available at: 

National Wildlife Federation. 2004. http'J/www.nwf.org/wildlifeAempsridleyseaturtleJ 

G-4 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

APPENDIX O (cont'd) 

Nedwell, J. and B. Edwards, 2002. Measurements of underwater noise in the Arun River during piling at 

County Wharf, Littlehampton. Unpublished report prepared for David Wilson Homes Ltd. by 

Subacoustech Ltd. 26 pp. 

Nedwell, J., A. Turnponny, J. Langworthy, and B. Edwards. 2003. Measurements of underwater noise 

during piling at the Red Funnel Terminal, Southampton, and observations of its effects on caged 

fish. Unpublished report prepared for Red Funnel by Subacoustech Ltd. 33 pp. 

Newbold, James. 2003. Telephone communication on December 17, between D. Barkow (ENSR) and B. 

Greeley (PADEP Office of Surface Water Management). 

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. 2001. New Jersey Bald Eagle Management 

Project 2001. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. Division of Fish and 

Wildlife. Robert McDowell, Director. Prepared by: Larissa Smith, Katldeen Clark, Lawrence 

Niles. 

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. 2002a. New Jersey Bald Eagle Management 

Project 2002. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. Division of Fish and 

Wildlife. Martin McHugh, Director. Prepared by: Larissa Smith, /Cathleen Clark, Lawrence 

Niles. 

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. 2002b. The New Jersey Coastal Management 

Program, Coastal Zone Boundaries. Fact Sheet 4. 

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. 2003a. i-Map Geographic Information System. 

Available at: http'.//www.state.nj.us/dep/srp. 

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. 2003b. Personal communication with Hugh 

Carherry. September 16, 2003. 

New Jersey ~nt of Environmental Protection. 2003c. Personal communication with Jim Joseph. 

September 16, 2003. 

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. 2003d. Inforn'atl consultation letter from NJDEP 

to ENSR/n~rnafional regarding the Texas Eastern Expansion Project. December 3, 2003. 

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. 2003e. New Jersey Statewide Comprehensive 

Outdoor Recreation Plan. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Green Acres 

Program. Available at: http://www.nj.gov/dep/greenacre~scorp.pdf. 

New Jersey Depal~.ment of Environmental Protection. 2004a. New Jersey Integrated Water Quality 

Mmitoring and Assessment Repot. Available at: http://www.state.nj.us/dep/wmm/wqsa.html 

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. 2004b. New Jersey Stormwater Best Management 

Practices Manual. February 2004. 

New Jersey Department of Env~ml Protection. 2004c. Informal consultation letter from NJDEP 

to Crown Landing regarding regarding their review of the Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS for 

the Crown Landing LNG Import Terminal. June 30, 2004. 

G-5 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

APPEND1XG(cont'd) 

New Jersey Department of Transportation. 2003. Drawbridge Operations. Bridge Opening Reports 

1996-10/2003. 

New Jersey Division of Fish and Wildlife. 2003. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife of New Jersey. 

Available at: http-.//www.nj.gov/dep/fgw/tandespp.htm. 

New Jersey Geographic Information Network. 2004. Available at: hfAps://ni-in.state.ni.ns/NJ NJ(~IN 

Exvlorer/i0dex.jsp. 

New Jersey Geological Survey. 2004. Personal communication on September 3, 2004 between S. 

Stanford (New Jersey Geological Survey) and C. McKnight (Environment and Archaeology, 

LL¢). 

New Jersey Natural History Museun~ 2004. Personal communication on September 3, 2004 between D. 

Panis (New Jersey Natural History Museum) and D. Breetzke (Environment and Archaeology, 

I.LC). 

New Jersey Paleontological Society. 2003. Personal communication on October 29, 2003 between R. 

Dann (New Jersey Paleontological Society) and D. Belin (ERM). 

New Jersey State Historic Preservation Office. 2004. Letter dated August 31, from D. Guzzon (Deputy 

State Historic Preservation Officer) to J. Maymon (R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc.). 

New York Independent System Operator. 2001. Power Alert: New York's Energy Crossroads. March 

2001. 

O'Hemm, J.C and R.W. Hastings. 1985. A study of Shortnese Sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) 

Populations in the Upper Tidal Delaware River:. Assessment of Impacts of Maintenance 

Dredging (Post-dredge Study of Duck Island and Perriwig Ranges), Draft final report. Prepared 

for the USACE, Philadelphia District by the Center for Coastal and Environmental Studies, 

Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick. NJ. 

O'Herron, J.C., K.W. Able, and R.W. Hastings. 1993. Movements of Shortnose Sturgeon (Acipenser 

brevirostrum) in the Delaware River. Estuaries: V. 16, N. 2, pp. 235-240. June 1993. 

O'Herron, J.C., T. Lloyd, and K. Laidig. 1994. A survey of fish in the Delawa~ estuary from the area of 

the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal to Trenton. Final report prepared for the Scientific and 

Technical Advisory Committee of the Delaware Estuary Program. 

O'Rourke, T.D., and M.C. Palmer. 1994. Feasibility Study of Replacement Procedures and Earthquake 

Performance Related to Gas Transmission Pipelines. Cornell University, Ithaca, New York. 

Parfomak, P.W. 2003. Liquefied Natural Gas Infrastructure Security: Background and Issues fur 

Congress. Congressional Research Service Report for Congress. September 9, 2003. 

Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resoutcns. 2003. The Pennsylvania Department 

of Conservation and Natural Resources. Fish, Reptiles, and Amphibians. Available at: 

httD://Www.dcnr.st#~.pa.us/wrcf/franda.htm. 

Pennsylvania Departn~nt of Environmental Pro0~tion. 2002. The Pennsylvania Coastal Zone 

Management Program - Fact Sheet. 0140-FS-DEP2019. 

G-6 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

APPENDIX G (cont'd) 

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. 2004. 2004 Pennsylvania Integrated Water 

Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report Available at: 

http:••www•dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/waterm•ffwqp/wqstandards/3•3d•Rep•rt.htm 

Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission. 2001. Pennsylvania Fishes. Pennsylvania Fish and Boat 

Commission. 

Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission. 2003& Informal consultation letter from PAFBC to ENSR 

International regarding the species impact review for the Logan Lateral Project. September 4, 

2003. 

Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission. 2003b. Delaware River Access Sites. Available at: 

http://sites.state.pa.us/PA_Exec/Fish_Boat/map/pfbemaps/delphiamaln.htn~ 

Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission. 2004. Infornml consultation letter from PAFBC to ENSR 

International regarding the species review for the Logan Lateral Project. July 19, 2004. 

Pennsylvania Geological Survey. 1993. Oil and Gas Fields of Pennsylvania Map No. 10. Available at: 

http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/topogeotrnaps/map 10.pdf. 

Pennsylvania Geological Survey. 1997. Director3, of the Non-Fuel Mineral Producers in Pennsylvania. 

Open File Report No. 97-04. 

Pennsylvania Geological Survey. 2002. Coal in Pennsylvania (2nd Edition): 4th ser., Educational Series 

7,28p. 

Pennsylvania Geological Survey. 2003. Earthquake Hazard in Pennsylvania (2nd Edition): 4th set., 

Educational Series 10, 14 p. 

Pennsylvania Geological Survey. 2004. Personal communication on September 2, 2004 between J. Harper 

(Pennsylvania Geological Survey) and S. Brown (Environment and Archaeology, LLC). 

Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission. 2003. Letter dated November 19, from K. Can 

(Chief, Division of Archaeology and Protection) to D. Breetzke (Environment & Archaeology, 

I.J~). 

Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission. 2004. Letter dated April 2, from J. Curler (Bureau 

Director) to D. Breetzke (Environment & Archaeology, LLC). 

Real Estate Counseling Group of Connecticut, Inc. 1995. Anticipated Price Effects on Single-Family 

Residential Properties Associated with ProMmiIy to LNG Storage Facilities. 

Robertson, P.K., and C.E. Wride. 1998. Evaluating Cyclic Liquefaction Potential Using the Cone 

Penetration Test. Canadian Geoteclmical Engineering Journal. Ottawa, 35(3), pp. 442-459. 

Sanders, P. F. 2003. Ambient Levels of Trace Metals in New Jersey Soils. New Jersey Department of 

Environmental Protection, Trenton, NJ. 

Shirey. C.A.. Martin, C.C., and Stetzar. EJ. 1999. Atlantic Sturgeon Abundance and Movement in the 

Lower Delaware River. Delaware Fish and Wildlife Aquatic Resources Education Center. 

G-7 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

APPENDIX G (cont'd) 

Shimy, C. 2004. Telephone communication on August 27 between C. Shirey (NJDEP) and J. Willey 

(ERM). 

Smith, L. 2003. Personal Communications with Lorissa Smith and Beth Wyke, ERM. September 16 and 

17, 2003. 

Soil Survey Division Staff. 1993. Soil Survey Manual. USDA Agricultural Handbook 18. U. S. 

Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. 

Springer, Jay. 2003. E-mail and telephone communication on December 11, between D. Barko (F, NSR) 

and D. Rosenblatt (NJDEP Watershed Mmmgement Program). 

Transportation Research Board. 2000. Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report 209. Washington D.C. 

Tyrawski, John M. 1979. Shallows of the Delaware River - Trenton, New Jersey to Reedy Point, 

Delaware. Final Report for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District. Contract 

No. DACW61-79-M-0445. March 1979. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station 1986. Guide to Selecting a Dredge for 

Minimizing Resuspension of Sediment. Environmental Effects of Dredging, Technical Notes 

EEDP-09-01. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1987. United States Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation 

Manual, Technical Report Y-87-1, U.S. Army Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, 

Vicksburg, MS. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station 1988a. Sediment Resuspension by 

Selected Dredges. Environmental Effects of Dredging, Technical Notes EEDP-09-02. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1988b. Visual Resom'ces Assessment Procedures for U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers, Department of the Army Waterways Experiment Station. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1993. Survey of Benthos: Delaware Estuary: From the Area of the C&D 

Canal through Philadelphia to Trenton. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Prepared by 

Environmental Consulting Services, Inc. December 1993. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1995. Final Environn~ntal Impact Report fEOEA File Number 8695) 

and Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 1 of 3. Boston Harbor, Massachusetts 

Navigation Improvement Project and Berth Dredging Project. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 

New England Division and Massachusetts Port Authority, Maritime Depattn~nt. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1997. Delaware River Main Channel Deepening Project (Pennsylvania, 

New Jersey, and Delaware) Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers. July 1997. 

U.S. Coast Guard. 2003. Final Environmental Assessment of the El-Paso Energy - Bridge Gulf of 

Mexico L.L.C. Deepwater Port License Application. Docket No.: USCG-2003-14294. Available 

at: http://dms.do~gov (use only No. 14294 when searching the web site) Accessed July 7, 2004. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1962. Soil Survey of Gloucester County, New Jersey. 84 pp, with maps. 

G-8 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

APPENDIX G (cont'd) 

U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1963. Soil Survey, Chester and Delaware Counties, Pennsylvania. 124 

pp, with maps. 

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 2001. 2000 Census of Population and Housing. 

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 2003. Profile of General Demographic 

Characteristics: 2000. Available at: http://factfinder.census.gov in November 2003. 

U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration. 2004. Annual Energy Outlook 2004, 

Supplemental Tables. January 2004. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1971. Noise from Construction Equipment and Operation, 

Building Equipment, and Home Applicances.(NTID300.1). Prepared by Bolt, Beranek, and 

Newman, Boston, MA. U.S. Government Printing Office. Washington, DC. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2002. Case Study Analysis for the Proposed Section 316(b) 

Phase II Existing Facilities Rule. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Office of Water. 

EPA-821 -R-02-002. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2003. Sole Source Aquifer Information. Region 2 Division of 

Water. Available at http-.//www.epa.gov/region02/water/aquifer/. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2004. National Estuary Program. U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency. Available at: http:llwww.epa.govlowowlestuafieslpmgramslde.htm. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1989. Fish and Wildlife Service. Species Profiles: Life Histories and 

Environmental Requirements of Coastal Fishes and Invertebrates (Mid-Atlantic). Atlantic and 

Shorteose Sturgeons. December 1989. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1996. New Jersey Bald Eagle Management Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, NJ Field Office, Fieasantville, NJ. 19p + Appendices. 

U.S. Hsh and Wildlife Service. 2003. Informal consultation letter from USFWS to ERM regarding 

federally listed species known to occur in the vicinity of the site. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2004a. Letter dated September 14, 2004 from C. Day (Supervisor, New 

Jersey Field Office) to H. Striffler (ENSR International). 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2004b. Personal communication with Steve Mars, Senior Fish & 

Wildlife Biologist, USFWS, Pleasantville, NJ. May 6, 2004 and August 19, 2004 

U.S. Geological Survey. 1908. Areal Geology of the Chester Quadrangle, Pennsylvania, Delaware, New 

Jersey. Scale: h62,5(~. 

U.S. Geological Survey. 1982. Landslide Overview Map of the Conterminous United States. Geologic 

Survey Professional Paper 1183. U.S. Governn~nt Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Geological Survey. 1997. Grotmd Water Atlas of the United States - Delaware, Maryland, New 

Jersey, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia. Hydrologic Investigations Atlas 

730-L. Reston, Virgina. 

G-9 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

APPENDIX G (cont'd) 

U.S. Geologic~ Survey. 1999a. Inventory and Regional Susceptibility for Holocene Debris Flows and 

Related Fast Moving Landslides in the Conterminous United Slates. Miscellaneous Field Studies 

Map MF-2329 ver. 1.0. 

U.S. Geological Survey. 1999b. National Water Quality Assessment Program, Delaware River Basin. 

FS-056-99. 

U.S. Geological Survey. 2002a. Geological Survey Minerals Yearbook - 2002, New Jersey. 

U.S. Geological Survey. 200"2b. Geological Survey Minerals Yearbook - 2002, Pennsylvania. 

U.S. Geological Survey. 2002c. Water Resource Data, New Jersey, Water Year 2002, Volume h 

Delaware River Basin, Water Data Report N J-02-01. 

U.S. Geological Survey. 2003. Major Aquifers in New Jersey. Available at: 

http://nj.usgs.gov/gw/aquifer.btml. 

U.S. Geological Survey. 2004a. Mineral Resources On-Line Spatial Data. 

http://mrdala.usgs.gov/index.html 

Available at 

U.S. Geological Survey. 2004b. Quaternary Faults and Folds Database of the United Slams. Available 

at: http://q faults.cr.usgs.gov/. 

Versar, Inc. 2001. Near-Field Water Quality Modeling of Dredging Operations in the Delaware River. 

Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District, under Contract Number 

DACW61-00-~, available on line at: (http://www.nap.usace.army.mil/canap-pl/w l.pdf) 

Vinkour, W., and J. Shub~L 1987. Effects of Gas Pipeline Consm~tion on the Aquatic Ecosystem of 

Canada Creek, Presqne Isle County, Michigan. Gas Research Institute Report GRI-87/0027. 

Vladykov, V. and J. Greeley. 1963. Order Acipenseroidei. Centr. Dept. des P~cheries Quebec No. 53. 

p. 00 

Vowinkel, E. F., A.E. Grosz, J. L. Barringer, Z. Szabo, P. E. Stackelberg, J. A. Hopple, J. N. Orossman, 

E. A. Murphy, M. Series, and S. Spayd. 2001. Dimribution of Arsenic in the Environment in 

New Jersey. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Trenton, N'J. 

Water Resources Education Network. 2003. 

http://pa.lwv.org/wrerdpubs/pdmer.html. 

Pennsylvania's Aquifers. Available at: 

Wolter, C., and R. Arlinghaus. 2003. Navigation impacts on freshwater fish assemblages: the ecological 

relevance of swimming performance. Review in Fish Biology and Fisheries 13:63-89. 

WPC. 2003a. Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Report - Liberty [now Crown Landing] LNG 

Project, Logan Township, Gloucester County, New Jersey. WPC Project No. SAV2-03-168. 

November 23, 2003. 

WI~. 2003b. Seismic Hazard Study Report - Liberty [now Crown Landing] LNG Project, Logan 

Township, Gloecester County, New Jersey. WPC Project No. SAV2-03-168. November 26, 2003. 

G-10 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

APPENDIX G (cont'd) 

Yokel, Felix Y. 2004. Review of Geotechnical Engineering Investigation and Seismic Hazard Study, 

Crown Landing LNG Project, Logan Township, New Jersey. June 29, 2004. 

O-ll 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

APPENDIX H 

LIST OF PREPARERS 
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

APPENDIX H 

LIST OF PREPARERS 

Ffdcral Encr,~, Regulatory Ceommiss/on 

Kopka, Robert J. - Project Manager, Geology, Soils, Vegetation, Water Resources, Wetlands, Land 

Use, Alternatives 

M.S., Soil Science, 1990, Cornell University 

B.S., Agronomy, 1987, Delaware Valley College of Science and Agriculture 

Bores, Laurie - Cultural Resources 

B.A., Anthropology/Archaeology, 1980, Queens College, C.U.N.Y. 

Thomas, Hugh V. - Reliability and Safety 

M.E., Mechanical/F~vironmental Engineering, 1999, University of Maryland 

B.S., Mechanical Engineering, 1991, University of Maryland 

B.S., Physical Science, 1990, Salisbury State University 

Laffoon, Danny - Fisheries, Wildlife, 1~reatened and Endangered Species 

B.S., Fisheries and Wildlife, 2000, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University 

Lykens, Alim - Wildlife, 1"nretteaed and Endangered Spedes 

B.S., Biology, 1986, Old Dominion University 

Surer, Phtllip - Air Quality, Noise, Reliability and Safety 

B.S., Chemical Engineering, 2004, Pennsylvania State University 

Zerby, Chris M. - Reliability and Safety 

M.S., Civil Engineering, 1974, University of Maryland 

B.S., Mechanical Engineering, 1970, Lehigh University 

Natural Resource Grouu. Inc. 

Brown, Larry - Teehnkal Director, Alternatives 

B.S.. Biology. 1981. Bates College 

vuncnn, Randy. Project Mm v.r, Project Descrlpeoa 

M.S., Water R~ Management (Aquatic Biology), 1982. University of Wisconsin 

B.A., Biology, 1978, Luther College 

Bednarezyk, Paul - Secioeeeueml~ 

B.S., Applied Economics and Management (Environmental and Resource Economics), 2001, 

Comell University 

Braun, Bm - Geology, Gronndwater 

M.S., Course Work, Geology, 1980-1983, South Dakota School of Mines and Technology 

B.A., Earth Sciences, 1980, SL Cloud State University 

H-I 
Jnofficial FERC-Generated PDF of 20050222-0062 Issued by FERC OSEC 02/18/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

APPENDIX H (cont'd) 

Hat,grove, Ross - Vegetation 

B.S.. Forest Resources, 2000, University of Minnesota 

Jemen, Bart - Sm'face Water, Wetlands 

B.S., Natural Resources and Environmental Studies, 1992, University of Minnesota 

Lee, Jennifer - Land Use, Transportation, Recreation, Special Interest Areas, Visual Resources 

B.A., Environmental Studies and Geography, 1995, University of St. Thomas 

McGregor, Randy. Graphics 

M.S., Geography, 1996, St. Cloud State University 

B.A., International Studies, 1988, University of Washington 

Mordorsid, Paul - Air Quality, Noise 

B.S., Clmmical Engineering, 1999, University of Minn~ 

Robble¢, Patrick - Cultural Resources 

M.A., Anthropology with a specialization in Historical Archaeology, 1995, College of 

William and Mary in Virginia 

B.A., Anthropology, 1993, University of Massachusetts at Amherst 

Thommcs, Jeffrey - Deputy Project Manager, Wildlife and Aquatic Resources, Special Status 

Specl~ 

M.S., Zoology (Wildlife Ecology), 1994, Southern Illinois University 

B.S., Zoology, 1992, Southexn Illinois University 

Timpson, Mike - Soils, Sediments 

Ph.D., Plant and Soil Science, 1992, University of Tennessee 

M.S., Soil Science, 1985, North Dakota State University 

B.S., Natural Resources, 1982, University of Rhode Island 

H-2 
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION 

Routing Code: PJ-I 1.1 

Washington, DC 20426 

Official Business 

Penalty for Private Use 

N 

I 

N 

N 

N 

N 

0 

$ 

I 

M 

~u 

-4 

U 

0