1

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20426 

OFFICE OF ENERGY PROJECTS

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS 

PHILADELPHIA DISTRICT 

PHILADELPHIA, PA 19107 

 

 In Reply Refer To: 

 OEP/DG2E/Gas Branch 1 

 Crown Landing LLC 

 Texas Eastern Transmission, L.P . 

 FERC Docket Nos. 

 CP04-411-000 

 CP04-416-000 

 (COE Application Nos. 

 CENAP-OP-R-200500145 

 CENAP-OP-R-200500146) 

TO THE PARTY ADDRESSED: 

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

in cooperation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE), U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration Fisheries has prepared a final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for 

a liquefied natural gas (LNG) import terminal (referred to as the Crown Landing LNG 

Project) proposed by Crown Landing LLC (Crown Landing), a BP Energy Company 

(BP) affiliate, and natural gas pipeline facilities (referred to as the Logan Lateral Project) 

proposed by Texas Eastern Transmission, L.P. (Texas Eastern) in the above-referenced 

dockets. 

The final EIS was prepared to satisfy the requirements of the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The staff concludes that approval of the proposed 

projects with appropriate mitigating measures as recommended, would have limited 

adverse environmental impact. The final EIS also evaluates alternatives to the proposal, 

including system alternatives, alternative sites for the LNG import terminal, and pipeline 

alternatives. 

The proposed LNG terminal would be located on the shoreline of the Delaware 

River in Logan Township, Gloucester County, New Jersey, and would consist of facilities 

capable of unloading LNG ships, storing up to 450,000 cubic meters (m3

) of LNG (9.2 

billion cubic feet of natural gas equivalent), vaporizing the LNG, and sending out natural 

gas at a baseload rate of 1.2 billion cubic feet per day (Bcfd) and a maximum rate of 1.4 

Bcfd (using spare equipment). Crown Landing proposes to interconnect the LNG 

facilities onsite with three pipelines. One interconnect would be with the new pipeline 

that Texas Eastern proposes to construct and operate (i.e., Logan Lateral) between its 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
2

existing Chester Junction facility in Brookhaven Borough, Pennsylvania and the 

proposed LNG terminal. The other two interconnects would be with existing pipelines 

that currently cross the LNG terminal site. One of these pipelines is owned and operated 

by Columbia Gas Transmission Company (Columbia Gas). The other pipeline is owned 

and operated by Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation (Transco). To date, neither 

Columbia Gas nor Transco have filed applications with the FERC to construct and 

operate the interconnects. The Crown Landing LNG Project would have a maximum 

delivery capacity of 0.5 Bcfd to the Columbia Gas pipeline system, 0.6 Bcfd to the 

Transco pipeline system, and 0.9 Bcfd to the Texas Eastern pipeline system. 

 The proposed preferred project construction site, referenced above, is 

approximately 175 acres in size (waterward of the low water line on the Delaware River). 

Within the site there are uplands, wetlands (federally regulated), and intertidal river 

shoreline (also federally regulated). Construction of the proposed LNG terminal would 

involve the dredging of shallow water riverbottom and the filling of a small area of 

intertidal river shoreline for the installation of berthing structures in the Delaware River. 

No permanent filling of federally regulated wetlands is proposed for construction of the 

terminal facilities. The proposed pipeline connection would involve the installation of 

about 11.00 miles of new underground pipeline from the storage and transfer facility in 

Gloucester County, New Jersey, crossing Birch Creek, Raccoon Creek, Delaware River, 

Chester Creek, and several smaller waterways on both sides of the Delaware River, to an 

existing pipeline junction facility in Pennsylvania. 

 The Birch Creek, Raccoon Creek, Delaware River, and Chester Creek crossings 

would all be accomplished by Horizontal Directional Drilling (HDD) method. All 

smaller waterway crossings would be accomplished by open-cut trenching. The rigging 

for the HDD crossing of the Delaware River would be set-up on the Pennsylvania bank of 

the river in Chester. The pipeline would be “pulled under” the river from the old Ferry 

Road roadbed on the New Jersey side. 

The following modifications to the project have been proposed since the draft EIS 

was issued: 

1) Texas Eastern now proposes a contingency plan to for constructing the 

Chester Creek crossing by open-cut method if the HDD method fails. 

2) Crown Landing has submitted a minor modification to the proposed design 

of the LNG terminal berthing configuration in order to provide for an 

enhanced margin of safety in LNG carrier maneuvering. The modified 

proposed design is evaluated in the final EIS. In addition, Crown Landing 

has re-calculated the volume of material that would result from the 

dredging for the proposed LNG terminal berthing provisions in order to 

correct an error identified in the original calculations and to provide for a 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
3

customary 2 foot “over-dredge” volume. There is no change in the 

proposed dredging depth or dredged material disposal. 

The draft EIS document indicated that 800,000 cubic yards of material would be 

dredged in the construction of the proposed LNG berthing terminal. Crown Landing now 

calculates that 1.24 million cubic yards of material would be dredged: 60,000 cubic yards 

are added to the original total from the safety modifications; 110,000 cubic yards are 

added by the over-dredge allowance; and 270,000 cubic yards are added from the error 

correction. 

 

The final EIS addresses the potential environmental effects of the construction and 

operation of the following LNG and natural gas pipeline facilities: 

• a ship unloading facility capable of receiving LNG ships with capacities up 

to 200,000 m3

; 

• three 150,000 m3

 (net capacity) full-containment LNG storage tanks, 

comprised of 9 percent nickel steel inner tank, pre-stressed concrete outer 

tank, and a concrete roof; 

• a closed-loop shell and tube heat exchanger vaporization system; 

• various ancillary facilities, including administrative offices, 

warehouse/maintenance building, main control center, guardhouse, and a 

pier control room; 

• three meter and regulation stations located on the proposed LNG terminal 

site; and 

• approximately 11.00 miles of 30-inch-diameter natural gas pipeline (4.92 

miles in Pennsylvania and 6.08 miles in New Jersey), a pig launcher and 

receiver facility at the beginning and end of the pipeline, a mainline valve, 

and a meter and regulation station at the end of the pipeline. 

Crown Landing and Texas Eastern have applied concurrently to the COE for two 

Department of the Army Individual Permits pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water 

Act (33U.S.C. 1344) and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 

403). The COE solicited public comment on the applications in their public notice which 

was included as part of the draft EIS notice for the projects published in February 2005. 

The COE is now soliciting public comment on the two modifications to the original 

proposal which are described above: 1) Texas Eastern proposed open-cut contingency for 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4

the construction of the proposed Chester Creek pipeline crossing and; 2) the Crown 

Landing berthing terminal safety modification and related dredge volume calculation. 

The COE is soliciting comments from the public; federal, state and local agencies 

and officials; Indian Tribes; and other interested parties in order to consider and evaluate 

any additional impacts resulting from the proposed minor design modifications. Any 

comments received will be considered by the COE to determine whether to issue, modify, 

condition, or deny permits for these proposals as modified. To make this decision, 

comments are used to assess impacts on endangered species, historic properties, water 

quality, general environmental effects, and the other public interest factors listed in the 

COE’s original notice included with the draft EIS. Comments are used in determining 

the need for and the preparation of any necessary supplemental NEPA documentation. 

Comments are also used to determine the need for a public hearing on the proposed 

design modifications and to determine the overall public interest of the proposed 

activities. Please carefully follow these instructions to ensure that your comments 

are received in time and properly recorded:

• Send an original and two copies of your letter on the design modifications 

to: 

 Magalie R. Salas, Secretary 

 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

 888 First St. NE; Room 1A 

 Washington, DC 20426; 

• Label one copy of the comments for the attention of Gas 1, PJ-11.1; 

• Reference Docket Nos. (Crown Landing) CP04-411-000 and (Texas 

Eastern) CP04-416-000; 

• Mail your comments so that they will be received in Washington, DC 

on or before June 6, 2006 (Copies will be provided to the COE). 

 

The final EIS has been placed in the public files of the FERC and is available for 

distribution and public inspection at: 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

Public Reference Room 

888 First Street, N.E., Room 2A 

Washington, DC 20426 

(202) 502-8371 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
5

Copies are also available at the following locations: 

Gloucester County Library 

415 Swedesboro Road 

Gibbstown, NJ 08027 

Gloucester County Library 

101 Beckett Road 

Logan Township, NJ 08085 

J. Lewis Crozier Library 

620 Engle Street 

Chester, PA 19013 

Aston Public Library 

3720 Concord Road 

Aston, PA 19014 

Brandywine Hundred Branch of 

the New Castle County Library 

1300 Foulk Road 

Wilmington, DE 19803 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

Regulatory Branch 

John Wanamaker Building 

100 Penn Square East 

Philadelphia, PA 19107 

215-656-5940 

 

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

identified above. In addition, copies of the final EIS have been mailed to federal, state, 

and local agencies; public interest groups; individuals and affected landowners who 

requested a copy of the final EIS; libraries; newspapers; and parties to this proceeding. 

 

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

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

days after the EPA publishes a notice of availability of a final EIS. However, the CEQ 

regulations provide an exception to this rule when an agency decision is subject to a 

formal internal process that allows other agencies or the public to make their views 

known. In such cases, the agency decision may be made at the same time the notice of 

the final EIS is published, allowing both periods to run concurrently. Should the FERC 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
6

issue Crown Landing and Texas Eastern authorizations for the proposed projects, it 

would be subject to a 30-day rehearing period. 

 

Additional information about the project is available from the Commission’s 

Office of External Affairs, at 1-866-208-FERC or on the FERC Internet website 

(www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link. Click on the eLibrary link, click on “General 

Search” and enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the Docket Number 

field. Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For assistance, please contact 

FERC Online Support at FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov or toll free at 1-866-208-3676, 

or for TTY, contact (202) 502-8659. The eLibrary link on the FERC Internet website 

also provides access to the texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as 

orders, notices, and rulemakings. 

Magalie R. Salas, 

Secretary 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Crown Landing LNG and 

Logan Lateral Projects

Crown Landing LLC

Texas Eastern Transmission, LP

Docket Nos. CP04-411-000 and CP04-416-000

FERC/EIS – 0179

April 2006

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Office of Energy Projects

Washington, DC 20426

Cooperating Agencies

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Volume I

Crown Landing LNG and

Logan Lateral Projects

Crown Landing LLC

Texas Eastern Transmission, LP

FERC/EIS – 0179 Docket Nos.: CP04-411-000 

CP04-416-000

April 2006

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Office of Energy Projects

Washington, DC 20426

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Volume II - Appendices

Crown Landing LNG and 

Logan Lateral Projects

Crown Landing LLC

Texas Eastern Transmission, LP

Docket Nos. CP04-411-000 and CP04-416-000

FERC/EIS – 0179

April 2006

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Office of Energy Projects

Washington, DC 20426

Cooperating Agencies

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Volume II - Appendices

Crown Landing LNG and

Logan Lateral Projects

Crown Landing LLC

Texas Eastern Transmission, LP

FERC/EIS – 0179 Docket Nos.: CP04-411-000 

CP04-416-000

April 2006

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Office of Energy Projects

Washington, DC 20426

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
LIST OF APPENDICES 

APPENDIX A FINAL EIS DISTRIBUTION LIST FOR THE CROWN LANDING 

LNG PROJECT 

APPENDIX B TYPICAL RIGHT-OF-WAY CROSS SECTIONS 

APPENDIX C TEMPORARY EXTRA WORKSPACES AND ACCESS ROADS 

APPENDIX D TEXAS EASTERN’S SOIL EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION 

CONTROL PLAN 

APPENDIX E ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT ASSESSMENT 

APPENDIX F RESIDENCES AND OTHER STRUCTURES WITHIN 50 FEET OF 

THE CONSTRUCTION WORK AREA FOR THE LOGAN LATERAL 

PROJECT 

APPENDIX G REFERENCES AND CONTACTS 

APPENDIX H LIST OF PREPARERS 

APPENDIX I FINAL SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PLAN 

APPENDIX J COMMENTS AND RESPONSES ON DRAFT EIS 

APPENDIX K DRAFT GENERAL CONFORMITY DETERMINATION 

APPENDIX L U.S. COAST GUARD LETTER OF INTENT AND WATERWAY 

SUITABILITY REPORT LETTER 

APPENDIX M SUBJECT INDEX 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

i 

Crown Landing LNG and Logan Lateral Projects 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Page

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

LIST OF APPENDICES............................................................................................................................... v 

LIST OF TABLES....................................................................................................................................... vi 

LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................................................................viii 

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS .................................................................................................... ix 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................... ES-1

PROJECT IMPACTS ................................................................................................................ES-2

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED ........................................................................................... ES-8

PUBLIC INVOLvEMENT AND AREAS OF CONCERN .................................................... ES-10

MAJOR CONCLUSIONS....................................................................................................... ES-11

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

1.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THIS STATEMENT ........................................................1-2

1.2 PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED.................................................................................1-3

1.3 PERMITS, APPROVALS, AND REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS.........................1-5

1.4 STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT PROCESS ............................................................1-8

1.5 PUBLIC REVIEW AND COMMENT..........................................................................1-14

1.6 NONJURISDICTIONAL FACILITIES ........................................................................1-17

2.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION.................................................................................2-1

2.1 EXISTING SITE Conditions ...........................................................................................2-1

2.2 PROPOSED PROJECT ...................................................................................................2-1

2.2.1 LNG Terminal.....................................................................................................2-4

2.2.1.1 Ship Unloading Facility.........................................................................2-4

2.2.1.2 LNG Storage Tanks ...............................................................................2-6

2.2.1.3 Vaporization System..............................................................................2-6

2.2.1.4 Vapor Handling System.........................................................................2-8

2.2.1.5 Nitrogen Injection System .....................................................................2-8

2.2.2 LNG Ships ..........................................................................................................2-8

2.2.3 Pipeline Facilities..............................................................................................2-11

2.3 LAND REQUIREMENTS ............................................................................................2-12

2.3.1 LNG Terminal...................................................................................................2-12

2.3.2 Pipeline Facilities..............................................................................................2-16

2.4 CONSTRUCTION PROCEDURES..............................................................................2-18

2.4.1 LNG Terminal...................................................................................................2-19

2.4.1.1 LNG Storage and Process Facilities ....................................................2-19

2.4.1.2 Ship Unloading Facility.......................................................................2-21

2.4.1.3 Dredging and Dredge Disposal............................................................2-21

2.4.2 Pipeline Facilities..............................................................................................2-23

2.4.2.1 General Construction Techniques........................................................2-23

2.4.2.2 Special Construction Techniques.........................................................2-28

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont’d) 

ii 

2.5 CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE...................................................................................2-30

2.6 ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE, INSPECTION, AND MITIGATION 

MONITORING..............................................................................................................2-31

2.7 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE PROCEDURES..............................................2-31

2.7.1 LNG Terminal...................................................................................................2-31

2.7.2 Pipeline Facilities..............................................................................................2-32

2.8 SAFETY CONTROLS ..................................................................................................2-32

2.8.1 LNG Terminal...................................................................................................2-32

2.8.1.1 Spill Impoundment System..................................................................2-32

2.8.1.2 Fire and Hazard Detection System ......................................................2-34

2.8.1.3 Fire and Hazard Control System..........................................................2-35

2.8.1.4 Emergency Shutdown System .............................................................2-37

2.8.2 Pipeline Facilities..............................................................................................2-37

2.8.2.1 Corrosion Protection and Detection Systems ......................................2-37

2.8.2.2 Emergency Response Procedures ........................................................2-37

2.9 FUTURE PLANS AND ABANDONMENT ................................................................2-37

3.0 ALTERNATIVES.........................................................................................................................3-1

3.1 NO ACTION OR POSTPONED ACTION.....................................................................3-2

3.2 SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES...........................................................................................3-5

3.2.1 Existing Onshore and Offshore LNG Facilities..................................................3-6

3.2.2 Recently Approved, Proposed, or Planned LNG Projects ................................3-12

3.2.2.1 Onshore LNG Projects.........................................................................3-12

3.2.2.2 Offshore LNG Projects ........................................................................3-17

3.2.3 Pipeline System Alternatives ............................................................................3-21

3.3 LNG TERMINAL ALTERNATIVES...........................................................................3-23

3.3.1 Regional Review...............................................................................................3-23

3.3.2 Port Review ......................................................................................................3-23

3.3.2.1 Offshore Ports......................................................................................3-23

3.3.2.2 Specific Offshore Port Review ............................................................3-30

3.3.2.3 Coastal Ports ........................................................................................3-33

3.3.3 Site Specific Review of Onshore Sites along the Delaware Bay and River .....3-36

3.4 PIER ALTERNATIVES................................................................................................3-59

3.5 PIPELINE ALTERNATIVES .......................................................................................3-64

3.5.1 Pipeline System Alternatives ............................................................................3-64

3.5.2 Major Route Alternatives..................................................................................3-65

3.5.2.1 Railroad Alternative.............................................................................3-65

3.5.2.2 Hayes Street Alternative ......................................................................3-68

3.5.2.3 Sunoco Alternative ..............................................................................3-68

3.5.2.4 Upland Road Alternative .....................................................................3-69

3.5.3 Minor Route Variations ....................................................................................3-70

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS ...............................................................................................4-1

4.1 GEOLOGIC RESOURCES.............................................................................................4-2

4.1.1 Physiographic and Geologic Setting...................................................................4-2 

4.1.2 Blasting ...............................................................................................................4-4 

4.1.3 Mineral Resources ..............................................................................................4-5 

4.1.4 Geologic Hazards................................................................................................4-5

4.1.4.1 Seismic-related Hazards ........................................................................4-5

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont’d) 

iii 

4.1.4.2 Load-Bearing Capacity..........................................................................4-8

4.1.4.3 Slope Instability .....................................................................................4-9

4.1.4.4 Subsidence .............................................................................................4-9

4.1.4.5 Flooding.................................................................................................4-9

4.1.5 Paleontological Resources ................................................................................4-10

4.2 SOILS AND SEDIMENTS ...........................................................................................4-11

4.2.1 Soil Resources...................................................................................................4-11 

4.2.2 Sediments..........................................................................................................4-19

4.3 WATER RESOURCES .................................................................................................4-28

4.3.1 Groundwater .....................................................................................................4-28 

4.3.2 Surface Water ...................................................................................................4-32

4.4 WETLANDS .................................................................................................................4-42

4.5 VEGETATION..............................................................................................................4-48

4.6 WILDLIFE AND AQUATIC RESOURCES................................................................4-52

4.6.1 Wildlife Resources............................................................................................4-52 

4.6.2 Aquatic Resources ............................................................................................4-56 

4.6.3 Essential Fish Habitat .......................................................................................4-71

4.7 THREATENED, ENDANGERED, AND OTHER SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES .....4-73

4.7.1 Federally Listed Threatened and Endangered Species .....................................4-75 

4.7.2 State-listed Species ...........................................................................................4-83

4.8 LAND USE, RECREATION, AND VISUAL RESOURCES ......................................4-88

4.8.1 Land Use...........................................................................................................4-88

4.8.1.1 LNG Terminal .....................................................................................4-88

4.8.1.2 Pipeline Facilities.................................................................................4-89

4.8.2 Existing Residences and Planned Developments .............................................4-93

4.8.2.1 LNG Terminal .....................................................................................4-93

4.8.2.2 Pipeline Facilities.................................................................................4-94

4.8.3 Coastal Zone Management ...............................................................................4-97

4.8.3.1 New Jersey...........................................................................................4-98

4.8.3.2 Delaware..............................................................................................4-99

4.8.3.3 Pennsylvania......................................................................................4-101

4.8.4 Hazardous Waste Sites....................................................................................4-101 

4.8.5 Recreation and Public Interest Areas..............................................................4-105

4.8.5.1 Designated Recreation and Public Interest Areas..............................4-105

4.8.5.2 General Recreation ............................................................................4-106

4.8.6 Visual Resources.............................................................................................4-109

4.8.6.1 LNG Terminal ...................................................................................4-109

4.8.6.2 Pipeline Facilities...............................................................................4-113

4.9 SOCIOECONOMICS..................................................................................................4-115

4.9.1 Population, Economy, and Employment ........................................................4-115 

4.9.2 Housing...........................................................................................................4-117 

4.9.3 Public Services................................................................................................4-118 

4.9.4 Transportation and Traffic..............................................................................4-119

4.9.4.1 Vehicle Traffic...................................................................................4-119

4.9.4.2 Ship Traffic........................................................................................4-121

4.9.5 Property Values...............................................................................................4-122 

4.9.6 Tax Revenues..................................................................................................4-124 

4.9.7 Environmental Justice.....................................................................................4-124

4.10 CULTURAL RESOURCES ........................................................................................4-130

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont’d) 

iv 

4.10.1 Results of the Cultural Resources Surveys .....................................................4-130 

4.10.2 Native American Consultation........................................................................4-134 

4.10.3 Unanticipated Discoveries ..............................................................................4-135

4.11 AIR QUALITY AND NOISE ..........................................................................4-136

4.11.1 Air Quality ......................................................................................................4-136

4.11.2 Noise...............................................................................................................4-147

4.12 RELIABILITY AND SAFETY...................................................................................4-154

4.12.1 LNG Hazards ..................................................................................................4-155

4.12.2 Cryogenic Design and Technical Review.......................................................4-156

4.12.3 Storage and Retention Systems.......................................................................4-162

4.12.4 Siting Requirements – Thermal and Dispersion Exclusion Zones .................4-167

4.12.5 Marine Safety..................................................................................................4-175

4.12.5.1 Delaware Bay and River and the Marcus Hook Area......................4-182

4.12.5.2 Requirements for LNG Ship Operations..........................................4-185

4.12.5.3 Environmental Impacts Associated with Coast Guard Actions ........4-191

4.12.5.4 LNG Ship Safety..............................................................................4-196

4.12.6 Terrorism and Security Issues.........................................................................4-203

4.12.7 Pipeline Facilities............................................................................................4-205

4.12.7.1 Safety Standards ..............................................................................4-205

4.12.7.2 Pipeline Accident Data ....................................................................4-208

4.12.7.3 Impact on Public Safety...................................................................4-210

4.12.8 Additional Safety Issues Identified During Scoping ......................................4-212

4.12.9 Conclusions on Safety Issues..........................................................................4-213

4.13 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS.........................................................................................4-215

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

5.1 SUMMARY OF THE STAFF’S ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS .............................5-1

5.2 FERC STAFF’S RECOMMENDED MITIGATION....................................................5-17

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
APPENDICES 

v 

VOLUME II – APPENDICES

APPENDIX A FINAL EIS DISTRIBUTION LIST FOR THE CROWN LANDING LNG 

PROJECT 

APPENDIX B TYPICAL RIGHT-OF-WAY CROSS SECTIONS 

APPENDIX C TEMPORARY EXTRA WORKSPACES AND ACCESS ROADS 

APPENDIX D TEXAS EASTERN’S SOIL EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL 

PLAN 

APPENDIX E ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT ASSESSMENT 

APPENDIX F RESIDENCES AND OTHER STRUCTURES WITHIN 50 FEET OF THE 

CONSTRUCTION WORK AREA FOR THE LOGAN LATERAL PROJECT 

APPENDIX G REFERENCES AND CONTACTS 

APPENDIX H LIST OF PREPARERS 

APPENDIX I FINAL SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PLAN 

APPENDIX J COMMENTS AND RESPONSES ON DRAFT EIS 

APPENDIX K DRAFT GENERAL CONFORMITY DETERMINATION 

APPENDIX L U.S. COAST GUARD LETTER OF INTENT AND WATERWAY 

SUITABILITY REPORT LETTER 

APPENDIX M SUBJECT INDEX 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
TABLES 

Number Title Page

vi 

1.3-1 Major Permits, Approvals, and Consultations for the Crown Landing LNG Project.............1-9

1.3-2 Major Permits, Approvals, and Consultations for the Logan Lateral Project ......................1-12 

1.4-1 List of Interagency Meetings Conducted for the Proposed Projects ....................................1-14 

1.5-1 Primary Issues Identified and Comments Received During the Public Scoping Process 

for the Crown Landing LNG and Logan Lateral Projects....................................................1-16

2.3.2-1 Summary of Land Requirements Associated with Construction and Operation of the 

Pipeline Facilities for the Logan Lateral Project..................................................................2-16 

2.3.2-2 Location of Existing Rights-of-Way in Relation to the Proposed Pipeline Route ...............2-17 

2.8.1-1 Federal Siting and Design Requirements for LNG Facilities...............................................2-34 

2.8.1-2 Proposed Locations of Smoke, Combustible Gas, and UV/IR Flame Detectors at the 

LNG Terminal ......................................................................................................................2-35 

2.8.1-3 Proposed Locations of Fire Protection System Equipment at the LNG Terminal ...............2-36 

3.1-1 Comparison of Air Emissions from Burning Fossil Fuels ....................................................3-4 

3.2.1-1 Environmental Comparison of Crown Landing LNG and Logan Lateral Projects to the 

Cove Point Expansion Project................................................................................................3-7

3.2.2-1 Recently Approved, Proposed, or Planned Onshore LNG Terminals..................................3-13 

3.2.2-2 Recently Approved, Proposed, and Planned Offshore LNG Terminals...............................3-18 

3.3.2-1 Estimated Air Emissions from LNG Vessel Operations During Offshore Cargo 

Unloading .............................................................................................................................3-32 

3.3.3-1 Environmental Comparison of the LNG Terminal Site Alternatives to the Crown Landing 

LNG Terminal Site...............................................................................................................3-40 

3.4-1 Comparison of Alternative Pier Options With the Proposed Pier Design............................3-60 

3.5.2-1 Environmental Comparison of Alternative Routes to the Proposed Route ..........................3-67 

4.2.1-1 Acreage of Soils and Soil Characteristics at the Proposed LNG Terminal Site...................4-11 

4.2.1-2 Analytical Results of Soil Samples Collected within the Proposed LNG Terminal Site .....4-12 

4.2.1-3 Acreage of Soil Characteristics for the Proposed Pipeline Right-of-Way ..........................4-16 

4.2.2-1 Comparison of Average Metal Concentrations in the Sediment Samples and NOAA 

Sediment Screening Values..................................................................................................4-23

4.3.1-1 Water Supply Wells Located Within 150 Feet of the Logan Lateral Route.........................4-29 

4.3.2-1 Waterbodies Crossed by the Logan Lateral Project .............................................................4-34 

4.3.2-2 A Summary of Metal Concentrations in Sediments from the Proposed LNG Terminal 

Site and the Marcus Hook Channel and Berth .....................................................................4-36 

4.4-1 Wetlands and Wetland Transition Areas Located on the Proposed LNG Terminal 

Site Property.........................................................................................................................4-43 

4.4-2 Wetlands Located Along the Logan Lateral Route ..............................................................4-46 

4.5-1 Acreage of Vegetative Communities Affected by Construction and Operation of the Proposed 

LNG Terminal .....................................................................................................................4-49 

4.5-2 Acreage of Vegetative Communities Affected by Construction and Operation of the Logan 

Lateral Project .....................................................................................................................4-50 

4.6.2-1 Representative Game and Commercial Fish Species Known to Occur in the 

Project Area..........................................................................................................................4-57 

4.6.2-2 Estimate of Potential Impacts on Selected Fish Species in the Delaware River as 

the Result of Ballast Water Withdrawal by LNG Ships Unloading Cargo at the Proposed 

LNG Terminal ......................................................................................................................4-67 

4.6.2-3 Estimate of Potential Impacts of Hydrostatic Test Water Withdrawal during Construction of 

the Proposed LNG Terminal on Selected Fish Species in the Delaware River....................4-70 

4.7-1 Special Status Species Potentially Occurring in the Project Area........................................4-74 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
TABLES (cont’d) 

Number Title Page

vii 

4.8.1-1 Land Area Affected by the Proposed LNG Terminal...........................................................4-88 

4.8.1-2 Land Uses Crossed by the Pipeline Route for the Logan Lateral Project ............................4-89 

4.8.1-3 Acres of Land Affected by Construction and Operation of the Pipeline Facilities for the 

Logan Lateral Project ...........................................................................................................4-91 

4.8.2-1 Planned Developments within 0.25 Mile of the Proposed Pipeline Route...........................4-96 

4.8.4-1 Potential Hazardous and Solid Waste Sites within 0.25 Mile of the Proposed Pipeline 

Facilities .............................................................................................................................4-103 

4.8.5-1 Summary of Public Waterfront Access Sites Evaluated for the Crown Landing 

LNG Project .......................................................................................................................4-110 

4.8.6-1 Summary of Visual Analysis Conducted for the Crown Landing LNG Project ................4-114 

4.9.1-1 Existing Socioeconomic Conditions for the Crown Landing LNG and Logan 

Lateral Projects...................................................................................................................4-116 

4.9.2-1 2000 Housing Characteristics for the Project Area ............................................................4-117 

4.9.2-2 Temporary Accommodations Available in the Project Area..............................................4-118 

4.9.7-1 Racial/Ethnic Statistics for the Project Area ......................................................................4-125 

4.9.7-2 Economic Statistics for the Project Area............................................................................4-126 

4.11.1-1 Ambient Air Quality Standards..........................................................................................4-137 

4.11.1-2 Existing Ambient Air Concentrations for the Project Area................................................4-138 

4.11.1-3 Emission Source Information for LNG Terminal Equipment ............................................4-139 

4.11.1-4 Operating Air Emissions Summary for the Proposed LNG Terminal................................4-141 

4.11.1-5 Estimated Air Emissions from the Crown Landing LNG Mobile Sources ........................4-147 

4.11.2-1 Noise Sensitive Areas Near the Proposed LNG Terminal Site ..........................................4-148 

4.11.2-2 Existing Noise Levels at the Closest Noise Sensitive Areas..............................................4-150 

4.11.2-3 Noise Specifications for Proposed LNG Terminal.............................................................4-152 

4.11.2-4 Estimated Noise Impact from Proposed LNG Terminal ....................................................4-152 

4.12.4-1 Impoundment Areas for LNG Spills ..................................................................................4-170 

4.12.4-2 Thermal Exclusion Zones...................................................................................................4-171 

4.12.5-1 Number of Commercial Vessels Transiting Delaware Bay and River...............................4-183 

4.12.5-2 Minimum Striking Speed to Penetrate LNG Cargo Tanks.................................................4-198 

4.12.5-3 LNG Spills on Water..........................................................................................................4-201 

4.12.7-1 Natural Gas Service Incidents by Cause ............................................................................4-209 

4.12.7-2 Outside Forces Incidents by Cause (1970-1984)................................................................4-210 

4.12.7-3 External Corrosion by Level of Control (1970-1984)........................................................4-210 

4.12.7-4 Annual Average Fatalities - Natural Gas Transmission and Gathering Systems ...............4-211 

4.12.7-5 Nationwide Accidental Deaths...........................................................................................4-211 

4.13-1 Past, Present, and Future Projects That Could Cumulatively Impact Resources of Concern 

Near the Crown Landing LNG and Logan Lateral Projects...............................................4-216 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
FIGURES 

Number Title Page

viii 

2.1-1 Aerial Photograph of Proposed LNG Terminal Site ..............................................................2-2 

2.2-1 General Project Locations ......................................................................................................2-3 

2.2.1-1 Proposed LNG Terminal Site Plan.........................................................................................2-5 

2.2.1-2 Conceptual Design of LNG Storage Tanks............................................................................2-7 

2.2.3-1 Proposed Logan Lateral Route (Sheet 1 of 3) ......................................................................2-13 

2.2.3-1 Proposed Logan Lateral Route (Sheet 2 of 3) ......................................................................2-14 

2.2.3-1 Proposed Logan Lateral Route (Sheet 3 of 3) ......................................................................2-15 

2.4.1-1 Proposed Dredging Area ......................................................................................................2-22 

2.4.1-2 Location of Proposed Dredge Disposal Site.........................................................................2-24 

2.4.2-1 Typical Pipeline Construction Sequence..............................................................................2-25 

3.2.3-1 Existing Pipeline Systems ....................................................................................................3-22 

3.3.3-1 Proposed and Alternative LNG Terminal Sites Along the Delaware River.........................3-43 

3.3.3-2 Church Landing – LNG Terminal Site Alternative..............................................................3-44 

3.3.3-3 Carneys Point – LNG Terminal Site Alternative .................................................................3-46 

3.3.3-4 Ferro – LNG Terminal Site Alternative ...............................................................................3-48 

3.3.3-5 Shuran – LNG Terminal Site Alternative.............................................................................3-49

3.3.3-6 Repaupo – LNG Terminal Site Alternative..........................................................................3-51 

3.3.3-7 Paulsboro – LNG Terminal Site Alternative........................................................................3-53 

3.3.3-8 Mantua Creek – LNG Terminal Site Alternative .................................................................3-55 

3.3.3-9 Salem and Hope Creek - LNG Terminal Site Alternative....................................................3-57 

3.4-1 Pier Option A........................................................................................................................3-61 

3.4-2 Pier Option B........................................................................................................................3-62 

3.4-3 Pier Option C........................................................................................................................3-63 

3.5.2-1 Major Route Alternatives .....................................................................................................3-66 

3.5.3-1 Palmer Street Variation ........................................................................................................3-72 

3.5.3-2 Ward Street Variations .........................................................................................................3-73 

4.1.1-1 Geologic Cross Section of the LNG Terminal Site ................................................................4-3 

4.2.1-1 Soil Sampling Locations ......................................................................................................4-13 

4.2.2-1 Sediment Core Locations .....................................................................................................4-21 

4.4-1 Wetlands Located on the LNG Terminal Site ......................................................................4-44 

4.9.7-1 Environmental Justice Communities..................................................................................4-127 

4.11.2-1 Noise Sensitive Areas.........................................................................................................4-149 

H.1 Examples of Single Containment Tanks ............................................................................4-164 

H.3 Examples of Double Containment Tanks...........................................................................4-165 

H.4 Examples of Full Containment Tanks ................................................................................4-166 

4.12.5-1 Proposed Shipping Route as Described in Letter of Intent to the Coast Guard .................4-178 

4.12.5-2 Potential Sensitive Resources Along Ship Route...............................................................4-193

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 

ix 

AADT average annual daily traffic 

ABSG ABSG Consulting Inc. 

ACEEE American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy 

ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

AMSC Delaware Bay Area Maritime Security Committee 

APE area of potential effects 

AQCRs Air Quality Control Regions 

ASSRT Atlantic Sturgeon Status Review Team 

AST aboveground storage tank 

ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry 

BA biological assessment 

BACT Best Available Control Technology 

Bcfd billion cubic feet per day 

BG LNG BG LNG Services, L.L.C. 

BP BP Energy Company 

Btu British thermal unit 

Btu/ft2

-hr British thermal units per square foot per hour 

CAA Clean Air Act 

CAAA Clean Air Act Amendments 

CAFRA Coastal Area Facility Review Act 

CDC certain dangerous cargoes 

CEII Critical Energy Infrastructure Information 

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality 

CERCLIS Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability 

 Information System 

Certificate Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

ChevronTexaco ChevronTexaco Corporation 

Class I Mandatory Federal Class I 

cm centimeters 

CMP Coastal Management Program 

CO carbon monoxide 

CO2 carbon dioxide 

Coast Guard U.S. Coast Guard 

COC Certificate of Compliance 

COE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

COI Coast Guard Certificate of Inspection 

Columbia Gas Columbia Gas Transmission Company 

Commission Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

CPT cone penetration tests 

CRA Charles River Associates 

Crown Landing Crown Landing, LLC 

CWA Clean Water Act of 1972 

CZMA Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 

CZMP Coastal Zone Management Program 

DAC Delaware Administrative Code 

dBA decibels on the A-weighted scale 

DCMP Delaware Coastal Management Program 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS (cont’d) 

x 

DDT dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane 

DMT dilatometer 

DNREC Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control 

DOD U.S. Department of Defense 

DOE U.S. Department of Energy 

Dominion Dominion Cove Point LNG, LP 

DOT U.S. Department of Transportation 

DP dynamically positioned 

DRBC Delaware River Basin Commission 

DRCS Delaware River Creel Survey 

DSCZA Delaware State Coastal Zone Act of 1971 

EFH Essential Fish Habitat 

EI Environmental Inspector 

EIA Energy Information Administration 

EIS Environmental Impact Statement 

EN 1473 European Standard for LNG facilities 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

ESA Endangered Species Act of 1973 

ESS emergency shutdown system 

Excelerate Excelerate Energy, L.L.C. 

F Fahrenheit 

FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

FERC Plan FERC’s Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation and Maintenance Plan 

FERC Procedures FERC’s Wetland and Waterbody Construction and Mitigation Procedures 

FPC Federal Power Commission 

FSO Facility Security Officer 

FSRU Floating, storage, and regasification unit 

ft3 cubic feet 

FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

g gravity 

Gas Tanker Code International Code for the Construction and Equipment of Ships Carrying 

Liquefied Gases in Bulk 

GBS gravity-based structure 

gpm gallons per minute 

GTB geotechnical boring 

HAP hazardous air pollutant 

HCAs high consequence areas 

HDD horizontal direction drill 

hp horsepower 

IMO International Maritime Organization 

kPa kilopascals 

kV kilovolt 

LAER lowest achievable emission rate 

Lday daytime sound level 

Ldn day-night sound level 

Leq(24) 24-hour equivalent sound level 

LFL lower flammability limit 

LNG liquefied natural gas 

Lnight nighttime sound level 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS (cont’d) 

xi 

LOR Letter of Recommendation 

LPG Liquefied Petroleum Gas 

LUST leaking underground storage tank 

m3

 cubic meters 

m3

/hr cubic meters per hour 

MACT Maximum Achievable Control Technology 

MARAD Maritime Administration 

MARSEC Maritime Security 

Mc Made-land/coarse 

MCE Maximum Considered Earthquake 

MCS Management Classification System 

Memorandum Memorandum of Understanding on Natural Gas Transportation Facilities 

Mf Made-land/fine 

mg/kg milligrams per kilogram 

mg/L milligrams per liter 

MLLW mean lower low water 

mm millimeters 

MMBtu/hr million British thermal units per hour 

MMcfd million cubic feet per day 

MMI Modified Mercalli Intensity 

MNI Moffatt & Nichol International 

MOA Memorandum of Agreement 

Monitoring and 

Contingency Plan Horizontal Directional Drill Monitoring and Contingency Plan 

MP milepost 

mph miles per hour 

MSA Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act 

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

NAVD North American Vertical Datum 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

NESHAPs National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

NFPA National Fire Protection Association 

NFPA 59A NFPA Standards for the Production, Storage, and Handling of LNG 

NGA Natural Gas Act 

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act 

NJAAQS New Jersey Ambient Air Quality Standards 

NJAC New Jersey Administrative Code 

NJAPCA New Jersey Air Pollution Control Act 

NJCMP New Jersey Coastal Management Program 

NJDEP New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection 

NJDFW New Jersey Division of Fish and Wildlife 

NJDOT New Jersey Department of Transportation 

NJSCC New Jersey Soil Cleanup Criteria 

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service 

NNSR Nonattainment New Source Review 

NOA Notice of Availability 

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

NO2 nitrogen dioxide 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS (cont’d) 

xii 

NOI Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed 

Crown Landing LNG Project, Request for Comments on Environmental Issues, 

and Notice of Public Scoping Meeting 

Northeast Gateway Northeast Gateway Energy Bridge L.L.C. 

NOx low nitrogen oxides 

NPC National Petroleum Council 

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service 

NRHP National Register of Historic Places 

NSAs noise sensitive areas 

NSPS New Source Performance Standards 

NSR New Source Review 

NVIC Navigation and Vessel Inspection Circular 

NYISO New York Independent System Operator 

O3 ozone 

OBE Operating Basis Earthquake 

OCPPC Office of Coastal Planning and Program Coordination 

OEP Office of Energy Projects 

OPS Office of Pipeline Safety 

OCRM Office of Coast and Ocean Resource Management 

OWM Office of Water Management 

PADCNR Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources 

PADEP Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection 

PADOT Pennsylvania Department of Transportation 

PAFBC Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission 

PAH polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon 

Pb lead 

PCB polychlorinated biphenyl 

PCZMP Pennsylvania Coastal Zone Management Plan 

PEL Probable Effects Level 

PGA peak ground acceleration 

PGS Pennsylvania Geological Survey 

PGW Philadelphia Gas Works 

PM10 particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter 

PM2.5 particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter 

ppb parts per billion 

ppm parts per million 

ppmvd parts per million by volume on a dry basis 

ppt parts per thousand 

PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

psig pounds per square inch gauge 

PTE potential to emit 

Quest Quest Consultants, Inc. 

RM river mile 

RNA Regulated Navigation Area 

RPT rapid phase transition 

RSPA Research and Special Programs Administration 

Sandia Report Guidance on Risk Analysis and Safety Implications of a Large Liquefied Natural 

 Gas (LNG) Spill Over Water

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS (cont’d) 

xiii 

SAP Sampling and Analysis Plan 

SB soil boring 

Secretary Secretary of the Commission 

SESC Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control 

Shell Shell USA Oil & Gas 

SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer 

SIP state implementation plan 

SNG Southern Natural Gas Company 

SO2 sulfur dioxide 

SOLAS International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea

SOTA state-of-the-art 

Southern LNG Southern LNG, Inc. 

SPCC Spill Prevention, Containment and Countermeasure Plan 

SPT standard penetration tests 

SSE Safe Shutdown Earthquake 

Strategy Strategy to Reduce Ship Strikes of Right Whales 

SVOCs semi volatile organics 

Tcf trillion cubic feet 

TEL Threshold Effects Level 

Texas Eastern Texas Eastern Transmission, LP 

TNT trinitrotoluene 

TPH total petroleum hydrocarbons 

tpy tons per year 

Tractabel Tractabel LNG North America, L.L.C. 

Transco Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation 

Trunkline Gas CMS Trunkline Gas Company, L.L.C. 

Trunkline LNG CMS Trunkline LNG Company, L.L.C. 

TSP total suspended particulate 

TSS total suspended solids 

USC United States Code 

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture 

USGS U.S. Geological Survey 

UV/IR ultraviolet/infrared 

VOCs volatile organics 

Weeks Marine Weeks Marine, Inc. 

WREN Water Resources Education Network 

WSA Waterway Suitability Assessment 

WSR Waterway Suitability Report 

μg/kg microgram per kilogram 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
ES-1 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

This final environmental impact statement (EIS) for the Crown Landing LNG and Logan Lateral 

Projects has been prepared by the staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or 

Commission) to fulfill the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the 

Commission’s implementing regulations under Title 18, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 380. The 

purpose of this document is to inform the public and the permitting agencies about the potential adverse 

and beneficial environmental impacts of the proposed project and its alternatives; and to recommend 

mitigation measures that would avoid or reduce any significant adverse impact to the maximum extent 

possible. 

The FERC is the federal agency responsible for authorizing applications to construct and operate 

onshore LNG import and interstate natural gas transmission facilities. The U.S. Coast Guard (Coast 

Guard) is the federal agency responsible for issuing a Letter of Recommendation (LOR) regarding the 

suitability of the waterway for LNG marine traffic. The Coast Guard exercises regulatory authority over 

LNG facilities that affect the safety and security of port areas and navigable waterways under Executive 

Order 10173; the Magnuson Act (50 United States Code (USC) section 191); the Ports and Waterways 

Safety Act of 1972, as amended (33 USC section 1221, et seq.); and the Maritime Transportation Security 

Act of 2002 (46 USC section 701). The Coast Guard is responsible for matters related to navigation 

safety, vessel engineering and safety standards, and all matters pertaining to the safety of facilities or 

equipment located in or adjacent to navigable waters up to the last valve immediately before the receiving 

tanks. The Coast Guard also has authority for LNG facility security plan review, approval and 

compliance verification as provided in Title 33 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 105, and siting as 

it pertains to the management of marine traffic in and around the LNG facility. 

The vertical line in the margin identifies text that has been modified in the final EIS 

and differs from the corresponding text in the draft EIS. 

Crown Landing LLC (Crown Landing) proposes to construct and operate a liquefied natural gas 

(LNG) terminal in New Jersey and Delaware, and Texas Eastern Transmission, LP (Texas Eastern) 

proposes to construct and operate a new natural gas pipeline and ancillary facilities in New Jersey and 

Pennsylvania. Crown Landing’s proposed facilities would transport a baseload rate of 1.2 billion cubic 

feet per day (Bcfd) and a maximum rate of 1.4 Bcfd (using spare equipment) of imported LNG to the 

United States market. Crown Landing proposes to interconnect the LNG facilities onsite with three 

pipelines. One interconnect would be with the new pipeline that Texas Eastern proposes to construct and 

operate (i.e., Logan Lateral) between its existing Chester Junction facility in Brookhaven Borough, 

Pennsylvania to the proposed LNG terminal. The other two interconnects would be with existing 

pipelines that currently cross the site, one pipeline owned and operated by Columbia Gas Transmission 

Company (Columbia Gas) and the other pipeline owned and operated by Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line 

Corporation (Transco). 

The LNG terminal and pipeline facilities would include: 

• a ship unloading facility with a single berth capable of receiving LNG ships with cargo 

capacities of up to 200,000 cubic meters (m3

); 

• three 150,000 m3

 (net capacity) full containment LNG storage tanks; 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
ES-2 

• a closed-loop shell and tube heat exchanger vaporization system, sized for a normal 

sendout of 1.2 Bcfd; 

• various ancillary facilities, including administrative offices, warehouse/maintenance 

building, main control center, guardhouse, and a pier control room; 

• three meter and regulation stations located on the proposed LNG terminal site; and 

• approximately 11 miles of 30-inch-diameter natural gas pipeline, a pig launcher and 

receiver facility at the beginning and end of the pipeline, a mainline valve, and a meter 

and regulation station at the end of the pipeline. 

PROJECT IMPACTS 

The environmental issues associated with construction and operation of the Crown Landing LNG 

and Logan Lateral Projects are analyzed in this final EIS using information provided by Crown Landing 

and Texas Eastern and further developed from data requests; field investigations by the Commission staff; 

literature research; alternative analyses; comments from federal, state, and local agencies; and input from 

public organizations and individual citizens. 

The LNG terminal would be developed on a privately owned 175-acre parcel. Of the 175-acre 

site, about 39 acres would be permanently developed for the LNG terminal facility and access road. The 

proposed LNG terminal would also require dredging of up to about 1.24 million cubic yards of sediment 

from the Delaware River. This dredging would disturb about 30.0 acres of the bed of the river. 

Construction of the Logan Lateral Project would temporarily affect another 177.3 acres of land. Of this 

land affected by construction of the pipeline facilities, about 54.1 acres would be retained as permanent 

right-of-way for the pipeline and 1.8 acres for the aboveground facilities. 

Construction and operation of the project would have minimal impact on geologic resources in 

the project area, and the potential for geologic hazards or other natural events to significantly impact the 

project is low. The LNG storage tanks and other critical structures at the terminal site would be designed 

to address predicted ground shaking associated with a seismic event. The proposed LNG terminal site 

would be protected against storm surge associated with tropical storms of the magnitude that are likely to 

affect the project area. 

Soils at the proposed LNG terminal site consist largely of dredged material that was placed onsite 

during past dredging of the Delaware River. Crown Landing identified some areas of soil contamination 

on the site that would require further evaluation. Construction of the LNG facilities would increase the 

potential for soil erosion on the site and sedimentation in adjacent waterbodies and wetlands. Soils along 

the pipeline route would also be subject to various impacts, including compaction and erosion. Crown 

Landing and Texas Eastern would minimize impacts on soils through their implementation of the erosion 

and sedimentation control measures contained in our Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation, and 

Maintenance Plan (Plan) and Wetland and Waterbody Construction and Mitigation Procedures 

(Procedures), as well as site-specific Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control (SESC) Plans. 

The estimated 1.24 million cubic yards of sediment dredged to create the berth area for the ship 

unloading facility would be disposed in an existing upland confined disposal facility. Preliminary 

chemical analyses of the proposed dredged sediments determined that eight metal contaminants were 

identified at elevated concentrations. The concentrations of most metals in all samples were below the 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Threshold Effects Levels (TEL) indicating 

that the sediments would not be expected to pose a threat to the aquatic environment. Only the 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
ES-3 

concentrations of arsenic, cadmium, and nickel exceeded the TEL screening values. However, these three 

metals are all well below their respective NOAA Probable Effects Level (PEL) values, suggesting limited 

potential for adverse impacts. As a result, contaminants in the dredged sediments are not anticipated to 

adversely affect water quality in the Delaware River. 

One sole-source aquifer, the Potomac-Rariton-Magothy aquifer, is located near the LNG terminal 

location but would not be affected by the proposed project. Further, we do not expect the physical effects 

of constructing the LNG facility on the proposed terminal site would have a significant impact on the 

groundwater flow regime. 

There is one private water supply well located within the proposed pipeline right-of-way and six 

supply wells within 150 feet of the right-of-way. Texas Eastern would provide pre- and post-construction 

monitoring of well yield and water quality data at the landowner’s request, and would return any wells to 

their preconstruction condition if damaged by construction activities. Construction of the proposed 

pipeline could temporarily affect groundwater along the pipeline route but these effects would be 

mitigated by Texas Eastern’s plan to backfill the trench with native material and restore natural contours 

and drainage patterns in accordance with our Procedures. The proposed pipeline would cross three 

hazardous waste sites and would be located adjacent to three others. Contaminated soils associated with 

these or other undocumented hazardous waste sites could be encountered during construction of the 

proposed pipeline facilities. To reduce any potential impacts, we have recommended that Texas Eastern 

prepare a Plan for the Discovery and Management of Contaminated Soils and Groundwater. There is also 

a potential for a spill of hazardous material during construction that could impact groundwater. Texas 

Eastern and Crown Landing would minimize the potential impact of a spill on groundwater by 

implementing Spill Prevention, Containment, and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plans. 

The proposed pipeline would cross the Delaware River and four other waterbodies using the 

horizontal directional drill construction technique. Other waterbodies would be crossed using the opencut construction technique. Texas Eastern would minimize impacts on these waterbodies by 

implementing its SESC and SPCC Plans and by adhering to the protective measures in our Procedures. 

Crown Landing designed the proposed LNG terminal facilities to avoid wetlands on the site. 

Thus no wetlands would be permanently filled or drained as a result of construction of the LNG terminal. 

However, construction of the Columbia Gas pipeline interconnect, stormwater outfall, and septic line 

would temporarily impact approximately 0.6 acre of wetlands, and construction of the LNG terminal site 

would impact approximately 5.3 acres of state-designated wetland transition area. Crown Landing is 

currently evaluating options for mitigating the impacts on transition areas. Construction of the Logan 

Lateral Project would temporarily disturb about 20.06 acres of wetlands, of which about 1.66 acres of 

forested wetlands would be permanently converted to other wetland types. Texas Eastern would 

minimize impacts on wetlands by implementing our Procedures and proposes to compensate for 

permanent wetland impacts that cannot be avoided by developing and implementing a wetland mitigation 

plan. 

The proposed LNG terminal site is located on an undeveloped parcel consisting of agricultural 

land, emergent wetlands, and scattered areas of open, forest, and shrub lands. The LNG terminal 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 surfaces 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 most of these vegetation communities would be temporary and short term. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
ES-4 

About 8.5 acres of forest land on the permanent right-of-way would be permanently cleared and 

maintained in an herbaceous state. All disturbed areas would be restored and revegetated in accordance 

with our Plan and Procedures and Texas Eastern’s SESC Plan. 

Construction of the proposed facilities and associated vegetation clearing would affect wildlife by 

removing habitat and temporarily displacing wildlife from the construction work areas into surrounding 

areas. The removal of forest land would result in a long-term loss of habitat. 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, destruction of benthic habitat and communities, 

and direct and indirect impacts to fish and their prey species. However, sediment modeling indicates that 

impacts from suspended sediments would be temporary and localized. 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 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 intakes 

could also entrain and/or impinge 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. 

The NOAA Fisheries reported that the mixing zone within the Delaware River, of which the 

proposed LNG terminal occurs at the upriver edge, has been designated as Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) 

for nine federally managed fish species. NOAA Fisheries also expressed concern about impacts on prey 

for managed species likely occurring in the project area. The draft EIS included an EFH Assessment as 

necessary for compliance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. We 

have determined that the proposed project could affect open water, shallow water habitat, and benthic 

habitat, and anadromous fish and shellfish, two of the primary prey groups for the managed fish species. 

Dredging of the ship berth would result in permanent conversion of existing shallow water habitat to 

deeper water habitat within the dredging footprint. However, implementation of the conservation 

measures 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. 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife (FWS) reported that two federally listed species under its jurisdiction, 

the bald eagle and bog turtle, could potentially occur near the proposed project. NOAA Fisheries 

identified three additional federally listed endangered or threatened sea turtle species (Kemp’s ridley, 

green, and loggerhead sea turtles), a whale (North Atlantic right whale), and one fish (shortnose sturgeon) 

that could potentially occur in the general vicinity of the proposed project or along the proposed shipping 

route. We have determined that the Logan Lateral Project would have no effect on the bald eagle or the 

bog turtle, and that the Crown Landing LNG Project is not likely to adversely affect the three sea turtle 

species, bald eagle, or North Atlantic right whale. However, we believe that in-water construction 

activities associated with the project are likely to adversely affect the shortnose sturgeon. The draft EIS 

served as a Biological Assessment which is necessary for compliance with section 7 of the Endangered 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
ES-5 

Species Act. NOAA Fisheries’ review of the project’s potential impacts on the shortnose sturgeon and 

development of appropriate measures for avoidance of impacts on the North Atlantic right whale has been 

ongoing since the draft EIS was published and is not yet complete. The completion of consultation with 

NOAA Fisheries would be required prior to construction beginning on the proposed project. 

There are about 20 residences or residential structures located within 1 mile of the proposed 

entrance to the LNG terminal. There are another 147 residences along the pipeline route that would be 

within 50 feet of construction work areas. Impacts on residences near the LNG terminal could include 

increased visibility of aboveground structures associated with the facility, increased traffic, changes in air 

quality, and safety hazards. Residences near the pipeline could experience similar effects during 

construction. The LNG storage tanks would be the most prominent visual feature at the proposed 

terminal site. To minimize construction-related impacts on residences along the pipeline route, Texas 

Eastern would prepare site-specific residential mitigation plans. 

Construction of the projects would result in a temporary increase in population, traffic, and the 

demand for temporary housing and public services. These effects would be temporary and limited to the 

period of construction. Construction and operation of the projects would have a beneficial impact on 

local tax revenues and economies. 

We have determined that the potential impacts of the projects would not have a disproportionately 

high or adverse effect on environmental justice areas along the proposed pipeline route. 

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, 

Delaware, and Pennsylvania; and 2) require several federal permits and approvals. Crown Landing has 

not yet completed the process for the federal consistency certification for the LNG terminal. Although 

Texas Eastern has completed the process for the portion of the pipeline in Pennsylvania, it has not yet 

completed the process for the portion of the pipeline in New Jersey. Both Crown Landing and Texas 

Eastern would need to demonstrate consistency with the applicable states’ 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 Delaware Department of Natural Resources and 

Environmental Control (DNREC) 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. On February 15, 2005, Crown Landing filed an appeal of the February 

3, 2005 ruling with the State Coastal Zone Industrial Control Board. The State Coastal Zone Industrial 

Control Board held a public hearing on March 30, 2005 to consider Crown Landing’s appeal, and 

subsequently upheld the DNREC’s ruling. Crown Landing had 20 days to appeal the State Coastal Zone 

Industrial Control Board’s decision to the Delaware Superior Court but no appeal was made. In another 

development, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) in a letter dated May 24, 

2005 to Crown Landing stated that although a portion of the pier would be located in Delaware waters, 

construction of the entire pier and any associated dredging would be subject to New Jersey’s exclusive 

review and permitting authority under the Compact of 1905. The State of New Jersey has advised the 

State of Delaware that Article VII of the Compact of 1905 prohibits Delaware from using its Delaware 

State Coastal Zone Act of 1971 (DSCZA) authority or any other state permitting authority to block the 

construction of projects appurtenant to the New Jersey shoreline where the state border with Delaware is 

the lower water mark of the Delaware River on the New Jersey side of the river. In July 2005, New 

Jersey asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case and in November 2005 the U.S. Supreme Court 

agreed (New Jersey v. Delaware, 126 S. Ct. 713 (U.S. Nov. 28, 2005)). We recognize that the Supreme 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
ES-6 

Court decision could affect our recommendations regarding Coastal Zone Management Act 

determinations. 

Crown Landing conducted an aboveground cultural resources survey, a terrestrial archaeological 

survey, and an underwater archaeological survey for the proposed LNG terminal. These surveys 

documented two aboveground resources and one terrestrial archaeological site that either are listed in or 

recommended eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). None of these resources 

would be affected by the project. The New Jersey and Delaware State Historic Preservation Officers 

(SHPOs) concurred with the results and recommendations of the surveys, and we also concur. 

Texas Eastern conducted an aboveground cultural resources survey and a terrestrial 

archaeological survey for the pipeline facilities. In Pennsylvania, the surveys documented two 

archaeological sites recommended potentially eligible for listing in the NRHP. Neither site would be 

affected by construction of the pipeline facilities. The Pennsylvania SHPO concurred with the results and 

recommendations of the surveys, and we also concur. No resources were documented by the field 

surveys in New Jersey, but fieldwork by Crown Landing for the LNG terminal identified an NRHPeligible archaeological site adjacent to the pipeline facilities. This site would not be affected by the 

project. The New Jersey SHPO concurred with the results and recommendations of the surveys, and we 

also concur. 

Construction and operation of the proposed LNG terminal and pipeline would result in air 

emissions. The fugitive dust and tailpipe emissions associated with construction activities would be 

temporary and intermittent, and would not result in a long-term impact on air quality. Dust emissions 

would be minimized by the application of water during the construction of the LNG terminal and 

pipeline. In addition, the construction emissions from the project may require offsetting in accordance 

with the general conformity regulations. The primary pollutants emitted during operation of the LNG 

terminal would be nitrogen oxides (NOx) and carbon monoxide. The operational air emissions from the 

LNG terminal would be minimized by using ultra dry low NOx burner systems on the water/glycol heaters 

and would meet the lowest achievable emission rate (LAER) requirement under the new source review 

(NSR) regulations. A final LAER determination would be required from the NJDEP during the 

preconstruction permitting process. Crown Landing would also be required to obtain emission offsets for 

the NOx emissions generated by the LNG terminal from other sources within the air basin as part of the 

NSR permitting process; thereby minimizing any air quality impacts from these stationary sources. The 

project is also subject to the general conformity determination requirement. 

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, temporary, and limited primarily 

to daylight hours. Noise associated with construction activities would be the most noticeable with a 

potential noise impact of 89 decibels on the A-weighted scale (dBA) under peak conditions for short 

periods of time (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 day-night sound level (Ldn) 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 Ldn and the NJDEP nighttime noise criterion of 50 

dBA equivalent sound level. In addition, the noise increase from the sources at the LNG terminal would 

not be perceptible at nearby residences. 

We evaluated the safety of both the proposed facilities and the related LNG vessel transit through 

the Delaware Bay and River. As part of our 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 upgrade, and specific recommendations to be addressed prior to 

construction have been identified. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
ES-7 

Thermal radiation and flammable vapor hazard distances were calculated for an accident or an 

attack on an LNG vessel. For 1.0, 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 British thermal 

units per hour per foot squared, the level which is hazardous to unprotected persons located outdoors. 

However, the evaluation of safety is more than an exercise in calculating the consequences of worst case 

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 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, 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. 

As part of our marine safety analysis, we considered how vessel security requirements for LNG 

ships calling on the proposed LNG terminal 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 zone for inbound and outbound 

LNG vessels; 2) one-way vessel traffic during LNG vessel transit; 3) security zone around a moored LNG 

vessel; and 4) other measures as deemed appropriate. The moving safety zone, the moored vessel security 

zone at the terminal, and one-way traffic would affect other commercial, ferry, and recreational traffic 

using the bay and river. Based on a navigation simulation study conducted by Moffatt & Nichol, 

International 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 

traffic would generally be small because most of the ferry routes only cross the LNG ship route and 

conflicts could be 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 size of the Coast Guard-imposed safety and 

security zones 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 announcements to give advance notice of each moving safety and moored 

vessel security zones 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 estimating 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 near 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 the risks associated with the transportation 

of any hazardous cargo can never be entirely eliminated, they can be managed. 

The Coast Guard, with input from a special subcommittee of the Sector Delaware Bay Area 

Maritime Security Committee (AMSC), recently completed a review of Crown Landing’s Waterway 

Suitability Assessment (WSA), in accordance with guidance promulgated in Coast Guard Navigation and 

Vessel Inspection Circular (NVIC) 05-05. The AMSC LNG Review Subcommittee was composed of law 

enforcement, security, and public safety officials from the federal government, and states of Delaware, 

New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, as well as regional maritime industry professionals. Their review focused 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
ES-8 

on the security risks posed by LNG marine traffic, and the measures needed to responsibly manage these 

security risks. As a result of this review, the Coast Guard has preliminarily determined that the Delaware 

Bay and River, from Twin Capes to the proposed LNG terminal, may be suitable for accommodating the 

type and frequency of LNG vessels being proposed. This determination, however, was contingent upon 

the port security community having the appropriate resources to implement all the measures necessary to 

responsibly manage the safety and security risks of LNG marine traffic within the affected area. The 

safety measures to be imposed include moored vessel security and moving safety zones around the LNG 

carriers, a waterway traffic management plan, escorts by armed law enforcement vessels, and a variety of 

waterway and shoreline surveillance measures. Under normal security conditions, these measures should 

not affect vehicular traffic, nor restrict the public’s access to shore side recreation sites or unreasonably 

impede recreational boating. 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. While 

the LOR would 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 security zones would be addressed later in the development of the Coast Guard’s LNG Vessel Transit 

Management Plan. This plan would be developed in conjunction with state and local law enforcement 

and emergency response communities. In addition, the Coast Guard would establish a moving safety 

zone and moored vessel 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 these zones. 

Section 311 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 stipulates that the FERC must require the LNG 

operator to develop an Emergency Response Plan that includes a Cost-Sharing Plan before any final 

approval to begin construction. The Cost-Sharing Plan shall include a description of any direct cost 

reimbursements to any state and local agencies with responsibility for security and safety at the LNG 

terminal and near vessels that serve the facility. 

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 

The EIS addresses alternatives to the proposed actions before both the FERC and the Coast 

Guard. The proposed action before the FERC is to consider issuing to Crown Landing a section 3 

authorization for the LNG import facilities and to Texas Eastern a section 7 Certificate of Public 

Convenience and Necessity for a new natural gas pipeline. The proposed action before the Coast Guard is 

the issuance of a Coast Guard LOR finding the waterway suitable for LNG marine traffic, with certain 

conditions. Section 3 of the EIS clearly describes the criteria for alternative selection. 

We evaluated the alternatives of no action or postponed action, system alternatives, alternative 

LNG terminal sites, pier alternatives, and pipeline route alternatives. While the no action or postponed 

action alternative would eliminate the environmental impacts identified in this EIS, the project objectives 

of providing a new source of natural gas to the Mid-Atlantic market would not be met. This in turn could 

lead to higher natural gas prices, conservation and/or efficiency measures, use of alternative sources of 

energy, or alternative proposals to develop natural gas delivery and storage infrastructure. Conservation, 

increased efficiency and the development of other sources of energy are anticipated to play a part in 

meeting the future energy needs of the country but are not expected to significantly reduce the long-term 

requirement for additional natural gas supply. 

For the Coast Guard’s proposed action, the no action alternative would be issuance of Coast 

Guard LOR finding the waterway not suitable for LNG marine traffic. Similar to the no action alternative 

to the FERC proposed action, the no action alternative for the Coast Guard would avoid any project 

related environmental effects; however, it would also prevent LNG vessels from delivering LNG to an 

import terminal and the project objectives would not be met. Reasonable alternatives to the Coast Guard 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
ES-9 

action of issuing an LOR include: 1) Issuance of a Coast Guard LOR finding the waterway suitable for 

LNG marine traffic without any conditions, and 2) Postponing the issuance of a Coast Guard LOR 

pending further analysis and study. Our analysis included an evaluation of existing LNG facilities and 

pipelines as alternative systems that could be used to meet the objectives of the Crown Landing LNG 

Project. We considered most of these facilities to be either too far from the project area to effectively 

serve the Mid-Atlantic market, or would require expansions or modifications that would likely result in as 

much if not more environmental impacts than the proposed project. We also examined the potential for 

recently approved, proposed, or planned projects to meet the objectives of the proposed projects. Similar 

to the existing terminal facilities, we considered the majority of the recently approved, proposed, or 

planned projects too far away to effectively serve the Mid-Atlantic market. Additionally, most of these 

projects would require substantial expansion or modification, which could result in significant 

environmental impacts. We examined the six proposed or planned projects that are closest to the MidAtlantic area and are substantially developed enough to conduct an analysis but determined that none of 

these projects would provide the storage and sendout capacity proposed by Crown Landing. We also 

concluded that although a combination of these projects could provide a sendout and storage capacity at 

least equal to the proposed project, it seems likely that much of the capacity of these projects would likely 

be used to satisfy the growing demand for natural gas in the New England and New York area and would 

be unavailable for the Mid-Atlantic region. 

An alternative to the Coast Guard action of issuing a LOR which finds the waterway suitable for 

LNG vessel traffic with certain conditions is to issue an LOR without any conditions. This would avoid 

the environmental effects related to any moving safety and moored vessel security zones, or other related 

LNG safety and security activities, which the Coast Guard would determine is necessary prior to the 

commencement of LNG vessels transiting the waterway. If the Coast Guard postpones issuance of an 

LOR pending further analysis or study, the effect is expected to be similar to the FERC postponing its 

action. That is, although it is speculative to predict the resulting effects, postponing issuance of an LOR 

may lead to Crown Landing deciding to delay its entire project. 

We considered alternative locations for an LNG import terminal in the Mid-Atlantic region. 

Although there are some safety and environmental advantages to locating an 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. Similarly, there are no 

alternative LNG terminal sites at onshore locations that are reasonable and/or would be environmentally 

preferable to the proposed project. Difficulties associated with identifying suitable locations in the MidAtlantic region include finding property available for industrial development in an area accessible to LNG 

ships where there would be fewer environmental impacts. 

We considered three alternative pier and berth configurations to the proposed pier design 

recognizing that a pier further from shore would reduce the amount of dredging required and minimize 

shallow water habitat impacts but would also increase potential ship hazards. We concluded that the 

proposed pier configuration, which was developed after consultations with several agencies, offers the 

best balance of increased safety and reduced environmental impact. 

Our alternatives analysis included the evaluation of major pipeline route alternatives and minor 

pipeline route variations. We could not find any major pipeline route alternative that would reduce 

environmental impacts to such an extent that it would be environmentally preferable to the proposed 

route. However, we approved two minor route variations that were adopted by Texas Eastern to avoid an 

area of contaminated soil and a municipal park in the City of Chester. We also recommended another 

minor route variation to reduce impacts on wetlands. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
ES-10 

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND AREAS OF CONCERN 

On April 19, 2004, the FERC issued a Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact 

Statement for the Proposed Crown Landing LNG/Logan Lateral Projects, Request for Comments on 

Environmental Issues, and Notice of Joint Public Scoping Meeting (NOI). The NOI announced that 

FERC staff was initiating its NEPA pre-filing review of the Crown Landing LNG and Logan Lateral 

Projects under Docket Nos. PF04-2-000 and PF04-5-000, respectively.1

 The NOI was sent to 632 

interested parties, including federal, state, and local officials; agency representatives; conservation 

organizations; Native American tribes; local libraries and newspapers; residents within a 0.5 mile of the 

proposed LNG terminal; and property owners along the proposed pipeline route. On September 29, 2004, 

the FERC issued a Notice of Applications, which announced the filing of applications by Crown Landing 

and Texas Eastern and a final opportunity to submit comments. The FERC’s comment period closed on 

October 20, 2004. In total, 22 comment letters were received by the FERC in response to these notices. 

On May 5 and 6, 2004, FERC staff conducted public scoping meetings in Chester Township, 

Pennsylvania and Swedesboro, New Jersey, respectively, to provide opportunities for the general public 

to learn more about the proposed project and to participate in our analysis by commenting on issues to be 

included in the EIS. In response to agency requests, FERC staff also conducted a scoping meeting on 

June 9, 2004 in Claymont, Delaware, which is located across the Delaware River and downstream of the 

proposed LNG terminal site. Seven people commented at the meeting in Pennsylvania, 20 commented in 

New Jersey, and 11 in Delaware. Transcripts of these comments are part of the public record for the 

Crown Landing LNG and Logan Lateral Projects. 

On January 11, 2005, FERC staff conducted an inspection of the proposed terminal site that was 

open to the public. The next day, FERC staff conducted a cryogenic design and technical conference with 

Crown Landing personnel in Swedesboro, New Jersey to discuss design and engineering aspects of the 

Crown Landing LNG Project. The meeting was limited to existing parties to the proceeding (i.e., anyone 

who specifically requested to intervene as a party). Attendees included agency representatives (U.S. 

Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration and Coast Guard), 

industry representatives, and other interested parties. 

In addition to the public notice and scoping process discussed above, the FERC conducted 

numerous interagency meetings with representatives of federal and state resource agencies to identify 

issues that should be addressed in this EIS. These agencies included the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 

Coast Guard, FWS, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), NOAA Fisheries, NJDEP, 

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, and DNREC. 

During the agency and public involvement period we received comments regarding alternatives to 

the proposed project; the impact of dredging on the Delaware River and its aquatic resources; the 

impingement and entrainment of ichthyoplankton as the result of water withdrawals; the impact of LNG 

terminal and pipeline construction on wetlands and wetland transition areas; the economic impacts on 

Logan Township and surrounding communities; the impact of LNG ships on other commercial and 

recreational vessels using the Delaware River; environmental justice associated with constructing the 

pipeline in minority and low-income communities; the effect of the proposed facilities on surrounding 

property values and insurance rates; the impacts on public safety; and other environmental- and safetyrelated comments. 

 

1

 The purpose of the pre-filing process is to involve interested stakeholders early in project planning and to identify and resolve issues before 

an application is filed with the Commission. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
ES-11 

The FERC prepared a draft EIS for the Crown Landing LNG and Logan Lateral Projects and 

issued a Notice of Availability (NOA) of the draft EIS on February 18, 2005. In accordance with Council 

on Environmental Quality’s (CEQ’s) regulations implementing NEPA, the NOA established a public 

comment period ending on April 18, 2005, described procedures for filing comments on the draft EIS, 

and announced the time, date, and location of public comment meetings. The NOA also indicated that 

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

on the FERC’s Internet website. A formal notice was also published in the Federal Register on February 

25, 2005, indicating that the draft EIS was available and had been mailed to individuals and organizations 

on the mailing list prepared for the project. 

The FERC mailed approximately 1,255 copies of the draft EIS to interested parties, including 

federal, state, and local officials and agencies; special interest groups; parties to the proceedings; areas 

libraries and newspapers; and individuals and affected landowners who requested a copy of the draft EIS. 

The FERC also conducted public comment meetings in Swedesboro, New Jersey on March 29, Chester, 

Pennsylvania on March 30, and Claymont, Delaware on March 31, 2005. A total of 37 people provided 

comments at these three meetings. In addition, the FERC received 48 comment letters in response to the 

draft EIS. The FERC has responded to these comments in the final EIS. 

This final EIS was mailed to the agencies, individuals, and organizations on the mailing list 

provided in Appendix A and submitted to the EPA for formal issuance of a NOA. In accordance with 

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

days after the EPA publishes a NOA of the final EIS. However, the CEQ regulations provide an 

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

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

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

FERC issue authorization for Crown Landing LNG and Logan Lateral Projects for the proposed action, it 

would be subject to a 30-day rehearing period. Therefore, the FERC could issue its decision concurrently 

with the EPA’s NOA. 

MAJOR CONCLUSIONS 

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

avoid, minimize, or mitigate for environmental impacts resulting from the construction and operation of 

the proposed project. We are recommending that these mitigation measures be attached as conditions to 

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

interest and is constructed and operated in accordance with Crown Landing and Texas Eastern’s proposed 

mitigation and our recommended mitigation measures, the proposed facilities would have limited adverse 

impacts. 

The primary reasons for our decision are: 

• the project would make use of a previously disturbed site adjacent to an existing 

industrial site; 

• in-water, silt-disturbing activities would occur outside of major anadromous fish 

migration periods; 

• Crown Landing and Texas Eastern would implement the FERC staff’s Plan and 

Procedures to mitigate impacts on soils, wetlands, and waterbodies; 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
ES-12 

• Crown Landing would develop and implement mitigation plans for permanent shallow 

water habitat impacts and wetland transition area impacts and Texas Eastern would 

mitigate for permanent wetland impacts; 

• all applicable federal, state, and local permits and authorizations would be obtained by 

Crown Landing and Texas Eastern prior to initiating activities requiring such permits and 

authorizations; 

• the safety features that would be incorporated into the design and operation of the LNG 

import terminal and the LNG vessels; 

• the operational controls to be imposed by the local pilots and Coast Guard to direct the 

movement of LNG vessels, and the security provisions to deter attacks by potential 

terrorists; and 

• the environmental inspection and mitigation monitoring program that would ensure 

compliance with all mitigation measures that become conditions of any FERC 

authorization. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
1-1 

1.0 INTRODUCTION 

On September 16, 2004, Crown Landing LLC (Crown Landing), a BP Energy Company (BP) 

affiliate, filed an application with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) 

under section 3(a) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) for a proposed liquefied natural gas (LNG) import 

terminal (referred to as the Crown Landing LNG Project). Texas Eastern Transmission, LP (Texas 

Eastern) also filed an application on September 17, 2004 with the FERC under section 7(c) of the NGA 

for an associated natural gas pipeline (referred to as the Logan Lateral Project). The applications were 

noticed in the Federal Register on October 6, 2004. In Docket No. CP04-411-000, Crown Landing seeks 

authorization to site, construct, and operate an LNG import terminal in Logan Township, New Jersey. In 

Docket No. CP04-416-000, Texas Eastern seeks a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity 

(Certificate) to site, construct, and operate a new natural gas pipeline and ancillary facilities to connect the 

proposed LNG terminal to Texas Eastern’s interstate gas transmission facilities. 

Crown Landing proposes to construct and operate an LNG import terminal on the shoreline of the 

Delaware River in Logan Township, Gloucester County, New Jersey. The LNG terminal would consist 

of facilities capable of unloading LNG ships, storing up to 450,000 cubic meters (m3

) of LNG (9.2 billion 

cubic feet of natural gas equivalent), vaporizing the LNG, and sending out natural gas at a baseload rate 

of 1.2 billion cubic feet per day (Bcfd) and a maximum rate of 1.4 Bcfd (using spare equipment). Crown 

Landing proposes to interconnect the LNG facilities onsite with three pipelines. One interconnect would 

be with the new pipeline that Texas Eastern proposes to construct and operate (i.e., Logan Lateral) 

between its existing Chester Junction facility in Brookhaven Borough, Pennsylvania to the proposed LNG 

terminal. The other two interconnects would be with existing pipelines that currently cross the site, one 

pipeline owned and operated by Columbia Gas Transmission Company (Columbia Gas) and the other 

pipeline owned and operated by Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation (Transco). To date, these 

latter two companies have not filed applications with the FERC to construct and operate the interconnects. 

The Crown Landing LNG Project would have a maximum delivery capacity of 0.5 Bcfd to the Columbia 

Gas pipeline system, 0.6 Bcfd to the Transco pipeline system, and 0.9 Bcfd to the Texas Eastern pipeline 

system. 

The LNG terminal and pipeline facilities would consist of: 

• a ship unloading facility capable of receiving LNG ships with capacities up to 

200,000 m3

; 

• three 150,000 m3

 (net capacity) full-containment LNG storage tanks, comprised of 9 

percent nickel steel inner tank, pre-stressed concrete outer tank, and a concrete roof; 

• a closed-loop shell and tube heat exchanger vaporization system; 

• various ancillary facilities, including administrative offices, warehouse/maintenance 

building, main control center, guardhouse, and a pier control room; 

• three meter and regulation stations located on the proposed LNG terminal site; and 

• approximately 11.00 miles of 30-inch-diameter natural gas pipeline (4.92 miles in 

Pennsylvania and 6.08 miles in New Jersey), a pig launcher and receiver facility at the 

beginning and end of the pipeline, a mainline valve, and a meter and regulation station at 

the end of the pipeline. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
1-2 

The vertical line in the margin identifies text that has been modified in the final EIS 

and differs from the corresponding text in the draft EIS. 

1.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THIS STATEMENT 

The FERC is the federal agency responsible for authorizing applications to construct and operate 

onshore LNG import and interstate natural gas transmission facilities. The U.S. Coast Guard (Coast 

Guard) is the federal agency responsible for determining the suitability of the waterway for LNG marine 

traffic. The FERC is the lead federal agency for the preparation of this Environmental Impact Statement 

(EIS) in compliance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), the 

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations for implementing NEPA (40, Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR) 1500-1508), and the FERC’s regulations implementing NEPA (18 CFR 380). A draft 

EIS was prepared and issued for public comment on February 18, 2005. This document is a final EIS that 

has been prepared to respond to comments received on the draft EIS. The distribution list for the final 

EIS is provided in Appendix A. 

Our1

 principal purposes in preparing this EIS are to: 

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

result from the implementation of the proposed actions; 

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

minimize adverse effects on the human environment; 

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

environmental impacts; and 

• facilitate public involvement in identifying the significant environmental impacts. 

The FERC will consider the findings in this final EIS in its determination of whether the project 

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

and non-environmental issues, the FERC finds that the proposed project is in the public interest. The 

environmental impact assessment and mitigation development discussed herein will be important factors 

in this final determination. 

Our analysis in this EIS focuses on the facilities that are under the FERC’s jurisdiction (i.e., the 

LNG import terminal proposed to be constructed by Crown Landing and the natural gas sendout pipeline 

proposed to be constructed by Texas Eastern) as well as a non-jurisdictional electric transmission line that 

would be constructed to the LNG terminal site to supply power to the facilities. 

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

wetlands; vegetation; wildlife; fish and invertebrates; threatened, endangered, and special-status species; 

land use, recreation, and visual resources; cultural resources; socioeconomics and traffic; air quality and 

noise; reliability and safety; cumulative effects; and alternatives. The EIS describes the affected 

environment as it currently exists, discusses the environmental consequences of the proposed project, and 

 

1

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

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
1-3 

compares the project’s potential impact to that of alternatives. The EIS also responds to public comments 

on the draft EIS and presents our conclusions and recommended mitigation measures. 

1.2 PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED 

Crown Landing proposes to provide additional natural gas supplies primarily to the Mid-Atlantic 

region (i.e., New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Maryland) to meet the increasing energy demands 

in this region of the United States. With interconnections to three interstate pipeline systems, the project 

would also be capable of supplying natural gas to other portions of the East Coast. The Crown Landing 

LNG Project would provide: 

• a new LNG import terminal in the Mid-Atlantic region; 

• storage facilities for LNG; 

• access to natural gas reserves in production areas throughout the world that are 

inaccessible by conventional pipelines; and 

• a new supply of natural gas to the Mid-Atlantic region as well as other portions of the 

East Coast. 

We received comments on the draft EIS regarding the need for the project and suggesting that this 

need may be satisfied by other means such as conservation or renewable energy sources. The following 

paragraphs provide a summary of what we believe has been confirmed by other recent assessments of the 

Mid-Atlantic’s energy supply and infrastructure needs. 

Each year the Energy Information Administration (EIA) of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) 

assesses the key energy issues, including economic growth, energy prices, energy consumption, energy 

intensity, electricity generation, energy production and imports, and carbon dioxide emissions. According 

to the EIA’s Annual Energy Outlook 2005 with Projections to 2025 Report (EIA, 2005a), energy 

consumption is predicted to increase nationally an average of about 1.4 percent per year until 2025. 

Energy consumption is expected to increase in all sectors, particularly in the transportation sector (1.8 

percent increase per year), electric generation sector (1.8 percent increase per year), and the commercial 

sector (1.9 percent increase per year). Nationally, the demand for natural gas is projected to increase 

during the same timeframe at an annual rate of 1.5 percent. The EIA estimates that natural gas demand 

nationally could be as high as 30.7 trillion cubic feet (Tcf) annually by 2025, which represents an almost 

33 percent increase in demand over the 2002 level of about 23 Tcf (EIA, 2005a). Several other studies, 

including those by Global Insights, Inc.; the National Petroleum Council (NPC), Energy Ventures 

Analysis, Inc.; PIRA Energy Group; Deutsche Bank; and McKinsey & Company/National Energy Board 

Canada, also predict similar trends in gas consumption. 

Use of natural gas for electricity generation and industrial applications are expected to account for 

almost 75 percent of the projected growth in natural gas demand. This compares to increases in projected 

demand for coal of 1.5 percent per year, petroleum of 1.5 percent per year, and renewable fuels, including 

ethanol and wind, of 1.5 percent per year during the same period. As described in the EIA’s report, the 

projections for natural gas demand and other fuels are sensitive to cost and other factors. For example, 

the EIA reduced its projections for energy consumption from all energy sources except nuclear energy 

between 2004 and 2005 due in part to higher energy prices; lower projected growth rates in industrial 

production; specific updates in the chemical, pulp, and paper industries; revisions to the capital cost of 

generating technologies; and revisions to transportation sector vehicle miles traveled. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
1-4 

Natural gas is used in the Mid-Atlantic region for home heating and cooking, commercial heating, 

a variety of industrial applications, including electrical power generation. The EIA projections for the 

Middle Atlantic2 are similar to the nation as a whole. The EIA estimates that energy consumption in the 

Middle Atlantic region will rise from 10.950 quadrillion British thermal units (Btu) in 2003 to about 

13.666 quadrillion Btu in 2025. Consumption of natural gas during this same period is expected to 

increase from 2.466 quadrillion Btu to about 3.268 quadrillion Btu, which represents an average annual 

increase in gas consumption of about 1.3 percent per year over 22 years. During this same period, 

consumption of energy from both petroleum and coal is predicted to increase 1.0 and 1.3 percent a year, 

respectively, whereas consumption of energy from nuclear power is only expected to increase 0.3 percent. 

The consumption of renewable energy is expected to increase by 0.5 percent a year. 

It is anticipated that most of the future increase in demand for natural gas will be the result of the 

increased use of gas for electrical power generation. Many electric utility companies are switching to 

natural gas as an environmentally preferred fuel source to reduce air emissions and to meet the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) air quality standards for ozone. The demand for natural gas 

for use in electrical generation is expected to increase about 0.5 trillion cubic feet/year or 2.6 percent 

annually from 2001 to 2025 (DOE, 2004). 

According to a New York Independent System Operator (NYISO) report, the increased demand 

for electricity in New York has exceeded the supply (NYISO, 2001). Furthermore, a study conducted by 

Charles River Associates (CRA) for the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority 

concluded that between 2005 and 2010, demand for natural gas for electricity generation will increase 20 

percent (CRA, 2002). As a result, the NYISO recommends long-term goals of increasing and upgrading 

natural gas transmission facilities and facilitating the development of natural gas-fired power plants. 

The natural gas currently delivered to this region comes primarily from domestic sources in the 

Gulf of Mexico. Some gas supplies are imported from Canada and more recently provided by LNG 

imports, as the result of the reactivation of the Cove Point LNG Terminal in southern Maryland. In 

considering the current balance of gas supply to the Mid-Atlantic region, it is important to recognize that 

the sources of natural gas are not static. Based on a review of historical well production data from the 

lower 48 states and western Canada that analyzed initial production rates, production decline rates, and 

total well recoveries for each major producing basin, a 2003 study by the NPC (NPC, 2003) concluded 

that: 

“...conventional gas production will inevitably decline in the future, and that the overall level of 

indigenous production will be largely dependent on the industry’s ability to increase its 

production of nonconventional gas. Nonconventional gas includes gas from tight formations, 

shales, and coal seams. Given the relatively low production rates from nonconventional wells, 

the analysis further suggests that even in a robust future price environment, industry will be 

challenged to maintain overall production at its current level”. 

Because the Mid-Atlantic region is located far away from the domestic and Canadian sources of 

natural gas and near the end of the North American natural gas pipeline grid, the region experiences 

increased transportation costs and decreased gas availability, resulting in price volatility. The supply 

available to the Mid-Atlantic area may also be affected by other regional markets. For example, growth 

in the New England area will likely compete with the Mid-Atlantic region for the natural gas from 

producing basins in the Gulf of Mexico. In summary, there is strong evidence that indigenous sources of 

 

2

 The EIA defines the Middle Atlantic as the states of New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and New York but includes Maryland and Delaware in the 

South Atlantic region. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
1-5 

natural gas supplies will not be able to keep up with future demand without the addition of new sources of 

gas in the form of LNG from overseas. 

Since neither the domestic production of natural gas nor the importation of Canadian gas is 

anticipated to keep up with projected increased demand, the increased importation of LNG is viewed as a 

means of meeting the projected shortfall in domestic supplies, as well as providing back-up supplies of 

natural gas during periods of peak demand. In addition, LNG marine transportation is recognized as a 

viable way of accessing “stranded” natural gas reserves in production areas throughout the world that are 

inaccessible by conventional pipelines, thereby increasing available supplies. 

1.3 PERMITS, APPROVALS, AND REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS 

As the lead federal agency for the Crown Landing LNG and Logan Lateral Projects, the FERC is 

required to comply with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), the Magnuson-Stevens 

Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA), section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act 

(NHPA), and section 307 of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (CZMA). Each of these statutes 

has been taken into account in the preparation of this document. 

The Coast Guard exercises regulatory authority over LNG facilities that affect the safety and 

security of port areas and navigable waterways under Executive Order 10173; the Magnuson Act (50 

United States Code (USC) section 191); the Ports and Waterways Safety Act of 1972, as amended (33 

USC section 1221, et seq.); and the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002 (46 USC section 701). 

The Coast Guard is responsible for matters related to navigation safety, vessel engineering and safety 

standards, and all matters pertaining to the safety of facilities or equipment located in or adjacent to 

navigable waters up to the last valve immediately before the receiving tanks. The Coast Guard also has 

authority for LNG facility security plan review, approval and compliance verification as provided in Title 

33 CFR Part 105, and siting as it pertains to the management of vessel traffic in and around the LNG 

facility. 

As required by its regulations, the Coast Guard is responsible for issuing a Letter of 

Recommendation (LOR) as to the suitability of the waterway for LNG marine traffic. The LOR would be 

based on the following items: 

• Density and character of marine traffic; 

• Locks, bridges, or other manmade obstruction in the waterway; and 

• The following factors adjacent to the facility: 

a. Depth of water; 

b. Tidal range; 

c. Protection from high seas; 

d. Natural hazards, including reefs, rocks, and sandbars; 

e. Underwater pipes and cables; and 

f. Distance of berthed vessels from the channel and the width of the channel. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
1-6 

In accordance with Title 33 CFR Part 127.007, each applicant must submit a Letter of Intent 

(LOI) to the local Captain of the Port to begin the LOR process. On June 14, 2005, the Coast Guard 

issued a Navigation and Vessel Inspection Circular – Guidance on Assessing the Suitability of a 

Waterway for Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Marine Traffic (NVIC). The purpose of this NVIC is to 

provide Coast Guard Captains of the Port/Federal Maritime Security Coordinators, members of the LNG 

industry, and port stakeholders with guidance on assessing the suitability of a waterway for LNG marine 

traffic that takes into account conventional navigation safety/waterway management issues contemplated 

by the existing LOI/LOR process, but in addition, will also take completely into account maritime 

security implications. In accordance with this guidance, each LNG project applicant is to submit a 

Waterway Suitability Assessment (WSA) to the cognizant Captain of the Port. The WSA is to address 

the transportation of LNG from the LNG tanker’s entrance into U.S. territorial waters, through its transit 

to and from the LNG receiving facility, including operations at the vessel/facility interface. In addition, 

the WSA should address the navigational safety issues and port security issues introduced by the 

proposed LNG operations. The NVIC 05-05 also provides specific guidance on the timing and scope of 

the WSA. 

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

federal agency (e.g., the FERC) should not “jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species 

or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of habitat of such species which 

is determined...to be critical” (16 USC § 1536(a)(2)(1988)). The FERC, or the applicant as a non-federal 

party, is required to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries to determine whether any federally listed or proposed 

endangered or threatened species or their designated critical habitat occur in the vicinity of the proposed 

project. If, upon review of existing data or data provided by the applicant, the FERC determines that 

these species or habitats may be adversely affected by the proposed project, the FERC is required to 

prepare a biological assessment (BA) to identify the nature and extent of adverse impact, and to 

recommend measures that would avoid the habitat and/or species, or would reduce potential impacts to 

acceptable levels and to initiate formal consultation with FWS or NOAA Fisheries. Because a federally 

listed species may be adversely affected by the Crown Landing LNG Project, the draft EIS served as the 

BA and was used to initiate formal consultation with NOAA Fisheries (see section 4.7.1). 

The MSA, as amended by the Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-267), 

established procedures designed to identify, conserve, and enhance Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) for those 

species regulated under a federal fisheries management plan. The MSA requires federal agencies to 

consult with the NOAA Fisheries on all actions or proposed actions authorized, funded, or undertaken by 

the agency that may adversely affect EFH (MSA §305(b)(2)). Although absolute criteria have not been 

established for conducting EFH consultations, the NOAA Fisheries recommends consolidated EFH 

consultations with interagency coordination procedures required by other statutes, such as NEPA, the Fish 

and Wildlife Coordination Act, or the ESA (50 CFR 600.920(e)) to reduce duplication and improve 

efficiency. As part of the consultation process, the FERC prepared an EFH Assessment which is included 

in Appendix E of this EIS (also see section 4.6.3). NOAA Fisheries is a cooperating agency assisting in 

the preparation of this EIS. 

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

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

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

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

opportunity to comment on the undertaking. The FERC has requested that Crown Landing and Texas 

Eastern, as non-federal parties, assist in meeting the FERC’s obligation under section 106 by preparing 

the necessary information and analyses as required by the ACHP procedures in 36 CFR 800. Section 4.10 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
1-7 

of this EIS provides a discussion of cultural resources in the project area and addresses compliance with 

the section 106. 

The CZMA calls for the “effective management, beneficial use, protection, and development” of 

the nation’s coastal zone and promotes active state involvement in achieving those goals. As a means to 

reach those goals, the CZMA requires participating states to develop management programs that 

demonstrate how these states will meet their obligations and responsibilities in managing their coastal 

areas. The agencies responsible for administering Coastal Zone Management Programs (CZMP) in the 

three states include: the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP), Office of Coastal 

Planning and Program Coordination (OCPPC); the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and 

Environmental Control (DNREC), Coastal Management Program (CMP); and the Pennsylvania 

Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP), Office of Water Management (OWM). Because 

section 307 of the CZMA requires federally licensed or permitted activities to be consistent to the 

maximum extent practicable with the enforceable policies of a management program, the FERC has 

requested that Crown Landing and Texas Eastern seek determinations of consistency with the applicable 

state’s CZMPs. Section 4.8.3 of this EIS provides additional discussion of New Jersey’s, Delaware’s, and 

Pennsylvania’s CZMPs. 

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

include compliance with the Clean Water Act (CWA) of 1972, the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, the 

Clean Air Act (CAA), and issuance by the Coast Guard of a LOR regarding the suitability of the 

waterway for LNG marine traffic. 

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) has the authority to issue permits for work or 

structures in navigable waters under section 10 of the River and Harbors Act and the discharge of dredged 

or fill material into waters of the United States under section 404 of the CWA. The COE would regulate 

the dredging of the ship berth, the construction of the pier, and filling and grading activities in wetlands 

and waterbodies crossed by the proposed pipeline. The EPA has the authority to review and veto COE 

decisions on section 404 permits. The Coast Guard has the primary responsibility for reviewing and 

approving the navigational and security aspects of the project in accordance with 33 CFR 127 and 66. All 

three of these federal agencies are cooperating agencies assisting in the preparation of the EIS. 

We have consulted with the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD), as required by the Energy 

Policy Act of 2005 and section 3 of the NGA, to determine if there is an effect on training or activities on 

any military installations from the project. No comments or concerns were received from any branch of 

the military regarding effects on military installations in reply to the FERC's Notice of Intent to Prepare 

an Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Crown Landing LNG and Logan Lateral Projects, 

Request for Comments on Environmental Issues, and Notice of Public Scoping Meeting (NOI) issued 

April 19, 2004. Further, no comments were received from any DOD branch in response to the FERC's 

draft EIS issued on February 18, 2005. 

In addition, in letters dated January 9, 2006 to the Army, Navy, and Air Force at the Pentagon, we 

requested any information on effects on military installations. Since no effects have been identified, we 

conclude that there is no effect on military installations from this project; therefore, no concurrence from 

the Secretary of Defense is required under the Energy Policy Act of 2005. We will notify the DOD of 

this conclusion in writing to confirm it. 

Crown Landing and Texas Eastern must also obtain Water Quality Certifications pursuant to 

section 401 of the CWA. The federal authority to issue Water Quality Certifications in New Jersey, 

Delaware, and Pennsylvania has been delegated to the NJDEP, DNREC, and PADEP, respectively. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
1-8 

In addition to the federal permits and approvals discussed above, Crown Landing and Texas 

Eastern would obtain other permits and approvals from state and local agencies. Table 1.3-1 lists the 

major federal, state, regional, and local permits, approvals, and consultations for the Crown Landing LNG 

Project and table 1.3-2 lists these permits, approvals, and consultations for the Logan Lateral Project. 

Regarding state permitting, the States of New Jersey and Delaware disagree on which state has 

jurisdiction over the proposed LNG terminal. Because the proposed unloading facility would be located 

in waters that are within the state boundaries of Delaware, the State of Delaware has been exerting its 

regulatory authority over that portion of the project. However, in a May 24, 2005 letter from Joseph J. 

Seebode, the Assistant Commissioner of the NJDEP, to David Blaha, environmental consultant to Crown 

Landing, Mr. Seebode alleges that the entire project, including the proposed unloading facility, is “subject 

to New Jersey’s exclusive review and permitting authority, and not that of Delaware.” Mr. Seebode goes 

on to state the reason for this exclusive authority is the Compact of 1905 between New Jersey and 

Delaware, “which gives New Jersey exclusive riparian jurisdiction of every kind and nature on its side of 

the Delaware River.” For the purpose of this EIS, we have assumed that both states have authority over 

portions of the project and, therefore, table 1.3-1 lists the permits required by both states. 

The FERC encourages cooperation between applicants and state and local authorities, but this 

does not mean that state and local agencies, through application of state and local laws, may prohibit or 

unreasonably delay the construction or operation of facilities approved by the FERC. Any state or local 

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

Certificate the FERC may issue.3

1.4 STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT PROCESS 

On December 5, 2003 and January 9, 2004, Crown Landing and Texas Eastern, respectively, filed 

requests with the FERC to use the NEPA Pre-filing Process. At that time, both companies were in the 

preliminary design stages of the projects and no formal applications had been filed with the FERC. 

Crown Landing’s and Texas Eastern’s requests to use the NEPA Pre-filing Process were approved on 

January 8, 2004 and January 20, 2004, respectively. Pre-filing docket numbers (PF04-2-000 for the 

Crown Landing LNG Project and PF04-5-000 for the Logan Lateral Project) were established to place 

information filed by the companies and related documents issued by the FERC into the public record. 

The Pre-filing Process provided opportunities for interested stakeholders to become involved early in 

project planning, facilitated interagency cooperation, and assisted in the identification of issues prior to 

the companies filing their applications with the FERC. 

Since initiating the project in 2003, Crown Landing and Texas Eastern have conducted open 

houses for the general public, attended several meetings with federal, state, and local agencies, and met 

with various elected officials in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Delaware. Crown Landing sponsored 

three informational open houses: March 9 in Claymont, Delaware; March 10 in Logan Township, New 

Jersey; and March 11 in Marcus Hook, Pennsylvania. Texas Eastern participated in the March 10 open 

house in Logan Township and then held additional open houses in Pennsylvania on March 30 in 

Brookhaven, March 31 in Chester Township, and April 1 in Chester. The primary purpose of these open 

houses was to provide project information to interested stakeholders and to respond to questions and 

comments regarding the projects. A FERC representative was in attendance at these open houses to 

provide information on its regulatory process. 

 

3

 See, e.g., Schneidewind v. ANR Pipeline Co., 485 U.S. 293 (1988); National Fuel Gas Supply v. Public Service Commission. 894 F.2d 571 

(2d Cir. 1990); and Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P., et al., 52 FERC ¶ 61,091 (1990) and 59 FERC ¶ 61,094 (1992). 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
1-9 

TABLE 1.3-1 

Major Permits, Approvals, and Consultations for the Crown Landing LNG Project

Agency Permit/Approval/Consultations Actual or Anticipated 

Application 

Filing/Consultation Date 

FEDERAL 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Authorization to construct and operate an LNG 

import facility under section 3(a) of the Natural 

Gas Act (NGA) 

September 2004 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Comment on the project under section 106 of the 

National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) 

Consultation, as 

necessary 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Authorization required for work (including 

dredging) or structures in navigable waters under 

section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 

and the discharge of dredged or fill material 

(including filling and grading activities) into waters 

of the United States (including wetlands) under 

section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) of 

1972 

January 2005 

U.S. Department of Commerce, National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

(NOAA) 

 NOAA Fisheries 

Consultation regarding compliance with section 7 

of the Endangered Species Act; the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and Management 

Act; and the Marine Mammal Protection Act 

Consultation ongoing 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Consultation regarding compliance with section 7 

of the Endangered Species Act, the Migratory 

Bird Treaty Act, and the Fish and Wildlife 

Coordination Act 

Consultation completed, 

April 2005 

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 

 U.S. Coast Guard Letter of Intent 

Permission for establishment of aids to navigation 

Spill prevention and spill response plan approval 

August 2004 

July 2006 

July 2006 

U.S. Department of Defense Consultation as required by section 311 of the 

Energy Policy Act of 2005 and section 3 of the 

NGA 

Letters sent on 

January 9, 2006. 

STATE – NEW JERSEY 

New Jersey Department of Environmental 

Protection 

 

 Land Use Regulation Program Wetlands Letter of Interpretation 

Freshwater Wetlands Permit 

Waterfront Development Permit 

February 2004 

January 2005 

January 2005 

 Bureau of Tidelands Management Tidelands License October 2004 

 Office of Dredging and Sediment 

 Technology 

Section 401 Water Quality Certificate January 2005 

 Air Quality Bureau of Preconstruction 

 Permitting 

Subchapter 8 Air Quality Permits October 2004 

 Air Quality Bureau of Operating 

 Permitting 

Subchapter 22 Title V Air Quality Permit One year after operations 

commence 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
1-10 

TABLE 1.3-1 (cont’d) 

Major Permits, Approvals, and Consultations for the Crown Landing LNG Project

Agency Permit/Approval/Consultations Actual or Anticipated 

Application 

Filing/Consultation Date 

 Water Quality Bureau of Nonpoint 

 Pollution Control 

Industrial Stormwater Permit 

Treatment works approval for subsurface disposal 

system 

July 2006 

July 2006 

 Bureau of Point Source Surface Water Discharge General Permit July 2006 

 Bureau of Release Prevention Approval of Discharge Prevention, Containment 

and Countermeasure Plan and Discharge 

Cleanup and Removal Plan 

July 2006 

 Bureau of Safe Drinking Water Well Drilling Permit July 2006 

 Bureau of Water Allocation Water Allocation Permit July 2006 

 Division of Fish, Game, and Wildlife Endangered species review Consultation ongoing 

 State Historic Preservation Office Review under section 106 of the NHPA August 2004 and October 

2004 (no effect letters) 

 Office of Coastal Planning and Program 

 Coordination 

Coastal zone consistency determination January 2005 

 Division of Watershed Management Water Quality Management Plan consistency August 2004 (Informal 

Determination) 

New Jersey Department of Transportation Road Opening and Access Permit July 2006 

STATE – DELAWARE 

Delaware Department of Natural Resources 

and Environmental Control 

 

 Office of the Secretary Coastal Zone Status Decision and Permit December 2004 

 Coastal Management Program Coastal zone consistency determination Unknown a/ 

 Division of Water Resources Subaqueous Lands Permit 

Water Allocation Permit 

Section 401 Water Quality Certificate 

Unknown a/ 

 Division of Fish and Wildlife Endangered species review Unknown a/ 

Delaware State Historic Preservation Office Review under section 106 of the NHPA September 2004 (no effect 

letter) 

REGIONAL AND LOCAL 

Delaware River Basin Commission Approval under section 3.8 of the Delaware River 

Basin Compact 

Pending 

Gloucester County Soil Conservation District Approval of Soil Erosion and Sedimentation 

Control Plan 

Discharge of Stormwater from Construction Site 

General Permit 

July 2006 

July 2006 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
1-11 

TABLE 1.3-1 (cont’d) 

Major Permits, Approvals, and Consultations for the Crown Landing LNG Project

Agency Permit/Approval/Consultations Actual or Anticipated 

Application 

Filing/Consultation Date 

Gloucester County Health Department Septic system approval July 2006 

Logan Township Zoning Commission Redevelopment plan approval June 2005 

Logan Township Planning Commission Site plan approval/building permit July 2006 

_____________________ 

a/ Because the legal authority of the State of Delaware is in dispute, Crown Landing has not provided updated filing 

 dates for the Delaware permits. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
1-12 

TABLE 1.3-2 

Major Permits, Approvals, and Consultations for the Logan Lateral Project

Agency Permit/Approval/Consultations Anticipated Application 

Filing/Consultation Date 

FEDERAL 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity 

to construct, install, own, operate, and maintain a 

pipeline under section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act 

(NGA) 

September 2004 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Review under section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act (NHPA) 

Consultation, as 

necessary 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Authorization required for work (including 

dredging) or structures in navigable waters under 

section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 

and the discharge of dredged or fill material 

(including filling and grading activities) into waters 

of the United States (including wetlands) under 

section 404 of the Clean Water Act of 1972 

February 2005 

U.S. Department of Commerce, National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

(NOAA) 

 NOAA Fisheries Consultation regarding compliance with section 7 

of the Endangered Species Act (ESA); the 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act; and the Marine Mammal 

Protection Act 

Consultation completed 

(no effect letter) 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Consultation regarding compliance with section 7 

of the ESA, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and the 

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act 

Consultation ongoing 

STATE – NEW JERSEY 

New Jersey Department of Environmental 

Protection 

 

 Land Use Regulation Program Freshwater Wetlands Permit 

Stream Encroachment Permit 

Waterfront Development Permit 

Section 401 Water Quality Certificate 

Coastal Zone Consistency Determination 

August 2006 

 Bureau of Tidelands Management Tidelands License August 2006 

 Bureau of Water Allocation Water Allocation Permit March 2008 

 Bureau of Point Source Surface Water Discharge General Permit March 2008 

 Division of Fish, Game, and Wildlife Endangered species review Consultation ongoing 

 State Historic Preservation Office Review under section 106 of the NHPA Consultation completed 

(no effect letter) 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
1-13 

TABLE 1.3-2 (cont’d) 

Major Permits, Approvals, and Consultations for the Logan Lateral Project

Agency Permit/Approval/Consultations Anticipated Application 

Filing/Consultation Date 

STATE – PENNSYLVANIA 

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental 

Protection 

 

 Office of Water Management Coastal zone consistency determination June 2005 

 Bureau of Watershed Management Water Allocation Permit 

Submerged Lands License Agreement 

March 2008 

June 2005 (License 

Agreement received 

November 2005) 

 Bureau of Water Supply and 

 Wastewater Management 

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

General Permit for Hydrostatic Test Water 

Discharges 

March 2008 

 Permits and Technical Services Section Chapter 105 Wetlands and Water Obstructions 

Permits 

June 2005 (Draft Permit 

received December 2005) 

Pennsylvania Department of Natural 

Resource Conservation 

Pennsylvania Game Commission 

Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission 

Endangered species review (plants) 

Endangered species review (mammals) 

Endangered species review (fish, reptiles, and 

amphibians) 

Consultation completed 

(no effect letter) 

Consultation completed 

(no effect letter) 

Consultation completed 

(no effect letter) 

Pennsylvania State Historic Preservation 

Office 

Review under section 106 of the NHPA October 2004 (no effect 

letter) 

REGIONAL AND LOCAL 

Delaware Regional Basin Commission Approval under section 3.8 of the Delaware River 

Basin Compact 

December 2007 

Gloucester County Soil Conservation District Approval of Soil Erosion and Sedimentation 

Control Plan 

Discharge of Stormwater from Construction Site 

General Permit 

March 2008 

March 2008 

Delaware County Conservation District Approval of Soil Erosion and Sedimentation 

Control Plan 

Discharge of Stormwater from Construction Site 

General Permit 

Chapter 105 Waterways and Wetlands General 

Permits 

March 2008 

March 2008 

March 2008 

Delaware County, Brookhaven Borough, 

City of Chester, Chester Township, Aston 

Township, Logan Township 

Road Crossing Permits March 2008 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
1-14 

Five interagency meetings were held on March 4, March 9, May 6, May 20, and August 19, 2004 

with state and federal agencies to discuss the project and to identify issues that need to be addressed in the 

EIS. Table 1.4-1 lists the location and attendees at each of the interagency meetings that were conducted 

during the pre-filing process. Crown Landing and Texas Eastern have continued to consult and meet with 

many of these agencies prior to the issuance of this final EIS. 

TABLE 1.4-1 

List of Interagency Meetings Conducted for the Proposed Projects 

Meeting Date Meeting Location Meeting Attendees 

March 4, 2004 Trenton, New Jersey FERC, Coast Guard, COE, FWS, NJDEP, NJ State 

Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), NJ Department of 

Transportation (DOT), Delaware River Basin Commission, 

Texas Eastern, and Crown Landing 

March 9, 2004 Dover, Delaware FERC, DNREC, Delaware SHPO, Delaware Energy Office, 

and Crown Landing 

May 6, 2004 Swedesboro, New Jersey FERC, COE, FWS, EPA, NOAA Fisheries, U.S. DOT 

Office of Pipeline Safety, NJDEP, PADEP, Texas Eastern, 

and Crown Landing 

May 20, 2004 Dover, Delaware FERC, COE, EPA, NOAA Fisheries, DNREC, Delaware 

SHPO, and Crown Landing 

August 19, 2004 Swedesboro, New Jersey FERC, COE, FWS, EPA, NOAA Fisheries, NJDEP, 

DNREC, Delaware River Basin Commission, Crown 

Landing, and Texas Eastern 

Crown Landing and Texas Eastern also established project web sites (www.bpcrownlanding.com 

and www.degt-loganlateral.com), which are periodically updated with project information. 

Within 3 days of filing their applications with the FERC, and in accordance with the 

Commission’s regulations and Orders 609 and 609-A, Crown Landing and Texas Eastern notified 

affected landowners and residents within 0.5 mile of the LNG terminal site and along the pipeline route 

that they filed their applications. Crown Landing and Texas Eastern also published notices of their 

applications in newspapers that are in general circulation in the project area and placed copies of their 

applications at the following libraries: 

• Crown Landing LNG Project - Logan Branch of the Gloucester County Library, Logan 

Township; Brandywine Hundred Branch of the New Castle County Library, Wilmington; 

and 

• Logan Lateral Project – J. Lewis Crozier Library, Chester; Aston Public Library, Aston; 

Logan Branch of the Gloucester County Library, Logan Township 

1.5 PUBLIC REVIEW AND COMMENT 

On April 19, 2004, the FERC issued a NOI. The NOI was sent to 793 interested parties, 

including federal, state, and local officials; agency representatives; conservation organizations; Native 

American tribes; local libraries and newspapers; residents within a 0.5 mile of the proposed LNG 

terminal; and property owners along the proposed pipeline route. Issuance of the NOI signified the start 

of the time period for receiving written comments on the projects. On September 29, 2004, the FERC 

issued a Notice of Applications. This second notice announced the filing of FERC applications by Crown 

Landing and Texas Eastern and a final opportunity to submit comments. 

As noticed in the April 19, 2004 NOI, FERC staff initially conducted two public scoping 

meetings: one meeting on May 5, 2004 in Chester Township, Pennsylvania; and another meeting on May 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
1-15 

6, 2004 in Swedesboro, New Jersey. At the request of Delaware officials, a third public scoping meeting 

was held on June 9, 2004 in Claymont, Delaware (notice of this meeting was issued by the FERC on May 

26, 2004). These meetings provided an opportunity for the general public to learn more about the 

proposed projects and to participate in our analysis by commenting on issues to be included in the EIS. A 

total of about 200 people attended these meetings and 38 people provided oral comments (7 commentors 

at the Pennsylvania meeting, 20 commentors at the New Jersey meeting, and 11 commentors at the 

Delaware meeting). Transcripts of these meetings are part of the public record for the projects. 

On January 11, 2005, the FERC conducted an inspection of the proposed terminal site that was 

open to the public. The next day, the FERC conducted a cryogenic design and technical conference with 

Crown Landing personnel in Swedesboro, New Jersey to discuss design and engineering aspects of the 

Crown Landing LNG Project. The meeting was limited to existing parties to the proceeding (i.e., anyone 

who specifically requested to intervene as a party). Attendees included Crown Landing representatives, 

agency representatives (U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS) and 

Coast Guard), industry representatives, and other interested parties. 

Although the NOI established an initial closing date of June 21, 2004 for scoping comments on 

the projects, FERC staff continued to receive, accept, and consider comments through the end of the 

comment period specified in the second notice (comment period ending October 20, 2004). A total of 36 

comment letters were received in response to the notices; 16 of these letters were in support of the project 

and the other 20 letters identified specific issues and concerns. Table 1.5-1 briefly summarizes the 

primary issues identified and comments received during the public scoping process. 

The FERC prepared a draft EIS for the Crown Landing LNG and Logan Lateral Projects and 

issued a Notice of Availability (NOA) of the draft EIS on February 18, 2005. In accordance with CEQ’s 

regulations implementing NEPA, the NOA established a public comment period ending on April 18, 

2005, described procedures for filing comments on the draft EIS, and announced the time, date, and 

location of public comment meetings. The NOA also indicated that additional project information could 

be obtained from the Commission’s Office of External Affairs and on the FERC’s Internet website. A 

formal notice was also published in the Federal Register on February 25, 2005, indicating that the draft 

EIS was available and had been mailed to individuals and organizations on the mailing list prepared for 

the project. 

The FERC mailed approximately 1,255 copies of the draft EIS to interested parties, including 

federal, state, and local officials and agencies; special interest groups; parties to the proceedings; areas 

libraries and newspapers; and individuals and affected landowners who requested a copy of the draft EIS. 

The FERC also conducted public comment meetings in Swedesboro, New Jersey on March 29, Chester, 

Pennsylvania on March 30, and Claymont, Delaware on March 31, 2005. A total of 37 people provided 

comments at these three meetings. In addition, the FERC received 48 comment letters in response to the 

draft EIS. Our responses to these comments are provided in Appendix J and in the various sections of 

this final EIS. The substantive changes in the final EIS are indicated by vertical bars that appear in the 

margins. The changes were made both in response to comments received on the draft EIS and as a result 

of updated information that became available after issuance of the draft EIS. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
1-16 

TABLE 1.5-1 

Primary Issues Identified and Comments Received During the Public Scoping Process 

for the Crown Landing LNG and Logan Lateral Projects

Issue Specific Comments 

EIS Section Where 

Comments are Addressed

ALTERNATIVES alternative LNG terminal sites, pipeline routes, and dredge disposal 

areas; alternative LNG terminal sites that are less populated and 

have fewer nearby industrial sites; alternative pipeline routes that 

avoid residences and residential streets 

3.0 

DREDGING AND DREDGE 

DISPOSAL 

the quantity and quality of sediments to be dredged from the ship 

berth area; future maintenance dredging and dredge disposal needs 

2.4.1.3 and 4.2.2 

WATER RESOURCES impacts of dredging and terminal construction and operation on water 

quality of the Delaware River 

4.3 

WETLANDS impacts on tidal wetlands along the Delaware River and Oldmans 

Creek 

4.4 

FISH AND WILDLIFE impacts on shallow water habitat in the Delaware River; impacts on 

spawning and foraging habitat of striped bass, shortnose sturgeon, 

and other resident and transient aquatic organisms; potential 

impingement and entrainment impacts on fish and fish eggs as the 

result of appropriating hydrotest water and ballast water; impacts on 

a heron rookery on Pea Patch Island; impacts on pied-billed grebe 

inhabiting wetlands along Birch Creek; impacts on bald eagles 

4.6 and 4.7 

LAND USE effects of LNG ships on other ship and boat traffic in the Delaware 

River; effects of construction-related traffic on existing traffic levels on 

U.S Route 130; impacts on public access to tidal waters and 

recreational fishing areas; potential to encounter contaminated sites 

in the project area; impacts on nearby commercial developments 

4.8 

SOCIOECONOMICS economic impacts on Logan Township and surrounding communities; 

environmental and economic justice associated with constructing the 

proposed pipeline in minority and low-income neighborhoods; 

potential for and economic impact of closure of Delaware Memorial 

Bridge; impacts on property values and insurance rates; the demand 

of the project on local police and fire services; the potential for the 

project to provide jobs and support economic development; costs of 

providing security to LNG terminal and ships 

4.9 

CULTURAL RESOURCES impacts on cultural resources including architectural resources and 

marine archaeological sites 

4.10 

AIR QUALITY AND NOISE air and noise impacts including the effects of dust and emissions 

from construction equipment and facility operations; the potential for 

odors and noise associated with construction and operation of the 

proposed facilities 

4.11 

RELIABILITY AND 

SAFETY 

Impacts on public safety, particularly the safety of people that live or 

work near proposed LNG terminal; risks associated with storing and 

transporting LNG; safety and security measures to protect ships and 

the terminal, the potential for terrorism; emergency preparedness and 

response planning with local communities; effects of releases of LNG 

from ships or the terminal; potential impacts on the Salem Nuclear 

Power Plant, Logan Generating Station, or other industrial facilities 

as the result of an LNG-related incident; impacts of security zone 

around LNG ships and terminal 

4.12 

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS cumulative impacts on the Delaware River as a result of the project 

and existing industrial activities 

4.13 

This final EIS was mailed to the agencies, individuals, and organizations on the mailing list 

provided in Appendix A and submitted to the EPA for formal issuance of a NOA. In accordance with 

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

days after the EPA publishes a NOA of the final EIS. However, the CEQ regulations provide an 

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

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

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

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
1-17 

FERC issue authorization for Crown Landing LNG and Logan Lateral Projects for the proposed action, it 

would be subject to a 30-day rehearing period. Therefore, the FERC could issue its decision concurrently 

with the EPA’s NOA. 

1.6 NONJURISDICTIONAL FACILITIES 

Electrical power to operate the LNG terminal facilities would be provided by a new 69 kilovolt 

(kV) electric transmission line that would be constructed from an existing Conectiv Power Delivery 

substation (Conectiv’s Nortonville Substation) located on the south side of U.S. Route 130 to the LNG 

terminal site. The transmission line would cross U.S. Route 130 and follow the proposed access road into 

the LNG facility (which is the existing access road into the Logan Generating Station). Approximately 

3,500 feet of dual feed electric transmission line supported on transmission poles spaced about 225 feet 

apart would be installed. This transmission line would replace a smaller existing powerline that extends 

along the site entrance road to the proposed terminal area. The Nortonville Substation and two other 

substations would need some modifications but none of these modifications would result in expansions of 

the facilities or land-disturbing activities outside of the existing fence lines. An environmental analysis of 

these nonjurisdictional facilities is included in this EIS. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
2-1 

2.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION 

The FERC is the federal agency responsible for authorizing applications to construct and operate 

onshore LNG import and interstate natural gas transmission facilities. The Coast Guard is the federal 

agency responsible for determining the suitability of the waterway for LNG marine traffic. The Coast 

Guard is also the federal agency responsible issuing a LOR regarding the suitability of the waterway for 

LNG marine traffic. 

The proposed action before the FERC is to consider issuing to Crown Landing a section 3 

authorization for the LNG import facilities and to Texas Eastern a section 7 Certificate for a new natural 

gas pipeline. The proposed action before the Coast Guard is to consider issuing Crown Landing a LOR 

finding the waterway suitable for LNG marine traffic, with certain conditions. These conditions are 

outlined, in part, in the Coast Guard’s December 1, 2005, letter to FERC (attached as Appendix L). 

Specifically, these conditions require that all agencies that would be involved in navigation safety and 

maritime security aspects of LNG vessels transiting to and operating at the Crown Landing terminal be 

adequately staffed, equipped, and funded to fully implement the safety and security measures. These 

measures include, but are not limited to, security zones around the LNG carriers, a vessel traffic control 

plan, escorts by armed law enforcement vessels, a variety of waterway and shoreline surveillance 

measures, and multi-agency cooperation and communication. Specific details of these measures are 

further outlined in the Coast Guard’s December 19, 2005, letter to FERC which has been designated 

Sensitive Security Information as defined in Title 49 CFR Part 1520. Because any unauthorized 

disclosure of these details could be employed to circumvent the proposed security measures, they are not 

releasable to the public. 

2.1 EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS 

The proposed LNG import terminal would be located on a 175-acre undeveloped parcel located 

along the Delaware River between Oldmans Creek and the Logan Generating Station, a pulverized coalfired power plant owned by National Energy Power Company, L.L.C. The site is predominantly 

agricultural land and wetland. Ten pipelines, including three natural gas pipelines, one nitrogen pipeline, 

and six Sun Oil Company pipelines traverse the site. Of the six Sun Oil Company pipelines on the site, 

three of the pipelines transport petroleum products (butane, jet fuel, and gasoline) and the other three 

pipelines are currently inactive. U.S. Route 130 borders the southern boundary of the site and provides 

access to the site via the existing road to the Logan Generating Station. The offshore portions of the 

proposed project would be located in the Delaware River between the Marcus Hook anchorage area and 

the shoreline. An aerial photograph showing the existing conditions on the LNG terminal site is provided 

on figure 2.1-1. 

2.2 PROPOSED PROJECT 

The Crown Landing LNG Project would consist of onshore LNG storage and process facilities 

located in Logan Township, Gloucester County, New Jersey and an offshore ship unloading facility 

located in New Castle County, Delaware. The LNG import terminal would have interconnections with 

three natural gas pipeline systems. One of these interconnections would be the Logan Lateral Project, 

which would consist of 11.0 miles of 30-inch-diameter natural gas pipeline from Texas Eastern’s Chester 

Junction facility located in Brookhaven Borough, Delaware County, Pennsylvania to the LNG facility. 

Other towns and townships crossed by the Logan Lateral route include the City of Chester, Aston 

Township, and Chester Township in Pennsylvania and Logan Township in New Jersey. The other two 

interconnections (Columbia Gas and Transco pipelines) would be within the proposed LNG facility site. 

A general project location map for both projects is provided on figure 2.2-1. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
2-2 

Non-Internet Public 

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE 

CROWN LANDING LNG PROJECT and 

LOGAN LATERAL PROJECT 

Docket Nos. CP04-411-000 and CP04-416-000 

Figure 2.1-1 Aerial Photograph of Proposed LNG Terminal 

Site 

Public access for the above information is available only 

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

public.referenceroom@ferc.gov. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
2-3 

Non-Internet Public 

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE 

CROWN LANDING LNG PROJECT and 

LOGAN LATERAL PROJECT 

Docket Nos. CP04-411-000 and CP04-416-000 

Figure 2.2-1 General Project Locations 

Public access for the above information is available only 

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

public.referenceroom@ferc.gov. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
2-4 

2.2.1 LNG Terminal 

The LNG terminal facilities would include a ship unloading facility, three LNG storage tanks, 

vaporization and vapor handling systems, a nitrogen injection system, and administrative and support 

buildings. A layout of the proposed facilities is provided on figure 2.2.1-1. 

2.2.1.1 Ship Unloading Facility 

The proposed project would include the construction and operation of a ship unloading facility 

that would be capable of handling LNG ships with cargo capacities up to 200,000 m3

. At the present 

time, the largest LNG ships in the world fleet have cargo capacities of 138,000 m3

. The facility would be 

capable of mooring and offloading one LNG ship at a time. Crown Landing anticipates that a ship about 

every 2 to 3 days (about 100 to 150 ships per year with an average about 125 ships per year) would 

offload LNG at the proposed facility. 

The ship unloading facility would be located in the Delaware River adjacent to the Marcus Hook 

anchorage area. It would consist of an angled pier with a 2,000-foot-long by 50-foot-wide trestle, an 

approximately 6,000 square foot unloading platform, and a single berth with four breasting dolphins and 

five mooring dolphins. Walkways connecting the dolphins to the platform would provide personnel 

access and a gangway between the ship and the dolphins would provide crew access. The trestle would 

provide structural support for cryogenic lines, a spill containment trough, and utility lines connecting the 

unloading facility with onshore facilities and would accommodate two travel lanes for light vehicles. A 

control room would be located on the pier to facilitate monitoring of ship unloading operations. To 

accommodate future larger LNG ships (i.e., 200,000 m3

 capacity), the ship unloading facility would be 

constructed with additional quick release hooks for extra lines, a modified fendering system, some larger 

structural elements, and modified locations of the mooring dolphins. 

An LNG transfer system would be installed on the unloading platform to transfer the LNG from 

the ship to the storage tanks. This transfer system would consist of three 16-inch-diameter unloading 

arms for liquid transfer to the storage tanks and a 16-inch-diameter arm for vapor return to the ship. A 

44-inch-diameter cryogenic transfer line would connect the liquid unloading arms to the tanks and a 16-

inch-diameter vapor return line would connect the tanks to the vapor return arm. The unloading arms 

would be equipped with powered emergency release couplers that would disconnect the arms from the 

ship in the event that the ship moves excessively relative to the unloading platform and the safe operating 

distance of the arms. Onboard ship pumps would be used to pump the LNG through the transfer system 

and into the storage tanks. An additional 12-inch-diameter cryogenic line would be installed from the 

tanks to the main header on the unloading platform to recirculate LNG through the system to maintain 

cold conditions between ship unloadings. 

Crown Landing would design the ship unloading facility in accordance with applicable codes and 

standards, including but not limited to the Oil Companies International Marine Forum, Society of 

International Gas Tanker and Terminal Operators, American Petroleum Institute, and American Society 

of Civil Engineers. The facility would be designed to provide a safe berth for the receipt and support of 

LNG ships and to ensure the safe transfer of LNG cargoes from the ships to the onshore storage tanks. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
2-5 

Non-Internet Public 

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE 

CROWN LANDING LNG PROJECT and 

LOGAN LATERAL PROJECT 

Docket Nos. CP04-411-000 and CP04-416-000 

Figure 2.2.1-1 Proposed LNG Terminal Site Plan 

Public access for the above information is available only 

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

public.referenceroom@ferc.gov. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
2-6 

2.2.1.2 LNG Storage Tanks 

LNG unloaded from the ships would be stored in a three 150,000 m3

 net (158,000 m3 gross) full 

containment storage tanks. The tanks would have a design pressure of 4.2 pounds per square inch gauge 

(psig) and a normal operating pressure of 2.7 psig. Figure 2.2.1-2 shows the conceptual design of Crown 

Landing’s proposed storage tanks. The double-walled tanks would have a primary inner container and a 

secondary outer container and would be designed so that both the self-supporting primary container and 

secondary container could independently contain the LNG. The inner container would be made of 9 

percent nickel steel and the outer container would be pre-stressed reinforced concrete. A concrete-domed 

roof with a carbon steel liner would be constructed over the outer container. The diameter of the outer 

containers would be about 250 feet and the height of the storage tanks would be about 175 feet from 

grade to the top of the dome roof. The storage tank foundations would consist of a concrete pile cap 

supported by steel pilings. Based on preliminary design, each tank would require 1,176 18-inch-diameter 

steel pipe piles driven to a depth of about 100 feet below grade. 

The insulated tanks would be designed to store LNG at a temperature of -260° Fahrenheit (F) 

with a maximum boil-off rate of 0.05 percent of the tank contents per day at 96° F ambient temperature 

(highest 1-day mean temperature). The 4-foot annular space between the sidewalls of the inner and outer 

containers would be insulated with loose-fill expanded perlite and fiberglass resilient blanket. The 

suspended deck at the top of each tank would be insulated with 3 feet of perlite deck insulation and the 

bottom of each tank would be insulated with 16 inches of cellular glass load-bearing blocks. 

All piping connections and tank nozzles would enter and exit from the top of the tanks. There 

would be no penetrations through the inner or outer walls or bottom of the tanks. Three low-pressure 

sendout pumps would be installed within each tank to pump the LNG to external high-pressure pumps 

and the vaporizers. The three pumps provided in each tank would be capable of sending out the base-load 

capacity of the terminal from a single tank. 

An approximately 780 foot by 900 foot earthen containment dike would be installed around the 

storage tank area to prevent LNG from flowing offsite in the event of an outer tank failure. The dike 

would be 10 feet high and would be capable of retaining greater than 100 percent of the maximum liquid 

capacity of a single tank. 

2.2.1.3 Vaporization System 

The LNG sendout system would be designed to vaporize the LNG and deliver natural gas to the 

three sendout pipelines at a maximum sendout capacity of 1.4 Bcfd, a maximum pressure of 1,200 psig, 

and a minimum temperature of 40° F. LNG from the storage tanks would be pressurized by seven high 

pressure pumps (includes one spare pump) and then vaporized in seven closed-loop shell and tube heat 

exchangers (includes one spare exchanger). This process would involve warming the LNG and 

converting it to back to a gaseous phase. Heat for the process would be provided by a 200° F 

water/ethylene-glycol mixture circulated through the heat exchanger using four water glycol pumps 

(includes one spare pump). The water/ethylene-glycol mixture would be heated in ten natural gas-fired 

heaters (includes one spare heater). The heaters would be fire tube type and would be equipped with 

ultra-low nitrogen oxides (NOx) burners. After leaving the vaporizers, the high pressure gas would be 

metered and odorized using mercaptan prior to discharge into the sendout pipelines. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Carbon Steel

Roof Liner

Suspended Deck with

Perlite Insulation

Perlite and Fiberglass

Blanket Insulation

9% Nickel Steel

Inner Tank

Pre-stressed Reinforced

Concrete Outer Tank

Concrete Pile Cap

Foundation

Piles

Cellular Glass

Load-bearing

Blocks

Figure 2.2.1-2

Crown Landing LNG Project

Conceptual Design of LNG Storage Tanks

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
2-8 

Crown Landing is also evaluating an alternative heat source for vaporizing the LNG. This 

alternative heat source would be waste heat from the condenser cooling water system at the adjacent 

Logan Generating Station. Cooling water from the power plant would be supplied to the LNG terminal 

and then returned in a closed-loop system. A series of plate-and-frame heat exchangers would be used to 

transfer the heat from the cooling water to the water/ethylene-glycol vaporization system. In this 

scenario, the gas-fired heaters would be used as supplemental heat sources and would also provide the 

back-up heat source when the power plant is not in operation. Crown Landing anticipates that the Logan 

Generating Station could supply as much as 60 to 70 percent of the vaporization heat load of the LNG 

terminal on an annual basis. Crown Landing is discussing this alternative with National Energy Power 

Company, LLC, the owner and operator of the power plant. 

2.2.1.4 Vapor Handling System 

During normal operation, ambient heat input into the LNG storage tanks would cause a small 

amount of LNG to vaporize, commonly referred to as boil-off gas. Some boil off of LNG would also be 

caused by other factors, such as barometric pressure changes, heat input from the LNG pumps, and ship 

vapor flashing. The boil off from the LNG storage tanks would be compressed by the low pressure 

compressors and then passed through a condenser system where it would be combined with the outgoing 

LNG before being pumped up to pipeline pressure in the second stage pumps. During ship offloading, a 

portion of this vapor would be returned to the ship to compensate for the volume of liquid pumped out of 

the ship into the onshore LNG storage tanks. During periods of no or minimal vaporization, a high 

pressure compressor would send the boil-off gas directly into the sendout pipelines. 

The vapor handling system would be a closed system designed to prevent the escape (venting) of 

vapor into the atmosphere; however, for safety reasons, a flare system would be installed at the LNG 

facility to prevent over pressuring within the tanks. If the storage tanks pressure exceeds the maximum 

operating limit, a pressure control valve would automatically release excess vapor to a low-pressure flare. 

A high-pressure flare would also be installed on site, which would be capable of handling 110 percent of 

a release of vapor from the safety relief valve of one LNG vaporizer. 

2.2.1.5 Nitrogen Injection System 

Depending on the source, the imported LNG may have a Btu content that is higher than the 

pipelines can accept. To reduce the heating value of the vaporized LNG to meet specifications of the 

receiving pipeline systems, Crown Landing would inject nitrogen into the vaporized LNG via the boil-off 

gas compressor. The nitrogen would be produced in a cryogenic air separation system and would be 

injected into the LNG stream at the boil-off gas condenser. The air separation system would consist of air 

filtration and dehydration, air and nitrogen compressors, heat exchangers, a turbo-expander, distillation 

towers, and a 750,000 gallon liquid nitrogen storage tank. Direct Btu analyzers would be used to monitor 

and control the heating value of the vaporized LNG. 

2.2.2 LNG Ships 

LNG is currently shipped from a variety of sources around the world, including such locations as 

Algeria, Australia, Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, Nigeria, Oman, Qatar, Trinidad, and United Arab 

Emirates. Crown Landing anticipates that LNG could be delivered to the proposed LNG terminal from 

any of these worldwide sources. Although LNG ships and their operation are directly related to the use of 

the proposed import terminal, they are not subject to the section 3 authorization sought in the FERC 

application. However, the Coast Guard is responsible for determining the suitability of the Delaware 

River for these LNG ships and must issue an LOR for the operation of the proposed facility. On 

December 1, 2005, the Coast Guard made a preliminary determination that the Delaware River, from 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
2-9 

Twin Capes to the proposed LNG terminal site, may be suitable for accommodating the type and 

frequency of LNG vessels proposed for the Crown Landing LNG Project. 

Ship Selection and Inspections 

The LNG ships that would deliver LNG to the terminal would include both predominantly 

dedicated ships (e.g., BP’s Trader Class ships) and ships that would deliver LNG that BP has purchased 

from the worldwide market. The dedicated ships would be owned and operated by BP and flagged under 

the British flag. Ships not under the control of BP would be vetted by BP to ensure that they meet its 

requirements regarding safe operating procedures and crew qualifications. The vetting would include a 

review of a recent inspection conducted by either a BP ship inspector or accredited inspector, an audit of 

the ship manager’s office, and a review of current information on the ship. BP would continually monitor 

ship operations to ensure that the operations are according to their established procedures and to ensure 

that the ships are maintained to all standards. 

Ships using the terminal would also comply with the Coast Guard regulations for LNG ships. 

This compliance is demonstrated by the operator of the LNG ship having proper certificates authorizing 

the transport of LNG as follows: 

• United States Flag LNG Ship - The Coast Guard Certificate of Inspection must be valid 

and endorsed for the ship to transport LNG (46 CFR 154, 1979). A Coast Guard 

Certificate of Inspection (COI) is issued for a period of 5 years and retention of the COI 

depends upon the continued maintenance of the vessel in a safe operating condition and 

satisfactory completion of required annual inspections during the 5-year COI period. 

• Foreign Flag LNG Ship - The ship must have a valid Certificate of Compliance issued by 

the Coast Guard. The certificate is issued after the ship has proven that it complies with 

the Coast Guard regulations and after it has been satisfactorily inspected by a Coast 

Guard Marine Safety Office (46 CFR 154, 1979). A Certificate of Compliance (COC) is 

valid for a 2-year period and remains valid pending satisfactory completion of an annual 

mid-period examination between COC renewals 

Both United States and foreign flagships must be annually inspected by the Coast Guard and the 

flag state. Coast Guard officers from the Marine Safety Office/Group Philadelphia may board the LNG 

ships arriving at the mouth of the Delaware Bay to perform a security inspection and to assure compliance 

with safety standards. 

Ship Design and Construction 

The LNG terminal would be designed to accommodate vessels with cargo capacities from 

138,000 m3

 to 200,000 m3. LNG vessels of this size would typically have total lengths of 914 to 1,056 

feet, beams (widths) of 138 to 167 feet, and loaded drafts of 38 feet. 

The ships that transport LNG are specially designed and constructed to carry LNG for long 

distances. LNG ship construction is highly regulated and consists of a combination of conventional ship 

design and equipment, with specialized materials and systems designed to safely contain liquids stored at 

temperatures of -260° F. 

Profile

LNG ships have a distinctive appearance compared with other transport ships. An LNG ship has 

a high freeboard (i.e., that portion of the ship above water) because of the comparatively low density of 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
2-10 

the cargo. Because of the high freeboard, when compared with vessels such as an oil tanker, wind 

velocity can affect the maneuverability of the ship, particularly at slow speed, such as during docking. 

Hull System

All LNG ships are constructed with double hulls while most other liquid transport ships presently 

in use have single hull construction. Double hull construction increases the structural integrity of the hull 

system and provides protection for the cargo tanks in case of an accident. The space between the inner 

and outer hulls is used for water ballast. The International Code for the Construction and Equipment of 

Ships Carrying Liquefied Gases in Bulk (Gas Tanker Code) and Coast Guard regulations require that 

LNG ships meet a Type IIG standard of subdivision, damage stability, and cargo tank location. 

The Type IIG design ensures the LNG ship could withstand flooding of any two adjacent 

compartments without any adverse effect upon the stability of the ship. Type IIG design also requires that 

the cargo tanks must be a minimum of 30 inches from the outer hull and a minimum distance above the 

bottom of the ship equal to the beam of the ship divided by 15, or 7.5 feet, whichever is less. This 

distance is intended to prevent damage to the cargo tanks in case of low energy type accidents that might 

occur in harbors and during docking. Most large LNG ships have a distance of 10 to 15 feet between the 

outer hull and cargo tank. 

Containment Systems

An LNG containment system on the ships consists principally of the cargo tank (sometimes called 

a primary barrier), the secondary barrier, and insulation. The containment system also includes cargo 

monitoring and control and safety systems. 

Three basic tank designs have been developed for LNG cargo containment: prismatic freestanding, spherical, and membrane. The earliest form of LNG containment is the prismatic free-standing 

tank. It consists of an aluminum alloy or 9 percent nickel steel, self-supporting tank that is supported and 

restrained by the hull structure. Insulation consists of reinforced polyurethane foam on the bottom and 

the sides, with fiberglass on the top. The spherical tank design, also known as the Moss design, uses an 

unstiffened, spherical, aluminum alloy tank that is supported at its equator by a vertical cylindrical skirt, 

with the bottom of the skirt integrally welded to the ship’s structure. This free-standing tank is insulated 

with multi-layer close-cell polyurethane panels. In the membrane containment system, the ship’s hull 

constitutes the outer tank wall, with an inner tank membrane separated by insulation. Two forms of 

membrane are commonly used: the Technigaz membrane using stainless steel and the Gas-Transport 

membrane using Invar. 

LNG ships are of the double-hulled design regardless of the containment system used. A double 

bottom and double sides are provided for the full length of the cargo area and arranged as ballast tanks, 

independent of the cargo tanks. The double-hulled design provides greatly increased reliability of cargo 

containment in the event of grounding and collisions. Further, the segregated ballast tanks prevent ballast 

water from mixing with any residue in the cargo tanks. 

Pressure/Temperature Control

A basic goal of all LNG containment systems is to maintain the LNG cargo at or near 

atmospheric pressure at the boiling temperature of the LNG (about -260° F). This is accomplished using 

“auto-refrigeration,” a phenomenon that results from the constant heat flow into the tank and the removal 

of the associated vapor. The vapor removal rates range from 0.25 to 0.15 percent (by volume) per day 

and is used to supplement the bunker fuel in the ship’s boilers. As a result, LNG ships have reduced 

emissions when compared with conventional oil-fired ships. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
2-11 

Ballast Tanks

Sufficient ballast water capacity must be provided to permit the ship to return to the loading port 

safely under various sea conditions. LNG cargo tanks are not used as ballast tanks because these tanks 

must contain a minimal amount of LNG to remain at cryogenic temperatures. Consequently, LNG ships 

must be designed to provide adequate ballast capacity in other locations. 

Ballast water tanks on LNG ships are arranged within the LNG ship’s double hull. It is essential 

that ballast water not leak into the LNG containment system. To reduce the potential for leakage, the 

ballast tanks, cofferdams, and void spaces are typically coated to reduce corrosion. LNG ships are also 

periodically inspected to examine the coating and to renew it as necessary. 

A ballast control system, which permits simultaneous ballasting during cargo transfer operations, 

is also incorporated into each LNG ship. This system allows the LNG ship to maintain a constant draft 

during all phases of its operation to enhance performance. Under normal operating conditions, ballast 

water would be taken onto the ship during and after LNG offloading to maintain the trim and stability of 

the ship. A 138,000 m3

 LNG ship would typically take on ballast water at a rate of about 5,200 cubic 

meters per hour (m3

/hr) (about 1.4 million gallons/hour) and a 200,000 m3 ship would take on ballast 

water at a rate of about 7,500 m3

/hr (about 2 million gallons/hour). For both ships, the ballast water 

would be taken on over a 10-hour period, resulting in a total ballast water intake per ship of about 52,000 

m3

 (13.7 million gallons) for a 138,000 m3 ship and 75,000 m3 (19.8 million gallons) for a 200,000 m3

ship. Assuming a 10-hour reballasting period for a 138,000 m3

 ship, the average ballast water intake 

velocity would be about 1 foot per second. A portion of this ballast water would be taken on while at 

berth and the remaining amount would be taken on while in transit down the Delaware River. Ballast 

water would not be discharged to the Delaware Bay and River during unloading operations. 

BP’s Trader Class ships have three ballast water intakes, each with ballast pumps rated at 3,000 

m3

/hr. Typically, two of the pumps operate during ballasting and the third pump is on stand by. The total 

area of the two lower ballast intake openings is 3.55 square meters. The openings are protected by bartype grids having 4.5 millimeters (mm) bars spaced 25 mm apart, reducing the clear flow area to 2.36 

square meters. The highest and lowest points of the openings are 8.38 and 9.46 meters below the ship’s 

waterline. The upper (third) opening has a total grid clear flow area of 4.16 square meters and has 

strainers with a 5 mm mesh fitted inboard of suctions valves prior to the ballast pump. 

Crew Qualifications and Training 

All officers and crews of the LNG ships using the terminal would comply with the International 

Convention Standards of Training, Certification and Watch Keeping for Seafarers. Key members of the 

crew must have specific training in the handling of LNG and the use of the safety equipment. Officers 

must receive simulator training in the handling of the ship and the cargo systems specific to the conditions 

at the project site. 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. 

2.2.3 Pipeline Facilities 

The LNG terminal would be connected to three interstate natural gas pipeline systems, including 

Columbia Gas, Transco, and Texas Eastern. The interconnections for the Columbia Gas and Transco 

pipeline systems would be on the LNG facility site. The meter and regulation stations for these two 

interconnections would be located west of the storage tank area. An approximately 500-foot-long, 20-

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
2-12 

inch-diameter pipeline would be constructed onsite from Columbia Gas’ existing pipeline to the meter 

station. No additional pipeline would be needed for the Transco interconnection. 

To interconnect the LNG terminal with the existing Texas Eastern pipeline system, Texas Eastern 

proposes to construct 11.0 miles of 30-inch-diameter pipeline between its Chester Junction facility in 

Pennsylvania and the LNG terminal site. The pipeline in Pennsylvania would cross 1.26 miles of 

Brookhaven Borough, 1.68 miles of Chester Township, 0.16 miles of Aston Township, and 1.82 miles of 

the City of Chester. All 6.08 miles of the pipeline in New Jersey would be in Logan Township. Figure 

2.2.3-1 shows the location of the Logan Lateral. 

Aboveground facilities associated with the proposed Logan Lateral include: 

• a pig receiver and launcher facility1

, valves, and piping at the beginning of the pipeline 

located within the fenceline of the Chester Junction facility; 

• a remote-controlled mainline valve with above ground valve operator and associated 

building and equipment at milepost (MP) 2.11; and 

• a meter and regulation station and pig receiver and launcher facility at the end of the 

pipeline located on the LNG facility site adjacent to the other two stations. 

2.3 LAND REQUIREMENTS 

2.3.1 LNG Terminal 

The proposed onshore LNG terminal facilities would be located on a privately owned 175-acre 

parcel of land situated between the south side of the Delaware River and U.S. Route 130 in Logan 

Township, Gloucester County, New Jersey. Of the 175-acre site, about 39 acres would be permanently 

developed for the LNG terminal facilities and access road. The pipeline facilities associated with the 

Logan Lateral Project would also occupy portions of the 175-acre site (see section 2.3.2). In addition to 

the 39 acres permanently developed for the LNG terminal facilities, about 4 acres of the site would be 

used as a temporary staging and expanded work area during construction. The 4-acre area would be 

located in the southeast corner of the site adjacent to the access road and approximately 300 feet north of 

U.S. Route 130 and would include construction offices, material storage, and parking. The facility septic 

system would also be located in this area. The majority of the 4 acres would be graded and returned to 

open space after construction; however, 0.5 acre would be used for a septic system drain field. Dual feed 

electric transmission lines would be extended to the LNG terminal site from the existing Conectiv electric 

substation across U.S. Route 130 from the site entrance and along the site access road to the terminal area. 

About 3,500 feet of transmission line would be supported by transmission poles spaced an average of 225 

feet apart. A layout of the proposed LNG terminal facilities is provided on figure 2.2.1-1. Additional 

information on the land use and requirements for the LNG terminal site is provided in section 4.8.1.1.

The Crown Landing LNG Project would also require about 32.55 acres of riverbed associated 

with the Delaware River for a pier (approximately 2.25 acres) and a ship berth (approximately 30.3 acres, 

including the area to be dredged). The majority of the offshore ship unloading facility would be located 

in Delaware waters within the boundaries of New Castle County. 

 

1 A pig is an internal tool used to clean and dry a pipeline or to inspect a pipeline for damage or repair. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
2-13 

Non-Internet Public 

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE 

CROWN LANDING LNG PROJECT and 

LOGAN LATERAL PROJECT 

Docket Nos. CP04-411-000 and CP04-416-000 

Figure 2.2.3-1 Proposed Logan Lateral Route (Sheet 1 of 3) 

Public access for the above information is available only 

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

public.referenceroom@ferc.gov. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
2-14 

Non-Internet Public 

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE 

CROWN LANDING LNG PROJECT and 

LOGAN LATERAL PROJECT 

Docket Nos. CP04-411-000 and CP04-416-000 

Figure 2.2.3-1 Proposed Logan Lateral Route (Sheet 2 of 3) 

Public access for the above information is available only 

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

public.referenceroom@ferc.gov. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
2-15 

Non-Internet Public 

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE 

CROWN LANDING LNG PROJECT and 

LOGAN LATERAL PROJECT 

Docket Nos. CP04-411-000 and CP04-416-000 

Figure 2.2.3-1 Proposed Logan Lateral Route (Sheet 3 of 3) 

Public access for the above information is available only 

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

public.referenceroom@ferc.gov. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
2-16 

2.3.2 Pipeline Facilities 

Construction of the pipeline facilities would disturb a total of about 177.3 acres of land, 

consisting of 101.1 acres for the pipeline construction right-of-way, 65.6 acres for temporary extra 

workspace and staging areas, 4.4 acres for access roads, and 6.2 acres for aboveground facilities. 

Of the 177.3 acres of land affected by construction of the pipeline facilities, about 54.1 acres 

would be retained as permanent right-of-way for the pipeline and 1.8 acres for the aboveground facilities. 

The remaining 121.5 acres would be allowed to revert to its former use. Table 2.3.2-1 summarizes the 

land requirements for the pipeline facilities. 

About 6.4 miles (58 percent) of the pipeline would be constructed within or adjacent to various 

existing rights-of-way (see table 2.3.2-2). Of the 6.4 miles, 3.1 miles would be located within Texas 

Eastern’s existing pipeline easement (1.4 miles) or other existing pipeline easements (1.7 miles), 3.1 miles 

would be located within existing road rights-of-way, and 0.2 mile would be located within an existing 

railroad right-of-way. The remaining 4.6 miles (42 percent) would be constructed on newly created rightof-way. 

TABLE 2.3.2-1 

Summary of Land Requirements Associated with Construction and Operation 

of the Pipeline Facilities for the Logan Lateral Project 

Facility Land Affected During 

Construction (acres) 

Land Affected During 

Operation (acres) 

Pipeline 

 Pipeline Right-of-Way a/ 101.1 54.1 

 Temporary Extra Workspace and Staging Areas 65.6 0.0 

 Access Roads 4.4 0.0 

 Pipeline subtotal 171.1 54.1 

Aboveground Facilities 

 Chester Junction b/ 5.7 1.2 

 Logan Mainline Valve c/ 0.1 0.1 

 Meter and Regulation Station d/ 0.5 0.5 

 Aboveground Facility Subtotal 6.2 1.8 

Project Total 177.3 55.8 

____________________ 

a/ Based on a 100-foot-wide construction right-of-way. Some areas would have a reduced construction right-of-way to 

avoid impacts on residential and wetland areas. Operation acreage is based on a 50-foot-wide permanent right-of-way 

in all areas except at road crossings where the right-of-way width would be as permitted by the local agencies. 

Beginning at approximately milepost 10, the pipeline right-of-way would be located within the proposed 175-acre LNG 

terminal site but does not overlap the 39 acres that would be permanently developed for the terminal facilities. 

b/ The modifications and upgrades at Chester Junction would be conducted within the existing 1.3-acre fenced facility 

located on a 5.7-acre site owned by Texas Eastern. The work would be conducted within the limits of the existing site 

and no new property would need to be acquired by Texas Eastern. 

c/ The Logan Mainline Valve would require an additional 0.1 acre outside of Texas Eastern’s existing right-of-way. 

d/ The Crown Landing meter and regulation station would be located within the developed area (i.e., 39 acres) of the 175-

acre LNG terminal site. 

Note: The totals shown in this table may not equal the sum of addends due to rounding. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
2-17 

TABLE 2.3.2-2 

Location of Existing Rights-of-Way in Relation to the Proposed Pipeline Route 

Begin 

MP 

End MP Segment 

Length 

(miles) 

Existing Easement Relationship 

to Existing 

Rights-ofWay 

Width of 

Existing 

Right-ofWay (feet) 

Width Used 

for 

Temporary 

Construction 

Right-of-Way 

(feet) 

Width Used 

for 

Permanent 

Right-ofWay (feet) 

0.00 0.10 0.10 Texas Eastern’s 14-inch 

Sinclair Pipeline 

South 25 25 25 

0.10 0.21 0.11 Texas Eastern’s 14-inch 

Sinclair Pipeline 

North 25 25 25 

0.21 0.30 0.09 None, new right-of-way Not 

Applicable 

(NA) 

NA NA NA 

0.30 1.12 0.82 Trimble Boulevard a/ 45 b/ b/ 

1.12 1.19 0.07 Clearwater Avenue a/ 45 b/ b/ 

1.19 1.21 0.02 None, new right-of-way NA NA NA NA 

1.21 1.23 0.02 Texas Eastern’s 14-inch 

Sinclair Pipeline 

North 25 25 25 

1.23 1.65 0.42 Texas Eastern’s 14-inch 

Sinclair Pipeline 

South 25 25 25 

1.65 2.29 0.64 Texas Eastern’s 14-inch 

Sinclair Pipeline 

South 50 50 50 

2.29 2.55 0.26 None, new right-of-way NA NA NA NA 

2.55 2.67 0.12 Texas Eastern’s 12-inch 

Pipeline 

South 25 25 20 

2.67 2.71 0.04 Texas Eastern’s 12-inch 

Pipeline 

South 25 25 20 

2.71 2.85 0.14 Felton Avenue a/ 45 b/ b/ 

2.85 2.92 0.07 Bethel Road a/ 45 b/ b/ 

2.92 2.95 0.03 None, new right-of-way NA NA NA NA 

2.95 3.02 0.07 Interstate 95 c/ Unknown c/ c/ 

3.02 3.15 0.13 Palmer Street a/ 45 b/ b/ 

3.15 3.71 0.56 None, new right-of-way NA NA NA NA 

3.71 4.00 0.29 Palmer Street a/ 45 b/ b/ 

4.00 4.02 0.02 None, new right-of-way NA NA NA NA 

4.02 4.20 0.18 Norfolk Southern 

Railroad 

South Unknown d/ d/ 

4.20 5.44 1.24 None, new right-of-way NA NA NA NA 

5.44 6.90 1.46 Ferry Road a/ 45 b/ b/ 

6.90 9.28 2.38 None, new right-of-way NA NA NA NA 

9.28 10.33 1.05 Williams Transco 

Pipeline 

North 50 45 35 

10.33 10.89 0.56 Williams Transco 

Pipeline 

North 50 35 25 

10.89 11.00 0.11 Sun Oil Company 

Pipelines 

West 60 31 21 

____________________ 

a/ The pipeline would be located within the road/railroad right-of-way but the exact location would be based on the location of 

other existing utilities within the easement (e.g., water, sewer, residential natural gas pipelines). 

b/ The right-of-way width would be as permitted by the local agencies. 

c/ Texas Eastern would install the pipeline across Interstate 95 by boring underneath the road (bored crossing). 

d/ The right-of-way width would be as negotiated with Norfolk Southern. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
2-18 

Texas Eastern generally proposes to use a 100-foot-wide right-of-way to construct the pipeline 

and a 50-foot-wide permanent right-of-way to operate and maintain the pipeline. The typical right-ofway cross sections that Texas Eastern would use for the Logan Lateral Project are provided in Appendix 

B. Texas Eastern’s actual use of workspace and permanent right-of-way width (e.g., spoil storage, 

equipment travel lane) may vary depending on the space available for construction and its road crossing 

permits and easements with local agencies. 

Temporary extra workspaces and staging areas would be required for construction at waterbody, 

road, and railroad crossings, as well as at horizontal directional drill (HDD) work sites. The locations and 

sizes of the identified temporary extra workspaces and staging areas that Texas Eastern proposes to use 

are listed in table C-1 in Appendix C. It is also anticipated that temporary offsite workspace would be 

required for pipe and contractor yards, although the size and location of these areas have not yet been 

identified by Texas Eastern. 

Texas Eastern proposes to temporarily use 11 roads for access to the right-of-way during 

construction. These access roads are primarily existing paved, gravel, or dirt roads. Table C-2 in 

Appendix C lists the proposed access roads that would be used during construction of the Logan Lateral 

Project. Texas Eastern believes the majority of the roads can be used without improvements but 

anticipates that it may be necessary to add gravel to the surface of some of the existing gravel roads. 

Texas Eastern proposes to construct two new aboveground facilities and modify and upgrade one 

existing aboveground facility. The new Meter and Regulation Station would be located within the 

proposed 175-acre LNG terminal site. This facility would require a 0.5-acre area within the 175-acre 

terminal property. Modifications and upgrades would be made to Chester Junction, which is an existing 

1.3-acre fenced facility located on a 5.7-acre site owned by Texas Eastern in the Borough of Brookhaven. 

The work would be conducted within the limits of the existing site and no new property would need to be 

acquired by Texas Eastern. The Logan mainline valve at MP 2.1 would be a new facility located partially 

within Texas Eastern’s existing right-of-way. Texas Eastern would need to acquire an additional 0.1 acre 

of land for construction and operation of this facility. 

2.4 CONSTRUCTION PROCEDURES 

This section describes the general procedures proposed by Crown Landing and Texas Eastern for 

construction of the LNG terminal and pipeline facilities, respectively. Refer to section 4 for more detailed 

discussions of proposed construction and restoration procedures as well as additional measures that we 

are recommending to mitigate environmental impacts. 

The proposed LNG terminal and natural gas pipeline would be designed, constructed, operated, 

and maintained in accordance with federal safety standards that are intended to ensure adequate protection 

for the public and to prevent LNG and natural gas pipeline accidents or failures. 

Under the provisions of the Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act of 1968, as amended, Crown 

Landing would design, construct, operate, and maintain the LNG terminal facilities in accordance with 

the DOT Federal Safety Standards for Liquefied Natural Gas Facilities, 49 CFR 193. The facilities would 

also meet the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Standards for the Production, Storage, and 

Handling of LNG (NFPA 59A). These standards specify siting, design, construction, equipment, and fire 

protection requirements for new LNG facilities. The ship unloading facility and any appurtenances 

located between the LNG ships and the last valve immediately before the LNG storage tanks would 

comply with applicable sections of the Coast Guard regulations for Waterfront Facilities Handling LNG, 

33 CFR 127 and Executive Order 10173. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
2-19 

The proposed pipeline facilities would be designed, constructed, operated, and maintained in 

accordance with DOT regulations in 49 CFR 192, Transportation of Natural and Other Gas by Pipeline: 

Minimum Federal Safety Standards. Among other design standards, 49 CFR 192 specifies pipeline 

material selection; minimum design requirements; protection from internal, external, and atmospheric 

corrosion; and qualification procedures for welders and operations personnel. In addition, Texas Eastern 

would comply with the siting and maintenance requirements in 18 CFR 380.15 and other applicable 

federal and state regulations. 

Crown Landing would construct the LNG terminal facilities in accordance with our Upland 

Erosion Control, Revegetation and Maintenance Plan (FERC Plan) and Wetland and Waterbody 

Construction and Mitigation Procedures (FERC Procedures). It would also be required to construct the 

facilities in accordance with a site-specific Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control (SESC) Plan that is 

approved by the Gloucester County Soil Conservation District. Texas Eastern would construct the 

pipeline facilities in accordance with its SESC Plan, which is mostly consistent with our Plan and 

Procedures (see section 4.2.1 for a discussion of differences between the SESC Plan and our Plan and 

Procedures). Texas Eastern’s SESC Plan is provided in Appendix D. Copies of our Plan and Procedures 

are available on our website at www.ferc.gov. 

Crown Landing and Texas Eastern would be required to develop Spill Prevention, Containment 

and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plans to be implemented during construction of the facilities. The SPCC 

Plans must address potential spills of fuels, lubricants, and other hazardous materials and describe spill 

prevention practices, spill handling and emergency notification procedures, and training requirements. 

Crown Landing has indicated that it would be preparing an SPCC Plan for construction activities at the 

LNG terminal. This plan would include provisions for addressing spills at the onshore and offshore 

facilities. Texas Eastern’s SPCC Plan for the pipeline facilities is included in its SESC Plan, which is 

provided in Appendix D of this EIS. 

2.4.1 LNG Terminal 

Construction of the LNG terminal facilities would include construction of the onshore LNG 

storage, process, and support facilities and construction of the ship unloading facility in the Delaware 

River, including dredging of an LNG ship berth. 

2.4.1.1 LNG Storage and Process Facilities 

Site Preparation 

The first step in the construction of the LNG storage tanks and process facilities would be site 

preparation, including clearing and grubbing and placement of fill material. Minimal clearing and 

grubbing would be needed because the facilities would be mostly constructed in an agricultural field. The 

trees along the shoreline of the river would not be cleared. Approximately 150,000 cubic yards of fill 

material would be placed in the process area to raise the grade above the 1,000-year storm range elevation 

and to construct the 10-foot-high earthen containment dike around the storage tank area. Crown Landing 

anticipates obtaining fill material for the process area and dike from either a local dredge disposal area or 

borrow pit. 

Foundation Installation 

Once the site has been filled and graded to the required level, the next step would be construction 

of foundations for the storage tanks, buildings, major equipment, and pipe racks. Based on preliminary 

designs, Crown Landing anticipates that the foundations for the storage tanks would be supported on steel 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
2-20 

pipe pilings installed to a depth of approximately 100 feet below the ground surface. Concrete 

foundations for other major structures, including buildings, major equipment, and pipe racks, would be 

installed on the finished grade. To prevent post-construction settlement, it may be necessary to surcharge 

the foundations of these other major structures. 

Storage Tank Installation 

The construction of the three LNG storage tanks would require about 29 months to complete. 

After the foundations of the tanks are installed with embedded heating system conduits, to prevent subbase freezing from the stored LNG, tank construction would consist of the following sequential activities: 

• construction of the outer tank carbon steel wall liner; 

• installation of the outer tank carbon steel bottom liner on the foundation; 

• erection of the outer tank carbon steel roof liner on the outer tank bottom using temporary 

supports; 

• erection of the inner tank suspended deck and connection of the inner tank to the steel 

roof; 

• air raising the steel roof and suspended deck to the final position upon completion of the 

outer tank carbon steel liner, and welding the steel roof to the top compression bar; 

• installation of the bottom installation; 

• installation of the secondary and inner tank bottoms; 

• erection of the inner shell; 

• construction of the concrete walls to full height; 

• installation of the roof rebar and placement of the roof concrete; 

• installation and tensioning of the concrete wall prestress tendons; 

• installation of the roof platforms and stairways; 

• hydrotesting of the inner tank; and 

• installation of the annulus insulation. 

The storage tanks would be hydrostatically tested in accordance with DOT regulations to ensure 

that the tanks are capable of operating at the design pressure. Approximately 25 million gallons of water 

obtained from the Delaware River would be used to test each tank. The water to test each tank would be 

pumped at a low rate (less than 0.5 feet per second) through a screened intake from the river over a 2-

week period, retained in the tank for about 1 to 2 days, and then discharged back to the river over a 1 to 2 

week period. After testing is completed, about 250,000 gallons of freshwater pumped from onsite wells 

would be used to rinse each tank of any brackish water residue. Chlorine may need to be added to the test 

water to prevent microbiologically influenced corrosion in the tanks. The test water would be 

appropriated from and discharged in accordance with our Procedures and applicable state permits. 

Other Facility Construction 

During the construction of the storage tanks, other facility structures and buildings would be 

constructed and major mechanical and electrical equipment, process and utility piping, and 

instrumentation would be installed. Onsite wells would be installed to provide service water and 

firewater. An onsite septic system would be installed to treat sanitary wastes. An approximately 3,500-

foot-long, 69 kV electrical transmission line would be constructed from an existing substation located 

across U.S. Route 130 south of the existing Logan Generating Station entrance road to provide electrical 

power to the LNG terminal. All of these facilities would be completed and pre-commissioned in 

readiness for completion of the storage tanks. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
2-21 

Final Grading and Site Restoration 

After final grading, the areas around the process buildings, equipment, piping, and storage tanks 

would be covered with crushed rock. Other disturbed areas would be seeded and planted in accordance 

with Crown Landing’s Vegetation Management Plan (see section 4.5). 

2.4.1.2 Ship Unloading Facility 

The first step in construction of the ship unloading facility would be the dredging of a slip berth 

adjacent to the anchorage area in the Delaware River. The berth would be oriented perpendicular to the 

ship channel and out of the anchorage area to enhance the safety of the LNG ship while berthed. Section 

2.4.1.3 provides additional information on these proposed dredging and dredge disposal activities. 

The next step would be to construct the pier for the ship unloading facility. The pier would be 

constructed using a conventional “over the top” method of construction, which involves using land-based 

equipment to build the pier from the shore out into the river. This method would minimize the dredging 

that would otherwise be required to provide sufficient water depths for a barge-based construction 

approach. A large crawler crane would be used to drive the steel piles and to pick up and set the 

structural elements of the pier. Once the piles are in place, either precast concrete or fabricated steel pile 

caps and precast/prestressed girders or fabricated steel beams would be installed. A concrete deck with 

appropriate railing or barriers would be cast in place to contain the piping and form a roadway on the pier. 

The final step would be the construction of the berth structure, including the unloading platform 

and dolphins. The platform and dolphins would likely consist of cast-in-place or precast concrete decks 

with steel pipe pile foundations. Once the deck is completed, the unloading arms, fenders, mooring 

equipment, and walkways would be installed. Due to the sizes of some of the structural elements of the 

unloading platform and dolphins, a barge-based approach using marine equipment would be used to 

construct the berth structure. 

2.4.1.3 Dredging and Dredge Disposal 

About 1.24 million cubic yards of sediment would be dredged from the berth area to construct a 

slip for LNG ships. The berth area would be dredged to a depth of 40 feet below mean lower low water 

(MLLW), which is the current depth of the adjacent anchorage area and ship channel. To reduce the 

dredging volume and to minimize impacts on subtidal shallow habitats, sheet piling would be used on two 

sides of the berth (upstream and shoreline sides) to form perpendicular walls. The sheet piling would 

extend about 30 feet above the dredged mud line and buoys would mark the locations of the submerged 

sheet piling. The downstream side of the berth would consist of a stabilized soil terrace. Figure 2.4.1-1 

shows the proposed dredging area within the slip berth for LNG ships. 

Because a disposal site is within feasible pumping distance and the sediments are relatively soft 

and unconsolidated, Crown Landing proposes to remove the sediments by hydraulic dredging (a 240-footlong, 8,000 horsepower dredge that is rated for up to 2,880 cubic yards per hour would likely be used). 

This type of dredging uses a dredge with a cutter suction head to produce a slurry of sediments and water 

(approximately 20 percent solids and 80 percent water), which is essentially vacuumed up and pumped to 

a disposal site via a temporary discharge pipe. If boulders are encountered that would preclude the use of 

a hydraulic dredge, the dredged material would be removed through the selective use of a clamshell 

dredge, loaded in scows, and transported to the disposal facility discussed below. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Delaware

River

Proposed Dredging

Area

Marcus Hook

Anchorage Area

Figure 2.4.1-1

Crown Landing LNG Project

Proposed Dredging Area

0 400 800 1,200

Feet

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
2-23 

The dredged material would be pumped directly to a confined disposal facility owned and 

operated by Weeks Marine, Inc. (Weeks Marine) The disposal facility is located about 4 miles northeast 

of the LNG terminal site on the New Jersey shoreline east of the Commodore Barry Bridge. This facility 

is an existing upland confined disposal facility that has approximately 8 million cubic yards of permitted 

capacity. The 1.24 million cubic yards of dredged material would be pumped into an approximately 5.8 

million cubic yard expansion area that is currently under construction. The dredge slurry would be 

transported by a temporary 28- to 30-inch-diameter steel pipe laid on the river bottom along the edge of 

the Marcus Hook anchorage area to the southern limits of the disposal cells (i.e., the point furthest from 

the discharge spillway). The disposal cells would be confined within a large earthen dike around the 

perimeter that would structurally contain the slurry. As the dredge material is deposited within the cell, 

the slurry would flow across the disposal cell and deposit suspended materials. The remaining water 

would flow out of the disposal cell through a weir and be discharged in accordance with existing permit 

conditions of the facility. The location of the confined disposal facility is shown on figure 2.4.1-2. 

Crown Landing’s approved Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP) for the project includes the 

potential beneficial reuse of some portion of the proposed dredged sediments if the physical and chemical 

properties of the materials are appropriate. Based on data from adjacent portions of the Delaware River, 

Crown Landing anticipates that surface sediments in the proposed berthing area are likely to be 

dominated by silt and clay (poor material for beneficial uses); however, sediments from the deeper 

portions of the dredging footprint are anticipated to contain higher concentrations of sand. The deeper, 

sandier sediments may be appropriate for re-use onsite at the LNG facility as part of construction fill, or 

they could be used offsite for various beneficial use projects (e.g., road fill). If sandy sediments are 

encountered and characterization analyses indicate they may be beneficially reused, these sandy 

sediments would be dredged using a clamshell bucket. Crown Landing has indicated that additional 

permits from the State of New Jersey would be required to both store and beneficially use dredged 

sediments. If the results of the sediment characterization analyses indicate that the beneficial use of some 

portion of the proposed dredged materials is possible, Crown Landing would submit the necessary permit 

applications. 

2.4.2 Pipeline Facilities 

Construction of the Logan Lateral would primarily involve standard cross-country pipeline 

construction techniques in New Jersey and more specialized construction techniques in Pennsylvania. 

Due to constraints which limit the work area and the width of the construction right-of-way (e.g., 

residences and structures within 50 feet of the proposed construction right-of-way), special construction 

techniques would be used to install portions of the pipeline in residential and commercial areas. Special 

construction techniques would also be used when constructing the pipeline across or within waterbodies, 

wetlands, roads, and railroads. These special construction techniques are described in section 2.4.2.2. 

Texas Eastern would construct the Logan Lateral in accordance with its SESC and SPCC Plans. 

The SESC Plan is consistent with our Plan and Procedures except as noted in section 1.2 of the SESC 

Plan. Both of these plans are provided in Appendix D. 

2.4.2.1 General Construction Techniques 

Figure 2.4.2-1 shows the typical steps of cross-country pipeline construction. Standard pipeline 

construction proceeds in the manner of an outdoor assembly line composed of specific activities that 

make up the linear construction sequence. These operations collectively include survey and staking of the 

right-of-way, clearing and grading, trenching, pipe stringing and bending, welding and coating, loweringin and backfilling, hydrostatic testing, and cleanup. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
2-24 

 Non-Internet Public 

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE 

CROWN LANDING LNG PROJECT and 

LOGAN LATERAL PROJECT 

Docket Nos. CP04-411-000 and CP04-416-000 

Figure 2.4.1-2 Location of Proposed Dredge Disposal Site 

Public access for the above information is available only 

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

public.referenceroom@ferc.gov. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Figure 2.4.2-1

Logan Lateral Project

Typical Pipeline Construction Sequence

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
2-26 

Survey and Staking 

Before construction, Texas Eastern crews would survey and stake the centerline and exterior 

boundaries of the construction right-of-way. The exterior boundary stakes would mark the limit of 

approved disturbance areas and would be maintained throughout the construction period. Utility lines 

would be located and marked to prevent accidental damage during pipeline construction. During this 

period, equipment involved in pipeline construction would be moved onto the right-of-way using existing 

roads for access wherever practicable. 

Clearing and Grading 

Texas Eastern would clear the right-of-way of shrubs and trees. In the absence of other agency 

regulations or the preferences of private landowners, trees would be stockpiled to the side or removed 

from the right-of-way before any soil disturbance activities in order to prevent soil mixing with cut 

timber. In accordance with our Plan, topsoil up to a depth of 12 inches would be stripped from the trench 

and spoil storage area and placed at the edge of the right-of-way in agricultural lands and residential 

areas. If there is inadequate space for topsoil segregation in residential areas, our Plan would alternatively 

allow Texas Eastern to import topsoil. 

Trenching 

Backhoes or trenching machines would be used to excavate a trench approximately 5 to 6 feet 

deep. The trench walls would generally be sloped outward. Depending on soil conditions, the top of the 

trench would typically be 9 to 12 feet wide and the bottom of the trench would typically be between 3 and 

4 feet wide. In unstable and saturated soils, the trench could be wider. 

Spoil material excavated during trenching operations would be temporarily piled to one side of 

the right-of-way adjacent to the trench. In areas where topsoil stripping is required, the topsoil and 

subsoil would be stored in separate windrows or piles on the construction right-of-way and would not be 

allowed to mix. Where trench dewatering is needed, water would be discharged directly to the ground if 

there is adequate vegetation along the right-of-way to filter the water effectively. Where vegetation is 

sparse or absent, or in environmentally sensitive areas (e.g., adjacent to streams or wetlands), hay bale 

filters or suitable filtering alternatives would be used to limit siltation. 

Stringing and Bending 

Either before or after trenching, individual joints of pipe would be strung along the right-of-way 

adjacent to the excavated trench and arranged to be accessible to construction personnel. This operation 

typically involves specially designed stringing trucks to deliver pipe from the pipe yard to the right-ofway. Small portable cranes and/or side-boom tractors are used to unload the stringing trucks and place 

the pipe along the trench line. A mechanical pipe-bending machine would bend individual joints of pipe 

to the desired angle to accommodate changes in the natural ground contour or pipeline alignment. In 

certain areas, prefabricated fittings would be used where field bending is not practicable. 

Welding and Coating 

After stringing and bending are complete, pipe sections would be aligned, welded together, and 

placed on temporary supports along the edge of the trench. Texas Eastern would inspect all welds, both 

visually and radiographically (i.e., x-ray), and would make repairs, if necessary. The pipe is typically 

delivered with a factory coating of fusion-bonded epoxy or similar material. Texas Eastern would apply 

coating at welded joints and would electronically inspect the entire pipeline coating to locate any flaws. 

All flaws in the coating would be repaired before the pipe is lowered into the trench. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
2-27 

Lowering-in and Backfilling 

After welding and coating are completed, the pipe would be lowered into the trench by side-boom 

tractors. Bladed equipment or a specially designed backfilling machine would be used to backfill the 

trench. No construction debris, including wooden supports, welding rods, containers, brush, trees, or 

refuse of any kind, would be permitted in the backfill. If rocks are present in the backfill, the pipeline 

would be protected with rock shields or similar protective coating and/or backfilled with clean padding 

prior to backfilling with the rocky material. 

Hydrostatic Testing 

After backfilling, Texas Eastern would hydrostatically test the pipeline in accordance with DOT 

regulations to ensure that the system is capable of operating at the design pressure. The testing process 

would involve filling a segment of the pipeline with water and maintaining a prescribed pressure for a 

specified amount of time. If a leak or break in the line were to occur during testing, Texas Eastern would 

repair and retest that section of pipe until DOT specifications are met. 

The length of individual test segments would be determined by topography and water availability. 

Water withdrawals used to fill and test the pipeline would be consistent with state regulations and our 

Procedures. Texas Eastern currently plans to obtain hydrostatic test water from a municipal source, 

Ridley Creek, and Delaware River. Texas Eastern estimated that about 2.1 million gallons of water 

would be needed from these sources to test the pipeline. After testing is completed, the water would be 

discharged to Ridley Creek and the Delaware River, in accordance with our Procedures and permits 

issued by the state agencies. 

Cleanup 

After hydrostatic testing is completed, Texas Eastern would regrade and restore work areas as 

nearly as practicable to the original contour of the land. Topsoil would be respread over areas from which 

it was originally removed. Permanent soil stabilization efforts would primarily include revegetation of 

the right-of-way. Fences that are removed to install the pipeline would be reconstructed across the rightof-way. 

Disposal of timber, slash, and rock would be in accordance with the desires of the landowner and 

consistent with local regulations and our Plan. In the absence of other agency regulations or the 

preferences of private landowners, timber would be stockpiled along the edge of the right-of-way. Slash 

would be stockpiled on the edge of the right-of-way, chipped and spread across the right-of-way in upland 

areas, hauled offsite, or burned onsite in accordance with local regulations. Excess rock would be 

stockpiled onsite if requested by the landowner, or disposed of in an alternative, landowner- and FERCapproved upland area or permitted landfill. 

Restoration and Revegetation 

Following installation and backfilling of the pipeline, original grade and contours would be 

restored and permanent erosion controls would be installed. Disturbed soils would be revegetated in 

accordance with Texas Eastern’s SESC Plan, other permit requirements, and site-specific landowner 

requests. Turf, ornamental shrubs, and other landscaping material would be restored in accordance with 

landowner agreements. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
2-28 

2.4.2.2 Special Construction Techniques 

Residential and Commercial Areas 

Texas Eastern has indicated that it would use stovepipe or drag section construction techniques 

near some residential and commercial areas along the pipeline route to reduce the width of the 

construction right-of-way and thus minimize the disturbance area. These techniques are as follows: 

• Stovepipe construction involves excavating limited segments of open trench and 

installing the pipeline one or two pipe sections at a time. Depending on the amount of 

workspace available, the excavated material is either temporarily stored on the reduced 

construction right-of-way or hauled offsite for temporary storage. Once one or two pipe 

sections are placed in the open trench, associated pipeline installation activities such as 

welding, radiography, and pipe coating are conducted in the trench. Following these 

activities, the trench is immediately backfilled. 

• Drag section construction involves welding two or more pipe sections together in an area 

away from the residences and carrying the pipe into place for installation. This method 

reduces the construction workspace requirements near residences and also reduces the 

amount of time the residents are disturbed. 

Texas Eastern would notify affected residents in advance of construction activities and coordinate 

any scheduled disruption of utilities and crossings of private roads or driveways. If construction activities 

disrupt the ingress/egress to a residence, Texas Eastern would offer to temporarily relocate the landowner 

to a motel and provide a meal allowance. Other mitigative measures that would be implemented near 

residences include maintaining a minimum distance of 25 feet between the construction right-of-way and 

residences; installing safety fencing along open trenches and along the construction right-of-way for a 

distance of 100 feet on either side of residences; and restoring landscaping and private structures as soon 

as practical. Texas Eastern would also develop site-specific construction plans for residences located 

within 25 feet of the construction right-of-way. These plans would address concerns such as dust control, 

noise minimization, access by landowners or occupants, and safety near open trenches. Additional 

measures that would be implemented to minimize construction-related impacts on residences are provided 

in the SESC Plan in Appendix D and further discussed in section 4.8.2.2. 

Waterbody Crossings 

Waterbody crossings would be constructed in accordance with our Procedures, Texas Eastern’s 

SESC Plan, and applicable permits. Texas Eastern proposes to install the pipeline across all waterbodies 

except the Chester Creek, Delaware River, Raccoon Creek, and Birch Creek using the open-cut 

construction method. These open-cut crossings would involve excavation of the pipeline trench across the 

waterbody, installation of the pipeline, and backfilling of the trench with native material with no effort to 

isolate flow from construction activities. Excavation and backfilling of the trench would be accomplished 

using backhoes or other excavation equipment operating from one or both banks of the waterbody. 

Trench spoil would be stored at least 10 feet from the stream banks (topographic conditions permitting). 

Sediment barriers, such as silt fence and staked straw bales, would be installed to prevent spoil and 

sediment-laden water from entering the stream. 

Texas Eastern proposes to construct the pipeline across Chester Creek (including Baldwin Run), 

Delaware River, Raccoon Creek, and Birch Creek using the HDD technique, which essentially involves 

drilling a hole beneath the waterbody and installing the pipe in the drilled hole. The feasibility of this 

method depends on site-specific conditions such as subsurface lithology, crossing length, burial depth, 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
2-29 

sediment composition, bank conditions, availability of workspace, and access. The primary advantages of 

an HDD crossing are that the waterbody is not disturbed and boat traffic is not disrupted. 

The HDD method consists of three steps: 1) drilling a pilot hole typically between 30 and 50 feet 

beneath the waterbody; 2) enlarging the pilot hole with a series of reamers to accommodate the pipeline; 

and 3) pulling a prefabricated section of pipe back through the hole. Drilling mud, consisting of a 

bentonite slurry, is used to lubricate the drill bit, maintain the hole, and remove drill cuttings. Bentonite 

is the commercial name for a mixture of non-toxic clays and rock particles consisting of about 85 percent 

montmorillonite clay, 10 percent quartz and feldspars, and 5 percent accessory materials, such as calcite 

and gypsum. 

Each HDD crossing would require additional work areas for drilling equipment, pipe assembly, 

support vehicles, supplies and materials, temporary mud pits and tanks, access to the drilling sites; and 

areas to turn equipment around. Access to the stream bank would also be needed for placement of 

temporary surface wires to electronically track the HDD pilot drill across the waterbody. Access to the 

bank on either side of the stream may also be necessary to withdraw water as needed for hydrostatic 

testing of the pipe section. Texas Eastern would install erosion control measures in accordance with its 

SESC Plan to prevent runoff from the temporary work areas. 

After the HDD is completed, drilling mud would be disposed of within the construction right-ofway or in an approved off-site landfill. Onsite disposal of drilling mud would be subject to landowner 

approval and would consist of spreading the mud over the disposal area followed by a tillage operation to 

work the dried mud into the soil. 

Texas Eastern prepared and would implement a Horizontal Directional Drill Monitoring and 

Contingency Plan (Monitoring and Contingency Plan). The Monitoring and Contingency Plan outlines 

HDD monitoring techniques, measures to minimize environmental impacts associated with an inadvertent 

release of drilling fluid, and contingency plans for alternative construction techniques in the event that the 

HDD technique fails. We have recommended that Texas Eastern file alternate site-specific crossing plans 

in the event that the HDD technique does not work at the waterbody crossings discussed above (see 

section 4.3.2). 

Wetland Crossings 

Texas Eastern would construct the pipeline across wetlands in accordance with its SESC Plan, 

our Procedures, and applicable permits using primarily open-cut crossing methods. Woody vegetation 

would be cut off at ground level and removed from the wetlands leaving the root systems intact. 

Temporary erosion control devices would be installed as necessary immediately after initial disturbance 

of wetlands or adjacent upland areas to prevent sediment flow into wetlands, and would be maintained 

until revegetation is complete. Timber mats or terra mats would be used where necessary to stabilize the 

right-of-way for equipment, minimize rutting, and prevent the mixing of topsoil and subsoil. The pulling 

of stumps would not be permitted except in the area of the pipeline trench and in other areas where their 

removal is necessary for safety reasons. 

In accordance with the SESC Plan and consistent with our Procedures, topsoil would be stripped 

over the trench line to a maximum depth of 12 inches in unsaturated soils and placed in a separate spoil 

pile. Following installation of the pipe, the trench would be backfilled and the topsoil replaced. 

Permanent trench breakers would be installed as necessary to maintain wetland hydrology. Natural 

contours of the wetland would be restored, any required permanent erosion control measures would be 

installed, and the area would be temporarily stabilized with appropriate vegetation to protect the wetland 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
2-30 

soil from erosion. Materials such as timber mats placed in wetlands during construction would be 

removed during final cleanup. 

Roads and Railroads 

Texas Eastern would construct road and railroad crossings in compliance with applicable state 

and local permits and approvals. Crossings at most paved public roads, private roads, and driveways 

would be open cut. This would involve trenching across the road, installing the pipeline, backfilling the 

trench, and then repairing and repaving the road. All open-cut road crossings would be completed as 

quickly possible. At least one lane of traffic would be maintained to the extent practical when 

constructing in residential streets. Any open trenches across roads would either be fenced or covered with 

steel plates during non-working hours. Steel plates would also be available onsite to cover open trenches 

to allow crossing by emergency vehicles. 

At Bridgewater Road, Concord Road, Interstate 95, West 9th Street, and two railroad crossings the 

pipeline would be installed by boring underneath the road or railroad (bored crossing). Boring involves 

excavating a bore pit and a receiving pit on opposite sides of the road or railroad, placing a boring 

machine at the bottom of the bore pit, and augering a hole under the road or railroad to the receiving pit. 

As the bore is progressed, a casing is advanced with the auger and the pipe is pushed through the 

completed casing. No traffic would be disrupted during boring activities. 

Albert Road would be drilled as part of the HDD for the Chester Creek crossing. 

Texas Eastern proposes to construct the pipeline immediately adjacent to or within five city 

streets in Pennsylvania (Trimble Boulevard, Clearwater Avenue, Felton Avenue, Bethel Road, and Palmer 

Street). We are also recommending that Texas Eastern install the pipeline adjacent to Ward Street to 

minimize impacts on Veterans Memorial Park (see section 3.5.3). The stovepipe or drag section methods 

described above would generally be used to install the pipeline adjacent to or within these streets. 

Pipeline trenches in or adjacent to these streets would be backfilled or covered with steel plates daily. In 

addition, steel plates would be readily available to cover the trench in the event of an emergency that 

requires access across the trench. After the pipeline is installed under the road and the trench backfilled, 

the road would be repaired and repaved. We have recommended that Texas Eastern prepare a Traffic 

Management Plan for construction within or adjacent to city streets to ensure that impacts associated with 

in-street construction are minimized (see section 4.9.4.1). 

2.5 CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE 

Crown Landing anticipates that the entire project would take approximately 3 years to construct. 

Crown Landing proposes to begin construction of the LNG facilities after all permits and approvals have 

been obtained. After the initial site mobilizations and preparation activities are completed, placement of 

fill material in the process area and installation of the pilings for the storage tanks would begin. 

Construction of the LNG storage tanks would take approximately 29 months to complete. Dredging of 

the berth slip would also begin at about the same time with the ship unloading facility completed about 19 

months later. Construction of the LNG process facilities and support buildings would begin about 6 to 8 

months after initiation of site construction. Crown Landing originally planned to begin operation of the 

terminal in 2008 but this date could be delayed pending resolution of the jurisdictional issues between the 

states of New Jersey and Delaware. 

Texas Eastern would begin construction of the Logan Lateral about 1 year prior to the completion 

of the LNG terminal. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
2-31 

2.6 ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE, INSPECTION, AND MITIGATION MONITORING 

In preparing construction drawings and specifications for the project, Crown Landing and Texas 

Eastern would incorporate mitigation measures identified in their applications as well as requirements of 

federal, state, and local agencies. Contractors would also be provided copies of applicable environmental 

permits. 

Prior to construction, Crown Landing and Texas Eastern would provide environmental training to 

all construction personnel regarding environmental conditions and proper implementation of 

environmental mitigation measures. This environmental training would be ongoing during construction. 

Both Crown Landing and Texas Eastern would each be required to have at least one 

Environmental Inspector (EI) during construction of the facilities to ensure quality assurance and 

compliance with environmental mitigation measures, other applicable regulatory requirements, and 

company specifications. The Environmental Inspector's duties are described in our Plan and Procedures 

and would include ensuring compliance with environmental conditions attached to any authorization, 

other permits or authorizations, and to Crown Landing’s or Texas Eastern’s environmental designs and 

specifications. 

In addition, FERC staff would conduct inspections to monitor the project for compliance with the 

Commission's environmental conditions. 

2.7 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE PROCEDURES 

2.7.1 LNG Terminal 

Imported LNG would be obtained from liquefaction plants throughout the world and delivered 

via LNG ships to the proposed terminal. At least 96 hours prior to its arrival, each LNG ship would 

notify the terminal, the Coast Guard, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, pilots, tug operators, 

and shipping agents. The Coast Guard may inspect the ship prior to entry into U.S. territorial waters and 

before the inbound transit up the Delaware Bay and River. A licensed Delaware River Pilot would advise 

the LNG ship Captains on the navigation of the ships on the Delaware River. In addition, a Docking Pilot 

would board each ship downstream of 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. Two tugs would be 

secured fast to the ship downstream of the Delaware Memorial Bridge and would escort the ship to and 

from the LNG terminal. A third tug would join the LNG ship at the terminal site to assist in berthing and 

unberthing the ship. The approximately 74 nautical-mile transit from the mouth of the Delaware Bay to 

the LNG terminal would take about 7 hours. 

At the terminal, the tugs would assist in maneuvering and docking the ship at the unloading 

facility and a minimum of two tugs would standby during unloading operations. The berth would be 

equipped with an electronic docking assistance system that would facilitate docking operations. Once 

securely docked at the berth of the unloading facility with the bow facing the river channel, the ship 

would attach to the unloading arms and transfer LNG to the storage tanks using the ship’s LNG pumps. 

The unloading arms would be designed to offload LNG from the ships at a rate up to 14,000 m3

/hr. As 

the LNG is offloaded, ballast water would be taken on to compensate for the loss of cargo. No ballast 

water or sanitary waste would be discharged into the river. 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. The entire 

offloading process from docking to undocking would take about 24 hours. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
2-32 

LNG would be stored in the storage tanks at a temperature of approximately -260° F. Boil-off 

gas generated from vaporization of LNG while in the storage tanks, and piping and flash gas from pump 

circulation would be compressed by boil-off gas compressors and then passed to a condenser system, 

where it would be condensed into the outgoing LNG. 

A series of in-tank and second stage sendout pumps would be used to pressurize the stored LNG 

to pipeline pressure and to pump the pressurized LNG to the vaporizers. The LNG would be vaporized in 

a closed-loop shell and tube heat exchanger system. Nitrogen would be injected into the vaporized LNG, 

as needed, to lower the Btu content to pipeline specifications. The natural gas would be odorized and 

then discharged into the sendout pipelines for delivery to markets. 

Crown Landing would operate and maintain the facilities in compliance with 49 CFR 193, 33 

CFR 127, NFPA 59A, and other applicable federal and state regulations. In accordance with 49 CFR 

193.2503 and 193.2605 and sections 11.3.1 and 11.5.2 of NFPA 59A, Crown Landing would be required 

to prepare operation and maintenance manuals that address specific procedures for the safe operation and 

maintenance of the LNG storage and process facilities. These manuals would address startup, shutdown, 

cooldown, purging, and other routine operation, maintenance, and monitoring procedures. In accordance 

with 33 CFR 127.305, Crown Landing would also prepare an operation manual that addresses specific 

procedures for the safe operation of the ship unloading facility. These manuals would include training 

requirements and programs for operations and maintenance personnel. 

2.7.2 Pipeline Facilities 

Texas Eastern would be responsible for operating and maintaining the Logan Lateral facilities in 

accordance with 49 CFR 192, Minimum Federal Safety Standards for the Transportation of Natural and 

Other Gas by Pipeline, as required by the DOT. Columbia Gas and Transco would be responsible for 

operating and maintaining their respective meter and regulation stations on the LNG terminal site. 

Section 4.12.7 presents a discussion of the DOT’s safety regulations and requirements for natural gas 

pipelines and describes how these requirements would be met by the pipeline operator. 

The pipeline would be regularly inspected by aerial patrols or on-the-ground inspections to 

observe general right-of-way conditions and to identify any natural gas leaks, construction activity on or 

near the permanent right-of-way by outside parties, evidence of possible pipeline damage, or damage to 

erosion-control structures. All inspections would be in accordance with DOT standards. Any erosion or 

unstable conditions observed on the right-of-way would be repaired as necessary. The aboveground 

facilities would be inspected at intervals that meet or exceed DOT requirements. During these 

inspections, equipment would be tested, recalibrated, and repaired as needed. 

2.8 SAFETY CONTROLS 

2.8.1 LNG Terminal 

The LNG terminal would be sited, designed, constructed, operated, and maintained in compliance 

with federal safety standards. Federal siting and design requirements for LNG facilities are summarized 

in table 2.8.1-1. 

2.8.1.1 Spill Impoundment System 

A spill impoundment system would be constructed at the LNG terminal in accordance with the 

requirements of 49 CFR Part 193 and NFPA 59A. The system would include concrete pads and curbing 

under all LNG-containing equipment and piping, concrete trenches to drain spilled LNG away from the 

equipment and piping, and five concrete and earthen sumps to collect the spilled LNG in safe locations 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
2-33 

remote from property lines, equipment, and buildings. Impoundment sumps would be constructed for the 

following five design spills: 

• Major Spill: An earthen impoundment sump designed to collect a 10-minute spill from 

the 44-inch-diameter LNG unloading line would be located in the northeast corner of the 

earthen dike surrounding the storage tanks. This sump would be 172 feet wide, 240 feet 

long, and 4 feet deep; 

• LNG Tank Withdrawal Header Design Spill: An earthen impoundment sump designed to 

collect a 10-minute spill from an 18-inch-diameter storage tank withdrawal line would be 

located within the major spill sump. This sump would be 83 feet wide, 83 feet long, and 

3 feet deep; 

• Process Area Design Spill: A concrete impoundment sump designed to collect a 10-

minute spill from a 1-inch instrument connection at the discharge header of the highpressure sendout pumps would be located within the LNG tank withdrawal header spill 

sump. This sump would be 32 feet wide, 32 feet long, and 4 feet deep; 

• Marine Transfer Area Design Spill: A concrete impoundment sump designed to collect a 

10-minute spill from a 1-inch instrument connection at the discharge header of the 

unloading arms would be located on the pier adjacent to the ship unloading platform. 

This sump would be 6 feet wide, 32 feet long, and 3 feet deep; and 

• Shoreline Isolation Valve Area Design Spill: A concrete sump designed to collect a 10-

minute spill from a shoreline isolation valve would be located on the pier adjacent to the 

shoreline isolation valve area. This sump would be 7 feet wide, 7 feet long, and 3 feet 

deep. 

The impoundment sumps for the major spills, LNG tank withdrawal header, and the process area 

would be integrated to allow the concrete sump to fill first and then overflow into the large earthen 

sumps. The concrete trenches used to drain LNG spills towards the impoundment sumps would also be 

an integrated system. The main trench located on the pier and onshore would be a minimum of 18 feet 

wide and 2 feet deep and would be designed to accommodate a major spill. A smaller trench (3 feet wide 

and 2 feet deep) would be located within the onshore portions of the main trench and would be designed 

to accommodate the LNG tank withdrawal header and process area spills. 

The impoundment sumps would contain pumps to remove collected stormwater. Any stormwater 

collected in the spill containment system would be routinely pumped from the impoundment sumps to the 

onsite stormwater management system. The sumps and trenches would be equipped with automatic level 

control activators and low-temperature sensors and switches to prevent operation of the pumps in the 

event of an accidental release of LNG to the sumps. 

In addition to the above spill impoundment system, an earthen berm would be constructed around 

the LNG storage tanks and impoundment sump area to prevent the offsite release of spilled LNG. The 

berm would be 10 feet high and would be capable of containing over 100 percent of the maximum liquid 

capacity of one of the tanks. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
2-34 

TABLE 2.8.1-1 

Federal Siting and Design Requirements for LNG Facilities 

Requirement Description 

Thermal Radiation Protection (49 CFR 193.2057 and section 

2.2.3.2 of NFPA 59A) 

This requirement is designed to ensure that certain public land 

uses and structures outside the LNG facility boundaries are 

protected in the event of an LNG fire. 

Flammable Vapor-Gas Dispersion Protection (49 CFR 

193.2059 and sections 2.2.3.3 and 2.2.3.4 of NFPA 59A) 

This requirement is designed to prevent a flammable vapor 

cloud associated with an LNG spill from reaching a property 

line that can be built upon. 

Wind Forces (49 CFR 193.2067) This requirement specifies that all facilities be designed to 

withstand wind forces of not less than 150 miles per hour 

without the loss of structural integrity. 

Impounded Liquid (section 2.2.3.8 of NFPA 59A) This requirement specifies that liquids in spill impoundment 

basins cannot be closer than 50 feet from a property line that 

can be built upon or a navigable waterway. 

Container Spacing (section 2.2.4.1 of NFPA 59A) This requirement specifies that LNG containers with capacities 

greater than 70,000 gallons must be located a minimum 

distance of 0.7 times the container diameter from the property 

line or buildings. 

Vaporizer Spacing (section 2.2.5.2 of NFPA 59A) This requirement specifies that integral heated vaporizers must 

be located at least 100 feet from a property line that can be 

built upon and at least 50 feet from other select structures and 

equipment. 

Process Equipment Spacing (section 2.2.6.1 of NFPA 59A) This requirement specifies that process equipment containing 

LNG or flammable gases must be located at least 50 feet from 

sources of ignition, a property line that can be built upon, 

control rooms, offices, shops, and other occupied structures. 

Marine Transfer Spacing (33 CFR 127.105) This requirement specifies that each LNG unloading flange 

must be located at least 985 feet from any bridge crossing a 

navigable waterway. 

Proximity to Airport Runways (49 CFR 193.2155) This requirement specifies that an LNG storage tank must not 

be located within a horizontal distance of 1 mile from the ends 

of or 0.25 mile from the nearest point of an airport runway, 

whichever is longer. 

2.8.1.2 Fire and Hazard Detection System 

Fire and hazard detectors would be installed throughout the facility to: 

• provide operating personnel early detection of releases of flammable gases and fires; 

• show the general location of a release or fire; and 

• initiate shutdown of equipment in the affected portion of the facility. 

The fire and hazard detection system would include: 

• combustible gas and low-temperature detectors to monitor for potentially hazardous 

conditions; 

• high-temperature, smoke, and ultraviolet/infrared (UV/IR) flame detectors to monitor for 

fire; 

• an integrated system that would be monitored from a main control room; and 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
2-35 

• automatic emergency shutdown capabilities in the event of hazard or fire detections. 

Locations where smoke, combustible gas, and UV/IR flame detectors would be installed are 

summarized in table 2.8.1-2. 

High-temperature detectors would be installed on the relief valves of the LNG storage tanks to 

detect a fire in the discharge vents of the tanks. As discussed in the previous section, low-temperature 

detectors would be installed in the spill impoundment sumps and trenches to prevent the start-up of the 

stormwater pumps should there be an accidental release of LNG to the sumps or trenches. Lowtemperature detectors would also be installed in the discharge vents of the tanks to detect the release of 

cold vapors. 

Crown Landing would also install a closed-circuit television system to monitor key facilities. 

This system would be used to detect visual evidence of LNG releases, fires, or other emergencies as well 

as to monitor site security. 

TABLE 2.8.1-2 

Proposed Locations of Smoke, Combustible Gas, and UV/IR Flame Detectors at the LNG Terminal 

Detector Location Combustible Gas a/ UV/IR Flame a/ Smoke a/ 

BUILDINGS 

Administration Building 4 4 

Maintenance Shop 2 4 

MCC Building 2 2 

Main Control Room 2 2 

Pier Control Building 2 2 

Utility Building 2 2 3 

Heater Building 8 4 

Boil-off Gas Compressor Building 4 4 

Emergency Generator Enclosure 1 1 

PROCESS AREAS 

Nitrogen Plant Area 2 4 

High Pressure Pump Area 4 4 

Vaporizer Area 4 4 

Metering Area 3 2 

Flare Area 1 

Warm Water/Ethylene Glycol Pumps 2 

Water/Ethylene Glycol Expansion Tank 1 

MARINE AREAS 

Ship Unloading Platform 4 2 

Shoreline Isolation Valve Area 2 2 

LNG STORAGE TANKS 

Tank Roof Platforms 12 6 

____________________ 

a/ Numbers represent the number of detectors to be installed at each location. 

2.8.1.3 Fire and Hazard Control System 

The fire and hazard control system would be designed in accordance with NFPA 59A 

requirements and would provide for extinguishing Class A fires; cooling tanks, structures, and equipment 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
2-36 

exposed to thermal radiation; and dispersing flammable vapors. The main components of the system 

would include: 

• an approximate 300,000 gallon firewater storage tank, which would be filled from onsite 

wells; 

• two firewater pumps (one electric and one diesel engine-driven) and one electric jockey 

pump that would supply an underground firewater loop; and 

• a firewater piping distribution system that would provide water to firewater monitor 

nozzles, hydrants, and hoses located throughout the onshore and offshore facilities. 

Fixed dry chemical extinguishment skids and wheeled dry chemical extinguishment units would 

be located in the process areas and on the ship unloading platform as listed in table 2.8.1-3. Dry chemical 

extinguishment units would also be provided on the LNG storage tank relief valves. Portable hand-held 

dry chemical and carbon dioxide (CO2) fire extinguishers would be provided in buildings and in the 

process areas as listed in table 2.8.1-3. 

TABLE 2.8.1-3 

Proposed Locations of Fire Protection System Equipment at the LNG Terminal 

 Firewater Fire Extinguishers 

Location Hydrants Monitors Skid Mount 

Dry Chem 

Wheeled 

Dry Chem 

Hand-held 

Dry Chem 

Hand-held 

CO2

BUILDINGS 

Administration Building 1 4 

Guardhouse 1 

Maintenance Shop 1 2 

MCC Building 2 2 2 

Main Control Room 2 

Pier Control Room 2 

Utility Building 1 1 2 

Heater Building 2 2 2 

Boil-off Gas Compressor Building 1 1 1 2 

PROCESS AREAS 

Nitrogen Plant Area 3 3 1 4 

High Pressure Pump Area 2 2 1 1 1 

Vaporizer Area 2 2 1 1 1 

Metering Area 2 2 1 1 

Flare Area 1 1 1 

MARINE AREAS 

Ship Unloading Platform 2 2 2 1 2 

Firewater Connection to Ship 2 

LNG STORAGE TANKS 

Tank Roof Platforms 6 

Tank Pressure Relief Valve Stacks 12 

____________________ 

a/ Numbers represent the number of extinguishers to be installed at each location. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
2-37 

2.8.1.4 Emergency Shutdown System 

The proposed LNG terminal would have an emergency shutdown system (ESS) that would isolate 

and shut off sources of combustible gas and automatically shut down process equipment. ESS 

pushbuttons would be located at various locations throughout the LNG terminal to manually activate an 

overall emergency shutdown as well as other zoned emergency shutdowns that control groups of related 

equipment such as the ship unloading facility or the terminal sendout system. An emergency shutdown 

could also be activated automatically by the fire and hazard detection system (see section 2.8.1.2) upon 

detection of a fire or a release of combustible gas. In addition, ESSs on the LNG ships would be 

interfaced with the terminal ESS during ship unloading operations. When an emergency shutdown is 

activated, audible alarms would be activated throughout the facility and visual alarms would be activated 

in the main control room and the pier control room. After an emergency shutdown, normal operations 

would be stopped until the emergency is resolved and the ESS has been reset in the main control room. 

2.8.2 Pipeline Facilities 

The pipelines and aboveground facilities associated with the Logan Lateral Project would be 

designed, constructed, operated, and maintained in accordance with DOT Minimum Federal Safety 

Standards in 49 CFR 192. These safety standards are discussed in section 4.12.7. 

2.8.2.1 Corrosion Protection and Detection Systems 

Texas Eastern would add a protective coating of fusion bond epoxy on the exterior of the pipe to 

prevent or minimize corrosion. A cathodic protection system would also be installed to prevent or 

minimize corrosion of the pipeline facilities. Direct current in the ground flows from sacrificial anodes in 

zinc ground bed systems through the earth to the pipeline (cathode). This system reverses the natural 

current flow from the pipeline to the ground, which could result in corrosion at imperfections in the 

pipeline coating. 

2.8.2.2 Emergency Response Procedures 

Pipeline system emergencies can include gas leaks, fire or explosion, and/or damage to the 

pipeline and aboveground facilities. In accordance with DOT regulations, Texas Eastern would develop a 

new plan or revise its existing plan to address procedures to be followed in the event of an emergency 

along the pipeline. This plan would include training of employees on emergency procedures; establishing 

liaisons with appropriate fire, police, and other community officials; and informing the public on how to 

identify and report an emergency condition on the pipeline route. 

2.9 FUTURE PLANS AND ABANDONMENT 

Crown Landing and Texas Eastern have no future plans for expansion or abandonment of the 

proposed LNG terminal or pipeline. Depending on future market demand, additional vaporizers could be 

added to increase the sendout capacity of the facility. 

Future dredging of the ship berth would be needed to maintain the appropriate depth for safely 

mooring ships at the berth. Based on its sediment transport analysis, Crown Landing estimates that the 

sedimentation rate in the ship berth would be about 60,000 to 90,000 cubic yards per year. Crown 

Landing anticipates that maintenance dredging of the berth would be conducted on an annual basis using 

clamshell dredging techniques and the dredged material would be disposed of at the Weeks Marine 

confined disposal facility. Any future dredging would require permits from the appropriate federal and 

state agencies. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
2-38 

We received comments on the draft EIS regarding the long-term capacity of the Weeks Marine 

facility and its ability to accommodate future maintenance dredging volumes of the proposed project. 

Weeks Marine reportedly has about 8 million cubic yards of permitted dredge disposal capacity in 2005, 

which it estimated will provide several years of disposal capacity for its customers along the Delaware 

Bay and River. If this facility reaches its permitted capacity during the operating period of the proposed 

LNG terminal, we anticipate that other dredge disposal facilities will be permitted and constructed in or 

near the project area to provide dredge disposal services to the numerous private marinas and industrial 

terminals along the Delaware River. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
3-1 

3.0 ALTERNATIVES 

In considering Crown Landing’s and Texas Eastern’s applications, the FERC will review both the 

environmental and non-environmental record in deciding whether it is in the public convenience and 

necessity to issue any authorization for the project. The EIS addresses alternatives to the proposed 

actions before both the FERC and the Coast Guard. The proposed action before the FERC is to consider 

issuing to Crown Landing a section 3 authorization for the LNG import facilities and to Texas Eastern a 

section 7 Certificate for a new natural gas pipeline. 

The proposed action before the Coast Guard is to consider issuing Crown Landing an LOR 

finding the waterway suitable for LNG marine traffic, with certain conditions. These conditions are 

outlined, in part, in the Coast Guard’s December 1, 2005, letter to FERC (attached as Appendix L). 

Specifically, these conditions require that all agencies that would be involved in navigation safety and 

maritime security aspects of LNG vessels transiting to and operating at the Crown Landing terminal be 

adequately staffed, equipped, and funded to fully implement the safety and security measures. These 

measures include, but are not limited to, security zones around the LNG carriers, a vessel traffic control 

plan, escorts by armed law enforcement vessels, a variety of waterway and shoreline surveillance 

measures, and multi-agency cooperation and communication. Specific details of these measures are 

further outlined in the Coast Guard’s December 19, 2005, letter to FERC which has been designated 

Sensitive Security Information as defined in Title 49 CFR Part 1520. Because any unauthorized 

disclosure of these details could be employed to circumvent the proposed security measures, they are not 

releasable to the public. 

In accordance with NEPA and Commission policy, we have evaluated a number of alternatives to 

the Crown Landing LNG Project and Logan Lateral Project to determine if any are reasonable and 

environmentally preferable to the proposed actions. Alternatives described in the following sections 

include no action or postponed action, system alternatives, LNG terminal site alternatives, LNG pier 

alternatives, and pipeline alternatives. Reasonable alternatives to the Coast Guard proposed action 

include: 1) issuance of a Coast Guard LOR finding the waterway suitable for LNG marine traffic without 

any conditions; 2) postponing the issuance of a Coast Guard LOR pending further analysis and study; 

and, 3) issuance of a Coast Guard LOR finding the waterway not suitable for LNG marine traffic (no 

action alternative). 

The evaluation criteria for selecting potentially reasonable and environmentally preferable 

alternatives include whether they: 

• are technically and economically feasible, reasonable, and practical; 

• offer significant environmental advantage over the proposed projects; and 

• meet the project objectives of providing additional natural gas supplies to meet the 

increasing energy demand in the Mid-Atlantic region through its interconnection with the 

interstate natural gas pipeline grids. 

With respect to the first criteria, it is important to recognize that not all conceivable alternatives 

are technically and economically feasible and practical. Some alternatives may be impracticable because 

they are unavailable and/or incapable of being implemented after taking into consideration costs, existing 

technologies, and logistics in light of the overall project purpose. In conducting a reasonable analysis, it 

is also important to consider the environmental advantages and disadvantages of the proposed action and 

to focus the analysis on those alternatives that may reduce impacts and/or offer a significant 

environmental advantage. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
3-2

Through the application of evaluation criteria and subsequent environmental comparisons, each 

alternative was considered to a point where it was clear that the alternative was not reasonable or would 

result in significantly greater environmental impacts that could not be readily mitigated. Those 

alternatives that appeared to be the most reasonable with less than or similar levels of environmental 

impact are reviewed in the greatest detail. 

3.1 NO ACTION OR POSTPONED ACTION 

The Commission has three alternative courses of action in processing an application to construct 

an LNG import terminal and natural gas pipeline facility. It may: 1) deny the approvals; 2) postpone 

action pending further filings or study; or 3) grant the approvals with or without conditions. 

For the Coast Guard’s proposed action, the no action alternative would be issuance of an LOR 

which finds the waterway not suitable for LNG marine traffic. 

If the Commission denies the section 3 authorization or section 7 Certificate or postpones action 

on the application, the short- and long-term environmental impacts identified in this EIS would not occur. 

If the Commission selects the no action or postponed action alternative, however, the objectives of the 

proposed project would not be met and Crown Landing would not be able to provide a new and 

competitively priced supply of natural gas to the Mid-Atlantic region. It is purely speculative to predict 

the resulting effects and actions that could be taken by other suppliers or users of natural gas in the region 

as well as any associated direct and indirect environmental impacts. However, demand for energy in the 

Mid-Atlantic region is predicted to increase, thus without the proposed projects, customers would have 

fewer and potentially more expensive options for obtaining natural gas supplies in the near future. Higher 

natural gas prices could adversely influence the regional economy by reducing realized household 

incomes and business profits (Greenspan, 2003). Higher natural gas prices (or the threat of higher gas 

prices) could also lead to alternative proposals to develop natural gas delivery or storage infrastructure, 

increased efficiency and conservation, reduced use of natural gas, and/or the use of other sources of 

energy. These might include renewable sources of energy, nuclear power, or other fossil fuels. 

The effect of higher natural gas prices on the increased demand for other fuels is supported by the 

energy consumption projections provided in EIA’s Annual Energy Outlook 2004 report. The projections 

for the national growth of total coal consumption increased 0.3 percent from 2003 to 2004 primarily due 

to higher natural gas prices. Higher natural gas prices were also cited as a reason for the projected 

increased demand for total renewable fuels (EIA, 2004). 

Alternatives to the Coast Guard Action 

Similar to the no action alternative to the FERC proposed action, the no action alternative for the 

Coast Guard would avoid any project related environmental effects in the waterway; however, it would 

also prevent LNG vessels from delivering LNG to the proposed an import terminal and the project 

objectives would not be met. 

If the Coast Guard postpones issuance of an LOR pending further analysis and study, the effect is 

expected to be similar to FERC postponing its action. That is, although it is speculative to predict the 

resulting effects, postponing issuance of an LOR may lead to Crown Landing deciding to delay its entire 

project. 

A reasonable alternative to the Coast Guard action of issuing a LOR which finds the waterway 

suitable for LNG marine traffic with certain conditions discussed on the previous page is to issue an LOR 

without any conditions. This would avoid the environmental effects related to any moving safety and/or 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
3-3 

moored vessel security zones, or other related LNG safety and security activities, which the Coast Guard 

would determine to be necessary prior to the commencement of LNG vessels transiting the waterway. 

We are unable to quantify the impacts at this time due to uncertainty in the scope, frequency, prevailing 

maritime security levels, and the number of resources that would be dedicated on a recurring or episodic 

basis; however, we do not anticipate any significant environmental impacts. The Coast Guard will ensure 

the appropriate NEPA environmental documentation for such actions is completed prior to the 

commencement of these activities. Also, the Coast Guard will cooperate in any required NEPA 

environmental analysis initiated by another agency for projects related to the introduction of LNG vessels 

such as any prerequisite channel deepening or dredging by the COE. 

Alternative Natural Gas Infrastructure Proposals 

The adoption of the no action alternative would result in the need for other LNG facilities or 

additional pipeline capacity to meet the increasing demand for natural gas in the Mid-Atlantic region. 

This might include constructing or expanding regional pipelines as well as LNG import and storage 

systems. Any construction or expansion work would result in specific environmental impacts that could 

be less than, similar to, or greater than those associated with the Crown Landing LNG and Logan Lateral 

Projects. We have conducted and included in this EIS an analysis of what appear to be the most 

reasonable natural gas and LNG system alternatives that have the potential to meet the project objectives. 

Section 1.2 provides additional discussion of the need for natural gas in the region. 

Conservation, Efficiency, and Renewable Sources of Energy 

Conservation, increased efficiency, and renewable energy practices have been and will continue 

to be important in meeting the future energy needs of the Mid-Atlantic states. Beginning with the energy 

crisis of the 1970s, numerous aggressive energy conservation programs have been developed in the MidAtlantic region. In addition, numerous renewable energy incentives have been implemented, including 

solar income tax credits, solar access laws, solar rebate programs, property tax exemptions for geothermal 

heat pumps, net metering, and green power marketing (EIA, 2005). 

Renewable energy sources, including wind, hydropower, municipal solid wastes, wood and other 

biomass, and solar are projected to have some role in meeting the Mid-Atlantic’s future energy needs. 

According to the EIA, several renewable energy sources are being used or have the potential to be used in 

the Mid-Atlantic region including solar energy collected with photovoltaic flat-plate collectors; wind 

energy; limited geothermal energy; and biomass energy such as burning willow trees with coal and 

biodiesel fuels. The EIA estimates that in 2006, energy consumption in the Mid-Atlantic states from 

renewable sources will account for about 5 percent of the region’s total energy consumption as compared 

to estimates of 22 percent from natural gas, 42 percent from petroleum, 17 percent from coal, and 14 

percent from nuclear power. The EIA also predicts that consumption of renewable energy will increase 

by 0.5 percent a year between 2003 and 2025. In comparison, the EIA predicts that natural gas 

consumption will increase over the same period by 1.3 percent per year, consumption of petroleum and 

coal will increase by 1.0 and 1.3 percent per year, respectively, and consumption of energy from nuclear 

power will increase about 0.3 percent per year (EIA, 2005). 

A 2003 report by the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy (ACEEE) analyzed 

projected energy demands in the Northeast, which included New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, 

Delaware, and Maryland. The ACEEE reviewed the national and regional relationship between natural 

gas price effects of energy efficiency and renewable energy practices and policies (ACEEE, 2003). The 

report found that increased installation of renewable energy generation could affect natural gas price and 

availability. The report concluded that energy efficiency and renewable energy measures could result in a 

0.9 percent reduction by 2008 in natural gas consumption in the northeastern states. However, the study 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
3-4

also recognized that energy efficiency and renewable energy are not the only policy solutions required to 

address the future natural gas needs of the United States and that additional sources of natural gas will be 

required either from domestic sources or through the importation of gas in the form of LNG. An EIA 

study, which considers renewable energy as well as other energy sources, supports this conclusion and 

suggests that nuclear or renewable energies such as hydroelectric, wind, or solar, while important to the 

overall mix of available energy sources, will not replace the demand for natural gas over the next 20 years 

(EIA, 2005). Furthermore, each of these sources of energy would have project- and site-specific 

environmental issues such as the disposal of toxic materials, alterations to hydrological/biological 

systems, and visual impacts. 

Nuclear Power Energy 

Energy from nuclear power, while important to the overall energy mix, is not projected to grow 

substantially and is not a commercially viable substitute able to replace or significantly offset the demand 

for natural gas over the next 20 years (EIA, 2003). Furthermore, nuclear power energy involves 

significant environmental issues such as the disposal of toxic materials (spent fuel), alterations to 

hydrological/biological systems, and other concerns. 

Energy from Other Fossil Fuels 

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., nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, and 

particulate matter) or unregulated greenhouse gases (e.g., carbon dioxide). Given there are emissions 

associated with producing, processing, transmitting, and distributing natural gas and other fossil fuels, it 

is difficult to accurately quantify the impact of an LNG import project on air quality. However, credible 

estimates of air emissions can be developed based on reasonable assumptions regarding burning natural 

gas delivered by the project compared to burning fossil fuels that would likely be utilized if the gas from 

the project was not available. Table 3.1-1 lists the emissions that would result from the Crown Landing 

LNG Project assuming it provides a baseload rate of about 1.2 Bcfd of natural gas to the market and the 

corresponding emissions that would result if an equivalent amount of energy were generated using coal or 

fuel oil in lieu of natural gas. It is clear from the table that the use of either fuel oil or coal would increase 

emissions significantly. Additionally, to comply with current air emission regulations, emission control 

technologies could be required that could limit the economic viability of any new oil- or coal-fired 

facility. 

TABLE 3.1-1 

Comparison of Air Emissions from Burning Fossil Fuels a/

Fossil Fuel SO2 (tpy) NOx (tpy) PM10 (tpy) CO2 (tpy) C (tpy) 

Natural Gas 132 19,866 1,590 21,999,999 6,000,000 

Fuel Oil 103,971 39,735 2,253 31,899,999 8,700,000 

Coal 278,142 139,071 6,159 41,799,999 11,400,000 

_________________________ 

a/ The emissions generated by coal, fuel oil, and natural gas were estimated using recent Best Available Control Technology 

(BACT) analyses identified on the EPA Reasonably Available Control Technology/BACT/Lowest Achievable Emission 

Rate Clearinghouse for boilers with heat input ratings between 100 and 250 million Btus per hour. The emissions from 

each fuel source are estimated based on a total annual fuel use of 438,000,000 million Btus per year (1.2 billion cubic feet 

per day, 365 days per year, 1,000 Btus/cubic foot). 

SO2 sulfur dioxide 

NOX nitrogen oxides 

PM10 particulate matter 

CO2 carbon dioxide 

C carbon 

tpy tons per year

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
3-5 

In addition to the increased emissions associated with the burning of coal or fuel oil, each of these 

fuels would also have to be imported into the project area and stored, similar to the proposed LNG. Also, 

since there is no pipeline infrastructure in place to distribute these fuels to market in the Mid-Atlantic, use 

of these fuels would require more truck, barge, and train trips than the distribution of an equivalent 

amount of energy derived from natural gas, which would increase air emissions and traffic congestion. 

The burning of coal would also require disposal of the resulting ash. 

No Action or Postponed Action Conclusions 

As described in section 1.2, the demand for natural gas is expected to continue to increase into the 

future. Although not expected, it is conceivable that this demand could be moderated by increasing use of 

other energy sources and/or conservation measures. Because natural gas is the least polluting of the fossil 

fuels, the increased use of other fossil fuels would result in higher air emissions that can contribute to 

climate change, acid rain, and smog. The economic, ecological, and human health benefits of reduced air 

emissions have been well documented (EPA, 1999). It is also conceivable that increasing energy 

efficiency and use of renewable sources of energy could reduce the projected future demand for natural 

gas. However, it is noteworthy that a report by the ACEEE (2003) concluded that additional energy 

efficiency and renewable energy projects could reduce the consumption of natural gas in the region by 

only about 0.9 percent by 2008. EIA (2004) estimates, which include increased use of renewable 

energies, support this conclusion. Neither conservation measures nor renewable energy sources are 

expected to replace or significantly offset the demand for additional natural gas supplies in the MidAtlantic region. 

As noted above, if the no action or postponed action alternative is adopted by either the 

Commission or the Coast Guard there are two likely outcomes: 1) negative environmental (i.e., increased 

air emissions and disposal of spent fuel and ash) and economic impacts associated with more limited 

supplies of natural gas; and/or 2) the development of other natural gas infrastructure projects (i.e., 

construction of additional pipelines and LNG import terminals) that meet some or all of the project 

objectives identified by Crown Landing.

3.2 SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES 

System alternatives are options to the proposed action that would make use of other existing or 

proposed LNG or natural gas facilities to meet the stated objectives of the proposed project. A system 

alternative would make it unnecessary to construct all or part of the proposed project even if some 

modifications or additions to the existing or proposed facilities are necessary. These modifications or 

additions would result in environmental impacts that could be less, similar to, or greater than those 

associated with construction of the proposed project. Ultimately, the purpose of identifying and 

evaluating system alternatives is to determine whether potential environmental impacts associated with 

the construction and operation of the Crown Landing LNG and Logan Lateral Projects could be avoided 

or reduced by using another system. 

The Mid-Atlantic natural gas market is concentrated in Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, New 

York, and Pennsylvania. Currently, this market area is supplied with natural gas and vaporized LNG 

through interstate pipeline systems and an existing LNG import terminal in Cove Point, Maryland. As 

described in section 1.2, the objectives of the Crown Landing LNG Project are to provide: 

• a new LNG import terminal in the Mid-Atlantic region; 

• storage facilities for LNG; 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
3-6

• access to natural gas reserves in production areas throughout the world that are 

inaccessible by conventional pipelines; and 

• a new supply of up to 1.4 Bcfd of natural gas to the Mid-Atlantic region as well as other 

portions of the East Coast. 

The analysis below examines other potential existing, modified, or proposed LNG terminals and 

pipeline systems and considers whether these systems could meet the proposed project objectives. 

3.2.1 Existing Onshore and Offshore LNG Facilities 

Currently, there are four onshore and one offshore LNG terminals in operation in the United 

States. These include the Cove Point LNG Terminal in Cove Point, Maryland; Distrigas LNG Terminal 

in Everett, Massachusetts; Trunkline LNG Terminal in Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana; Southern LNG 

Terminal on Elba Island in Chatham County, Georgia; and the Gulf Gateway Offshore LNG Terminal in 

the Gulf of Mexico, offshore of Louisiana. The closest of these terminals is the Cove Point LNG 

Terminal, which is located about 115 miles from the project area. The other LNG import terminals are 

located considerably further away. For these existing facilities to meet the proposed project objectives, 

one or more of the facilities would need to provide similar ship unloading, storage, and sendout capacities 

as the proposed project in addition to its current or planned expansion capacities. 

Cove Point LNG Terminal

An LNG import terminal owned by Dominion Cove Point LNG, LP (Dominion) is located on the 

western shore of the Chesapeake Bay in Calvert County, Maryland. Although originally authorized in 

1972, the Cove Point LNG Terminal was decommissioned as an LNG import facility in the early 1980s, 

and in 1995 returned to service as a peakshaving facility, liquefying, storing, and vaporizing LNG as 

needed to meet demand. In 2001 and 2002, Dominion received authorization from the FERC to 

reactivate, repair, and replace various offshore and onshore facilities to convert the existing peakshaving 

plant and recommission the LNG import terminal, and was completed and placed in service in December 

2004. This reactivation included the replacement of the vaporizer components and the addition of a new 

135,000 m3

 LNG storage tank in addition to the four existing 60,000 m3 tanks. The LNG terminal now 

has 375,000 m3

 of LNG storage capacity and is capable of delivering a total of about 1.0 Bcfd of natural 

gas. The facility also has a maximum ship unloading capacity of 120 ships per year. The LNG terminal 

is connected to a mainline pipeline system by an 87-mile-long, 36-inch-diameter sendout pipeline. 

Dominion has long-term binding precedent agreements for 100 percent of the firm LNG unloading, 

storage, and delivery services. 

On April 15, 2005, Dominion filed applications in Dockets No. CP05-130-000 , CP05-131-000, 

and CP05-132-000 to expand the LNG terminal and associated sendout pipelines, which would increase 

the daily sendout capacity from 1.0 Bcfd to 1.8 Bcfd and increase the storage capacity from 7.8 Bcf to 

14.6 Bcf. The planned expansion, which is referred to as the Cove Point Expansion Project, would 

include the construction of two additional 160,000 m3 LNG storage tanks on the existing LNG terminal 

site and the construction of five new natural gas pipelines totaling about 161 miles in length to deliver 

additional capacity to pipeline systems in Virginia and Pennsylvania. These pipelines would include 

about 48 miles of 36-inch-diameter pipeline in Maryland and about 81 miles of 24-inch-diameter pipeline 

in Pennsylvania. As part of the new pipeline system in Pennsylvania, Dominion plans to construct 17,335 

horsepower (hp) of compression at two new compressor stations. In addition, three pipelines in 

Pennsylvania would be constructed to support the storage and transport of natural gas at the Leidy Hub, 

including two 24-inch-diameter pipeline loops totaling 23 miles in length and one 20-inch-diameter 

pipeline loop totaling 10 miles in length. The expansion would also include adding 8,550 hp of additional 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
3-7 

compression at two compressor stations in West Virginia, pipeline upgrades and replacements, 

modifications at existing aboveground facilities, and other minor facility modifications. 

The FERC issued a draft EIS for the Cove Point Expansion Project in October 2005. Based on 

the analysis in the draft EIS, the project would result in an additional 110 LNG ship deliveries to the 

terminal in a year. As proposed, the additional 6.8 million decatherms per day of LNG storage at the 

Cove Point Terminal would be gasified at the terminal and delivered into the pipeline system and to 

eventual customers as natural gas. A comparison of the environmental impacts of the project relative to 

the Crown Landing LNG and Logan Lateral Projects is presented in table 3.2.1-1. 

As described above, and as outlined in table 3.2-1, the additional pipeline and aboveground 

facilities for the Cove Point Expansion Project, would (with the exception of dredging and residential 

impacts) result in as much, if not more, environmental impact than Crown Landing’s proposed LNG 

terminal and Texas Eastern’s proposed pipeline. Therefore, this alternative does not provide a clear 

environmental advantage over the proposed projects. 

TABLE 3.2.1-1 

Environmental Comparison of Crown Landing LNG and Logan 

Lateral Projects to the Cove Point Expansion Project

Engineering or Environmental Factor Crown Landing LNG and 

Logan Lateral Projects Cove Point Expansion Project 

Anticipated LNG Ship Deliveries 

(numbers) 

120-150 110 

Total Storage Capacity (m3) 450,000 320,000 

Sendout Capacity (Bcfd) 1.2 0.8 

Compression (hp) 0 25,785 

Pipeline Length (miles) 11 161 

Land Disturbed (acres) 379 1,900 

Permanent Right-of-Way Required 

(acres) 

95 1,137 

Forest Land (acres) 23 699 

Open and Agricultural Lands (acres) 86 964 

Perennial Waterbodies Crossed 

(numbers) 

8 97 

Total Wetlands Affected (acres) 23 81 

Forested Wetlands Affected (acres) 14 42 

Residences within 50 feet of Construction 

Right-of-Way (numbers) 

147 58+ 

Dredging Required (yds3) 1.24 million 0 

Federal or State Special Status Species 

Potentially Occurring in the Project Area 

(numbers) 

11 39 

Additionally, although the proposed Cove Point Expansion Project could potentially deliver a 

substantial amount of the volumes of natural gas proposed by Crown Landing, it would not introduce a 

new, alternative supply of LNG that would provide additional flexibility and reliability to customers in 

the Mid-Atlantic region. The proposed Cove Point volumes are also fully subscribed for 20 years by 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
3-8

Statoil Natural Gas, LLC and would not be available to Crown Landing’s customers. Moreover, the 

potential for further expansion of the Cove Point LNG Terminal facility is limited by the terms of a new 

agreement that was signed in March 2005 between Dominion, the Sierra Club, and the Maryland 

Conservation Council. This agreement, which replaces all previous agreements and easement, states that 

the proposed expansion project is to be the final expansion of the fenced area at the site for the duration of 

LNG operations (FERC, 2005). 

Distrigas LNG Terminal 

The only existing LNG import terminal in New England is the Distrigas LNG facility owned by 

Tractabel LNG North America, L.L.C. (Tractabel). The facility occupies a 24-acre site on the Mystic 

River in Boston Harbor that is surrounded by industrial development on all sides. In service since 1971, 

the Distrigas facility is the oldest LNG import terminal in the United States. In 2000 and 2001, the FERC 

authorized installation of a vapor recovery system to recover flash gas during ship unloading (which is 

complete), replacement of all vaporizers to be compatible with a new thermal transfer system with a new 

adjacent power plant (which is pending), and the installation of additional vaporizers and pumps to 

provide natural gas service to an electric power generation plant under construction by Sithe Mystic 

Development, L.L.C. (which is under construction). The facility has two tanks that can store 155,000 m3

of LNG. When ongoing and planned construction is complete, the facility will have an installed 

vaporization capacity of 1.035 Bcfd, although maximum sendout is limited to 715 million cubic feet per 

day (MMcfd) due to pipeline capacity. A significant quantity of LNG is loaded onto LNG trucks and 

delivered to peakshaving facilities throughout New England. The four-bay truck station on the site can 

fill up to 100 trucks per day. Recently, about 50 LNG ships per year have been unloading at this facility. 

The Distrigas facility is dedicated to LNG imported by Tractabel and is not operated as an openaccess import terminal that provides terminalling services to other parties. To provide the same service as 

proposed by Crown Landing, it would be necessary to add another 450,000 m3 of storage and up to 1.4 

Bcfd of vaporization. There is no space on the existing 24-acre site to construct the additional facilities 

associated with the proposed Crown Landing LNG Project, nor is there available adjoining property to 

accommodate these facilities and the associated exclusion zones. Additionally, there are no pending 

proposals to expand the Distrigas LNG facility. Therefore, expansion of the existing Distrigas LNG 

import terminal is not a reasonable system alternative. 

While it does not appear this existing facility could be reasonably expanded to satisfy all of the 

objectives of the Crown Landing LNG Project, it is conceivable that the facility could be expanded to 

provide some additional natural gas sendout capacity. For example, in 2003 the FERC received an 

application to review the Everett Extension Project. Although this proposal was later withdrawn by the 

proponents because it was not thought to be economically viable, the Everett Extension Project would 

allow Distrigas to mitigate some take-away constraints and allow sendout of an additional 110 MMcfd of 

natural gas via a pipeline operated by Algonquin. The proposed project would depend on construction of 

the Deer Island Lateral, which was approved by the FERC in 2002 but never constructed, and a new 

lateral pipeline that would extend the Deer Island Lateral to a connection with Algonquin’s existing JSystem, which interconnects with the Distrigas LNG facility in Everett. The facilities required for the 

project would include reconfiguration of existing vaporization equipment within the existing boundaries 

of the Distrigas property and new pipeline facilities to be constructed by Algonquin. 

The pipeline facilities for the Everett Extension Project would include 12.4 miles of pipeline 

(which includes the Deer Island Lateral Pipeline). About 4.2 miles of this pipeline would be onshore and 

the other 8.2 miles would be offshore pipeline in Boston Harbor. About 2.4 miles of the offshore pipeline 

would be installed using HDD techniques and the remaining portion would be installed by dredging, 

jetting, or plowing. About 36 percent of the pipeline would be adjacent to or within roads or other utility 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
3-9 

rights-of-ways. Construction of the onshore facilities would disturb about 75 acres of land. Construction 

of the offshore pipeline would disturb about 860 acres of seabed. Impacts would include temporary 

disruption of local roadways and recreational trails, noise during construction, increased turbidity and 

sedimentation as a result of offshore construction, and direct and indirect impacts on aquatic resources. 

Because of environmental and permitting constraints, the working conditions in Boston Harbor, and other 

factors, the Everett Extension Project was not considered economically viable. We are not aware of other 

ways in which the Distrigas LNG facility could be reasonably expanded to allow additional natural gas 

sendout or provide more LNG storage. 

Trunkline LNG Terminal

CMS Trunkline LNG Company, L.L.C. (Trunkline LNG) currently owns and operates an LNG 

import facility in Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana. The existing LNG terminal includes three 95,000 m3

storage tanks, a ship unloading dock with a full design capacity of 120 ships per year, and vaporization 

facilities with a maximum sendout capacity of 1 Bcfd. In December 2002, the Commission approved 

plans to add a second ship unloading dock, a 140,000 m3

 LNG storage tank, three first stage LNG pumps, 

four second stage LNG pumps, three vaporizers, and two electric generators. With the addition of these 

facilities, which are currently under construction, the LNG terminal will have a sustainable sendout 

capacity of about 1.2 Bcfd (1.3 Bcfd maximum) and a ship unloading capacity of about 175 ships per 

year. In February 2004, Trunkline LNG and a related subsidiary, CMS Trunkline Gas Company, L.L.C. 

(Trunkline Gas), announced plans to further expand sendout capacity of the terminal by adding pumps, 

vaporizers, and new unloading facilities to a second dock at the terminal and constructing a new 23-milelong, 30-inch-diameter pipeline between the LNG terminal and Trunkline Gas’ existing mainline pipeline 

system. If approved, these new facilities would increase the maximum sendout capacity of the terminal to 

about 1.8 to 2.1 Bcfd. Trunkline LNG currently has signed agreements with BG LNG Services, L.L.C. 

(BG LNG) for all of the storage and sendout capacity that will be provided by the expanded facilities. 

After these expansions are completed, the Trunkline LNG facility is unlikely to have space for 

more storage tanks within its 125-acre fenced site. Further expansion outside of the existing fenceline is 

limited by other industrial facilities. Another factor potential limiting additional expansion of the 

Trunkline LNG facility is its ability to deliver increased volumes of natural gas to an interstate natural gas 

pipeline system. If the proposed pipeline is constructed, the Trunkline LNG facility would be connected 

to a mainline pipeline by two (one existing and one proposed) 30-inch-diameter pipelines. To deliver 

volumes of additional natural gas from Trunkline LNG’s terminal similar to those proposed by Crown 

Landing would likely require extensive expansion or looping of these sendout pipelines. It is also likely 

that additional ship unloading facilities would be needed to deliver a volume of natural gas similar to 

what is proposed by Crown Landing. For these reasons, we do not consider expansion of the Trunkline 

LNG Terminal a reasonable system alternative. 

Southern LNG Terminal

Southern LNG, Inc. (Southern LNG) owns and operates an LNG import terminal located at Elba 

Island along the Savannah River in Chatham County, Georgia. Currently, the Elba Island site includes a 

single berthing facility and LNG storage capacity of 190,000 m3

. In 2001, the FERC authorized Southern 

LNG to replace the existing vaporizers, increase the sendout capacity of the facility, and add Btu 

stabilization facilities. In 2003, Southern LNG received FERC authorization to install a new 160,000 m3

storage tank, a new ship unloading facility with two berths, two additional first stage pumps, three 

additional second stage pumps, three additional vaporizers, and desuperheaters. With the addition of 

these facilities, which are currently under construction, the sustainable sendout capacity of the terminal 

will increase to about 0.8 Bcfd (1.2 Bcfd maximum) and the ship unloading capacity of the terminal will 

increase to about 118 LNG ships per year. Southern LNG currently has a long-term, firm contract for 100 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
3-10

percent of the existing LNG unloading, storage, and delivery capacity and has a 30-year binding 

precedent agreement for the capacity that would be provided by the expanded facilities. 

Currently, the Southern LNG facility is connected to Southern Natural Gas Company’s (SNG) 

mainline pipeline system by two small-diameter (20-inch and 14- to 16-inch) pipelines that are about 200 

miles long. To deliver significant additional volumes of natural gas from Southern LNG’s terminal 

would likely require extensive expansion or looping of its sendout pipeline. Additionally, it may be 

necessary to expand SNG’s mainline pipeline system to deliver the proposed volumes of natural gas to the 

broader U.S. market. 

SNG filed an application for an expansion, Docket No. CP05-388-000, for authorization to 

construct and operate a total of 176.43 miles of 24-inch- and 30-inch-diameter pipeline, three new 

compressor stations (totaling approximately 31,050 hp), and other appurtenant facilities. This project, 

known as the Cypress Pipeline Project (located in Georgia and Florida), would be constructed in three 

phases with phased in-service dates of May 1, 2007; May 1, 2009; and May 1, 2010. If approved and 

constructed, the project would be able to provide 500,000 decatherms per day of firm transportation 

capacity to its potential customers, which are BG LNG; Florida Power Corporation, doing business as 

Progress Energy Florida, Inc.; and the City of Austell, Georgia. The Cypress Pipeline Project, which 

would serve customers in the southeast states of Florida and Georgia, would receive its gas from the Elba 

Island LNG supply. 

On December 21, 2005, Southern LNG (through El Paso Corporation) announced plans to further 

expand the Southern LNG terminal. The proposed expansion, referred to in the announcement as the Elba 

Island Expansion and Related Pipeline Project, would more than double the LNG storage capacity at the 

terminal and would add 0.9 Bcfd of sendout capacity, increasing the total sendout capacity of the terminal 

to 2.1 Bcfd. In addition, the unloading docks at the terminal would be modified to accommodate new, 

larger LNG ships. A new 191-mile interstate natural gas pipeline with a total capacity of 1.1 Bcfd would 

also be constructed from Elba Island to markets in Georgia and through interconnections with other 

pipelines to the Southeastern and Eastern United States. This pipeline would consist of about 105 miles 

of 42-inch-diameter pipeline and 86 miles of 36-inch-diameter pipeline. 

According to the project announcement, Shell NA LNG, LLC, a subsidiary of Royal Dutch Shell 

(NYSE: RDS.A & RDS.B), and BG LNG, a wholly owned subsidiary of BG Group PLC (NYSE: 

BRG.N), have entered into long-term agreements for the incremental storage and sendout capacity of the 

announced expansion and for the transportation capacity on the new Elba Express pipeline. 

We do not believe it would be practicable to redesign either the Cypress Pipeline Project or Elba 

Island Expansion and Related Pipeline Project to serve Crown Landing’s customers. Additionally, while 

it is difficult to speculate what additional facility upgrades would be needed to supply additional capacity 

proposed for Crown Landing’s customers in the Mid-Atlantic states, the construction and operation of 

unknown pipeline facilities, in addition to the already proposed expansions, would likely result in as 

much or more environmental impacts as the proposed Crown Landing LNG and Logan Lateral Pipeline 

Projects. 

Gulf Gateway Offshore LNG Terminal

Excelerate Energy, L.L.C. (Excelerate) currently owns and operates the only offshore LNG 

terminal in the United States. The terminal, which is based on the transport and regasification vessel 

design described in section 3.3.2.1, is located in the Gulf of Mexico offshore of Louisiana. The terminal 

requires use of a specialized LNG ship, which is able to dock at a mooring system made up of a 

submerged turret buoy and flexible riser connected to a natural gas pipeline on the seafloor. After 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
3-11 

docking is complete, LNG is vaporized onboard the LNG ship and injected as natural gas directly into the 

offshore pipeline for delivery to onshore markets. When not in use, the buoy and flexible riser system 

would be lowered below the surface and held in position until retrieved by the next LNG ship. This 

design does not provide for LNG storage so it must be limited to an LNG fleet with regasification 

equipment on all of the vessels. Excelerate received its first shipment of LNG in March 2005 and 

achieved a maximum sendout of about 0.7 Bcfd using an open loop vaporization system that uses 

seawater to provide heat in the vaporization process (see section 3.3.2.1 for additional discussion of open 

and closed loop vaporization systems). Excelerate recently announced that it is considering expanding 

the Gulf Gateway terminal to a maximum sendout capacity of between 0.8 and 1.0 Bcfd by 2008. 

A major limitation of the Gulf Gateway terminal is its inability to sustain the maximum sendout 

volume. The Gulf Gateway terminal currently only provides interruptible service and cannot provide the 

firm baseload transportation service proposed by Crown Landing. One factor affecting Excelerate’s 

ability to provide a firm continuous gas supply is the number of specialized LNG ships currently 

available. Because the offshore facility does not include LNG storage, maintaining a continuous supply 

of sendout gas requires that at least one LNG ship be connected to the buoy at all times. Currently, there 

are only two such ships in the world but a third ship is scheduled to be completed in the fall of 2006, and 

two more ships have been ordered and are scheduled to be delivered in 2008 and 2009, respectively. Due 

to the travel times to and from LNG producing countries, more specialized ships would be necessary to 

ensure continuous delivery of natural gas. Excelerate has stated that “supply out of Egypt, for example, 

would require six vessels” (LNG Express, 2005a). To maximize the LNG ship’s time connected to the 

buoy and reduce ship transit times, Excelerate has announced that it wants to begin transshipment of LNG 

(LNG Express, 2005a). This process would involve using conventional LNG ships to carry LNG from 

the producing countries to an ocean rendezvous point, probably in the Caribbean Sea, where the LNG 

would be offloaded to the specialized regasification vessels, which would then transport the LNG to the 

Gulf Gateway terminal. 

Conclusions Regarding Existing LNG Terminals as System Alternatives

Crown Landing is proposing a facility that would have the capabilities of unloading and storing 

imported LNG and delivering up to a maximum rate of 1.4 Bcfd of natural gas into the Mid-Atlantic 

region. Because the capacity of each of the existing onshore LNG import terminals is fully committed, 

use of an existing onshore LNG terminal to meet the proposed project objectives would not be possible 

without significant expansions and/or modifications to their unloading, storage, and delivery systems and 

possibly substantial expansion or looping of the existing sendout pipeline(s). The additional facilities 

required for required 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. The great distance of the existing Southern LNG, Trunkline LNG, and Gulf Gateway 

terminals from the project area (a distance of at least 800 miles) effectively limits them from serving the 

Mid-Atlantic market. Additionally, the Gulf Gateway terminal is currently incapable of providing a 

continuous supply of natural gas. The existing Distrigas and Cove Point LNG terminals are closer to the 

proposed LNG terminal (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 Terminal facility that would significantly increase both the 

LNG storage and the natural gas sendout capacity of this facility. However, the storage and additional 

sendout capacity of the proposed expansion is already fully subscribed and would not be available to 

Crown Landing’s customers. Additionally, the proposed expansion would include the construction of 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
3-12

about 161 miles of pipeline which would result in as much if not more environmental impacts than the 

proposed projects.

3.2.2 Recently Approved, Proposed, or Planned LNG Projects 

3.2.2.1 Onshore LNG Projects 

In addition to the LNG terminals discussed above, a number of other onshore LNG terminal 

projects capable of supplying U.S. markets have been recently approved, proposed, or planned. Table 

3.2.2-1 provides information about the location, facilities, and capacity of these projects: One project that 

is relatively close to the proposed Crown Landing site is the proposed expansion of the existing Port 

Richmond LNG Storage, Conversion, and Distribution Facility on the Delaware River in Philadelphia, 

Pennsylvania. This project, which is being referred to by the Mayor of Philadelphia as the Philadelphia 

Freedom Energy Center, is discussed in more detail below. An application for this project has not been 

filed at the FERC. 

Port Richmond LNG Storage, Conversion, and Distribution Facility 

Philadelphia Gas Works (PGW) owns and operates an existing LNG facility on a 47-acre site in 

an industrial section of Port Richmond in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (see figure 3.3.3-8). The existing 

Port Richmond LNG Storage, Conversion, and Distribution Facility has been in service since the early 

1970s and contains two storage tanks with a combined storage capacity of 200,000 m3, a regasification 

capacity of 380 to 600 MMcfd, and a liquefaction capacity of 40 MMcfd. The facility currently liquefies 

natural gas, stores the LNG, and then during peak demand periods (throughout the winter months), 

converts the LNG back to natural gas for distribution throughout the city. 

On November 15, 2004, PGW announced a plan to create the Freedom Energy Center. The 

proposed plan, which is part of the greater Philadelphia Delaware River redevelopment initiative, would 

include modifying the existing LNG facility to allow import of LNG by ship. The proposed LNG facility 

would use the existing Tioga Marine Terminal, which is owned by the Philadelphia Regional Port 

Authority, to unload shipments of LNG. The project would require new equipment to allow for docking 

and unloading of LNG ships and could include an additional LNG storage tank. In January 2005, PGW 

requested proposals from major energy companies to lease the existing LNG facility and convert it into 

the proposed LNG import terminal. The original startup date for the facility was 2007. However, no 

permit applications have been filed for the project and PGW has not signed binding agreements with any 

suppliers. As a result, the startup date (assuming regulatory approvals can be obtained) has slipped to 

sometime between 2008 and 2010 (LNG Express, 2005d). 

There are several potential advantages of the Freedom Energy Center site. First, no portion of the 

site is located within Delaware so there would be no conflicts with Delaware’s Coastal Zone Act and 

Coastal Zone Management Plan. Second, the site is at an existing, operating LNG facility. The presence 

of existing LNG storage and other ancillary facilities reduces the amount of new development needed and 

thus minimizes the disturbance associated with converting the site to an LNG import terminal. For 

example, only one new LNG storage tank would need to be added to the Freedom Energy Center site to 

achieve the LNG storage capacity proposed by Crown Landing. Utilization of the current Tioga Marine 

Terminal and adjacent deep water channel would also minimize the amount of dredging required. The 

presence and use of these existing industrial facilities would mitigate other potential impacts, including 

visual, socioeconomic, land use, and vegetation impacts. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
3-13 

TABLE 3.2.2-1 

Recently Approved, Proposed, or Planned Onshore LNG Terminals a/

Project Name and Owner/ 

Applicant

Location Sendout 

Capacity 

Number of Storage 

Tanks and Capacity 

Status 

Recently Approved 

Onshore Terminals 

 

Cameron LNG Project 

Sempra Energy, LNG 

Hackberry, 

Louisiana 

1.5 Bcfd Three 160,000 m3

tanks 

FERC approval issued September 

2003; construction pending; FERC 

Docket No. CP02-374-000 

Freeport LNG Project 

Freeport LNG Development 

L.P. 

Freeport, Texas 1.5 Bcfd 

(phase 1); 

2.5 Bcfd 

(phase 2) 

Two 160,000 m3

tanks (phase 1) one 

160,000 m3 tank 

proposed (phase 2) 

FERC approval issued June 2004; 

phase 1 under construction; FERC 

Docket No. cp03-75-000 

Proposed phase 2 expansion 

application filed May 2005; FERC 

Docket No. CP-05-361-000 

Ingleside Energy Center 

LNG Project, 

Occidental Energy Ventures 

Corp. 

Ingleside, Texas 1.0 Bcfd Two 160,000 m3 tanks FERC approval issued July 2005; 

FERC Docket No. CP-05-13-000 

Weaver’s Cove LNG Project 

Weaver’s Cove Energy, 

L.L.C. (Hess LNG) 

Fall River, 

Massachusetts 

0.8 Bcfd One 200,000 m3 tank FERC approval issued July 2005; 

other required permits still in 

process; FERC Docket Nos. CP04-

36-000 and CP04-41-000 

Sabine Pass LNG Terminal 

Cheniere Sabine Pass 

Pipeline Company 

Sabine Pass 

Channel, 

Louisiana 

2.6 Bcfd Three 160,000 m3 

tanks 

FERC approval issued December 

2004; under construction; FERC 

Docket No. CP-04-47-000 

Vista del Sol LNG Terminal 

Project, 

ExxonMobil Corporation 

Corpus Christi, 

Texas 

1.0 Bcfd Three 155,000 m3 

tanks 

FERC approval issued June 2005; 

construction pending; FERC 

Docket Nos. CP04-395-000, CP04-

405-000, and CP04-374-000 

Cheniere Corpus Christi 

LNG Terminal Project 

Corpus Christi LNG LP. 

Corpus Christi, 

Texas 

2.6 Bcfd Three 160,000 m3 

tanks 

FERC approval issued April 2005; 

construction pending; FERC 

Docket Nos. CP04-37-000, CP04-

44-000, CP04-45-000, and CP04-

46-000 

Golden Pass LNG Terminal 

Project 

ExxonMobil Corporation 

Sabine Pass, 

Texas 

1.0 Bcfd 

(Phase 1), 

2.0 Bcfd 

(Phase 2) 

Three 155,000 m3 

tanks 

FERC approval issued July 2005; 

construction pending; FERC 

Docket Nos. CP04-386-000 and 

CP04-400-000 

Ocean Express Project 

AES

Bahamas 0.84 Bcfd -- Bahamian government approval 

pending 

Calypso Project 

Suez LNG NA

Bahamas 0.83 Bcfd -- Bahamian government granted 

preliminary approval 

Irving Canaport Project 

Irving Oil/Repsol 

Saint John, New 

Brunswick 

1.0 Bcfd Three 160,000 m3

tanks 

Canadian government approvals 

issued August 2004; construction 

pending 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
3-14

TABLE 3.2.2-1 (cont’d) 

Recently Approved, Proposed, or Planned Onshore LNG Terminals a/

Project Name and Owner/ 

Applicant

Location Sendout 

Capacity 

Number of Storage 

Tanks and Capacity 

Status 

Bear Head LNG Project 

Anadarko Petroleum Corp.

Point Tupper, 

Nova Scotia 

1.0 Bcfd 

(Phase I) 

1.5 Bcfd 

(Phase II) 

Two 180,000 m3

tanks (Phase I) 

One 180,000 m3

tanks (Phase II) 

Canadian government approvals 

issued mid-2004; facility currently 

under construction 

Altamira 

Shell/Total/Mitsui

Altamira, 

Tamaulipas, 

Mexico 

0.7 Bcfd Two 150,000 m3 tanks Mexican state and federal agencies 

including Comision Reguladora de 

Energia approvals issued; facility 

currently under construction 

Energy Costa Azul LNG 

Sempra Energy LNG/Shell

Baja California, 

Mexico 

1.0 Bcfd Two 160,000 m3

tanks 

Mexican state and federal agencies 

including Comision Reguladora de 

Energia approvals issued. Road 

construction currently under way; 

terminal construction expected to 

begin before the end of 2004 

Proposed Onshore Terminals b/ 

KeySpan LNG Facility 

Upgrade Project 

KeySpan LNG, LP and 

Algonquin Gas 

Transmission, L.L.C. 

Providence, 

Rhode Island 

0.5 Bcfd -- Final EIS issued May 2005. FERC 

Docket Nos. CP04-223-000 and 

CP04-293-000 

Application was denied in June 

2005. 

Port Arthur LNG Project 

Sempra Energy LNG 

Port Arthur, 

Texas 

1.5 Bcfd 

(Phase 1) 

3.0 Bcfd 

(Phase 2) 

Three 160,000 m3 

tanks 

NEPA Pre-filing Process initiated 

April 2004. Application filed 

February 2005. Draft EIS issued 

August 2005. FERC Docket Nos. 

CP05-83-000, CP05-84-000, CP05-

85-000, and CP05-86-000 

Long Beach LNG Import 

Project, 

Sound Energy Solutions 

(Mitsubishi)/ConocoPhillips 

Long Beach, 

California 

0.7 Bcfd Two 160,000 m3 

tanks 

Draft EIS issued October 2005. 

FERC Docket No. CP04-58-000, et. 

al. 

Creole Trail LNG 

Cheneire Energy

Cameron Parish, 

Louisiana 

3.3 Bcfd Four 160,000 m3 

tanks 

Application Filed May 2005. Draft 

EIS issued December 2005. FERC 

Docket Nos. CP05-360-000 and 

CP05-357-000 through CP05-359-

000 

Casotte Landing LNG 

Bayou Casotte Energy LNG 

Bayou Casotte, 

Mississippi 

1.3 Bcfd Three 160,000 m3 

tanks 

Application filed October 2005; 

environmental review underway; 

FERC Docket No. CP05-420-000 

LNG Clear Energy 

Gulf LNG Energy, L.L.C. 

Pascagoula, 

Mississippi 

1.5 Bcfd Two 160,000 m3 tanks Application Filed October 2005. 

FERC Docket Nos. CP06-12-000 

and CP06-13-000 

Calhoun LNG Project 

Calhoun LNG, L.P.

Port Lavaca, 

Texas 

1.0 Bcfd Two 160,000 m3 tanks Application filed March 2005; FERC 

Docket No. CP05-91-000 

Bradwood Landing LNG 

Northern Star, L.L.C. 

Clatsop County, 

Oregon 

1.5 Bcfd Three 160,000 m3 

tanks 

NEPA Pre-filing Process initiated in 

March 2005. FERC Docket No. 

PF05-10 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
3-15 

TABLE 3.2.2-1 (cont’d) 

Recently Approved, Proposed, or Planned Onshore LNG Terminals a/

Project Name and Owner/ 

Applicant

Location Sendout 

Capacity 

Number of Storage 

Tanks and Capacity 

Status 

Quoddy Bay LNG 

Quoddy Bay, L.L.C 

Pleasant Point, 

Maine 

0.5 Bcfd Three 160,000 m3 

tanks 

NEPA Pre-filing Process initiated in 

December 2005. FERC Docket 

No. PF06-11-000 

Highrock LNG Project 

El Paso/FPL 

Bahamas 1.0 Bcfd -- FERC Docket No. PF04-8-000 

Lazaro Cardenas 

Tractebel/Repsol 

Lazaro 

Cardenas, 

Mexico 

0.5 Bcfd -- Pending at Mexican regulatory 

agencies 

Puerto Libertad 

Sonora Pacific LNG 

Puerto Libertad, 

Mexico 

1.3 Bcfd -- Pending at Mexican regulatory 

agencies 

Cacouna LNG 

TransCanada/PetroCanada

Gros Cacouna 

Island, Quebec 

0.5 Bcfd Two 160,000 m3

tanks 

Announced September 2004; EA 

filed with Canadian regulatory 

agencies May 2005 

Keltic Petrochemical LNG 

Keltic Petrochemical, Inc.

Goldboro, Nova 

Scotia 

1.0 Bcfd Three 160,000 m3

tanks -- 

Filed with Canadian regulatory 

agencies August 2004 

Downeast LNG 

Kestrel Energy Parners, 

L.L.C. and Dean Girdis 

Robbinston, 

Maine 

0.5 Bcfd One 160,000 m3 tank 

-- 

Pre-filing approved January 2006 

FERC Docket No. PF06-13-000 

Rabaska 

Enbridge/Gaz Metro/Gas de 

France 

St. Lawrence 

River, Quebec 

City, Quebec 

0.5 Bcfd Two 160,000 m3 tanks Announced 2005 

Environmental Preliminary Impact 

Study 2005 

Kitimat LNG 

Galveston LNG

Kitimat, British 

Columbia 

0.34 Bcfd -- File with Canadian regulatory 

agencies May 2004 

Application accepted June 2005. 

Planned Onshore Terminals and Expansions d/ 

Freedom Energy Center 

Philadelphia Gas Works 

Philadelphia, 

Pennsylvania 

0.4 to 0.6 

Bcfd 

Two and possibly 

three 100,000 m3

tanks 

Announced November 2004 

Battery Rock LNG Terminal 

AES Corp. 

Outer Brewster 

Island, 

Massachusetts 

0.8 Bcfd -- Announced September 2005 

Calais LNG 

St. Croix Development 

Company 

Calais, Maine -- -- Announced November 2005 

Point Tupper 

Statia Terminals Canada 

Nova Scotia 0.5 Bcfd -- -- 

Pelican Island 

BP 

Galveston, Texas 1.5 Bcfd -- Announced October 2004 

Bradwood Landing 

Northern Star Natural Gas 

LLC

Bradwood, 

Oregon 

1.3 Bcfd Two 160,000 m3

tanks 

Application filed March 2005 

Draft EIS being prepared 

FERC Docket No. PF05-10-000 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
3-16

TABLE 3.2.2-1 (cont’d) 

Recently Approved, Proposed, or Planned Onshore LNG Terminals a/

Project Name and Owner/ 

Applicant

Location Sendout 

Capacity 

Number of Storage 

Tanks and Capacity 

Status 

Jordan Cove 

Energy Projects 

Development, L.L.C.

Coos Bay, 

Oregon 

0.2 Bcfd One 95,000 m3 tank Announced October 2005 

Port Westward 

Port Westward LNG, LLC

St. Helens, 

Oregon 

1.25 Bcfd -- Announced August 2004 

AES Sparrows Point 

Terminal 

AES Corporation 

Dundalk, 

Maryland 1.5 Bcfd -- Pre-filing Requested March 2006. 

____________________________

a/ Project information obtained from LNG Express, Natural Gas Intelligence Press, INC., EPA informal dockets, and 

project applications and EIS’s. More specific information for many of these projects, including in depth environmental 

analysis, can be obtained from the FERC document management system (see http://www.ferc.gov/docsfiling/elibrary.asp). 

b/ Proposed onshore terminals with applications submitted to the FERC. 

c/ Proposed offshore terminals with applications submitted to the Coast Guard. 

d/ Planned terminals with no applications submitted to the FERC or Coast Guard. 

-- Blanks indicate that the definitive design information is unavailable or unknown. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
3-17 

The site is also located relatively close to existing interstate pipeline systems. We estimate that 

the LNG terminal could be interconnected with both the existing Texas Eastern and Transco pipeline 

systems by sendout pipelines ranging from 3 to 10 miles in length. Moreover, since the terminal is 

located on the west bank of the Delaware in the heart of Philadelphia, the pipelines would likely require 

less wetland and waterbody crossings than the proposed Logan Lateral pipeline. 

A disadvantage of the Freedom Energy Center site is its relatively small size. There could be 

issues with the thermal radiation and vapor dispersion exclusions zones possibly extending beyond the 

site boundaries. Additionally, although the density of industrial development surrounding the site is 

greater than the proposed Crown Landing site, there is a higher concentration of people living nearby. 

Specifically, there are 6,323 people living within 1 mile and 63,986 people living within 2 miles of the 

Freedom Energy Center site, compared to 82 people within 1 mile and 383 people within 2 miles of the 

proposed Crown Landing site. Additionally, because of the density of development surrounding the site, 

it is possible that the sendout pipelines from the Freedom Energy Center site may result in more 

commercial and residential impacts than the proposed Logan Lateral pipeline. 

Another disadvantage of the Freedom Energy Center site is the longer distance that LNG ships 

would need to transit the Delaware River. The ship route within the Delaware River and Bay would be 

about 82.5 nautical miles long, which is about 21 nautical miles longer than the ship route to the proposed 

Crown Landing site. The widths of the river and shipping channel also narrow significantly south of 

Philadelphia and Camden from about a mile to a half mile for the river and 800 feet to 400 feet for the 

channel. Additionally, the LNG ships would have to pass under three additional bridges, the Commodore 

Barry Bridge in Chester, and the Walt Whitman and Benjamin Franklin Bridges in Philadelphia. 

Depending on the security measures imposed by the Coast Guard for transiting LNG ships, there could be 

issues associated with the potential closure of one or more of these bridges. Any required bridge closures 

could result in delays of vehicle traffic on these bridges and associated roads. The additional length of the 

shipping route would also result in LNG ships en route to the Freedom Energy Center passing near 

several more communities than LNG ships en route to the proposed Crown Landing site, including the 

cities of Chester, Essington, Paulsboro, National Park, Gloucester City, Camden, and Philadelphia. 

Moreover, due to the deceased width of the river north of Gloucester City, LNG ships calling on the 

Freedom Energy Center site would be closer to developed and populated areas than ships traveling to 

Crown Landing’s proposed site. Conflicts with and delays of other shipping due to LNG deliveries are 

also more likely at the Freedom Energy Center site due to the narrower width of the shipping channel in 

this area. 

3.2.2.2 Offshore LNG Projects 

To avoid many of the environmental issues and safety concerns associated with locating an LNG 

facility onshore, many companies have proposed locating LNG import terminals in offshore areas. A list 

of currently authorized, proposed, and planned offshore LNG terminals is provided in table 3.2.2-2. 

Offshore LNG import terminals located in federal waters are under the jurisdiction of the DOT and the 

Coast Guard (pursuant to the Deepwater Port Act of 1974, as amended by the Maritime Transportation 

Security Act of 2002 to include natural gas facilities). Offshore LNG import terminals located in state 

waters are under the jurisdiction of the FERC (pursuant to the NGA). 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
3-18

TABLE 3.2.2-2 

Recently Approved, Proposed, and Planned Offshore LNG Terminals a/

Project Name and Owner/ 

Applicant

Location Sendout 

Capacity 

Number of Storage 

Tanks and Capacity 

Status 

Recently Approved Offshore Terminals 

Port Pelican Offshore 

Deepwater Port Project 

ChevronTexaco

Gulf of Mexico, 

Vermillion Block 

140, Offshore 

Louisiana 

1.6 Bcfd Gravity-based 

structure; 330,000 m3

of storage capacity 

Coast Guard and DOT approvals 

issued in November 2003; project 

on hold indefinitely. Coast Guard 

Docket No. 14134 

Gulf Landing Offshore 

Deepwater Port Project 

Shell US Gas and Power, 

L.L.C. 

West Cameron 

Block 213, 

Offshore 

Louisiana 

1.0 Bcfd Gravity-based 

structure; 200,000 m3

of storage capacity 

Coast Guard and DOT approvals 

issued in February 2005; 

construction pending. Coast 

Guard Docket No. 16860 

Proposed Offshore Terminals 

Northeast Gateway, 

Excelerate Energy LLC

Offshore 

Gloucester, 

Massachusetts 

0.8 Bcfd No storage tanks Application filed June 2005. 

Coast Guard deemed application 

complete September 2005. 

NEPA review timeline suspended 

November 2005. Coast Guard 

Docket No. 22219 

Neptune 

Tractebel (Suez Energy) 

Offshore 

Gloucester, 

Massachusetts 

0.8 Bcfd No storage tanks Revised application filed 

September 2005. Coast Guard 

deemed application complete 

October 2005. NEPA review 

ongoing. Coast Guard Docket 

No.22611 

Main Pass Energy Hub 

Deepwater Port Project 

Freeport-McMoRan Energy 

L.L.C.

Main Pass Block 

299, Offshore 

Louisiana 

1.0 Bcfd -- Application filed February 2004. 

Draft EIS published June 2005; 

NEPA review timeline suspended 

August 2005. Coast Guard 

Docket No. 17696 

Clearwater Port Offshore 

Deepwater Port Project 

Crystal Energy, L.L.C.

MMS Lease Block 

217,Offshore 

California 

1.2 Bcfd -- Application deemed incomplete 

May 2005. 

Pearl Crossing Project 

ExxonMobil Corp.

West Cameron 

Block 220, 

Offshore 

Louisiana 

2.0 Bcfd Gravity-based 

structure; 250,000 m3

of storage capacity 

Application filed May 2004. 

Application withdrawn October 

2005. Coast Guard Docket No. 

18474 

Compass Port Terminal 

Project 

Compass Port, L.L.C. 

(ConocoPhillips) 

11 miles of 

Daupin Island, 

Alabama 

1.0 Bcfd Gravity-based 

structure; two 150,000 

m3 tanks 

Application filed March 2004. 

NEPA review timeline suspended 

August 2005. Coast Guard 

Docket No. 17659 

Beacon Port Deepwater Port 

ConocoPhillips.

MMS Lease 

Blocks HIA 27 

and WC 167, 

Offshore 

Louisiana 

1.0 Bcfd Gravity-based 

structure; two tanks 

Application filed January 2005. 

Draft EIS published June 2005; 

NEPA review timeline 

suspended. Coast Guard Docket 

No. 21232 

Cabrillo Port Project 

BHP Billiton

Offshore 

California 

1.5 Bcfd Floating Storage and 

Regasification Unit 

Coast Guard Docket No. 16877. 

NEPA timeline suspended 

November 2005. Coast Guard 

Docket No. 16877. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
3-19 

TABLE 3.2.2-2 (cont’d) 

Recently Approved, Proposed, and Planned Offshore LNG Terminals a/

Project Name and Owner/ 

Applicant

Location Sendout 

Capacity 

Number of Storage 

Tanks and Capacity 

Status 

Broadwater LNG Facility 

TransCanada Corporation and 

Shell US Gas & Power L.L.C.

Offshore in New 

York waters of 

Long Island 

Sound 

1.0 Bcfd Floating Storage 

Regasification Unit, 

350,000 m3 of storage 

capacity 

NEPA Pre-filing Process initiated 

February 2005; FERC Docket 

Number PF05-4-000 

Terminal GNL Mar Adentro 

Chevron Texaco

Offshore, Baja 

California 

1.4 Bcfd Storage capacity of 

250,000 m3. 

Pending at Mexican regulatory 

agencies. Received 

Environmental Approval 

Planned Offshore Terminals

Calypso Deepwater Port 

Suez NA 

 No storage tanks 

Chevron Texaco Offshore, 

California 

0.75 Bcfd -- -- 

Liberty Gateway 

Excelerate Energy L.L.C. 

Offshore New 

York/New Jersey 

0.4+ Bcfd No storage tanks -- 

Safe Harbor Energy LNG 

Terminal 

Atlantic Sea Island Group, 

LLC 

13.5 miles south 

of Long Beach, 

New York 

2.0 Bcfd Four 180,000 m3 tanks 

Announced January 26, 2006. 

Will begin federal regulatory 

process in the spring of 2006 

under the jurisdiction of the 

USCG and MARAD. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
3-20

Companies have introduced various strategies for constructing and operating LNG import 

terminals in offshore waters (LNG Express, 2003). These strategies include the following (see section 

3.3.2.1 for more detailed discussions of these strategies): 

• offshore docking/onshore storage 

• fixed offshore terminals (gravity based structures (GBS) or platforms) 

• transport and regasification vessels; or 

• floating storage and regasification units (FSRU). 

Conclusions Regarding Existing, Proposed, and Planned Onshore and Offshore LNG Terminals 

All of the recently approved and most of the proposed or planned LNG projects listed in tables 

3.2.2-1 and 3.2.2-2 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 the existing pipeline systems, which 

could have significant environmental impacts. Others of the proposed projects have not been sufficiently 

described or developed to conduct a detailed comparison with the proposed project. 

The six closest proposed and planned projects to the Mid-Atlantic region for which there is 

sufficient information to conduct a comparative analysis include: the Freedom Energy Center Project in 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; KeySpan LNG Facility Upgrade Project in Providence, Rhode Island1; the 

Weaver’s Cove LNG Project in Fall River, Massachusetts; the Northeast Gateway Project and Neptune 

Project in Massachusetts Bay, Massachusetts; and the Broadwater LNG Facility Project (see section 

3.3.2.1 for more discussion of the Northeast Gateway Project, Neptune Project, and the Broadwater LNG 

Facility Project). 

The Freedom Energy Center site is located on the Delaware River in the same general region of 

the proposed Crown Landing site. This site has the advantages of being located at an existing LNG 

facility with an adjacent existing pier that likely could be modified for use as an LNG ship unloading 

facility. Because the Freedom Energy Center site is in Pennsylvania, it also avoids conflicts with 

Delaware’s Coastal Zone Act and Coastal Zone Management Policy. Additionally, due to the highly 

developed nature of the area surrounding the site, the sendout pipeline from the site would likely cross 

fewer streams and wetlands than the proposed sendout pipeline. These advantages, however, are largely 

negated by the small size of the site, the greater population density surrounding the site, and the greater 

number of communities along passed by the ship route. For these reasons, we do not consider the 

Freedom Energy Center site preferable to the proposed site. 

Each of the other five projects also has site-specific environmental issues and/or safety concerns, 

and none of these projects would provide the storage or sendout capacity proposed by Crown Landing. 

Additionally, although the Weaver’s Cove LNG Project and any of the other projects combined could 

provide the sendout capacity proposed by Crown Landing, and the Weaver’s Cove LNG Project and 

Broadwater LNG Facility Project collectively would be able to provide Crown Landing’s proposed 

storage capacity, it seems unlikely that these projects, with the exception of the Freedom Energy Center 

Project could effectively serve the southern Mid-Atlantic region. Based on recent projections of natural 

gas demand in the New England region, by 2009 there will be demand for an additional 500 MMcfd of 

 

1

 The FERC issued an Order in July 2005, which denied KeySpan LNG’s proposal to site, construct, and operate the proposed LNG terminal 

in Providence. In August 2005 KeySpan LNG and BG LNG filed a timely, joint request for rehearing of the Order. In January 2006 the 

Commission denied KeySpan’s and BG LNG’s joint request for rehearing. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
3-21 

natural gas above what the current infrastructure is able to provide during peak periods of use (FERC, 

2003). Demand in the New York market area is also increasing. 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 other areas of the Mid-Atlantic region. 

3.2.3 Pipeline System Alternatives 

As an alternative to developing a new LNG import terminal, we considered the feasibility of 

utilizing or expanding the existing pipeline systems in the region to provide an equivalent amount of 

natural gas to the Mid-Atlantic region as that proposed by Crown Landing. Existing pipeline systems in 

the Mid-Atlantic region include those owned and operated by Texas Eastern, Columbia Gas, and Transco 

(see figure 3.2.3-1). Texas Eastern’s local pipeline system consists of four pipelines: two 20-inchdiameter pipelines that run south from Eagle, Pennsylvania to Chester Junction, Pennsylvania; a 16-inchdiameter pipeline that runs east from Chester Junction to a meter regulator; and a 16-inch-diameter 

pipeline that narrows down to a 14-inch-diameter pipeline and runs west from Chester Junction to meter 

regulators. Columbia Gas’ pipeline system in the project area consists of a 20-inch-diameter pipeline that 

runs from Claymont, Delaware across the Delaware River to Gloucester County, New Jersey. Transco’s 

pipeline system in the project area includes two pipelines: a 12-inch-diameter pipeline and a 20-inchdiameter pipeline. Transco’s two pipelines cross the Delaware River from Pennsylvania and proceed 

north across northwest New Jersey. All of these pipeline systems primarily provide natural gas from 

production areas in Canada and the Gulf Coast. While new supplies of natural gas might be developed 

outside of the market area, including the construction or expansion of other LNG import terminals along 

the Gulf and East Coasts, the existing Columbia Gas, Transco, and Texas Eastern systems do not have 

sufficient capacity to deliver the volumes proposed by Crown Landing without expansion. 

Expanding or modifying the existing pipeline systems to be able to deliver natural gas to the MidAtlantic region would result in a variety of environmental impacts depending on the project size, length, 

and design. It is typical for significant pipeline construction projects in the region to result in short- or 

long-term impacts on water resources, upland vegetation, wetlands, wildlife habitats, traffic patterns, and 

land use. Substantial expansion or modifications to the existing pipeline systems would be required to 

deliver the gas volumes to the Mid-Atlantic region as proposed by Crown Landing. In addition to 

construction-related effects, the operation of pipeline compressor stations also would result in permanent 

noise and air quality impacts. 

We expect that new pipelines or proposals to modify existing pipelines will continue to increase 

the capacity of existing systems delivering natural gas to the Mid-Atlantic region. Nevertheless, these 

projects could not meet the project objectives of providing access to new natural gas supplies around the 

world. Additionally, since the production from conventional natural gas reserves in the United States and 

Canada has not experienced much growth, it is unlikely that pipeline alternatives connected to these 

reserves would be able to meet the project objective of providing up to a maximum rate of an additional 

1.4 Bcfd of natural gas to the Mid-Atlantic region. Even if a pipeline system alternative was combined 

with the use of an existing, modified, or proposed LNG facility, the costs and environmental impacts of 

such an alternative would not provide a clear advantage over the Crown Landing LNG Project. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
3-22

Non-Internet Public 

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE 

CROWN LANDING LNG PROJECT and 

LOGAN LATERAL PROJECT 

Docket Nos. CP04-411-000 and CP04-416-000 

Figure 3.2.3-1 Existing Pipeline Systems 

Public access for the above information is available only 

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

public.referenceroom@ferc.gov. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
3-23 

3.3 LNG TERMINAL ALTERNATIVES 

The examination of alternative sites for an LNG import terminal involved a comprehensive 

process that considered environmental, engineering, economic, safety, and regulatory factors. The first 

step included determining the most suitable area for an LNG terminal based on the stated purpose of the 

project of providing an additional supply of natural gas to the Mid-Atlantic region. The second step 

included identification of a specific port capable of accommodating ships that can transport up to 200,000 

m3

 of LNG. The third step included comparatively evaluating specific sites within suitable ports that are 

capable of supporting the necessary docking, storage, and vaporization facilities. 

3.3.1 Regional Review 

As discussed in section 1.2, there is a current and growing demand for natural gas in the MidAtlantic region. Due to the limitations in the existing pipeline systems serving the region as well as the 

other disadvantages discussed in section 3.2.3, we believe an LNG import facility should be located 

somewhere in New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, or Maryland to efficiently serve the MidAtlantic region. As such, we did not consider alternative LNG terminal sites north of Long Island, New 

York or south of the Virginia and Maryland border. 

3.3.2 Port Review 

Ships that are presently used to transport LNG typically have capacities of up to 138,000 m3

. 

These ships are up to 1,000 feet long with typical drafts up to 38 feet. To ensure that the LNG ships do 

not easily or frequently run aground, an additional 2 feet of water is required under the keel. This means 

that LNG ships will typically only access areas with depths of 40 feet Although dredging in shallow 

water areas could provide access for LNG ships, the dredging required in undeveloped ports would 

generally be cost prohibitive and would most likely result in significant environmental impacts. 

Consequently, our analysis of alternative LNG terminal sites was limited to offshore or existing 

deepwater coastal ports that could readily accommodate LNG ships without dredging or without 

significantly more dredging than would be required for use of the proposed site. 

3.3.2.1 Offshore Ports 

To avoid many of the environmental issues and safety concerns associated with locating an LNG 

facility onshore, many companies have considered locating LNG import terminals in offshore areas. As 

defined in the Deepwater Port Act of 1974 (as amended by the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 

2002 to include natural gas facilities), deepwater ports include fixed or floating structures that are located 

off of the U.S. coast and that are used as a port or terminal for the transportation, storage, and further 

handling of oil or natural gas. This legislation further requires the DOT (Maritime Administration 

(MARAD)) and the Coast Guard to regulate the licensing, siting, construction, and operation of 

deepwater ports for natural gas. 

The technology for offshore LNG terminals is being developed and guidance documents for 

building offshore LNG storage and regasification terminals have recently been produced (American 

Bureau of Shipping, 2002). Excelerate completed and began operating the first LNG import facility 

located entirely offshore in March 2005. There are currently several other proposals to build offshore 

LNG import terminals in the United States. Additional offshore LNG terminals have also been proposed 

and are under review in Australia, West Africa, Taiwan, Mexico, and Italy (LNG Express, 2002). The 

following sections provide a discussion of each major offshore import terminal strategy being proposed or 

considered. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
3-24

Transport and Regasification Vessels 

One strategy for importing LNG to an offshore terminal includes the use of conventional LNG 

ships fitted with regasification equipment (e.g., transport and regasification vessels). Several companies 

are investigating or proposing to install vaporization equipment on conventional LNG ships and 

Excelerate began operating the Gulf Gateway terminal using this design (see section 3.2.1). 

No company has filed an application for a transport and regasification LNG import terminal in 

the Mid-Atlantic region, although LNG Express (2005a) indicated that Excelerate has future plans for 

such a terminal off the New York/New Jersey coast. According to LNG Express, this facility would have 

a sendout capacity of 400+ MMcfd and would be in service by 2009/2010. 

Currently, there are independent proposals by Northeast Gateway Energy Bridge L.L.C. 

(Northeast Gateway), a subsidiary of Excelerate, and Neptune LNG, a subsidiary of Tractebel, to build 

these types of LNG import terminals in the northeast off the coast of Massachusetts. These projects 

would be the closest offshore LNG projects to the Mid-Atlantic region. Northeast Gateway filed an 

application with the Coast Guard and the MARAD on June 13, 2005 for licensing of a deepwater facility 

to import LNG into the New England region, to be sited offshore in Massachusetts Bay, about 13 miles 

south-southeast of Gloucester, Massachusetts. The Coast Guard deemed Northeast Gateway’s application 

complete in September 2005. The proposed terminal would employ the use of two buoy systems that 

could enable uninterrupted gas flows to market with properly scheduled vessel deliveries. A metering 

platform would not be used. The Northeast Gateway deepwater port would deliver natural gas via a 24-

inch-diameter pipeline to the existing 30-inch-diameter Algonquin HubLine Pipeline system. Assuming 

regulatory approvals are obtained, construction of the Northeast Gateway deepwater port is scheduled for 

late summer 2006 and startup for spring 2007. Northeast Gateway would have an average sendout of 400 

MMcfd of LNG and a peak sendout of 800 MMcfd (LNG Express, 2005c). 

In October 2005, the Coast Guard deemed the Neptune LNG application for a license to be 

complete. In October, the Coast Guard and MARAD also issued a NOI announcing their intent to prepare 

an environmental impact statement for the project. The terminal plans to moor specially designed ships 

offshore Gloucester, Massachusetts by means of a submerged unloading buoy system consisting of two 

buoys. The ships would store and vaporize LNG shipments and then sendout the gas through 

Algonquin’s subsea HubLine pipeline system. Neptune plans to have an average sendout capacity of 400 

MMcfd, and for peak demand, each Neptune vessel would be able to deliver 700 MMcfd. The Neptune 

terminal site is located approximately 2 miles from the Northeast Gateway site (LNG Express, 2005c). 

The transport and regasification ships would be able to dock at a mooring system made up of a 

submerged turret buoy and flexible riser connected to a natural gas pipeline on the seafloor. After 

docking is complete, LNG could be vaporized onboard the LNG ship and injected as natural gas directly 

into the offshore pipeline for delivery to onshore markets. When not in use, the buoy and flexible riser 

system would be lowered to a depth of about 100 feet below the surface and held in position until 

retrieved by the next LNG ship. Based on the designs suggested to date, it appears that the submerged 

turret buoy and flexible riser system would be limited to areas where the water is between 130 and 490 

feet deep. This design does not provide for LNG storage so it must be limited to an LNG fleet with 

regasification equipment on all of the vessels. Depending on the vaporizers and the size of the sendout 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
3-25 

pipeline, an LNG transport and regasification ship could deliver between 400 to 900 MMcfd of natural 

gas to market2. 

Fixed Structures 

Another strategy for importing LNG to an offshore terminal involves the use of fixed structures. 

There are basically two different types of fixed structures that can be used as an offshore LNG import 

terminal, either a GBS, located directly on the seafloor, or pile-based platforms. GBS facility would 

include placing LNG storage tanks and associated facility platforms on foundations directly on the 

seafloor. LNG could be offloaded from conventional LNG ships, placed in storage tanks, and then 

vaporized for delivery as natural gas to the onshore market via an undersea pipeline. GBS terminals 

would only be feasible in areas of relatively shallow water, where the depths range between 45 and 100 

feet. Given the costs associated with constructing and operating a GBS, it appears that these facilities are 

only economically feasible for projects with relatively large LNG storage (e.g., 250,000 to 330,000 m3

) 

and natural gas sendout volumes (e.g., 800 to 2,000 MMcfd). 

As shown in table 3.2.2-1, ChevronTexaco Corporation (ChevronTexaco) and Shell USA Oil & 

Gas (Shell) were recently authorized to build GBS offshore LNG import terminals in the Gulf of Mexico. 

These two projects are currently referred to as the Port Pelican Deepwater Port Project and the Gulf 

Landing Project, respectively. Neither project has begun construction. ChevronTexaco is still seeking 

approval from the Coast Guard and Texas regulatory agencies for its GBS construction yard in Corpus 

Christi, Texas. ChevronTexaco does not plan to begin construction of Port Pelican until it receives all 

necessary permits and secures an LNG supply source. Cost may be a potential obstacle to the successful 

development of a GBS facility. Current reports indicate that estimated costs for these types of projects 

have increased nearly three times the costs projected by ChevronTexaco last year (LNG Express, 2004). 

Another strategy using a fixed offshore terminal involves constructing or converting existing 

offshore platforms. Because these platforms are or would be anchored using fixed-tower structures, they 

could be located in a much broader range of water depths than a GBS unit. These platforms could be 

fitted with docking, unloading, storage, and vaporization equipment. Similar to the GBS design, LNG 

could be unloaded from a conventional LNG ship, vaporized at the platform, and sent as natural gas to the 

onshore market via an undersea pipeline. Depending on the specific design, the use of an offshore 

platform may not include significant offshore storage of LNG. Given the lack of existing offshore 

platforms in the Mid-Atlantic region, this approach would require construction of a new platform. 

Floating Structures 

FSRUs are another approach being considered for importing LNG into the United States. In 

essence, an FSRU would be an oversized LNG ship that is outfitted with LNG vaporizers and 

docking/unloading equipment. The FSRU would be about 930 to 1,150 feet long, 195 to 215 feet wide, 

and be able to store between 250,000 and 290,000 m3

 of LNG - over twice the capacity of a typical LNG 

ship. These units would be anchored offshore of the proposed market area where conventional LNG 

ships could dock next to and unload LNG to the FSRU. After the LNG is unloaded, it could be vaporized 

and the natural gas transported to onshore markets through an undersea pipeline. Depending on the 

vaporizers and the size of the pipeline, these units could have a natural gas sendout capacity ranging from 

700 to 1,500 MMcfd. Based on the designs suggested to date, it appears that FSRUs would be limited to 

depths greater than 90 feet to accommodate a flexible pipeline connection between the unit and the 

 

2

 Neptune LNG has indicated that the project would have an average sendout capacity of 400 MMcfd and a peak capacity of 700 MMcfd. 

Excelerate has indicated that its Northeast Gateway Project would have a baseload capacity of 400 MMcfd and a peak capacity of 800 

MMcfd. However, it appears the 800 MMcfd capacity could rarely if ever be achieved and that the actual maximum delivery capacity of the 

project would likely be between 500 and 690 MMcfd.

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
3-26

sendout pipeline. The proposed Broadwater LNG Facility Project would include an FSRU. BHP Billiton 

also recently proposed to use this design to import natural gas to markets in California. 

Evaluation of Transport and Regasification Vessels and Fixed and Floating Structures

We have examined whether transport and regasification vessel or fixed or floating structures 

designs could provide an import service similar to the Crown Landing LNG Project. We have also 

evaluated the potential cost and impacts associated with each design. 

Technical Feasibility Issues

Excelerate demonstrated the operational feasibility of the transport and regasification design with 

the successful delivery of the first LNG ship to its Gulf Gateway Energy Bridge facility in March 2005. 

However, the LNG regasification vessels are unique to this application and the docking and cargo 

transfers at the proposed Gulf Gateway site cannot presently be performed by conventional LNG vessels. 

Additionally, the Gulf Gateway design lacks the LNG storage proposed by Crown Landing. Moreover, as 

discussed in section 3.2.1, Excelerate currently lacks sufficient transport and regasification vessels to 

provide a steady flow of natural gas to its customers. 

The technical issues associated with the feasibility of constructing and operating fixed and 

floating offshore LNG facility designs have not yet been demonstrated in practice and can not be fully 

evaluated within the timeframe of the Crown Landing LNG Project. 

One particular challenge for an offshore LNG import terminal would be the effects of 

meteorological and oceanographic forces such as high winds, waves, and currents, and the potential for 

these weather conditions to disrupt LNG ship deliveries. These concerns are particularly pronounced in 

the Mid-Atlantic region during the winter, a period when the region experiences its most severe weather 

and its peak demand for natural gas supplies. The potential for severe weather equates with a need for 

increased storage volume at offshore terminals to maintain a predictable, constant flow of natural gas to 

shore. Due to the length of time required to unload and the open-sea location of the docking facilities, 

there would be an increased potential for delays associated with inclement weather and rough seas, which 

could make this design less reliable than an onshore facility. A particularly key technical issue for the 

successful operation of a fixed or floating LNG terminal in this environment includes designing the LNG 

transfer system (i.e., unloading arms) to compensate for the relative motion between the terminal and 

LNG ship during unloading operations. Although storage and unloading technologies similar to those 

that would be used with an offshore LNG terminal have been applied for many years at onshore LNG 

terminals and at offshore petroleum product facilities (LNG Express, 2002), the technologies needed to 

transfer a cryogenic liquid under the harsher conditions in an offshore setting have not yet been 

demonstrated. This may be problematic for offloading to a FSRU where the stresses on a transfer system 

could be even greater than what would be experienced at a fixed structure. 

For the Gulf Gateway Project, Excelerate established the following docking and cargo transfer 

design criteria: a 5-meter (16-foot) sea condition maximum for connecting at the docking station and a 

12-meter (39-foot) sea condition maximum for cargo unloading. Similar docking systems are currently in 

use for crude oil transfers in the North Sea, where docking maneuvers have occurred in seas up to 5.5 

meters (18 feet) and loading/unloading operations have occurred in seas of 13 meters (43 feet) (Coast 

Guard, 2003). Based on weather and wave data from the Gulf of Mexico and Excelerate’s design criteria, 

the Environmental Assessment for the Gulf Gateway Project estimated that the LNG import facility 

would be operable 98 percent of the year. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
3-27 

To evaluate sea conditions offshore from the Mid-Atlantic region, we examined wave height data 

from the National Data Buoy Center for Station Number 44025. This buoy is located about 33 nautical 

miles south of Islip, New York at 40° 15’ 01’’ North and 73° 10’ 00’’ West, and has a relatively 

continuous record of meteorological data extending back to 1992 (NOAA, 2004a). We evaluated wave 

height data from even-numbered years from 1992 through 2002 as well as 2003. Seasonal average wave 

heights ranged from 5.1 feet (winter) to 3.2 feet (summer), suggesting that the 16-foot sea condition for 

connecting to the buoy is achievable throughout much of the year. Because peak demand for natural gas 

is likely to coincide with periods of the worst weather conditions, we also looked at maximum wave 

heights for the months of November through March. Maximum wave heights ranged from 23.7 feet in 

January 1996 to 7.9 feet in March 2002. Maximum wave heights during the winter and early spring 

months suggest that the 39-foot sea condition established for unloading conditions of a transport and 

regasification vessel at least would be achievable in most years. 

Estimated Project Costs

The relative cost of transport and regasification vessels compared to onshore LNG facilities 

cannot be fully evaluated due to the short operational history of the transport and regasification design. 

Excelerate submitted information to the FERC on November 16, 2004 regarding the economics of the 

Northeast Gateway Project. In its submittal, Excelerate indicated that the economics of its project are 

favorable compared to onshore LNG terminals. Excelerate estimated that the pipeline and buoy system 

required for the Northeast Gateway Project would cost about $200 million. The three specialized LNG 

ships required for the project would cost an additional $570 million, for a combined total delivery cost of 

about $770 million. Excelerate indicated that this would be more than $100 million less than the total 

delivery cost of an onshore facility of similar capacity. FERC staff notes that Excelerate’s cost estimates 

for onshore facilities include the cost of construction of conventional LNG ships. Since a worldwide fleet 

of conventional LNG ships already exists, new ships are not necessarily required and are not typically 

considered part of the capital costs associated with an onshore facility. Excelerate also stated that the 

operating costs of the Northeast Gateway facility would have lower labor costs because no additional 

employees would be hired to operate the terminal. Additionally, Excelerate indicated that if it uses an 

open-loop vaporization system, the fuel consumed to operate its facility would be about half the fuel 

consumption of a comparable onshore LNG terminal. However, if a closed-loop vaporization system is 

used (which is the current plan), the fuel consumption during operations would be 50 percent more than a 

comparable onshore LNG terminal. 

Estimates released to the public indicate that the capital costs for constructing a fixed or floating 

offshore terminal that includes significant LNG storage would be at least twice as expensive as a similar 

sized onshore facility. Operating costs would also be higher. For example, costs associated with the need 

for a larger staff and personnel to operate an offshore terminal would be greater than for the proposed 

LNG terminal. 

LNG Terminal and Sendout Pipeline Impacts

Construction and operation of an offshore LNG terminal could result in environmental impacts 

related to aesthetics, water quality, biological communities, socioeconomics, and air quality. Aesthetic 

impacts could include impacts on the offshore viewshed. Because there is not any existing and available 

offshore infrastructure that could be utilized for an offshore LNG terminal in the Mid-Atlantic region 

(e.g., existing platforms), constructing an offshore facility would affect a number of marine and nearshore 

resources. 

The docking stations for the Northeast Gateway Project, for example, would require the 

construction and use of a large, permanently-fixed anchor array. Depending on the orientation of the 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
3-28

anchor positions, each array would likely consist of eight anchors located in a circular fashion between 

1,738 to 3,050 feet from the docking buoy. Depending on the design of the anchors, the entire anchor 

array for each project would disturb a small area of the seabed. Additional seafloor disturbance from 

anchor chain movements would occur each time the turret buoys are raised and lowered to dock and 

release the LNG vessels. According to information filed by Excelerate, the maximum total area of the 

seafloor affected during operation of the facility would be about 42 acres. This disturbance would be a 

periodic and long-term impact on the seafloor for the life of the project. In the case of the Broadwater 

LNG Facility Project, the FSRU would be constructed at a shipyard and towed to the project location for 

permanent mooring. This mooring system would also permanently impact a small area of the seafloor. 

A safety and security zone would be established around the offshore terminal, which would 

restrict other fishing, boating, and ship traffic. Excelerate, for example, has indicated that the Coast 

Guard would probably require a minimum 1,640-foot safety and security zone around each docking 

station for the Northeast Gateway Project. Excelerate and the Coast Guard would also request from the 

International Maritime Organization (IMO) an additional “No Anchor Area” of about 1 nautical mile in 

diameter around each buoy. In addition, Excelerate has indicated they would request the Coast Guard to 

establish an “Area to be Avoided” of 2.2 nautical miles around each docking station. Although not a 

restricted area, the “Area to be Avoided” would be posted on nautical charts to provide a warning to 

vessels operating in the vicinity of the terminal. 

Another issue is that the use of an offshore facility does not avoid the need for some onshore 

facilities. For example, temporary onshore facilities would be needed to construct the fixed or floating 

LNG structures, which would then be transferred to the offshore terminal site. While not specifically 

addressed in existing environmental documents and analyses, the construction of a GBS requires 

fabrication of the GBS in what is called a graving dock. The graving dock must be of sufficient size to 

fabricate the GBS, of sufficient depth, and constructed in an area adjacent to sufficient water depth to 

float the GBS. One side of the graving dock must be directly adjacent to the waterbody and that side 

must be removable to flood the dock and float the GBS, allowing it to be towed from the dock to its final 

destination. Graving for the size of the proposed LNG terminal can be on the order of 50 to 100 acres. 

Permanent onshore facilities would also be required for terminal support activities. 

An offshore LNG facility would also require the construction and hydrostatic testing of a sendout 

pipeline from the offshore site to an interconnection with an existing pipeline system. Offshore pipeline 

construction typically involves laying the pipeline directly on the seafloor at depths greater than 200 feet, 

and excavating a shallow trench in areas with depths less than 200 feet. The level of impact of the 

offshore pipeline would depend on the resources in the vicinity of the pipeline route, the length of the 

pipeline, the seafloor substrate, and the type of equipment that is used for construction. The Broadwater 

LNG Facility Project, for example, would require a new 25-mile-long pipeline to connect the FSRU to the 

existing Iroquois pipeline system. This pipeline would be located in waters less than 200 feet deep and 

would likely need to be buried beneath the seafloor. 

Construction methods for offshore pipelines include jetting, subsea plowing, and dredging. 

Excavating a shallow trench to bury the pipeline using any of these methods would have both direct and 

indirect impacts. Direct impacts would include the disturbance of bottom substrates and habitats located 

in the area of the trench. Other impacts could include the disturbance of substrates adjacent to the trench 

as a result of sidecasting the trench spoil, and impacts associated with anchor strikes and cable sweep 

resulting from the need to stabilize and position pipe-lay barges and other equipment and indirect impacts 

associated with the suspension and transport of disturbed sediments in the water column and the 

resettlement of suspended sediments on the seabed. Laying the pipeline directly on the seafloor could 

also displace and/or replace existing substrates and, in some cases, create a potential barrier to 

invertebrate movements (Glaholt et al., 2000). 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
3-29 

Based on our analysis of the HubLine and Islander East pipeline projects (FERC, 2001; FERC, 

2002), which are illustrative of the various environmental issues associated with offshore pipeline 

construction along the East Coast, we estimate that the in the case of the Northeast Gateway and 

Broadwater LNG Projects, which would connect to existing offshore pipelines, these impacts could 

include disturbance of more than 1,000 and 3,000 acres of seafloor3, respectively. Impacts on water 

quality and aquatic resources could also result if seawater is utilized to help vaporize LNG at the terminal, 

which may be possible during the warmest months of the year. Water discharged from the vaporizer units 

would decrease the water temperature, increase the turbidity, and increase dissolved oxygen content in 

marine waters near the terminal. During water intake, fish eggs or larvae could be impinged or entrained 

from nearby waters. During colder months of the year, the LNG vaporizers would burn natural gas which 

would result in air emissions similar to the proposed project. 

One advantage of an offshore LNG terminal is that they would be located in remote areas far 

from population centers, which would eliminate the shipping of LNG past populated communities and 

minimize the risk to the public. Although a recent congressional report suggests that offshore LNG 

facilities may be more vulnerable to terrorist attack compared to onshore facilities (Parfomak, 2003), the 

consequences of such an attack to the general public would be lower due to the remote locations of 

offshore facilities. 

Summary and Conclusions

In summary, we recognize the potential for offshore docking and LNG regasification vessels and 

offshore storage and vaporization structures to have a future role in the gas supply mix, the current level 

of information and limited operational experience is not sufficient to justify consideration of this 

emerging application of offshore technology as a reasonable alternative to the Crown Landing LNG 

Project. Additionally, we have determined that if suitable offshore sites could be located and developed, 

an offshore LNG terminal could avoid some of the more significant environmental impacts associated 

with the proposed Crown Landing LNG Project (e.g., dredging the ship berth). An offshore facility 

would also have the advantage of being more remotely located and would avoid the transport of LNG past 

populated areas. 

However, no applications for any such facilities in the offshore areas of the Mid-Atlantic region 

have yet been filed. Additionally, in the case of the transport and regasification design, the facilities 

would not provide the LNG storage that would be supplied by the proposed project. Our analysis also 

indicates that the construction and operation of an offshore facility could potentially result in substantial 

environmental impacts. Construction-related impacts would result from the installation of the physical 

structures necessary for the system to function. For a project off the Mid-Atlantic coast, where there are 

no existing offshore interstate pipeline systems, there would likely be additional impacts associated with 

both the offshore and onshore pipeline needed to interconnect the facility to an onshore interstate pipeline 

system. Operational impacts would also result from docking procedures and the vaporization of LNG 

prior to sending out the natural gas into the pipeline(s). These would include long-term impacts 

associated with a permanent anchor array for the buoy system, air emissions associated with vaporization 

equipment, and potential entrainment and impingement of aquatic organisms and water temperature 

impacts if an open-loop vaporization system is used (i.e., seawater is used to vaporize the LNG). 

 

3

 Seafloor impacts could be reduced more than tenfold if dynamically positioned (DP) construction vessels are used to construct the pipeline. 

However, the number of DP construction vessels in the world is currently limited. Neptune has indicated that it intends to use DP 

construction vessels. Excelerate has not committed to a specific type of offshore pipeline construction equipment. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
3-30

Offshore Docking/Onshore Storage 

Where deepwater access to a coastal port or harbor is unavailable, LNG can be transported to 

onshore storage tanks from ships using specially designed cryogenic pipelines. Such facilities enable 

LNG ships to berth and transfer their LNG cargo to the cryogenic pipeline at docking facilities in offshore 

areas where natural water depths exceed 40 feet. Although feasible, a number of technical factors related 

to transporting LNG in a pipeline limit the practical maximum length of such a pipeline. In the draft EIS, 

we reported this length to be about 3 miles; however, we note that LNG Express (2005b) reported that 

recent research has been conducted to develop an insulated pipeline capable of transporting LNG for a 

distance of about 18 miles. 

The offshore docking/onshore storage approach has been used at the existing Cove Point LNG 

Terminal, where the ship docking/unloading platform is located in the Chesapeake Bay about 1 mile from 

the shoreline. Similar facilities have been proposed for the Irving Oil LNG site in New Brunswick, 

Canada, and the Keltic Petrochemicals LNG and Bear Head LNG facilities in Nova Scotia, Canada. 

While it would be possible to transfer LNG to shore through a cryogenic pipeline from an offshore 

docking structure, such a design would still require locating LNG storage tanks and process facilities at an 

onshore location, which would involve most of the same disadvantages of an onshore terminal (in 

addition to the disadvantages associated with an offshore docking structure and pipeline). Furthermore, 

industrial ports in the Mid-Atlantic region are largely situated along narrow waterfronts that are accessible 

only from narrow navigational channels. Therefore, an offshore docking structure and a cryogenic 

pipeline would have to be located relatively close to a navigation channel which could interfere with other 

port operators or marine traffic. Although considered, we did not identify a site where the use of this 

approach appeared practical (see our discussion of Delaware Bay sites in section 3.3.2.2). 

3.3.2.2 Specific Offshore Port Review 

New Jersey Coast 

As discussed previously, no formal applications to build an offshore LNG facility in the MidAtlantic region have been filed with the DOT or the Coast Guard. However, LNG Express (2005a) has 

identified a plan by Excelerate for a transport and regasification vessel LNG terminal located offshore of 

the New York/New Jersey coasts. In addition, Atlantic Sea Island Group, LLC announced in January 

2006 plans for the Safe Harbor Energy LNG Terminal project, which would involve installation of four 

LNG storage tanks on an artificially created island about 13.5 miles south of Long Beach, New York. 

A significant issue for any offshore facility in the Mid-Atlantic region is how the facility would 

connect with the existing interstate pipeline systems. The existing interstate pipeline systems in the MidAtlantic region include pipelines operated by Columbia, and Transco in Maryland, Pennsylvania, New 

Jersey, and New York; Texas Eastern and Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company in Pennsylvania and New 

York; Algonquin Gas Transmission in New Jersey and New York; and Eastern Shore Natural Gas 

Company (Eastern Shore) in Delaware, Maryland, and Pennsylvania. Most of these pipeline systems are 

located a fair distance inland between approximately New Brunswick, New Jersey and Norfolk, Virginia. 

Connecting an offshore facility to the interstate systems in this area would require a fairly long pipeline, 

which would likely have both offshore and onshore impacts. 

An LNG terminal off the southern coast of New Jersey from Cape May to Mantoloking would be 

the least favorable site from an environmental perspective. This section of coast line comprises extensive 

coastal wetlands areas and intra-coastal waterways, much of which has been designated as national 

wildlife refuges, natural areas, state parks, national estuarine research reserves, and wildlife management 

areas. The few areas that are not wetland, refuges, parks, or reserves, such as Atlantic City, are highly 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
3-31 

developed. Moreover, any LNG terminal located off the southern coast would require as much as 45 

miles of onshore pipeline and possibly as much offshore pipeline to achieve the necessary depth for siting 

an offshore terminal. These pipelines could disturb thousands of acres of seabed as well as coastal 

marshes and numerous wetlands, waterbodies, and other sensitive resources. 

The one area where the interstate pipeline systems are much closer to the coast is in northern New 

Jersey. Locating an offshore facility near this area would reduce both the costs and onshore impact of the 

sendout pipeline. The following paragraphs provide an assessment of potential issues and impacts of 

siting an LNG terminal off the Atlantic coast of New Jersey, recognizing that it is impossible to determine 

the specific impacts of a project without knowing its design and specific location. For the purpose of this 

assessment we have assumed a facility similar to Excelerate’s transport and regasification vessel design. 

Our review of the offshore area east of the northern New Jersey has identified a number of 

sensitive environmental resources and issues that would need to be addressed in order to build an offshore 

terminal. The Port of New York and associated New Jersey ports collectively represent one of the busiest 

ports in North America. Estimated ship traffic in and out of this area is about 12,000 ships per year. 

Most of the traffic traveling to and from the port uses one of three ship traffic lanes, which converge 

about 10 miles south of Long Island and east of Sandy Hook and the mouth of Raritan Bay. According to 

NOAA charts, there are numerous offshore submerged cables and dump sites in the area. There are also a 

large number of recorded shipwrecks in the area, particularly near shore. The traffic lanes, dump sites, 

and high density of other obstacles, particularly near shore, would likely restrict potential terminal sites to 

far offshore sites located between the traffic lanes. 

Siting the terminal far offshore would have the advantages of avoiding the dredging associated 

with the pier and minimizing or eliminating the visibility of the LNG facility and ships from the shore. It 

would also increase the distance of the facility and ship route from populated onshore areas and thus 

would enhance public safety by reducing the potential consequences of an LNG spill and fire. 

The primary impacts of an LNG terminal offshore of New Jersey would result from the sendout 

pipeline and the operation of the LNG ships and terminal. Based on our review, it appears that the 

sendout pipeline could include more than 40 miles of offshore and onshore pipe. The operation of the 

LNG ships and terminal would result in air emissions, ballast water impacts, potential water use and 

aquatic impacts associated with use of seawater in the vaporization process, and restrictions on marine 

fishing and other shipping in the vicinity of the LNG terminal and transiting LNG ships. 

Aquatic resources off the New Jersey coast include endangered and threatened species, essential 

fish habitat, and shellfish growing and harvesting areas. Federal endangered and threatened species that 

could occur in the vicinity of the offshore terminal or along the offshore pipeline route include several 

species of whales (sperm whale, finback whale, sei whale, humpback whale, North Atlantic Right whale), 

turtles (Atlantic loggerhead turtle, Atlantic leatherback turtle, Kemp’s ridley turtle, Atlantic hawksbill 

turtle), and the shortnose sturgeon. The waters off the coast are designated as essential fish habitat for a 

number of species including whiting, various flounder species, ocean pout, monkfish, scup, ocean 

quahog, king mackerel, cobia, various shark species, and bluefin tuna. Commercial fishing for finfish and 

shellfish also occurs off of the northern New Jersey coast. The primary commercially harvested shellfish 

include surf clam, quahog, and sea scallops. Construction of the offshore pipeline could disturb 

thousands of acres of seabed and impact these resources. Onshore resources that could be affected by the 

construction of an onshore pipeline include numerous streams and wetlands as well as commercial and 

residential developments. Thus the total acres of impact of the offshore and onshore pipelines for an 

offshore LNG facility would likely be greater than the impacts of the proposed LNG terminal and sendout 

pipeline. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
3-32

The unloading process used by an LNG transport and regasification ship involves the 

vaporization of LNG and injection of natural gas directly into the sendout pipeline(s). Based on the 

vessels to be used for the Northeast Gateway Project, we have assumed the LNG ships would use a shell 

and tube vaporizer system that operates in both open- and closed-loop modes. In the open-loop mode, 

seawater is pumped through the shell and tube system to provide the heat necessary to convert the LNG to 

the vapor phase. In the closed-loop system, a natural gas-fired boiler is used to heat water circulated in a 

closed-loop through the shell and tube vaporizer and a steam heater. Excelerate has indicated that only 

closed-loop vaporization would be used to regasify LNG at the Northeast Gateway terminal. Based on 

information filed in Excelerate’s deepwater port application each LNG ship has a cargo capacity of at 

least 138,000 m3 of LNG (this is equivalent to about 2.95 billion cubic feet of natural gas). Using the 

closed-loop vaporization process, it would take about 7 to 8 days to unload a single cargo of LNG. The 

closed-loop vaporization process would result in longer durations of unloading than those at the proposed 

LNG terminal. 

The longer times required to unload a cargo at the offshore ports would result in increased air 

quality impacts and biological impacts. Regasification would require each LNG ship to remain at the 

offshore terminal for about 7 days. Regardless of the mode of vaporization, the ship would need to 

operate its engines throughout the unloading process, resulting in air quality impacts. Excelerate has 

indicated that vessels unloading LNG at the terminal would operate using natural gas instead of diesel 

during cargo unloading operations. The use of this type of facility to provide baseload gas supplies would 

require one ship to be docked at an unloading platform every day of the year. Closed-loop vaporization 

would require the use of a gas-fired boiler to operate the vaporizers. Based on the deepwater port 

application for the Northeast Gateway Project (Northeast Gateway, 2005), the two marine boilers on the 

regasification vessel would use 10,800 million Btu per day, or 7.56 x 1010 Btu per cargo of LNG. The 

estimated air emissions presented in table 3.3.2-1 do not account for those times when two LNG ships 

would be unloading simultaneously to maintain baseload sendout and, therefore, underestimate potential 

air quality impacts slightly. Additionally, the listed emissions are based on a sendout capacity of 400 

MMcfd. To achieve the proposed sendout capacity of the Crown Landing LNG Project up to three ships 

would need to be offloading simultaneously, which would triple the estimated emissions listed in table 

3.3.2-1. 

Although we recognize that air quality impacts occur within a broader global context, prevailing 

winds in the area are to the east, which might mitigate some of the direct air quality impacts within the 

onshore areas of the United States. 

TABLE 3.3.2-1 

Estimated Air Emissions from LNG Vessel Operations During Offshore Cargo Unloading a/ 

NOx CO SO2 VOC PM 

lbs/year tpy lbs/year tpy lbs/year tpy lbs/year tpy lbs/year tpy 

83.8 366.6 37.0 162.4 <0.1 0.1 2.4 10.6 3.4 14.6 

____________________ 

a/ emissions based in information in Northeast Gateway’s deepwater port application and assumes two boilers are 

 operating at 100 percent load, 24 hours per day, 365 days a year 

NOx oxides of nitrogen 

CO carbon monoxide 

SO2 sulfur dioxide 

VOC volatile organic compounds 

PM particulate matter, all PM assumed to be smaller than 2.5 microns in diameter 

lbs/year pounds per hour 

tpy tons per year; (lb/day x 365 days/ year)/ 2000 lb per ton 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
3-33 

Eggs and larvae of various marine species would also be subject to entrainment and impingement 

impacts from ballasting operations (see section 4.6.2) and other withdrawals of seawater. Based on the 

Northeast Gateway Project, the LNG ships would arrive at the port carrying no ballast water. As the LNG 

ships offload their cargo, ballast water would be taken onboard to maintain ship stability. Based on the 

Northeast Gateway Project, each LNG ship would need to appropriate about 1.4 to 2.0 million gallons per 

day or 13.5 million gallons of ballast water per cargo delivery. An additional 54 million gallons of 

seawater per day would be withdrawn for other uses while the ship is at the terminal. 

To determine the potential for entrainment and impingement of ichthyoplankton from ballast 

water withdrawals, we used data provided in Northeast Gateway’s deepwater port application. Based on 

the assumption that the ships would withdraw about 56 million gallons per day while connected to the 

terminal, we estimated that entrainment or impingement could be as high as about 767,000 eggs and 

larvae (from a variety of fish) each day a ship is moored at the terminal. Although these numbers appear 

relatively large, we note that impacts on ichthyoplankton can be difficult to interpret due to the low 

natural survival rates of fish eggs and larvae. 

Delaware Bay

We received several comments on the draft EIS requesting that we evaluate an offshore terminal 

in Delaware Bay as a potential alternative. Our review of Delaware Bay indicates that the water depth of 

the bay, which is less than 80 feet except in a narrow area at the mouth of the Bay, is too shallow to 

support offshore LNG terminals based on the floating (FSRU) or transport and regasification design. 

However, it may be possible to locate either a fixed GBS offshore terminal or alternatively an offshore 

docking facility and onshore storage facility near the mouth of the bay. The advantages of an LNG 

terminal in the bay would be that it would be located farther from populated communities and the LNG 

ships would need to transit a shorter distance on the bay and river. A disadvantage of these types of 

permanent facilities would be that they would be visible from shore. Additionally, it is likely that the 

safety and security zones established around these facilities would affect the navigation of other ships 

transiting the bay and river. Any offshore terminal sited at this location would also require a lengthy 

sendout pipeline. Because the nearest existing interstate pipeline systems capable of transporting natural 

gas from such an LNG facility are located in northern New Jersey and southeastern Pennsylvania, we 

estimate that the sendout pipeline could be at least 100 miles long. This pipeline would have much 

greater wetland, waterbody, and land use impacts than the proposed sendout pipeline. Depending on the 

location, we anticipate that an LNG terminal in the Delaware Bay could have similar issues as the Crown 

Landing LNG Project with Delaware’s Coastal Zone Act and Coastal Zone Management Program. 

3.3.2.3 Coastal Ports 

Our regional review of coastal areas that might be suitable for an onshore LNG terminal 

encompassed the Chesapeake Bay, Atlantic coasts of Maryland and Delaware, the Delaware Bay and 

River, the north and south Atlantic coasts of New Jersey, New York Harbor, and the north and south 

shores of Long Island. Our review focused on the following five major screening criteria: 

• The first criterion was a minimum channel depth of 40 feet. The rational for this depth 

requirement is that LNG ships generally have drafts of 38 feet and water depths of at least 

40 feet are typically required to navigate and prevent grounding. We recognize that the 

required depth might be achieved by dredging shallow waters, but in light of the 

relatively minor amount of dredging required for the proposed project, we considered the 

cost and environmental impacts of significant dredging to be substantial and likely 

outweigh any other advantages. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
3-34

• The second criterion was a minimum channel width of 800 feet and a maneuvering area 

of 2,000 feet to provide sufficient space for the LNG ships to safely transit and berth at 

the terminal. 

• The third criterion was a minimum air draft (vertical clearance) of 135 feet to allow the 

LNG ships to safely transit under any structures (e.g., bridges) spanning the navigation 

channel. 

• The fourth criterion was a distance to natural gas pipeline systems of less than 50 miles. 

Because of the impacts associated with constructing a large diameter interstate natural 

gas pipeline, we considered 50 miles the maximum reasonable distance between the port 

and existing interstate pipeline systems. 

• The fifth criterion was the compatibility of existing land uses in the area with the 

proposed development of an LNG terminal. Although not an absolute requirement, we 

considered industrial areas in sparsely populated areas preferable to siting either in 

densely populated residential and commercial areas, or undeveloped areas such as 

recreational areas or protected shorelines. 

Using these five criteria, we reviewed the Chesapeake Bay area and determined that Baltimore is 

one area within the Chesapeake Bay region that is close to Crown Landing’s intended market and has 

sufficient water depth to accommodate LNG ships. There is also considerable industrial land in the 

Baltimore area that is located in relatively low-density population areas. A primary disadvantage of an 

LNG terminal in the Baltimore area, however, would be its distance from existing natural gas pipeline 

systems. To develop an LNG terminal in Baltimore, a sendout pipeline about 30 miles long would need 

to be constructed to connect an LNG terminal to the existing Transco and Columbia Gas pipeline systems. 

This pipeline would result in more land disturbance and likely impact more streams and wetlands than the 

proposed sendout pipeline. This pipeline would also need to cross densely developed and urbanized areas 

in and around the city and, therefore, would probably have a similar if not greater impact on residences, 

streets, and businesses as the proposed Logan Lateral. For these reasons, we felt that the Baltimore area 

did not warrant further investigation. 

We received a comment on the draft EIS from the DNREC that we should expand our analysis of 

potential sites in the Baltimore area to include more detail regarding specific direct impacts, secondary 

impacts, and cumulative impacts associated with and LNG terminal and sendout pipeline. An LNG 

facility has been proposed by the AES Corporation at the Sparrows Point shipyard in Baltimore. A 

pipeline would likely have to be constructed to existing transmission pipelines in southeastern 

Pennsylvania and dredging would likely occur to accommodate LNG ships. Impacts to this Baltimore 

site would likely be similar to the Crown Landing site and a longer sendout pipeline with greater possible 

environmental impacts than the Logan Lateral. 

We determined that the Atlantic coasts of Maryland, southern New Jersey, and Delaware would 

also be unsuitable for the development of an LNG terminal because they lack the deepwater ports 

required for LNG ship navigation and are far from both the intended market and existing interstate natural 

gas pipeline systems. Additionally, the Atlantic coasts of these states tend to be more densely populated 

with little available industrial property. The Delaware Coastal Zone Act and Coastal Zone Management 

Plan also include provisions that would make siting of an LNG terminal difficult. Delawares’ Coastal 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
3-35 

Zone Act prohibits new heavy industrial uses4

 of any kind in the coastal zone and Delaware’s Coastal 

Zone Management Plan includes a policy that states “there is no site in Delaware suitable for the location 

of any LNG import-export facility.” Thus any LNG facility in Delaware, including the proposed project 

(the proposed ship unloading facility would be located in Delaware state waters) would require an 

exemption from these Act and Plan. 

We identified a number of ports in northern New Jersey, including Perth Amboy, Woodbridge, 

Carteret, Linden, Port Elizabeth, Port Newark, Jersey City, and Bayonne that are close to the intended 

market as well as existing natural gas pipeline systems. We determined that there also appears to be 

ample industrial property available in the northern New Jersey area. The primary drawback of this area is 

that the northern New Jersey ports are designed for and typically serve only smaller vessels such as 

ocean-going barges, cruise ships, dry cargo bulk vessels, and container ships. As a consequence, the 

channel widths and turning basins associated with these ports are small and would require substantial 

improvement to accommodate LNG ships. Another issue is that LNG ships would not be able to access 

some of the northern New Jersey ports because there is insufficient vertical clearance for LNG ships at 

the bridges across the Kill Van Kull. For these reasons, we did not investigate the northern New Jersey 

area further. 

We determined that New York Harbor has adequate channel depths, industrially zoned land, and 

is close to both the intended market and existing natural gas interstate pipeline systems. However, there 

is currently a high level of ship traffic within the New York Harbor and ports, which could increase the 

risk of LNG shipping. Additionally, it would be difficult and expensive to operate LNG ships within the 

harbor while still accommodating the use of the ports by these smaller vessels. There are also several 

bridges within the harbor that have insufficient vertical clearance for LNG ships, which would preclude 

them from being used as LNG terminal sites. Another drawback is that potentially suitable sites within 

the harbor are generally close to residential and commercial areas. For these reasons, we did not further 

investigate alternative LNG terminal sites in New York Harbor. 

The north shore of Long Island is close to the intended market but there is only limited access to 

interstate natural gas pipelines. Currently, the Iroquois Pipeline is the only major natural gas pipeline 

serving eastern Long Island and it is fully subscribed. The FERC recently authorized a second pipeline 

across Long Island Sound, the Islander East Pipeline Project, which would provide additional 

transportation capacity, but the State of Connecticut has denied the section 401 Water Quality 

Certification for the Islander East Pipeline Project, which makes the timing of the Islander East Pipeline 

Project uncertain. Another issue is that the Long Island Sound generally lacks turning basins and ship 

channels sufficient for LNG ships, thus development of an LNG terminal would require substantial 

dredging. Finally, much of the coastline is commercially or residentially developed. For these reasons, 

we did not further investigate alternative LNG terminal sites along the north shore of Long Island. 

We determined that the south shore of Long Island is both close to the intended market and 

existing natural gas pipeline systems. The primary problem with the south shore of Long Island is that it 

lacks industrial ports and adequate channel depths and turning basins for LNG ships. Additionally, a 

large portion of the south shore of Long Island comprises federally and state protected lands, including 

the Fire Island National Seashore, Jones Beach State Park, Gateway National Recreation Area, Tobay 

Beach Park, Gilgo State Park, Robert Moses State Park, and local area beaches and parks. Since 

development of an LNG terminal on the south shore of Long Island would require extensive dredging and 

 

4

 Heavy Industrial Use is defined in the Coastal Zone Act as “a use characteristically involving more than 20 acres, and characteristically 

employing some but not necessarily all of such equipment such as, but not limited to, smokestacks, tanks, distillation or reaction columns, 

chemical processing equipment, scrubbing towers, pickling equipment and waste treatment lagoons; which industry, although conceivably 

operable without polluting the environment, has the potential to pollute when equipment malfunctions or human error occur.” 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
3-36

would likely have direct and indirect impacts on recreational areas and parks, we did not consider this 

area further in our alternatives analysis. 

We determined that the Delaware River and Bay at least as far north as the Philadelphia Naval 

Yard has deep water and a sufficiently wide channel that would meet the navigational requirements of 

LNG ships. We also found that portions of the Delaware River and Bay, excluding the Delaware 

shoreline, are close to the intended market and the existing Columbia Gas, Transco, and Texas Eastern 

natural gas pipeline systems. Additionally, at least in New Jersey, we found that there is ample rural and 

industrial land relatively far from residential and commercial areas that might be suitable for an LNG 

terminal. For these reasons, we further investigated specific potential site alternatives in Delaware River 

and Bay area. 

3.3.3 Site Specific Review of Onshore Sites along the Delaware Bay and River 

To narrow the range and fully evaluate site alternatives, we refined the five major screening 

criteria discussed above and developed additional criteria to assist in identifying and comparing specific 

sites for consideration as LNG terminal alternatives. The review process included the examination of 

additional required and favorable review criteria. 

Required criteria included regulatory specifications regarding LNG facility layout and safety 

siting factors that are required to be met for the project to be feasible. Required criteria included: 

• Thermal Exclusion/Vapor Dispersion Zone (49 CFR 193.2057 and 193.2059) - 

Thermal exclusion and vapor dispersion zones must be established in accordance with 

NFPA 59A. Based on the proposed project design, we have applied a thermal exclusion 

zone with a radius of 1,000 feet from the center of the LNG storage tanks. 

• Airports (49 CFR 193.2155(b)) - LNG storage tanks must not be located within a 

horizontal distance of 1 mile from the ends of the runway, or 0.25 mile from the nearest 

point of a runway, whichever is longer. The height of LNG structures in the vicinity of 

an airport must also comply with Federal Aviation Administration requirements. 

• LNG Waterfront Handling Requirements (33 CFR 127.105) - Waterfront facilities 

where LNG is handled must comply with Coast Guard regulations pertaining to layout 

and spacing of the marine transfer area. These regulations require that each LNG loading 

flange be located at least 985 feet from general public or railway bridges crossing 

navigable waterways or entrances to any tunnel under navigable waterways. 

Our responsibility under NEPA as the lead federal agency is to determine if environmentally 

preferable alternatives to the proposed action exist. All alternative sites were, therefore, compared to the 

proposed LNG terminal site. Favorable review criteria, although not absolute alternative requirements, 

were applied to identify those sites that would be reasonable and most likely to provide some 

environmental advantage over the proposed project. Favorable criteria were not intended to strictly 

eliminate the evaluation of certain sites. Given the limited availability of suitable sized parcels in areas 

with deepwater access, it was not possible to locate an alternative that met all of the favorable review 

criteria. However, some sites were selected for further analysis because they satisfied a majority, but not 

all of the favorable criteria. Favorable criteria included: 

• Population Centers/Residences - We made an effort to identify alternative LNG 

terminal sites in areas that are not in close proximity to population centers and/or 

residences. Similarly, alternative LNG terminal sites were considered preferable if the 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
3-37 

location did not require LNG ships to transit near residentially and commercially 

developed shorelines. In addition to avoiding potential conflicts with existing land uses, 

application of this favorable criterion would ideally avoid conflicts regarding perceived 

safety issues related to transport and storage of LNG. 

• LNG Terminal Footprint - Based on the proposed design and the need to contain the 

thermal exclusion zone, a waterfront site of about 135 acres would be preferable to 

accommodate the proposed configuration of the LNG unloading, storage, and sendout 

facilities. Assuming the LNG storage tanks are located near the waterfront, this site 

would have to be about 2,000 feet by 3,000 feet to contain the thermal exclusion zones 

that are centered on the LNG storage area. An ideal waterfront site available for 

development would include an area in excess of the exclusion zone which would provide 

an additional buffer from development. However, to expand the range of potential 

candidate sites, we have relaxed the preferred acreage limit, recognizing that the facilities 

would need to be compressed and that exclusion zones may extend offshore or onto 

adjacent properties. 

• Dredging Required - Given the environmental impacts associated with significant 

dredging projects, we considered the amount of dredging necessary to provide access to 

LNG ship access one of the alternative site review criteria. Areas requiring either no or 

minimal dredging to develop and maintain a ship berth and a ship channel of sufficient 

depth for the LNG ships were considered more favorable than those areas requiring more 

substantial dredging. In addition to avoiding impacts on water quality and aquatic 

resources, minimal dredging requirements provide the added benefit of reducing costs 

associated with disposal of dredged material. 

• Parcel Availability - One of the greatest challenges of siting an LNG facility in the MidAtlantic region is finding suitable property that is available for industrial development. 

Availability is critical since section 3 of the NGA does not provide the project proponent 

the authority of eminent domain in acquiring property for the LNG terminal project. In 

some cases, a site may possess the size required for an LNG terminal but the owner is 

unwilling to sell or has placed unacceptable conditions on the acquisition of the site. 

• Existing Land Use – We considered areas previously disturbed or cleared for industrial 

or commercial activities (brownfield sites) preferable to undisturbed areas (greenfield 

sites) when identifying alternative LNG terminal sites. Additionally, we preferred sites 

where existing land use zoning, coastal zone management guidelines, or development 

plans were consistent with an LNG import terminal. Sites that could be developed 

consistent with existing land uses were considered the most practical alternatives to the 

proposed site. 

• Sendout Pipeline Length - We considered sites proximate to existing interstate pipeline 

systems which could accommodate the proposed volume throughput more favorable than 

sites further from existing pipelines. For purposes of this analysis, we assumed a pipeline 

should be at least 30-inches in diameter to accommodate the normal project volumes. On 

top of the additional costs and environmental impacts, longer pipelines would likely 

directly and indirectly affect more landowners/residences. 

• Road Access- Because there would be considerable traffic into and out of the site during 

construction and access to the site would be required during facility operations, we 

considered the available access to the site from public roads. In general, we considered 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
3-38

access from highways and other primary roadways preferable to access from 

undeveloped or secondary roads. 

• Navigational Suitability and Berth Orientation - Sites that offer minimal disturbances 

to existing ship traffic and allow for good access by LNG ships were considered a 

favorable selection criterion. We considered a slip berth oriented perpendicular to the 

ship channel preferable to a berth oriented parallel to the ship channel. Because LNG 

ships require a vertical clearance of at least 135 feet and horizontal clearance of not less 

than 165 feet, we also considered bridge passage along the navigation channel in our site 

analysis, 

• Environmental Justice - As part of our NEPA analysis, we are responsible for 

addressing the potential for a federal action to result in disproportionately high and 

adverse health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations. We 

considered per capita income, the percentage of minorities within the population, and the 

percentage of the population below the poverty level as general measures of the potential 

for a site to have an environmental justice issue. Those sites in communities with the 

lowest per capita income, the highest percentage of minorities, or the highest percentage 

of the population below the poverty level were considered to have the highest potential to 

raise environmental justice issues. 

• Special Interest Areas - We considered favorably sites that avoided conflicts with 

special interest areas such as state or national parks and marine sanctuaries. When 

applying this criterion, we considered potential conflicts with special interest areas from 

either an LNG terminal or its associated sendout pipeline. 

• Various Environmental Factors - Environmental factors that were considered in our 

site selection included: minimizing wetland disturbance and preferring sites in uplands; 

identifying soil conditions with suitable foundation materials for the LNG storage tank 

development; avoiding areas that would conflict with recreational activities; and selecting 

sites where the LNG storage tanks would minimally impact the viewshed from roadways 

and surrounding communities. Due to the potential concerns regarding the consistency of 

the proposed site with Delaware Coastal Zone Act and Coastal Zone Management Plan, 

we also reviewed sites for any obvious inconsistency with existing regulatory policies 

concerning coastal zone management. 

Through the application of these more detailed siting criteria we identified seven alternative sites 

to the proposed LNG terminal site (Church Landing, Carneys Point, Ferro, Shuran, Repaupo, Paulsboro, 

and Mantua Creek). The general locations of these seven sites relative to the proposed site are shown on 

figure 3.3.3-1. A comparison of these sites to the proposed site is presented in table 3.3.3-1. The specific 

issues associated with each of these sites are discussed below. 

Church Landing Site 

The Church Landing Site is located in Pennsville Township, New Jersey at River Mile (RM) 68 

(see figure 3.3.3-2). The site encompasses Conectiv’s Deepwater Generating Station and consists of 

approximately 170 acres with about 1,000 feet of shoreline along the Delaware River. The site is similar 

to the proposed site with respect to zoning, size, berth orientation, non-tidal wetland impacts, channel 

width and maneuverability, airport conflicts, availability of power, and adequacy of road access. 

Development of the Church Landing Site, like the proposed site, may also be inconsistent with 

Delaware’s Coastal Zone Act and Coastal Zone Management Plan regarding LNG facilities. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
3-39 

The primary differences between the Church Landing Site and the proposed site are the amount 

of dredging and the length of sendout pipeline that would be required, the number of people living near 

the site, and the proximity of the site to bridges. The Church Landing Site would require less dredging 

than the proposed site. However, because it is further from existing natural gas pipeline systems, the 

Church Landing Site would require construction of about 11 miles of additional sendout pipeline to 

connect with the existing Transco, Columbia Gas, and Texas Eastern pipeline systems. The additional 

length of pipeline would double the amount of land disturbance and the costs of the sendout pipeline. 

The Church Landing Site is also closer to more populated areas than the proposed site. Based on 

an analysis of 2000 census data (U.S. Census Bureau, Landview 5), we estimate that there are about 

fourteen times the number of people living within 2 miles and more than nineteen times the number of 

people living within 1 mile of the Church Landing Site than the proposed site. There is also a recreational 

area (including athletic fields) and a historic site (Church Landing Farmhouse) located approximately 

1,000 from the site. Additionally, unlike the proposed site, the Church Landing Site is located adjacent to 

the Delaware Memorial Bridge. Although there appears to be adequate space to locate the pier more than 

985 feet from the bridge to comply with Coast Guard requirements, Crown Landing expressed concerns 

regarding the safety of mooring an LNG ship so close to a bridge. 

An advantage of the Church Landing Site is that it would shorten the LNG transit route by about 

10 miles. This shorter distance would result in LNG ships not needing to pass under any bridges and 

avoiding fewer populated communities, including Holloway Terrace, Wilmington, Edgemoor, Bellefonte, 

Holly Oak, Claymont, Deepwater, Carneys Point, and Penns Grove. 

Because the Church Landing Site does not appear to offer any significant environmental 

advantages over the proposed site except a little less dredging, we have determined that the Church 

Landing Site is not preferable to the proposed site. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
3-40

TABLE 3.3.3-1 

Environmental Comparison of the LNG Terminal Site Alternatives to the Crown Landing LNG Terminal Site

 Proposed Site Church Landing 

Site 

Carneys Point 

Site 

Ferro Site Shuran Site Repaupo Site Paulsboro Site M

 Delaware 

River Mile 78 

Logan Township, 

NJ 

Delaware 

River Mile 68 

Pennsville 

Township, NJ 

Delaware 

River Mile 69 

Pennsville and 

Carneys Point 

Township, NJ 

Delaware 

River Mile 79 

Logan 

Township, NJ 

Delaware 

River Mile 80 

Logan 

Township, NJ 

Delaware 

River Mile 86 

Greenwich 

Township, NJ 

Delaware 

River Mile 88 

Paulsboro 

Borough, NJ 

W

Required Criteria a/ 

Site Encompasses the Thermal Exclusion/Vapor Dispersion Zone 

Yes Yes No No No No No 

Site Meets Airport Setback Requirements b/

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 

Site Satisfies Waterfront Handling Requirements 

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 

Favorable Criteria

Estimated Population Within 1 mile/2 mile Radius 

82/383 1,577/5,362 482/4,407 60/178 57/589 1,943/3,783 3,578/10,354 

Site Size (acres) 175 170 30 80 210 86 90 Dredging Requirement (cubic yards) 

1.24 million 0.6 million 0.2 million 1.5 million 2.0 million 0.75 million 0.1 million 

Parcel Availability c/ High Medium (not 

available until 

2007) 

Low Low Medium Medium Medium 

Existing Site Activities Limited Agricultural 

Use 

Connectiv’s 

Deepwater 

Generating Station

DuPont Plant Chemical 

Factory 

 DuPont Plant Adjacent to 

DuPont Plant 

BP/Mobil 

Corporate 

Industrial Park 

Existing Land Use Agricultural Industrial Industrial Industrial Forested 

Wetland/Open 

Forested/Wetland Industrial 

Existing Zoning Industrial Industrial Industrial Industrial Industrial Industrial Industrial Approximate Total Sendout Pipeline Length (miles) d/ 

11 22 20 9 8 10 12 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
3-41 

TABLE 3.3.3-1 (cont’d) 

Environmental Comparison of the LNG Terminal Site Alternatives to the Crown Landing LNG Terminal Site

 Proposed Site Church Landing 

Site 

Carneys Point 

Site 

Ferro Site Shuran Site Repaupo Site Paulsboro Site Mant

 Delaware 

River Mile 78 

Logan Township, 

NJ 

Delaware 

River Mile 68 

Pennsville 

Township, NJ 

Delaware 

River Mile 69 

Pennsville and 

Carneys Point 

Township, NJ 

Delaware 

River Mile 79 

Logan Township, 

NJ 

Delaware 

River Mile 80 

Logan Township, 

NJ 

Delaware 

River Mile 86 

Greenwich 

Township, NJ 

Delaware 

River Mile 88 

Paulsboro 

Borough, NJ 

De

Rive

West 

Road Access U.S. Route 130 State Route 49 U.S. Route 130 U.S. Route 130 U.S. Route 130 Township Road Borough Road TownsShip Channel Width and Maneuvering Area 

adequate adequate adequate adequate adequate adequate adequate ade

Ship Channel Transit Distance (nautical miles) e/ 

61.5 52.5 53.5 63.0 64.0 68.5 70.5 7

Berth Orientation 

perpendicular perpendicular perpendicular perpendicular perpendicular parallel parallel pa

Distance of Shore from Ship Channel (feet) 

4,000 2,500 1,700 4,200 4,500 900 200 2

Potential Shipping Conflicts 

none yes yes none none yes yes 

Potential Bridge Conflicts 

none yes yes none none none none n

Per Capita Income 

$22,708 $22,717 $22,717 $22,708 $22,708 $24,791 $16,368 $2

Percent Minority 

13 3.5 3.5 13 13 5.5 36.4 

Percent of Population Below Poverty Level (all ages) f/ 

6.2 4.9 4.9 6.2 6.2 3.6 17.7 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
3-42

TABLE 3.3.3-1 (cont’d) 

Environmental Comparison of the LNG Terminal Site Alternatives to the Crown Landing LNG Terminal Site

 Proposed Site Church Landing 

Site 

Carneys Point 

Site 

Ferro Site Shuran Site Repaupo Site Paulsboro Site Mant

 Delaware 

River Mile 78 

Logan Township, 

NJ 

Delaware 

River Mile 68 

Pennsville 

Township, NJ 

Delaware 

River Mile 69 

Pennsville and 

Carneys Point 

Township, NJ 

Delaware 

River Mile 79 

Logan Township, 

NJ 

Delaware 

River Mile 80 

Logan Township, 

NJ 

Delaware 

River Mile 86 

Greenwich 

Township, NJ 

Delaware 

River Mile 88 

Paulsboro 

Borough, NJ 

De

Rive

West 

Conflict with DE CZA and CZMP 

yes yes yes no no no no 

Special Interest Areas 

none none none none none none none n

Non-tidal Wetland Impacts (acres) 

<1.0 <1.0 <1.0 >10.0 >1.0 >1.0 <1.0 <

Other Miscellaneous Environmental Factors 

Site is located in 

an area that has known occurrences of federally and state-listed sturgeons 

Site is adjacent to recreation areas and historical site. 

-- Site is within bald 

eagle nest buffer.Site development would require large amount of wetland impacts. 

Site is within bald eagle nest buffer.

Site development would require large amount of wetland impacts. 

Site is within bald eagle nest buffer.

Site is weagle n

___________________________ a/ Required criteria include regulatory specifications regarding LNG facility layout and safety siting. 

b/ See text below for potential site conflicts in reference to the 2020 Philadelphia International Airport Master Plan. c/ High availability - the site is available for industrial use and a negotiated settlement to use the property has been reached with the current landowner. 

 Medium availability - the site is available for industrial use but no negotiations have taken place with the current landowner. 

 Low availability - the site is not available based on discussions between Crown Landing with the current landowner. 

d/ This site is located far from the federal navigation or other deepwater ship channels and does not provide a turning basin to maneuver LNG ships. e/ Distance listed includes minimum distance needed to tie into existing pipeline. f/ Transit distance = start of navigation channel to terminal site. g/ Based on 2000 U.S. Census Bureau poverty thresholds. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
3-43 

Non-Internet Public 

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE 

CROWN LANDING LNG PROJECT and 

LOGAN LATERAL PROJECT 

Docket Nos. CP04-411-000 and CP04-416-000 

Figure 3.3.3-1 Proposed and Alternative LNG Terminal Sites 

Along the Delaware River 

Public access for the above information is available only 

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

public.referenceroom@ferc.gov. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
3-44

Non-Internet Public 

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE 

CROWN LANDING LNG PROJECT and 

LOGAN LATERAL PROJECT 

Docket Nos. CP04-411-000 and CP04-416-000 

Figure 3.3.3-2 Church Landing – LNG Terminal Site Alternative 

Public access for the above information is available only 

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

public.referenceroom@ferc.gov. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
3-45 

Carneys Point Site 

The Carneys Point Site is located in Pennsville and Carneys Point Townships in New Jersey at 

RM 69 (see figure 3.3.3-3). The site is currently part of the Dupont Carneys Point Plant property but 

about 30 acres of the property are potentially available for redevelopment. This site is similar to the 

proposed site with respect to zoning, berth orientation, non-tidal wetland impacts, channel width and 

maneuverability, airport conflicts, availability of power, and adequacy of road access. Development of 

the Carney’s Point Site, like the proposed site, may also be inconsistent with Delaware’s Coastal Zone 

Act and Coastal Zone Management Plan regarding LNG facilities. 

The primary differences between the Carneys Point Site and the proposed site are the size of the 

site, amount of dredging that would be required to develop the site, the number of people living near the 

site, and proximity to bridges. The Carneys Point Site would require much less dredging than the 

proposed site. However, because it is further from existing natural gas pipeline systems, the Carneys 

Point Site would require construction of about 9 miles of additional sendout pipeline to connect with the 

existing Transco, Columbia Gas, and Texas Eastern pipeline systems. The additional length of pipeline 

would increase the amount of land disturbance and the costs of the sendout pipeline and would probably 

increase stream and wetland impacts. 

The Carneys Point Site is considerably smaller and located in a more densely populated area than 

the proposed site. Because of the small size of the site (which is about one fifth the size of the proposed 

site), the thermal radiation and vapor dispersion exclusion zones would extend beyond the terminal 

property. Additionally, based on an analysis of 2000 census data (U.S. Census Bureau, Landview 5), we 

estimate that there are more than eleven times the number of people living within 2 miles and more than 

five times the number of people living within 1 mile of the Carneys Point Site as the proposed site. 

Another issue is that the Carneys Point Site is located close to the Delaware Memorial Bridge. 

Although there appears to be adequate space to locate the pier more than 985 feet from the bridge to 

comply with Coast Guard requirements, Crown Landing has expressed concerns regarding the safety of 

mooring an LNG ship so close to a bridge. Another disadvantage of the site is its proximity to the ship 

channel. We estimate that the moored vessel security zone around the LNG ship while at berth would 

extend into the ship channel, which may increase the need for the Coast Guard’s services to maintain the 

security zone while the LNG ship is berthed at the site. 

An advantage of the Carneys Point Site is that it would shorten the LNG transit route by about 9 

miles. This shorter distance would result in LNG ships avoiding fewer populated communities, including 

Wilmington, Edgemoor, Bellefonte, Holly Oak, Claymont, and Penns Grove. 

In summary, the Carneys Point Site’s only advantage over the proposed site is that it would 

require less dredging. This advantage, however, is outweighed by the numerous relative disadvantages of 

the site. For this reason, we do not consider the Carneys Point Site preferable to the proposed site. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
3-46

Non-Internet Public 

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE 

CROWN LANDING LNG PROJECT and 

LOGAN LATERAL PROJECT 

Docket Nos. CP04-411-000 and CP04-416-000 

Figure 3.3.3-3 Carneys Point – LNG Terminal Site Alternative 

Public access for the above information is available only 

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

public.referenceroom@ferc.gov. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
3-47 

Ferro Site 

The Ferro Site is located in Logan Township, New Jersey at RM 79 (see figure 3.3.3-4). The site 

is currently part of a polymer additive chemical factory property but about 71 acres are potentially 

available for redevelopment. This site is similar to the proposed site with respect to zoning, berth 

orientation, channel width and maneuverability, airport conflicts, bridge conflicts, availability of power, 

and the adequacy of road access. No portion of the Ferro Site is located within Delaware so there would 

be no conflicts with Delaware’s Coastal Zone Act and Coastal Zone Management Plan regarding LNG 

facilities. 

The primary differences between the Ferro Site and the proposed sites are the size of the site, 

length of sendout pipeline needed, amount of dredging that would be required to develop the site, amount 

of wetland impact that would result from site development, number of people living near the site, and the 

proximity of the site to endangered species habitat. The Ferro Site would require 2 miles less sendout 

pipeline than the proposed site. This reduction in length of sendout pipeline would reduce the amount of 

land disturbed and the cost of the pipeline. It may also reduce stream, wetland, residential, and roadway 

impacts associated with the proposed pipeline. Additionally, based on an analysis of 2000 census data 

(U.S. Census Bureau, Landview 5), we estimate that there are even fewer people living within 2 miles and 

1 mile of the Ferro Site than the proposed site. 

The Ferro Site is less than half the size of the proposed site and the thermal radiation and vapor 

dispersion exclusions zones would extend beyond the site boundaries. Another disadvantage of the Ferro 

Site is that more dredging and non-tidal wetland impacts would result from site development. Crown 

Landing conducted a reconnaissance of the site and determined that between 10 and 30 acres of wetlands 

would be affected to construct an LNG facility on the site. Additionally, development of the ship berth 

would nearly double the amount of dredging required. The site is also within a designated bald eagle nest 

buffer zone. 

In summary, the Ferro Site’s primary advantage over the proposed site is that it would avoid 

conflicts with Delaware’s Coastal Zone Act and Coastal Zone Management Plan. This advantage, 

however, is outweighed by the numerous relative disadvantages of the site. For this reason, we do not 

consider the Ferro Site preferable to the proposed site. 

Shuran Site 

The Shuran Site is located in Logan Township, New Jersey adjacent to the Ferro Site at RM 80 

(see figure 3.3.3-5). The site is encompasses 210 acres and includes about 4,000 feet of shoreline along 

the Delaware River. The Shuran Site is similar to the proposed site with respect to zoning, berth 

orientation, channel width and maneuverability, size, airport conflicts, bridge conflicts, availability of 

power, length of sendout pipeline required, and adequacy of road access. No portion of the Shuran Site is 

located within Delaware so there would be no conflicts with Delaware’s Coastal Zone Act and Coastal 

Zone Management Plan regarding LNG facilities. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
3-48

Non-Internet Public 

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE 

CROWN LANDING LNG PROJECT and 

LOGAN LATERAL PROJECT 

Docket Nos. CP04-411-000 and CP04-416-000 

Figure 3.3.3-4 Ferro – LNG Terminal Site Alternative 

Public access for the above information is available only 

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

public.referenceroom@ferc.gov. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
3-49 

Non-Internet Public 

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE 

CROWN LANDING LNG PROJECT and 

LOGAN LATERAL PROJECT 

Docket Nos. CP04-411-000 and CP04-416-000 

Figure 3.3.3-5 Shuran – LNG Terminal Site Alternative 

Public access for the above information is available only 

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

public.referenceroom@ferc.gov. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
3-50

The primary differences between the Shuran Site and the proposed site are the length of sendout 

pipeline required, amount of dredging that would be required, amount of wetland impact that would result 

from site development, number of people living near the site, and proximity of the site to endangered 

species habitat. The Shuran Site would require 3 miles less sendout pipeline than the proposed site. This 

reduction in sendout pipeline would reduce the amount of land disturbed and the cost of the pipeline. It 

may also reduce stream, wetland, residential, and roadway impacts associated with the proposed pipeline. 

These advantages, however, would be offset by several disadvantages. Despite its relatively large size, 

the thermal radiation and vapor dispersion exclusions zones would extend beyond the site boundaries due 

to the shape of the property. Additionally, based on an analysis of 2000 census data (U.S. Census Bureau, 

Landview 5), we estimate that there approximately 200 more people living within 2 miles (but slightly 

fewer people living within 1 mile) of the Shuran Site than the proposed site. 

One disadvantage of the Shuran Site is the amount of dredging required and the amount of nontidal wetlands that would be affected by site development. Construction of the ship berth would almost 

double the amount of dredging required compared to the proposed site. Additionally, much of the Shuran 

Site is covered with wetlands and development of the property would increase wetland impacts relative to 

the proposed site. Also, to minimize wetland impacts, the LNG tanks would need to be located further 

from the shoreline, which would increase the length and cost of the cryogenic liquid unloading line. The 

site is also within a designated bald eagle nest buffer zone. 

A major issue of the Shuran Site that was found out after publication of the draft EIS is that the 

Gloucester County Improvement Authority has plans to develop a park on the site. The park, referred to 

as the Delaware River, Equine, Agriculture, and Marine Park will encompass 1,400 acres of land 

extending from the Delaware River to U.S. Route 130, and from Raccoon Creek to Birch Creek. Plans 

for the park include a horse stable, an indoor arena, a small office building, picnic areas, an organic farm, 

community garden plots, and a campground. Gloucester County has nearly completed the acquisition of 

about 40 properties for the park and construction could begin as early as this year. The development of 

this park essentially prevents the siting of an LNG terminal at the Shuran Site. 

Repaupo Site 

The Repaupo Site is located in Greenwich Township, New Jersey at RM 86 (see figure 3.3.3-6). 

The site encompasses 86 acres adjacent to the Dupont Repaupo Plant. This site is similar to the proposed 

site with respect to zoning, channel width and maneuverability, amount of dredging required, airport 

conflicts, bridge conflicts, and availability of power. No portion of the Repaupo Site is located within 

Delaware so there would be no conflicts with Delaware’s Coastal Zone Act and Coastal Zone 

Management Plan regarding LNG facilities. 

The primary difference between the Repaupo Site and the proposed site are the size of the site, 

road access, amount of dredging and wetland impact that would result from site development, length of 

the sendout pipeline needed, number of people living near the site, and the orientation of the ship berth 

and potential shipping conflicts. The environmental advantages of the Repaupo Site are that it would 

reduce the amount of dredging required and would require about 1 mile less sendout pipeline than the 

proposed route. The reduction in dredging and pipeline length would decrease the impact on the riverbed 

and the amount of land disturbed and the cost of the pipeline. It could also reduce stream and wetland 

impacts. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
3-51 

Non-Internet Public 

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE 

CROWN LANDING LNG PROJECT and 

LOGAN LATERAL PROJECT 

Docket Nos. CP04-411-000 and CP04-416-000 

Figure 3.3.3-6 Repaupo – LNG Terminal Site Alternative 

Public access for the above information is available only 

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

public.referenceroom@ferc.gov. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
3-52

The Repaupo Site is less than half the size of the proposed site. Due to the relatively small size of 

the site, the thermal radiation and vapor dispersion exclusions zones may extend beyond the site 

boundaries. Additionally, based on an analysis of 2000 census data (U.S. Census Bureau, Landview 5), 

we estimate that due to its proximity to Gibbstown, there are twenty-four times more people living within 

1 mile and about ten times more people living within 2 miles of the Repaupo Site than the proposed site. 

Two other disadvantages of the Repaupo Site are the orientation of the ship berth, which would 

need to be parallel versus perpendicular to the ship channel, and the proximity of the ship berth to the ship 

channel. We estimate that the moored vessel security zone around the LNG ship while at berth would 

extend into the ship channel, which may increase the need for the Coast Guard’s services to maintain the 

security zone while an LNG ship is berthed at the site. Additionally, much of the Repaupo Site is covered 

by forest or wetlands, which would be affected by site development. 

Another disadvantage of the Repaupo Site is that it would increase the distance LNG ships would 

need to transit within the Delaware River to reach the terminal by about 8 miles. Thus LNG ships en 

route to the Repaupo Site would need to pass under the Commodore Barry Bridge and would transit by 

additional populated communities, including Chester and Essington, and two islands (Monds Island and 

Little Tinicum Island). 

In summary, the Repaupo Site’s primary advantage over the proposed site is that it would avoid 

conflicts with Delaware’s Coastal Zone Act and Coastal Zone Management Plan and require less 

dredging and a shorter sendout pipeline. These advantages, however, are outweighed by the numerous 

relative disadvantages of the site. For this reason, we do not consider the Repaupo Site preferable to the 

proposed site. 

Paulsboro Site 

The Paulsboro Site is located in Paulsboro Borough, New Jersey at RM 88 (see figure 3.3.3-7). 

The 90-acre site is part of the BP/Mobile Oil Corporate Industrial Park and is surrounded by oil refineries 

on two sides. This site is similar to the proposed site with respect to zoning, channel width and 

maneuverability, non-tidal wetland impacts that would result from site development, bridge conflicts, and 

availability of power. No portion of the Paulsboro Site is located within Delaware so there would be no 

conflicts with Delaware’s Coastal Zone Act and Coastal Zone Management Plan regarding LNG 

facilities. 

The primary differences between the Paulsboro Site and the proposed site are the size of the site, 

road access, amount of dredging required for site development, length of the sendout pipeline needed, 

number of people living near the site, orientation of the ship berth, and potential shipping and airport 

conflicts. The Paulsboro Site would require much less dredging than the proposed site. Less dredging 

would reduce the water quality and aquatic resource impacts of the project. The Paulsboro Site would 

require construction of about 1 mile more sendout pipeline than the proposed site. The additional length 

of pipeline would increase the amount of land disturbed and the cost of the pipeline and could also 

increase stream and wetland impacts. Additionally, due to the relatively small size of the site, the thermal 

radiation and vapor dispersion exclusions zones could possibly extend beyond the site boundaries. Also, 

based on an analysis of 2000 census data (U.S. Census Bureau, Landview 5), we estimate that there are 

more than forty-three times more people living within 1 mile and more than twenty-seven times more 

people living within 2 miles of the Paulsboro site than the proposed site. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
3-53 

Non-Internet Public 

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE 

CROWN LANDING LNG PROJECT and 

LOGAN LATERAL PROJECT 

Docket Nos. CP04-411-000 and CP04-416-000 

Figure 3.3.3-7 Paulsboro – LNG Terminal Site Alternative 

Public access for the above information is available only 

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

public.referenceroom@ferc.gov. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
3-54

Two other disadvantages of the Paulsboro Site are the orientation of the ship berth, which would 

need to be parallel versus perpendicular to the ship channel, and the proximity of the ship berth to the ship 

channel. We estimate that the moored vessel security zone around the LNG ship while at berth would 

extend into the ship channel, which may increase the need for the Coast Guard’s services to maintain the 

security zone while the LNG ship is berthed at the site. The site is also within a designated bald eagle 

nest buffer zone. 

Another disadvantage of the Paulsboro Site is that it would increase the distance LNG ships 

would need to transit within the Delaware River to reach the terminal by about 10 miles. Thus LNG ships 

en route to the Repaupo Site would need to pass under the Commodore Barry Bridge and would pass by 

additional populated communities, including Chester and Essington, two islands (Monds Island and Little 

Tinicum Island), and a least a portion of the Philadelphia International Airport. 

Another potential issue with the Paulsboro Site is its proximity to the Philadelphia International 

Airport. The Paulsboro Site is currently about 1.3 miles across the Delaware River from Runway 

9Left/27Right. A Master Plan for the airport is being developed to address the needs of the airport over 

the next 20 years. The Master Plan examines two expansion alternatives, which would involve expansion 

and/or construction of new runways. One of these alternatives, the parallel alternative, would involve 

construction of a new 10,000-foot-long runway south of Runway 9Left/27Right. If approved and 

constructed, the LNG ship berth and a portion of the terminal site would be within 1 mile of the end of 

proposed runway. Although there appears to be sufficient space to site LNG storage tanks more than a 

mile from the end of the runways and thus avoid conflicts with 49 CFR 193.2155(b), the proposed 

runway changes could limit the locations on the site that would be suitable for tanks. 

In summary, the Paulsboro Site’s primary advantages over the proposed site are that it would 

avoid conflicts with Delaware’s Coastal Zone Act and Coastal Zone Management Plan and would require 

less dredging. These advantages, however, are outweighed by the numerous relative disadvantages of the 

site. For this reason, we do not consider the Paulsboro Site preferable to the proposed site. 

Mantua Creek Site 

The Mantua Creek Site is located in West Deptford, New Jersey at RM 90 and encompasses 277 

acres of land owned by PG&E (see figure 3.3.3-8). The Mantua Creek Site is similar to the proposed site 

with respect to zoning, channel width and maneuverability, non-tidal wetland impacts, bridge conflicts, 

and availability of power. No portion of the Mantua Creek Site is located within Delaware so there would 

be no conflicts with Delaware’s Coastal Zone Act and Coastal Zone Management Plan regarding LNG 

facilities. 

The primary differences between the Mantua Creek Site and the proposed site are the size of the 

site, road access, amount of dredging needed, length of the sendout pipeline needed, number of people 

living near the site, orientation of the ship berth, and potential for shipping and airport conflicts. The 

Mantua Creek Site is 102 acres larger than the proposed site and would provide a larger buffer zone 

around the LNG facility. 

The Mantua Creek Site would require construction of about 3 miles more sendout pipeline than 

the proposed site. The additional length of pipeline would increase the amount of land disturbed and the 

cost of the pipeline and could increase stream and wetland impacts. The Mantua Creek Site would also 

require more dredging than the proposed site. Additionally, based on an analysis of 2000 census data 

(U.S. Census Bureau, Landview 5), we estimate that there are more than four times as many people living 

within 1 mile and twenty-one times as many people living within 2 miles of the Mantua Creek Site as the 

proposed site. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
3-55 

Non-Internet Public 

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE 

CROWN LANDING LNG PROJECT and 

LOGAN LATERAL PROJECT 

Docket Nos. CP04-411-000 and CP04-416-000 

Figure 3.3.3-8 Mantua Creek – LNG Terminal Site Alternative 

Public access for the above information is available only 

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

public.referenceroom@ferc.gov. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
3-56

Two other disadvantages of the Mantua Creek Site are the orientation of the ship berth, which 

would need to be parallel rather than perpendicular to the ship channel, and the proximity of the ship 

berth to the ship channel. We estimate that the moored vessel security zone around the LNG ship while at 

berth would extend into the ship channel, which may increase the need for the Coast Guard’s services to 

maintain the security zone while the LNG ship is berthed at the site. The site is also within a designated 

bald eagle nest buffer zone. 

Another disadvantage of the Mantua Creek Site is that it would increase the distance LNG ships 

would need to transit within the Delaware River to reach the terminal by about 12 miles. Thus LNG ships 

en route to the Repaupo Site would need to pass under the Commodore Barry Bridge and would pass by 

additional populated communities, including Chester, Essington, and Paulsboro; two islands (Monds 

Island and Little Tinicum Island); and the Philadelphia International Airport. 

Another potential issue with the Mantua Creek Site is its proximity to the Philadelphia 

International Airport. The Mantua Creek Site is currently about 1.3 miles across the Delaware River from 

Runways 17-35 and 9Right/27Left. As mentioned previously, the Master Plan for the airport examines 

two expansion alternatives, which would involve expansion and/or construction of new runways. Both 

alternatives would decrease the distance between the airport runways and the Mantua Creek Site. If either 

of the proposed runway alternatives are approved and constructed, the LNG ship berth and a portion of 

the terminal site shoreline would be within 1 mile of the end of proposed runways. Although there 

appears to be sufficient space to site LNG tanks more than 1 mile from the end of the runways and thus 

avoid conflicts with 49 CFR 193.2155(b), the proposed runway changes could limit the locations on the 

site that would be suitable for storage tanks. 

In summary, the Mantua Creek Site’s primary advantage over the proposed site is that it would 

avoid conflicts with Delaware’s Coastal Zone Act and Coastal Zone Management Policy. This 

advantage, however, is outweighed by the numerous relative disadvantages of the site. For this reason, 

we do not consider the Mantua Creek Site preferable to the proposed site. 

Salem and Hope Creek Site 

We received comments on the draft EIS requesting that we evaluate the existing Salem and Hope 

Creek Nuclear Generating Facility site as an alternative LNG terminal site. The Salem and Hope Creek 

Site is located on Artificial Island at RM 53 in Lower Alloways Creek Township, New Jersey (see figure 

3.3.3-9). Artificial Island is bordered by the Delaware River to the south and west and extensive coastal 

wetlands to the north and east. The island was artificially created from dredged material. The Salem and 

Hope Creek Nuclear Facility, which includes both the Salem Nuclear Generating Station and the Hope 

Creek Nuclear Generating Station, occupies about 700 acres of the island. An additional 214 acres of the 

island north of the nuclear facilities is currently being actively used as a COE dredge disposal area. 

Based on our review, there appears to be an undeveloped area on the island of adequate size (at 

least 175 acres) for an LNG terminal. This area is located to the east of the nuclear facilities and adjacent 

to the Mad Horse Wildlife Management Area. The only access to this area, is from Alloways Creek Neck 

Road, which connects with County Road 658 in Hancocks Bridge about 7 miles to the northeast. 

The site is similar to the proposed site with respect to zoning, size, non-tidal wetland impacts, 

airport conflicts, and availability of power. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
3-57 

Non-Internet Public 

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE 

CROWN LANDING LNG PROJECT and 

LOGAN LATERAL PROJECT 

Docket Nos. CP04-411-000 and CP04-416-000 

Figure 3.3.3-9 Salem and Hope Creek - LNG Terminal Site 

Alternative 

Public access for the above information is available only 

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

public.referenceroom@ferc.gov. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
3-58

The primary differences between the Salem and Hope Creek Site and the proposed site are ship 

maneuverability and berth orientation, the amount of dredging that would be needed, the length of 

sendout pipeline and pier that would be required, the number of people living near the site, access to the 

site, proximity to recreation areas, the distance of ship transit in the Delaware Bay and River, and 

potentially the parcel availability. 

An advantage of the Salem and Hope Creek Site is that no portion of the site is located in 

Delaware so there would be no conflicts with Delaware’s Coastal Zone Act and Coastal Zone 

Management Plan regarding LNG facilities. Another advantage is that there are no people living within 2 

miles of the site based on 2000 census data (U.S. Census Bureau, Landview 5). 

LNG ships transiting to the site would need to travel about 26 fewer miles on the Delaware Bay 

and River. This shorter distance would result in LNG ships not passing under any bridges and avoiding 

transiting by many of the populated communities along the river. 

The Salem and Hope Creek Site also has several disadvantages. One issue is that the shoreline is 

located about 10,000 feet from the navigation channel, which is 2.5 times the distance between the 

shoreline and the navigation channel at the proposed site. This increased distance would likely increase 

both the length of the pier and the amount of dredging required. To minimize dredging, we assumed the 

pier would be approximately 6,000 feet long, which is three times as long as the proposed pier. Based on 

information provided in Crown Landing’s application, we estimated that this greater length could increase 

the pier cost by as much as $20 million. Even with a longer pier, dredging would be required to access 

the pier. We estimated based on existing water depths, which are about 16 to 17 feet in the vicinity of the 

pier, that approximately 850,000 cubic yards of dredging would be needed for an LNG ship berth parallel 

to the ship channel.5 Moreover, since there is no turning basin near the site, we estimated that two 

lengthy channels approximately 6,000 feet long and 500 feet wide would need to be dredged for LNG 

ships to arrive and depart from the pier. Based on existing water depths, we estimated that these channels 

could require dredging an additional 3.7 million cubic yards. The combined dredging of these channels 

and the LNG berth would likely result in more than 3 million cubic yards of additional dredging than the 

proposed site. This increased dredging would also result in increased impacts on water quality and 

aquatic resources. 

Another potential issue is the proximity of the site to the existing nuclear facilities. While there 

appears to be sufficient space to meet the requirements for thermal and vapor exclusion zones, it is 

unknown whether the Nuclear Regulatory Commission would have concerns regarding the siting of an 

LNG terminal adjacent to the existing nuclear facilities or whether the current landowner would be 

willing to provide the land necessary to develop an LNG terminal. 

The Salem and Hope Creek Site would also require a substantially longer sendout pipeline than 

the proposed site. Based on the location of the existing pipeline systems, we believe the sendout pipeline 

route would most likely proceed north from the Salem and Hope Creek Site either along the Delaware 

Bay coats or further inland to an interconnect with the existing Columbia and Transco pipelines at or near 

the proposed site and the existing Texas Eastern pipeline at or near Chester Junction. Depending on the 

specific route, this would require construction of between 27 (coastal route) to 28 miles (inland route) of 

additional pipeline. We estimated that this pipeline would result in 3.7 (inland route) to 6.7 miles (coastal 

route) of additional wetland impacts, an additional 17 to 18 perennial waterbody crossings, and 27 to 34 

road crossings. 

 

5 We assumed a parallel berth for two reasons. First, due to the distance of the pier from deep water and the shipping channel, a perpendicular 

berth would not provide any additional safety advantage. Second, we estimated that the amount of dredging for a perpendicular berth would 

be greater than for a parallel berth. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
3-59 

In summary, the primary advantages of the Salem and Hope Creek Sites over the proposed site 

are that it would be more remotely located than the proposed site, would avoid conflicts with Delaware’s 

Coastal Zone Act and Coastal Zone Management Plan, and would require a shorter LNG transit distance 

than the proposed route. These advantages however are outweighed by the numerous challenges faced 

with the redevelopment of the site, including the additional dredging and pipeline impacts that would 

result. For this reasons, we do not consider the Salem and Hope Creek Site preferable to the proposed 

site. 

3.4 PIER ALTERNATIVES 

As described in section 2.4.1.3, development of the proposed ship berth would require excavation 

and disposal of about 1.24 million cubic yards of sediments using hydraulic dredging equipment, which 

would affect water quality and aquatic organisms (see sections 4.3.2 and 4.6.2). During scoping of this 

EIS, agencies expressed concern about impacts associated with the dredging required to develop the 

proposed pier perpendicular to the ship channel and suggested that these impacts could be eliminated or 

reduced by moving the pier closer to the ship channel. 

Potential pier alternatives were evaluated in three steps. The first step was to determine whether 

it would be reasonable and practicable to use the existing pier for the Logan Generating Station in lieu of 

constructing a new pier. If the existing pier is not selected, then the next step was to determine a suitable 

location of the pier offshore of the LNG terminal site. The final step involved a more detailed assessment 

of potential pier and berth configurations and orientations in the same general area as the selected pier 

location. 

One alternative that we considered was to co-locate the proposed LNG ship unloading facility 

with the existing coal barge unloading pier for the Logan Generating Station. We determined that the use 

of the existing pier is not preferable to the proposed pier design for several reasons. First, the existing 

pier would need to be modified to accommodate the unique requirements for offloading LNG. Since 

Crown Landing does not own the pier, it would be required to seek an agreement with National Energy 

Power Company, L.L.C. for the proposed modifications. Section 3 of the NGA, under which Crown 

Landing is seeking the FERC’s authorization, does not include the authority to acquire land by eminent 

domain. Consequently, if National Energy Power Company, L.L.C. is unwilling to agree to such an 

arrangement, there is no means for Crown Landing to compel them to share the pier. Another issue is the 

orientation of the existing pier, which is parallel and near the edge of the Marcus Hook anchorage area. 

This orientation would put moored LNG ships close to other ships in the anchorage area, and thus 

increase the potential for allisions with errant ships. Finally, we believe the logistics of sharing the pier 

would be impracticable. Currently, the Logan Generating Station receives two coal barges per week, 

which require about 24 hours to berth, unload, and disembark. Crown Landing would receive an LNG 

ship every 2 to 3 days, which would take about 24 hours to berth, unload, and disembark. The use of a 

single pier by all these ships would be complicated and bad weather and tides would likely result in 

conflicts between scheduled deliveries. 

The options for relocating the pier are limited by the presence of the several existing pipelines, 

which cross the river from Marcus Hook, Pennsylvania to the New Jersey shoreline at the southwestern 

corner of the proposed LNG terminal site. To avoid these pipelines, the pier could potentially be located 

upstream of the existing Transco pipeline (i.e., between the Transco pipeline and Logan Generating 

Station pier), or between the existing Transco, Columbia Gas, and Colonial Pipelines. We believe that the 

space between the Transco pipeline and the Logan Generating Station pier is insufficient for safe ship 

operations. Therefore, we focused our review of alternative pier locations on the area between the 

Transco, Columbia Gas, and Colonial pipelines 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
3-60

Crown Landing’s proposed pier design is perpendicular to the ship channel and located adjacent 

to the Marcus Hook anchorage area (see figure 2.2.1-1). Conceptually, we evaluated how far the pier 

should be located from the shoreline. It was apparent that a pier further from shore would reduce the 

amount of dredging and minimize shallow water habitat impacts. However, locating the pier further out 

into the river would place it closer to and possibly in the ship channel or anchorage area, which would 

increase potential ship hazards. Locating the pier farther from shore would also lengthen the trestle and, 

therefore, increase the costs of the pier. Conversely, locating the pier closer to shore would provide 

additional safety to LNG ships and reduce trestle length and costs. A nearshore pier would also increase 

the amount of dredging and would affect more shallow water habitat. To balance these benefits and 

impacts, we determined that the preferable location for the pier would be between about 1,000 and 2,000 

feet from the shore. We evaluated three alternative pier designs (Pier Options A, B, and C) that would be 

located within this preferred distance from shore. The proposed pier and Pier Option A are oriented 

perpendicular to the ship channel, Pier Option B is parallel to the ship channel, and Pier Option C is at an 

angle to the ship channel. Table 3.4-1 provides a comparison of the three alternative pier options to the 

proposed pier design. The alternative pier options are shown on figures 3.4-1 through 3.4-3. 

TABLE 3.4-1 

Comparison of Alternative Pier Options With the Proposed Pier Design

Environmental/Engineering Factor Proposed Pier a/ Pier Option A Pier Option B Pier Option C 

Shallow Water Habitat Impacts (acres) 9.7 12.7 16.1 0.5 

Volume of Dredging (million cubic yards) 1.24 0.8 1.8 0.3 

Riverbed Affected (acres) 30.3 27.7 52.4 19.4 

Trestle Length (feet) 2,000 2,000 4,600 3,000 

______________________

a/ The numbers for shallow water impacts, dredge volume, and amount of riverbed affected are greater than the numbers 

reported in the draft EIS. This is because Crown Landing revised the design the proposed ship berth after the draft EIS 

was issued to allow an enhanced margin of safety for LNG ship maneuvering. The revised design increased the length 

and width of the berth pocket. We did not apply these same increases to the alternatives, although similar design 

revisions would probably be necessary. Thus the shallow water impacts, dredge volume, and riverbed impacts listed for 

the alternatives pier locations are probably underestimated. 

Pier Option C would result in the least disturbance of shallow water habitat and riverbed. Also, 

due to its location near the edge of the Marcus Hook anchorage area, it would also require the least 

amount of dredging. Pier Option B, conversely, would result in the most disturbance of shallow water 

habitat and riverbed and would require the most amount of dredging. These additional impacts and 

dredging requirements are the result of the berth for Pier Option B being mostly located closer to shore in 

shallow water. Pier Option A and the proposed pier would have similar trestle lengths. Pier Option A 

may reduce dredging requirements and riverbed impacts. However, the actual difference in dredging and 

riverbed impacts between the two sites would likely be less than listed in table 3.4-1 since the alternative 

berth length and width would probably need to be increased (see the footnote to table 3.4-1). Pier Option 

A would also affect about 23 percent more shallow water habitat than the proposed pier. 

To assess ship traffic and safety issues associated with the various pier and slip options, Crown 

Landing conducted ship simulation studies at Marine Safety International in June 2004. Through these 

studies it was determined that Pier Option C would provide the least protection from errant ships because 

there would be essentially no shallow water area between the LNG ship berth and the anchorage area to 

slow or stop an errant ship from alliding with a berthed LNG ship. This pier option could also hinder the 

access of coal barges to the Logan Generating Station pier. All of the other pier configurations would 

avoid conflicts with the existing coal unloading pier and provide a protective shallow water barrier 

between berthed LNG ships and the anchorage area. For the proposed pier and Pier Option B, the pier 

itself, which would be located between the berth and the anchorage area, would provide additional 

protection to berthed LNG ships. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
3-61 

Non-Internet Public 

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE 

CROWN LANDING LNG PROJECT and 

LOGAN LATERAL PROJECT 

Docket Nos. CP04-411-000 and CP04-416-000 

Figure 3.4-1 Pier Option A 

Public access for the above information is available only 

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

public.referenceroom@ferc.gov. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
3-62

Non-Internet Public 

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE 

CROWN LANDING LNG PROJECT and 

LOGAN LATERAL PROJECT 

Docket Nos. CP04-411-000 and CP04-416-000 

Figure 3.4-2 Pier Option B 

Public access for the above information is available only 

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

public.referenceroom@ferc.gov. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
3-63 

Non-Internet Public 

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE 

CROWN LANDING LNG PROJECT and 

LOGAN LATERAL PROJECT 

Docket Nos. CP04-411-000 and CP04-416-000 

Figure 3.4-3 Pier Option C 

Public access for the above information is available only 

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

public.referenceroom@ferc.gov. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
3-64

Based on our evaluation of pier alternatives, we believe that Pier Option B would have more 

environmental impacts than the proposed pier. Pier Option A would have similar environmental impacts, 

except that less shallow water habitat is disturbed by the proposed pier compared with Pier Option A. 

Although it appears Pier Option C would provide some environmental advantages, it would expose 

berthed LNG ships to increased safety risks. For these reasons, we believe that the proposed pier 

configuration offers the best balance of increased safety and reduced environmental impacts. 

3.5 PIPELINE ALTERNATIVES 

3.5.1 Pipeline System Alternatives 

Crown Landing proposes to deliver up to a maximum rate of 1.4 Bcfd of natural gas to the MidAtlantic region. The majority of this natural gas (a maximum of about 0.9 Bcfd) would be delivered to 

the Texas Eastern pipeline system via the proposed 11-mile Logan Lateral. The remainder would be 

delivered to the Columbia Gas and Transco pipeline systems (a maximum of about 0.5 Bcfd and 0.6 Bcfd, 

respectively) through interconnects on the proposed LNG terminal site. FERC staff conducted an 

engineering analysis to determine if either the existing Columbia Gas or Transco pipeline systems could 

transport the natural gas volumes proposed for the Texas Eastern system and thus avoid the impacts 

associated with construction and operation of the Logan Lateral. The FERC concluded from this 

evaluation that neither Columbia Gas’ nor Transco’s existing systems separately or combined has 

sufficient capacity to transport the volumes of natural gas proposed for the Texas Eastern pipeline system. 

These pipeline systems would need to be expanded to accommodate larger gas volumes. The Logan 

Lateral is also designed to meet a request for additional transportation capacity to markets off the Texas 

Eastern system to serve incremental market demand in the region. 

Columbia Gas’ existing local pipeline system consists of a 20-inch-diameter pipeline in 

Claymont, Delaware that becomes a 16-inch-diameter pipeline which crosses the Delaware River and 

connects with another 20-inch-diameter pipeline that is located north of the LNG terminal site. To 

transport the natural gas volumes proposed for the Texas Eastern pipeline system, Columbia Gas would 

need to construct the following pipeline and aboveground facilities: 

• 37 miles of new 36-inch-diameter pipeline from the proposed LNG terminal site, across 

the Delaware River to Columbia Gas’ existing Eagle Compressor Station located in 

Chester County, Pennsylvania.; 

• 20,000 hp of additional compression at Columbia Gas’ existing Downingtown 

Compressor Station located in a residential area of Chester County, Pennsylvania; and 

• A new meter and regulation station at the proposed LNG terminal site. 

Since the Columbia Gas pipeline expansion would be much longer and would require additional 

compression, there would be greater environmental impacts, including additional noise impacts at the 

Downingtown Compressor Station (which currently has noise compliance issues), than the proposed 

Logan Lateral Project. Therefore, we did not further investigate the Columbia Gas pipeline system 

alternative. 

Transco’s existing local pipeline system consists of three pipelines. Two of these pipelines, a 12-

inch-diameter pipeline and 20-inch-diameter pipeline, cross from Marcus Hook, Pennsylvania under the 

Delaware River to the New Jersey shoreline at the southwestern corner of the proposed LNG terminal 

site. A third 20-inch-diameter pipeline crosses from Marcus Hook, Pennsylvania under the Delaware 

River to the New Jersey at a landfall location just north of the proposed LNG terminal site. After crossing 

the river, these pipelines proceed northeast and form part of Transco’s Trenton-Woodbury Line. To 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
3-65 

transport the volumes proposed for the Texas Eastern pipeline system, Transco would need to construct 

the following pipeline and aboveground facilities: 

• 12 miles of 24-inch-diameter pipeline from the proposed LNG terminal site across the 

Delaware River to Transco’s existing Compressor Station 200 located near Frazer, 

Pennsylvania; and 

• A new meter and regulation station at the proposed LNG terminal site. 

Transco would need to construction about 1 mile more pipeline than the proposed Logan Lateral. 

Since the Transco pipeline would cross similar areas and resources, we anticipate that it would have 

similar impacts as the Logan Lateral Project. Because it would not offer any significant environmental 

benefits over the proposed facilities, we do not believe expansion of the Transco pipeline system would 

be environmentally preferable to the proposed Logan Lateral Project. 

3.5.2 Major Route Alternatives 

In evaluating alternatives to the Logan Lateral Project, we also assessed whether it might be 

possible to reduce the environmental impacts associated with the proposed pipeline6

 by developing 

alternative pipeline routes. We assessed both environmental factors such as wetlands, waterbodies, land 

uses, public lands, forest land, cultural resources, residences, and engineering factors such as terrain, 

potential construction techniques, and the number of roads and railroads crossed. Through this process, 

we identified six pipeline route alternatives or variations. Four of these are major route alternatives, 

which begin and end at the same location as the proposed pipeline route, but share the same alignment as 

the proposed route in some areas. The relative locations of these four major route alternatives are shown 

on figure 3.5.2-1. A comparison of these four routes to the proposed route is provided in table 3.5.2-1. 

3.5.2.1 Railroad Alternative 

The Railroad Alternative begins at Texas Eastern’s Chester Junction and follows the same 

alignment as the proposed route to MP 1.2. The alternative route then turns and proceeds southeast along 

Bridgewater Road for about a 0.1 mile where it enters Upland Park. Within Upland Park, the alternative 

route proceeds south across the park. At the southern end of the park property, the alternative route 

crosses the Caleb Pusey Historic District and proceeds across Chester Creek to an abandoned railroad 

grade. The alternative route then turns and follows the abandoned railroad grade east and then southeast 

for about 1.4 miles, crossing the CSX railroad, Interstate 95, an active Amtrak railroad, and several 

streets, until it reaches the active Norfolk Southern railroad. The alternative route then proceeds 

southwest adjacent to the Norfolk Southern railroad for about 0.9 mile. At this point, the alternative route 

rejoins the proposed route. The Railroad Alternative then follows the same alignment as the proposed 

route across the Delaware River into New Jersey and on to the proposed LNG terminal site. 

As shown in table 3.5.2-1, the Railroad Alternative is about the same length and would disturb 

similar types of land as the proposed route. An advantage of this alternative is that it would cross about 

0.3 mile less forest land and two less waterbodies than the proposed route. The Railroad Alternative 

would also cross 24 fewer roads and one less railroad. Another advantage of this alternative is that it 

would pass within 50 feet of 19 fewer residences than the proposed route. 

 

6

 We did not consider alternatives to the Columbia Gas and Transco interconnects warranted because these interconnects would be 

accomplished on the LNG terminal site with minimal environmental impact. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
3-66

Non-Internet Public 

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE 

CROWN LANDING LNG PROJECT and 

LOGAN LATERAL PROJECT 

Docket Nos. CP04-411-000 and CP04-416-000 

Figure 3.5.2-1 Major Route Alternatives 

Public access for the above information is available only 

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

public.referenceroom@ferc.gov. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
3-67 

TABLE 3.5.2-1 

Environmental Comparison of Alternative Routes to the Proposed Route 

Environmental Factor Proposed 

Route 

Railroad 

Alternative 

Hayes Street 

Alternative 

Sunoco 

Alternative 

Upland Road 

Alternative 

Length (miles) 11.00 10.90 12.92 8.86 10.29 

Co-located with Existing Right-of-Way (miles) 4.95 5.00 7.49 5.13 4.93 

Co-located with Existing Pipeline Right-ofWay (miles) 

3.12 1.95 4.60 1.50 1.95 

Construction Right-of-Way (acres) 101.1 101.7 125.1 81.5 95.9 

Permanent Right-of-Way (acres) 54.0 52.3 72.9 45.2 52.8 

State Lands Crossed (miles) 0.24 0.15 0.43 0.12 0.00 

Wetlands Crossed (miles) 0.91 0.91 0.95 0.42 0.91 

Parkland Crossed (miles) 0.23 0.60 0.44 0.43 0.00 

Forest Land Traversed (miles) 1.71 1.41 2.30 0.85 0.91 

Open Land Traversed (miles) 4.01 4.40 4.76 2.32 4.06 

Agricultural Land Crossed (miles) 1.53 1.53 1.53 0.31 1.53 

Industrial/Commercial Land Crossed (miles) 0.62 0.52 1.03 2.25 0.54 

Waterbodies Crossed (numbers) 11 9 14 6 9 

Residences within 50 feet of Construction 

Right-of-Way (numbers) 

144 125 142 114 116 

Other Buildings within 50 feet of Construction 

Right-of-Way (numbers) 

11 21 27 20 25 

Major Paved Roads Crossed (numbers) 36 12 20 15 17 

Railroads Crossed (numbers) 4 3 5 5 3 

Cultural Resources (potential sensitivity) low high low low high 

The major disadvantage of the Railroad Alternative is that it has a high potential to impact 

archaeological resources. The Railroad Alternative would cross a historic district associated with the 

Caleb Pusey House and Landingford Plantation that is listed on the NRHP. The historic district consists 

of several standing structures that are historic remnants from some of the earliest mills in Pennsylvania. 

Although none of the standing structures would lie within the construction right-of-way of the alternative 

route, a cursory review of the area has identified at least one historic mill race that would be crossed by 

the Railroad Alternative. It is expected that archaeological remains from other mills may still exist and 

that these remains would provide a source of information to verify historical accounts and provide 

additional historical information on daily activities associated with the mills. As such, it is expected that 

any archaeological remains associated with this site have a high potential to be considered eligible for 

listing on the NHRP. 

Other disadvantages of the Railroad Alternative include the crossing of additional parkland and 

more difficult and possibly more costly construction requirements. The Railroad Alternative would cross 

almost three times as much parkland as the proposed route. In addition to crossing about 792 feet of 

Caleb Pusey Historic District, this alternative route crosses about 2,376 feet of Upland Park. The 

proposed route in comparison would cross only 1,214 feet of Veterans Memorial Park. The Railroad 

Alternative would be more difficult to construct than the proposed route in several locations. The 

alternative crossing of Interstate 95 would be more difficult because there is less space available on both 

sides of the highway. Additionally, there is more residential housing on the southeastern side of Interstate 

95 along the alternative route, which could be affected if HDD techniques are used. Another complicated 

construction area along the alternative route would be where the former railroad grade crosses 7th Street 

in Chester. An elevated trestle at this location would require that the pipeline be installed using either 

conventional bore or HDD techniques, which would be difficult due to the location of the road and an 

electrical substation. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
3-68

For the reasons discussed above, we do not believe the Railroad Alternative would be preferable 

to the proposed route. 

3.5.2.2 Hayes Street Alternative 

The Hayes Street Alternative begins at Texas Eastern’s Chester Junction and follows the same 

alignment as the proposed route to MP 2.3. The alternative route then deviates to the west and continues 

to follow an existing Texas Eastern pipeline parallel to an active railroad for about 1.6 miles. In this 

segment, the alternative route crosses a railroad and Interstate 95. South of Interstate 95, the alternative 

route crosses Laughhead Avenue, Johnson Park, and Marcus Hook Creek twice. The alternative route 

then proceeds northeast adjacent to the railroad for about 1 mile until it reaches Hayes Street. The 

alternative route then follows Hayes Street for about 0.5 mile to MP 4.3 where it rejoins the proposed 

route. The Hayes Street Alternative then follows the same alignment as the proposed route across the 

Delaware River into New Jersey and on to the LNG terminal site. 

As shown in table 3.5.2-1, the Hayes Street Alternative route and the proposed route would cross 

a similar amount of wetlands and would be constructed adjacent to a similar number of residences within 

50 feet of the construction right-of-way. Two advantages of the Hayes Street Alternative are that it would 

be co-located with existing rights-of-way for a greater percentage of its length and would cross 16 fewer 

roads than the proposed route. However, these advantages are offset by several disadvantages. This 

alternative route would be longer and would result in more land disturbance, including more forest 

clearing, than the proposed route. The alternative route would also cross both Jack’s Park and Johnson’s 

Park, which would almost double the amount of parkland crossed compared to the proposed route. 

Additionally, the alternative route would cross three more waterbodies and one more railroad, and would 

be constructed within 50 feet of 16 more non-residential buildings than the proposed route. 

Another disadvantage of the Hayes Street Alternative is that it has a higher risk than the proposed 

route to encounter hazardous wastes. This alternative route would cross a property that contains 

petroleum storage tanks and a property with large industrial waste ponds. Both of these properties have 

the potential to be contaminated by hazardous wastes. The presence of contaminated soils and/or 

groundwater in the pipeline construction right-of-way could require special construction techniques and 

remediation measures. These techniques and measures could be costly and could expose workers to 

increased health and safety risks. 

For the reasons discussed above, we do not believe the Hayes Street Alternative would be 

preferable to the proposed route. 

3.5.2.3 Sunoco Alternative 

The Sunoco Alternative begins at Texas Eastern’s Chester Junction and follows the same 

alignment as the Hayes Street Alternative, mostly adjacent to an existing Texas Eastern pipeline, for 

about 3.9 miles to a location north of Interstate 95. The Sunoco Alternative then deviates from the Hayes 

Street Alternative and continues to follow the existing Texas Eastern pipeline south and west across 

Interstate 95, State Route 452, and several other roads. After crossing Blue Ball Avenue, the alternative 

route stops following the existing pipeline and proceeds west along U.S. Route 13 to the Sunoco Marcus 

Hook refinery property. The Hayes Street Alternative then crosses the refinery property and the Delaware 

River to the proposed LNG terminal site. 

As shown in table 3.5.2-1, the Sunoco Alternative would be more than 2 miles shorter than the 

proposed route and thus would result in less land disturbance and require less permanent right-of-way. 

The Sunoco Alternative would also be co-located with other rights-of-way for a greater percentage of its 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
3-69 

length than the proposed route. Additionally, this alternative route would cross about 0.8 mile less forest 

land, about 0.5 mile less wetland, and about 1.2 miles less agricultural land than the proposed route. The 

alternative route would also cross five less waterbodies and 21 less roads, and would be constructed 

within 50 feet of 30 fewer residences than the proposed route. 

A disadvantage of the Sunoco Alternative is that it would be constructed within 50 feet of 9 more 

non-residential buildings. It would also require construction activities within the vicinity of the industrial 

storage tank farm located north of Interstate 95, as well as within the limits of the Sunoco Marcus Hook 

refinery located adjacent to the Delaware River. The refinery has been in operation since 1902 and 

produces fuels and other petrochemical products. As a result of the long history of operation and nature 

of work done at this refinery, it is highly likely that contaminated soils and/or groundwater would be 

encountered during installation of a pipeline through this property. The presence of contaminated soils 

and/or groundwater in the pipeline construction right-of-way could require special construction 

techniques and remediation measures. These techniques and measures could be costly and could expose 

workers to increased health and safety risks. 

The Sunoco Alternative would cross both Jack’s Park and Lower Chichester Municipal Park, 

which would almost double the amount of parkland crossed compared to the proposed route. The 

alternative route would also require a 7,000-foot crossing of the Delaware River. Texas Eastern has 

indicated that a river crossing of this length has never been accomplished for a large diameter pipeline 

using HDD techniques. If HDD techniques would be infeasible for installing the pipeline along the 

alternative route across the Delaware River, the pipeline would need to be installed across the river using 

open-cut techniques. This type of construction technique would result in substantial more impacts on the 

river and could be difficult to get approved by the applicable regulatory agencies. 

For the reasons discussed above, we do not believe the Sunoco Alternative would be preferable to 

the proposed route. 

3.5.2.4 Upland Road Alternative 

The Upland Road Alternative begins at Texas Eastern’s Chester Junction and follows the same 

alignment as the proposed route for about 0.2 mile. It then deviates from the proposed route and proceeds 

southeast along Edgmont Avenue for about 800 feet. The alternative route then proceeds south along 

Upland Road for about 1.2 miles. At this point, the alternative route leaves the road and proceeds south 

and southeast across Chester Creek and Interstate 95. South of Interstate 95, the alternative route follows 

the same alignment as the Railroad Alternative for about 1.8 miles until it rejoins the proposed route at 

MP 4.3. From MP 4.3, the Upland Road Alternative follows the same alignment as the Railroad 

Alternative and the proposed route across the Delaware River to New Jersey and on to the LNG terminal 

site. 

As shown in table 3.5.2-1, the Upland Road Alternative would be shorter than the proposed route 

and thus would result in less land disturbance and require less permanent right-of-way than the proposed 

route. This alternative route would cross two less waterways and 19 less roads than the proposed route. 

This alternative route would also reduce the crossing of forest land by about 0.8 mile. Additionally, the 

Upland Road Alternative would not cross any parkland and would be constructed within 50 feet of 28 

fewer residences than the proposed route. 

A disadvantage of this alternative route is that Upland Road is a heavily traveled, tree-lined 

thoroughfare that would be adversely affected by pipeline construction. Construction of a pipeline along 

this alternative route would likely require closing the street to traffic and establishing local detours, 

particularly near 10th Street where the road is narrow. This road closure would hinder or restrict access to 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
3-70

three churches, a school, and two businesses located along Upland Road and slow the flow of traffic, 

resulting in increased traffic congestion. The Upland Road Alternative would also pass within 50 feet of 

14 more non-residential buildings than the proposed route. 

Another complicated construction area along the alternative would be near Chester Creek and 

Interstate 95. There is limited space available on either side of the creek and highway at the alternative 

crossing location to set up equipment for a bore or HDD. 

The Upland Road Alternative would also pass close to the National Historic District associated 

with the Caleb Pusey House and Landingford Plantation, which would increase the potential to encounter 

significant cultural resources. 

For the reasons discussed above, we do not believe the Upland Road Alternative would be 

preferable to the proposed route. 

3.5.3 Minor Route Variations 

During the NEPA Pre-filing Process, Texas Eastern identified three minor route variations to 

avoid or minimize impact on specific resources along the pipeline route. Some of these minor variations 

were adopted as part of Texas Eastern’s proposed route prior to filing its application. The other variations 

were either rejected by Texas Eastern or are still being evaluated. 

Palmer Street Variation 

The Palmer Street Variation was identified by Texas Eastern as an alternative to the proposed 

route between MPs 3.13 and 3.31, which is located within an existing wooded ravine behind several 

residential homes in the City of Chester. This variation deviates from the proposed route about 750 feet 

south of Interstate 95 and continues south within Palmer Street for about 1,000 feet until it dead ends near 

the end of Columbia Street. The street would need to be open cut to install the pipeline beneath the road 

pavement. At the end of Palmer Street, the variation proceeds west down a steep 15-foot embankment 

into a forested area. The variation then continues south across about 0.11 mile of forest land before 

crossing 9th Street (U.S. Route 13), and rejoining the proposed route in Veterans Memorial Park. The 

location of the Palmer Street Variation is shown on figure 3.5.3-1. 

Where in-street construction is planned along the variation, the construction activities would 

occupy the entire width of Palmer Street. The construction work area within the street would be within 

50 feet of approximately seven homes. The width of the trench within the street would vary from 6 to 10 

feet depending on the presence or absence of obstructions beneath the street such as foreign lines, sewer 

line, storm water drains, and water mains. Excavation of the trench in the street would be limited to the 

length of pipe that could be laid in the ditch and covered up each day. Texas Eastern anticipates being 

able to lay between 1 and 5 (40- to 80-foot long) joints of pipe per day. Based on this rate of progress and 

the length of the variation in the street, we estimate that in-street construction could take 2 to 4 weeks. 

During construction, safety barriers would be installed and security measures would be in place to limit 

access of unauthorized personnel to the construction work area. Traffic control measures such as signage, 

warning lights, and flag personnel would be used as appropriate to maintain traffic patterns to the extent 

possible. Dust control measures would be used to minimize excessive dust and steel plates would be 

available on-site to span the open trench if emergency vehicle access is required. 

There are three connecting side streets (11th, 12th, and 13th Streets) along the section of Palmer 

Street that would be affected by the variation. It appears that one or more of these streets could be kept 

open during construction to help maintain access to the residences along Palmer Street. However, Texas 

Eastern did not provide a plan to address how residential access would be maintained or whether other 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
3-71 

measures such as limiting work hours to avoid the peak commuting hours would be used to reduce the 

inconvenience of in-street construction on the affected residents. We recommended in section 4.9.4.1 that 

Texas Eastern prepare a traffic and access plan for the project that would address these issues. 

The primary advantage of the variation is that it would avoid the clearing of about 1.4 acres of 

forest land, and would avoid crossing a small man made ditch or drain at MP 3.19 and two forested 

wetlands located at MPs 3.22 and 3.34, respectively. The disadvantages of the variation are that it would 

be located within a residential street and would require construction near seven more residences than the 

proposed route. Construction within the street would also increase construction costs, increase traffic 

impacts on Palmer Street, and possibly hinder access of residents to their homes. 

In the draft EIS, we reported that Texas Eastern rejected the Palmer Street Variation after holding 

public open houses, discussing the issue with the local community, and receiving requests from residents 

that the pipeline should be located along the proposed route within the wooded corridor west of Palmer 

Street. Subsequent to the issuance of the draft EIS, Texas Eastern provided notes of its meetings with the 

PADEP and COE on February 18, and December 20, 2004. At these meetings, the agencies expressed 

concern about the proposed route’s impact on wetlands, particularly forested wetlands. According to 

Texas Eastern, the City of Chester also determined that it would be preferable to locate the pipeline in the 

roadway instead of the wooded ravine. Based on these concerns and the fact that the variation would 

reduce wetland impacts and forest clearing, we believe the variation would be preferable to the proposed 

route. Therefore, we recommend that:

• Texas Eastern adopt the Palmer Street Variation as described in section 3.5.3 as 

part of the proposed route. 

Ward Street Variations 

Texas Eastern met with officials of the City of Chester in August 2004 to discuss the crossing of 

Veterans Memorial Park. At the request of city officials, Ward Street Variations A and B were developed 

to avoid or minimize impacts on the park. Both variations would deviate to the west of the proposed 

route at MP 3.33 about 400 feet north of 9th Street (U.S. Route 13). From there, Variation A would 

proceed west until it reaches the western boundary of Veterans Memorial Park adjacent to Ward Street. 

Variation A would then proceed south following the edge of the park for 1,000 feet. At this point, 

Variation A would turn and proceed east across the southwest corner of the park for about 250 feet where 

it would rejoin the proposed route just north of the railroad at MP 3.67. Variation B would essentially 

follow the same alignment as Variation A except the pipeline would be located within Ward Street rather 

than along the edge of the park. The locations of Ward Street Variations A and B are shown on figure 

3.5.3-2. 

The Ward Street Variations would slightly increase the length of the pipeline. The primary 

advantage of these variations is that they would avoid or minimize impacts on the park, including 

disruption of recreational activities during pipeline construction. In addition, the variations would also 

avoid or minimize encumbrance of the pipeline on any future park developments such as swimming 

pools, club houses, memorials, or other amenities. The primary disadvantage is that the variations would 

result in the placement of the pipeline and associated construction activities closer to several residences 

located along Ward Street and 6th Street. Another disadvantage specific to Variation B is that it would 

require in-street construction, which would increase construction costs, increase traffic impacts on Ward 

Street, and possibly hinder access of residents to their homes. In a November 19, 2004 letter to Texas 

Eastern (Cartisano, 2004), the City Solicitor of Chester indicated a preference for Variation A because it 

would not encumber any future expansion of the park. Texas Eastern adopted the Ward Street Variation 

as part of the proposed route following issuance of the draft EIS. We concur that the Ward Street 

Variation is preferable to the original pipeline route. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
3-72

Non-Internet Public 

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE 

CROWN LANDING LNG PROJECT and 

LOGAN LATERAL PROJECT 

Docket Nos. CP04-411-000 and CP04-416-000 

Figure 3.5.3-1 Palmer Street Variation 

Public access for the above information is available only 

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

public.referenceroom@ferc.gov. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
3-73 

Non-Internet Public 

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE 

CROWN LANDING LNG PROJECT and 

LOGAN LATERAL PROJECT 

Docket Nos. CP04-411-000 and CP04-416-000 

Figure 3.5.3-2 Ward Street Variations 

Public access for the above information is available only 

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

public.referenceroom@ferc.gov. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
3-74

Soil Safe Variation 

The Soil Safe Variation in New Jersey was developed as an alternative to the last 3 miles of the 

original pipeline route, which followed an existing dirt road roughly parallel to and about 1,000 feet south 

of the Delaware River shoreline. The original route crossed the Soil Safe facility property and proceeded 

west behind the Ferro Polymer facility and in front of the Logan Generating Station. Based on 

consultations with representatives of the Soil Safe facility and the Ferro Polymer facility, a contaminated 

soil cleanup operation and areas of potentially contaminated soils were identified along the original route. 

The Soil Safe Variation avoids these contaminated soil areas by proceeding southwest adjacent to U.S. 

Route 130 about 2,000 feet south of the original route. Texas Eastern adopted the Soil Safe Variation as 

part of the proposed route prior to filing its application with the FERC. We concur that the Soil Safe 

Variation is preferable to the original pipeline route. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-1 

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 

The environmental consequence of constructing and operating the proposed Crown Landing LNG 

and Logan Lateral Projects would vary in duration and significance. Four levels of impact duration were 

considered: temporary, short term, long term, and permanent. Temporary impact generally occurs during 

construction with the resource returning to preconstruction condition almost immediately afterward. 

Short term impact could continue for up to 3 years following construction. Impact was considered long 

term if the resource would require more than 3 years to recover. A permanent impact could occur as a 

result of any activity that modifies a resource to the extent that it would not return to preconstruction 

conditions during the life of the project, such as the construction of an LNG terminal. We considered an 

impact to be significant if it would result in a substantial adverse change in the physical environment. 

In this section, we discuss the affected environment, general construction and operational impact, 

and proposed mitigation for each resource. Crown Landing and Texas Eastern, as part of their proposals, 

agreed to implement certain measures to reduce impact. We evaluated Crown Landing’s and Texas 

Eastern’s proposed mitigation to determine whether additional measures are necessary to reduce impact. 

These additional measures appear as bulleted, boldfaced paragraphs in the text. We will recommend that 

these measures be included as specific conditions to the authorization and Certificate that may be issued 

to Crown Landing and Texas Eastern for their projects. 

Conclusions in this EIS are based on our analysis of the environmental impact and the following 

assumptions: 

• Crown Landing and Texas Eastern would comply with all applicable laws and 

regulations; 

• the proposed facilities would be constructed as described in section 2.0 of this document; 

and 

• Crown Landing and Texas Eastern would implement the mitigation measures included in 

their applications and supplemental filings to the FERC. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-2 

4.1 GEOLOGIC RESOURCES 

4.1.1 Physiographic and Geologic Setting 

The proposed project is located within two major physiographic provinces: the Atlantic Coastal 

Plain Province and the Piedmont Province. The demarcation between these provinces in the project area, 

referred to as the Fall Line, has been interpreted somewhat differently in the literature, but generally 

corresponds to the uplands that rise along the northwestern shore of the Delaware River (Fenneman and 

Johnson, 1946; WPC, 2003a). Therefore, the proposed LNG terminal site and the portion of the Logan 

Lateral route from approximate MP 4.0 to MP 11.0 are situated in the Atlantic Coastal Plain 

Physiographic Province, and the remainder of the Logan Lateral route, from MP 0 to MP 4.0, crosses the 

Piedmont Physiographic Province. 

The Atlantic Coastal Plain forms a flat to gently rolling plain, with surface elevations at the LNG 

terminal site ranging between 5 and 10 feet North American Vertical Datum (NAVD) and along portions 

of the proposed pipeline ranging between sea level and 20 feet NAVD. Regionally, the Atlantic Coastal 

Plain is underlain by Cretaceous to Early Tertiary sediments that range from minimal thickness landward 

to more than 40,000 feet thick at the continental shelf break beneath the Atlantic Ocean. The sediments 

consist of sand, silt, and clay deposited alternately in deltaic and marine environments as sea level 

fluctuated during Cretaceous and Tertiary times. Bedrock beneath the Atlantic Coastal Plain consists of 

crystalline rocks of Precambrian, Early Paleozoic, and Triassic ages. The bedrock surface beneath the 

Atlantic Coastal Plain is highly irregular due to structural warping associated with past tectonism. 

As shown on figure 4.1.1-1, site-specific soil boring data from the LNG terminal site indicate that 

the site is underlain by the following deposits and geologic units: 

• Layer 1, Dredged Fill – The surficial layer is dredged material placed onsite between the 

1930s and 1960s during dredging of the Delaware River. The unit extends from the 

surface to an average depth of 4 feet and is composed of silts and sands in varying 

proportions. 

• Layer 2, Sand/Gravelly Sand – This unit is referred to as the Cape May Formation and is 

of Pleistocene alluvial origin. The unit is approximately 5 to 20 feet thick at the site. 

• Layer 3, Clayey Silt – Layer 3 forms a confining unit between the overlying Cape May 

Formation and the underlying Potomac-Magothy-Raritan Formation (undifferentiated) of 

Layer 4. The unit is Upper Cretaceous or Tertiary in age and was deposited in marine or 

lacustrine environments. Layer 3 is 85 to 95 feet thick and consists primarily of clayey 

silt with interbedded sand seams. Due to its significant thickness and compressibility, 

Layer 3 poses geotechnical issues to the proposed LNG terminal, as discussed in section 

4.1.4.2. 

• Layer 4, Sand and Gravel – This unit forms the Potomac-Magothy-Raritan Formation and 

is believed to be of Cretaceous alluvial origin. The unit is 10 to 20 feet thick beneath the 

site. Piles proposed for the foundations of the LNG storage tanks and other critical 

structures would be driven to Layer 4. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Sandy Silt - Dredge Material / Natural Soil (Layer 1)

Sand / Gravelly Sand - Cape May Formation (Layer 2)

Clayey Silt with Interbeded Sand Seams (Layer 3)

Sand and Gravel - Potomac-Magothy-Raritan Formation (Layer 4)

Residual Dense Clayey Sand (Layer 5)

Bedrock - Wissahickon Formation (Layer 6)

Horizontal Scale

Figure 4.1.1-1

Crown Landing LNG Project

Geologic Cross Section of the LNG Terminal Site

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-4 

• Layer 5, Residual Dense Clayey Sand – This unit was derived from extensive weathering 

of the underlying metamorphic basement rocks (Layer 6) during the Cretaceous. The unit 

is described in soil borings as a micaceous, clayey sand and is highly variable in 

thickness, ranging from 10 to 60 feet at the site. 

• Layer 6, Metamorphic Bedrock – Bedrock beneath the LNG terminal site consists of 

Precambrian metamorphic schist and gneiss of the Wissahickon Formation. The 

Wissahickon Formation occurs at a depth of 110 to 200 feet beneath the surface of the 

LNG terminal site. 

The portion of the proposed pipeline located within the Atlantic Coastal Plain Physiographic 

Province, from approximate MP 4.0 to MP 11.0, is underlain by unconsolidated sand, silt and clay, 

dredge spoil, gravelly fill, and recent swamp deposits. Metamorphic bedrock would not be expected to be 

encountered during construction of the pipeline through this area. 

The remainder of the pipeline route, from MP 0 to approximate MP 4.0, crosses the Piedmont 

Physiographic Province. In this area, the pipeline would traverse areas of low to moderate relief, with 

elevations ranging from approximately 20 feet NAVD near MP 4.0 to approximately 100 feet NAVD 

between MPs 2.0 and 3.0. Surficial deposits along the pipeline route consist of unconsolidated sand, 

gravel, and clay of the Tertiary or Quaternary Pennsauken and Bridgeton Formations, which are up to 40 

feet thick in the area. The unconsolidated deposits are underlain by Precambrian metamorphic bedrock of 

the Wissahickon Formation and isolated occurrences of Early Cambrian igneous intrusive rocks. 

Metamorphic or crystalline bedrock could be encountered at several locations along the proposed pipeline 

route (see section 4.1.2). 

Construction and operation of the proposed project would not materially alter the geologic or 

natural topographic conditions in the project area. Over most of the area, natural topographic slope and 

contours would be temporarily altered. Crown Landing would place about 150,000 cubic yards of fill 

material in the process area on the LNG terminal site to raise the grade above the 1,000-year storm surge 

elevation and to construct a 10-foot-high earthen containment dike around the storage tank area. The 

final grade elevations at the onshore portions of the LNG terminal would range from about 3 feet NAVD 

at the base of the LNG spill impoundments to about 18 feet NAVD at the top of the earthen dike. Texas 

Eastern would restore topographic contours and drainage conditions along the pipeline corridor to 

preconstruction conditions to the extent practicable. 

4.1.2 Blasting 

Blasting would not be required for construction of the LNG terminal due to the presence of at 

least 110 feet of unconsolidated sand, silt, gravel and clay beneath the site. 

Based on soil surveys for Gloucester County, New Jersey and Delaware County, Pennsylvania 

(U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), 1962; USDA, 1963), gneissic bedrock could be located within 

5 feet of the ground surface between approximate MPs 1.45 and 1.46, and between MPs 1.74 and 1.84 of 

the proposed Logan Lateral. There is some potential that blasting could be required for construction of 

the pipeline in these areas; however, both areas identified as having shallow bedrock are located along 

Texas Eastern’s existing Line 1-A-1, which did not require blasting for installation. 

In the unlikely event that blasting would be necessary, contractors would be required to conform 

with Texas Eastern’s blasting specification plan to ensure safety and minimize the potential for damage to 

adjacent areas and structures. The blasting plan meets or exceeds all applicable federal, state, and local 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-5 

regulations governing the use of explosives, including PA Code Chapters 210 and 211 and New Jersey 

Administrative Code (NJAC) 12:190. The general provisions of the blasting plan include:

• Installation of blast mats in congested areas, in shallow waterbodies where necessary, and 

near structures to prevent damage by fly-rock; 

• Posting of warning signals, signs, flags, and barricades in the area; 

• Following procedures for the safe storage, handling, loading, firing and disposal of 

explosives; 

• Manning adjacent pipelines at valves for emergency response; and 

• Controlling excessive vibrations by limiting the size of the charge and staggering charges 

in a series of explosions. 

4.1.3 Mineral Resources 

Sand, gravel, and clay have been mined in the project area for construction and industrial 

purposes (U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), 1908; 2002a; 2002b). Two active sand and gravel pits and 

one active dimension-stone quarry were identified in Delaware County, Pennsylvania; however, none of 

these active operations are located within 1 mile of the project (Pennsylvania Geological Survey (PGS), 

1997; USGS, 2004a). Aerial photograph review and site reconnaissance did not identify any abandoned 

or active mining operations within 0.25 mile of the project, and soil borings did not identify any 

commercially exploitable mineral deposits at the proposed LNG terminal site. Coal, petroleum, and other 

commercially exploitable mineral resources are not known to exist in the project area (PGS, 1993; 2002). 

Construction and operation of the proposed projects would not impact any current mineral 

resource recovery operations. Based on the lack of significant and unique mineral resources and the high 

degree of development that exists in the area, the projects would not significantly reduce the future ability 

to recover sand, gravel, clay, or other mineral resources. 

4.1.4 Geologic Hazards 

Geologic or other hazards in the project area consist of seismic-related hazards; load-bearing 

capacity of soils at the LNG terminal site; slope instability, subsidence, and flooding. Conditions 

necessary for the development of other geologic hazards, including karst terrain, avalanches, and 

volcanism are not present in the project area. 

In general, the potential for geologic or other natural hazards to significantly affect the 

construction or operation of the proposed projects is low. The risk of damage resulting from geologic or 

other natural hazards would be avoided or reduced by specific engineering design criteria, ground 

modification, and other construction techniques and operating procedures to be implemented by Crown 

Landing and Texas Eastern. 

4.1.4.1 Seismic-related Hazards 

The proposed projects are situated in an area with a relatively low potential for significant seismic 

activity. Potential seismic-related hazards that exist in the area include earthquakes, surface faulting, soil 

liquefaction and related soil failures, and tsunamis. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-6 

Crown Landing conducted detailed, site-specific geotechnical and geoseismic studies to evaluate 

the risk of seismic-induced damage to the proposed LNG terminal. Texas Eastern also conducted a 

general seismic review of the area for construction of the Logan Lateral. The results of the LNG terminal 

site studies are presented in reports entitled Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Report – Liberty 

[now Crown Landing] LNG Project, Logan Township, Gloucester County, New Jersey (WPC, 2003a) and

Seismic Hazard Study Report – Liberty [now Crown Landing] LNG Project, Logan Township, Gloucester 

County, New Jersey (WPC, 2003b). These reports were reviewed by Dr. Felix Yokel (2004), an expert in 

geotechnical engineering. Dr. Yokel concluded that the geotechnical investigation was thorough and of a 

high quality, providing adequate and reliable data for the design of the project. Dr. Yokel also concluded 

that the seismic risk assessment was a state-of-the-art analysis which complied with seismic hazard 

provisions of 49 CFR 193 and NFPA 59A (2001 edition) Standard for the Production, Storage, and 

Handling of Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) and which met the guidelines in NBSIR 84-2833, Data 

Requirements for the Seismic Review of LNG Facilities.

Earthquakes 

The majority of significant earthquakes around the world are associated with tectonic subduction 

zones, where one crustal plate is overriding another (e.g., the Japanese islands), or where plates are 

sliding past each other (e.g., California). Unlike these highly active tectonic regions, the East Coast of the 

United States is located on the “trailing edge” of the North American continental plate, which is relatively 

seismically quiet. Earthquakes, however, do occur in the project area, largely due to trailing edge 

tectonics and residual stress release from past orogenic (mountain building) events. 

The project area is located near the border between Seismic Zones 1 and 2A as defined in the 

Uniform Building Code. The area is characterized by generally low magnitude events that have been 

recorded for the past 300 years, although stronger earthquakes have occurred in the region. Two notable 

earthquakes have occurred in relatively close proximity to the projects: 

• An 1871 earthquake occurred in northern Delaware, about 12 miles from the LNG 

terminal site. This earthquake resulted in Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) VII 

damage, including toppled chimneys and broken windows. In an MMI VII event, 

damage is negligible to buildings of good design and construction (PGS, 2003); and 

• A 1944 earthquake occurred approximately 7 miles from the LNG terminal site, resulting 

in MMI V damage such as broken windows and cracked plaster. The level of shaking 

associated with an MMI V event is generally below the threshold of damage to well built 

structures. 

Other larger, but more distant, earthquakes have also affected the project area including the 1811 

to 1812 earthquake sequence near New Madrid, Missouri and the 1886 earthquake near Charleston, North 

Carolina. These and other earthquakes were considered in the seismic hazard assessment for the LNG 

terminal site. 

As required by NFPA 59A, a site-specific seismic hazard analysis was conducted to develop 

seismic design criteria for the proposed LNG terminal. The results of the site-specific seismic hazard 

analysis were used to predict the level of shaking associated with the Safe Shutdown Earthquake (SSE, 

defined as the 5,000-year mean return earthquake) and the Operating Basis Earthquake (OBE, scaled as 

two-thirds of the Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE), which is the 2,500-year mean return 

earthquake). The OBE represents the level of shaking through which the facility should be able to operate 

and continue operating after its occurrence, with perhaps a brief shutdown for a safety inspection to 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-7 

confirm that no damage occurred. The larger SSE represents the level of shaking that should not damage 

the vital, safety-related components of the facility to the extent that they could not function. 

Detailed seismic design criteria are presented in the seismic report (WPC, 2003b). In general, the 

seismic hazard analysis indicates that the LNG terminal site would experience a peak ground acceleration 

(PGA) of 10.4 percent of the acceleration due to gravity (0.104 g) during the 2,500-year earthquake and a 

PGA of 0.129 g during the 5,000-year earthquake. The OBE would result in a PGA of 0.069 g. 

To provide a higher level of safety, Crown Landing would construct the LNG storage tanks to 

allow for safe shutdown during an earthquake with a recurrence interval of 10,000 years, rather than 

5,000 years as currently required by NFPA 59A. Based on the seismic hazard analysis performed for the 

site, the LNG terminal would experience a PGA of 0.153 g during the 10,000-year earthquake event. 

In conclusion, based on the evaluation conducted for the LNG terminal site, the likelihood of a 

major earthquake occurring in the project area during the operating life of the LNG facility is low. Crown 

Landing’s commitment to meet or exceed applicable seismic design standards would further reduce the 

potential effects associated with earthquakes to the LNG terminal. These seismic design elements 

include: 

• installing a pile foundation system beneath the LNG tanks and other critical structures, 

which would dissipate a substantial portion of earthquake-induced vibrational energy into 

the supporting soil, thereby dampening the effects of ground motions to the LNG tanks 

themselves; 

• designing the outer and inner LNG tanks to account for the predicted seismic motions in 

accordance with NFPA 59A and ACI 318 guidelines; and 

• accounting for the calculated LNG slosh wave height in the dimensions and design of the 

LNG tanks resulting from the predicted seismic loads. 

Ground shaking would not be expected to materially affect the proposed pipeline, which would 

be constructed of modern steel that is capable of remaining elastic during the level of shaking that could 

potentially occur in the area (O’Rourke and Palmer, 1994). 

Surface Faulting 

There are no mapped surface faults in the project area (USGS, 1908; 2004b) and site-specific 

geotechnical and seismic studies did not identify any evidence of active surface faults at the proposed 

LNG terminal site. Furthermore, the low to moderate level of seismic activity that does occur within 125 

miles of the project has not been associated with movement on any specific fault (Yokel, 2004). 

In conclusion, the potential for surface faulting to occur in the project area is low. The proposed 

LNG storage tanks and other LNG facility structures and the proposed pipeline would be constructed to 

meet or exceed all applicable engineering and seismic design standards, further reducing any potential 

damage that could occur in the highly unlikely event of surface faulting in the project area.

Soil Liquefaction 

Secondary seismic effects triggered by strong ground shaking are often more serious than the 

shaking itself. One such secondary effect, soil liquefaction, is a physical process in which saturated, 

cohesionless soils temporarily lose their load-bearing strength when subjected to strong and prolonged 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-8 

shaking. Soil liquefaction can also lead to other ground failures, including settlement and lateral 

spreading. 

Standard penetration tests (SPT), cone penetration tests (CPT), flat-blade dilatometer (DMT) 

soundings, geophysical measurements, and laboratory analyses were performed to evaluate the physical 

and engineering properties of existing soils at the LNG terminal site. A liquefaction analysis was 

performed based on the CPT data using a commercial computer program (LiquefyPro), which employs 

the Robertson and Wride (1998) method. CPT gathers data at a much smaller sampling interval than SPT 

and DMT, which helps detect weak pockets or lenses within the soil column. The analysis indicates that 

soils at the LNG terminal site would not liquefy if subjected to the level of ground shaking associated 

with the 10,000-year earthquake predicted for the site (WPC, 2003a). The installation of deep foundation 

piles beneath the LNG tanks and other critical structures, as proposed, would further reduce any potential 

for liquefaction to affect those structures. 

Because the risk of a strong earthquake in the project area is low, the potential for soil 

liquefaction to occur along the proposed pipeline is low. Due to their strength and ductility, modern steel 

pipelines can span considerable distances unsupported without threatening the integrity of the pipeline. 

Tsunamis 

Tsunamis are long oceanic waves generally caused by seismic activity. While a tsunami could 

potentially occur along the East Coast of the United States, only two Atlantic Ocean tsunamis have been 

recorded: a tsunami which struck Lisbon, Portugal in 1755, and one which struck eastern Canada in 1929. 

The probability of a significant tsunami occurring along the East Coast is very low (NOAA, 2003) and 

would not pose a significant risk to the projects. 

4.1.4.2 Load-Bearing Capacity 

The physical and engineering properties of existing geologic materials at the LNG terminal site 

were determined using SPT, CPT, DMT soundings, geophysical measurements, test pits, and laboratory 

analyses (WPC, 2003a). These analyses determined that, without foundation improvement, excessive 

settlement would occur beneath the LNG tanks and process area due to the compressibility of the thick, 

clayey silt layer at the site (Layer 3). 

Preliminary recommendations for the LNG tank foundation system include a reinforced concrete 

pile cap supported by 18-inch-diameter steel pipe piles driven into the hard sand and gravel layer (Layer 

4) at an approximate depth of 100 feet below ground surface. Other preliminary LNG tank foundation 

design elements include placement of 6 inches of coarse granular fill beneath the center of the concrete 

pile cap to protect the foundation from frost heave during construction, and installation of heating cables 

in conduit embedded within the concrete pile cap to prevent frost heave during operation of the terminal. 

Corrosion protection could also be necessary to further protect the steel piles. 

Final settlement criteria have not been developed for the LNG tanks; however, settlement criteria 

for similar projects included permissible tilting of 7 inches across the tank and 6 inches of differential 

settlement between the center and edge of the tank. The preliminary foundation design for the proposed 

LNG tanks would result in an estimated total settlement of 1.5 inches, a majority of which should be 

uniform and occur during hydrostatic testing of the tanks (WPC, 2003a). Crown Landing will conduct 

additional CPT tests and field pilot tests to finalize the LNG foundation design. 

Excessive settlement is also the primary concern for equipment foundations in the LNG process 

area. Existing grades in the process area vary from 5 to 10 feet NAVD. Assuming a final grade elevation 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-9 

of up to 12 feet NAVD in this area, 2 to 3 feet of fill would be needed in the majority of the process area, 

with up to 7 feet of fill required in some areas. An estimated total settlement of 10.5 inches would occur 

from 7 feet of fill and approximately 8.5 inches of settlement would occur due to foundation loads. The 

total settlement to be experienced by the equipment in the process area would be somewhere between 

one-half to two-thirds of the total combined settlement due to the fill and foundation loads, or 

approximately 9.5 to 12.5 inches. Preliminary foundation improvement options considered for the 

process area include mat foundations in conjunction with surcharging and piles. Crown Landing will 

conduct additional field tests to finalize the foundation designs for the process area and other terminal 

structures. 

The engineering and construction of the proposed LNG tanks are discussed in more detail in 

section 4.12. 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.

4.1.4.3 Slope Instability 

An earthen dike with sideslopes would be constructed around the three LNG tanks to prevent 

LNG from flowing off the terminal site in the unlikely event of a double failure of the steel inner tank and 

the concrete outer tank. Initial designs indicate that the dike would be approximately 780 feet by 900 

feet, with a top elevation of 18 feet NAVD. The engineering and construction of slopes to be created at 

the proposed LNG terminal site are discussed in more detail in section 4.12. Based on preliminary 

analysis, it appears that the stability of site slopes can be ensured by implementing sound engineering and 

construction methods. 

The proposed pipeline would traverse areas of low relief in New Jersey and low to moderate 

relief in Pennsylvania. Elevations along the proposed route vary from sea level near the Delaware River 

to approximately 100 feet NAVD between MPs 2.0 and 3.0. The project is in an area of moderate 

landslide susceptibility but low landslide occurrence, (USGS, 1982) as no Holocene debris flows or 

landslides have been identified in the area (USGS, 1999a). Therefore, the potential for landslides or other 

slope failures to affect the proposed pipeline is low, and would be further reduced through the use of 

appropriate erosion control measures during construction and operation. 

4.1.4.4 Subsidence 

Regional subsidence is most often caused by significant groundwater use or petroleum 

production. The proposed projects are not located in an area of regional subsidence and they do not cross 

any known underground mines or karst areas. Therefore, subsidence or localized land surface collapse 

events would not be expected to affect the projects. 

4.1.4.5 Flooding 

Flash Flooding 

The potential for flash flooding to occur and significantly impact construction or operation of the 

proposed projects is low. The greatest potential for flash flooding to occur in the project area is 

associated with tropical storms or severe frontal storms, which are usually accompanied by significant 

precipitation over a short period of time. The potential effects associated with high rainfall events during 

construction of the LNG terminal would be mitigated by implementing our Plan and Procedures and 

Crown Landing’s SESC Plan. After construction, the proposed LNG terminal would be stabilized with 

permanent erosion control measures such as vegetative cover, and a stormwater management system 

would be constructed to treat and manage stormwater runoff. Texas Eastern’s implementation of our Plan 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-10 

and Procedures and its SESC Plan would also minimize the effects of rainfall events during construction 

and operation of the proposed pipeline. 

Storm Surge 

Storm surge, the abnormal rise in sea level due to the wind and pressure forces associated with 

hurricanes and other tropical storms, is often the most significant cause of damage to facilities and 

property in low-lying coastal areas. According to the NOAA (2004b), one Category I hurricane made 

landfall in New Jersey from 1900 through 1996. Category I storms have sustained winds of 74 to 95 

miles per hour (mph) and storm surges on the order of 4 to 5 feet. No hurricanes made landfall in 

Delaware during the same time period. 

A storm surge study of the proposed LNG terminal site determined the 1,000 year flood elevation 

to be 12 feet NAVD. The terminal area to the east of the LNG tanks and the metering area to the west of 

the tanks would be constructed with a finished grade of at least 12 feet NAVD. The base of the LNG 

tanks themselves would be approximately 7 feet NAVD, but the top of the earthen dike surrounding the 

tanks would be 18 feet NAVD. Therefore, the proposed LNG terminal site would be protected against 

storm surge associated with tropical storms of the magnitude that are likely to affect the project area. 

4.1.5 Paleontological Resources 

Construction and operation of the LNG terminal would not impact important paleontological 

resources. The project area is not known to contain sensitive paleontological resources, but is underlain 

by Cretaceous age sediments which often contain paleontological artifacts (New Jersey Paleontological 

Society, 2003). Cretaceous age sediments are not found at the surface of the proposed LNG terminal site, 

but occur at an approximate depth of 10 feet below ground surface. No paleontological resources were 

discovered during the cultural resource surveys on the LNG terminal site, which included the excavation 

of several trenches and shovel test pits. 

Construction of the proposed pipeline would be unlikely to encounter any significant 

paleontological resources, and the route does not cross any protected paleontological resources (PGS, 

2004; New Jersey Geological Survey, 2004; New Jersey Natural History Museum, 2004). 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-11 

4.2 SOILS AND SEDIMENTS 

4.2.1 Soil Resources 

Soil Characteristics at the LNG Terminal Site 

Soils at the proposed LNG terminal site are highly variable with textures ranging from gravelly 

sandy soils to silts and clays. Table 4.2.1-1 summarizes the characteristics of the soils on the site. 

Borings indicate that the majority of the proposed construction area is primarily sands and gravels, with 

some traces of silt and clay. Soil testing and USDA soil mapping indicate that approximately 147 acres 

or 84 percent of the soils at the site consist of Made-land. This Made-land, which is up to 4 feet in depth, 

consists of dredged material that was placed onsite during dredging of the Delaware River, primarily 

between the 1930s and 1960s (USDA, 1962). The Made-land materials consist of two textural types: 

Made-land/coarse (Mc), which predominates on the northern and central portions of the site; and Madeland/fine (Mf), which is present along the southern and southeastern portions of the site. Based on the 

distribution of these two Made-land types, it seems likely that dredged materials were placed on the 

northern end and then the finer textured materials were redeposited to the southern portions of the site 

during dewatering operations. 

The remaining soils on the LNG terminal site include 20 acres of Woodstown/Klej and Downer 

loamy sands, 4 acres of Fallsington sandy loam, and 4 acres of tidal marsh. None of the soils on the LNG 

terminal site are classified as prime farmland. 

TABLE 4.2.1-1 

Acreage of Soils and Soil Characteristics at the Proposed LNG Terminal Site

Soil Series Area on Site 

(acres) 

Temporary 

Disturbance 

Area 

(acres) 

Permanent 

Disturbance 

Area 

(acres) 

Soil Characteristics Prime or 

Unique 

Farmland 

Made-Land/ 

Coarse 

61.2 37.3 37.3 Moderately well-drained, coarse-textured 

material, poor structure, variable in 

texture and depth 

Undetermined 

Made-Land/ 

Fine 

85.7 < 0.86 < 0.86 Fine-textured material with poor 

structure, variable texture and depth 

Undetermined 

Fallsington 

Sandy Loam 

3.5 < 0.3 0 Poorly drained, permeable sandy loam No 

Tidal Marsh 3.5 0 0 Saturated soils No 

Woodstown 

Loamy Sand 

19.2 3.7 0.5 Deep, moderately well-drained loamy 

sand 

No 

Downer Loamy 

Sand 

< 1.7 < 0.3 0 Deep well-drained loamy sand No 

Total 174.8 42.5 38.7 

Soil Quality at the LNG Terminal Site 

Seventy-one soil samples from the proposed LNG terminal site were analyzed for EPA priority 

pollutants, semi volatile organics (SVOCs), volatile organics (VOCs), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons 

(PAHs), pesticides, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), phenols, cyanide, total petroleum hydrocarbons 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-12 

(TPH), and metals. The soil sampling locations are shown on figure 4.2.1-1. The results were compared 

with New Jersey Soil Cleanup Criteria (NJSCC). The soil samples that exceeded NJSCC criteria are 

listed in table 4.2.1-2. 

TABLE 4.2.1-2 

Analytical Results of Soil Samples Collected within the Proposed LNG Terminal Site

Parameter Type NJSCC 

(residential) 

a/ 

NJSCC 

(non-residential) 

a/ 

Sampling 

Locations b/ 

Analytical 

Results 

Arsenic Metal 20 mg/kg 20 mg/kg AST-3 

AST-4 

AST-5 

AST-6 

AST-7 

AST-8 

SB-32 

24.7 mg/kg 

23.0 mg/kg 

26.8 mg/kg 

24.3 mg/kg 

23.5 mg/kg 

22.9 mg/kg 

24.3 mg/kg 

Dieldrin Pesticide 42 μg/kg 180 μg/kg SB-1 

SB-2 

SB-21 

SB-22 

GTB 6 

GTB 11-18 

GTB 21-29 

54 μg/kg 

84 μg/kg 

74 μg/kg 

79 μg/kg 

82 μg/kg 

50 μg/kg 

72 μg/kg 

TPH Petroleum 10,000 mg/kg No Criteria AST-1 

AST-2 

46,800 

mg/kg 

53,000 

mg/kg 

Benzo(a)anthracene SVOC/PAH/Fuel/ 

Hydrocarbons 

900 μg/kg 4,000 μg/kg SB-24 

GTB-Area 31 

1,600 μg/kg 

1,900 μg/kg 

Benzo(b)flouranthrene SVOC/PAH/Fuel/ 

Hydrocarbons 

900 μg/kg 4,000 μg/kg SB-24 

GTB-Area 31 

1,500 μg/kg 

1,100 μg/kg 

Benzo(k)flouranthrene SVOC/PAH/Fuel/ 

Hydrocarbons 

900 μg/kg 4,000 μg/kg SB-24 

GTB-Area 31 

960 μg/kg 

1,400 μg/kg 

Benzo(a)pyrene SVOC/PAH/Fuel/ 

Hydrocarbons 

660 μg/kg 660 μg/kg SB-24 

GTB-Area 31 

830 μg/kg 

1,200 μg/kg 

____________________ 

a/ NJDEP Soil Cleanup Criteria, May 1999 New Jersey Administrative Code 7:26D. 

b/ See figure 4.2.1-1 for sampling locations. AST – aboveground storage tank; SB – soil boring; GTB – geotechnical 

 boring. 

mg/kg milligrams per kilogram 

μg/kg micrograms per kilogram 

The results of the laboratory analyses indicated elevated concentrations of TPH, SVOCs, arsenic, 

and dieldrin in a few limited areas. The elevated TPH concentrations were only found in the vicinity of 

two abandoned 275-gallon aboveground storage tanks (AST 1 and 2). The SVOCs were only found in 

the upper 6 inches of soil in two adjacent borings (SB-24 and GTB-Area 31). 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-13 

Non-Internet Public 

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE 

CROWN LANDING LNG PROJECT and 

LOGAN LATERAL PROJECT 

Docket Nos. CP04-411-000 and CP04-416-000 

Figure 4.2.1-1 Soil Sampling Locations 

Public access for the above information is available only 

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

public.referenceroom@ferc.gov. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-14 

Elevated arsenic levels were detected in the vicinity of an abandoned 1,500-gallon storage vessel 

(AST-3 to AST-8), and one other isolated boring (SB-32). All of the results were slightly above the 

NJSCC (i.e., 22.9 to 26.8 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) relative to the cleanup criterion of 20 mg/kg). 

The cause of the elevated arsenic level is unknown but could be the result of a spill from a storage vessel, 

historic use of arsenic-containing pesticides in the project area1

, or high native arsenic levels associated 

with the dredged materials that were removed from the Delaware River. The NJDEP estimates that 

background arsenic concentrations in the New Jersey Coastal Plain province are between 1.15 and 6.15 

mg/kg in rural areas and between 5.2 and 13.6 mg/kg in urban areas (Sanders, 2003). Thus the arsenic 

concentrations on the site soils are between five and twenty times higher than background estimates for 

rural areas of the Coastal Plain. 

The analytical results also indicated elevated levels of dieldrin near the soil surface in 7 of the 71 

soil borings. Dieldrin, a persistent organic compound that degrades very slowly in the environment, was 

once commonly used in agriculture as an insecticide. The use of dieldrin has been banned in the United 

States by the EPA since 1987 (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), 2003). All 

seven of the soil borings containing elevated levels of dieldrin were located in historic dredge disposal 

areas above the elevation of the underlying natural soil. None of the concentrations in these seven 

samples were above the NJSCC for non-residential use, but all exceeded NJSCC residential standards. 

The source of dieldrin is unknown but may be from the dredged material that was deposited on the site or 

the result of the spraying of insecticides associated with agricultural operations subsequent to the dredged 

materials being deposited. 

Soil Impacts from LNG Terminal Construction and Operation 

Crown Landing proposes to use fill material to raise the LNG process area above the 1,000-year 

design storm surge elevation of 11.4 feet NAVD and to create a containment dike around the LNG 

storage tanks. Approximately 150,000 cubic yards of fill would be needed. Crown Landing would 

import soils of suitable structural and chemical quality for use as fill material. Some of this material 

could consist of reclaimed and dewatered dredged material obtained from offsite sources. 

Initial site preparation (grading and other soil disturbing activities), including the removal of 

existing vegetation, and placement and grading of fill to raise the site grade, could increase the potential 

for soil compaction, soil erosion, and sedimentation of adjacent waterbodies and wetlands. Of these 

potential effects, compaction is not anticipated to be a significant issue since the soils on the terminal site 

are almost entirely moderately-well drained sands and gravels, which are not compaction prone. 

Crown Landing would minimize the potential for erosion and sedimentation by implementing the 

measures specified in our Plan and in a site-specific SESC Plan that would require approval from the 

Gloucester County Soil Conservation District. These measures would include installation of sediment 

filters and barriers during construction to prevent the flow of silt-laden water into adjacent wetlands and 

the Delaware River. Following construction, Crown Landing would permanently stabilize disturbed soils 

on the site by establishing a vegetative or gravel cover and installing other appropriate landscaping. 

Soil contamination from a variety of sources was identified on the LNG terminal site. Most of 

the contamination occurs in limited areas and at low concentrations. Only TPH and benzo(a)pyrene 

exceeded the NJSCC for non-residential use. Arsenic and dieldrin were identified at concentrations 

above the residential NJSCC but below the non-residential NJSCC. 

 

1

 Gloucester County had some of the highest agricultural arsenic usage in New Jersey between 1900 and 1980 (Vowinkel, et al., 2001); 

therefore, it seems more likely that elevated arsenic concentrations are a result of former agricultural practices. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-15 

Construction workers would have higher risk of exposure to the contaminated soils. To minimize 

this risk and protect construction workers, Crown Landing proposes to further delineate the extent of 

TPH- and SVOC-contaminated soils and excavate and dispose of the contaminated soils and the 

associated aboveground tanks at a permitted disposal facility prior to construction. Crown Landing would 

also further delineate the 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 be 

necessary to mitigate the arsenic and dieldrin contamination. 

All of the samples with elevated contaminant concentrations, except core SB-32, occur in areas 

that would be located beneath the LNG process area. Thus most of the contaminated soils would be 

buried by a significant volume of fill material placed to raise the site grade and to create the containment 

berm for the storage tanks. The fill pad, containment berm, and LNG process facilities would effectively 

isolate the contaminated soils from future human exposure. 

Soils Along the Pipeline Route 

According to published soils information (USDA, 1963), the proposed pipeline route from MP 0 

to MP 4.9 crosses eight different soil series and one miscellaneous land type in Pennsylvania. The soil 

series include: 

• Manor series - well to somewhat excessively drained soils with loam and channery loam 

textures and moderate permeability; 

• Sassafras series - well drained soils with a sandy loam texture and moderate to 

moderately slow permeability; 

• Glenelg series - well drained soils with a channery silt loam texture and moderate 

permeability; 

• Congaree series - well to moderately well drained soils with a silt loam texture and 

moderate permeability; 

• Beltsville and Butlertown series - moderately well drained soils with a silt loam texture 

and slow to very slow permeability; 

• Chewacla series - somewhat poorly to moderately well drained soils with a silt loam 

texture and moderate permeability; and 

• Othello series - poorly drained soils with a silt loam texture and moderately slow 

permeability. 

The miscellaneous land types that would be crossed by the Pennsylvania portion of the pipeline 

include two Made-Land map units: map unit Ma, which is dominated by gravelly-textured materials, and 

map unit Me, which is dominated by materials derived from metamorphic bedrock (schist or gneiss). 

In New Jersey, the proposed pipeline route from MP 4.9 to MP 11 crosses four soil series and two 

miscellaneous land types (USDA, 1962). The soil series include: 

• Klej series - moderately well drained soils with a loamy sand texture and rapid to very 

rapid permeability; 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-16 

• Downer series - moderately well drained soils with a loamy sand texture and moderate to 

moderately rapid permeability; 

• Woodstown series - moderately well drained soils with a loamy sand texture and 

moderate permeability; 

• Fallsington series - poorly drained soils with a sandy loam texture and moderate to 

moderately slow permeability; and 

• Pocomoke series - very poorly drained soils with moderate to moderately rapid 

permeability. 

The miscellaneous land types that would be crossed by the New Jersey portion of the pipeline 

include tidal marsh and two Made-land map units: map unit Mc, which consists of coarse material, and 

map unit Mf, which consists of fine materials. 

Soils along the proposed pipeline route were evaluated for characteristics that would affect 

construction or increase the potential for construction-related soil impacts. Table 4.2.1-3 provides a 

summary of significant soils characteristics along each segment. Each soil characteristic is discussed 

separately below. 

TABLE 4.2.1-3 

Acreage of Soil Characteristics for the Proposed Pipeline Right-of-Way a/ 

Route Total 

Prime 

Farmland b/ 

Hydric Soils 

c/ 

Compaction Prone 

d/ 

Highly Erodible 

e/ 

Revegetation 

Concerns f/ 

Pennsylvania 

MP 0 – MP 4.9 42.1 10.5 2.1 2.1 2.4 16.6 

New Jersey 

MP 4.9 – MP 11 59.0 0.0 10.9 2.7 8.1 0.0 

Pipeline Total 101.1 10.5 13.0 4.9 10.6 16.6 

_______________________ 

a/ Acreage is based on a variable-width construction right-of-way, but does not include access roads or temporary extra 

 workspace. Soil characteristics do not add across rows because soils may occur in more than one characteristic 

 class, or may not occur in any class listed. 

b/ As designated by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and includes farmland of local or statewide 

 importance. 

c/ As designated by the NRCS. 

d/ Includes soils in somewhat poor to very poor drainage classes with surface textures of sandy clay loam and finer. 

e/ Includes soils with slopes greater than 8 percent and soils designated by NRCS as highly erodible land and 

 potentially highly erodible land. 

f/ Includes soils with slopes greater than 8 percent, high content of surface stones, and dense subsoils, including fragipans. 

Pipeline construction activities such as clearing, grading, excavation, backfilling, and the 

movement of construction equipment along the right-of-way could impact soil resources in several ways. 

Clearing would remove protective cover and expose soil to the effects of wind, sun, and precipitation, 

which could increase the potential for soil erosion and the movement of sediments into sensitive areas. 

Grading and equipment traffic could compact soil, reducing porosity and percolation rates resulting in 

increased runoff potential and decreased soil productivity. Trench excavation and backfilling could lead 

to mixing of topsoil and subsoil which could lower soil productivity. Contamination from spills or leaks 

of fuels, lubricants, and coolants from construction equipment could also impact soils. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-17 

Prime Farmland

About 25 percent (10.5 acres) of the soils that would be affected by the pipeline in Pennsylvania 

are designated prime farmland. None of the soils that would be affected by the pipeline in New Jersey are 

designated prime farmland. Most of the prime farmland soil in Pennsylvania is within or directly adjacent 

to commercial or residential developments and none of it is actively cultivated or available for farming. 

Pipeline construction would temporarily impact this soil. Since no aboveground facilities would be 

constructed on prime farmland, no prime farmland would be permanently lost as a result of the 

construction activities. Texas Eastern would minimize temporary impacts on prime farmland by 

segregating topsoil from subsoil prior to trenching and returning the segregated topsoil to the trench 

following backfilling of the trench spoil. Other potential impacts on prime farmland would be reduced 

and controlled by minimizing erosion, replacing or repairing damaged tile drainage systems (if present), 

and preventing the introduction of invasive/nuisance plant species. 

Hydric Soils

Hydric soils are defined as “soils that formed under conditions of saturation, flooding, or ponding 

long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part” (Federal 

Register, July 13, 1994). Soils that are artificially drained or protected from flooding (e.g., by levees) are 

still considered hydric if the soil in its undisturbed state would meet the definition of a hydric soil. 

Hydric soils include poorly and very poorly drained soils and some somewhat poorly drained soils. 

About 13 percent (13.0 acres) of the soils along the entire pipeline route are hydric soils. Two 

percent (2.1 acres) of the hydric soils occur in Pennsylvania and 11 percent (10.9 acres) of these soils 

occur in New Jersey. Hydric soils can be susceptible to compaction (as discussed below). In addition, 

high groundwater levels associated with hydric soils could create a buoyancy hazard for the pipeline. 

Special construction techniques such a concrete coating and other weighting methods would be used to 

overcome buoyancy hazards during operation of the pipeline. Practices such as dry season construction 

and/or trench dewatering would typically be used to minimize buoyancy problems during construction. 

Compaction Potential

Construction equipment traveling over wet soils could disrupt the soil structure, reduce pore 

space, increase runoff potential, and cause rutting. The degree of compaction is dependent on moisture 

content and soil texture. Fine-textured soils with poor internal drainage that are moist or saturated during 

construction are the most susceptible to compaction and rutting. 

As noted above, hydric soils can be susceptible to compaction. Of the total acreage of hydric 

soils along the proposed pipeline route, about 38 percent (4.9 acres) have surface layers with silt loam or 

finer textures that are somewhat poorly drained or wetter. The Othello series and areas mapped as Tidal 

Marsh account for most of these soils (4.1 acres). The other 0.7 acre consists of very poorly drained 

Pocomoke loam soils The remaining hydric soils are not susceptible to compaction but may be 

susceptible to rutting impacts if construction activities occur when the soils are wet. 

Impacts related to soil compaction would be minimal due to the limited acreage of compactionprone soils. Texas Eastern would minimize compaction and rutting of some soils by using construction 

mats where wetland soils cannot support equipment. In addition, in agricultural areas Texas Eastern 

would implement the compaction mitigation measures in its SESC Plan. In residential areas Texas 

Eastern has requested a variance from the FERC’s Plan requirement for compaction mitigation. As 

outlined in section 1.2 of the SESC Plan, Texas Eastern has proposed to not conduct compaction testing 

and mitigation in residential areas. Instead, the SESC Plan specifies topsoil segregation or replacement in 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-18 

all residential areas. Texas Eastern suggests that subsequent freeze thaw cycles of the upper portion of 

the subsoil would provide sufficient natural mitigation of any compacted areas of the right-of-way in 

residential areas within 2 to 3 years. 

Soil compaction in residential areas not only affects the rooting depth of grasses and shrubs but 

also influences water movement through the soil. Excessive application of water to lawns and shrubs in 

soils with substantial subsurface soil compaction could lead to water-logged conditions and increased 

incidence of disease and insect damage. However, because Texas Eastern would segregate or replace 

topsoil in residential areas, and because its SESC Plan requires that they monitor the right-of-way 

following construction and rectify any landowner complaints regarding revegetation (as discussed in 

section 8.1 of its SESC Plan), we grant this variance request to omit compaction testing and mitigation in 

residential areas.

Erosion

Erosion is a continuing natural process that can be accelerated by human disturbance. Factors 

that influence the degree of erosion include soil texture, soil structure, length and percent of slope, 

vegetative cover, and rainfall or wind intensity. Soils most susceptible to erosion by water are typified by 

bare or sparse vegetative cover, noncohesive soil particles with low infiltration rates, and moderate to 

steep slopes. Wind erosion processes are less affected by slope angles. Clearing, grading, and equipment 

movement could accelerate the erosion process and, without adequate protection, result in discharge of 

sediment to waterbodies and wetlands. Soil loss due to erosion could also reduce soil fertility and impair 

revegetation. 

Erosion potential is moderate to slight for the majority of soils that would be affected by the 

proposed pipeline. Only about 0.4 acre of Manor soils and 2.1 acres of Glenelg soils located in 

Pennsylvania exhibit severe erosion potential. The New Jersey segment contains no highly erodible soils. 

However, this segment does contain 6.7 acres of Downer soils and 1.4 acres of Sassafras soils which are 

considered potentially highly erodible. Texas Eastern’s SESC Plan specifies the use of erosion control 

devices and construction practices that would minimize erosion during construction such as silt fence, hay 

bales, and soil berms. After construction is complete, Texas Eastern would minimize further erosion by 

re-grading and reseeding disturbed areas. Following restoration and clean up, Texas Eastern would 

monitor the disturbed areas to maintain erosion control structures and repair any developing erosion. 

Stony/Rocky Soils and Shallow-to-Bedrock Soils

Grading, trenching, and backfilling may bring stones to the surface that could interfere with or 

damage agricultural equipment, and hamper revegetation efforts by reducing soil moisture holding 

capacity. Additionally, ripping and blasting of shallow bedrock during construction could incorporate 

bedrock fragments into the topsoil. 

Stony and rocky soils present in the Pennsylvania segment include the Glenelg channery silt loam 

(GeB2, GeC2) and Manor loam and channery loam (MhE) map units. These soils account for 5.1 acres 

along the proposed pipeline right-of-way. In addition to having stony/rocky surface layers, the Manor 

soils in Pennsylvania also contain shallow bedrock. These soils account for less than 1 percent of the 

total route (about 0.5 acre) but could require blasting to excavate the trench. Stony/rocky soils and 

shallow bedrock or fragipan are not present along the New Jersey segment of the pipeline route. Impacts 

on soils due to excess rock in surface horizons would be minimal due to the limited acreage of these soils. 

In addition, Texas Eastern would remove excess rock from the upper 12 inches of the soil in all rotated 

and permanent cropland, hayfields, pastures, residential areas, and other areas at the landowner’s request. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-19 

Rock would be removed until the size, density and distribution of rock in surface soils are similar on and 

off the right-of-way. 

Revegetation Potential

Successful restoration and revegetation are important to maintain soil productivity and to protect 

the underlying soil from potential damage such as erosion. About 16 percent (16.6 acres) of the soils that 

would be affected by pipeline construction activities exhibit poor revegetation potential (table 4.2.1-3). 

All of these soils are in Pennsylvania. Soils with poor revegetation potential include those that have stony 

or rocky surface layers, dense subsoils (e.g., fragipans) that could restrict root penetration, and soils with 

slopes greater than 8 percent that are potentially erosive and would require additional stabilization, such 

as mulch, to promote germination and seedling establishment. In accordance with its SESC Plan, Texas 

Eastern would mitigate the effects of poor revegetation potential by applying fertilizer, pH modifiers, and 

using mulch (where appropriate) in areas with poor revegetation 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. 

The discussion of revegetation success in section 8.3.1 of Texas Eastern’s SESC Plan (see 

Appendix D) does not appear to be consistent with section VII.A.2 of our Plan. Determining if 

revegetation measures have been successful should be consistent with the guidelines in our Plan. 

Soil Contamination

Contamination from spills or leaks of fuels, lubricants, and coolant from construction equipment 

could adversely affect soils. The effects of contamination would typically be 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. This SPCC Plan, which is included in Texas Eastern’s SESC Plan (see Appendix D), would 

minimize the potential to contaminate soils. 

Texas Eastern conducted a database search of all areas within 0.25 mile of the proposed pipeline 

route to determine the location of federal and state hazardous waste sites as identified in various 

government databases. Twenty-seven hazardous, potentially hazardous, and solid waste sites are located 

within 0.25 mile of the proposed pipeline route. Of these 27 sites, the proposed pipeline route would 

cross two hazardous waste sites and would run parallel to a leaking underground storage tank (LUST), a 

solid waste facility, and an abandoned, uncontrolled, or inactive hazardous waste site. Further details 

about the database search results are provided in sections 4.3.1 and 4.8.4. Construction of the pipeline in 

the vicinity of these sites could disturb contaminated soils. Although Texas Eastern has included a 

Contaminated Contingency Plan in its SPCC Plan, it does not adequately address potential impacts and 

mitigative measures associated with encountering contaminated soils during construction. To be prepared 

in the event of encountering contaminated soils and groundwater in the construction right-of-way, Texas 

Eastern has indicated that it would prepare and file with the FERC a Plan for the Discovery and 

Management of Contaminated Soils and Groundwater. This Plan would comply with applicable state and 

federal regulations and would provide for management of contaminants at known sites and include 

procedures for the identification and management of unknown contaminants in other locations.

4.2.2 Sediments 

Construction of the LNG terminal would require dredging about 1.24 million cubic yards of 

sediment to create the berth area for the ship unloading facility. To provide initial characterization of the 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-20 

sediments that would be dredged and to determine the compatibility of the sediment for placement in the 

Weeks Marine facility, Crown Landing collected a series of six vibracores from within or near the 

proposed dredging footprint (see figure 4.2.2-1). Each core was advanced to about 30 feet below the 

sediment water interface. Samples were collected from three strata within each core (one from 18 inches 

below the surface; one at about 12 feet below the surface; and one at about 30 feet below the surface), 

resulting in a total of 18 sediment samples from the 6 cores. None of the cores were composited for 

analytical purposes. Each of the 18 samples represents a discreet stratum from an individual core. 

Physical Analyses 

Crown Landing did not conduct an analysis of the physical properties of the sediment samples. 

However, sediment samples were collected and analyzed by the COE from the Marcus Hook reach of the 

river as part of the Delaware River Comprehensive Navigation Study (Black and Veatch Waste Science, 

1996). Vibracores collected from the berth area of the BP Oil facilities across the river from the LNG 

terminal site consisted primarily of organic silts overlying layers of well-graded sands. These sediments 

extended from about 41 feet to 49 feet below MLLW. This is deeper than the proposed depth of dredging 

for the LNG ship berth, but the upper, silty sediment observed in the berth area cores probably represents 

recently deposited material and is likely representative of the sediment that would be dredged from most 

of the proposed berth area at the Crown Landing site. Crown Landing has indicated that it will conduct 

analyses of the physical properties of samples collected from the proposed berth area as part of its (SAP) 

for the proposed dredged sediments. The sampling and analysis program has been delayed as a result of a 

jurisdictional dispute between the states of Delaware and New Jersey. Crown Landing will conduct the 

sampling and analyses once the appropriate regulatory authority grants permission to conduct the 

sediment coring. Because data regarding the physical characteristics of the proposed dredged material are 

import for evaluating potential water quality impacts from the proposed dredging operations, we 

recommend that: 

• Crown Landing file with the Secretary of the Commission (Secretary) the results of 

the physical characterization analyses of any new sediment cores collected for the 

project for review and comment by the Director of OEP prior to construction. The 

complete results, including supporting quality assurance/quality control data, 

should be filed as public information. 

Chemical Analyses 

Preliminary chemical analyses of the proposed dredged sediments included the EPA list of 126 

priority pollutants and an additional 40 non-priority organic compounds. The samples were analyzed 

using standard EPA protocols in accordance with the New Jersey Technical Standards for Site 

Investigations (NJAC 7:26E). Of the 166 constituents that were analyzed, the following 8 metals were 

detected in the sediment samples at concentrations above method detection limits: arsenic, cadmium, 

chromium, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, and zinc. Additionally, beryllium was detected in one deep core 

sample at less than 1 mg/kg. The original sediment characterization data and supporting laboratory 

quality assurance forms were filed under the pre-filing docket for the project (PF04-2) as confidential 

information. Additional information was filed as part of Crown Landing’s application; however, this 

material was also marked privileged/confidential. We received comments from both NOAA and DNREC 

that the complete data report for the sediment characterization should be included as an appendix to the 

EIS. We do not feel that inclusion of these data are necessary in the EIS; however, we recognize that 

agencies with jurisdictional authority over the proposed project need to review and evaluate data that 

impact their respective jurisdictions. As a result, we requested that Crown Landing file the complete 

results of the preliminary sediment analysis on the public record. The data are now available for public 

review on our e-library website.

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-21 

Non-Internet Public 

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE 

CROWN LANDING LNG PROJECT and 

LOGAN LATERAL PROJECT 

Docket Nos. CP04-411-000 and CP04-416-000 

Figure 4.2.2-1 Sediment Core Locations 

Public access for the above information is available only 

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

public.referenceroom@ferc.gov. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-22 

Average metal concentrations for the surface, middle, and bottom of each sediment core in 

comparison to NOAA sediment screening values are presented in table 4.2.2-1. In addition, seven 

SVOCs were identified at concentrations above method detection limits. Average concentrations of these 

constituents are also included in table 4.2.2-1. 

The highest concentrations of all metals were detected in the surface sample of Core 104. This 

sample was also the only sample in which cadmium was detected. Arsenic was detected in all but one 

sample and ranged from 3.1 to 31 mg/kg (parts per million [ppm]). Mercury was detected in only 2 core 

samples (both from the surface layer) at concentrations less than 0.20 mg/kg. The five remaining metals 

were detected in all samples. Chromium concentrations ranged from 20.2 to 46.5 mg/kg; copper 

concentrations ranged from 5.7 to 36.2 mg/kg; lead concentrations ranged from 6.8 to 78.2 mg/kg; nickel 

concentrations ranged from 13.2 to 26.9 mg/kg; and zinc concentrations ranged from 39.2 to 279 mg/kg. 

Similar concentrations for all of these metals have been reported at several sites along the Marcus Hook 

reach of the Delaware River (Black and Veatch Waste Science, 1996). Except for the arsenic 

concentrations from the surface of two cores, all of the detected metals were below current New Jersey 

residential and non-residential soil cleanup criteria. The arsenic concentrations from all six cores exceed 

the recently proposed New Jersey soil remediation standards. As noted in the discussion of soils in 

section 4.2.1, arsenic levels in soils and sediments in the Delaware River basin of New Jersey are 

generally elevated. 

As with the metals, the highest concentrations of SVOCs were detected in the near-surface 

sediments. None of the measured concentrations of any SVOC exceeded the current New Jersey soil 

cleanup criteria. The concentrations of only three compounds (Benzo(a)anthracene, Benzo(a)pyrene, and 

Benzo(b)fluoranthene) exceeded the most recently proposed New Jersey soil remediation standards. 

Elevated SVOC concentrations in the surface layers of sediment at the site likely represent local 

background conditions, given the site’s location in the vicinity of several oil refineries and the Logan 

Generating Station. Catalytic petroleum cracking operations and industrial power generation are both 

important stationary sources of airborne deposition of SVOCs (ATSDR, 1995). 

Table 4.2.2-1 provides a comparison of average sediment concentrations with ecologically riskbased screening values to assess the potential hazards posed to the aquatic environment by the dredged 

sediment. Freshwater sediment values presented in the NOAA Screening Quick Reference Tables 

(Buchman, 1999) were used in assessing the sediment core results. The following NOAA screening 

levels for freshwater sediments were used for comparisons: 

• Threshold Effects Level (TEL) represents a conservative screening value at which the 

sediments are not expected to pose a threat; and 

• Probable Effects Level (PEL) represents a concentration screening value above which 

adverse biological effects are frequently expected. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-23 

TABLE 4.2.2-1 

Comparison of Average Metal Concentrations in the Sediment Samples and NOAA Sediment Screening Values

 Dredged Sediment Samples 

NOAA Sediment Screening 

Values 

Surface (18 

inches) Middle (12 feet) Deep (30 feet) TEL a/ PEL b/ 

Metals (concentrations in mg/kg) 

Arsenic 11.4 5.3 6.4 5.9 17.0 

Cadmium 1.1 c/ ND d/ ND 0.596 3.53 

Chromium 35.1 31.6 35.7 37.3 90.0 

Copper 18.1 8.7 8.7 35.7 197.0 

Lead 33.1 10.9 9.5 35.0 91.3 

Mercury 0.17 e/ ND ND 0.174 0.486 

Nickel 16.3 17.8 20.3 18.0 35.9 

Zinc 116.6 53.2 54.6 123.1 315.0 

Semi-Volatile Organic 

Compounds (concentrations in 

μg/kg) 

Phenanthrene 610 ND ND 41.9 515 

Fluoranthene 575 ND f/ ND 111 2355 

Pyrene 793 ND f/ ND 53 875 

Benzo(a)anthracene 610 ND f/ ND 31.7 385 

Benzo(b)fluoranthene 655 ND f/ ND NA g/ NA 

Chrysene 630 ND f/ ND 57.1 862 

Benzo(a)pyrene 570 ND f/ ND 31.9 782 

___________________________

a/ TEL = Threshold Effects Level 

b/ PEL = Probable Effects Level 

c/ Value represents a single analytical result from Core 104; the remaining surface samples contained non-detectable 

 levels of cadmium. 

d/ ND – not detected. 

e/ Value represents the mean of two analyses from Cores 104 and 105; the remaining surface samples contained non-

 detectable levels of mercury. 

f/ Includes two qualified estimated concentrations measured below method detection limits. 

g/ NA – not available. 

The concentrations of most metals in all samples were below the TEL values, indicating that the 

sediments would not be expected to pose a threat to the aquatic environment. Only the concentrations of 

arsenic, cadmium, and nickel exceeded the TEL screening criteria. The average concentration of arsenic 

in the surface and bottom core increments varied from 1.1 to 1.9 times the TEL value but was still below 

the PEL criterion. Similar concentrations of arsenic were reported from vibracore samples collected in 

the Marcus Hook reach of the Delaware River by the COE (Black and Veatch Waste Science, 1996). 

Arsenic is widespread in the geologic formations and soils of the Delaware River basin and the 

concentrations in the sediment cores are similar to those reported as background for soils in urban areas of 

the Atlantic Coastal Plain Province (Sanders, 2003). Cadmium was only detected in a single sample from 

the surface of Core 104. The concentration of cadmium in the sample from Core 104 was about twice the 

TEL but well below the PEL value. Similar cadmium concentrations were reported for other parts of the 

Marcus Hook reach (Black and Veatch Waste Science, 1996). Elevated nickel concentrations were 

limited to the bottom segment of the core samples. The average nickel concentration of 20.3 mg/kg is 

only slightly higher than the TEL value of 18 mg/kg, but well below the PEL criterion. Similar nickel 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-24 

concentrations were reported in other parts of the Marcus Hook segment of the Delaware River (Black 

and Veatch Waste Science, 1996). 

The average concentrations of all detected SVOCs within the surface samples exceeded the TEL 

screening values, but were generally below the PEL screening values. The average concentrations of two 

compounds, phenanthrene and benzo(a)anthracene, exceeded the PEL values by 1.2 and 1.6 times, 

respectively. SVOC concentrations in the proposed dredged sediments were generally higher than the 

compliance averaged concentrations in bulk sediments reported by the COE for the Delaware Deepening 

Project, but were within the range of concentrations reported by the COE (Black and Veatch Waste 

Science, 1996). SVOC concentrations decreased rapidly with depth to undetectable levels in the middle 

and lower portions of the cores. SVOC concentrations greater than or equal to the PEL screening values 

indicate a potential for adverse biological effects from dredging; however, elutriate testing conducted for 

the Delaware Deepening Project indicated that no organic compounds exceeded initial screening levels 

(Black and Veatch Waste Science, 1996). This finding suggests that SVOC compounds are likely to be 

adsorbed to the sediments and are unlikely to be released to the water column in concentrations that 

would result in adverse biological effects. In addition, Crown Landing would conduct project-specific 

elutriate testing as outlined in the SAP for the project. 

We received several comments on the draft EIS regarding the potential for PCB contamination of 

near-surface sediments. A study by the Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC) indicated that total 

PCB concentrations in 90 percent of sediment samples analyzed in river zones 2, 3, 4, and 5 of the 

Delaware River were less than or equal to 200 micrograms per kilogram (μg/kg) (parts per billion (ppb)) 

in the upper 5 centimeters (cm) (Yagecic, 2002). The proposed LNG terminal site is located in zone 5 

and zones 2, 3, and 4 are located further upstream of the site. The average total PCB concentration in 

sediments from river zone 5 was 59 ppb based on studies conducted by the DRBC, COE, and NOAA 

(Yagecic, 2002). This average concentration is only slightly above the level that would require 

specialized disposal techniques. Total PCB concentrations in the upper 5 cm of sediment near RM 78 

(the proposed terminal site location) ranged from near zero to about 60 ppb (Yagecic, 2002). In a more 

recent study, PCB concentrations in the upper 5 cm of sediments from river zone 5 averaged between 

1.75 to 2.67 ppb (wet weight). Samples collected from near the mouth of Oldmans Creek averaged 1.75 

ppb (Ashley et al., 2004). Based on these studies, the potential for significant PCB contamination in the 

sediment proposed to be dredged for the proposed LNG ship berth appears to be low. In addition, the act 

of hydraulic dredging will substantially mix any PCB-containing sediment with uncontaminated materials 

and result in a dredged slurry with greatly reduced PCB concentrations. The hydraulic cutterhead dredges 

proposed for use on the Crown Landing LNG Project would likely have pump diameters that range from 

28 to 30 inches, and would create a dredge cut of about 3 to 4 feet in depth (Steady, 2005). This depth of 

dredge cut would effectively mix the contents of the upper 3 to 4 feet of sediment, and yield a slurry that 

would have a lower PCB concentration than the uppermost layers of sediment discussed in the studies 

described above. 

We received additional PCB-related comments regarding the potential need to dispose of PCBcontaminated sediments at a facility approved to handle these materials. The Weeks Marine facility 

currently proposed for disposal of the dredged materials is approved by the NJDEP to accept PCBcontaminated sediments below the Toxic Substance Control Act threshold of 50 ppm (mg/kg). As 

discussed above, PCB concentrations in sediments near the proposed berth area ranged from 0 to 60 ppb 

(μg/kg), or about 1,000 times lower than the regulatory threshold concentration. Given the low potential 

for significant PCB contamination in the area proposed for dredging, and the regulatory threshold 

concentrations approved at the proposed disposal facility, special disposal procedures for PCB 

contaminated sediment are not likely to be required. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-25 

We also received comments from NOAA and DNREC regarding the potential for additional 

sediment contamination resulting from oil spilled by the tanker Athos in November 2004. Procedures 

that would be used in the sampling and analysis of the proposed dredged materials would allow detection 

of oil-related contamination. Crown Landing has indicated that the oil spill and its potential impact on the 

proposed dredged sediments were discussed with NJDEP staff during its review of the SAP for the 

project. Because the procedures included in the SAP already included methods that would identify 

contamination specific to the Athos spill, the NJDEP did not request any additional sampling or analytical 

procedures. 

Crown Landing has indicated that it will conduct additional sampling and analysis of sediment 

from the proposed ship berth area when it receives permission to collect the required sediment cores from 

the applicable regulatory agencies. A copy of the SAP approved by the NJDEP is provided in Appendix 

I. Crown Landing indicated that the SAP was prepared to satisfy NJDEP requirements (NJDEP, 1997) 

because the dredged material would be disposed of in New Jersey at the Weeks Marine facility. The SAP 

was also prepared to satisfy DNREC requirements because the dredging would take place in Delaware 

waters. Modifications to the NJDEP dredging methodology were proposed due to the large volume of 

sediment to be characterized. It is our understanding that although proposed guidance for dredged 

material characterization exists for Delaware, current DNREC guidance does not specify sampling 

parameters or sample frequency for dredged material characterization. A draft version of the SAP was 

provided to NJDEP in December 2004 for review and comment. The draft SAP was revised based on the 

NJDEP’s comments, and in late December 2004, the NJDEP indicated that the revised SAP addressed the 

agency’s concerns regarding the adequacy of sampling to characterize the materials. Crown Landing’s 

SAP was subsequently approved by the NJDEP on October 19, 2005.

The SAP specifies that 12 cores would be collected from the proposed dredging footprint (see 

figure 4.2.2-1). The majority of these cores would be collected using vibracore equipment, but two cores 

(cores 1 and 2 in figure 4.2.2-1) in the shallowest water portions of the dredging footprint would be 

collected using split-spoon samplers to ensure adequate retrieval of sediment material. Crown Landing 

would subsample the cores by splitting each core into four depth increments: 0 to 10 feet; 10 to 20 feet; 

20 to 30 feet; and 30 to 41 feet ,or maximum core depth if less than 41 feet). 

If any cores exhibit internal stratification greater than 2-feet in thickness, the individual strata 

would be analyzed independently. Crown Landing would notify the NJDEP and DNREC of any 

sampling plan modifications made as a result of observed sediment stratification. In addition, if visually 

observable differences are detected among the cores during sampling, additional core samples may be 

collected between some or all of the original core sample locations, at the discretion of the project 

scientist directing the sample collection event. Crown Landing would notify the NJDEP and DNREC 

regarding the number and approximate location of any additional cores collected. Some or all of these 

additional cores may also be submitted for chemical analysis based on the best professional judgment of 

the project scientist conducting the sampling. Additional quality control samples would also be collected. 

The sediment samples would be characterized for both physical and chemical properties. These 

analyses would be conducted by a laboratory certified to meet both New Jersey and Delaware quality 

control guidelines. The following general analyses would be conducted: 

• Bulk sediment Analyses (physical and chemical); 

• Modified Elutriate testing (total concentrations); and 

• Modified Elutriate Testing (dissolved concentrations). 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-26 

Bulk sediment material would be analyzed for ten parameters: grain size, total organic carbon, 

percent moisture, SVOCs, PCBs (Aroclors), PCB cogeners, total PCBs, pesticides, metals, and cyanide. 

Specific information about the analytical methods and constituents that would be analyzed are described 

in Appendix I. Elutriate test samples would be prepared according to COE guidelines for all samples 

containing less than 90 percent sand. Extremely sandy samples would not be analyzed because these 

materials would have limited potential to resuspend in the water column and generally contain limited 

quantities of adsorbed contaminants. Samples containing more than 90 percent sand would not pose a 

significant risk to the aquatic environment. Chemical analyses of the elutriate samples would follow COE 

testing procedures (COE 1985). 

We have reviewed Crown Landing’s SAP and believe it will adequately characterize the 

proposed dredged materials. Because the results of the sediment characterization are necessary to fully 

evaluate potential impacts of the proposed dredging operations on surrounding water quality and aquatic 

organisms, and because Crown Landing has not yet been able to collect and analyze the additional 

sediment cores from the proposed dredging footprint, we recommend that:

• Crown Landing file the results of all additional sediment characterization analyses 

with the Secretary for review and comment by the Director of OEP prior to 

construction. The complete results, including supporting quality assurance/quality 

control data, should be filed with the Commission as non-confidential, nonprivileged information so that the Commission may provide access to the data to all 

agencies with jurisdiction over the project. 

To minimize the resuspension of sediment during dredging, Crown Landing would primarily use 

hydraulic cutterhead dredging to excavate the berth area. Studies by the COE indicate that cutterhead 

dredging generally results in lower sediment resuspension than other forms of dredging (e.g., clamshell or 

hopper barge) (COE, 1986; COE, 1988a). If resuspension of sediments during dredging resulted in 

unacceptable water quality impacts, Crown Landing’s dredging contractor could adjust the operational 

parameters of the dredge to further reduce sediment resuspension. Additional mitigation measures to 

minimize sediment-related water quality impacts (e.g., the use of silt curtains) may be implemented 

through the other federal and state permit processes. 

It is anticipated that most of the dredged material would be transported by pipeline directly to an 

existing, permitted upland confined disposal facility. The disposal facility is located about 4 miles from 

the berth area (see section 2.4.1.3 for further discussion of dredging and dredge disposal activities). The 

pipeline for the dredged material placement activities would be operated in accordance with New Jersey 

state dredging regulations and the 401 Water Quality Certification for the project. In addition, operation 

of this underwater pipeline would comply with the Coast Guard navigational safety requirements and any 

necessary permits or approvals from the COE. 

As described in Crown Landing’s SAP, beneficial reuse of some portion of the proposed dredged 

sediments would be undertaken if the physical and chemical properties of the materials are appropriate. 

Based on data from adjacent portions of the Delaware River, Crown Landing anticipates that surface 

sediments from the proposed berthing area are likely to be dominated by silt and clay (poor material for 

beneficial uses); however, sediments from the deeper portions of the dredging footprint are anticipated to 

contain higher concentrations of sand. The deeper, sandier sediments may be appropriate for re-use 

onsite at the LNG facility as part of construction fill, or they could be used offsite for various beneficial 

use projects (e.g., road fill). If sandy sediments are encountered and characterization analyses indicate 

they may be beneficially reused, these sandy sediments would be dredged using a clamshell bucket. 

Crown Landing has indicated that additional permits from the state of New Jersey would be required to 

both store and beneficially use dredged sediments. If the results of the sediment characterization analyses 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-27 

indicate that the beneficial use of some portion of the proposed dredged materials is possible, Crown 

Landing would submit the necessary permit applications. 

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 (see section 4.3.2 for further discussion of water quality impacts). 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-28 

4.3 WATER RESOURCES 

4.3.1 Groundwater 

Regional Groundwater Quality and Quantity 

The proposed LNG terminal site and pipeline route in New Jersey are located within the Northern 

Atlantic Coastal Plain aquifer system, which underlies an area of approximately 50,000 square miles and 

extends from North Carolina north to Raritan Bay, New Jersey (USGS, 1997). The western limit of the 

aquifer system is the Fall Line between the Atlantic Coastal Plain and Peidmont Physiographic Provinces; 

the eastern limit is effectively the Atlantic Ocean. 

The Northern Atlantic Coastal Plain aquifer system consists of six regional aquifers. The 

boundaries of these aquifers are irregular and none extend over the entire area. The majority of 

groundwater withdrawn in the project area is from the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer, which is part of 

the Northern Atlantic Coastal Plain aquifer system. The Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer is composed 

of alternating layers of clay, silt, sand, and gravel of Cretaceous age. Regionally, this aquifer extends to a 

depth of between 50 and 1,800 feet, and typically yields 500 to 1,000 gallons per minute (gpm) but can 

exceed 2,000 gpm (USGS, 2003). Most of the wells completed in this aquifer are 90 to 105 feet deep. 

Water from the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer is generally low in dissolved solids, although iron and 

manganese present localized problems due to the low pH of the groundwater. In southern New Jersey, 

the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer contains salty groundwater with chloride concentrations ranging 

from less than 250 milligrams per liter (mg/L) to as high as 27,000 mg/L. Chloride concentrations in the 

groundwater increase with depth as well as toward the ocean. 

In Pennsylvania, the pipeline route crosses crystalline rock and sand and gravel aquifers. 

Crystalline rock aquifers have very small fractures so storage capacity and yield are relatively low. The 

water is generally soft and yields are commonly 5 to 25 gpm (Water Resources Education Network 

(WREN), 2003). The sand and gravel aquifers contain large quantities of water, which can be easily 

withdrawn and commonly yield 1,000 gpm. The natural quality of this groundwater is good to excellent 

(WREN, 2003). 

Sole Source Aquifers 

The proposed LNG terminal site and the pipeline route in New Jersey are located within the New 

Jersey Coastal Plain Sole Source Aquifer and the proposed pipeline route in Pennsylvania is located 

within the stream flow source zone for the New Jersey Coastal Plain Sole Source Aquifer (EPA, 2003). 

EPA-designated sole source aquifers are those that contribute more than 50 percent of the drinking water 

to a specific area and for which there are no reasonably available alternative sources of water should the 

aquifer become contaminated. The proposed projects are not on or do not cross any state-designated solesource aquifers. 

Public and Private Water Supply Wells 

Crown Landing consulted with the Gloucester County Department of Health to identify the 

locations of water wells proximate to the LNG terminal site. Based on this consultation, the nearest water 

supply well is located approximately 1,600 feet to the northeast at the Logan Generating Station. The 

LNG terminal site is not located within any designated wellhead protection zones (New Jersey 

Geographic Information Network, 2004). 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-29 

Well location information from Environmental Data Resources, the DRBC, and Gloucester 

County identified eight water supply wells within 150 feet of the proposed construction right-of-way for 

the Logan Lateral (see table 4.3.1-1). Civil surveys of the proposed right-of-way indicate that the two 

wells identified at MP 9.3 in table 4.3.1-1 likely represent the same well, which is owned by Solutia Inc. 

and Ferro Corp. No public water supply wells were identified within 0.25 mile of the proposed pipeline 

route in New Jersey or within 3 miles of the pipeline route in Pennsylvania. 

TABLE 4.3.1-1 

Water Supply Wells Located Within 150 Feet of the Logan Lateral Route

Milepost Location Supply Type Approximate Distance From 

Construction Right-of-Way (feet) 

3.2 Delaware, PA Domestic Use 150 

3.8 Delaware, PA Groundwater Well 150 

3.9 Delaware, PA Groundwater Well 150 

9.3 Gloucester, NJ Unknown Located within the construction rightof-way 

9.3 Gloucester, NJ Industrial Located within the construction rightof-way 

9.9 Gloucester, NJ Industrial 150 

10.3 Gloucester, NJ Industrial 150 

10.3 Gloucester, NJ Industrial 150 

The proposed Logan Lateral would cross one designated wellhead protection zone in Gloucester 

County, from approximate MP 6.0 to MP 7.3. 

Groundwater Conditions at the LNG Terminal Site 

A detailed description of the geologic units present at the LNG terminal site is provided in section 

4.1.1. In general, the water table occurs at a depth of 2 to 6 feet below the surface of the site within the 

unconsolidated Pleistocene sand and silt deposits of the Cape May Formation. This formation is 

underlain by an approximately 85- to 95-foot-thick clayey silt confining unit that limits groundwater 

movement from the Cape May Formation to the underlying Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer. 

Crown Landing installed eight monitoring wells to obtain site-specific groundwater data at the 

LNG terminal site. The monitoring wells were installed in the surficial aquifer of the Cape May 

Formation to a depth of approximately 20 feet below ground surface. Based on the results of groundwater 

elevation monitoring in these wells, the surficial aquifer flows towards the Delaware River in the northern 

and western portions of the site and towards Oldmans Creek in the eastern and southern portions of the 

site. 

The monitoring wells on the site were sampled in accordance with NJDEP requirements. 

Groundwater samples from the wells were analyzed for petroleum products, VOCs, SVOCS, priority 

pollutant metals, priority pollutant pesticides, PCBs, cyanide, and phenols. All of these compounds 

except arsenic were either not detected in the groundwater samples or detected at concentrations below 

groundwater quality standards. Arsenic was detected at concentrations ranging from 13.9 to 114 

micrograms per liter in five of the eight wells, exceeding the New Jersey Class IIA Groundwater Quality 

Standard of 8 micrograms per liter. 

As discussed in section 4.2.1, the cause of the elevated arsenic level at the site is unknown but 

could be the result of a spill from an abandoned onsite storage vessel, historic use of arsenic-containing 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-30 

pesticides in the project area, or high native arsenic levels associated with the dredged materials that were 

historically removed from the Delaware River. Crown Landing will enter into a Memorandum of 

Agreement (MOA) with NJDEP to perform further site investigations and remediation, if needed. The 

MOA will allow NJDEP to review, comment, and approve of all documentation submitted in support of 

site investigation, remediation, and contaminated media management. The MOA process should result in 

NJDEP issuance of a No Further Action letter, possible establishment of a classification exemption area 

for impacted groundwater, and possible issuance of a deed restriction for impacted soils. The MOA 

process would benefit the environment by ensuring that any remediation is conducted according to 

NJDEP regulations and by reducing the potential for human exposure to existing contamination at the 

site. 

LNG Terminal Groundwater Requirements 

Because the LNG terminal site is not located near an existing municipal water supply system, at 

least one water supply well would be installed at the site to provide freshwater for short-duration 

construction-related uses and long-term facility operations. The number of wells to be installed would 

depend on the well yield. Preliminary information indicates that more than one well, but probably not 

more than two wells, would be needed to meet the construction and operation needs of the facility. The 

well or wells would likely be completed in the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer in accordance with a 

NJDEP Bureau of Safe Drinking water well construction permit. The well or wells would provide a onetime demand of 250,000 gallons of freshwater to rinse each LNG tank after completion of hydrostatic 

testing and an estimated 500 to 1,500 gallons per day for normal facility operations such as firewater 

makeup, lawn sprinkling, and sanitary purposes. Potable water would be delivered to the LNG facility. 

Groundwater Resources Impacts and Mitigation 

LNG Terminal

Construction and operation of the proposed LNG terminal and pipeline facilities would not 

significantly affect groundwater quality or quantity in the project area. Most groundwater impacts would 

be avoided or minimized by use of standard construction techniques as set forth in our Plan and 

Procedures, and by implementing project-specific SESC and SPCC Plans. 

Dredging of the berth area for the ship unloading facility could affect groundwater recharge 

through introduction of salt- or brackish water into the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer. The COE 

evaluated the effects of dredging on saltwater intrusion into the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer as part 

of the Delaware River Main Channel Deepening Project Final Supplemental Environmental Impact 

Statement (COE, 1997). The COE concluded that dredging the Delaware River navigation channel to 45 

feet deep would have a negligible effect on the recharge characteristics of the aquifer, and not pose undue 

risk to water quality of the aquifer. Because the Crown Landing LNG Project would require significantly 

less dredging (0.8 million cubic yards) than the Delaware River Main Channel Deepening Project (33 

million cubic yards), dredging associated with construction of the LNG terminal is also anticipated to 

have negligible effects on the recharge characteristics and groundwater quality of the Potomac-RaritanMagothy aquifer. 

Other construction activities at the LNG terminal, including grading, excavation, and construction 

of footings and foundations could potentially cause minor fluctuations in the Cape May Formation 

surficial aquifer and/or increase turbidity within this aquifer. These impacts would be temporary and 

localized and would not extend off of the LNG terminal site. Due to the presence of the thick confining 

unit below the Cape May Formation, these relatively shallow impacts would not be expected to affect the 

underlying Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer. Deep pile foundations would be used to support the 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-31 

proposed LNG tanks, pier, and possibly some process equipment. These piles would extend from the 

ground surface, through the 85- to 95-foot-thick clayey silt confining unit, and into the underlying 

Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer. These piles would be driven, thus forming a tight seal between the 

piles and surrounding soil, and likely decreasing the vertical permeability of soils adjacent to the piles. 

Therefore, the use of deep driven piles should not increase the potential for shallow, arsenic-impacted 

groundwater in the Cape May Formation to migrate vertically down to the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy 

aquifer. 

Potential impacts on groundwater associated with the use of oils, lubricants, and other hazardous 

substances during construction and operation of the LNG terminal would be minimized by Crown 

Landing’s compliance with federal regulations related to fuel transport, handling, and spill response 

procedures and its implementation of a project-specific SPCC Plan. 

Pipeline Facilities

As shown in table 4.8.4-1, Texas Eastern reviewed state and federal environmental regulatory 

databases and identified several known and potential sources of contamination within approximately 0.25 

mile of the proposed pipeline route. The pipeline route crosses two of these sites and is adjacent to three 

other sites. The pipeline route also crosses property associated with the PECO Chester Generating Station 

located in Chester, Pennsylvania adjacent to the Delaware River. This site is not included in table 4.8.4-

1; however, according to the PADEP, this site was contaminated as a result of its historical use as a coalfired power plant and has undergone remediation. Based on the presence of these known contaminated 

sites in the vicinity of the proposed pipeline route, contaminated soils and groundwater could be 

encountered during construction of the pipeline. As discussed in section 4.2.1, Texas Eastern has 

indicated that it would develop a site-specific Plan for the 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 construction is properly managed in accordance with 

applicable regulations. 

Limited blasting may be necessary for construction of the Logan Lateral (see section 4.1.2). 

However, blasting is not anticipated within 1 mile of any of the wells listed on table 4.3.1-1. If blasting is 

required within 150 feet of any wells, pre- and post-construction monitoring of well yield and water 

quality would be conducted with the well owner’s permission. If it is determined that any private water 

supply is damaged as a result of the project, Texas Eastern would provide a temporary source of water 

until the damaged well is restored to its former capacity. Similarly, for wells located within 150 feet of 

the construction right-of-way but not within any blasting areas, Texas Eastern would also provide preand post-construction monitoring of well yield and water quality at the landowner’s request. 

Other pipeline construction activities could result in minor, temporary impacts to shallow 

groundwater resources in proximity to the proposed pipelines. These impacts could include increased 

turbidity, groundwater level fluctuations, short-term disruption of recharge, localized flow along the 

pipeline trench, contamination from a spill or leak of hazardous substances, and decreased water yield. 

Most potential impacts would be avoided or minimized by the use of standard construction methods and 

measures set forth in our Plan and Procedures, and appropriate hazardous materials management and spill 

response procedures contained in Texas Eastern’s SPCC Plan. Therefore, construction and operation of 

the proposed pipeline would not have a significant impact on overall groundwater quality in the area. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-32 

4.3.2 Surface Water 

Watershed Descriptions 

The Crown Landing LNG and Logan Lateral Projects would be located within the Delaware 

River Basin. The mainstem of the Delaware River extends approximately 330 miles from the confluence 

of its east and west branches near Hancock, New York to the Atlantic Ocean near Cape May, New Jersey. 

The Delaware River Basin is 13,539 square miles in size and drains portions of Delaware, New Jersey, 

New York, and Pennsylvania (DRBC, 2004). The tidal influence along the Delaware River extends to 

Trenton, New Jersey at approximate RM 133 (USGS, 2002c). The tidal range within the project area is 

between 5.53 and 5.86 feet, with salinity levels ranging between 0.0 and 0.5 parts per thousand (ppt), 

which indicates a predominantly freshwater system. The average annual flow of the river upstream of 

Trenton is about 11,700 cubic feet per second (USGS, 1999b). 

Based on information provided by the PADEP and the NJDEP, the LNG terminal and pipeline 

facilities would not be located within a surface water protection area (Newbold, 2003; NJDEP, 2003a). In 

addition, no surface water intakes are currently located along the Delaware River in the vicinity of the 

LNG terminal site or the proposed pipeline crossing. 

Waterbody Classifications 

LNG Terminal

The proposed LNG terminal would be constructed adjacent to and within the Delaware River and 

near Oldmans Creek. The DRBC classifies and regulates uses of water within the Delaware River. The 

DRBC establishes the water quality standards for the Delaware River in cooperation with the States of 

Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York. The LNG terminal site is located in Zone 5 at 

approximate RM 78.4. The designated uses in Zone 5 include: 

• industrial water supplies after reasonable treatment; 

• maintenance of resident fish and other aquatic life; 

• propagation of resident fish from RM 48.2 to 70.0; 

• passage of anadromous fish; 

• wildlife; 

• recreation; and 

• navigation. 

The State of Delaware also regulates water use for the portion of the Delaware River that lies 

within the Delaware state boundaries. The DNREC designates the following uses between RMs 48.2 and 

78.8: 

• industrial water supply; 

• primary contact recreation; 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-33 

• secondary contact recreation; and 

• fish, aquatic life, and wildlife. 

The water quality classification for Oldmans Creek is FW2-NT/SE1. The designated uses in 

FW2 waters include: 

• maintenance, migration, and propagation of the natural and established biota; 

• industrial and agricultural water supply; 

• public potable water supply after conventional filtration treatment (a series of processes 

including filtration, flocculation, coagulation, and sedimentation, resulting in substantial 

particulate removal but no consistent removal of chemical constituents) and disinfection; 

and 

• any other reasonable use. 

The NT designation for Oldmans Creek indicates non-trout waters. These waters are generally 

not suitable for trout because of their physical, chemical, or biological characteristics, but are suitable for 

a variety of other fish species. 

The designated uses in SE1 waters include: 

• shellfish harvesting in accordance with NJAC 7:12; 

• maintenance, migration, and propagation of the natural and established biota; 

• primary and secondary contact recreation; and 

• any other reasonable uses. 

Pipeline Facilities

Construction of the Logan Lateral Project would require crossing seven perennial waterbodies, 

including the Delaware River, and five intermittent streams. Waterbodies crossed by the proposed 

pipeline are listed in table 4.3.2-1. Descriptions of the fishery resources in these waterbodies are provided 

in section 4.6.2. 

Sensitive Waterbodies 

None of the waterbodies identified in table 4.3.2-1 are designated as a National Wild and Scenic 

River in the vicinity of the LNG terminal site or pipeline facilities (National Park Service, 2004). The 

Delaware River is listed on the EPA’s National Estuary Program. The National Estuary Program was 

established in 1987 to improve the quality of estuaries of national importance. Section 320 of the Clean 

Water Act directs the EPA to develop plans for attaining or maintaining water quality in these estuaries. 

None of the other waterbodies crossed by the Logan Lateral Project are characterized as sensitive by any 

state or federal agency (Newbold, 2003; Springer, 2003). 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-34 

TABLE 4.3.2-1 

Waterbodies Crossed by the Logan Lateral Project

State/ 

Milepost 

Waterbody Name Flow Regime 

a/ 

Crossing 

Width 

(feet) 

State Water Quality 

Classification b/ 

Fishery 

Classification 

Proposed 

Crossing Method 

c/ 

Pennsylvania 

1.5 Chester Creek P 104 TSF Warmwater HDD 

1.7 Baldwin Run P 20 WWF Warmwater HDD 

1.8 Unnamed Tributary 

of Chester Creek 

I 2 TSF, MF Warmwater Open-cut 

3.2 Unnamed Ditch d/ I 10 Not Classified Warmwater Open-cut 

Pennsylvania and New Jersey 

4.9 Delaware River P 4,576 WWF, MF (PA) 

Zone 4 (DRBC) 

FW2-NT/SE2 (NJ) 

Warmwater HDD 

New Jersey 

7.3 Raccoon Creek P 606 FW2-NT/SE2 Warmwater HDD 

7.4 Unnamed Ditch I 20 Not Classified Warmwater Open Cut 

8.0 Unnamed Ditch I 15 Not Classified Warmwater Open-cut 

8.3 Unnamed Ditch I 10 Not Classified Warmwater Open-cut 

9.2 Birch Creek P 50 FW2-NT/SE2 Warmwater HDD 

10.3 Tributary of Oldmans 

Creek 

P 30 FW2-NT/SE2 Warmwater Open-cut 

10.9 Tributary of Oldmans 

Creek 

P 40 FW2-NT/SE2 Warmwater Open-cut 

_______________________

a/ P =Perennial, I=Intermittent 

b/ Pennsylvania 

 TSF – Trout Stocking Fishery 

 WWF – Warmwater Fishery 

 MF – Marine Fishery 

 Delaware River Basin Commission

 Zone 4– Designated uses include: 

• industrial water supplies after reasonable treatment; 

• maintenance of resident fish and other aquatic life; 

• passage of anadromous fish; 

• wildlife; 

• recreation below RM 81.8; and 

• navigation. 

 New Jersey

 FW2 – General surface water classification applied to freshwaters that are not designated as FW1 or Pineland Waters. 

 NT – Non-trout waters 

 SE – Saline Estuaries 

c/ HDD – horizontal directional drill 

d/ In section 3.5.3, we recommend that Texas Eastern adopt the Palmer Street Variation, which would avoid crossing 

 the unnamed ditch at MP 7.4. 

Contaminated Sediments 

Based on review of Integrated Monitoring and Assessment Reports prepared by the PADEP and 

NJDEP, none of the waterbodies in the project area, except the Delaware River, are suspected of 

containing contaminated sediments (PADEP, 2004; NJDEP, 2004a). Crown Landing collected and 

analyzed sediment samples from the proposed dredge area within the Delaware River. The sediments 

were found to have detectable levels of eight metals (arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-35 

nickel, and zinc) and seven SVOC compounds. A detailed discussion of the sediment sampling and 

analysis program is provided in section 4.2.2. 

Surface Water Resources Impacts and Mitigation 

LNG Terminal Construction Impacts

Construction of the Crown Landing LNG Project could adversely affect surface water quality in 

the Delaware River during dredging operations, construction of the ship unloading facility and stormwater 

outfall, and the appropriation and discharge of hydrostatic test water. In addition, surface water runoff 

during clearing, grading, and the placement of fill material at the LNG terminal site could impact water 

quality in the Delaware River and the wetlands located adjacent to the LNG terminal site. Because 

Crown Landing would maintain a buffer zone of wetlands between Oldmans Creek and the LNG storage 

and process facilities, construction and operation of the LNG terminal is not anticipated to have any 

effects on the creek. 

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 penetration and lower the 

rate of photosynthesis and aquatic productivity in the area; introduce organic material and/or nutrients 

which could lead to an increase in biological oxygen demand and reduce dissolved oxygen; and release 

chemical 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 is proposing to primarily use hydraulic dredging to remove approximately 1.24 

million cubic yards of sediment from the Delaware River. The hydraulic dredge operates by displacing 

bottom sediments with a cutterhead and then capturing the sediment slurry using pumps that transport the 

slurry via a pipe to an existing confined disposal facility. In addition to the hydraulic dredge, Crown 

Landing indicated that it may be necessary to mechanically dredge in select areas if boulders or other 

obstructions are encountered during dredging operations that would preclude the use of the hydraulic 

dredge. The mechanical dredge would differ from the hydraulic dredge in the method of sediment 

removal and transportation to the disposal site. The mechanical dredge would operate using a crane to 

lower a clamshell bucket to the river bottom to excavate a load of sediment. After picking up a load of 

sediment, the clamshell bucket would be raised through the water column and emptied into a scow for 

transportation to the disposal site. 

As part of the environmental analysis for the Delaware River Main Channel Deepening Project, 

the COE conducted computer modeling of dredging-induced sediment impacts on water quality in the 

Marcus Hook segment of the river, which is located adjacent to the LNG terminal. The purpose of this 

modeling was to determine whether potential sediment contaminants that may be released during 

dredging operations could exceed Delaware River water quality criteria. The DREDGE model (Hayes 

and Je, 2000) was used to estimate the suspended sediment concentrations, the size and extent of the 

suspended sediment plume, and the particulate and dissolved contaminant concentrations in the water 

column from hydraulic and mechanical dredging operations within a 200-foot mixing zone (Versar, 

2001). 

Bulk sediment data collected from the Marcus Hook channel and Marcus Hook ship berths were 

used by the COE to model impacts from hydraulic dredging and mechanical dredging, respectively. 

Table 4.3.2-2 provides a comparison of the metal concentrations in the sediments located at the proposed 

LNG terminal site, Marcus Hook channel, and Sun Marcus Hook berth. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-36 

TABLE 4.3.2-2 

A Summary of Metal Concentrations in Sediments from the Proposed LNG Terminal Site and the 

Marcus Hook Channel and Berth

 Proposed LNG Terminal Site Marcus Hook Channel a/ Sun Marcus Hook Berth a/ 

Metal (mg/kg) Mean b/ Maximum Mean c/ Maximum Mean d/ Maximum 

Arsenic 7.84 31.0 7.25 18.4 3.78 6.4 

Cadmium 0.06 e/ 1.1 1.15 4.0 0.17 0.39 

Chromium 34.12 46.5 28.54 63.7 22.25 37.8 

Copper 11.81 36.2 13.54 38.4 15.73 24.70 

Lead 17.87 78.2 22.41 78.9 10.2 22.8 

Mercury 0.019 f/ 0.183 0.180 0.484 0.13 0.16 

Nickel 18.13 26.9 19.27 31.6 14.43 21.8 

Zinc 74.78 279 74.84 240 46.68 98.6 

___________________________

a/ Data obtained from a report titled Near-Field Water Quality Modeling of Dredging Operations in the Delaware River

(Versar, 2001) 

b/ Number of samples = 18 

c/ Number of samples = 23 

d/ Number of samples = 4 

e/ Mean is based on only a single detectable concentration 

f/ Mean is based on only two detectable concentrations 

Hydraulic Dredging

The model results indicated that the concentration of suspended sediments resulting from 

hydraulic dredging (based on total suspended solids (TSS)) would be highest close to the channel bottom 

and would decrease rapidly downstream and higher in the water column (i.e., further from the channel 

bottom). Modeled total suspended sediment levels more than 0.5 meter (1.6 feet) above the river bottom 

were predicted to be no higher than background levels. Actual field results from a monitored dredging 

project in the same area were consistent with the total suspended sediments predicted by the DREDGE 

model, although measured and predicted sediment concentrations varied (Farrar et al., 2001 as cited in 

Versar, 2001). Elevated total suspended sediment levels measured near the river bottom extended 

downstream from the dredge site for a distance of up to 300 feet. Field measurements of suspended solids 

at the water surface and middle of the water column downstream of the dredging operation were not 

measurably different than background levels (Farrar et al., 2001, as cited in Versar, 2001). 

Crown Landing used the DREDGE model to predict total suspended sediment concentrations that 

could be expected from dredging the ship berth. Based on a conservative TSS background concentration 

of 5 mg/L,2

 the modeling results indicate that TSS concentrations would be less than background 

concentrations at points within the water column located 2 meters or more above the river bottom. The 

model predicted that background TSS concentrations would be exceeded at a point 1 meter above the 

river bottom beginning approximately 820 feet downstream of the dredge for a distance of approximately 

1,150 feet. 

As described previously and shown in table 4.3.2-2, the concentrations of metals in the proposed 

dredged sediments at the LNG terminal site are similar to those in the sediments modeled by the COE in 

the Marcus Hook Range of the river. Based on these similarities, it is possible to estimate the potential 

 

2

 Based on TSS monitoring completed by Crown Landing between March and June 2003, TSS concentrations ranged from 13.9 to 24.9 mg/L. 

Other TSS data obtained from the Delaware River Basin Commission indicates that, for this reach of the Delaware River, TSS concentrations 

may range from 3 to 60 mg/L. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-37 

for water quality impacts associated with alterations of water chemistry due to the release of various 

chemical constituents from the sediments at the LNG terminal site. 

The COE estimated dissolved concentrations of various metal constituents in the water column 

near the cutterhead of the hydraulic dredge using the equilibrium partitioning method in the DREDGE 

model. Based on the maximum metal concentrations for the Marcus Hook segment listed in table 4.3.2-2, 

only mercury and chromium concentrations were predicted to exceed the water quality criteria. Predicted 

mercury concentrations exceeded the chronic exposure water quality standard near the river bottom and 

up to 0.5 meter (1.6 feet) above the bottom. River bottom mercury concentrations exceeded chronic 

exposure levels for a distance of as much as 350 meters (1,148 feet) downstream of the point of dredging. 

At 0.5 meter above the bottom, mercury concentrations exceeding chronic exposure levels extended about 

180 meters (590 feet) downstream. Generally, chronic exposure criteria apply to continuous releases of 

contaminants, rather than short duration releases from activities such as dredging. Predicted mercury 

concentrations 0.5 meter and higher above the bottom were within acceptable water quality criteria. 

Because the valence state of chromium was not indicated for the COE data, we conservatively assumed 

that all chromium was hexavalent (a more toxic form of the metal with the most stringent water quality 

criteria). Under this assumption, predicted chromium concentrations at the river bottom exceeded both 

acute and chronic exposure criteria up to 80 meters (262 feet) downstream of the point of dredging. 

Predicted chromium concentrations at 0.5 meter and higher in the water column were within acceptable 

water quality criteria. The predicted concentrations of the remaining six metals did not exceed acute or 

chronic water quality standards at any depth in the water column. 

The COE also conducted additional modeling using a much more conservative approach to 

estimate dissolved metals. This approach assumed that 80 percent of the adsorbed metals could be 

dissolved in solution. Using this highly conservative model, chromium, copper, and zinc exceeded acute 

water quality criteria at the edge of a 60 meter (about 200 feet) mixing zone, but only near the river 

bottom. Cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, and mercury exceeded chronic exposure criteria near the 

bottom out to 60 meters. Most metals were 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. 

Mechanical Dredging

The COE model results indicated that the concentration of total suspended solids for mechanical 

dredging would be approximately 162 mg/L at the point of dredging and decrease to approximately 50 

mg/L within 100 meters (328 feet) downstream of the dredging operation. Unlike the modeling 

completed for the hydraulic dredge, which calculates the suspended sediment concentration at any 

position in the water column, the modeling for the mechanical dredge calculates the depth-averaged 

concentration throughout the water column. 

The COE estimated dissolved concentrations of metals in the water column near the mechanical 

dredge. Based on the maximum metal concentrations for the Sun Marcus Hook Berth identified in table 

4.3.2-2, none of the dissolved metal concentrations exceeded the water quality criteria at the edge of a 60-

meter mixing zone. 

Similar to the modeling completed for the hydraulic dredging, the COE completed a more 

conservative model, which assumed that 80 percent of the metals adsorbed to the sediment could be 

dissolved into the water column upon suspension. Using the maximum metal concentrations for the 

sediments in Sun Marcus Hook Berth, the COE determined that, with the exception of chromium and 

mercury, none of the other metals exceeded water quality criteria at any point within the 60-meter mixing 

zone. Chromium exceeded water quality criteria out to a distance of 40 meters (131 feet) from the point 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-38 

of dredging and mercury exceeded water quality criteria out to a distance of 100 meters (328 feet). 

However, mercury concentrations were below method detection limits and the value used in the model 

was one-half the detection limit, which could be substantially higher than actual values. Therefore, even 

using a conservative approach, no metals with measurable sediment concentrations exceeded water 

quality criteria outside of a 60-meter mixing zone during the modeling of the mechanical dredge. 

The modeling results described above indicate that using even the most conservative 

assumptions, metal concentrations in the water column from hydraulic dredging activities associated with 

the proposed ship berth would only be likely to exceed water quality criteria for a short distance from the 

dredging operations, and generally within about 0.5 meter of the river bottom. For mechanical dredging, 

metal concentrations would not be expected to exceed water quality criteria beyond a 60-meter mixing 

zone. 

Ship Unloading and Land-Based Facilities

As described in section 2.4.1.2, construction of the LNG ship unloading facility would be 

completed using land-based equipment to build the pier from the shore out into the Delaware River. This 

construction technique would avoid dredging in the near-shore waters that would otherwise be required to 

provide sufficient water depths to install the pier using barge-based construction methods. Approximately 

0.05 acre of river bottom would be filled as a result of constructing the pier and stormwater outfall. 

While installation of the pier and stormwater outfall would disturb the river bottom, the impacts on water 

quality would be localized and temporary. Crown Landing is evaluating several mitigation options to 

compensate for the subtidal habitat that would be filled. A description of these mitigation options is 

provided in section 4.6.2. 

Construction of the proposed LNG terminal would require importing approximately 150,000 

cubic yards of fill material to raise the LNG terminal above the 1,000 year storm range elevation and to 

construct the LNG storage tanks containment dike. Stormwater runoff from the disturbed soils on the 

construction site could affect water quality by increasing suspended sediment and turbidity levels in the 

river near the construction activities. 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 develop and implement a stormwater management plan to control and treat 

stormwater runoff 

LNG Terminal Operation Impacts 

In addition to the construction-related impacts discussed above, the Delaware River could be 

affected during operations of the proposed facilities. During operation of the LNG terminal, maintenance 

dredging and prop wash from LNG ships and tugs would temporarily increase suspended sediments and 

turbidity within the ship channel and berth area. Crown Landing estimated that as much as 65,000 to 

97,000 cubic yards of sediment may be deposited in the LNG ship berth each year and indicated that 

annual maintenance dredging would likely be required to remove these sediments. Impacts associated 

with prop wash would occur more frequently than dredging since as many as 100 to 150 LNG ships may 

travel to and from the terminal annually. 

The LNG ships would also need to take on ballast water to stablilize the ship during transit. 

Crown Landing indicates that a 138,000 m3

 LNG ship would withdraw approximately 13.7 million 

gallons of water and a 200,000 m3

 LNG ship would withdraw about 19.8 million gallons from the 

Delaware River. Crown Landing estimates that the water would be taken in over about a 10-hour period 

at intake rates of about 1.4 million gallons/hour (23,000 gpm) for a 138,000 m3

 LNG ship and about 2 

million gallons/hour (34,000 gpm) for a 200,000 m3

 LNG ship. The intake rates of 23,000 gpm to 34,000 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-39 

gpm for ballasting represents less than 0.1 percent of the average flow of the Delaware River. Assuming 

100 to 150 LNG ships (138,000 m3 capacity) offload at the terminal each year, a total of between 1.4 and 

2.1 billion gallons of water could be removed from the Delaware River by LNG ships annually. Because 

fewer 200,000 m3 LNG ships would be needed, the total ballast withdrawal volumes on an annual basis 

would be similar for these ships. No ballast water would be discharged to the Delaware River. 

An LNG spill on the water of the river is another potential impact that could occur during 

operations of the terminal. Although we consider the potential for a spill of LNG on the Delaware River 

unlikely, if a spill were to occur on the river, the cryogenic liquid would vaporize rapidly upon contact 

with the warm air and water. Being less dense than water, the LNG would float on the surface before 

vaporizing. Because LNG is not soluble in water and the LNG would completely vaporize shortly after 

being spilled, there would be no liquid left that could mix with and/or contaminate the water. Therefore, 

water quality would not be affected by an LNG spill. 

To manage stormwater runoff from the developed LNG terminal site during operations of the 

facility, Crown Landing would provide stormwater management facilities that would be designed in 

accordance with NJDEP guidelines. The stormwater management system would include a treatment pond 

located outside of the LNG storage area containment dike. Stormwater runoff in the storage area would 

be collected in a sump and pumped to the treatment pond. Runoff from other portions of the facility 

would flow to the pond through a gravity system. After treatment in the pond, the stormwater would be 

discharged to the Delaware River. 

Pipeline Construction and Operation Impacts 

Texas Eastern has proposed to install the Logan Lateral across Chester Creek, Baldwin Run, 

Delaware River, Raccoon Creek, and Birch Creek using the HDD construction technique. The HDD 

technique is a trenchless crossing method that involves drilling a hole beneath the waterbody and 

installing a pre-fabricated section of pipe through the hole to complete installation. This technique would 

avoid disturbing the bed or banks of the waterbodies and minimize environmental impacts. Texas Eastern 

has completed geotechnical investigations at the five waterbodies to characterize subsurface conditions 

along the drill path and to determine the feasibility of using the HDD construction technique for crossing 

each waterbody. Based on the results of these investigations, it was determined that HDD techniques are 

feasible at Chester Creek (including Baldwin Run), Delaware River, Raccoon Creek, and Birch Creek. 

While drilling has been determined to be feasible at Chester Creek, the geologic formations located along 

the drill path consist of coarse gravel underlain by weathered bedrock. These types of geologic 

formations tend to be more complicated to drill through due to the presence of fractures and void space, 

which can increase the likelihood of an inadvertent release of drilling fluid or collapse of the borehole. 

Texas Eastern prepared a Monitoring and Contingency Plan, which outlines monitoring 

procedures, measures to minimize environmental impacts associated with an inadvertent release of 

drilling fluids, and contingency plans for alternative construction techniques in the event that the HDD 

technique fails. We have reviewed the Monitoring and Contingency Plan and believe that implementing 

the measures would minimize impacts associated with the HDD construction technique. If the initial 

HDD installation attempts at the Delaware River, Raccoon Creek, and Birch Creek were to fail, Texas 

Eastern would reposition the drill equipment and make a second attempt at installation using the HDD 

technique. If the HDD technique were not successful at Chester Creek, the pipeline would be installed by 

the open-cut construction technique. If Texas Eastern changes its plans to use the HDD technique to 

install the pipeline across these waterbodies, an alternative crossing technique would need to be 

developed; therefore, we recommend that: 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-40 

• Texas Eastern prepare a site-specific crossing plan if a crossing technique other than a 

HDD is proposed at Chester Creek, Delaware River, Raccoon Creek, or Birch Creek. 

The site-specific crossing plans should identify the method to be used to excavate the 

trench; the location of the spoil storage both in the river and onshore and the mitigative 

measures that would be used to control and store the spoil; the method to be used to 

backfill the trench; an explanation of the size requirements of the extra workspaces on 

each bank; a discussion of any special mitigation to minimize impact on riparian 

vegetation; and for navigable streams, include a discussion on how boat traffic 

interruption would be minimized. Texas Eastern should file this plan with the 

Secretary concurrent with its application for other federal and state agencies for a 

permit to construct using the alternate method. The Director of OEP must review and 

approve these plans prior to construction.

Texas Eastern would install the pipeline across the other waterbodies listed in table 4.3.2-1 using 

the open-cut construction technique. Pipeline construction across perennial streams using the open-cut 

construction technique could adversely affect surface waters. Potential impacts from clearing and 

grading, in-stream trenching, trench dewatering, and backfilling could modify aquatic habitat, increase 

sedimentation rates and turbidity levels, decrease dissolved oxygen concentrations, increase water 

temperature, and introduce fuels and oils from accidental spills.

The impacts of the open-cut construction method on perennial streams located along the proposed 

pipeline would generally be localized and short term. Clearing, grading, and trenching within and 

adjacent to these streams would have the greatest affect on water quality. Sediments would be 

resuspended by in-stream construction activities or by erosion of cleared stream banks and riparian areas. 

Turbidity resulting from the resuspended sediments could reduce light penetration and the corresponding 

photosynthetic oxygen production. Resuspension 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 (i.e., those less than 10 feet wide) and within 48 hours for 

intermediate waterbody crossings (i.e., those greater than 10 feet wide, but less than 100 feet wide). In 

addition, Texas Eastern would be required to stabilize and restore the stream banks after construction is 

completed. 

Construction impacts would be temporary and suspended sediment and turbidity levels would be 

expected to return to preconstruction levels soon after the stream crossing is completed. By implementing 

the construction and restoration methods identified in our Procedures and in Texas Eastern’s SESC Plan, 

we believe that the impacts would be minimized and no long-term impacts on surface water quality would 

occur. Other federal, state, or local agencies may require Texas Eastern to implement additional 

protective measures as part of their permit requirements. 

Hydrostatic Testing 

Hydrostatic water for testing of the LNG storage tanks would be obtained from the Delaware 

River. Crown Landing estimates that a total of about 75 million gallons of water would be required to 

test the 3 tanks. Water would be appropriated from the Delaware River over a 2-week period at an intake 

rate of approximately 2,000 to 4,000 gpm. We received a comment regarding the feasibility of reusing 

water to test all three tanks. While reusing test water would minimize the volume of water appropriated 

from the Delaware River and reduce impacts associated with impingement and entrainment of aquatic 

species, Crown Landing indicated that this would not be practicable. Because the tanks would be tested 

on different schedules, the additional residence time between tank transfers would increase the risk of 

corrosion as a result of contact with the brackish water. To avoid appropriating water from the Delaware 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-41 

River, we evaluated the feasibility of obtaining water from a municipal source to complete hydrostatic 

testing. As discussed in section 4.3.1, the LNG terminal site is not located near an existing municipal 

water supply system. 

To minimize entrainment and impingement of aquatic organisms, Crown Landing would screen 

the intake with a 2 mm wedgewire screen, limit the velocity at the intake to 0.5 feet per second, position 

the intake about 6 to 8 feet below mean low water, and avoid appropriating water during the month of 

May (see section 4.6.2). Crown Landing indicated that the hydrostatic test water may need to be 

chlorinated to prevent microbiologically influenced corrosion, a condition that could lead to corrosion of 

the tanks and piping from the presence and interaction of bacteria, fungi, and/or algae, if not treated. 

Following the testing, Crown Landing would discharge the test water back to the Delaware River over a 1 

to 2 week period in accordance with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) 

permitting requirements. To minimize erosion and scour that could occur if the water were discharged in 

the nearshore portion of the Delaware River, Crown Landing indicated that it would discharge test water 

in deeper waters in the vicinity of the Marcus Hook anchorage area. Crown Landing would then flush 

each tank with approximately 250,000 gallons of freshwater obtained from onsite wells to remove the 

remaining brackish river water from the tanks. The rinse water would also be discharged into the 

Delaware River. 

Based on preliminary plans, Texas Eastern proposes to appropriate water from Ridley Creek 

(located adjacent to Chester Junction at MP 0.0), Delaware River (MPs 4.5, 5.3, and 11.0), and/or 

municipal sources located within the project area to hydrotest the pipeline. Texas Eastern estimated that 

about 2.1 million gallons of water would be needed from these sources to test the pipeline. Texas Eastern 

also indicated that no chemical additives would be required to complete hydrostatic testing and that 

intakes would be screened with wire mesh to prevent the entrainment or impingement of aquatic species. 

After the testing is completed, Texas Eastern proposes to discharge the water back to Ridley Creek (MP 

0.0) and the Delaware River (MPs 5.3 and 11.0) in accordance with NPDES permitting requirements. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-42 

4.4 WETLANDS 

Regulatory Permits 

Wetlands affected by the proposed projects would be regulated by federal, state, and local 

agencies. At the federal level, the COE has authority under section 404 of the CWA and section 10 of the 

Rivers and Harbors Act to review and issue permits for activities that would result in the discharge of 

dredged or fill material into waters of the United States. In 1994, the NJDEP assumed responsibility for 

administering section 404 of the CWA for the majority of the wetlands and waterbodies located in the 

state under the New Jersey Freshwater Wetlands Protection Act rules as specified in the New Jersey 

Administrative Code (NJAC 7:7A). In addition to section 404 responsibilities, the NJDEP uses the 

standards and procedures identified in NJAC 7:7, 7:7A, and 7:7E to determine whether the activity 

complies with the state’s water quality standards, a prerequisite to issuing a section 401 water quality 

certificate. While New Jersey’s Freshwater Wetlands Protection Act Rules operates in lieu of the section 

404 program in certain waters, the COE has retained jurisdiction over interstate and navigable waters, 

such as the Delaware River and its adjacent wetlands. 

In Pennsylvania, construction activities within wetlands and waterbodies would be regulated by 

the PADEP under the Chapter 105 Water Obstruction and Encroachment Permit Program. The Chapter 

105 Program regulates obstructions and encroachments located in, along or across, or projecting into a 

watercourse, floodway or body of water, whether temporary or permanent, and is the nexus for 

determining whether the activity complies with the state’s water quality standards as required by section 

401 of the CWA. The two types of Chapter 105 authorizations include General Permits and Individual 

Permits. General Permits are used to streamline the permitting of activities that are sufficiently similar in 

design or construction to warrant general requirements or conditions, such as utility line stream crossings. 

The PADEP has delegated the processing of General Permits to local agencies, including the Delaware 

County Conservation District. 

Construction within wetlands would require compliance, at a minimum, with the requirements of 

sections 401 and 404 of the CWA, section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act, and the respective state 

permitting programs. As part of complying with federal, state, and/or local regulatory requirements, 

Crown Landing and Texas Eastern must demonstrate that impacts on wetlands have been avoided to the 

extent practicable. Where unavoidable wetland impacts would occur, the agencies would require 

measures to mitigate the effects of construction. We believe this is consistent with the CEQ Regulations 

for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the NEPA (40 CFR 1508.20), which defines mitigation to 

include the following criteria: 

• avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action; 

• minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its 

implementation; 

• rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment; 

• reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations 

during the life of the action; and 

• compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or 

environments. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-43 

Wetlands on the LNG Terminal Site 

Crown Landing conducted wetland delineations at the proposed LNG terminal site using the 

methods specified in the 1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual (COE, 1987). As shown on figure 4.4-

1, six wetlands were identified and delineated within the 175-acre LNG terminal site. The wetland 

boundaries were reviewed and approved by the COE and the NJDEP. The wetlands occupy about 109 

acres of the site and consist of emergent, scrub-shrub, and forested types. Table 4.4-1 provides a 

summary of wetlands located on the proposed site. A description of vegetation in these wetlands is 

provided in section 4.5. 

TABLE 4.4-1 

Wetlands and Wetland Transition Areas Located on the Proposed LNG Terminal Site Property

Wetland 

Identification 

Wetland Classification a/ Total Wetland Area 

(acres) 

Temporary Impact 

Area (acres) 

Transition Area Width 

(feet)/ Acres of Impact b/ 

Wetland I PEM 7.4 0.0 50 / 0.0 

Wetland D PFO 7.8 <0.1 c/ 150 / 4.1 

Wetland E PEM/PFO 63.2 0.3 d/ 50 / 0.3 

Wetland H PSS 1.8 0.0 50/ 0.9 

Wetland J PFO 8.5 0.0 50 / 0.0 

Wetland K PEM/PFO 20.5 0.2 e/ 50 / <0.01 

 

Project Total 109.2 0.6 NA / 5.3 

_______________________ 

a/ Cowardin Classification System: 

 PEM Palustrine Emergent 

 PSS Palustrine Scrub Shrub 

 PFO Palustrine Forested 

b/ Wetland transition areas regulated by the NJDEP under the New Jersey Freshwater Wetlands Protection Act (N.J.S.A. 

 13:9B) 

c/ Area affected by installation of the stormwater outfall. 

d/ Area affected by construction of the Columbia Gas pipeline interconnect. 

e/ Area affected by installation of the septic line. 

Crown Landing designed the proposed LNG terminal facilities to avoid wetlands on the site. 

Although no wetlands would be permanently filled or drained as a result of construction of the LNG 

terminal, construction of the Columbia Gas pipeline interconnect, stormwater outfall, and septic line 

would temporarily impact approximately 0.6 acre of wetlands (see figure 4.4-1). Following construction, 

the disturbed wetland areas would be restored to original contours and allowed to naturally revegetate. 

In addition to wetlands, the NJDEP regulates transition areas of varying widths along the borders 

of wetlands in the State of New Jersey. Transition areas provide an ecological transition zone from 

uplands to freshwater wetlands and provide temporary 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 hydrologic or climatologic effects. In addition, 

transition areas provide sediment and stormwater control zones to reduce the impacts of development on 

freshwater wetlands and associated plants and animals. The transition areas are based on the resource 

value of the wetland and can be 50- or 150-feet wide. Wetlands of ordinary resource value do not have a 

regulated transition area. Wetlands of intermediate and exceptional resource value have regulated 

transition area widths of 50 and 150 feet, respectively. With the exception of the forested wetland located 

adjacent to the Delaware River (Wetland D), all of the wetlands located on the LNG terminal site are 

classified by the NJDEP as having intermediate resource value. Due to the potential presence of foraging 

bald eagles, Wetland D is classified as having exceptional resource value. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Figure 4.4-1

Crown Landing LNG Project

Wetlands Located in the LNG Terminal Site

Stormwater Outfall

Septic Line

Logan Lateral

K

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-45 

As shown in table 4.4-1, construction of the LNG terminal would permanently impact about 5.3 

acres of transition area. During construction, ground-disturbing activities in the wetland transition areas 

could increase erosion and sedimentation and alter wetland hydrology and drainage patterns. To 

minimize these impacts, Crown Landing would implement the measures contained in our Plan and 

Procedures and its SESC Plan, including, but not limited to, installing and maintaining sediment barriers 

and restoring disturbed areas following construction. While these measures would minimize impacts 

during construction, the resource values provided by the transition area (e.g., habitat, flood control) would 

be modified during operation of the facility and would require a transition area permit from the NJDEP. 

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 some type of mitigation. Crown 

Landing discussed mitigation options with the NJDEP and the FWS on September 13, 2004 (Clark, Mars, 

Wilkinson, 2004). Based on agency consultations, Crown Landing has proposed the following two 

mitigative measures to compensate for transition area impacts: 

• planting a 50-foot-wide band of native tree species along a segment of 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. 

Crown Landing indicated that it would continue to coordinate with the NJDEP and the FWS on 

the development of an appropriate mitigation plan. Because these mitigation measures have not been 

approved by the applicable agencies and thus may not be final measures, we recommend that:

• Crown Landing continue to consult with the NJDEP, FWS, and other appropriate 

agencies, and prepare a final wetland transition area mitigation plan. This plan 

should include details regarding the amount, location, and forms of mitigation 

proposed; a monitoring plan with clearly defined criteria for determining if and 

when the mitigation is successful; and remedial measures, as necessary, to ensure 

that compensatory mitigation is successful. Crown Landing should file the wetland 

transition area mitigation plan with the Secretary prior to construction.

Wetlands Located Along the Proposed Pipeline Route 

Texas Eastern completed a wetland survey in June 2004 using the current federal and state 

delineation methodologies to identify and delineate wetlands along the Logan Lateral route. Based on the 

results of this survey, the Logan Lateral would cross about 2.0 miles of wetlands (approximately 20 

percent of the total pipeline length). Table 4.4-2 identifies the state, milepost location, wetland 

classification, wetland identification number, crossing length, acreage affected during construction, and 

acreage affected during operation for wetlands located along the proposed pipeline route. 

No wetlands would be permanently filled or drained as a result of construction. In addition, none 

of the access roads identified by Texas Eastern would affect wetlands. In addition to siting the facilities 

outside of wetlands to the extent practicable, Texas Eastern would utilize specialized construction 

techniques to avoid trenching across wetlands. For example, Texas Eastern proposes to cross Birch Creek 

utilizing the HDD construction method, which would avoid trenching across about 1,500 feet of wetlands 

at MP 2.21. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-46 

TABLE 4.4-2 

Wetlands Located Along the Logan Lateral Route 

State/ 

Milepost Location 

Wetland 

Classification a/ Wetland I.D. Crossing Length 

(feet) b/ 

Acreage Affected by 

Construction c/ 

Acreage Affected by 

Operation d/ 

Pennsylvania 

 1.80 PEM W-DE-100 48 0.04 0.0 

 2.11 PEM/PFO W-DE-101 100 0.08 0.06 

 2.21 PEM/PSS/PFO W-DE-102 1,680 1.09 0.34 

 2.34 PFO W-DE-103 197 0.22 0.07 

 2.44 PFO/PEM W-DE-104 480 0.7 0.11 

 3.22 PFO W-DE-105 e/ 215 0.29 0.13 

 3.34 PFO W-DE-106 e/ 70 0.03 0.0 

 Subtotal 

 2,790 2.45 0.71 

New Jersey 

 5.38 PFO/PEM W-GL-100 300 0.64 0.25 

 5.45 PEM/PSS W-GL-102 3,550 3.44 0.0 

 7.29 PEM/PFO W-GL-119 156 0.1 <0.1 

 8.03 PEM W-GL-109 61 0.14 0.0 

 8.29 PEM/PFO W-GL-112 0 0.03 0.0 

 8.33 PEM/PFO W-GL-111 50 0.1 0.03 

 8.72 PEM W-GL-114 800 1.66 0.0 

 8.92 PEM/PFO W-GL-115 757 1.29 0.23 

 9.08 PEM/PFO W-GL-116 2,038 2.01 0.01 

 9.89 PEM/PFO W-GL-113 270 1.02 0.0 

 10.88 PEM/PSS/PFO f/ 2,516 7.18 0.33 

 Subtotal 

 10,498 17.61 0.95 

 

Project Total 13,288 20.06 1.66 

_________________ 

a/ Cowardin Classification System:

 PEM Palustrine Emergent 

 PSS Palustrine Scrub Shrub 

 PFO Palustrine Forested 

 OW Open Water 

b/ A crossing length of zero (0) indicates that the pipeline would not cross the wetland, but that temporary workspace 

 would be located within the wetland. 

c/ Acreage affected by construction includes the temporary construction right-of-way and temporary workspaces. 

d/ Acreage reflects a maintained permanent right-of-way width of 30 feet centered over the pipeline in forested wetlands 

 Emergent wetlands would not be affected during operation of the pipeline. 

e/ In section 3.5.3, we recommend that Texas Eastern adopt the Palmer Street Variation, which would avoid impacting 

 these two wetlands. 

f/ The Logan Lateral would cross wetlands E, I, J, and K within the LNG terminal site (see figure 4.4-1). 

The primary impact of pipeline construction and right-of-way 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. Construction of the Logan Lateral would temporarily 

disturb approximately 20.06 acres of wetlands and, through right-of-way maintenance activities, 

approximately 1.66 acres of forested wetlands would be permanently maintained in an herbaceous or 

scrub shrub state. Impacts on emergent wetlands would be considered temporary because herbaceous 

vegetation would likely regenerate within a few growing seasons following restoration of the right-ofway. In a letter dated September 14, 2004, the FWS recommended that Texas Eastern compensate for 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-47 

permanent wetland impacts (FWS, 2004a). The FWS indicated that mitigation should be in the form of 

in-kind compensation at a 2:1 ratio (i.e., 2 acres created for every 1 acre of wetland impacted). Texas 

Eastern submitted a preliminary wetland mitigation plan with its application to the COE and PADEP to 

address wetland impacts in Pennsylvania. Based on the preliminary wetland mitigation plan, Texas 

Eastern is planning to restore emergent and scrub shrub wetlands disturbed during construction and to 

compensate for lost forest habitat either through the purchase of wetland mitigation bank credits, land 

swap, or by donating to a conservation organization. Texas Eastern indicated that it is currently 

developing a wetland mitigation plan for New Jersey. Because the wetland mitigation plans have not 

been finalized and approved by the applicable agencies, we recommend that:

• Texas Eastern continue to consult with the NJDEP, PADEP, COE, and other 

appropriate agencies on the preparation of the wetland mitigation plan. The 

wetland mitigation plan should include details regarding the amount, location, and 

forms of mitigation proposed; a monitoring plan with clearly defined criteria for 

determining if and when the mitigation is successful; and remedial measures, as 

necessary, to ensure that compensatory mitigation is successful. Texas Eastern 

should file the final wetland mitigation plan with the Secretary prior to 

construction.

Clearing, trenching, and other ground disturbing activities in wetlands could 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 water flow which could impact wetland hydrology. These effects would be greatest during 

and immediately following construction. 

To minimize potential impacts on wetlands during construction of the pipeline, Texas Eastern 

would implement the protective measures specified in our Procedures and its SESC Plan, including the 

following: 

• 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 the trench in unsaturated wetland soils; 

• installing and maintaining sediment barriers across the entire construction right-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. 

We believe that these measures would minimize impacts on wetlands and promote revegetation 

following pipeline installation. 

Operational impacts are primarily limited to periodic vegetation clearing over the pipeline 

centerline and Texas Eastern would minimize impacts on wetlands by adhering to the wetland vegetation 

maintenance requirements specified in our Procedures. Specifically, Texas Eastern would limit 

vegetation maintenance in wetlands to annual mowing of a 10-foot-wide strip centered over the pipeline 

and the periodic cutting of trees greater than 15 feet in height that are located within 15 feet of the 

pipeline centerline. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-48 

4.5 VEGETATION 

LNG Terminal 

The proposed LNG terminal site is an undeveloped parcel located adjacent to the Delaware River. 

The vegetation communities on the site consist primarily of agricultural land and emergent wetland, with 

scattered areas of open, forest, and shrub lands. These vegetative communities are described below. The 

offshore portion of the proposed LNG terminal (i.e., ship unloading facility) would be partially located in 

a shallow, intertidal area of the river that is almost devoid of vegetation. 

Agricultural crops are the most predominant upland cover type on the LNG terminal site. Typical 

crops grown on the site include soybeans and wheat. The onshore LNG facilities would be located within 

an agricultural field that has recently been planted in soybeans. 

Emergent wetlands on the site are dominated by common reed grass, also called Phragmites. 

Other species within these wetlands include soft rush, cattails, reed canary grass, straw colored sedge, 

lady’s thumb, jewelweed, blue flag iris, arrow arum, and sensitive fern. Scrub-shrub wetlands primarily 

bordering onsite drainage ditches are dominated by black willow, silky dogwood, false indigo, blue flag 

iris, common reed grass, and square stem monkey flower. 

Open land on the site consists of existing farm roads and dikes. Common species in these areas 

include late-flowering thoroughwort, yellow foxtail, pineapple-weed, jimsonweed, lady’s thumb, bull 

thistle, Canada thistle, Asiatic tearthumb, Pennsylvania smartweed, ground cherry, switchgrass, and 

crabgrass. 

Upland shrub land, including young forest, occurs as narrow strips located adjacent to field roads. 

These areas are dominated by common elder and white mulberry interspersed with common reed, Asiatic 

tearthumb, pokeweed, and Japanese honeysuckle in the understory. 

Forest land on the site includes a narrow strip of forested wetland along the river and some 

remnant areas of forested wetland scattered throughout the site. The forested wetland along the river is 

dominated by black willow and has an understory consisting predominantly of false indigo, soft rush, and 

silverweed. The other forested wetlands are dominated by black willow, green ash, common reed grass, 

stilt grass, Asiatic tearthumb, and Japanese honeysuckle. Some upland areas adjacent to the forested 

wetlands are being invaded by the tree-of-heaven. 

Crown Landing designed the LNG terminal facilities to avoid the natural vegetation communities 

on the site to the extent practicable. Most of the facilities would be constructed within cropland. Of the 

38.6 acres of vegetative communities that would be permanently developed into LNG facilities, 35.4 

acres (91 percent) would be in agricultural fields that have most recently been planted in soybeans and at 

present are fallow. Table 4.5-1 summarizes the vegetative communities that would be affected by 

construction and operation of the LNG terminal. A more detailed discussion of the wetland impacts is 

provided in section 4.4. 

To minimize disturbance to vegetative communities, Crown Landing would restrict construction 

activities to the area disturbed within the permanent facility footprint to the extent practicable. A 3.8-acre 

temporary staging area would be needed during construction and would be located in an agricultural field 

adjacent to U.S. Route 130. About 0.6 acre of wetland on the site would also be temporarily affected 

during construction of the Columbia Gas pipeline interconnection, the stormwater outfall, and the septic 

line. Both of these temporary construction areas as well as other disturbed areas that are not required for 

buildings, roads, gravel, or other hard surfaces would be restored in accordance with our Plan and 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-49 

Procedures and Crown Landing’s SESC and Vegetation Management Plans after construction of the LNG 

terminal. The Vegetation Management Plan includes active revegetation of the stormwater management 

pond and two rainwater gardens within the diked process and storage area. The containment dike and 

other areas within the dike would also be seeded with a grass mixture and maintained as manicured lawn. 

Undisturbed natural areas on the site would remain in their existing natural states with the exception of a 

50-foot band along Oldmans Creek, which would be supplemented with planted trees. 

TABLE 4.5-1 

Acreage of Vegetative Communities Affected by Construction and Operation of the Proposed LNG Terminal a/ 

 Cropland Open Land b/ Shrub Land Wetland Total 

Area Affected by 

Construction (acres) 39.2 1.7 1.5 0.6 43.0 

Area Affected by 

Operation (acres) 35.4 1.7 1.5 0.0 38.6 

___________________ 

a/ Portions of the Logan Lateral would be located within the boundaries of the proposed LNG terminal. These 

 impacts are discussed under the Pipeline Facilities section. 

b/ Includes existing farm roads and dikes 

Pipeline Facilities 

Vegetative communities crossed by the Logan Lateral route include forest land, open land, shrub 

land, and cropland interspersed among developed commercial and residential areas. Most of the pipeline 

route in Pennsylvania crosses urban areas with limited vegetative communities. The pipeline route in 

New Jersey crosses mostly undeveloped areas that are predominantly open land and cropland (soybean 

fields). 

Upland forest located along the proposed pipeline route includes mixed-forest communities of 

maple-ash and beech-oak. The maple-ash communities are dominated by red maple, green ash, box elder, 

and tulip tree with an understory dominated by honeysuckle. The beech-oak communities are dominated 

by American beech and white oak with an understory consisting mostly of black cherry, white mulberry, 

bittersweet, and honeysuckle. Forested wetlands crossed by the pipeline route are primarily located in 

bottomlands and floodplains adjacent to waterbodies and are dominated by black willow, red maple, 

sweet gum, black gum, pin oak, and ash. 

Open areas located along the proposed pipeline route include undeveloped areas and existing 

utility and road rights-of-ways. Plant species such as stinging nettle, bristle foxtail, curly dock, pink 

knotweed, goldenrod, and blackberry are common. Shrub lands are also considered open areas and along 

the pipeline route are dominated by red maple, sweet gum, and willow. 

The proposed pipeline would cross numerous emergent and scrub-shrub wetlands. The emergent 

wetlands are dominated by common reed grass, foxtail, deer tongue, switchgrass, rushes, and cattails. 

The scrub-shrub wetlands are dominated by willows, red maple, sweet gum, arrow wood, alder, foxtail, 

bushy bluestem, and locust. 

Table 4.5-2 summarizes the impacts of pipeline construction and operation on each vegetative 

community. The Pennsylvania portion of the pipeline route is primarily composed of open and forest 

lands accounting for 9.4 acres and 17.8 acres, respectively, of the construction right-of-way and extra 

workspace. The New Jersey portion of the pipeline route is mostly composed of croplands and open 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-50 

lands accounting for 50.8 acres and 25.6 acres, respectively, of the construction right-of-way and extra 

workspace. 

During construction, existing vegetation would be temporarily removed from within the 

construction right-of-way and other necessary workspaces to facilitate the installation of the pipeline. 

The impact of clearing and the amount of time required for complete recovery of vegetation to predisturbance levels would depend on the size and age of the pre-existing vegetation. In general, impacts 

would be greatest in forest lands because they are more structurally complex than other vegetation types 

and take longer (perhaps 30 to 40 years) than other vegetation types to become reestablished to 

preconstruction conditions. In addition, as discussed below, trees would be prevented from growing on 

the permanent right-of-way by routine pipeline maintenance activities. Texas Eastern would avoid most 

impacts to forest land adjacent to Chester Creek and Raccoon Creek by using the HDD technique to 

TABLE 4.5-2 

Acreage of Vegetative Communities Affected by Construction and Operation of the Logan Lateral Project a/

Facility Forest Lands b/ Wetlands c/ Open Lands Cropland d/ Totals 

Const. Oper. Const. Oper. Const. Oper. Const. Oper. Const. Oper. 

Pennsylvania 

Pipeline Right-of-way 12.4 4.8 0.6 0.3 5.6 5.0 0.0 0.0 18.6 10.1 

Temporary Extra 

Workspaces 

5.4 0.0 <0.1 0.0 3.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.2 0.0 

Aboveground Facilities 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 <0.1 <0.1 0.0 0.0 <0.1 <0.1 

Pennsylvania Subtotal 17.8 4.8 0.7 0.3 9.4 5.1 0.0 0.0 27.9 10.1 

New Jersey 

Pipeline Right-of-way 3.7 3.8 13.9 4.7 18.1 14.0 18.7 9.3 54.4 31.8 

Temporary Extra 

Workspaces 

1.9 0.0 1.9 0.0 7.5 0.0 31.7 0.0 42.9 0.0 

Aboveground Facilities 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 

New Jersey Subtotal 5.6 3.8 15.8 4.7 25.6 14.0 50.8 9.7 97.8 32.3 

Pipeline Facilities 

Subtotal 

 

Pipeline Right-of-way 16.1 8.5 14.6 5.0 23.7 19.1 18.7 9.3 73.0 41.9 

Temporary Extra 

Workspaces 

7.3 0 1.9 0.0 11.3 0.0 31.7 0.0 52.2 0.0 

Aboveground Facilities 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 <0.1 <0.1 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 

Pipeline Facilities Total 23.4 8.5 16.5 5.0 35.0 19.1 50.8 9.7 125.7 42.4 

____________________ 

a/ Based on a 100-foot-wide construction right-of-way. Some areas would have a reduced construction right-of-way to 

avoid impacts on residential and wetland areas. Operation acreage is based on a 50-foot-wide permanent right-of-way 

in all areas except at road crossings and within roadways where the right-of-way width would be as permitted by the 

local agencies. Beginning at approximately MP 10, the pipeline right-of-way would be located within the proposed 175-

acre LNG terminal site but does not overlap the 39 acres that would be permanently developed for the terminal 

facilities. 

b/ Forest lands include both upland and wetland forest. In forested areas where portions of the existing right-of-way are 

used for both permanent and temporary right-of-way, the acreages for both open land (existing right-of-way) and 

forested (new right-of-way) have been determined and separated accordingly. Operation impacts on forest lands 

include those areas that will be maintained free of trees. Forested areas avoided by HDD are not included. 

c/ Impacts on wetlands include those areas affected by construction and retention of a permanent right-of-way. These 

impacts do not include forested wetlands and farmed wetlands. 

d/ Cropland impacts include farmed wetlands. 

Const. Construction Impacts 

Oper. Operation Impacts 

Note: The totals shown in this table may not equal the sum of addends due to rounding. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-51 

install the pipeline at these stream crossings; impacts on vegetation would be limited to a 3-foot-wide 

corridor cleared over the pipeline for a line-of-sight down the corridor. 

The loss of vegetation could also have secondary impacts, including forest fragmentation and the 

loss of wildlife habitat. Other secondary impacts could include increased erosion, from the conversion of 

deep rooted vegetation to shallow rooted vegetation on the right-of-way and increased solar radiation, 

which could dry the soil and stimulate the growth of early successional species within and immediately 

adjacent to cleared areas. The removal of trees on the right-of-way could also expose trees growing 

adjacent to the newly cleared areas to higher levels of wind, which may increase the risk of blow downs. 

The majority of these effects would be minor and temporary and would diminish upon restoration and 

revegetation of the right-of-way. 

In its comments on the draft EIS, the Department of the Interior expressed concern about the 

spread of invasive species, specifically Phragmites sp. and stated that control measures should be 

implemented in addition to the best management practices required by our Plan and Procedures. 

Specifically, the Department of the Interior recommended the following provisions be required in areas of 

wetland disturbance: 1) best management practices to prevent the introduction or spread of Phragmites

sp., such as avoiding creation of elevated berms and the spread or burial of Phragmites sp. rhizomes; 2) 2 

to 5 years of post-construction monitoring to detect the introduction or spread of Phragmites sp.; and 3) 

control efforts, if Phragmites sp. is detected, including grading or hydrologic corrections for any 

construction-related disturbances that promote the spread of Phragmites sp., if other control methods (i.e., 

herbicides) prove insufficient in the long term. As controlling the spread of Phragmites sp. is a regional 

initiative currently being pursued at the federal, state, and local levels, we recommend:

• Crown Landing and Texas Eastern develop control plans to prevent the spread of 

Phragmites sp. in wetlands disturbed by the proposed projects that currently do not 

contain this species. These plans should include those measures recommended by 

the Department of the Interior, as applicable, and should be filed with the Secretary 

for the review and approval of the Director of OEP, prior to construction. 

Operation and maintenance of the proposed pipeline facilities would have additional effects on 

vegetation after site clearing and right-of-way restoration are completed. The pipeline right-of-way 

would be maintained in accordance with our Plan and Procedures and Texas Eastern’s SESC Plan. 

Implementation of the measures provided in these Plans and Procedures would minimize potential longterm impacts by allowing annual maintenance of only a 10-foot-wide strip centered over the pipeline. 

Additionally, routine vegetation maintenance across the entire permanent right-of-way could occur only 

once every 3 years in uplands and would be restricted in wetlands to the periodic clearing of trees greater 

than 15 feet in height that are within 15 feet of the pipeline centerlines. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-52 

4.6 WILDLIFE AND AQUATIC RESOURCES 

4.6.1 Wildlife Resources 

The proposed LNG terminal site consists primarily of agricultural lands with small areas of open 

land, forest, shrub land, and wetland. The two active agricultural fields, which encompass most of the 

proposed area to be developed, provide foraging and cover habitat for mammals and birds; however, these 

fields provide limited breeding habitat since spring tilling and planting occur during the breeding season 

for most of the mammal and bird species that may use the site. Wildlife species that utilize active 

croplands in the project area include locally common species typical of agricultural lands in New Jersey 

such as the white-footed mouse, meadow vole, eastern cottontail rabbit, white-tailed deer, mourning dove, 

northern bobwhite, and ring-necked pheasant. Canada geese and white-tailed deer were observed 

foraging in these fields. 

The open land at the LNG terminal site was previously used for farming but is now covered by 

old field vegetation. Typical wildlife that utilize open land habitat in the project area include cottontail 

rabbit, coyote, red fox, raccoon, opossum, common crow, rock dove, European starling, common grackle, 

field sparrow, Carolina wren, brown-headed cowbird, red-tailed hawk, and many species of rodents. 

The three narrow bands of forest land on the site may provide more vegetatively and structurally 

diverse wildlife habitat than the agricultural fields and open areas. However, their small size reduces their 

suitability for many wildlife species. The microhabitat components (e.g., snags, cavities, downed wood, 

open water) of the forested areas provide breeding habitat for amphibians and birds. Birds likely to nest 

in these areas include riparian forest species such as downy and hairy woodpecker, American crow, redeyed vireo, and great-crested flycatcher. Three amphibian species, spring peeper, gray tree frog, and bull 

frog, may breed in the open waters within the forested areas. The narrow forested and scrub-shrub 

wetlands along the drainage ditches and along the shoreline of the Delaware River also provide cover and 

foraging habitat for riparian wetland species such as the green heron, snowy egret, belted kingfisher, 

water shrew, white-footed mouse, and raccoon. 

The LNG terminal site also includes intertidal and open water habitats associated with the 

Delaware River and Oldmans Creek. Aquatic species known to inhabit these waterbodies are described in 

section 4.6.2. No marine mammals (e.g., whales, dolphins, or seals) are known to travel this far up the 

Delaware River. Common mammals using the open water or coastal habitats of the river and creek 

include muskrat, mink, river otter, and raccoon. The shoreline habitats associated with the waterbodies 

also support a diverse assemblage of avian species, including shorebirds, wading birds, and waterfowl. 

Some of these bird species are year-round residents but most are migratory and spend only a portion of 

the year in the area. 

Habitat types crossed by the proposed Logan Lateral route include remnant open land, wetland, 

open water, forest, shrub land, and agricultural land interspersed among developed commercial and 

residential areas. 

The open land habitat consists primarily of existing utility rights-of-way and undeveloped land 

adjacent to residential and commercial/industrial areas. Wildlife associated with these areas is similar to 

those discussed for open land areas at the proposed LNG terminal site. 

The wetlands that would be crossed by the proposed pipeline consist primarily of monotypic 

stands of common reed grass. These wetlands are often of little value to most wildlife due to the density 

of the vegetation and because they lack other native plants. Bird species that are known to nest in 

common reed grass include red-winged blackbird, common yellowthroat, swamp sparrow, marsh wren, 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-53 

and black-crowned night-heron. Several waterfowl species are also known to use common reed grass for 

nesting sites and as nest material, including American black duck, Canada goose, ruddy duck, pied-billed 

grebe, American coot, and green-winged teal (Kane, 2001). Common reed grass also provides protective 

cover for turtles, snakes, and small mammals throughout the year; ducks during their flightless molting 

period in late summer; and resident wildlife species such as deer, foxes, coyotes, and raccoons in the 

winter. 

The forested areas along the pipeline route consist of isolated second growth stands dispersed 

within developed areas and a larger forested area adjacent to Chester Creek. Common mammalian 

species that may utilize these forests for feeding, breeding, and cover include white-tailed deer, red fox,

Virginia opossum, gray squirrel, flying squirrel, and striped skunk. Common bird species in these forests 

may include rufous-sided towhee, downy woodpecker, red-tailed hawk, screech owl, and tufted titmouse 

(Goodrich et al., 2003). 

Aquatic habitats along the pipeline route include intertidal and open water habitats within the 

Delaware River and some of its tributaries such as Birch Creek, Chester Creek, and Raccoon Creek. 

Aquatic species known to inhabit these areas are described in section 4.6.2. Mammals associated with 

these open water areas are similar to those described for the open water areas at the LNG terminal site. 

Sensitive or Significant Wildlife Areas 

DNREC (2004a) expressed concern regarding a colony (referred to as a heronry) of nesting 

herons and other wading birds on Pea Patch Island. Pea Patch Island is located in the Delaware River 

about 15 miles downstream of the proposed LNG terminal site. Several thousand pairs of 10 species of 

heron, egret, and ibis nest on the island each year. In the late 1980s, this heronry supported over 12,000 

nesting pairs. However, in recent years, only about 3,000 nesting pairs have been documented at the site. 

In an effort to identify causes of the decline and protect the heronry and the resource on which it depends, 

the DNREC Coastal Program has developed a Special Area Management Plan (DNREC, 1998) for the 

region surrounding the heronry. 

The original Special Area Management Plan identified a 15-kilometer-radius area around the 

heronry as the primary area used for foraging by individuals nesting on the island. This original area 

extended to within about 6 miles of the LNG terminal site. A progress report issued in 2001 (DNREC, 

2001) included an expanded heronry region that included about 1,500 square miles. The northern edge of 

the expanded region follows the boundary between New Castle County, Delaware and Delaware County, 

Pennsylvania, across the Delaware River to the Salem County – Gloucester County boundary in New 

Jersey. The LNG terminal site is located in the section of Gloucester County that is included in the 

expanded region. 

Although the proposed project area occurs within the expanded heronry region, the original 15 

kilometer radius likely captures the majority of critical foraging areas used by species nesting at the site. 

The proposed conversion of agricultural land to industrial land is not likely to affect the ability of 

foraging individuals to locate adequate food. The addition of LNG ships in transit to the LNG terminal 

would slightly increase the overall amount of ship traffic that passes the heronry, but the effect would be 

similar to the effects of other large ships that currently pass the island, and thus would not be expected to 

deter individuals from nesting at the heronry or result in long-term impacts on Pea Patch Island. The 

slight increase in ship traffic on the Delaware River also would not likely increase shoreline erosion on 

the island. 

Potential risks of an accidental or intentional breach of an LNG ship during transit are discussed 

in section 4.12.5. Due to the low probability of an LNG release from a ship during transit, the heronry on 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-54 

Pea Patch Island would be at low risk to be affected by an LNG ship accident. However, if a release and 

subsequent fire were to occur, while an LNG ship was transiting near Pea Patch Island, substantial fire 

damage to the heronry could occur, primarily involving the burning of vegetation on the island, including 

nest trees. Individual birds at the heronry would also likely be burned. If a release and fire occurred 

during the breeding season, the impacts would be magnified as the reproducing adults could be lost as 

well as the offspring from those adults. Between the loss of individuals and the loss of habitat at the site, 

the impacts of an LNG release and fire near the Pea Patch Island heronry could have substantial impact on 

the local population of wading birds using the site. 

Wildlife Resources Impacts and Mitigation 

Construction and operation of the Crown Landing LNG and Logan Lateral Projects would result 

in both short term and permanent alteration of wildlife habitat, directly impacting wildlife through 

disturbance, displacement, injury, and/or mortality. 

Vegetation clearing necessary to construct the LNG terminal would reduce cover, nesting, and 

foraging habitat for some wildlife. Of the wildlife species present in the project area, the larger more 

mobile species would be temporarily displaced from the construction areas to similar adjacent habitats, 

where available. Because most of the project area is developed and fragmented, the area is not likely to 

support abundant wildlife populations. However, the developed nature of the project area also limits the 

amount of habitat that would be available to wildlife displaced by construction. It is expected that 

wildlife displaced by construction would return to the temporary construction areas and adjacent 

undeveloped habitats soon after completion of construction and the restoration and revegetation of 

disturbed areas. However, some individuals of less mobile species, such as small mammals, reptiles, and 

amphibians, as well as nesting birds located in the construction areas, could be injured or killed by 

construction activities. 

Development of the terminal would convert approximately 35.4 acres of cropland to developed 

land. Additionally, the improvement and widening of the existing dirt road to provide access to the 

proposed LNG terminal would convert a small area of ruderal vegetation and roughly 1.7 acres of open 

land to impervious surface. While these areas provide only marginal habitat and, therefore, are unlikely 

to support much wildlife, any wildlife using the areas would be displaced to other habitats on the site or in 

the immediate vicinity. The construction of the containment dike around the LNG tanks could also alter 

or interfere with the movement patterns of some mammals, amphibians, and reptiles at the site, 

particularly between the southern portion of the site and Oldmans Creek and the Delaware River. 

Construction of the liquid unloading pipeline between the pier and the LNG storage tanks and 

construction of the foundation for the flare would result in the loss of 1.5 acres of shrub and young 

deciduous forest along the existing berm that runs between the shoreline and the active cropland. The 

affected habitat provides limited wildlife value because it occurs in a narrow band (less than 20 feet wide) 

between the shoreline and the dirt access road, contains no mature trees, and supports abundant Japanese 

knotweed, an invasive species. 

Construction of the Columbia Gas pipeline interconnection at the LNG terminal would result in 

the temporary disturbance of about 0.3 acre of wetland habitat on the western portion of the site. Wildlife 

species that inhabit the affected area would be temporarily displaced and required to compete with other 

species in adjacent areas for habitat requirements. 

Operation of the low- and high-pressure flares at the terminal could pose a threat to raptors that 

like to use tall objects such as trees and power poles as perches. The flares would be incorporated into a 

120-foot-high self-supporting stack and located within 150 feet of the Delaware River shoreline, which is 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-55 

an area used by foraging raptors. In general, the risk of the flares to raptors would be minimal since use 

of the flare would be limited to emergency situations. To further reduce the risks to raptors and other 

birds, Crown Landing proposes to install perch guards on the flares to discourage or eliminate perching. 

Wildlife would also be affected by construction of the Logan Lateral, which would require the 

clearing of about 23.4 acres of forested vegetation and result in the permanent conversion of 8.5 acres of 

forest land to commercial/industrial, herbaceous, and shrub cover types. The forest land adjacent to 

Chester Creek likely contains the most diverse and abundant terrestrial wildlife populations. Impacts on 

this area would be minimized by using the HDD method to cross the creek and by constructing the 

pipeline adjacent to an existing pipeline right-of-way. Forest habitat on the temporary construction rightof-way for the pipeline would be allowed to re-establish to preconstruction conditions following 

construction. However, it could take several years for tree saplings to become established and many 

decades before there are mature trees on the restored right-of-way 

Generally, forest clearing can contribute to fragmentation, which has been shown to have an 

adverse impact on forest interior species. The project would not contribute significantly to forest 

fragmentation since most of the proposed facilities would be located in open non-forested areas and the 

majority of the pipeline would be adjacent to existing utility or road corridors. Additionally, Texas 

Eastern proposes to cross the large forested areas along Chester Creek and Raccoon Creek using the HDD 

method, which would avoid impacts on these areas. 

The non-forested habitats that would be affected by construction and operation of the pipeline 

include wetlands, open land, agricultural land, residential areas, and open water. The impact of the 

proposed project on most of these habitats and associated wildlife species would generally be minor and 

short term. Following construction, these areas would be restored and, except for open water areas, 

revegetated. 

To minimize the clearing of vegetated areas for construction activities, Texas Eastern proposes to 

install 16 percent of the pipeline within existing streets, use the HDD method to cross several 

waterbodies, and co-locate 58 percent of the pipeline with existing utility corridors. Furthermore, in areas 

designed for HDD, clearing of vegetation would be limited to that necessary to comply with operation 

and inspection under the FERC and DOT requirements. 

The impact of the pipeline on birds and mammals using the shoreline and surface water habitats 

of the Delaware River and its tributaries is expected to be minor and temporary. Some birds may move 

away from the construction area but would return after site restoration. Impacts on Chester Creek, the 

Delaware River, Raccoon Creek, and Birch Creek are not anticipated because these areas would be 

crossed using HDD techniques. Potential impacts on pied-billed grebe habitat along Birch Creek are 

discussed in section 4.7. 

Long-term impacts on wildlife resources along the pipeline route would be minimized by Texas 

Eastern’s adherence to its SESC Plan and our Plan and Procedures. As discussed in section 4.5, these 

plans only allow annual maintenance of a 10-foot-wide strip centered over the pipeline. Routine 

vegetation maintenance across the entire permanent right-of-way could occur only once every 3 years in 

uplands and would be restricted in wetlands to the periodic clearing of trees greater than 15 feet in height 

that are within 15 feet of the pipeline centerline. To further protect nesting birds and in accordance with 

our Plan and Procedures, Texas Eastern would conduct routine vegetation maintenance only between 

August 1 and April 15, which is outside of the typical nesting season for most bird species. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-56 

4.6.2 Aquatic Resources 

The proposed LNG terminal site is located on the Delaware River which is listed on the EPA’s 

National Estuary Program (EPA, 2004). The salinity distribution in the Delaware River is primarily the 

result of saltwater inflow from the Atlantic Ocean and freshwater inflow from the Delaware River Basin. 

The mixing of salt and fresh water forms a salinity gradient that ranges from less than 0.5 ppt in the 

freshwater tidal portion of the Delaware River to about 32 ppt at the mouth of the Delaware Bay. This 

salinity gradient is not static, but is subject to change based on freshwater inflow, weather conditions, and 

other factors. Fish, benthic invertebrates, aquatic vegetation, and, to a lesser extent, wildlife distribute 

themselves within the Delaware River in accordance with their salinity tolerances (COE, 1997). 

The riverine area near the project site (located at about RM 78) supports a warmwater fish 

assemblage that includes anadromous, resident, and catadromous species. The LNG terminal site is 

located in the oligohaline to freshwater transition zone. Salinity at the site typically ranges up to about 1 

ppt. 

New Jersey legally defines fisheries downstream of the Commodore Barry Bridge as marine 

fisheries (NJDEP, 2003b). However, NOAA Fisheries considers Oldmans Creek to be the upstream limit 

of saltwater intrusion (National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), 2003) and fisheries biologists with the 

NJDEP (2003c) indicated that the project area supports a tidal freshwater fishery. Therefore, for the 

purposes of regulating fishery resources at the state level, the fishery offshore of the LNG terminal site is 

considered marine, even though most of the species found there are more characteristic of freshwater 

environments. 

Historically, the section of the Delaware River near the proposed LNG terminal site was 

considered heavily polluted due to upstream discharges. However, in recent years, water quality in the 

area has been improving. As water quality improves, the suitability of the general project area as 

potential spawning habitat increases. The discussion below of species occurring at or near the project site 

is based on current studies and recent literature. Future changes to water quality may alter species 

occurrence and distribution in this area. 

Table 4.6.2-1 lists fish species that based on correspondence with resource agencies and/or field 

assessments are known to occur in or near the project area. 

Three general types of aquatic habitat exist within the Delaware River at the LNG terminal site: 

• open waters of the Delaware River ship channel, Marcus Hook anchorage, and the area 

between the anchorage and the subtidal shallows; 

• intertidal and subtidal shallows; and 

• benthic habitat. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-57 

TABLE 4.6.2-1 

Representative Game and Commercial Fish Species Known to Occur in the Project Area 

Common Name Commercial 

Fishery

Recreational 

Fishery 

Nursery and/or 

Spawning 

Habitat 

Fishery 

Management 

Plans 

Threatened or Endangered 

Alewife X X 

American eel X X X 

American shad X X 

Atlantic croaker X 

Atlantic menhaden X X 

Atlantic sturgeon X X State-listed endangered 

(Delaware and Pennsylvania) 

Banded killfish X 

Black crappie X 

Blueback herring X X 

Brown bulhead X 

Chain pickerel X 

Channel catfish X 

Golden shiner X 

Hickory shad X 

Norfolk spot X 

Largemouth bass X 

Redear sunfish X 

Redfin pickerel X 

Shortnose sturgeon X Federally endangered, statelisted endangered (New Jersey 

and Pennsylvania) and 

threatened (Delaware) 

Smallmouth bass X 

Striped bass X X X 

Striped killfish X 

White catfish X 

White perch X 

White sucker X 

Yellow perch X 

The open water habitat includes all of the waters channelward of the subtidal shallows. This 

habitat ranges from 4 feet deep to more than 40 feet deep at MLLW and is characterized by turbid, lowsalinity (brackish) water over a substrate of fine sand and silt. Atlantic croaker, white perch, bay 

anchovy, hogchoker, channel catfish, and striped bass are the most abundant species using this habitat in 

the project area (O’Herron et al., 1994). The project area also provides habitat for Atlantic sturgeon, 

brown bullhead, white catfish, yellow perch, Norfolk spot, naked goby, and golden shiner. Most of these 

fish are polyhaline species, which can tolerate a wide range of salinities, and all are physiologically 

adapted to the natural variations in water quality and the general environmental conditions characteristic 

of the estuarine environments. Most of these species are also habitat generalists. Some of the smaller 

species, including hogchoker, naked goby, and bay anchovy, use both the deep open water and shallow 

water areas of the Delaware River. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-58 

The areas between the spring high water line to a depth of 4 feet below MLLW include both 

shallow water habitat (subtidal shallows) and areas exposed during low tide (intertidal shallows). Within 

the project area, the slope and width of the subtidal and intertidal zones is relatively uniform along the 

river and the substrate is a mix of sand, gravel, sparse cobble, and silt. The subtidal shallows 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 substrate. Based on several observations made during June, 

July, and August 2003, there is almost no aquatic vegetation within the offshore areas of the site area. 

Several smaller species of fish, such as eastern silvery minnow, banded killifish, tessellated darter, and 

mummichog are residents of the subtidal and intertidal shallows almost year round. Some of these 

species, particularly mummichog, are common in the tidal ditches. These species may exhibit a slight 

shift to deeper environments during winter, however, they rarely move significant distances during 

seasonal migration. Juvenile Atlantic sturgeon, striped bass, white catfish, channel catfish, yellow perch, 

white perch, Atlantic croaker, and Norfolk spot also utilize the subtidal zone, particularly in the summer 

months. Managed species that use shallow water habitat are discussed below in the Special Concern 

Aquatic Resources section. 

The NJDEP (2003c) reported that there are no commercial shellfisheries in the project area. 

However, adult male blue crabs have been collected on industrial intake screens at RM 81.2, 

approximately 3 miles upstream of the project site. This data suggests that the project area may provide 

suitable habitat seasonally (during the summer) for blue crabs. 

A study conducted by Crown Landing in 2003 revealed the presence of five major 

macroinvertabrate taxa in the Delaware River at the site: Bivalvia, Isopoda, Amphipoda, Oligochaeta, 

and Chironomidae. Asiatic clam (Corbicula fluminea) was determined to be the dominant species in the 

subtidal shallows. Data from the study revealed that the abundance of benthic macroinvertebrates is 

closely related to substrate condition, water quality, and macrohabitat features. The study also revealed 

that the species composition of the benthic community in the project area differs from benthic 

communities elsewhere in the Delaware River estuary in the following ways: 

• the overall density of benthic macroinvertebrates at the project site is low when compared 

to densities elsewhere in the estuary, and is also low compared to the mean total density 

of organisms documented for Zone 5 (approximately 1,300 per square meter), which was 

the lowest for all five zones evaluated during the COE study in 19933

; and 

• excluding the Asiatic clam, the overall biomass of the benthos at the project site is low 

when compared to biomass of benthos across all five zones documented by the COE 

(1993). 

In addition to those species identified in the project area during project-specific surveys, the 

DNREC reported that the common rangia (a brackish water bivalve) is likely to occur at the site and has 

been documented both upstream and downstream of the proposed LNG terminal site. 

Oldmans Creek constitutes the only tidal creek habitat near the project site. The creek is 

generally turbid, has a silt or sand bottom, extensive vegetated shallows, and lacks significant bathymetric 

complexity. Numerous small tidal streams and ditches on the LNG terminal site flow into Oldmans 

 

3

 The COE conducted a study in 1993 of the benthic habitats in the Delaware River estuary between the C&D Canal (near RM 59) and 

Trenton, New Jersey (near RM 133). This study stratified the river into five zones, each with three physical habitat types (intertidal zone, 

shallow intermediate habitat, and navigation channel), and evaluated the biomass, species composition, and relative density of benthic 

macroinvertebrates within each zone and physical habitat type. The proposed LNG terminal site occurs near the upriver boundary of Zone 5 

of the COE’s study (COE, 1993). 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-59 

Creek. These streams and ditches have mud or sand bottoms and generally lack significant aquatic 

vegetation. The proposed project would not directly impact any of these waterbodies. 

The proposed pipeline route runs perpendicular to the Delaware River in Pennsylvania and 

parallel to the Delaware River in New Jersey. The pipeline route crosses eight perennial waterbodies. 

The largest of these is the Delaware River, which would be crossed using HDD techniques. Chester 

Creek (about 105 feet wide), Raccoon Creek (about 300 feet wide), and Birch Creek (about 50 feet wide) 

would also be crossed using HDD techniques to avoid impacts on the waterbodies and adjacent wetlands. 

The four other streams that would be crossed by the pipeline are Baldwin Run, which is a tributary to the 

Delaware River, and three unnamed tributaries to Oldmans Creek. Texas Eastern currently proposes to 

cross all four of these waterbodies using open-cut construction methods. Because these latter waterbodies 

have limited fisheries and the in-stream pipeline construction activities would be temporary, the aquatic 

resources in these streams would not be adversely affected by the proposed project. 

Special Concern Aquatic Resources 

There are no exceptional or rare recreational fisheries in the project area, but there are two 

protected fish species that may occur in the waterbodies that would be affected by the project (see section 

4.7). Aquatic areas near the project have been identified as spawning and/or nursery habitat and 

commercial and recreational fisheries for several finfish species (see table 4.6.2-1). 

The Upper Delaware River provides key spawning and nursery habitat for the American shad 

along its entire length. The LNG terminal site is located within a section of the Delaware River 

considered as a critical nursery area for striped bass and the general project vicinity is considered the 

primary spawning grounds for the Delaware River stock of striped bass. Tyrawski (1979) also found that 

the Marcus Hook area on the opposite side of the river as the project site has high densities of 

anadromous fish larvae from April through June. The value of subtidal shallows as nursery habitat for 

young finfish 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 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. However, shallow water and the lack 

of structure in the area also increase the vulnerability of juvenile fish to avian predators. Therefore, the 

limited availability of food and lack of refuge habitat likely limits the value of subtidal shallows in the 

area as nursery habitat. Juveniles of several of these predatory species are also commonly found in nearshore open water and, to a lesser extent, deepwater, especially in the upper reaches of the Delaware River 

estuary. 

The American eel is the only true catadromous fish (a species that spawns in the ocean but 

completes most of its life cycle in fresh water) that may occur in the project area. Several age classes of 

eels could be present at any given time. Like many of the fish discussed above, the American eel is a 

habitat generalist and, thus may occur in both deep and shallow water. 

Aquatic Resources Impacts and Mitigation 

LNG Terminal Construction

Dredging 

The proposed LNG terminal was to initially require dredging of about 800,000 cubic yards 

(approximately 27.4 acres) of material from the Delaware River to create a berth for the LNG ships. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-60 

However, Crown Landing subsequently revised its project design for safety and security reasons, 

specifically changing the berth layout to include upstream and aft sheet piles and a stabilized soil terrace 

on the downriver side of the berth. This change in berth layout and configuration increased the amount of 

proposed dredging to 1.24 million cubic yards. In addition to the berth, the project would require 

construction of an approximate 2,000-foot-long pier that would be supported by approximately 80 steel 

pilings, each 3 feet in diameter. Dredging in the vicinity of the pier would result in the conversion of 

existing subtidal shallow water habitat to deeper, channel-like habitat. This dredging would directly 

impact up to 30.3 acres of benthic habitat and result in a net loss of approximately 9.7 acres of subtidal 

shallow habitat and a net gain of 9.7 acres of deep channel habitat. 

The conversion of 9.7 acres of subtidal shallow habitat to deepwater habitat could affect most of 

the resident species within the project area to some degree. NOAA Fisheries, NJDEP, and DNREC 

expressed specific concerns about the potential impacts of this habitat loss on spawning adults (primarily 

striped bass) and migrating anadromous fish within the Delaware River. These agencies have indicated 

that mitigation would be necessary to offset the loss of shallow water habitat and its permanent 

conversion to deepwater habitat. NOAA Fisheries recommended that mitigation should involve creation 

of shallow water habitat from uplands in the vicinity of the proposed project area at a ratio of 1:1. NOAA 

also recommended that construction work for mitigation should occur concurrently with dredging 

activities. Crown Landing coordinated with the applicable resource agencies to develop a conceptual 

mitigation plan for potential impacts on shallow water habitat. This plan included creating subtidal 

shallows by excavating a portion of the existing berm between Oldmans Ditch and Oldmans Creek. 

However, Crown Landing’s mitigation plan only accounts for the loss of subtidal shallows within the 

footprints of the LNG pier piles and sheet piles and the loss of subtidal shallows within the footprint of 

the stormwater outfall. This plan does not take into account the conversion of approximately 9.7 acres of 

shallow water habitat to deepwater habitat through dredging of the terminal berth. Thus although Crown 

Landing has better defined its proposed mitigation measures for impacts on shallow water habitats, 

because the mitigation plan does not include measures to account for all impacts on subtidal habitat nor 

has it been finalized or approved by the appropriate agencies, we recommend that: 

• Crown Landing continue coordinating with NOAA Fisheries and other applicable 

agencies in developing a plan to mitigate for impacts on shallow water habitats. The 

plan, along with agency consultation, should be filed with the Director of OEP for 

review and approval prior to initiating dredging activities in the Delaware River. 

The dredging of the ship berth may adversely affect fish and fish habitat. Potential adverse 

effects on fish and fish habitat include impairment of water quality, destruction of benthic habitat, and 

direct and indirect effects on fish and their prey species. The extent of these effects depends on project 

timing and duration, sediment texture and composition, and fish life stage and behavior. 

The water quality of the Delaware River is currently degraded by upstream discharges and runoff. 

The proposed dredging could contribute to further degradation of water quality through increases in 

turbidity, releases of chemical and nutrient pollutants from sediments, and introduction of chemical 

contaminants. Turbidity resulting from the suspension of sediments would reduce light penetration and 

the corresponding primary production of aquatic plants, algae, and phytoplankton. Additionally, the 

suspension of organic materials and sediments could cause an increase in biological and chemical use of 

oxygen, resulting in a decrease of dissolved oxygen concentrations in the affected area. Lower dissolved 

oxygen concentrations could cause a temporary displacement of motile organisms and may stress or kill 

sessile benthic organisms within the affected area. 

Dredging activities would result in the disturbance of about 30.3 acres of benthic substrate in the 

Delaware River. As previously indicated, there is no commercial shellfishery or abundance of 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-61 

commercially important shellfish species in the project area. Project dredging would primarily affect the 

Asiatic clam, 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 areas suggest that 

the species composition of the benthic communities in both areas is impoverished and similar. 

Additionally, the relative importance of the major taxa in terms of biomass in the shallow water area 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 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. 

Dredging also has the potential to introduce deleterious compounds currently in the bottom 

sediments (e.g., metals) into the water column. In addition to potentially causing behavioral responses in 

fish, certain chemical contaminants could have acute and/or chronic growth and physiological effects in 

fish. To evaluate these risks, Crown Landing performed a sediment characterization study that analyzed a 

number of organic and inorganic chemicals in the sediments. We compared the average concentrations of 

these chemicals to ecologically risk-based screening criteria to assess the potential hazard of the 

sediments on the aquatic environment. The results of this analysis showed eight metals (arsenic, 

cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, and zinc) with detectable concentrations in the 

sediment samples collected from the proposed dredging area. All of these metals were detected at 

concentrations below the PEL (i.e., below the value at which adverse biological effects are frequently 

expected), suggesting that no adverse effects on aquatic resources are likely from the resuspension of the 

sediments. A detailed discussion of the study and its results are provided in section 4.2.2. 

In addition to potentially releasing deleterious compounds into the water column, suspended 

sediments could have direct and indirect physical effects on pelagic and benthic communities in the 

Delaware River. Direct impacts could result from the exposure to sediment particles and indirect impacts 

could result from habitat alteration caused by sediment deposition. Crown Landing’s proposal to 

primarily use a hydraulic dredge would only minimally increase suspended sediments, thus impacts from 

sediment suspension and/or subsequent sediment deposition are not expected to result in long-term or 

substantial effects on aquatic resources near the project area. 

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 anadromous species. However, the larger polyhaline species, such as brown bullhead, white 

catfish, 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 berth. 

Use of a hydraulic dredge would reduce turbidity and sedimentation associated with dredging and 

limit the extent of impacts on aquatic resources. However, dredging could entrain or impinge juvenile 

fish, fish larvae, and eggs 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 anadromous fish during fish migration and spawning, Crown 

Landing revised its dredging schedule to avoid dredging and other in-stream construction activities from 

March 15 to August 1. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-62 

Pier Construction

The pier for the ship unloading facility would be supported on approximately 80 steel pilings, 

each 3 feet in diameter and 100 to 120 feet long. The pier and unloading platform would be constructed 

over about 2.4 acres of riverbed. Construction of the pier and breasting dolphins would result in a direct 

loss of approximately 1,900 square feet (0.04 acre) of benthic substrate within the footprints of the 

individual pilings, of which 1,800 square feet would occur in the intertidal or subtidal shallows. 

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). 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. 

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 5 hours to install. However, the actual driving time 

per pile would only be about 30 to 45 minutes depending on the load criteria and the soils encountered. 

Additional time would be required for barge 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 decibels4

, 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 et al., 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 of the mooring dolphins are being driven. 

Driving hollow steel piles with impact hammers produce intense, sharp spikes of sound that can 

injure fish. In some cases, fish may be startled by the first few strikes of an impact hammer. 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. 

Although some fish may become acclimated to certain sounds, acoustic disturbance could cause 

other fish to avoid the construction area. If pile installation occurred during anadromous fish migrations, 

the avoidance of the nearshore areas 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 seems unlikely that 

 

4

 All sound levels are expressed as decibels at a reference pressure of 1 micropascal. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-63 

these effects would substantially alter migration patterns, the relationship of predator or prey species, or 

their abilities to find shelter or forage. Additionally, Crown Landing has committed to avoiding 

construction activities in the Delaware River between March 15 and August 1 to avoid impacts on 

migrating and spawning fish species. In comments on the Waterfront Development Application, the New 

Jersey Division of Fish and Wildlife (NJDFW) reported that timing restrictions imposed upon in-stream 

work in the Delaware River may be sufficient for addressing impacts from hydroacoustic affects. 

Nonetheless, because the area is considered a critical nursery area for anadromous fish species and both 

federally and state-listed fish species are known to occur in the area (see section 4.7), we recommend 

that: 

• 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 pile-driving activities. Copies of consultations with these agencies 

should be filed with the Secretary prior to construction. 

The bottom of the pier deck and unloading platform would be approximately 25 feet above the 

surface of the water, depending on tidal fluctuations, and would shade a total of approximately 2.25 acres 

of intertidal, subtidal, and open-water habitat. Predatory species, especially those that forage primarily by 

sight, are often sensitive to intense sunlight and seek shade or deeper water during periods of intense 

sunlight. The aquatic habitat in the Delaware River is almost completely devoid of aquatic vegetation in 

the offshore area of the site and lacks shaded areas where fish can avoid direct sunlight during the day. 

Shading of the area underneath the pier could enhance the habitat for predatory species, such as striped 

bass and other species that avoid intense direct sunlight during the day. 

Construction of the pier and the marine dolphins could increase the complexity of the aquatic 

habitat, provide an additional hard substrate for colonization by sessile aquatic organisms, and provide 

eddy habitat downstream of the pilings that could be used by resident and migrating fish species during 

high flow periods. Blueback herring and American shad could utilize the shallows for nursery habitat 

because they do not specifically require vegetation for shelter. 

Other Potential Impacts

Construction of the onshore portions of the LNG terminal would temporarily increase erosion, 

stormwater runoff, and the potential for sediments to reach the Delaware River. If uncontrolled, this 

sediment could degrade water quality, increase turbidity, affect fish usage of the affected area, and 

smother aquatic life, especially benthic invertebrates. To minimize the effects of erosion and 

sedimentation on the river, Crown Landing would construct the facility in accordance with our Plan and 

its SESC Plan. 

Stormwater runoff during operation of the LNG terminal also has the potential to adversely affect 

water quality and thereby indirectly affect aquatic life. To minimize this potential impact, Crown 

Landing proposes to construct a permanent stormwater management system at the LNG terminal site in 

accordance with the New Jersey Stormwater Management Manual (NJDEP, 2004b). 

Direct spills of petroleum products into the Delaware River from construction equipment could 

be toxic to fish. To reduce the potential for direct surface water contamination during construction and 

dredging, Crown Landing would implement a SPCC Plan. This plan would include provisions that 

prohibit the storage of fuel and other potentially toxic materials within specified distances of waterbodies 

and procedures to minimize potential spills during the refueling of equipment. This plan would also 

outline procedures for containing, cleaning up, and reporting spills. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-64 

LNG Terminal Operation 

Natural river sedimentation would occur within the LNG ship berth. It is estimated that 60,000 to 

90,000 cubic yards would be deposited annually. Crown Landing anticipates annual maintenance 

dredging would be required to remove the sediment from the ship berth. The dredged material would be 

disposed of at the Weeks Marine disposal facility, which is also proposed for initial dredged material 

disposal. This facility reportedly has capacity to handle maintenance dredged material for many years. 

Impacts associated with annual maintenance dredging would be similar to those described above for 

initial dredging activities, but would occur on a shorter and smaller scale compared to initial dredging 

operations. 

The NJDFW and NOAA Fisheries 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 proposed ship berth. In response to these concerns, Crown Landing 

modified its proposed berth design. Specifically, Crown Landing is proposing to install a stabilized soil 

terrace on the downriver side of the berth pocket instead of sheet piling; the upstream and shoreline sides 

of the berth would still be contained with sheet-pile walls. The terrace would be approximately 85 feet 

wide at the base and 22 feet tall and would extend approximately 820 feet along the edge of the berth. 

This terrace would allow for tug maneuvering in the area as the tugs have a shallower draft than the LNG 

ships. The use of a terrace on the downriver side also provides the possibility that ichthyoplankton may 

more readily float freely through the berth pocket and reduces the hydrological conditions that could 

potentially lead to ichthyoplankton collection within the basin. 

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. As a vessel navigates 

through a waterway, it generates hydraulic disturbances in the form of waves and currents, mainly 

drawdown, return current, slope supply currents, wash waves, and jet wash (Wolter and Arlinghaus, 

2003). These activities have the potential to suspend and redeposit sediments similar to but not 

necessarily on the same scale as dredging. 

Modeling was conducted for the Boston Harbor Navigation Improvement Project to assess the 

effect of ship passage on the resuspension of surface sediments in a federal ship channel (COE, 1995). 

The modeling was developed based on the post-dredging dimensions of the channel and information 

collected during interviews with pilots regarding the operation of various types of vessels. The analysis 

modeled the effects of an LNG ship, a container ship, a 41,000 ton displacement weight tanker, an ocean 

tug, and a harbor tug. The modeling assumed a channel depth of 45 feet and varying vessel drafts from 

12 to 42 feet. The study concluded that silt, the predominant grain size of the surface sediments assessed 

in the model, can be resuspended by currents as slow as 0.65 feet per second. The study also found that 

bottom velocities generated by cargo vessels passing at slow speeds through the harbor can exceed this 

value up to 1,312 feet astern of the vessel and that tugs can generate bottom velocities above this value up 

to 656 feet astern of the vessel. Ship turning areas were found to be particularly susceptible to this 

influence. The COE modeling results indicated that the surface sediments in the federal channels and 

berth areas are subject to resuspension during essentially every ship passage. Thus impacts associated 

with prop wash would occur more frequently than dredging since 100 to 150 ships may berth at the 

proposed LNG terminal annually. However, the results of the modeling also indicated that ship-induced 

bottom velocities dissipate rapidly following the passage of the ship and that sediments resuspended by 

these currents settle back to the substrate after being transported relatively short distances, suggesting that 

the substrate and water column would return to ambient conditions during periods between ship passages. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-65 

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. Vessel propellers also have the potential to 

directly strike fish species that use the navigation channel and proposed ship berth. Adult Atlantic 

sturgeon have been found along the shoreline of the river that have been killed by vessel propellers 

(DNREC, 2004a). Potential indirect effects of vessel movement through the waterway could include 

disturbances preventing fish from nest-guarding (Mueller, 1980; cited in Wolter and Arlinghaus, 2003) or 

feeding (Barrett et al., 1992; cited in Wolter and Arlinghaus, 2003), and dislodgement of eggs and 

redistribution of eggs and larvae in less suitable habitats (Hofbauer, 1965, Jude et al., 1998; cited in 

Wolter and Arlinghaus, 2003). Obstructing nest-guarding behavior and dislodgement and redistribution 

of eggs into less suitable habitats could lower the reproductive success of affected fish species. 

LNG ships calling from international ports could potentially introduce aquatic invasive species 

into U.S. waters. Alternatively, visiting LNG ships could transport native species to other parts of the 

world. Although the potential for this to occur cannot be entirely eliminated, several factors, both general 

and specific to the project, tend to mitigate this potential impact. First, LNG ships would not discharge 

ballast water into the Delaware River, which would significantly reduce the potential to spread invasive 

aquatic species. Second, the LNG ships that would visit the proposed terminal would arrive from ports 

located primarily throughout the Atlantic region, which is also where the project is located. Third, 

Delaware River is not a new port and ships of all types originating from different ports have and will 

continue to visit the Delaware River. Fourth, legislation is currently being considered by the U.S. Senate 

that would require all ships entering U.S. ports to have on board an aquatic species management plan 

outlining actions to minimize the transfer and introduction of invasive species. Finally, in February 2004, 

a new international convention to prevent the potentially devastating effects of the spread of harmful 

aquatic organisms carried by ships' ballast water was adopted by the IMO, the United Nations agency 

responsible for the safety and security of shipping and the prevention of marine pollution from ships. The 

Convention will require all ships to implement a Ballast Water and Sediments Management Plan. All 

ships will have to carry a Ballast Water Record Book and will be required to carry out ballast water 

management procedures to a given standard. Existing ships will be required to do the same, but after a 

phase-in period. With the adoption of this Convention, the IMO has made global provisions to control 

and manage ships' ballast water and thus prevent, minimize, and eliminate the transfer of harmful aquatic 

organisms and pathogens. 

LNG ships are equipped with a ballast water system that pumps water into ballast tanks as cargo 

is unloaded. The maximum ballast demand for a 138,000 m3

 and 200,000 m3 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

/hr. 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 are about 5,200 m3

/hr for a 138,000 m3 ship and about 7,500 m3 for a 200,000 m3 ship. Thus intake 

rates for the 138,000 m3

 and 200,000 m3 ships are generally about 23,000 gpm and 34,000 gpm, 

respectively. However, Crown Landing proposes to extend ballast water intake withdrawals for LNG 

ships at the terminal to a 12-hour period which reduces the intake rate for the proposed project to about 

11,000 gpm. The total area of the two lower intake openings is 3.55 square meters. Openings are 

protected by bar-type grids having 4.5 mm bars spaced 25 mm apart, reducing the clear flow area to 2.36 

square meters. The highest and lowest points of the openings are about 8.4 and 9.5 meters below the 

ship’s waterline, respectively. 

LNG ships would unload LNG at the proposed terminal up to about 150 times annually and 

during all seasons. Although each ship could require up to about 13.7 million gallons of ballast water (for 

a 138,000 m3 ship), Crown Landing has indicated that it would minimize the amount of ballast water 

withdrawal (approximately 8 million gallons) needed for ship stability while moored at the ship berth. 

Nonetheless, since data are currently not available showing differences in ichthyoplankton density at the 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-66 

proposed terminal site compared to the ship channel, regardless of where the total ballast water volume is 

withdrawn, it is likely that any ballast water intake in the Delaware River would result in the entrainment, 

impingement, or loss of aquatic resources, especially larvae and eggs. 

To assess the potential impacts of ballast water withdrawals on fish populations within the 

Delaware River, we reviewed data included in a Delaware River case study (EPA, 2002) and used in the 

EPA’s analysis of potential impacts from cooling water intake structures within the Delaware River 

system. In the case study, actual impingement 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 adjacent to the proposed LNG terminal site. The Logan Generating Station 

withdraws about 730 million gallons annually from the Delaware River. Using a simple extrapolation 

formula based on volume of water withdrawn and assuming a maximum of 150 138,000 m3

 ships would 

unload cargo at the 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 estimated annual fish losses from ballast 

water intakes associated with operation of the proposed LNG terminal (see table 4.6.2-2). Although the 

potential exists for Crown Landing to utilize 200,000 m3

 LNG carriers, which would withdraw more 

water per ship, ships of that size would unload at the terminal less frequently than 138,000 m3

 ships. 

Thus total annual withdrawals for ballast water for 200,000 m3

 carriers would be similar to ballast water 

volumes withdrawn for 138,000 m3

 carriers. In addition to water withdrawn for ballast, LNG ships may 

also withdraw water for cooling the ship boilers. The specific volumes needed for this operation are not 

available; however, based on the limited annual LNG ship traffic, it would not result in appreciative 

impingement and entrainment impacts beyond what is described for ballast water. 

As shown in table 4.6.2-2, annual ballast water intake is estimated to impinge or entrain the 

equivalent of about 1.2 million age-1 fish, would reduce fish harvest by over 33,000 pounds, and would 

result in over 154,000 pounds of production foregone. Although when compared to other existing facility 

intake related losses along the Delaware River (see table 4.6.2-2), the impacts associated with ballast 

water intake by LNG ships at the proposed LNG terminal would account for about 0.2 percent of the total 

loss of fish species and thus would not likely result in adverse population level effects on managed 

species, other recreationally important fish species, or forage species. These estimates do not take into 

account the entrainment losses that currently result from ballasting of other ships on the Delaware River. 

Additionally, these estimates assume that ichthyoplankton are relatively evenly distributed throughout the 

water column when in effect, it is more likely that ichthyoplankton densities are higher at the surface and 

lower at the depth of the ballast water intakes, thus revising this number downward to some degree. 

Despite the estimated magnitude of potential entrainment and impingement losses associated with ballast 

water withdrawals when compared to other losses of fish in the Delaware River, in comments on the draft 

EIS, NOAA Fisheries, FWS, NJDEP, and DNREC continued to express concern about impact levels and 

reiterated the need for consideration of additional mitigation measures. Thus in response to those 

continued concerns and because the area is considered a critical nursery area for anadromous fish species 

and both federally and state-listed fish species are known to occur in the area (see section 4.7), we 

recommend that: 

• Crown Landing continue to 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. Copies of consultations with these 

agencies should be filed with the Secretary prior to construction. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-67 

TABLE 4.6.2-2 

Estimate of Potential Impacts on Selected Fish Species in the Delaware River as the Result of Ballast Water Withdrawal 

by LNG Ships Unloading Cargo at the Proposed LNG Terminal a/

Fish Species Age-1 Equivalents (individuals) b/ Yield Lost (pounds) c/ Production Foregone (pounds) 

d/ 

Alewife 42 0 39 

American Shad 3 0 28 

Atlantic Croaker 54,043 11,004 30,722 

Atlantic Menhaden 7,630 3,830 666 

Bay Anchovy 956,693 0 22,912 

Blue Crab 5,561 176 1,036 

Blueback Herring 185 0 101 

Silverside 350 0 0 

Spot 78,322 8,772 21,140 

Striped Bass 1,456 2,022 10,489 

Weakfish 4,287 3,368 12,292 

White Perch 4,287 6 1,137 

Non-RIS Fishery 

Species e/ 45,800 4,091 52,746 

Non-RIS Forage 

Species e/ 27,202 0 978 

Estimated Total Entrained 

by LNG Ships 1,185,861 33,269 154,286 

Estimated Total Entrained 

by Delaware River 

Facilities (EPA, 2002) f/ 

630,733,201 16,679,018 61,215,570 

____________________ 

a/ Assumes a maximum of 150 LNG ships would unload cargo at the proposed LNG terminal annually and that each ship 

 would intake about 13.7 million gallons of ballast water . 

b/ “Age-1 Equivalents” are the number of impinged and entrained individuals that would otherwise have survived to be 

 age-1 plus the number of impinged individuals which are assumed to be impinged at age 1. 

c/ “Yield Lost” is a measure of the amount of fish or shellfish that is not harvested because the fish are lost to 

 impingement and entrainment. 

d/ “Production Foregone” is the expected total amount of future growth of individuals that would be impinged or entrained 

 had they not been impinged or entrained. Foregone production for forage species is used to estimate the subsequent 

 reduction in harvested species yield that results from a decrease in the food supply. 

e/ RIS are “recreationally important species” as defined by EPA (2002). See EPA (2002) for a list of species in these 

 categories. 

f/ This estimation includes 12 other currently operating facilities along the Delaware River. See EPA (2002) for additional 

 details on these facilities. 

Pipeline Construction and Operation

In general, pipeline construction results in temporary impacts on streams and rivers, and there are 

no long-term effects on water temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen, benthic invertebrate populations, or fish 

populations (Vinkour and Shubert, 1987; Blais and Simpson, 1997). Some potential impacts on fishery 

resources, such as sedimentation and turbidity, destruction of stream bank cover, introduction of water 

pollutants, or entrainment of fish could result from construction activities. Overall, the impact of 

construction on fish and other aquatic organisms is expected to be localized and short term. To minimize 

these potential impacts, Texas Eastern proposes to install the pipeline across Chester Creek, Delaware 

River, Raccoon Creek, and Birch Creek using the HDD method, if feasible. The use of this method 

would avoid direct disturbance of these waterbodies and should allow construction to occur without 

timing restrictions. Texas Eastern would also adhere to the protective measures for crossing waterbodies 

outlined in its SESC Plan, our Procedures, and other federal, state, or local agencies permit requirements. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-68 

Sedimentation and Turbidity

Increased sedimentation and turbidity as the result of construction activities have the greatest 

potential to adversely affect fishery resources. Sedimentation is known to bury demersal fish eggs, while 

turbidity affects juvenile and adult fish by reducing oxygen uptake by the gills. In-stream turbidity levels 

generally increase during construction but decrease rapidly after construction activities are completed 

(Vinkour and Shubert, 1987; Blais and Simpson, 1997). Turbidity also reduces photosynthesis of aquatic 

vegetation, which results in reduced dissolved oxygen levels in the water column. 

Standard open-cut crossing techniques as proposed for portions of this project could elevate the 

concentration of suspended solids, but the elevated levels would be high for relatively short periods and 

short distances downstream of the stream crossing. In addition, increased sedimentation may affect fish 

nesting sites and areas where eggs and young fry concentrate, and may reduce access to some food 

sources. In the immediate area of disturbance, if construction occurs during the spawning period or 

immediately after, fish reproductive activities would be affected due to temporary destruction of 

spawning areas, disturbances to fish, and reduced egg survival from increased sedimentation. In 

compliance with our Procedures, Texas Eastern would complete in-stream construction within a 24-hour 

period at each minor waterbody. Therefore, impacts would be temporary, and suspended sediment 

concentrations would be expected to return to preconstruction levels soon after construction in each 

stream is completed. 

Impacts on fisheries from construction-induced sedimentation and turbidity would be reduced to 

short-term, temporary disturbances by implementing the measures contained in our Procedures. For the 

waterbodies that would be crossed using the open-cut construction method, trench spoils would be stored 

on or above the stream banks. Waterbodies would be protected with silt fence, hay bales, or other erosion 

control devices that would minimize the potential for sediment-laden water to enter the stream. 

Additionally, in accordance with our Procedures, all staging areas would be located at least 50 feet back 

from the water’s edge where topographic conditions permit (unless otherwise permitted). This setback 

distance would reduce the loss of riparian vegetation and minimize the potential for erosion and 

sedimentation along the stream banks. 

Loss of Cover

Stream bank vegetation, in-stream logs and rocks, and undercut banks provide important cover 

for fish. Some in-stream and shoreline cover would be altered or lost at open-cut stream crossings, and 

fish that normally reside in these areas would be displaced. However, these effects would be relatively 

minor because of the small area affected at each stream. In addition, our Procedures limit vegetation 

maintenance on stream banks and require long-term revegetation of all shoreline areas with native 

herbaceous and woody plant species, except for a 10-foot-wide corridor over the pipelines maintained 

with herbaceous species. 

Minimal impact on fisheries is expected from maintenance mowing or manual removal of woody 

vegetation in the vicinity of the pipeline rights-of-way. Vegetation control would be conducted solely by 

mechanical means. No herbicides, which could be transported to nearby aquatic resources, would be 

used. 

Other Potential Impacts

Other potential effects of pipeline construction include interruption of fish migration and 

spawning and mortality from toxic substance (e.g., fuel) spills. Construction may cause temporary 

emigration of fish populations from the immediate area, and fish movements and migrations upstream or 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-69 

downstream may be temporarily disrupted by construction activities. However, it is unlikely that 

relocation or disrupted migration would significantly affect fish populations because construction would 

be a short-term activity and the waterbodies that would be affected by the project contain only limited fish 

resources. 

Direct spills of petroleum products into streams and rivers could be toxic to fish, depending on 

the type, quantity, and concentration of the spill. To reduce the potential for direct surface water 

contamination, Texas Eastern would implement its SPCC Plan, including restrictions on refueling 

equipment and storing fuel and other potentially toxic materials at least 100 feet from waterbodies. 

Hydrostatic Testing

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. 

Our Procedures generally prohibit the use of waterbodies like the Delaware River, which contain 

federally listed species, as hydrostatic test water sources or discharge locations 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 LNG tanks. Therefore, in accordance with our Procedures, Crown Landing would be required to 

consult with appropriate permitting and resource agencies to obtain authorization to use the Delaware 

River as a hydrostatic test water source and disposal location. 

Water would be appropriated from the Delaware River over a 2-week period at an intake rate of 

approximately 2,000 to 4,000 gpm. Similar to ballast water withdrawals by LNG carriers during 

operation of the proposed LNG 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 previously for ballast water, we estimated entrainment and impingement 

losses from hydrostatic test water withdrawals (see table 4.6.2-3). Unlike ballast water withdrawals that 

would occur throughout the year during the operations of the facility, water withdrawals for hydrostatic 

testing of the LNG tanks would only require a one-time withdrawal of 25 million gallons for each tank. 

However, since the estimates presented in table 4.6.2-3 are based on a proportion of the losses at the 

Logan Generating Station which occur throughout 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. 

To minimize entrainment and impingement of aquatic organisms, particularly eggs and larvae, 

Crown Landing would screen the intake with a 2 mm wedgewire screen and limit the velocity at the 

intake to 0.5 feet per second pursuant to the recommendations of NOAA Fisheries. Additionally, Crown 

Landing proposes to withdraw the water from the dredged berth area at a depth of 6 to 8 feet below the 

water surface. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-70 

TABLE 4.6.2-3 

Estimate of Potential Impacts of Hydrostatic Test Water Withdrawal during Construction of the Proposed LNG Terminal 

on Selected Fish Species in the Delaware River a/

Fish Species Age-1 Equivalents (individuals) b/ Yield Lost (pounds) 

c/ 

Production Foregone (pounds) 

d/ 

Alewife 2 0 1 

American Shad 0 0 1 

Atlantic Croaker 1,930 393 1,097 

Atlantic Menhaden 273 137 24 

Bay Anchovy 34,168 0 818 

Blue Crab 199 6 37 

Blueback Herring 7 0 4 

Silverside 13 0 0 

Spot 2,797 313 755 

Striped Bass 52 72 375 

Weakfish 153 120 439 

White Perch 268 0 41 

Non-RIS Fishery 

Species e/ 1,636 146 1,884 

Non-RIS Forage 

Species e/ 972 0 49 

Total 42,470 1,187 5,525 

____________________ 

a/ Assumes three LNG storage tanks would be hydrostatically tested and that each tank would require the withdrawal of 

 about 25 million gallons of water from the Delaware River. 

b/ “Age-1 Equivalents” are the number of impinged and entrained individuals that would otherwise have survived to be 

 age-1 plus the number of impinged individuals which are assumed to be impinged at age 1. 

c/ “Yield Lost” is a measure of the amount of fish or shellfish that is not harvested because the fish are lost to 

 impingement and entrainment. 

d/ “Production Foregone” is the expected total amount of future growth of individuals that would be impinged or entrained 

 had they not been impinged or entrained. Foregone production for forage species is used to estimate the subsequent 

 reduction in harvested species yield that results from a decrease in the food supply. 

e/ RIS are “recreationally important species” as defined by EPA (2002). See EPA (2002) for a list of species in these 

 categories. 

The discharge of hydrostatic test water could create minor, localized, and temporary increases in 

turbidity in the project area. To avoid impacts on the subtidal shallows and minimize erosion and 

scouring of the river bed, Crown Landing proposes to discharge the hydrostatic test water and flushing 

water in the dredged berth area over a multi-week period in accordance with NPDES permitting 

requirements. Fish and other aquatic species that occur in the vicinity of the project are adapted to the 

turbid conditions that are common to the Delaware River; therefore, a temporary, localized increase in 

turbidity in this location would not likely cause significant stress to these organisms. The hydrostatic 

testing process would not involve significant changes in the temperature of the test water and would not 

result in any thermal impacts as a result of its discharge to the Delaware River. Crown Landing indicated 

that chlorine may need to be added to the test water at concentrations significantly below EPA water 

quality standards. 

Texas Eastern would also conduct hydrostatic tests to ensure the integrity of the proposed 

pipeline before placing it in service. The test water would be obtained from municipal sources, the 

Delaware River, and Ridley Creek. Texas Eastern would be required to consult with appropriate 

permitting and resource agencies to obtain authorization to use the Delaware River and Ridley Creek as a 

hydrostatic test water source and disposal location. The impacts on these waterbodies would be similar to 

those impacts described above for hydrotest water for the LNG storage tanks. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-71 

4.6.3 Essential Fish Habitat 

The MSA (Public Law 94-265 as amended through October 11, 1996) was established, along 

with other goals, to promote the protection of EFH in the review of projects conducted under federal 

permits, licenses, or other authorities that affect or have the potential to affect such habitat. EFH is 

defined in the Act as those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or 

growth to maturity. 

Federal agencies which authorize, fund, or undertake activities that may adversely impact EFH 

must consult with NOAA Fisheries. Although absolute criteria have not been established for conducting 

EFH consultations, NOAA Fisheries recommends consolidated EFH consultations with interagency 

coordination procedures required by other statutes, such as the NEPA, Fish and Wildlife Coordination 

Act, ESA, or the Federal Power Act (50 CFR 600.920(e)) in order to reduce duplication and improve 

efficiency. Generally, the EFH consultation process includes the following steps: 

1) Notification - The action agency should clearly state the process being used for EFH 

consultations (e.g., incorporating EFH consultation into EIS, section 10 permit, etc.). 

2) EFH Assessment - The action agency should prepare an EFH Assessment that includes both 

identification of affected EFH and an assessment of impacts. Specifically, the EFH should include: 1) a 

description of the proposed action; 2) an analysis of the effects (including cumulative effects) of the 

proposed action on EFH, the managed fish species and major prey species; 3) the federal agency’s views 

regarding the effects of the action on EFH; and 4) proposed mitigation, if applicable. 

3) EFH Conservation Recommendations - After reviewing the EFH Assessment, NOAA 

Fisheries would provide recommendations to the action agency regarding measures that can be taken by 

that agency to conserve EFH. 

4) Agency Response - Within 30 days of receiving the NOAA Fisheries recommendations, the 

action agency must respond to NOAA Fisheries. The response must include a description of measures 

proposed by the agency for avoiding, mitigating, or offsetting the impact of the activity on EFH. For any 

conservation recommendation that is not adopted, the action agency must explain its reason to NOAA 

Fisheries for not following the recommendation. 

FERC staff proposes to consolidate EFH consultations for the Crown Landing LNG Project and 

the Logan Lateral Project with the interagency coordination procedures required under NEPA. For 

purposes of reviewing this project under NEPA, the FERC is the lead federal agency and the COE, EPA, 

FWS, NOAA Fisheries, and Coast Guard are cooperating federal agencies (see section 1.4). As such, the 

FERC requested that NOAA Fisheries consider the draft EIS notification of initiation of EFH 

consultation. The EFH Assessment includes the analysis in section 4.6 as well as the document in 

Appendix E of the draft EIS. In comments on the draft EIS and the EFH Assessment, NOAA Fisheries 

reported that it did not agree with our conclusion that the project would have negligible effects on EFH. 

Specifically, NOAA Fisheries expressed concern regarding loss of shallow water habitat and the 

ecological functions it provides and the resulting potential losses of prey species dependent on that 

habitat. As previously discussed, NOAA Fisheries also continued to be concerned about potential losses 

of prey species through ballast water intakes. Given these concerns, NOAA Fisheries provided the 

following conservation recommendation: 

• NOAA Fisheries recommends that offshore alternatives for siting of the project be 

investigated. This recommendation is necessary because of the cumulative impacts 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-72 

identified in the draft EIS and because no additional measures to minimize impacts to 

fisheries resources have been developed for this project. 

As required pursuant to the MSA, we responded to NOAA Fisheries within 30 days of receipt of 

its comments and indicated that additional information was being considered that pertained to its 

conservation recommendation. That response letter also indicated that a complete alternatives analysis 

was included in the draft EIS and that the analysis discussed in detail the potential for offshore 

alternatives to the proposed action. Although difficult to quantify, it is expected that entrainment and 

impingement of eggs and larvae would be higher in an estuarine setting similar to the proposed project 

site than in an area offshore. However, we believe that the analysis of offshore alternatives presented in 

section 3.0 of the EIS shows that the proposed terminal location is the environmentally preferred 

alternative based on consideration of multiple factors. We also believe that measures required of Crown 

Landing for impacts on shallow water habitats should appropriately mitigate for those impacts such that a 

net loss of that habitat type would not occur. Finally, throughout section 4.6 of this EIS, measures 

proposed by Crown Landing or recommended by FERC staff are discussed that, when implemented, 

would mitigate for the potential impacts on fishery resources expected as a result of construction and 

operation of the proposed action. Nonetheless, based on further review of the project’s potential impacts 

and consideration of NOAA Fisheries’ comments, we now conclude that the project is likely to have 

minor, rather than negligible, impacts on EFH. However, we do not believe these impacts would have 

population level effects. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-73 

4.7 THREATENED, ENDANGERED, AND OTHER SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES 

Federal agencies are required by section 7 of the ESA (Title 19 United States Code Part 1536(c)), 

as amended (1978, 1979, and 1982), to ensure that any actions authorized, funded, or carried out by the 

agency do not jeopardize the continued existence of a federally listed endangered or threatened species, or 

result in the destruction or adverse modification of the designated critical habitat of a federally listed 

species. The action agency (i.e., the FERC) is required to consult with the FWS and/or NOAA Fisheries 

to determine whether federally listed endangered or threatened species or designated critical habitat are 

found in the vicinity of the proposed project, and to determine the proposed action’s potential effects on 

those species or critical habitats. For actions involving major construction activities with the potential to 

affect listed species or designated critical habitat, the federal agency must prepare a BA. The action 

agency must submit its BA to the FWS and/or NOAA Fisheries and, if it is determined that the action 

may adversely affect a listed species, the federal agency must submit a request for formal consultation to 

comply with section 7 of the ESA. In response, the FWS or NOAA Fisheries would issue a Biological 

Opinion as to whether or not the federal action would likely jeopardize the continued existence of a listed 

species, or result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat. In compliance 

with section 7, the FERC requested that the FWS and NOAA Fisheries consider the draft EIS as the BA 

for the Crown Landing LNG and Logan Lateral Projects. Using the draft EIS as the BA, the FWS 

completed its review of the project as discussed below. However, NOAA Fisheries requested additional 

information pertaining to the shortnose sturgeon and potential ship strikes of northern right whales. In 

correspondence subsequent to the issuance of the draft EIS, the FERC provided the requested 

information, much of which has also been added below. Our section 7 consultation with NOAA Fisheries 

is currently ongoing. 

For purposes of this environmental analysis, special status species of plants and animals include: 

• species that are listed by the federal government as endangered, threatened, or candidate 

species; and 

• species that are listed by Pennsylvania, New Jersey, or Delaware as endangered, 

threatened, or species of concern. 

Crown Landing LNG initiated preliminary informal consultations with the FWS, NOAA 

Fisheries, and the Natural Heritage and Nongame and Endangered Species Programs of the PADEP, 

NJDEP, and DNREC in April 2003 to assess impacts on special status species. These consultations 

resulted in the identification of nine federal and/or state special status species (one of which is also a 

federal species of concern undergoing status review) that might occur in the project area. During 

subsequent review of the project, NOAA Fisheries indicated that the environmental analysis of the project 

should also include indirect effects of increased vessel traffic on federally endangered marine mammals 

with the potential to occur in the project area, specifically the right whale. NOAA Fisheries also reported 

that the loggerhead sea turtle should be addressed in addition to the green and Kemp’s ridley sea turtles. 

With the addition of these two species, 11 special status species were considered during the analysis of 

the project. These 11 species are listed in table 4.7-1 and are discussed in the following sections. 

In comments on the draft EIS, the FWS concurred that except for an occasional transient bald 

eagle, no other federally listed or proposed threatened or endangered species under FWS jurisdiction in 

New Jersey are known to occur within the project area and that the proposed projects would not adversely 

affect federally listed species. Additionally, the FWS stated that for project activities in Pennsylvania, the 

proposed Logan Lateral Project would not adversely affect the bog turtle or any other federally listed 

species under FWS jurisdiction in Pennsylvania. Therefore, no additional consultation with the FWS is 

necessary for the proposed projects. We are currently continuing formal consultation with NOAA 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-74 

Fisheries regarding potential project impacts on shortnose sturgeon and informal consultation for the 

North Atlantic right whale and sea turtles. Construction of the project would not be allowed to begin until 

we have completed all our section 7 responsibilities. 

TABLE 4.7-1 

Special Status Species Potentially Occurring in the Project Area

Species Federal Status a/ State Status a/ Comments 

Mammals 

North Atlantic Right 

Whale 

Eubalaena glacialis 

E NJ-E Not likely to occur in the project area, but could be affected by 

increased ship traffic and LNG carriers entering Delaware Bay 

while in transit to the proposed LNG terminal. 

Birds 

Bald Eagle 

Haliaeetus leucocephalus

T PA-E; NJ-E Active nests are located within 3, 5, and 12 miles of LNG 

terminal; the closest nest is 2 miles from the proposed 

pipeline route. Foraging habitat is located within the project 

area at the proposed LNG terminal site and along the pipeline 

route. 

Pied Billed Grebe 

Podilymbus podiceps

None NJ-E This species has the potential to occur on the site and along 

the proposed pipeline route. The NJDFW indicated that 

timing restrictions may be necessary during construction to 

avoid impacts on breeding individuals. 

Peregrine Falcon 

Falco peregrinus 

None NJ-E Known to nest near the project on the Commodore Barry 

Bridge. 

Fish 

 Shortnose Sturgeon 

Acipenser brevirostrum 

E PA-E; NJ-E; 

DE-T 

Known to occur within the project area, but abundance is 

unknown. 

 Atlantic Sturgeon 

Acipenser oxyrhynchus 

SC PA-E; NJ-E; 

DE-E 

Likely to occur within the project area throughout the year, but 

age distribution in project area is unknown. 

Reptiles 

 Bog Turtle 

Clemmys muhlenbergii 

T PA-E; NJ-E Surveys determined that suitable habitat for this species was 

not present within the project area. The FWS concurred that 

the projects are not likely to adversely affect the bog turtle. 

 Kemp’s Ridley Sea Turtle 

Lepidochelys kempi

E PA-E; NJ-E Not likely to occur within the project area, but could be 

affected by increased ship traffic and LNG carriers entering 

Delaware Bay while in transit to the proposed LNG terminal. 

 Green Sea Turtle 

Chelonia mydas 

E DE-E; NJ-E Not likely to occur within the project area, but could be 

affected by increased ship traffic and LNG carriers entering 

Delaware Bay while in transit to the proposed LNG terminal. 

Loggerhead Sea Turtle 

Caretta caretta 

T DE-E; NJ-E Not likely to occur within the project area, but could be 

affected by increased ship traffic and LNG carriers entering 

Delaware Bay while in transit to the proposed LNG terminal. 

Red-bellied Turtle 

Pseudemys rubriventris 

None PA-T Suitable habitat present at Delaware River and Chester 

Creek. Proposed HDD crossings would avoid impacts on this 

species. Agency consultation would occur prior to 

implementing non-HDD crossing methods. 

____________________ 

a/ Status definitions: 

 E = endangered 

 T = threatened 

 SC = species of concern 

 None = no designation under the Endangered Species Act 

 PA = Pennsylvania 

 DE = Delaware 

 NJ = New Jersey 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-75 

4.7.1 Federally Listed Threatened and Endangered Species 

North Atlantic Right Whale 

The North Atlantic right whale is a federally listed endangered species and a state-listed 

endangered species in New Jersey. The North Atlantic right whale population was historically depleted 

by commercial whaling and has not recovered despite protection from commercial harvest (NOAA, 

2004c). The current population is thought to number about 300 individuals and thus is considered one of 

the most critically endangered large whales in the world (NOAA, 2004c). The Mid-Atlantic region of the 

United States is a principal migratory corridor for right whales that travel between the calving and nursery 

areas in the southeastern United States to the feeding grounds in the northeastern United States and 

Canada. 

The two most significant human-caused threats to right whales are entanglement in fishing gear 

and collisions with ships. Because right whales are known to occur in or adjacent to many major shipping 

corridors along the eastern United States and collisions are known to account for over 50 percent of 

human-induced mortality in right whales, NOAA Fisheries established a right whale ship strike reduction 

program. Despite the measures implemented as part of that program (e.g., aerial surveys to notify 

mariners of whale locations, supporting shipping industry liaisons, mandatory reporting programs, etc.), 

right whales continue to be killed by vessel strikes. In response to this continuing problem, NOAA 

Fisheries developed a Strategy to Reduce Ship Strikes of Right Whales (Strategy), which is intended to 

minimize the overlap between ships and whales and reduce the likelihood of ship strikes to the extent 

practicable (NOAA, 2004c). 

Although NOAA’s Strategy is not yet finalized, the primary regulatory measure proposed to 

reduce ship strikes in the Mid-Atlantic region is the establishment of uniform speed restrictions within 20 

to 30 miles of the approaches of specific ports and areas, including Delaware Bay (NOAA, 2004c). 

NOAA indicated that proposed speed restrictions may be in the range of 10 to 14 knots. For Delaware 

Bay, these speed restrictions would be enforced from February through April and from October through 

December. 

In comments on the draft EIS, NOAA Fisheries requested additional traffic analysis to assist in 

evaluating the risk of increased vessel traffic on endangered species. Specifically, NOAA Fisheries 

requested information on the LNG ship routes and operational procedures to allow development of 

appropriate mitigation measures to reduce the potential for vessel strikes of listed species. Although ships 

transiting the Atlantic Ocean are not bound to specific travel lanes until in proximity of eastern seaboard 

port cities, Crown Landing provided the approximate routes LNG ships could follow during transit to and 

from the proposed terminal site within the moving safety zone. These routes would avoid crossing the 

two major areas of designated critical habitat for the right whale along the east coast of the United States, 

which are located in Cape Cod Bay, Massachusetts and east of Cape Cod, and along the coast near Port 

Canaveral, Florida north to near the Port of Savannah, Georgia. Crown Landing has reported that if an 

LNG ship is diverted into one of these areas of critical habitat, the ship would comply with mandatory 

ship reporting requirements imposed by NOAA. 

Assuming that up to 150 LNG carriers could unload cargo at the proposed terminal each year, 

about 75 of those ships would be expected to unload at the terminal during the total 6 months from 

February to April and from October to December. These 75 vessels approaching and entering Delaware 

Bay would be in addition to the existing ship traffic entering the bay and visiting various ports along the 

Delaware River. The LNG ships are expected to transit at a speed of approximately 19 knots in the 

Atlantic Ocean and would transit at convoy speed established by the Coast Guard while in the Delaware 

Bay and River. Expected speeds in these areas are approximately 12 knots up to the Delaware Memorial 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-76 

Bridge and approximately 6 knots north of the bridge. The additional ship traffic likely increases the 

potential risk of a right whale ship strike. However, adherence of LNG ships to NOAA Fisheries’ 

recommended speed restrictions during the applicable time periods, in addition to other currently required 

measures, would be expected to effectively minimize the potential for strikes, consistent with NOAA 

Fisheries’ goals of the Strategy. Crown Landing has agreed to implement the following measures for 

LNG ships to avoid or minimize impacts on right whales: 1) review whale identification with appropriate 

crew members; 2) maintain watches for marine mammals while underway; 3) reduce speed, as 

appropriate, during periods of reduced visibility; and 4) report the precise location and time of any 

sightings of entangled or injured right whales, or collisions with right whales. In a letter dated March 30, 

2006 to NOAA Fisheries, Crown Landing agreed to slow the forward speed of LNG ships servicing its 

terminal to 12 knots, from November through April, within the identified 30 nautical mile radius of the 

Delaware Bay, subject to the requirement of safe navigation.

Although LNG ships servicing the proposed terminal have the potential to strike right whales in 

the vicinity of Delaware Bay, adherence to speed restrictions proposed by NOAA Fisheries would 

minimize the potential for strikes such that the proposed project is not likely to adversely affect North 

Atlantic right whales. 

Bald Eagle 

The bald eagle is a federally listed threatened species and a state-listed endangered species in 

New Jersey and Delaware. A proposal to remove the bald eagle from the federal list of threatened species 

was submitted in 1999 and is currently under review by the FWS. In the Delaware Bay region, bald 

eagles inhabit freshwater and estuarine shoreline habitats and their associated tributaries throughout the 

year and require large blocks of mature forest in proximity to aquatic foraging areas for nesting (FWS, 

1996). Nests are typically located within 1 mile of shallow surface water feeding areas. Preferred nest 

sites typically occur in areas with minimal human disturbance; however, bald eagles successfully nest in 

close proximity to human activity and development throughout their range (Livingston et al., 1990). 

The NJDEP Landscape Project has identified and mapped most of the LNG terminal site as 

potential bald eagle foraging habitat (NJDEP, 2004c) and bald eagles are known to forage near the site, 

particularly during the breeding and chick-rearing season from January through August. Designated bald 

eagle foraging habitat has also been identified along Raccoon Creek (NJDEP, 2004c). Because the 

Landscape Project designates foraging habitat primarily through spatial analysis rather than biological 

evaluation or ground-truthing of specific areas, not all mapped areas have been confirmed as preferred 

foraging sites. 

Crown Landing designed the terminal such that the forested areas along the river, the only areas 

of the terminal site considered preferred foraging habitat, would be avoided to the extent practicable. 

Construction of the stormwater outfall would temporarily affect less than 0.1 acre of the riparian forested 

area. Therefore, construction of the LNG terminal would not adversely affect preferred bald eagle 

foraging habitat. The pipeline across Raccoon Creek would be crossed by the HDD method, which would 

also avoid permanently disturbing foraging habitat and potential perch trees adjacent to the creek. 

Nonetheless, the LNG facilities would be constructed within mapped foraging habitat. The identification 

of a new bald eagle nest by the NJDEP in 2005 (approximately 5 miles from the Crown Landing site) is 

expected to result in additional mapped foraging habitat. The NJDEP (2004c) stated that the loss of these 

foraging habitat areas as mapped by the Landscape Project should be mitigated for. Crown Landing has 

coordinated with the NJDEP and the FWS to develop a mitigation plan and is currently proposing two 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-77 

mitigation measures: 1) plant a forested buffer along Oldmans Creek using native tree species; and 2) 

establish a conservation easement along Oldmans Creek. Impacts on bald eagle habitat largely overlap 

with wetland impacts in the project area and Crown Landing is preparing a single mitigation plan to 

address impacts on these resources. Because mitigation plans have not yet been finalized, we recommend 

in section 4.4 that Crown Landing should continue coordinating with the FWS and NJDEP to develop 

appropriate mitigation plans for potential impacts on wetlands which will also mitigate for impacts on 

bald eagle foraging habitat. 

Bald eagles could be temporarily displaced from the foraging areas during construction activities, 

but would be expected to return to utilize the areas once construction activities are completed. Bald 

eagles are not particularly sensitive to disturbance when foraging (FWS, 1996) and thus would likely only 

be displaced during the major construction activities. This displacement would not adversely affect bald 

eagles because foraging habitat is not limited in the immediate vicinity of the terminal site and pipeline 

route and there is sufficient foraging habitat nearby. Bald eagles do not exhibit high site fidelity to 

foraging areas and typically move among different foraging sites, so any displacement caused by the 

project should not cause a major disruption in foraging activity. 

The shoreline of the Delaware River in the vicinity of the proposed LNG terminal, especially that 

portion that contains tall, mature trees, is suitable for perching by foraging bald eagles. The proposed 

project would not affect the forested wetland on the LNG terminal site and would not remove potential 

bald eagle perch trees. However, construction of the proposed 120-foot-high emergency flare at the LNG 

terminal would provide a potential eagle perch site. Any bald eagle using this perch when the flare is 

activated could be injured or killed. Crown Landing proposes to eliminate the potential risk of the flare 

on bald eagles by installing perch guards on top of the flare to restrict or eliminate perching. 

The FWS initially reported that two bald eagle nests occur in the project area (FWS, 2003). 

These nests, referred to as the Raccoon Creek and Mantua Creek nests, occur about 3 and 12 miles north 

of the LNG terminal site, respectively. The Raccoon Creek nest has been active since 1996 and is in a 

forested area adjacent to an industrial facility. In the past 5 years, the eagle pair using the Raccoon Creek 

nest have been unsuccessful in producing their own young (hatch failure), possibly due to organochlorine 

contaminants (Smith, 2003). However, every year from 1999 to 2002, the nesting pair has successfully 

raised a foster chick to a fledging (Smith, 2003). The Mantua Creek nest has been active since 2001 and 

is also located in a forested area adjacent to another industrial facility. The bald eagles nesting at the 

Mantua Creek nest were unsuccessful in producing young in 2001 and 2002, possibly due to disturbances 

associated with the proximity of the nest to a road. The pair produced two eaglets in 2003 after moving 

their nest site further from the road and closer to the Delaware River (but still adjacent to the industrial 

facility) (NJDEP, 2001, 2002a; Smith, 2003). As noted above, the FWS and NJDEP reported that a new 

bald eagle nest was identified along Oldmans Creek during 2005, about 5 miles from the proposed LNG 

terminal site. The proposed site is outside of the new bald eagle nest buffer and a timing restriction would 

not be required for construction. 

Although most eagles in this region are relatively habituated to human activity and disturbance, 

they are sensitive to disturbance during the early nesting cycle, which typically occurs in New Jersey 

between January and April. Eagles are least sensitive to disturbance after the young are fledged (late July 

and August) and before nest selection begins (September to January). 

The Raccoon Creek nest site is located approximately 2 miles from the nearest point of the 

proposed pipeline route, and the Mantua Creek nest is approximately 12 miles away. Thus, potential 

impacts on nesting bald eagles are not likely and the FWS has indicated that project restrictions due to 

nesting eagles are not warranted. Furthermore, equipment used during construction of the pipeline would 

be lower than tree height. Therefore, imposition of restrictions due to foraging eagles is similarly not 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-78 

anticipated (FWS, 2004b). However, the FWS has indicated that it will continue to monitor the project 

area for bald eagle activities. Should conditions change (i.e., new eagles nesting in the area), the FWS 

would reevaluate potential effects of the project on eagles and, if impacts are anticipated, mitigation 

measures may be required. 

Construction and operation of the proposed LNG terminal and pipeline facilities would not 

destroy or remove any known bald eagle nests or roost trees but may disrupt foraging activities of 

individual bald eagles and eagles may temporarily avoid some foraging habitats. Crown Landing has 

committed to providing mitigation for the permanent loss of foraging habitat. This mitigation would 

alleviate potential long-term impacts on bald eagle foraging and the impacts associated with construction 

would be short term and minor. Thus we determined that construction and operation of the proposed 

LNG terminal may affect but are not likely to adversely affect the bald eagle. Additionally, given the 

distance of the proposed pipeline route from known nest locations and the avoidance of potential foraging 

areas by completing HDD crossings of suitable foraging habitat, construction of the proposed pipeline 

would have no effect on either nesting or foraging eagles. The FWS has concurred with these 

determinations and has reported that no further consultation pursuant to section 7 of the ESA is required 

for this project. 

Shortnose Sturgeon 

The shortnose sturgeon is a federally listed endangered species and a state-listed endangered 

species in New Jersey and Delaware. Shortnose sturgeon occur along the Atlantic Ocean seaboard near 

river mouths, estuaries, and major rivers from the St. John’s River in Florida to the St. John River in New 

Brunswick, Canada. The shortnose sturgeon is not known to undertake large-scale oceanic migrations, 

and typically spends its entire life cycle within its native estuary or river system. The Delaware River 

population of shortnose sturgeon is thought to be 1 of 19 separate, reproductively isolated populations on 

the Atlantic Coast. 

In the Delaware River and Bay, shortnose sturgeon occur from the lower bay upstream to 

Lambertville, New Jersey at approximate RM 148. Based on tagging studies (O’Herron, 1993), most 

sturgeon activity occurs between RM 118 and RM 137 and they tend to congregate in upper tidal reaches 

of the river primarily between RM 118 and RM 130.5 from November through March. Recent surveys 

have identified shortnose sturgeon along the west side of the ship channel on the northern and southern 

ends of the Cherry Flats (approximate RM 71; Shirey et al., 1999). NOAA Fisheries (unpubl. data, 2004) 

documented shortnose sturgeon downstream of Philadelphia in 2003 and 2004. 

Shortnose sturgeon typically spawn in areas with clean gravel or cobble bottom in swift water 

(Jenkins and Burkhead, 1994), although some evidence exists that the firmness of the substrate may be a 

more important indicator of habitat suitability than particle size. Shortnose sturgeon spawning typically 

occurs in late March through April, mostly north of Trenton, New Jersey. Male sturgeon typically stay on 

the spawning grounds longer than females. After spawning, the adults rapidly migrate downstream to 

summer foraging areas (COE, 1997) and then return upriver during the summer (NOAA Fisheries, 1996). 

Shortnose sturgeon are moderately tolerant of a range of salinities. Although sturgeon have 

occasionally been found in salinities a high as 30 ppt, they prefer minimally saline conditions (0 to 5 ppt) 

and are primarily residents of estuaries and large, brackish coastal rivers. The proposed LNG terminal 

site is located at the oligohaline-freshwater interface, and thus is in an area where sturgeon are likely to 

congregate, especially juveniles during winter. Although not expected near the project area in summer 

months, a juvenile shortnose sturgeon was captured near the mouth of Oldmans Creek, just downstream 

of the proposed terminal location, during August 2004 (Shirey, 2004). Juvenile sturgeon are not normally 

caught in this portion of the river, but this capture indicates that juvenile shortnose sturgeon may occur in 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-79 

the vicinity of the project area, especially when salinities are low as they were in the summer of 2004. 

With the exception of the spawning season, adult and juvenile shortnose sturgeon prefer areas with little 

or no current (FWS, 1989). Shortnose sturgeon tend to occupy deepwater habitats during the day where 

sufficient oxygen is available but move into shallow areas at night to feed. Adults show a general 

tendency to use deeper areas (approximately 30 to 100 feet deep) more often in winter than in summer 

when they are usually found in water from approximately 4 to 30 feet deep. Although not strictly 

nocturnal, shortnose sturgeon tend to be most active at night. 

Shortnose sturgeon are benthic feeders. Adults primarily feed on mollusks, insects, crustaceans, 

and small fish while juveniles eat crustaceans and insects. O’Herron and Hastings (1985) reported that 

the primary food source for shortnose sturgeon in the Delaware River was the Asiatic clam. This 

mollusk, although generally more numerous in shallow water areas, is known to be widely distributed at 

all depths in the upper tidal areas of the Delaware River (NOAA Fisheries, 1996) and was the 

predominant benthic invertebrate identified in samples collected from the proposed dredging area at the 

LNG terminal site. 

NOAA Fisheries (1996) reported that due to the limited information available for shortnose 

sturgeon, it has not been able to accurately identify the ecological patterns of all age classes and sexes of 

the sturgeon in the Delaware River. In its comments on the draft EIS and during discussions with Crown 

Landing, NOAA Fisheries and other resource agencies have continued to express concern about the lack 

of information on shortnose sturgeon in the Delaware River. To address this concern, in May 2005, 

Crown Landing initiated a 1-year study of juvenile sturgeon in the Delaware River adjacent to and in the 

vicinity of the project site. The study was conducted in accordance with survey methods approved by the 

applicable agencies. A progress report for the study period of May through August 2005, filed with the 

FERC in October 2005, indicated that three juvenile shortnose sturgeon and two juvenile Atlantic 

sturgeon were captured in the vicinity of the proposed LNG terminal site. One juvenile shortnose 

sturgeon was captured during each sampling period on June 24, July 22, and August 24. During June and 

August, the sturgeon were found at the proposed site; in July, the sturgeon were found downstream of the 

proposed site. 

Dredging in areas of suitable habitat for any life stage, if individuals are present, could affect 

sturgeon by disrupting migratory movements, destroying habitat/prey resources, and/or entraining fish in 

hydraulic dredges (NOAA Fisheries, 1996). The migration of sturgeon moving upstream from their 

overwintering grounds to spawn during March could be affected if individuals encounter dredging 

activities. Although turbidity does not seem to negatively affect sturgeon and individuals encountering 

suspended sediment plumes could pass through the plumes, some individuals may avoid the dredging 

activities and not return to spawn. Fish movements or feeding patterns may also be slightly altered due to 

turbid conditions. For example, the higher turbidity levels resulting from dredging may cause some 

sturgeon to be more active during the day than normal, particularly in shallow waters. Crown Landing 

proposes to avoid dredging between March 15 and August 1, which would mostly avoid impacts on 

migrating adults returning to spawning grounds. 

As discussed in section 4.6.2, fish are likely to be affected by noise resulting from pile-driving 

activities during pier construction. Since sturgeon could occur in the area during pile driving, they would 

be susceptible to the same potential impacts as other fish (e.g., death, injury, or avoidance of construction 

areas, especially during migrations). Our recommendation in section 4.6.2, which requires Crown 

Landing to discuss with applicable agencies the need for additional conservation measures to avoid or 

minimize potential effects of pile driving on fish, could possibly alleviate potential impacts on sturgeon. 

Dredging could also remove and reduce the availability of benthic food sources. As mentioned 

above, the Asiatic clam was the predominant invertebrate identified in benthic samples collected in the 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-80 

proposed dredging area and is the primary food source of shortnose sturgeon in the Delaware River. 

Removal of Asiatic clams during dredging activities could reduce the amount of forage available for 

sturgeon. Based on previous studies, it is expected that Asiatic clams would recolonize disturbed areas 

quickly following construction, although the individuals in the recolonized areas could be smaller and 

thus provide less biomass (O’Herron and Hastings, 1985). Additionally, maintenance dredging and prop 

wash from LNG ships could result in the periodic removal of invertebrates from the proposed ship berth 

and result in a long-term reduction in forage available in the project area. However, this impact would 

not likely affect sturgeon populations since Asiatic clams are known to inhabit all depths of the Delaware 

River and are common upstream of the proposed LNG terminal site, where sturgeon occur in greater 

abundance. 

The NJDFW (NJDEP, 2004c) expressed concern about the potential for entrainment of sturgeon 

during initial dredging activities. Crown Landing proposes to primarily use a hydraulic dredge to 

excavate the ship berth. Because sturgeon are typically on or close to the bottom substrate, hydraulic 

dredges have the potential to entrain sturgeon, particularly juveniles, in the suction area immediately 

surrounding the aperture of the cutterhead. The NJDEP (2004c) has recommended that the outlet at the 

dredge disposal site be monitored to determine whether sturgeon are being entrained. If monitoring 

indicates that entrainment of protected species is occurring, the NJDEP (2004c) suggested that dredging 

be suspended until further studies are completed and the entrainment of sturgeon is addressed. Crown 

Landing has proposed to monitor the dredge outlet but has not committed to suspending dredging 

operations if sturgeon are detected in the dredge disposal outlet. To minimize the repeated taking of 

sturgeon during the dredging operations, we recommend that: 

• Crown Landing hire a qualified biologist to monitor the outlet at the dredge 

disposal site to determine whether sturgeon are being entrained. If monitoring 

indicates that sturgeon are being entrained, Crown Landing should notify the 

Commission and NOAA Fisheries within 24 hours and should suspend dredging 

operations until the Commission and NOAA Fisheries complete any necessary 

consultation and the Director of OEP allows dredging to resume. 

Crown Landing estimates that sedimentation is expected to occur in the ship berth at a rate of 

60,000 to 90,000 cubic yards per year and proposes to conduct maintenance dredging on an annual basis. 

Impacts on shortnose sturgeon described for the initial dredging effort could also occur during annual 

maintenance dredging. 

Water withdrawals from the Delaware River for hydrostatic testing of the LNG storage tanks and 

by LNG ships during intake of ballast water could also entrain shortnose sturgeon. Crown Landing 

proposes to withdraw the hydrostatic test water from the river over a 2-week period. As discussed in 

section 4.6.2, Crown Landing would screen the intake with a 2 mm wedgewire screen and limit the 

velocity at the intake to 0.5 feet per second to minimize entrainment and impingement of aquatic 

organisms, particularly eggs and larvae. Crown Landing proposes to withdraw the water from the 

dredged berth area at a depth of 6 to 8 feet below the water surface. In addition, Crown Landing proposes 

to avoid hydrostatic test water withdrawals during the month of May, which is typically a period of high 

ichthyoplankton densities. 

Because LNG ships would unload LNG at the proposed terminal between 100 and 150 times 

annually and during all seasons, each time requiring about 13.7 million gallons of ballast water at the 

marine terminal, it is likely that ballast water intake would result in the entrainment, impingement, or loss 

of aquatic resources. Also, NOAA Fisheries and the NJDFW 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 or impingement of these 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-81 

organisms during ballast water intake. To account for these potential impacts, Crown Landing has 

proposed to limit ballast water withdrawals at the berth to the minimum amount necessary for ship 

stability and take on the remaining water while in transit back down the Delaware River. Crown Landing 

has also proposed to increase the withdrawal period, thereby reducing the intake velocity. As discussed in 

section 4.6.2, although these measures may result in reductions in the number of organisms entrained or 

impinged during ballast water withdrawals, limited available data on ichthyoplankton distribution and 

abundance prevent a quantitative assessment of the actual benefits of these measures. Therefore, in 

response to continued concerns expressed by resource agencies during our environmental review process, 

we retained our recommendation in section 4.6.2 that Crown Landing coordinate with resource agencies 

to determine the need for additional mitigative measures to avoid or minimize these impacts on aquatic 

resources in the project area (see section 4.6.2 for additional discussion on potential effects of ballast 

water intake). 

Although water withdrawals have the potential to impact aquatic resources, these activities are 

not likely to affect shortnose sturgeon eggs or larvae. The primary spawning area for shortnose sturgeon 

is about 70 miles upstream of the proposed LNG terminal site. Given that sturgeon eggs are adhesive and 

attach to available substrate or structure within minutes of being spawned, eggs are not likely to occur in 

the project area. Larval shortnose sturgeon exhibit demersal behavior shortly after hatching and are 

exclusively demersal by the time the post-yolk sac stage is reached (within 10 days of hatching). 

Although it is possible that demersal larvae could travel the 70 miles from the spawning grounds to the 

proposed terminal site while still of a size susceptible to water intakes, the hydrostatic test water intake 

structure would be located in the mid to upper levels of the water column and would not likely affect 

demersal organisms. Depending on final configurations of the ballast water intakes and intake rates, 

juvenile fish occurring in the area have the potential to be entrained during ballast water intake if they 

have not reached a size in which they are able to swim faster than the intake velocity.

In summary, although Crown Landing would avoid dredging during the period when sturgeon are 

migrating to spawning grounds, dredging associated with the proposed project could still reduce the 

amount of forage available and could entrain juvenile and adult individuals if present near the cutterhead. 

Additionally, ballast water intakes have the potential to entrain juveniles if present in the water column 

and not of sufficient size to swim faster than the intake velocity. Given these potential impacts and that 

shortnose sturgeon were identified at the project site during project-specific sampling in the Delaware 

River, we have determined that the Crown Landing LNG Project is likely to adversely affect shortnose 

sturgeon. With the issuance of the draft EIS, we requested NOAA Fisheries to open formal consultation 

and issue a Biological Opinion specific to the shortnose sturgeon for potential impacts from the Crown 

Landing LNG Project. As of the issuance of this final EIS, NOAA Fisheries had not yet provided a 

Biological Opinion for the project. To complete our section 7 responsibilities, we recommend that: 

• Crown Landing should not begin construction activities until: 

a. FERC staff completes formal consultation with NOAA Fisheries, Protected 

Resources Division; and 

b. Crown Landing receives written notification from the Director of the OEP 

that construction may begin. 

Because Texas Eastern proposes to use HDD techniques to install the pipeline across the 

Delaware River, impacts on the river and associated biological communities would be avoided. 

Therefore, the Logan Lateral Project would have no effect on the shortnose sturgeon. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-82 

Bog Turtle 

The bog turtle is a federally listed threatened species known to occur in wetlands within Chester 

and Delaware Counties in Pennsylvania (Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission (PAFBC), 2003a). 

Bog turtles are a semi-aquatic, omnivorous species that prefer relatively open sphagnum bogs and marshy 

wetlands. Bog turtles have specific habitat requirements that include specific vegetative communities, 

mucky soils for burrowing, and open wetlands associated with slow moving springs and/or groundwater 

(Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (PADCNR), 2003). Bog turtles are 

threatened as a result of a loss of habitat, degradation of the remaining suitable habitat, and poaching. 

Due to the lack of suitable habitat, bog turtles in some cases have become accustomed to disturbed, low 

quality wetlands that often have a semi-enclosed canopy (PAFBC, 2003a). Bogs turtles are also known to 

use forested wetlands with small streams or springs as dispersal corridors to other more open marshes. 

The PAFBC (2003a) indicated that a Phase 1 habitat suitability assessment for bog turtles would 

be required if any direct or indirect impacts to wetlands are expected. Texas Eastern conducted a Phase 1 

study of the proposed pipeline corridor during early summer 2004. The assessment determined that none 

of the wetlands traversed by the proposed project provide suitable bog turtle habitat. The PAFBC (2004) 

reviewed the assessment and concurred that the project is not likely to cause adverse impacts on bog 

turtles. In comments on the draft EIS, the FWS also concurred that the project is not likely to adversely 

affect the bog turtle and stated that no further consultation pursuant to section 7 of the ESA is necessary.. 

Sea Turtles 

Three sea turtle species were identified by NOAA Fisheries as having the potential to occur near 

the project area: the Kemp’s ridley, green, and loggerhead sea turtles. The Kemp’s ridley and green sea 

turtles are federally listed (and state-listed) as endangered. The loggerhead sea turtle is federally listed as 

threatened and is a state-listed endangered species in Delaware and New Jersey. None of these species 

are known to nest in the project area. 

Green turtles occupy three habitat types: high energy oceanic beaches (nesting), convergence 

zones in pelagic habitat (juvenile foraging), and benthic feeding grounds in relatively shallow, protected 

waters (adult foraging). The primary green turtle nesting area within the United States is limited to a sixcounty area in east central and southeast Florida. Common adult foraging habitats are pastures of 

seagrasses and/or algae but small green turtles can also be found over coral reefs, worm reefs, and rocky 

bottoms (NMFS and FWS, 1991a). Coastal development threatens nesting habitat and populations while 

commercial fisheries and pollution pose significant threats to the marine environment. 

The major nesting beach where Kemp's ridley turtles emerge in any concentration to lay eggs is 

on the northeastern coast of Mexico, although additional nesting has been reported from Texas, Florida, 

and South Carolina. Juveniles frequent bays, coastal lagoons, and river mouths. Although adults are 

sometimes found on the eastern seaboard of the northwestern Atlantic Ocean, they are typically confined 

to the Gulf of Mexico. Members of this genus are usually found in water with low salinity, high turbidity, 

high organic content, and where shrimp are abundant. Major threats to this species include incidental 

mortality in commercial shrimping, marine pollution, and dredging activities. 

Loggerhead turtle nesting in the United States occurs primarily on the beaches of Florida but has 

also been reported from North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia (NMFS and FWS, 1991b). Posthatchling and juvenile habitat use is associated with sargassum and/or debris in pelagic drift lines. 

Subadult habitat usage is associated with nearshore and estuarine waters along continental margins, which 

are used as developmental habitat. Adult habitat selection is not well understood but it seems clear that 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-83 

adults can use a variety of habitats. Coastal development threatens nesting habitat and populations, while 

commercial fisheries and pollution pose significant threats to their marine environment. 

The greatest potential threat to sea turtles, if present in the project area, would be impingement or 

entrainment into the hydraulic dredge cutterhead. However, NOAA Fisheries has previously determined 

that pipeline dredges are unlikely to adversely affect sea turtles (NOAA Fisheries, 1996). In addition, it is 

likely that turtles would be able to avoid hydraulic dredges. Noise impacts from pile driving could also 

have adverse effects on sea turtles, if present, since turtles would likely avoid the noise and be precluded 

from the area for foraging. Dredging and pile driving are not currently scheduled to occur during the 

summer months when sea turtles have the greatest potential to occur in the project area. Therefore, 

construction of the proposed LNG terminal is not likely to adversely affect sea turtles. 

Because Texas Eastern proposes to use HDD techniques to install the pipeline across the 

Delaware River, impacts to the river and associated biological communities would be avoided. 

Therefore, the Logan Lateral Project would have no effect on the sea turtles. 

4.7.2 State-listed Species 

Atlantic Sturgeon 

The Atlantic sturgeon is a state-listed endangered species in Pennsylvania and New Jersey and a 

candidate species for federal listing. Although petitioned for federal listing in 1998, it was determined 

that listing the Atlantic sturgeon as a federally endangered or threatened species was not warranted. 

However, NOAA Fisheries has retained Atlantic sturgeon on its list of candidate species to monitor. The 

Atlantic sturgeon is protected by several federal, state, and international programs and the Atlantic States 

Marine Fisheries Commission has prepared a Fisheries Management Plan to regulate the harvest and 

coordinate the management of stocks from Maine to Florida (NOAA Fisheries and FWS, 1998). 

The Atlantic sturgeon is an anadromous species that inhabits large estuaries and Atlantic coastal 

waters. Atlantic sturgeons are occasionally found within different salinity regions in the Delaware River. 

Juveniles also spend time in the Delaware River before going to the ocean (PAFBC, 2001). Atlantic 

sturgeons generally remain in the Delaware Bay area throughout much of the year but may migrate up the 

river in June when the water warms. The abundance of sturgeon in the upper reaches of the river tends to 

decline in September, which likely reflects an outward migration of adults to the Atlantic Ocean in early 

fall. Juveniles live in freshwater for about 4 years before moving to ocean waters to mature (PADCNR, 

2003; NJDFW, 2003) and thus could be present in the river near the proposed LNG terminal site 

throughout the year. 

Preferred Atlantic sturgeon spawning areas consist of clay, rubble, gravel, or shell with fastflowing water at depths less than 30 feet (Vladykov and Greeley, 1963). Spawning runs generally begin 

in April and peak in May. Records indicate that most spawning occurs downstream of the LNG terminal 

site. However, a study conducted by the Atlantic Sturgeon Status Review Team (ASSRT) in 1998 

indicated that the primary spawning and nursery habitat for the Atlantic sturgeon in the Delaware River is 

located upstream of the proposed LNG terminal site between the Delaware-Pennsylvania border and 

Trenton (ASSRT, 1998). A similar study also determined that the Marcus Hook area appears to be 

primary habitat for immature Atlantic sturgeon during the summer months (O’Herron, 1993). Thus the 

project could impact spawning migrations, egg development, and individuals that may occupy the site 

during the summer months. However, because the shallow water areas in the proposed dredging area for 

the proposed ship unloading facility contains a substrate of fine sand and silt, which is unsuitable as 

spawning habitat, the project is not expected to impact spawning habitat. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-84 

Crown Landing proposes to adhere to agency recommended timing restrictions for dredging 

activities and would not conduct dredging operations between March 15 and August 1. Avoiding 

dredging during this period would likely avoid potential impacts on Atlantic sturgeon migrating upstream 

in the spring to spawn and sturgeon migrating upstream in summer to locate warmer water. However, 

sturgeon migrating downstream to the Atlantic Ocean in late summer or early fall could pass by active 

dredging operations. Potential impacts on sturgeon during out-migration would be similar to those 

discussed previously for shortnose sturgeon. Specifically, dredging could disrupt migratory movements, 

destroy habitat/prey resources, and/or entrain fish in hydraulic dredges. Although adults and larger 

juveniles would be expected to avoid dredging operations, smaller sturgeon, which remain in the 

Delaware River for several years, could be present and potentially affected in the project area during 

dredging operations. The NJDEP (2004c) has recommended that the discharge outlet be monitored at the 

dredge disposal site to determine whether sturgeon are being entrained. As stated in section 4.7.1 

regarding the shortnose sturgeon, we recommend that Crown Landing monitor the outlet at the disposal 

site. If monitoring indicates that sturgeon are being entrained, we recommend that dredging operations be 

suspended until NOAA Fisheries and the FERC are contacted and provide guidance on how to proceed. 

Similar to comments received regarding shortnose sturgeon, resource agencies have also 

expressed concern about the lack of information on Atlantic sturgeon in the Delaware River. To address 

this concern, Crown Landing initiated a 1-year study of juvenile sturgeon in the Delaware River adjacent 

to and in the vicinity of the project site. During sampling in the summer of 2005, Crown Landing 

captured two juvenile Atlantic sturgeon, one downstream of the proposed project site on July 22 and one 

upstream of the project site on August 17. 

Similar to the shortnose sturgeon, water withdrawals from the Delaware River for hydrostatic 

testing of the LNG storage tanks and by LNG ships during intake of ballast water could also entrain 

Atlantic sturgeon. To account for these potential impacts, Crown Landing has proposed to limit ballast 

water withdrawals at the berth to the minimum amount necessary for ship stability and take on the 

remaining water while in transit back down the Delaware River. Crown Landing has also proposed to 

increase the withdrawal period, thereby reducing the intake velocity. As discussed in section 4.6.2 and 

above for shortnose sturgeon, although these measures may result in reductions in the number of 

organisms entrained or impinged during ballast water withdrawals, limited available data on 

ichthyoplankton distribution and abundance prevent a quantitative assessment of the benefits of these 

measures. Nonetheless, in response to continued concerns expressed by resource agencies during our 

environmental review process, we retained our recommendation in section 4.6.2 that Crown Landing 

coordinate with resource agencies to determine the need for additional mitigative measures to avoid or 

minimize these impacts on aquatic resources in the project area (see section 4.6.2 for additional 

discussion on potential effects of ballast water intake). Although spawning by Atlantic sturgeon is not 

expected to occur within the proposed dredging area, spawning in adjacent suitable habitats could occur 

and eggs and developing larvae have the potential to be transported via currents or active migration into 

the proposed project area. Thus, eggs and larvae could be entrained during water intakes. However, 

similar to shortnose sturgeon, Atlantic sturgeon eggs are adhesive and are expected to adhere to the 

substrate or other suitable structure soon after being spawned. Additionally, Atlantic sturgeon larvae 

become primarily demersal within 10 days of hatching; therefore, the likelihood of Atlantic sturgeon eggs 

or larvae being withdrawn into water intakes located in the mid to upper level of the water column is low. 

Because Atlantic sturgeon could occur in the area during pile driving, they would be susceptible 

to the same potential impacts as other fish (e.g., avoidance of construction areas, especially during 

migrations, injury, or death). Our recommendation in section 4.6.2, which requires Crown Landing to 

discuss with applicable agencies the need for additional conservation measures to avoid or minimize 

potential effects of pile driving on fish, could possibly alleviate potential impacts on sturgeon. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-85 

In summary, because juvenile Atlantic sturgeon have been confirmed as occupying shallow water 

areas of the project site, there is a potential for the project to affect the species, directly thorough 

entrainment and indirectly through habitat and prey loss. It is likely that measures implemented to avoid 

and/or minimize impacts on shortnose sturgeon would also provide conservation benefits to the Atlantic 

sturgeon. However, there is a potential for individuals to be impacted by the proposed project. 

Because Texas Eastern proposes to use HDD techniques to install the pipeline across the 

Delaware River, impacts to the river and associated biological communities would be avoided. 

Therefore, the Logan Lateral Project would have no effect on the Atlantic sturgeon. 

Red-bellied Turtle 

The red-bellied turtle is state listed as threatened in Pennsylvania due to limited habitat, draining 

and filling of wetlands, water pollution, and competition from the non-native red-eared slider. Redbellied turtles can be found in relatively large, deep creeks, rivers, ponds, lakes, and marshes (PADCNR, 

2003). The streams, lakes, and marshes inhabited by the red-bellied turtle must have permanent water 

and plenty of basking sites. The red-bellied turtle is known to inhabit the Delaware River and may be 

found in other waterbodies that would be crossed by the Logan Lateral. At the recommendation of the 

PAFBC (2003a), Texas Eastern conducted a habitat assessment of the proposed pipeline route in early 

summer 2004. The habitat assessment determined that although some of the streams that would be 

crossed by the pipeline could provide basking habitat for red-bellied turtles, none provide the required 

habitat for nesting or foraging. 

The PAFBC (2004) reviewed Texas Eastern’s assessment and determined that only Chester Creek 

and the Delaware River provide suitable habitat for the red-bellied turtle. The PAFBC concluded that use 

of the HDD method would avoid impacts on any turtles inhabiting these waterbodies. Texas Eastern 

proposes to use the HDD method to cross these two waterbodies, if feasible. Texas Eastern has indicated 

that the open-cut method would be used to install the pipeline across Chester Creek if the HDD method is 

unsuccessful (see section 4.3.2). Therefore, impacts on suitable red-bellied turtle habitat and individual 

turtles, if present, could occur as the result of installing the pipeline across Chester Creek using this 

alternative crossing method. In section 4.3.2, we have recommended that Texas Eastern prepare a sitespecific crossing plan, including mitigative measures that would be implemented, if an alternative 

crossing technique is used to install the pipeline across Chester Creek. To avoid or minimize impacts on 

red-bellied turtle if an alternative crossing method is necessary, we also recommend that: 

• Texas Eastern consult with the PAFBC to identify measures to avoid or minimize 

impacts on red-bellied turtle habitat and individuals during construction of the 

pipeline across Chester Creek using an open-cut crossing method. Copies of 

correspondence with the PAFBC should be filed with the Commission prior to 

construction of the non-HDD crossing method. 

Pied-billed grebe 

The pied-billed grebe is a state-listed endangered species in New Jersey. Pied-billed grebes are 

not known to use the proposed LNG terminal site but have been documented in the vicinity of the site 

(NJDEP, 2003d). The pied-billed grebe is a small duck-like diving bird of freshwater marshes, lakes, 

ponds, bogs, reservoirs, and slow moving rivers. Historically, pied-billed grebes were a common nesting 

species in suitable habitat in New Jersey. By 1940, however, human activities (primarily hunting for both 

food and feathers) had reduced the numbers of nesting pairs in the state to 12. From the 1940s through 

the 1960s, pied-billed grebe populations increased as large amounts of land were protected and managed 

for waterfowl. Since then, the number of nesting grebe populations has declined. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-86 

Pied-billed grebes spend nearly all of their time in water. They are particularly well adapted to 

swimming underwater where they forage for mollusks and crustaceans. Pied-billed grebes nest in 

freshwater marshes associated with slow moving rivers, ponds, bogs, lakes, and reservoirs. Breeding sites 

are typically associated with areas of fairly deep water interspersed with submerged or floating aquatic 

vegetation and dense emergent vegetation such as cattails, common reed, and bulrushes (NJDFW 2003). 

During the non-breeding season, pied-billed grebes can be found in a variety of aquatic habitats, including 

brackish and tidal areas when freshwater freezes (Andrle and Carroll, 1988). 

Wetland surveys identified emergent wetlands at the LNG terminal site that could be used by 

grebes during the non-breeding season, when individuals have less rigid habitat requirements, are highly 

mobile, and move according to weather patterns and food availability. The emergent wetlands on the 

proposed site, however, do not contain open-water areas that would make them suitable breeding habitat 

for pied-billed grebes. The only open-water areas on the site are drainage ditches, which have strong, 

tidally influenced currents that make them unsuitable for nesting grebes. Additionally, no grebes were 

seen or heard during wetland surveys in April, May, and August 2003 (Environmental Resource 

Management, 2003). Pied-billed grebes are extremely secretive during the breeding season, but when 

disturbed, they make a distinctive alarm call that would likely have been heard during wetland surveys if 

individuals were on the site. 

The agencies did not request that Texas Eastern conduct surveys for pied-billed grebe along the 

pipeline route. However, records indicate that pied-billed grebes nest in the wetlands adjacent to Birch 

Creek near MP 9.2 and may also use suitable habitat along Raccoon Creek (Enviroweb, 2003). A habitat 

assessment conducted by Texas Eastern determined that suitable habitat for the pied-billed grebe does not 

exist at these wetland areas due to the lack of open-water wetland habitat. Results of this assessment 

were submitted to the NJDFW in August 2004. The NJDFW replied in January 2005 and indicated that 

grebes are known to inhabit at least a portion of the proposed project area year-round. The NJDFW 

expressed concern about potential impacts on grebes during the breeding season and stated that it would 

likely require timing restrictions to avoid or minimize potential impacts during this period. 

Texas Eastern proposes to use the HDD method to cross Birch and Raccoon Creeks, thus 

minimizing potential impacts on pied-billed grebes that may utilize these waterbodies as foraging habitat. 

However, the current proposed alignment of the HDD for Birch Creek does not avoid all of the emergent 

wetland area adjacent to the waterbody. Because the NJDFW has indicated that grebes are known to 

occur in the area and are concerned with potential impacts during the breeding season the NJDFW may 

impose restrictions on constructing in this area. We recommend that:

• Texas Eastern file copies of correspondence with the NJDFW documenting any 

mitigation measures for the pied-billed grebe with the Secretary prior to 

construction of the pipeline. 

With implementation of our recommendation and the use of the HDD method to cross Birch and 

Raccoon Creeks, the proposed project is not likely to have adverse impacts on the pied-billed grebe. 

Peregrine Falcon 

The peregrine falcon was federally listed as endangered in 1970 and state-listed as endangered by 

New Jersey in 1974 and by Pennsylvania in 1984. The breeding population of peregrine falcons in 

eastern North America was extirpated by the mid-1960s primarily due to the use of the pesticide 

dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) (PADCNR, 2003, NJDFW, 2003). The use of DDT was banned 

in the United States in 1972 and a Peregrine Falcon Recovery Plan was initiated in 1975. Since that time, 

a reintroduction program as well as the installation of artificial nest sites have resulted in stable breeding 

populations in most of the eastern United States. Because of these programs the national recovery goals 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-87 

were met and the peregrine falcon was removed from the federal endangered species list in 1999 

(NJDFW, 2003). However, the peregrine falcon remains a state-listed species in New Jersey and 

Pennsylvania. Peregrine falcons historically nested along the cliffs and rocky outcrops of the Delaware 

River. As humans moved into their habitats, peregrine falcons incorporated the use of man-made 

structures such as bridges and tall buildings into its breeding and foraging habitats. 

Peregrine falcons are found near the project and have been known to nest on the Commodore 

Barry Bridge (COE, 1997). Given the distance of the bridge from the LNG terminal site (upstream about 

3 miles) and the regular disturbance associated with traffic on the bridge and boat traffic on the Delaware 

River, it is unlikely that the falcons would be affected by the project even if a pair of peregrine falcons is 

nesting on the bridge during construction. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-88 

4.8 LAND USE, RECREATION, AND VISUAL RESOURCES 

4.8.1 Land Use 

4.8.1.1 LNG Terminal 

The proposed LNG terminal would be located on a privately owned site on the south side of the 

Delaware River in Logan Township, Gloucester County, New Jersey. The site consists of approximately 

175 acres of land between U.S. Route 130 and the Delaware River. The site is currently undeveloped and 

contains mostly wetlands and active and inactive farm fields. The active farm fields have most recently 

been planted in soybeans. Historically (primarily between the 1930s and 1960s) the site was used for 

dredged material disposal. The site is currently zoned as ‘light industrial’ by Logan Township. Permitted 

uses within light industrial areas include freight terminals, light manufacturing, and warehousing. Ten 

pipelines (two natural gas pipelines, one nitrogen pipeline, three inactive pipelines, and four product 

pipelines) traverse the site. 

Of the 175-acre site, about 39 acres would be permanently developed for the LNG terminal 

facilities. Table 4.8.1-1 summarizes the acres of each land use that would be affected by the proposed 

LNG terminal. In addition to the 39 acres permanently developed for the LNG terminal facilities, about 4 

acres would be used as a temporary staging and expanded work area during construction. The 4-acre area 

would be located in the southeast corner of the site adjacent to the access road and approximately 300 feet 

north of U.S. Route 130 and would include construction offices, material storage, and parking. The 

facility septic system would also be located in this area. The majority of the 4 acres would be graded and 

returned to open space after construction; however, 0.5 acre would be used for a septic system drain field. 

Dual feed electric transmission lines would be extended to the LNG terminal site from the existing 

Conectiv electric substation across U.S. Route 130 from the site entrance and along the site access road to 

the terminal area. About 3,500 feet of transmission line would be supported by transmission poles spaced 

an average of 225 feet apart.

TABLE 4.8.1-1 

Land Area Affected by the Proposed LNG Terminal 

Description Wetlands 

(acres) 

Cropland 

(acres) 

Upland Shrub 

(acres) 

Industrial/Developed 

(acres) 

Total 

(acres) 

Existing Site Conditions 109.2 60.8 3.1 1.7 a/ 174.8 

Proposed Site Conditions 109.2 25.4 1.6 38.6 b/ 174.8 

Land Use Change 0.0 (35.4) (1.5) 36.9 0.0 

____________________ 

a/ Includes existing farm roads. 

b/ Includes the 1.7 acres of existing farm roads plus an additional 2.4 acres for roads, 1.3 acres for administrative areas, 

18.1 acres for LNG storage, 13.9 acres for LNG process areas, and 1.2 acres for tie-in to the existing natural gas 

pipeline systems on site. 

The Crown Landing LNG Project would also require about 32.55 acres of riverbed associated 

with the Delaware River for a pier (approximately 2.25 acres) and berthing facilities (approximately 30.3 

acres, including the area to be dredged). The majority of the offshore ship unloading facility would be 

located in Delaware waters within the boundaries of New Castle County. 

Existing land uses surrounding the proposed LNG terminal site include a mixture of industrial, 

agricultural, open space, and scattered residential uses. Land use on the New Jersey side of the Delaware 

River is dominated by agricultural and open space uses with scattered residential and industrial uses. 

Northeast of the proposed LNG terminal site are two industrial facilities, the Logan Generating Station 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-89 

and Ferro Industries plant. The Delaware and Pennsylvania side of the Delaware River, which is about 

1.1 miles wide at the proposed LNG terminal site, is more heavily developed than the New Jersey side. 

The river frontage on the Delaware and Pennsylvania side is dominated by heavy industrial uses such as 

oil refineries and petrochemical industries. 

4.8.1.2 Pipeline Facilities 

The Logan Lateral Project would involve construction of a 30-inch-diameter pipeline that would 

connect the LNG terminal with the existing Texas Eastern natural gas pipeline system in Brookhaven 

Borough, Delaware County, Pennsylvania.5

 The pipeline would consist of about 11 miles of 30-inchdiameter pipeline in Delaware County, Pennsylvania (4.9 miles) and Gloucester County, New Jersey (6.1 

miles). Table 4.8.1-2 summarizes the land uses crossed by the proposed pipeline route. 

TABLE 4.8.1-2 

Land Uses Crossed by the Pipeline Route for the Logan Lateral Project

State Open 

Land 

a/ 

(miles) 

Roadway/ 

Railroads 

b/ 

(miles) 

Forest 

Land c/ 

(miles) 

Agricultural 

Land d/ 

(miles) 

Open 

Water e/ 

(miles) 

Commercial/ 

Industrial 

Land f/ 

(miles) 

Other 

Land g/ 

(miles) 

Residential 

Land h/ 

(miles) 

Total 

(miles) 

Pennsylvania 0.9 1.6 0.9 0.0 0.5 0.6 0.3 0.1 4.9 

New Jersey 3.1 0.2 0.8 1.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.1 

Project Total 4.0 

(36%) 

1.8 

(16%) 

1.7 

(15%) 

1.5 

(14%) 

1.0 

(9%) 

0.6 

(6%) 

0.3 

(3%) 

0.1 

(1%) 

11.0 

(100%) 

____________________

a/ Open land consists of vacant parcels or open space not specifically designated for outdoor recreation. Includes mowed 

areas (not residential lawns) and undeveloped areas of property owned by commercial/industrial operations or private 

residents. Also includes open field regrowth and upland scrub. Emergent and scrub-shrub wetlands and open maintained 

existing pipeline right-of-way are also included in this land use category. 

b/ Roadway and railroads include both state and federal road and road right-of-way crossings and all active railroad crossings. 

c/ Forest land consists of upland and wetland forest areas not being used for agricultural or forestry specific purposes. 

d/ Agricultural land consists of areas primarily used for active cropland, orchards, vineyards, or hay fields. 

e/ Open water includes stream crossings greater than 10 feet in width (e.g., the Delaware River crossing). 

f/ Commercial/industrial land includes electric power plants or gas utility stations, manufacturing or industrial plants, and 

commercial or retail facilities. 

g/ Other land includes special use areas including schools, parks, and churches. 

h/ Residential land consists of areas used primarily for private dwellings. Residential yards, subdivisions, and planned new 

residential developments are also included in this land use category. 

Of the 11 miles of the proposed pipeline, about 6.4 miles (58 percent) would be constructed 

within or adjacent to various existing rights-of-way. Of the 6.4 miles, 3.1 miles would be located within 

Texas Eastern’s existing pipeline easement (1.4 miles) or other existing pipeline easements (1.7 miles), 

3.1 miles would be located within existing roadways, and 0.2 mile would be located within an existing 

railroad right-of-way. The remaining 4.6 miles (42 percent) would be constructed on newly created rightof-way. The predominant land use that would be crossed is open land comprising about 4.0 miles (36 

percent) of the pipeline route. The remaining land uses crossed include roadway/railroads (1.8 miles or 

16 percent), forest land (1.7 miles or 15 percent), agricultural land (1.5 miles or 14 percent), open water 

(1.0 mile or 9 percent), commercial/industrial land (0.6 mile or 6 percent), other land (0.3 mile or 3 

percent), and residential land (0.1 mile or 1 percent). The construction right-of-way associated with the 

pipeline would also be located within 50 feet of several residences (see section 4.8.3.2). 

Land use impacts associated with the pipeline would include the disturbance of existing land uses 

within the right-of-way during construction and retention of a new permanent right-of-way for operation 

 

5

 The tie in with the Columbia Gas and Transco natural gas pipeline systems would occur within the proposed LNG terminal site. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-90 

of the pipeline. Texas Eastern proposes to use a maximum 100-foot-wide construction right-of-way. The 

construction right-of-way would be reduced as necessary in residential and wetland areas. A 50-footwide right-of-way would be permanently retained in all areas except at road crossings and within 

roadways where the right-of-way width would be as permitted by the local agencies. The typical right-ofway cross sections that Texas Eastern would use for the proposed pipeline are provided in Appendix B. 

In addition to the construction right-of-way, Texas Eastern would use various temporary extra 

workspaces, staging areas, and access roads to facilitate construction activities. No pipe yards have been 

identified by Texas Eastern at this time. The locations and sizes of the identified temporary extra 

workspaces and staging areas are listed in table C-1 in Appendix C. Table C-2 in Appendix C lists the 

proposed access roads that would be used during construction of the Logan Lateral Project. 

Texas Eastern proposes to modify and upgrade one existing aboveground facility and would 

construct two new aboveground facilities. Modifications and upgrades would be made to Chester 

Junction, which is an existing 1.3-acre fenced facility located on a 5.7-acre site owned by Texas Eastern 

within a residential neighborhood in the Borough of Brookhaven. The work would be conducted within 

the limits of the existing site and no new property would need to be acquired by Texas Eastern. The 

Logan mainline valve at MP 2.1 would be a new facility located partially within Texas Eastern’s existing 

right-of-way in an open area behind buildings associated with the I-95 Industrial Park. Texas Eastern 

would need to acquire an additional 0.1 acre of land for construction and operation of this facility. The 

new Crown Landing meter and regulation station would be located within the proposed developed area of 

the 175-acre LNG terminal site. The facility would require a 0.5-acre area within the site. 

Construction of the pipeline facilities would disturb a total of about 177.3 acres of land, including 

the pipeline construction right-of-way, temporary extra workspace and staging areas, access roads, and 

aboveground facilities. Of this total, 101.1 acres would be disturbed by the pipeline construction right-ofway, 65.6 acres would be disturbed by temporary extra workspace and staging areas, 4.4 acres would be 

disturbed by access roads, and 6.2 acres would be disturbed by aboveground facilities. Table 4.8.1-3 

summarizes the acres of each land use that would be affected by construction and operation of the 

proposed pipeline facilities. 

Open land would be the primary land use affected by construction of the pipeline facilities 

totaling about 51.5 acres (29 percent). The remaining land uses that would be disturbed consist of 50.8 

acres (29 percent) of agricultural land, 23.4 acres (13 percent) of forest land, 17.7 acres (10 percent) of 

roadway/railroad, 16.8 acres (9 percent) of commercial/industrial land, 15.4 acres (9 percent) of other 

land, 1.4 acres (1 percent) of residential land, and 0.3 acre (<1 percent) of open water. 

Of the 177.3 acres of land affected by construction of the pipeline facilities, about 54.1 acres 

would be retained as permanent right-of-way for the pipeline and 1.8 acres for the aboveground facilities. 

The land that is retained as permanent right-of-way for the pipeline would be allowed to revert to former 

use with certain restrictions. Activities such as the construction of aboveground structures, including 

houses, house additions, garages, patios, pools, or any other object not easily removable, or the planting 

and cultivating of trees or orchards, would be prohibited within the permanent right-of-way. The 

remaining 121.5 acres that are used for construction would be allowed to revert to prior uses following 

construction with no restrictions. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-91 

TABLE 4.8.1-3 

Acres of Land Affected by Construction and Operation of the Pipeline Facilities for the Logan Lateral Project

State/Facility Open Land 

(acres) 

Agricultural 

Land (acres) 

Forest Land 

(acres) 

Roadway/Railroad

(acres) 

Commercial/Industrial 

Land (acres) 

Other Land 

(acres) 

Residential 

Land (acres) 

 Const. Oper. Const. Oper. Const. Oper. Const. Oper. Const. Oper. Const. Oper. Const. Oper. Pennsylvania  Pipeline 

Right-ofWay a/ 

6.2 5.3 0.0 0.0 12.4 4.8 8.8 0.0 9.4 3.8 3.8 2.0 1.4 0.3 

 Temporary 

Extra Workspace and Staging Areas 

3.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.4 0.0 0.1 0.0 1.6 0.0 11.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 

 Access 

Roads 

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

 Aboveground 

Facilities b/ 

0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.7 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Pennsylvania 

Subtotal 

10.1 5.4 0.0 0.0 17.8 4.8 9.8 0.0 16.8 5.1 15.4 2.0 1.4 0.3 

New Jersey  Pipeline 

Right-ofWay a/ 

32.0 18.8 18.7 9.3 3.7 3.8 4.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

 Temporary 

Extra Workspace and Staging Areas 

9.4 0.0 31.7 0.0 1.9 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

 Access 

Roads 

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

 Aboveground 

Facilities c/ 

0.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

New Jersey 

Subtotal 

41.4 18.8 50.8 9.7 5.6 3.8 7.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Pipeline 

Facilities Subtotal 

 Pipeline 

Right-ofWay 

38.2 24.1 18.7 9.3 16.1 8.5 13.1 0.0 9.4 3.8 3.8 2.0 1.4 0.3 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-92 

TABLE 4.8.1-3 (cont’d) 

Acres of Land Affected by Construction and Operation of the Pipeline Facilities for the Logan Lateral Project

State/Facility Open Land 

(acres) 

Agricultural 

Land (acres) 

Forest Land 

(acres) 

Roadway/Railroad

(acres) 

Commercial/Industrial 

Land (acres) 

Other Land 

(acres) 

Residential 

Land (acres) 

 Const. Oper. Const. Oper. Const. Oper. Const. Oper. Const. Oper. Const. Oper. Const. Oper.  Temporary 

Extra Workspace and Staging Areas 

13.2 0.0 31.7 0.0 7.3 0.0 0.3 0.0 1.6 0.0 11.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 

 Access 

Roads 

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.3 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

 Aboveground 

Facilities 

0.1 0.1 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.7 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Pipeline 

Facilities Total 

51.5 24.1 50.8 9.7 23.4 8.5 17.7 0.0 16.8 5.1 15.4 2.0 1.4 0.3 

____________________ a/ Based on a 100-foot-wide construction right-of-way. Some areas would have a reduced construction right-of-way to avoid impacts on residential an

acreage is based on a 50-foot-wide permanent right-of-way in all areas except at road crossings and within roadways where the right-of-way width w

agencies. Beginning at approximately MP 10, the pipeline right-of-way would be located within the proposed 175-acre LNG terminal site but does n

be permanently developed for the terminal facilities. 

b/ The modifications and upgrades at Chester Junction would be conducted within the existing 1.3-acre fenced facility located on a 5.7-acre site owned 

would be conducted within the limits of the existing site and no new property would need to be acquired by Texas Eastern. The Logan mainline valv

acre outside of Texas Eastern’s existing right-of-way. 

c/ The Crown Landing meter and regulation station would be located within the developed area (i.e., 39 acres) of the 175-acre LNG terminal site. 

Const. Construction Impacts Oper. Operation Impacts Note: The totals shown in this table may not equal the sum of addends due to rounding. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-93 

The majority of the pipeline would be located on privately owned lands. Public lands that would 

be crossed include roads, waterbodies, one small tract of forested property associated with a sewage 

treatment plant south of Chester Creek owned by Aston Township, two small tracts of forested property 

owned by Chester Township, and one municipal park owned by the City of Chester (see section 4.8.5.1). 

Texas Eastern would need to acquire easements or property to construct and operate the proposed 

facilities. The easement would convey both temporary (for construction) and permanent rights-of-way to 

Texas Eastern and would give Texas Eastern the right to construct, operate, and maintain the pipeline 

facilities. Texas Eastern would negotiate a one-time payment for each easement. An easement agreement 

between a company and a landowner typically specifies compensation for losses resulting from 

construction, including losses of non-renewable and other resources, damages to property during 

construction, and restrictions on existing uses that would not be permitted on the permanent right-of-way 

after construction. 

If an easement cannot be negotiated with a landowner and the project has been certificated by the 

FERC, the company may use the right of eminent domain granted to it under section 7(h) of the NGA and 

the procedures set forth under the Federal Rules of Civic Procedure (Rule 71A) to obtain the right-of-way 

and extra workspace areas. The company would still be required to compensate the landowner for the 

right-of-way and damages incurred during construction. However, the level of compensation would be 

determined by a court according to state or federal law. In either case, Texas Eastern would compensate 

landowners for use of the land. 

4.8.2 Existing Residences and Planned Developments 

4.8.2.1 LNG Terminal 

Existing Residences 

Based on a review of aerial photographs and supported by a field survey, 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. All but three of the houses are located across 

U.S. Route 130 from the proposed LNG terminal site. Of the 20 houses, nearly all are located in clusters 

south and southeast of the site along U.S. Route 130 and Center Square Road. The other houses are 

scattered along the south side of U.S. Route 130 and in Oldmans Township. As of 2000, the population 

living in a 1 mile radius of the proposed LNG terminal site was approximately 28. The population living 

in a 2 mile radius of the site, which includes portions of Delaware and Pennsylvania on the other side of 

the river, was approximately 3,538 (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2001). 

During construction of the LNG terminal, short-term impacts on nearby residences could include 

increased construction-related traffic on local roads, dust generated during site construction, and noise 

from construction equipment. In general, as the distance to the construction site increases, the impacts on 

these areas decrease. Additional information on measures Crown Landing would implement to reduce 

impacts associated with increased traffic, dust, and noise is presented in sections 4.9.4, 4.11.1, and 4.11.2, 

respectively. 

Potential impacts on nearby residences during operation of the LNG terminal include increased 

visibility of aboveground structures associated with the facility, increased traffic, changes in air quality, 

and safety hazards. These impacts and applicable mitigation measures are discussed in sections 4.8.6.1, 

4.9.4, 4.11.1, and 4.12 respectively. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-94 

Planned Developments 

There are no planned residential, commercial, or industrial developments within 2 miles of the 

proposed LNG terminal site. The closest planned development to the LNG terminal site is a proposal for 

residential development approximately 2 miles northeast of the site on land adjacent to the eastern side of 

the Ferro Industries plant and southwest of Raccoon Creek. Logan Township has also expressed possible 

interest in developing a riverfront park on land near the Commodore Barry Bridge. The Wharf on the 

Boardwalk is a commercial development currently under construction on the site of a former power plant 

in Chester, Pennsylvania about 3.2 miles northwest of the LNG terminal site. Because of the distance 

between these developments and the proposed LNG terminal site, the facility is not expected to conflict 

with the development plans. However, the pipeline associated with the Logan Lateral Project would cross 

a portion of the Wharf on the Boardwalk development (see section 4.8.2.2). 

4.8.2.2 Pipeline Facilities 

Existing Residences 

Texas Eastern’s proposed construction work area for the pipeline facilities (i.e., construction 

right-of-way and temporary extra workspaces) would be located within 50 feet of 147 residences or 

residential structures (e.g., garages, sheds). Of these 147 residential structures, 29 would be located 

within 25 feet of the construction work area, including 18 within 10 feet. There are also nine 

commercial/industrial buildings located within 50 feet of the construction work area. Table F-1 in 

Appendix F lists these residences and commercial/industrial buildings by milepost and indicates the 

distance of each from the proposed construction work area. There are no additional residences or 

commercial/industrial buildings located within 50 feet of the proposed aboveground facilities. 

In residential areas, typically the two most significant impacts associated with construction and 

operation of a pipeline are disturbance during construction and encumbrance of property for future uses 

(e.g., the limitation on future permanent structures within the permanent right-of-way). Residences 

within 50 feet of the construction work area would be most likely to experience the effects of construction 

and operation of the project. In general, as the distance to the construction work area increases, the 

impacts on residences decrease. 

Temporary construction impacts on residential areas could include inconvenience caused by noise 

and dust generated by construction equipment, personnel, and trenching of roads or driveways; ground 

disturbance of lawns; removal of trees, landscaped shrubs, or other vegetative screening between 

residences and/or adjacent rights-of-way; potential damage to existing septic systems or wells; and 

removal of aboveground structures, such as sheds or trailers, from within the right-of-way. In addition, as 

previously discussed, Texas Eastern proposes to construct the pipeline immediately adjacent to or within 

five city streets in Pennsylvania (Trimble Boulevard, Clearwater Avenue, Felton Avenue, Bethel Road, 

and Palmer Street). 

Texas Eastern would implement the following general measures to minimize construction-related 

impacts on residences and other structures located within 50 feet of the construction right-of-way: 

• notify landowners in advance of construction activities and any scheduled disruption of 

household utilities; 

• adhere to the residential mitigation measures contained in the SESC Plan;

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-95 

• fence the construction work area for a length of 100 feet on either side of a residence to 

ensure that construction equipment and materials stay within the confines of the approved 

construction right-of-way; 

• maintain a minimum of 25 feet between the residence and the construction work area for 

a distance of 100 feet on either side of the residence; 

• secure all open ditches with orange safety fencing; 

• minimize the duration of an open trench to the contractor’s working hours for a distance 

of 100 feet on either side of a nearby residence; 

• use the stovepipe or drag section construction method; 

• offer to temporarily relocate the landowner to a motel and provide a meal allowance if 

construction activities in a residential area disrupts landowner ingress/egress to the 

affected residence; 

• attempt to leave mature trees and landscaping intact within the construction right-of-way 

unless the trees and landscaping interfere with the pipe installation techniques or present 

unsafe working conditions; 

• restore all lawn areas immediately after backfilling the trench; 

• restore fences, mailboxes, and other structures that were removed during construction; 

• restore sidewalks, driveways, and roads as soon as practical after construction; and 

• contact landowners after construction to ensure that conditions of all agreements have 

been meet. 

In addition, Texas Eastern would prepare site-specific residential construction mitigation plans to 

minimize disruption and maintain access to the residences located within 50 feet of the construction work 

area. We have also recommended that Texas Eastern prepare a Traffic Management Plan for construction 

within or adjacent to city streets to ensure that impacts associated with in-street construction are 

minimized (see section 4.9.4.1). 

Residential properties encumbered by pipeline easements would sustain long-term impacts 

associated with the permanent right-of-way. The easements would prohibit certain types of use, such as 

the construction of aboveground structures, including house additions, garages, patios, pools, or any other 

object not easily removable, or the planting and cultivating of trees or orchards. However, because the 

pipeline would be installed within roadways for much of the route through residential areas, many of the 

residences within 50 feet of the construction work area would not be affected by the permanent right-ofway. 

Texas Eastern would also apply the mitigation measures identified above to the nine 

commercial/industrial structures located within 50 feet of the construction work area. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-96 

Planned Developments 

Six planned developments have been identified as being crossed or located within 0.25 mile of 

the proposed pipeline route. The locations of these planned development and the distance to the proposed 

pipeline route are presented in table 4.8.2-1. 

TABLE 4.8.2-1 

Planned Developments within 0.25 Mile of the Proposed Pipeline Route

State Approx. 

Milepost 

Planned Development Approx. Distance from 

Pipeline Route 

Project Start and End 

Dates 

Pennsylvania 

 0.0 Proposed Senior Home /Active Adult 

Community Development 

1,000 feet None Given 

 0.08-0.15 10,000 SF Office Space NA – Crossed None Given 

 

 1.66 Rails-to-Trails Project NA – Crossed None Given 

 2.59 Chester Charter School/Franklin 

Elementary 

500 feet 

(Would be used for a 

staging area) 

None Given 

 4.47 Renovated Office Space – Parking 

Lot/Wharf on the Boardwalk 

NA – Crossed None Given/Currently 

Under Construction 

New Jersey 

 7.57 Delaware River, Equine, Agriculture, 

and Marine Park 

NA – Crossed Construction may 

begin early 2006 

Within the Borough of Brookhaven an active adult community development is proposed south of 

Ridley Creek between Brookhaven Road and Radio Park Lane about 1,000 feet northwest of the 

beginning of the pipeline route at Chester Junction. According to both the Borough Zoning Officer and 

the County Planning Board, this development is currently under preliminary review and no construction 

schedule has been provided. The installation of the proposed pipeline would not interfere with the future 

construction of this development (Hampton, 2003). 

According to the Delaware County Planning Board, Faith Baptist Church owns a portion of the 

area located between Williamson Avenue and Edgemont Avenue. In July 2002 the church was given 

approval to subdivide their property and construct a 10,000 square foot office building; however, this 

development has not been built and no construction schedule has been filed with the county. Because the 

proposed pipeline would be constructed adjacent to Texas Eastern’s existing pipeline in this area, no 

impacts on this planned development are anticipated. 

The proposed pipeline would cross an abandoned railroad line within the limits of a sewage 

treatment facility at about MP 1.66. A community group called the Friends of Chester Creek is in the 

process of trying to turn the inactive rail line into a trail. According to the Friends of Chester Creek, the 

proposed rails-to-trails project is in the final planning stages and they are trying to secure right-of-way 

(Fusco, 2003); however, no permits have been obtained and no plans have been submitted to the 

township. Construction of the pipeline could temporarily affect this planned development if it were to 

occur after the trail is in operation or if the construction schedules of both projects overlap. Because of its 

location below ground, operation of the Logan Lateral Project would not affect use of the proposed trail. 

Within Chester Township plans have also been filed with the county for the expansion of the 

Chester Charter School located on Green Avenue. The school is currently vacant and partially burned-out 

but the plans indicate an expansion of this facility although construction plans are currently on hold. The 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-97 

proposed pipeline route would be about 500 feet south of the building but Texas Eastern is planning to 

utilize the property surrounding the school for a staging area. The staging area would be used temporarily 

during construction and should not interfere with future development plans. 

The existing PECO Chester Generating Station located adjacent to the Delaware River is 

currently being renovated for “Class A” office space by Rivertown Developers LP. A parking lot 

associated with the building is currently under construction. The proposed pipeline would cross the 

Delaware River adjacent to the office building and would cross the associated parking lot, which would 

be completed before pipeline construction. As a result, the installation of the pipeline would impact the 

newly constructed parking lot. To minimize parking-related impacts, Rivertown Developers LP has 

indicated that they could provide a vacant lot that Texas Eastern could asphalt in order to provide 

alternate parking for tenants during construction. Texas Eastern would repair any construction-related 

damage to the permanent parking lot after completion of construction. The portion of the development 

referred to as the Wharf on the Boardwalk would not be directly affected by pipeline construction or 

operation. Prior to construction, Texas Eastern would work with Rivertown Developers LP to minimize 

noise and traffic-related impacts on the development. We also evaluated alternative Delaware River 

crossing locations that would avoid this new development. However, these alternatives were not 

considered to be environmentally preferable to the proposed pipeline route (see section 3.5.2). 

Within Logan Township, Gloucester County, New Jersey, a project proposal championed by the 

County Improvement Authority is in the final planning stages and would include conversion of a dredge 

spoil area to a proposed equestrian park south of Raccoon Creek and west of U.S. Route 130. The park, 

referred to as the Delaware River, Equine, Agriculture, and Marine Park would encompass 1,400 acres of 

land extending from the Delaware River to U.S. Route 130, and from Raccoon Creek to Birch Creek. 

Construction could begin on the equestrian park in 2006 (Gloucester County Improvement Authority, 

2005). The proposed pipeline would cross the property under consideration for the equestrian park; 

however, no conflicts have been identified. 

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. One of the dredge disposal sites is located on Raccoon Island. The portion of the proposed 

pipeline route along Ferry Road on the island crosses this proposed disposal site. The other dredge 

disposal site is located west of Raccoon Creek adjacent to U.S. Route 130 (Site 15D). Texas Eastern met 

with the COE to discuss the proposed dredging of the Delaware River and the use of the proposed 

Raccoon Island Site and Site 15D for the disposal of dredged material. Texas Eastern is currently 

evaluating several options discussed with the COE to accommodate both the proposed dredging project 

and the Logan Lateral Project.

4.8.3 Coastal Zone Management 

In 1972, Congress passed the CZMA to “preserve, protect, develop, and where possible, to 

restore or enhance, the resources of the nation’s coastal zone for this and succeeding generations” and to 

“encourage and assist the states to exercise effectively their responsibilities in the coastal zone through 

the development and implementation of management programs to achieve wise use of the land and water 

resources of the coastal zone” (16 USC 1452, section 303 (1) and (2)). 

Section 307 (c)(3)(A) of the CZMA states that “any applicant for a required federal license or 

permit to conduct an activity, in or outside the coastal zone, affecting any land or water use or natural 

resource of the coastal zone of that state shall provide a certification that the proposed activity complies 

with the enforceable policies of the state’s approved program and that such activity will be conducted in a 

manner consistent with the program.” In order to participate in the coastal zone management program, a 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-98 

state is required to prepare a program management plan for approval by the NOAA, Office of Coast and 

Ocean Resource Management (OCRM). Once the OCRM has approved a plan and its enforceable 

program policies, a state program gains “federal consistency” jurisdiction. This means that any federal 

action (e.g., a project requiring federally issued licenses or permits) that takes place within a state’s 

coastal zone must be found to be consistent with state coastal policies before federal action can take place. 

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, 

Delaware, and Pennsylvania as described in sections 4.8.3.1, 4.8.3.2, and 4.8.3.3, respectively; and 2) 

require several federal permits and approvals (see tables 1.3-1 and 1.3-2). New Jersey, Delaware, and 

Pennsylvania all have approved coastal zone management programs administered by the NJDEP, the 

DNREC, and the PADEP, respectively. A description of each state’s program, the applicable project 

activities, and information provided by Crown Landing in its FERC section 3(a) application and Texas 

Eastern in its FERC section 7(c) application regarding consistency of the projects with state policies is 

provided below. NOAA has indicated that because neither Delaware, New Jersey, nor Pennsylvania have 

completed the interstate consistency consultation and program change processes described in 15 CFR 930 

subpart I, New Jersey can only review that part of the Crown Landing LNG and Logan Lateral Projects 

located in New Jersey, Delaware can only review that part of the Crown Landing LNG Project located in 

Delaware, and Pennsylvania can only review that part of the Logan Lateral Project located in 

Pennsylvania. However, the NJDEP claims that the Compact of 1905 between New Jersey and Delaware 

gives New Jersey exclusive riparian jurisdiction of every kind and nature on its side of the Delaware 

River (see section 4.8.3.2). 

4.8.3.1 New Jersey 

The New Jersey Coastal Management Program (NJCMP) was approved by the OCRM in 1980 

and updated in 2000. Federal consistency reviews are conducted by the NJDEP using the Coastal Zone 

Management rules, which contain several state laws that are the primary implementing authorities for the 

NJCMP. These laws included the Coastal Area Facility Review Act (CAFRA), the Waterfront 

Development Law, and the Wetlands Act of 1970, Tidelands Statues, and the Hackensack Meadowlands 

Reclamation and Development Act (NJDEP, 2002b). In addition to its coastline along the Atlantic 

Ocean, New Jersey’s coastal zone includes, among other areas, the Delaware River and Bay and other 

tidal streams of the Atlantic Coastal Plain. New Jersey defines its coastal management area as including 

all lands up to 500 feet from mean high water. 

The activities associated with the Crown Landing LNG and Logan Lateral Projects within the 

coastal zone of New Jersey and subject to the policies of the NJCMP include: 

• LNG ship transit in New Jersey waters; 

• the portion of the pier associated with the LNG terminal in New Jersey waters;

• the LNG terminal and associated transmission line facilities; and 

• approximately 0.9 mile of the pipeline adjacent to and within the Delaware River, 

Raccoon Creek, Birch Creek, and two unnamed tidal waterways. 

Although only a portion of the pier would be located in New Jersey waters, the NJDEP has stated 

that construction of the entire pier and any associated dredging would be subject to New Jersey’s 

exclusive review and permitting authority (see section 4.8.3.2). 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-99 

The Crown Landing LNG Project is not subject to the CAFRA or the Hackensack Meadowlands 

Reclamation and Development Act because the project facilities are not located within the areas subject to 

these laws6

; however, it is subject to the other laws associated with the NJCMP. On January 7, 2005, 

Crown Landing filed a compliance statement for coastal zone management rules as part of its Waterfront 

Development Permit application. The compliance statement indicated that the Crown Landing LNG 

Project was designed to comply with the coastal zone rules; however, on February 4, 2005, the NJDEP 

indicated that Crown Landing’s Waterfront Development Permit application was deficient and requested 

additional information. Crown Landing provided the additional information on May 11, 2005 but 

received a second notice of deficiency from the NDJEP on July 15, 2005. On August 23, 2005, Crown 

Landing provided the NJDEP with additional information requested in the second notice of deficiency. 

On June 10, 2005, Texas Eastern filed a compliance statement for coastal zone management rules 

as part of its Waterfront Development Permit application. Texas Eastern indicated that the Logan Lateral 

Project would be in compliance with all applicable coastal zone rules; however, in late September 2005, 

the NJDEP requested that Texas Eastern withdraw its Waterfront Development Permit application 

because it was approaching the time limit for department review under New Jersey’s 90-day Construction 

Law. The NJDEP indicated that Texas Eastern could not adequately justify the purpose and need for the 

Logan Lateral Project until the issues associated with the Crown Landing LNG Project were resolved (see 

section 4.8.3.2). Texas Eastern withdrew its permit application on October 7, 2005. 

If the Crown Landing LNG and Logan Lateral Projects are approved by the Commission, 

concurrence from the NJDEP that the projects are consistent with the NJCMP must be received prior to 

any issuance of a Notice to Proceed with construction from the Secretary of the FERC. Therefore, we 

recommend that: 

• Crown Landing and Texas Eastern file documentation of concurrence from the 

NJDEP that the projects are consistent with the NJCMP with the Secretary prior to 

construction.

4.8.3.2 Delaware 

The agency responsible for implementing Delaware’s coastal zone management program is the 

DNREC. The Delaware Coastal Management Program (DCMP) was approved by the OCRM in 1979 

and updated in 1993 and 1998. Delaware differentiates between the ‘coastal zone’ and the ‘coastal strip’ 

of the state. The coastal zone includes the entire state, which is managed by the DCMP through several 

state laws and authorities, including the federal CZMA. The coastal strip was defined by the Delaware 

State Coastal Zone Act of 1971 (DSCZA) as a band of land approximately 4 miles wide that parallels the 

entire Delaware coastline. The DSCZA is the primary authority for regulating heavy industry, 

manufacturing, and bulk transfer facilities in the coastal strip (DNREC, 2004b). The DSCZA is also 

incorporated into the DCMP. 

The offshore facilities of the Crown Landing LNG Project would be located within the coastal 

zone of Delaware, which extends to the New Jersey shoreline. The offshore facilities would also be 

located within the coastal strip as defined by the DSCZA. For these reasons, the State of Delaware has 

claimed permitting authority for these facilities. 

 

6

 The CAFRA area begins where the Cheesequake Creek enters Raritan Bay in Old Bridge in Middlesex County and extends south along the 

coast around Cape May and north along Delaware Bay to the Kilcohook National Wildlife Refuge in Salem County, about 15 miles 

downstream of the proposed LNG terminal site. The Hackensack Meadowlands District is a 19,730-acre area of water, wetlands, and 

associated uplands in Hudson and Bergen Counties. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-100 

According to the DSCZA, “heavy industry uses of any kind not in operation on June 28, 1971, are 

prohibited in the coastal zone and no permits may be issued therefore. In addition, offshore gas, liquid or 

solid bulk product transfer facilities which are not in operation on June 28, 1971, are prohibited in the 

coastal zone, and no permit may be issued therefore” (7 Del. C. 1953, § 7003; 58 Del. Laws, c. 175; 64 

Del. Laws, C. 240, § 6; 66 Del. Laws, c. 256, § 1; 71 Del. Laws, c. 348, § 2). Bulk product transfer 

facilities are defined as “any port or dock facility, whether an artificial island or attached to shore by any 

means, for the transfer of bulk quantities of any substance from vessel to onshore facility or vice versa. 

Not included in this definition is a docking facility or pier for a single industrial or manufacturing facility 

for which a permit is granted or which is a nonconforming use. Likewise, docking facilities for the Port 

of Wilmington are not included in this definition” (7 Del. C. 1953, § 7002; 58 Del. Laws, c. 175; 61 Del. 

Laws, c. 116, § 88(a); 62 Del. Laws, c. 119, § 1,2; 63 Del. Laws, c. 191, § 1(a); 71 Del. Laws, c. 348, §). 

Because the Crown Landing LNG Project would involve transit of LNG ships and construction of 

a new pier and other facilities within Delaware’s coastal zone to convey LNG from ships to the terminal, 

a determination on whether the facilities would be a permissible use under the DSCZA is required. On 

December 7, 2004, Crown Landing submitted an application to the DNREC for a status determination on 

the new pier within Delaware’s coastal zone. The application is the first step in determining whether the 

pier would be permitted under the DSCZA. In its application, Crown Landing claimed that the 

construction of the proposed pier is a permissible use under the DSCZA pursuant to the provisions of § 

7002(f) of title 7 because it would exclusively support a single facility that meets the definition of 

“manufacturing” pursuant to § 7002(d). 

In a letter dated February 3, 2005 from DNREC 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. On February 15, 2005, Crown Landing filed an 

appeal of the February 3, 2005 ruling with the State Coastal Zone Industrial Control Board. The State 

Coastal Zone Industrial Control Board held a public hearing on March 30, 2005 to consider Crown 

Landing’s appeal. The DNREC’s ruling was upheld by the State Coastal Zone Industrial Control Board 

at the March 30, 2005 hearing. Crown Landing had 20 days to appeal the State Coastal Zone Industrial 

Control Board’s decision to the Delaware Superior Court but no appeal was made. 

Because the DSCZA is incorporated into the DCMP, Crown Landing has not filed a draft federal 

consistency certification with the DNREC. The DNREC’s decision on the DSCZA would likely result in 

its objection to a consistency certification for the project. If the DNREC did object to a federal 

consistency certification, Crown Landing could appeal Delaware’s decision to the U.S. Department of 

Commerce. The provisions of 15 CFR Part 930, Subpart H, outline procedures by which the Secretary of 

Commerce may override a state’s objection if the Secretary of Commerce finds that a federal license or 

permit activity, which is inconsistent with the DCMP, may be federally approved because the activity is 

consistent with the objectives or purposes of the federal CZMA or is necessary in the interest of national 

security (DCMP, 2004). In order to be consistent with the objectives or purpose of the federal CZMA, an 

activity determined to be inconsistent with the DCMP must be found by the Secretary of Commerce to be 

permissible because it satisfies the following four requirements: 

• the activity furthers one or more of the competing national objectives or purposes 

contained in sections 302 or 303 of the CZMA; 

• when performed separately or when its cumulative effects are considered, it would not 

cause adverse effects on the natural resources of the coastal zone substantial enough to 

outweigh its contribution to the national interest; 

• the activity would not violate any requirement of the CAA or CWA as amended; and 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-101 

• there is no reasonable alternative available that would permit the activity to be conducted 

in a manner consistent with the DCMP. 

In another development, the NJDEP in a letter dated May 24, 2005 stated that although a portion 

of the pier would be located in Delaware waters, construction of the entire pier and any associated 

dredging would be subject to New Jersey’s exclusive review and permitting authority and not that of the 

State of Delaware. The NJDEP cited the Compact of 1905 between New Jersey and Delaware, which 

was approved by the legislatures of both states and the United States Congress and gives New Jersey 

exclusive riparian jurisdiction of every kind and nature on its side of the Delaware River. The State of 

New Jersey has advised the State of Delaware that Article VII of the Compact of 1905 prohibits Delaware 

from using its DSCZA authority or any other state permitting authority to block the construction of 

projects appurtenant to the New Jersey shoreline. In July 2005, New Jersey asked the U.S. Supreme 

Court to hear the case and in November 2005 the U.S. Supreme Court agreed (New Jersey v. Delaware, 

126 S. Ct. 713 (U.S. Nov. 28, 2005)). 

At the present time, this issue is not resolved. Therefore, we recommend that: 

• Crown Landing file documentation of concurrence from the DNREC that the 

projects are consistent with the DCMP with the Secretary prior to construction: 

4.8.3.3 Pennsylvania 

Pennsylvania’s coastal zone management program is administered by the PADEP and its Coastal 

Zone Management Plan (PCZMP) was approved by the OCRM in 1980. The PCZMP is based on a 

network of regulatory and non-regulatory policies that require specific coastal activities to comply with 

performance standards defined in the plan and in the regulations of other state authorities (PADEP, 2002). 

Pennsylvania’s coastline along the Delaware River is 57 miles long and includes land in Bucks, 

Philadelphia, and Delaware Counties. The coastal zone along this area varies from about 0.1 mile wide in 

urban areas to over 3.5 miles in rural areas and extends to the boundary with New Jersey in the middle of 

the Delaware River. In the proposed project area, the coastal zone parallels the active Amtrak/SEPTA rail 

line running north to south. About 0.8 mile of the pipeline associated with the Logan Lateral Project 

would be located within the coastal zone of Pennsylvania and subject to the policies and performance 

standards of the PCZMP. 

On October 4, 2005, Texas Eastern submitted its Commonwealth of Pennsylvania/COE Joint 

Permit Application, which was sent to the PADEP for a federal consistency determination. The PADEP 

provided its determination that the project is consistent with the PCZMP on February 17, 2006. 

4.8.4 Hazardous Waste Sites 

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 around two of the sites contained elevated concentrations of total 

petroleum hydrocarbons and one site contained elevated concentrations of arsenic. No contamination was 

found at the remaining five sites. Additional information on potential contamination of soils and 

groundwater within the LNG terminal site are provided in sections 4.2.1 and 4.3.1, respectively, and 

potential contamination of sediments within the Delaware River is provided in section 4.2.2. 

A search of several databases was conducted to identify hazardous waste sites within 0.25 mile of 

the proposed pipeline facilities. The databases identified a total of 30 hazardous, potentially hazardous, 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-102 

and solid waste sites crossed by or located within 0.25 mile of the proposed pipeline facilities (see table 

4.8.4-1). 

The proposed pipeline would cross three hazardous waste sites and would be located adjacent to 

three others. Two of the sites crossed by the pipeline are located in Logan Township in New Jersey and 

include the former Monsanto Chemical Company facility (currently Ferro Solutions) and the Logan 

Generating facility. Both sites have a history of spills and releases involving chemical substances such as 

nitrogen oxide, diesel fuel, chlorine gas, hydrochloric acid gas, and other chemicals. The Monsanto 

Company is a Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System 

(CERCLIS) site that has received no further remedial action and is listed for spill and releases in addition 

to other corrective actions. The Logan Generating facility is also listed for spills and releases. The third 

site is the PECO Chester Generating Station located adjacent to the Delaware River. The site is listed as a 

small-quantity generator and according to the PADEP has undergone past remediation associated with its 

historical use as a coal-fired generating plant. The site was reportedly remediated under the PADEP Act 

2 program. 

The three sites located adjacent to the proposed pipeline route include a LUST site, a solid waste 

facility, and a CERCLIS site. The AMF Auto Clinic is located along Edgemont Avenue and had a LUST 

resulting in petroleum contamination that has since been remediated. The state waste facility located 

adjacent to the pipeline route is the Haulaway/Bantas Transfer Station located at 2nd Street. This site is 

registered as a solid waste facility and landfill and is a private facility that processes municipal waste. 

The last site is Front Street Tanker, which is a CERCLIS site owned by the City of Chester. Two 

abandoned tankers were discovered onsite in 1988, one of which contained oil contaminated with PCBs. 

Contaminated soils associated with these or other, undocumented hazardous waste sites could be 

encountered during construction of the proposed pipeline facilities. To reduce any potential impacts, we 

have recommended that Texas Eastern prepare a Plan for the Discovery and Management of 

Contaminated Soils and Groundwater (see section 4.2.1). 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-103 

TABLE 4.8.4-1 

Potential Hazardous and Solid Waste Sites within 0.25 Mile of the Proposed Pipeline Facilities 

State Name/Address Milepost Distance/Direction 

from Centerline (feet) 

Description 

Pennsylvania 

 Neary Property 

165 Ridge Blvd, Brookhaven 

0.20 1,320/west Unregulated leaking tanks. 

Contaminant is BTEX and the 

status of the case is unknown. 

 Atlantic 

4236 Edgemont Ave, Brookhaven 

0.20 1,320/west Leaking underground storage tank 

containing petroleum. Remedial 

actions have been initiated or 

completed. 

 Brookhaven Boro Bldg 

Edgemont Ave/Brookhaven Rd 

0.20 660/west Leaking underground storage tank 

containing petroleum. Case is 

inactive. Also unregulated leaking 

tanks with fuel oil #2. Case is 

closed. 

 AMF Auto Clinic 

3808 Edgemont Ave, Brookhaven 

0.20 Adjacent Leaking underground storage tank 

containing petroleum. Cleanup has 

been completed. 

 Sec Cleaner Service 

3401 Edgemont Ave, Brookhaven 

0.20 792/east Leaking underground storage tanks 

containing fuel oil #2. Status of 

case is unknown. 

 M&M Restaurant Supply 

One McDonald Drive, Aston 

2.00 924/west Leaking underground storage tank 

containing petroleum. Cleanup has 

been completed. 

 Penske Truck Leasing 

10 McDonald Blvd, Aston 

2.00 924/west Two leaking underground storage 

tanks both containing petroleum. 

One has had cleanup completed 

and the status of the second is 

unknown. 

 Jefferson Smurfit 

100 McDonald Blvd, Aston 

2.00 924/west Unregulated leaking tanks 

containing PHC’s. The status of 

the case is unknown. 

 Action Mailers 

90 Commerce Drive, Chester 

2.27 528/northwest Unregulated leaking tanks with 

BTEX as a contaminant. The 

status of the case is unknown. 

 Ashland Aston Chemical Dis. Fac. 

100 N. Commerce Drive, Aston 

2.27 670/northwest Voluntary Cleanup Program and 

Act 2. Non-residential and site 

specific cleanup standards. 

 Delco Beverage Co. 

100 Commerce Drive, Aston 

2.27 670/northwest Leaking underground storage tank 

containing petroleum. Cleanup 

completed. 

 Alloy Surfaces Co., Inc. 

121 N. Commerce Drive, Chester 

2.27 1,320/northwest Site has numerous FINDS 

violations dating from 2000 to 

2003. Site is also a large quantity 

generator and has three ASTs 

containing chemicals. 

 Benjamin Beeneker Plaza Apts 

2101 W. 7th St, Chester 

3.55 1,320/east Contains unregulated tanks with 

fuel oil #2. Cleanup is required but 

status of the case has not been 

reported. 

 Teledyne Packaging 

2300 W. Fourth St, Chester 

3.76 550/east Leaking underground storage tanks 

containing petroleum. Also 

unregulated tanks with BTEX 

contaminant. Closure not reported. 

 B&S Mobile 

2200 W. 2nd St, Chester 

3.92 770/east Leaking underground storage tank 

containing petroleum. Remedial 

action initiated in 1994 and 2001. 

No status given. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-104 

TABLE 4.8.4-1 (cont’d) 

Potential Hazardous and Solid Waste Sites within 0.25 Mile of the Proposed Pipeline Facilities 

State Name/Address Milepost Distance/Direction 

from Centerline (feet) 

Description 

 West End Boat Club 

Jeffery St/Delaware Ave, Chester 

3.92 1,210/east Leaking underground storage tank. 

Release of petroleum contaminant 

in 1989. Status inactive. 

 Haulaway/Bantas Transfer Station 

24-1 W. 2nd St, Chester 

3.92 Adjacent State waste facility landfill. Private 

operation that does municipal 

processing. 

 Shahadis Landfill 

2614 W. 3rd St, Chester 

3.83 650/northeast Historic inactive landfill. 

 PECO Gould Chemclear 

Jeffery St/Delaware Ave, Chester 

4.00 880/southeast Site has designation of FINDS, 

RAATS, CORRACTs, and small 

quantity generator. 

 Front Street Tanker 

Front/Ward Streets, Chester 

4.10 Adjacent CERCLIS site owned by the 

municipality. Two abandoned 

tankers onsite, one containing oil 

contaminated with PCBs. 

 Chestrees Coalition 

235 Hayes Street, Chester 

4.24 660/northwest Unregulated leaking tanks 

containing fuel oil #2. Status of 

case is unknown. 

 Westinghouse Electric Corp. 

Front/Thurlow Streets, Chester 

4.24 800/west State waste facility and landfill. 

Facility type is residential 

incinerator and has a private 

operating status. Also acts as a 

municipal transfer station. 

 Delaware WTE 

Chester City 

4.36 600/southwest State waste facility and landfill. 

Municipal facility type. 

 PECO Chester Generating Station 

Chester 

4.47 Traverse Small quantity generator. Site has 

undergone past remediation 

associated with is historical use as 

a coal-fired generating plant. 

New Jersey 

 Bridgeport Boat Yard 

116 Buttonwood Lane, Bridgeport 

6.26 1,320/south Leaking underground storage tank. 

Site has been issued letter of no 

further action. Site has one area of 

concern with one media of 

concern. 

 Bridgeport Maintenance 

Facility Rt. 130, Logan Twp. 

7.19 402/east State hazardous waste site. Active 

site with on-site sources of 

contamination. 

 Monsanto Chemical Co 

(aka Solutia, Ferro) 

Route 130, Bridgeport 

9.65 Traverse Numerous spills and releases of 

chlorine gas, hydrochloric acid gas, 

butyl benzyl phthalate. 

 Bridgeport Airport 

Route 322, Logan Twp. 

8.52 1,320/southeast State hazardous waste site. Site 

with on-site sources of 

contamination. Case status 

pending. 

 Logan Twp. Municipal Utility 

Authority 

Jefferson Lane & Route 130, 

Bridgeport 

9.00 660/southeast Numerous spills of raw sewage 

exist and releases to the Delaware 

River. 

 Logan Generating Station 

(aka Keystone Co-Gen Plant) 

Route 130, Logan Twp. 

10.00 Traverse Numerous historical spills and 

releases of nitrogen oxide, diesel 

fuel, and sulfur dioxide. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-105 

4.8.5 Recreation and Public Interest Areas 

The Crown Landing LNG and the Logan Lateral Projects would not affect any state forest land, 

national or state parks, Indian reservations, wild and scenic rivers, designated natural or scenic areas, 

game management areas, or registered natural landmarks. There are no developed recreation sites located 

on or adjacent to the LNG terminal site. There are, however, several other designated recreation and 

public interest areas located near the proposed facilities or crossed by the proposed pipeline. Areas for 

general recreational activities, including boating and fishing, are also located in the project area. 

4.8.5.1 Designated Recreation and Public Interest Areas 

New Jersey 

The closest recreational areas to the LNG terminal in New Jersey are located approximately 4 

miles from the site. About 13 acres of public recreation land is located on Beckett Road approximately 4 

miles south of the terminal site and a 0.5-acre playground is located approximately 4 miles east of the 

terminal site in Bridgeport. Because of the distance from the proposed LNG terminal site, the Crown 

Landing LNG Project would not affect recreational uses in these areas. 

The portion of the proposed pipeline in New Jersey would not cross any designated recreation or 

public interest areas. 

Delaware 

The closest recreational site in Delaware to the proposed LNG terminal is Fox Point State Park, 

which is located approximately 3.3 miles southwest of the site along the Delaware River. The park is 

about 171 acres in size and includes picnic pavilions, bike and pedestrian trails, playgrounds, and 

volleyball courts. In the summer, the park averages about 300 visitors per day. Because of the distance 

from the proposed LNG terminal site, the Crown Landing LNG Project would not affect recreational 

activities at Fox Point State Park. Crown Landing did, however, conduct a visual analysis from Fox Point 

State Park to determine if the proposed LNG terminal would be visible from the park and to determine the 

potential impacts on visual resources (see section 4.8.6.1). 

The pipeline would not affect any recreational areas in Delaware. 

Pennsylvania 

The closest recreational sites in Pennsylvania to the LNG terminal site include the Marcus Hook 

Public Park and the Wharf on the Boardwalk, both of which are located along the Delaware River. 

Marcus Hook Public Park is located about 1.1 miles northwest of the LNG terminal site. The park 

includes a picnic pavilion and playground equipment. The Wharf on the Boardwalk is a planned 

commercial development, which will be located immediately downriver from the Commodore Barry 

Bridge and approximately 3.2 miles from the LNG terminal site. Because of the distances from the 

proposed LNG terminal site, the Crown Landing LNG Project would not affect recreational activities or 

other uses at either of these facilities. Crown Landing did, however, conduct a visual analysis from both 

Marcus Hook Public Park and the Wharf on the Boardwalk development to determine if the proposed 

LNG terminal would be visible from these locations and to determine the potential impacts on visual 

resources (see section 4.8.6.1). 

The Pennsylvania portion of the proposed pipeline would cross Veteran’s Memorial Park in the 

City of Chester for about 1,200 feet at MP 3.59. This municipal park consists mainly of maintained grass 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-106 

and baseball and football playing fields. The peak period for park usage is during the summer months but 

the park does not have any seasonal restrictions. Disruption and noise during construction could preclude 

the use of the park and temporarily restrict park activities. The degree of these impacts would depend on 

the timing of construction. Construction of the pipeline during the summer months when park activities 

are at their peak would cause more of a disruption than construction during the off-peak, winter months. 

Some of the construction-related impacts would be unavoidable but the duration of the impacts would be 

short-term, lasting several days to several weeks until the right-of-way and affected park areas are 

restored in accordance with the requirements specified in the easement agreement between the City of 

Chester and Texas Eastern. Texas Eastern would also implement measures to minimize disruption to the 

park, including scheduling work during non-peak hours of the day. Operation of the pipeline would not 

affect long-term park activities because the construction and permanent right-of-way would be allowed to 

revert to former use; however, certain activities such as the construction of aboveground structures or the 

planting of trees would be prohibited within the permanent right-of-way. 

The pipeline would also cross land associated with the First Baptist Church (between MPs 0.08 

and 0.15) and Toby Farms School (MP 1.32). Disruption and noise during construction would 

temporarily restrict activities in these areas. Some of the construction-related impacts would be 

unavoidable but the duration of the impacts would be short-term, lasting several days to several weeks 

until the right-of-way and affected areas are restored in accordance with the requirements specified in the 

easement agreement between the owners of these facilities and Texas Eastern. Operation of the pipeline 

would not affect long-term activities in these areas because the construction and permanent right-of-way 

would be allowed to revert to former use; however, certain activities such as the construction of 

aboveground structures or the planting of trees would be prohibited within the permanent right-of-way. A 

proposal by Faith Baptist Church to subdivide its property and construct a 10,000 square foot office 

building and the potential impacts associated with pipeline construction and operation is discussed in 

section 4.8.5.1. 

4.8.5.2 General Recreation 

The Delaware River provides ample opportunities for recreational boating and fishing. There are 

six public boating access points to the Delaware River and its tributaries in the vicinity of the proposed 

projects. The closest of these boating access points to the LNG terminal site is the Borough of Marcus 

Hook Boat Ramp approximately 1.3 miles to the north. The others include the Richards Buttonwood 

Marina (2.5 miles east), Bridgeport Boat Yard (2.7 miles northeast), Raccoon Creek Boat Club (2.8 miles 

northeast), City of Chester Boat Ramp (3.5 miles northeast), and 7th Street Park Boat Ramp (7.7 miles 

southwest). 

The Richards Buttonwood Marina, Bridgeport Boat Yard, and Raccoon Creek Boat Club are all 

located on Raccoon Creek within Logan Township in New Jersey and have 12, 20, and 30 boat slips, 

respectively. There is an operating drawbridge where U.S. Route 130 crosses Raccoon Creek, allowing 

larger boats access to the upstream segment of Raccoon Creek. The bridge is opened an average of 300 

times per year, primarily during the summer months, and is operated by the New Jersey Department of 

Transportation (NJDOT). Approximately half of the annual openings are for boats and the other half are 

for testing and training (NJDOT, 2003). 

There are no marinas on Oldmans Creek but there is a single, private residential dock in use on 

the west side of Oldmans Creek downstream of the U.S. Route 130 bridge near the LNG terminal site. 

This bridge is still used as part of U.S. Route 130 but the drawbridge is no longer functional. Bridge 

clearance over Oldmans Creek is approximately 5 feet, allowing only limited passage to low boats. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-107 

Delaware River boat access from the Pennsylvania side of the river in the project area is provided 

by the Borough of Marcus Hook Boat Ramp or the City of Chester boat ramp at the base of the 

Commodore Barry Bridge (PAFBC, 2003b). River access from Delaware is provided by the Christina 

River at the 7th Street Park Boat Ramp in Wilmington (DNREC, 2003). 

Boating on the Delaware River in the project area is primarily limited to power boating for 

recreation and fishing. Water-skiing is rare. Sailboats are occasionally observed on the river but the trips 

originate from outside the project area. There is some evidence that the proposed LNG terminal site has 

been used informally for recreational fishing and hunting. These activities have not been permitted by the 

property owners and the site is posted with “No Trespassing” signs. 

The Delaware River Creel Survey (DRCS) prepared for the DRBC provides the most recent 

fishing data for the Delaware River. The objectives of the DRCS were to determine the amount of 

recreational angler fishing that took place on the Delaware River from mid-March through October 2002. 

The survey area included the tidal and non-tidal portions of the river, from the Delaware Memorial Bridge 

to Downsville, New York. 

For the purposes of water-based recreation, the project area was defined as a 7-mile-long portion 

of the Delaware River from RM 75, located 6 miles upstream of the Delaware Memorial Bridge, to RM 

82 at the Commodore Barry Bridge. Uniform distribution of fishing activity throughout the tidal portion 

of the Delaware River was assumed, which means that the project area for water-based recreation 

represents approximately 10 percent of the total tidal fishing activity in the DRCS. Highlights of the 

DRCS as applied to the project area using the assumptions mentioned above are as follows: 

• total fishing effort for the project area is estimated to be about 4,019 trips encompassing 

13,962 hours of fishing; 

• the average length of a fishing trip for boat anglers was 4.3 hours. Shore angler trips 

averaged 2.1 hours; 

• approximately 66 percent of the total fishing effort occurred from March through June, 

coinciding with major fish spawning runs; 

• daytime fishing (7 AM to 9 PM) accounted for 92 percent of the total fishing effort; 

• aerial surveys showed that 90 percent of the fishing was from boats. Many anglers were 

observed fishing from large (greater than 20 feet in length) recreational fishing boats, 

especially on weekends; 

• approximately 85 percent of the fishing was catch and release; and 

• channel catfish was the most common species caught. 

Overall the popularity of recreational fishing in the immediate project area is limited due to fish 

consumption advisories for the lower Delaware River associated with the risks of PCB or dioxin 

contamination (NJDEP, 2003e). There is a small commercial bait fishery in the project area but there is 

no commercial fishery for human consumption. In addition to the Delaware River, the mouth of Oldmans 

Creek is a popular fishing area and is located approximately 3,500 feet downriver of the LNG terminal 

site. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-108 

Construction-related activities associated with the LNG terminal could impact recreational 

boating and fishing within the Delaware River and its tributaries. These include the dredging of the ship 

berth at the LNG terminal site and construction activities associated with the pier. Construction of the 

pipeline across the river would not have an affect on recreational boating and fishing because it would be 

installed using the HDD construction method (see section 2.4.2.2). In accordance with federal and state 

restrictions to protect anadromous fish during migration and spawning, dredging would only be 

conducted between August 2 and March 14. According to the DRCS, less than one third of the annual 

recreational fishing effort occurs during this period because most fishing activities coincide with the 

major fish spawning runs from March through June. As a result, the proposed dredging should not have a 

significant impact on recreational fishing in the area. Security zones would not be required around the 

pier during construction but noise from pile driving associated with the pier could discourage recreational 

fishing in the immediate vicinity. However, pile driving for the pier would also be limited to between 

August 2 and March 14 and would not coincide with the prime fishing season. 

Operation of the project facilities would impact recreational boating and fishing during the 

arrival, unloading, and departure of the LNG ships. Crown Landing estimates that about two to three 

ships per week would transit the Delaware River to deliver its cargo to the LNG terminal. Docks in the 

area currently accommodate both industrial and commercial ships, including liquefied petroleum gas 

(LPG) ships. LNG ships would access the proposed LNG terminal via the navigation channel in the 

Delaware River and Bay and Marcus Hook Anchorage Area. As a result, marine traffic associated with 

the project would not introduce any significant new type of impacts on recreational boating or fishing. 

However, as part of its Letter of Recommendation, the Coast Guard would impose a moving safety zone 

around LNG ships during transit up the Delaware River and while berthed at the LNG terminal. The 

Coast Guard has determined the extent of a moving safety zone that would be enforced around LNG ships 

on the Delaware River and Bay during its review of Crown Landing’s WSA which is discussed further in 

section 4.12.5. The Coast Guard currently enforces a Regulated Navigation Area (RNA) under 33 CFR 

165.510 for vessels carrying “dangerous cargoes” within the Delaware River and Bay. This RNA places 

additional requirements on vessels carrying dangerous cargoes as well as vessels operating in the vicinity 

of those carrying dangerous cargoes. In addition, there is currently a 100 yard zone for moored or 

anchored vessels carrying dangerous cargo. 

The moving safety zone enforced around each LNG ship and the moored vessel security zone 

around the ship unloading facility while a ship is docked would be restricted to boaters. This could cause 

impacts on recreational boating and fishing but the impacts would be temporary while the boat is in 

transit or moored at the ship unloading facility. Because the safety zone would be a moving zone around 

the ship, the impacts would be of short duration at any given point along the shipping route. Many 

recreational boats should be able to go around the LNG ships at points in the river that are sufficiently 

wide for them to be outside of the safety zone. In locations were the waterway is narrow, a recreational 

craft attempting to travel in the opposite direction of an LNG ship traveling at 10 knots may need to wait 

up to 18 minutes for the LNG ship to pass before proceeding on its way. The delay would increase to up 

to 36 minutes when the LNG ship is traveling at 5 knots and up to 60 minutes when the LNG ship is 

traveling at 3 knots. For boaters near or upstream of the facility, an additional 60 minute delay may be 

experienced while the LNG ship is berthed or turned. The Coast Guard has stated that it would make 

every effort to minimize disruption to other water way users around moored LNG ships. Because of the 

relatively low volume of recreational boating in the immediate project area, any impacts are expected to 

be minor. Moreover, the Coast Guard moving safety and moored vessel security zones would not be 

treated as absolute exclusion zones that would preclude all other vessel movements. Rather, other vessels 

may be allowed to transit through the moving safety and moored vessel security zones with the 

permission of the Captain of the Port. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-109 

The popular fishing area at the mouth of Oldmans Creek could be temporarily affected during 

LNG ship transit past the area but any impacts would be minor and short term (i.e., lasting only several 

minutes). If the Coast Guard requires a 1,500-foot security zone for the LNG ships, the area would not be 

affected when an LNG ship is berthed at the terminal because the moored vessel security zone would not 

extend to the mouth of the creek, which is 3,500 feet from the proposed pier. Additional information on 

marine traffic and the safety and security zones is presented in sections 4.9.4.2 and 4.12.5. 

Shoreline fishing from the LNG terminal site would be prohibited due to safety and security 

concerns at the facility. As previously discussed, the site is posted with “No Trespassing” signs so only 

those currently using the site without the owner’s permission would be affected. In addition, according to 

the DRCS, shoreline fishing accounts for only approximately 10 percent of the total fishing effort on the 

Delaware River. However, New Jersey Resource Rule 7:7E-8.11 requires that coastal development 

adjacent to all coastal waters provide permanent perpendicular and linear access to the waterfront to the 

maximum extent practicable, including both visual and physical access. The NJDEP acknowledges the 

safety and security concerns relating to public access at the LNG terminal facility but has indicated that 

Crown Landing must comply with this rule. 

The NJDEP suggested compliance with this rule could be addressed either by providing a secured 

and limited area of ingress/egress to the waterfront onsite or acquiring or enhancing offsite waterfront 

areas. In addition to security concerns, Crown Landing has indicated that onsite waterfront access is not 

possible due to physical constraints. There are extensive wetlands located between the upland and 

navigable waters outside the areas proposed to be developed for the terminal facilities. The entire 

northern shoreline of Oldmans Creek, including the shoreline on the Crown Landing site, and the 

shoreline between the Crown Landing site boundary and U.S. Route 130 are considered wetland. To 

comply with the rule, Crown Landing evaluated eight options for providing public waterfront access at 

other offsite locations (see table 4.8.5-1). 

The eight sites were discussed with the NJDEP on August 9, 2005. Based on these discussions, it 

was determined that site number 4 offered the most significant opportunities for public water access. The 

site is located just south of the Commodore Barry Bridge and has relatively deep water, which would 

allow boat access to the Delaware River. Crown Landing is currently developing a specific enhancement 

plan for this site and has indicated that it will provide the plan to the NJDEP when it becomes available. 

4.8.6 Visual Resources 

4.8.6.1 LNG Terminal 

The degree of visual impact that may result from a proposed project is typically determined by 

considering the general character of the existing landscape and the visually prominent features of the 

proposed facility. The proposed LNG terminal would be constructed at a currently undeveloped site, 

primarily consisting of wetlands and agricultural fields. The site is surrounded by a mixture of industrial, 

agricultural, open space, and scattered residential uses. The site is bordered on the north and west by the 

Delaware River; the east by industrial uses and U.S. Route 130; and the south by Oldmans Creek and 

open areas. The terrain in the area of the site is relatively level and low-lying with elevations ranging 

from sea level to approximately 10 feet above mean sea level. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-110 

TABLE 4.8.5-1 

Summary of Public Waterfront Access Sites Evaluated for the Crown Landing LNG Project 

Site 

Number 

Site Name County/Location Ownership Existing 

Facilities 

Existing Facilities 

Requiring 

Improvement 

Potential New 

Facilities 

1 West 

Deptford 

Public Boat 

Access 

Gloucester 

County/end of 

Center Street, 

West Deptford, 

NJ 

West Deptford 

Township 

Dual-lane 

ramp, small 

dock, parking 

for over 100 

cars/trailers 

Informal trails 

upstream and 

downstream of boat 

ramp 

None 

2 Red Bank 

Battlefield 

Park 

Gloucester 

County/100 

Hessian 

Avenue, 

National Park, 

NJ 

Gloucester 

County 

Small wooden 

pier, concrete 

trail along 

riverfront 

None Fishing pier, floating 

dock 

3 Raccoon 

Creek 

Wildlife 

Management 

Area (WMA) 

Gloucester 

County/along 

Route 322 

approximately 1 

mile SW of 

intersection of 

Route 322 and 

Route 295 

State of New 

Jersey 

Trail (does not 

extend to 

waterfront), 

grassy pull-off 

parking area 

Trail, parking area Extended trail to 

waterfront, elevated 

walkway across 

wetlands 

4 State Route 

324 at 

Delaware 

River 

Gloucester 

County/western 

terminus of 

Route 324 at 

Delaware River 

Unknown Informal 

waterfront 

trails, 

unmaintained 

parking area 

Trails, parking 

areas 

Boat ramp, lighting, 

fishing pier, 

expanded parking 

areas 

5 DOD Ponds 

WMA 

Salem 

County/West of 

Route 130 

approximately 1 

mile north of 

Penns Grove, 

NJ 

Federally 

owned, 

managed by 

State of New 

Jersey 

Small boat 

ramp to ponds, 

dirt road to 

riverfront 

Roads, parking 

areas 

Fishing pier, lighting, 

signage, boat ramp 

on Delaware River, 

handicap accessible 

ramp to beach/pier 

6 Riverview 

Beach Park 

Salem 

County/West of 

Route 49 

between 

Lakeview 

Avenue and W. 

Pittsfield Street 

Public Lake, walking 

trail along 

riverfront, 

sports fields, 

playground 

equipment 

None Fishing pier/ 

observation deck, 

boat ramp 

7 Pennsville 

Municipal 

Boat Access 

Salem 

County/Riviera 

Drive in 

Pennsville, NJ 

Public Small park with 

playground 

equipment, 

two-lane boat 

ramp, gravel 

parking area 

Lighting None 

8 Railroad 

Avenue 

Property 

Salem 

County/Railroad 

Avenue, 

Pedricktown, NJ 

Private None None Access trail, 

waterfront trail, dock, 

boat launch 

 

The dominant visual feature in the area of the LNG terminal site is the Logan Generating Station. 

The station itself is 180 feet high and the combustion stack is 430 feet high, which is visible from public 

roads, bridges, and the Delaware River. A coal pier serving the Logan Generating Station extends 

approximately 1,500 feet into the Delaware River and the coal storage facility is located along the 

shoreline. Northeast of the Logan Generating Station is the Ferro Industries facility. The Ferro plant 

includes industrial buildings, aboveground pipes, and tanks that are clearly visible from U.S. Route 130. 

The primary visual character along other areas on U.S. Route 130 is rural with views of open land, farm 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-111 

fields, small clusters of one and two story residential structures, and scattered businesses. The right-ofway along U.S. Route 130 is heavily vegetated and provides limited views into the proposed LNG 

terminal site. The shoreline along the Delaware River at the LNG terminal site is mostly wooded and 

currently has a relatively natural appearance from the water with the exception of two large warning signs 

on the site indicating the presence of underwater pipeline crossings. Powerlines and cell phone towers in 

the project area also interrupt views of an otherwise rural landscape. 

The western shore of the Delaware River in Pennsylvania and Delaware (e.g., Marcus Hook) is a 

heavily industrialized area. The oil refineries and other heavy industry located in this area are visually 

prominent with large storage tanks, emission stacks, and burning flares from almost all vantage points. 

The COE uses a Management Classification System (MCS) to provide general guidelines on the 

degree of and nature of visual change acceptable in a landscape (COE, 1988b). The five management 

classes include: preservation, retention, partial retention, modification, and rehabilitation, with 

preservation area having the most distinct visual quality and rehabilitation having the least distinct visual 

quality. The characteristics and visual management objectives for these areas include: 

• Preservation: areas considered to be unique and having the most distinct visual quality 

in the region. They are highly valued and are often protected by federal and state policies 

and laws. While limited project activity is not precluded, it should not be readily evident. 

• Retention: areas are regionally recognized as having distinct visual quality but may not 

be institutionally protected. Project activity may be evident but should not attract 

attention. 

• Partial Retention: areas are locally valued for above average visual quality but are rarely 

protected by institutional polices. Project activity may attract attention and dominate the 

existing visual resource. 

• Modification: areas are not noted for their distinct qualities and are often considered to 

be of average visual quality. Project activity may attract attention and dominate the 

existing visual resource. 

• Rehabilitation: areas are noted for their minimal visual quality and are often considered 

blighted areas. Project activity should alter the existing undesirable visual resources. 

Based on the characteristics of these management classes, the proposed LNG terminal site would 

be included in the ‘modification’ class. 

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. Other prominent visual 

features include: 

• an approximately 2,000-foot-long pier that would extend approximately 1,650 feet into 

the Delaware River and be located approximately 25 feet above the water surface; 

• a 140-foot-high nitrogen distillation tower; 

• a 120-foot-high emergency flare tower; and 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-112 

• a berth for a single LNG ship. The LNG ships would be up to about 1,000 feet long and 

would be berthed at the LNG terminal approximately 30 to 40 percent of the year. 

The facility would also include one story buildings to the east of the LNG storage tanks, 

including administrative shelters and offices, and meter and regulation stations to the west of the LNG 

storage tanks. Approximately 3,500 feet of dual feed electric transmission line supported on transmission 

poles spaced about 225 feet apart would also be installed as part of the project. The poles would be 

approximately 47.5 feet high. This transmission line would replace a smaller existing powerline that 

extends along the site entrance road to the proposed terminal area. 

The terminal and pier would be lit at night for safety and security reasons. Lighting at the 

terminal would be based on nationally recommended practices and in accordance with recommended 

illumination levels. Outdoor area lighting would be provided for all process areas and certain roadways. 

Security lighting would be provided on the perimeter fence around the terminal, on the pier roadway, and 

beneath the pier structure. The LNG storage tanks and other elevated structures would be equipped with 

warning lights to comply with air safety regulations. Navigational lighting would be installed on the 

marine structures in accordance with applicable code requirements. 

A visual analysis was completed from eight vantage points to determine the potential visual 

impacts associated with the LNG terminal. A summary of the visual analysis is presented in table 4.8.6-1. 

As previously discussed, the project area is in the modification management class landscape 

where projects may display aesthetic characteristics of form, line, color, texture, scale, and composition 

that differ from those of the existing visual resources and where project should exhibit good design and 

visual compatibility with its surroundings (COE, 1988b). 

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 around the LNG terminal site. Moderate to distant views 

would occur from Marcus Hook Public Park. Views form the Commodore Barry Bridge would be brief 

and intermittent. Similar views would occur from the Wharf on the Boardwalk development except that 

these views may be long or short in duration. The views from both the Commodore Barry Bridge and the 

Wharf on the Boardwalk would be distant and partially obscured. 

The terminal facilities would be partially visible from U.S. Route 130 and areas in Logan or 

Oldmans Township but would be somewhat screened by vegetation. By using the existing site entrance, 

Crown Landing would preserve and possibly enhance the vegetative screening between the terminal 

facilities located along the shoreline and U.S. Route 130. 

While the LNG terminal would be visible and permanently impact visual resources in the area, 

the overall aesthetic effect would be minor. The visual character in the project area is defined by heavy 

industrial uses, dredged material disposal sites with clearly engineered slopes, the Commodore Barry 

Bridge, Interstate 495, and the large commercial ships that transit through this segment of the Delaware 

River. Many of these existing uses have already introduced large vertical and horizontal elements into the 

landscape along the Delaware River. The facilities associated with the Crown Landing LNG Project 

would be visually compatible with their surroundings and consistent with the management objectives of 

the modification class. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-113 

4.8.6.2 Pipeline Facilities 

The pipeline facilities would be located on private or local lands that are not subject to federal or 

state visual management standards. Visual resources along the pipeline route are a function of geology, 

climate, and historical processes and include topographic relief, vegetation, water, wildlife, land use, and 

human uses and development. The vegetation along the pipeline route consists largely of grasses, shrubs, 

and small- to medium-diameter trees on mostly flat to rolling terrain. In Pennsylvania, the proposed 

pipeline route crosses predominantly mixed commercial and residential areas with maintained lawns.

Texas Eastern proposes to use a maximum of a 100-foot-wide construction right-of-way. Some 

areas along the route would be widened for temporary extra workspaces. Visual impacts associated with 

the construction right-of-way and temporary extra workspaces would include the removal of existing 

vegetation and the exposure of bare soils, as well as earthwork and grading scars associated with heavy 

equipment tracks, trenching, and machinery and tool storage. Other visual effects could result from the 

removal of large individual trees that have intrinsic aesthetic value; the removal or alteration of vegetation 

that may currently provide a visual barrier from undesirable views; or landform changes that introduce 

contrasts in visual scale, spatial characteristics, form, line, color, or texture. 

Visual impacts would be greatest where the pipeline route parallels or crosses roads and the 

pipeline right-of-way may be seen by passing motorists, on residents where landscaping and vegetation 

would be removed, and in forested areas. The duration of visual impacts would depend on the type of 

vegetation that is cleared or altered. The impact of vegetation clearing would be shortest in open lands 

consisting of scrub-shrub vegetation, where the reestablishment of vegetation following construction 

would be relatively fast (generally less than 5 years). The impact would be greater in forest land, which 

would take many years to regenerate mature trees. The greatest potential visual impact would result from 

the removal of large specimen trees, which would take longer than other vegetation types to regenerate 

and would be prevented from reestablishing on the permanent right-of-way. 

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. As previously discussed, the LNG terminal would be visually 

compatible with its surroundings and consistent with the management objectives of the modification class 

(see section 4.8.6.1). 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-114 

TABLE 4.8.6-1 

Summary of Visual Analysis Conducted for the Crown Landing LNG Project 

Vantage Point (State) Depth of 

View 

View Type and 

Duration 

Number of 

Daily 

Viewers 

Spatial 

Dominance 

a/ 

Scale 

Contrast 

b/ 

Compatibility 

c/ 

Overall 

Visual 

Effect d/ 

Delaware River 

(Delaware) 

Near, 

middle, 

and distant 

views 

depending 

on boat 

location 

Unobstructed 

view. Short or 

long duration. 

An average 

of 22 

recreational 

boats and 8 

commercial 

vessels per 

day. 

Co-dominant 

to 

subordinate, 

depending 

on view 

Moderate Somewhat 

compatible 

Slight to 

high, 

depending 

on boat 

location 

Marcus Hook Public 

Park 

Distant 

View (1.1 

miles) 

Unobstructed 

view. Short or 

long duration. 

Unknown Co-dominant 

to 

subordinate, 

depending 

on view 

Moderate Somewhat 

compatible 

Slight to 

moderate 

depending 

on location 

and 

interest 

Fox Point State Park 

(Delaware) 

Distant 

View (3.3 

miles) 

Unobstructed. 

Short or long 

duration. 

An average 

of 300 

visitors per 

day (summer 

average). 

Subordinate Moderate Somewhat 

compatible 

Slight 

Interstate 495, MP 8 

(Delaware) 

Distant 

View (1.2 

miles) 

Intermittent 

sightlines. 

Short duration. 

An average 

of 81,200 

vehicles per 

day. 

Subordinate Moderate Somewhat 

compatible 

Slight 

Commodore Barry 

Bridge, east & west 

bound travel (New 

Jersey/Pennsylvania) 

Elevated 

but distant 

view (3.1 

miles) 

Obscured by 

bridge and 

barriers. Short 

duration. 

An average 

of 16,500 

vehicles per 

day. 

Co-dominate Moderate 

to minimal 

Compatible Slight 

The Wharf on the 

Boardwalk 

Distant 

View (3. 2 

miles) 

Unobstructed. 

Shore or long 

duration. 

Unknown, 

still under 

construction 

Subordinate Moderate 

to minimal 

Compatible Slight 

U.S. Route 130, 

including the bridge 

over Oldmans Creek 

(New Jersey) 

Mid-ground 

view (0.5 

mile) 

Partially 

obscured by 

vegetation. 

Short duration. 

An average 

of 4,700 

vehicles per 

day. 

Co-dominant 

to 

subordinate 

depending 

on the view. 

Moderate Somewhat 

compatible 

Slight to 

moderate 

Delaware Memorial 

Bridge, east & west 

bound travel 

(Delaware) 

Distant 

view (10 

miles) 

Obscured by 

bridge. Short 

duration. 

An average 

of 80,000 

vehicles per 

day. 

Subordinate Moderate 

to minimal 

Compatible Negligible 

____________________ 

a/ Spatial dominance is the prevalent occupation of a space in a landscape by an object(s) or landscape element. Spatial 

dominance can be described in terms of being dominant, co-dominant, or subordinate. 

Dominant – the modification is the major object or area in a confined setting and occupies a large part of the setting. 

Co-dominant – the modification is one of the major objects or areas in the confined setting and its features are of equal visual 

importance. 

Subordinate – the modification is insignificant and occupies a minor part of the setting. 

b/ Scale contrast is the difference in absolute or relative scale in relation to other distinct objects or areas in the landscape. Scale 

contrast can be described in terms of being severe, moderate, or minimal. 

Severe – the modification is much larger than the surrounding objects. 

Moderate – the modification is slightly larger than the surrounding objects. 

Minimal – the modification is much smaller than the surrounding objects. 

c/ Compatibility is the degree to which landscape elements and characteristics are still unified within their setting. Compatibility can 

be described in terms of being compatible, somewhat compatible, or not compatible. 

Compatible – the modification is harmonious within the setting. 

Somewhat Compatible – the modification is more or less harmonious within the setting. 

Not Compatible – the modification is not harmonious within the setting. 

d/ High – clear, unobstructed views of the project. 

Moderate – project will be visible, but views will be of short or medium duration and wholly or partially obscured. 

Slight – project will be visible, but views will be of short duration and/or blend into the background and will be dominated by 

existing features in the landscape. 

Negligible – site will be scarcely visible. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-115 

4.9 SOCIOECONOMICS 

The potential socioeconomic effects from construction, operation, and maintenance of the Crown 

Landing LNG and Logan Lateral Projects are related to the number of construction workers that would 

work on the project and their impact on population, public services, nearby homes and businesses, and 

temporary housing during construction. Other potential impacts are related to construction and operation 

of the LNG terminal, such as increased ship traffic or disruption of normal vehicular traffic patterns in the 

vicinity of the terminal site. 

The potential impacts of the project on land use and residences in the project area are discussed in 

section 4.8. A discussion of the project’s effects on population and employment, housing, public 

services, transportation and traffic, property values, tax revenue, and environmental justice is provided 

below. 

4.9.1 Population, Economy, and Employment 

Table 4.9.1-1 provides a summary of selected demographic and socioeconomic statistics for the 

state, county, and communities where project facilities are proposed. The population of Gloucester 

County, New Jersey was 254,673 in 2000, which was a 10.7 percent increase over the 1990 population. 

The population of Delaware County, Pennsylvania was 550,864 in 2000, which was a 0.6 percent increase 

over the 1990 population. New Castle County, Delaware, located across the Delaware River from the 

proposed LNG terminal site, had a population of 500,265 in 2000, which was a 13.2 percent increase over 

the 1990 population. 

Logan Township, where the proposed LNG terminal would be located, has a population density 

lower than the rest of Gloucester County and the State of New Jersey. Of the communities crossed by the 

proposed pipeline, the City of Chester and Brookhaven Borough have the highest populations and 

population densities in the project area. These communities have higher population densities than that of 

Delaware County and the State of Pennsylvania. 

The main industries in the counties and communities that would be affected by the projects are 

trade, transportation, and utilities, and educational, health, and social services. The unemployment rate 

for Logan Township is well below the unemployment rate for Gloucester County and the State of New 

Jersey (5.8 percent). In Pennsylvania, the unemployment rates in the communities crossed by the Logan 

Lateral are higher than the state rate of 3.5 percent. Specifically, the City of Chester has the highest 

unemployment rate (9.9 percent), which is more than triple the unemployment rate for Delaware County 

(3.1 percent). The City of Claymont has a lower unemployment rate (3.0 percent) than both New Castle 

County and the State of Delaware. 

Crown Landing estimates that an average of 360 workers would be employed during the 36-

month-long construction period for the LNG terminal, with a peak workforce of approximately 650 

personnel during construction months 15 through 22. Texas Eastern estimates that 275 workers would be 

required to construct the natural gas pipeline facilities. Crown Landing and Texas Eastern estimate that 

the vast majority of the workers would be hired locally (i.e., within 50 miles of the project facilities), with 

a total of approximately 90 non-local workers temporarily relocating from outside the project area. The 

non-local hires would include personnel highly qualified in mechanical, electrical, and instrumentation 

work and control tradesmen. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-116 

TABLE 4.9.1-1 

Existing Socioeconomic Conditions for the Crown Landing LNG and Logan Lateral Projects 

Population Population 

State/County/ Density a/

Community 1990 2000 1990 2000 

Per 

Capita 

Income 

(2000) 

Civilian 

Labor 

Force 

(2000) 

Unemployment Rate 

(percent) 

2000 

Major Industry b/

NEW JERSEY 7,730,188 8,414,350 1,042 1,134 27,006 4,194,931 5.8 

Trade, 

transportation, and 

utilities 

Gloucester County 230,082 254,673 709 784 22,708 132,737 6.0 

Trade, 

transportation, and 

utilities 

Logan Township 5,147 6,032 228 267 26,853 3,138 1.9 

Trade, 

transportation, and 

utilities 

DELAWARE 666,168 783,600 341 401 23,305 401,152 3.4 Educational, health, 

and social services 

New Castle County 441,946 500,265 1,037 1,174 25,413 263,440 3.5 Educational, health, 

and social services 

 City of Claymont 9,800 9,220 4,645 4,371 20,211 4,799 3.0 Educational, health, 

and social services 

PENNSYLVANIA 11,877,228 12,281,054 265 274 20,880 6,000,512 3.5 Educational, health, 

and social services 

Delaware County 547,579 550,864 2,976 2,990 25,040 272,268 3.1 Educational, health, 

and social services 

City of Chester 41,856 36,854 8,636 7,604 13,052 15,898 9.9 Educational, health, 

and social services 

Chester Township 5,399 4,604 3,856 3,302 16,072 2,015 5.4 Educational, health, 

and social services 

Brookhaven 

Borough 8,567 7,985 5,048 4,705 23,706 4,392 3.2 Educational, health, 

and social services 

____________________ 

a/ Persons per square mile. 

b/ Based on North American Industry Classification System and U.S. Census classifications. 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census of Population and Housing: 2000 and 1990 

Population impacts within the project area are expected to be temporary and relatively minor. 

Most impacts would come from the temporary influx of construction personnel. The total population 

change would equal the total number of non-local construction workers, plus any family members 

accompanying them. Assuming all 90 non-local construction workers relocate to the project area with 

family members, this would equate to 233 people using a typical household size of 2.59 persons (U.S. 

Census, 2003). This temporary increase in population corresponds to less than 1 percent of the existing 

population and would not have a permanent impact on population. A brief decrease in the unemployment 

rate could occur as a result of construction due to the hiring of local workers for construction and the 

increased demands on the local economy. However, given the relatively short construction period, the 

impacts on the economy and employment as a whole would be temporary and minimal. 

About 60 permanent employees would be required for operation of the LNG terminal. Crown 

Landing has indicated it would hire and train local workers to the extent possible. Operation of the 

pipeline would be undertaken by existing employees from Texas Eastern’s Eagle Station facility in 

Delaware County. Given the small number of permanent workers that would be added, the projects 

would not have a significant impact on the permanent population, economy, or employment in the area. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-117 

4.9.2 Housing 

Housing is relatively abundant in the vicinity of the Crown Landing LNG and Logan Lateral 

Projects. In the three counties within the project area, there over 500,000 housing units with 

approximately 25,000 of these classified as vacant (see table 4.9.2-1). Logan Township, New Jersey had 

76 vacant housing units in 2000, while the community across the Delaware River, the City of Claymont, 

Delaware, had 401 vacancies in 2000. The communities crossed by the pipeline route had a combined 

total of 2,470 vacant housing units in 2000. The highest housing vacancy rates are in the City of Chester 

(14.4 percent) and the City of Claymont (9.6 percent). 

TABLE 4.9.2-1 

2000 Housing Characteristics for the Project Area 

State/County/Community Total Housing Units Total Vacant Housing Units Vacancy Rate (percent) 

NEW JERSEY 3,310,275 245,630 7.4 

Gloucester County 95,054 4,337 4.6 

Logan Township 2,077 76 3.7 

DELAWARE 343,072 44,336 12.9 

New Castle County 199,521 10,586 5.3 

City of Claymont 4,193 401 9.6 

PENNSYLVANIA 5,249,750 472,747 9.0 

Delaware County 216,978 10,658 4.9 

City of Chester 14,976 2,162 14.4 

Chester Township 1,754 113 6.4 

Brookhaven Borough 3,595 119 3.3 

____________________ 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American FactFinder. 

Table 4.9.2-2 provides the number of temporary housing units for the counties and communities 

in the vicinity of the proposed projects. The largest number of total vacant temporary housing units (707) 

is in New Castle County, Delaware. The rental vacancy rate is highest in the City of Claymont, Delaware 

(14.2 percent). The rental vacancy rates in the communities crossed by the pipeline route range from <1.0 

percent in Logan Township to 7.4 percent in the City of Chester. 

Construction of the LNG terminal and associated pipeline could affect the availability of housing. 

Assuming that local construction workers do not require housing, and given the number of available 

vacant units and existing temporary housing available, the current housing conditions should be sufficient 

to meet the demand for short-term housing required by the non-local construction workforce. 

Additionally, abundant temporary housing is available in the form of motels, hotels, inns, or campsites 

within the project area. 

The additional 60 employees anticipated for operation of the LNG terminal would not 

significantly affect local housing availability. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-118 

TABLE 4.9.2-2 

Temporary Accommodations Available in the Project Area

State/County/Community Rental Vacancy Rate 

(percent) 

Vacant Housing Units Available for Seasonal, Recreational, or 

Occasional Use (2000) 

NEW JERSEY 

Gloucester County 5.7 274 

Logan Township <1.0 6 

DELAWARE 

New Castle County 7.4 707 

 City of Claymont 14.2 7 

PENNSYLVANIA 

Delaware County 6.0 423 

City of Chester 7.4 24 

Chester Township 4.9 0 

Brookhaven Borough 6.7 6 

____________________ 

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, DP-1. Profile of General Demographic Characteristics: 2000 

4.9.3 Public Services 

Two hospitals are located in Gloucester County, New Jersey, with a combined total of 917 beds. 

The closest hospital to Logan Township, New Jersey is 16 miles from the project site. There are two 

hospitals in Delaware County, Pennsylvania within 2 miles of the project area. These hospitals have a 

combined total of over 700 beds. The closest hospital to the pipeline route is the Community Hospital of 

Chester, which is located adjacent to proposed pipeline corridor at approximate MP 3.4. Given the 

projects’ proximity to medical services, and the extent of these services, no impacts on these services are 

anticipated during construction or operation of the proposed facilities. 

The Logan Township Police Department had a law enforcement workforce of 17 police officers 

in 2003. The Logan Township Fire Department has two engine companies with a total of 64 volunteer 

personnel. This fire department also provides emergency medical services. Brookhaven Borough has a 

fire department that also provides emergency medical services. Several other fire departments and 

companies are located within 5 miles of the proposed pipeline route. Brookhaven Borough, City of 

Chester, and Chester Township each have police departments that provide local law enforcement services. 

Sufficient law enforcement and fire response services are located within the project area to the extent that 

temporary impacts on these services are anticipated to be minimal. 

The limited number of permanent employees associated with the proposed project would not 

result in long-term impacts on public services. However, fire and other emergencies at the proposed LNG 

terminal could require the services of local fire departments and emergency response units. To assist in 

this effort, Crown Landing provided LNG-specific fire fighting training to over 90 members of the New 

Jersey and Delaware emergency response community during 2005. In addition, Crown Landing is 

working with local emergency service providers to develop other procedures to ensure sufficient and 

efficient response to potential emergencies at the LNG terminal. The procedures would be included in an 

Emergency Response Plan for the facilities. Section 4.12.5 provides more information regarding the 

Emergency Response Plan as well as evacuation planning. 

We received scoping comments regarding the public costs of ensuring the security of LNG ships 

as they transit and dock at the LNG terminal. These costs have not yet been determined. The final costs 

associated with security would be determined after the specific security needs and responsibilities have 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-119 

been established by the Coast Guard through consultations with other federal, state, and local agencies. 

The specific security-related costs for the proposed project are not yet available. However, the security 

practices presently employed to secure the LNG vessel transit through Boston Harbor to the Distrigas 

facility in Everett, Massachusetts provide an indication of the potential magnitude of the costs involved. 

A recent report for Congress (Parfomak, 2003) indicates that the per-ship costs associated with the LNG 

terminal in Everett, Massachusetts after September 11, 2001 are approximately $80,000, of which 

$37,500 are covered by local and state governments. Crown Landing has stated that it is continuing to 

work with the applicable agencies to identify the required security and emergency management practices 

required for the proposed facility, as well as the potential costs associated with these practices. To ensure 

that this issue is addressed, we have recommended that Crown Landing provide a plan identifying the 

mechanisms for funding project-specific costs that would be imposed on federal and state agencies and 

local communities to better define the potential financial burden on these entities (see section 4.12.5). 

4.9.4 Transportation and Traffic 

4.9.4.1 Vehicle Traffic 

LNG Terminal 

The LNG terminal site is located directly adjacent to U.S. Route 130 and will share an access 

road with the Logan Generating Station. U.S. Route 130 is a major, four-lane, north-south transportation 

corridor that generally follows the Delaware River. To the east of the project area, U.S. Route 130 

intersects with Interstate 295 in Bridgeport, New Jersey, near the Commodore Barry Bridge. To the west 

of the LNG terminal site, U.S. Route 130 intersects with Interstate 295 near the Delaware Memorial 

Bridge. 

Traffic levels near the LNG terminal site are generally low. The average annual daily traffic 

(AADT) on U.S. Route 130 east of the Commodore Barry Bridge was 20,176 in 2000. The AADT west 

of the Commodore Barry Bridge was 4,700 in 2001. Specifically, traffic levels during peak hours in the 

morning and evening on U.S. Route 130 are between 400 and 500 vehicles. Based on a traffic study of 

U.S. Route 130 conducted by Crown Landing using the Highway Capacity Manual (Transportation 

Research Board, 2000), the two intersections nearest the site (the intersection with the proposed entrance 

road and the intersection with Center Square Road) both currently operate at acceptable Levels of Service 

(Levels A or B) during the morning and evening peak hours. Level of Service is a qualitative measure of 

the effect of traffic flow factors, such as speed, travel time, interruption, freedom to maneuver, driver 

comfort, convenience, and indirectly, safety and operating costs. It is expressed as levels of service "A" 

through "F." Level "A" is a condition of free traffic flow where there is little or no restriction in speed or 

maneuverability caused by presence of other vehicles. Level "F" is forced-flow operation at low speed 

with many stoppages. 

Construction activities at the LNG terminal site are estimated to generate about 650 vehicle trips 

per day 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. 

Construction workers and material delivery trucks would access the site via U.S. Route 130 and Center 

Square Road within the Pureland Industrial Complex. It is expected that some construction workers 

would park in a temporary parking lot located along Center Square Road, and be shuttled to the main 

construction area. Crown Landing has indicated that it is evaluating two other mitigative measures to 

minimize traffic impacts during construction: 1) 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 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-120 

traffic signal at the intersection of U.S. Route 130 and the entrance road to be 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. 

The traffic during operation of the LNG terminal would be primarily limited to the employees 

traveling to and from the terminal and an occasional delivery of supplies and materials. About 60 

employee vehicle trips are estimated per day during average operating conditions, with about 25 of these 

trips occurring during the morning and evening peak hours. These new vehicular trips would result in 

only a minimal increase in the existing road traffic. As discussed above, the left turn lane on U.S. Route 

130 may be extended to accommodate additional and/or larger vehicles turning into the entrance road to 

the LNG terminal. 

Pipeline Facilities 

Construction of the pipeline would involve 275 workers consisting of one pipeline spread (200 

workers) and one aboveground facility spread (75 workers), generating up to 275 vehicle trips per day 

from these spreads. Additional vehicular traffic would result from equipment or material deliveries into 

and out of the pipe/storage yards each day. Many of the roads adjacent to the pipeline right-of-way are 

narrow and may not be able to easily accommodate high volumes of construction workers’ vehicles. The 

parking of vehicles along these roads could increase traffic congestion. Typically, construction workers 

use contractor yards as the primary parking area for employee’s personal vehicles and then are 

transported from the contractor yards to the construction site in buses. 

Traffic may also be slowed where construction of the pipeline crosses roads or where 

construction occurs within existing roads. The pipeline would cross 34 paved roadways and 2 unpaved 

roads. In addition to road crossings, the majority of the pipeline route is either parallel to or within 

existing road rights-of-way. In Pennsylvania, the pipeline route is located within dense residential and 

industrial areas. In these areas, the pipeline would be constructed within five city streets, including 

Trimble Boulevard, Clearwater Avenue, Felton Avenue, Bethel Road, and Palmer Street. In New Jersey, 

the pipeline route follows the old Ferry Road (formerly U.S. Route 324) after crossing the Delaware 

River. This road was previously used to access a ferry service that operated on the river. It is now mostly 

abandoned except for the eastern portion which is used to access a few residences and businesses. The 

remainder of the route to the LNG terminal site is mostly adjacent to U.S. Route 130. 

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. All open-cut road crossings would be completed as quickly possible. During the 

brief period when a trench is completely excavated across the road, steel plates would be available onsite 

to cover the open area to permit travel by emergency vehicles. 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, signage, and flashing 

lights. 

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 be backfilled or covered with steel plates daily. In 

addition, steel plates would be readily available to cover the trench in the event of an emergency that 

requires access across the trench. All roadway surfaces would be restored to the specifications of the 

local or state authorities. Impacts on local traffic would be temporary and limited to the period of 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-121 

construction; however, to ensure that impacts associated with in-street construction are minimized, we 

recommend that:

• Texas Eastern prepare a Traffic Management Plan for construction within or 

adjacent to town and city streets in Chester, Aston, and Brookhaven in consultation 

with the appropriate town or city. The plans should identify specific measures that 

would be used to minimize the temporary inconvenience of in-street construction, 

including anticipated work hours relative to commuting periods and how Texas 

Eastern would maintain non-emergency access to residences. The plans should be 

filed with the Secretary for review and approval by the Director of OEP prior to 

construction. 

No impacts on traffic would occur along the pipeline route as the result of pipeline operation. 

4.9.4.2 Ship Traffic 

Approximately 3,200 to 3,300 vessels traverse the Delaware River each year. These vessels use 

approximately 60 different ports between the Delaware Bay and the Port of Philadelphia, a distance of 

approximately 86 miles. Vessels that currently use the Delaware River on a daily basis include LPG 

ships, crude oil tankers, barges, and other commercial vessels. 

The Coast Guard regulates ship traffic on the river. Coast Guard regulations and several other 

factors influence transit times and shipping schedules within Delaware Bay and River. The Coast Guard 

requires all vessels participating in foreign trade or weighing over 100 tons to have a pilot on board. 

Historically, approximately 2,000 of the total vessels per year fall into one of these two categories. These 

include all of the LPG vessels and crude oil barges and about one quarter of the other vessels. In addition, 

vessels with a draft equaling or exceeding 37 feet must enter Delaware Bay within 1 hour of flood tide. 

About half of the crude oil vessels and about one quarter of the other vessel types are subject to the flood 

tide restriction. 

Current transit conditions on the Delaware River do not require interruption of vehicular traffic 

across the one major bridge that spans the river downstream of the proposed LNG terminal (the Delaware 

Memorial Bridge). The Coast Guard does not currently require the closure of the bridge during transits of 

vessels carrying dangerous cargoes. However, Coast Guard restrictions on vessels carrying dangerous 

cargo (e.g., LPG) do include moving safety and security zones. These existing safety and security zones 

consist of 500 yards on either side of the vessel, and 1,000 yards ahead and astern (on either end) of the 

vessel. Further, the risk of a collision between an LNG ship and the bridge would also be negated 

through the use of two tugs to assist the LNG ship under the bridge and to the LNG terminal location. 

The ship channel passes under the center of the bridge which should also prevent the collision between an 

LNG vessel and the bridge as the river is shallower outside of the ship channel preventing ship movement 

towards the base of the bridge towers. 

The proposed LNG terminal is located at approximate RM 78 of the Delaware River, adjacent to 

the Marcus Hook anchorage area, which experiences heavy commercial tanker traffic. LNG ships are 

expected to arrive at the terminal every 2 to 3 days (approximately 100 to 150 ships per year). The 

average transit time for commercial vessels from Delaware Bay to the Marcus Hook area is about 5.5 

hours. LNG ships would travel at approximately 12 knots south of the Delaware Memorial Bridge, and at 

approximately 6 knots north of the bridge. Based on the dimensions, type of cargo, and the current 

regulations controlling ship traffic, it is assumed that the LNG ships entering Delaware Bay and River 

would be required to have a pilot on board and would be restricted to entering the channel within 1 hour 

of flood tide. In addition, based on Crown Landing’s consultation with the Coast Guard, it is assumed 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-122 

that at a minimum, the current regulations applicable to vessels carrying dangerous cargoes (such as 

LPG), contained in the RNA in 33 CFR 165.510, would also apply to the proposed LNG ships. 

Additional restrictions were developed during the Coast Guard’s Waterway Suitability Review described 

further in section 4.12.5. Given these restrictions, duration of passage, location of Marcus Hook, and the 

relatively low number of proposed LNG vessels compared to the current volume of commercial traffic on 

the river, delays experienced by other vessels would be minor. Based on a ship traffic study conducted by 

Crown Landing (Moffatt and Nichol, 2003), the total annual delays are anticipated to be less than 5 hours 

for most vessels and up to 22 hours per year for barges, which are more abundant and slower. 

During operation of the LNG terminal, although there would be moving safety zones around 

transiting LNG ships, the addition of 100 to 150 LNG ships per year would not have a long-term impact 

on commercial ship traffic in the area. The safety zones enforced around each LNG ship and the moored 

vessel security zone around the ship unloading facility while a ship is docked would be restricted to other 

commercial traffic, unless permission to enter the zone is obtained from the Captain of the Port. 

Although the Coast Guard’s current RNA is subject to change based on the results of their risk 

assessment, the Delaware River is wide enough in this area to avoid significant impacts to other 

commercial ship traffic. The moving safety and moored vessel security zones could cause impacts on 

recreational boating and fishing, but the impacts would be temporary and minor while the ship is in transit 

or while moored at the ship unloading facility. Because of the relatively low volume of recreational 

boating in the immediate area, any impacts are expected to be minor (see section 4.8.5.2). See section 

4.12.5 for additional discussion of shipping safety during operation of the proposed project. 

We received a scoping comment regarding potential impacts on the Big Stone Beach anchorage 

area, Cape May-Lewis Ferry service, and the cruise industry in the Port of Philadelphia as a result of LNG 

ship traffic. Both the anchorage area and the ferry service are located in Delaware Bay at the mouth of 

the Delaware River, which is more than 60 miles downstream of the LNG terminal site. Because 

Delaware Bay is the widest portion of the waterbody, any impacts associated with moving safety zones 

around the transiting LNG ships are expected to be minimal. The number of cruise liners calling or 

departing from the Port of Philadelphia is negligible compared to the number of commercial ships 

navigating the Delaware River. They are also only present in the Port of Philadelphia during the summer 

months. Given these conditions and the distance from the LNG terminal site, impacts on cruise ships in 

the Port of Philadelphia are expected to be minimal. The review of Crown Landing’s WSA by the Coast 

Guard, which is discussed further in section 4.12.5, determined that impacts to ship traffic would be 

minimal. 

4.9.5 Property Values 

Comments were received during the scoping process regarding property devaluation and impacts 

on homeowner’s insurance rates caused by the presence of an LNG terminal. The LNG terminal would 

be constructed on upland fields previously used for dredge disposal and is currently traversed by several 

pipeline rights-of-way. The site is currently zoned for industrial uses. The Logan Generating Station is 

located immediately adjacent to the proposed site and has been in operation since 1992. 

The nearest residential property to the LNG terminal site is located on U.S. Route 130 and is 

approximately 2,300 feet from the proposed construction area. Given the presence of the power plant, the 

location across a four-lane highway, and the overall distance from the LNG terminal, no negative effects 

on property values are anticipated. The values of properties proximate to the site may already reflect their 

location near an industrial area. 

A real estate study performed by the Real Estate Counseling Group of Connecticut, Inc. for a 

planned Granite State Gas facility in Wells, Maine indicates that property values or price increases are not 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-123 

diminished because of an LNG facility (Real Estate Counseling Group of Connecticut, 1995). In this 

study, local assessors were contacted and asked: 1) whether they had received property owner requests 

for lower valuations due to the presence of an LNG facility; and 2) whether the presence of a storage tank 

was a factor they considered in doing their valuations. Assessors were contacted in a number of towns 

including Haverhill, South Yarmouth, and Ludlow, Massachusetts. The study concluded that in no case 

did the planned LNG facilities play a role in either the assessment or homeowner complaints. 

A 1993 study conducted by the Argonne National Laboratory examined the economic impacts of 

the presence of “noxious” facilities on local wages and property values (Clark and Nieves, 1993). Eight 

types of these facilities were studied: nuclear power plants; coal-, gas-, or oil-fired power plants; military 

chemical weapons sites; hazardous waste sites; refineries; chemical weapon storage facilities; former 

storage sites that are now contaminated; and LNG facilities. The study examined the effects of 262 

facilities on standardized 1,000 square-mile areas across the United States. Eleven of these were LNG 

facilities. The results of the study concluded that the presence of five of the eight types of “noxious” 

facilities have a significantly negative effect on property values and a positive effect on wages. However, 

the study concluded that the presence of an LNG facility did not have a significant positive or negative 

effect on either wages or property values (Clark and Nieves, 1993). 

Based on the location of the LNG terminal on an existing industrially zoned site and the 

information from these studies, we do not believe that the construction and operation of the LNG terminal 

would negatively affect property values in the surrounding area. 

Homeowner insurance rates are generally set on a county-wide basis, with individual rate 

adjustments made to reflect the age and value of the property and the claims record of the owner; 

insurance rates are not based on the surrounding landscape or structures at the local level. Properties in 

the vicinity of an industrial facility may be older and not as well maintained, which can affect the 

availability of insurance coverage or the insurance rates. It is not anticipated that the presence of an LNG 

terminal would affect the insurance rates of nearby residences. 

Comments were also received during the scoping process regarding property devaluation caused 

by the construction and operation of the Logan Lateral Project. Appraisal methods used to value land are 

based on objective characteristics of the property and any improvements. The impact a pipeline may have 

on the value of a tract of land depends on many factors, including the size of the tract, the values of 

adjacent properties, the presence of other utilities, the current value of the land, and the current land use. 

Subjective valuation is generally not considered in appraisals. This is not to say that the pipeline would 

not affect resale values. A potential purchaser of property may make a decision to purchase based on his 

or her planned use, such as agricultural, future subdivision, or second home on the property in question. 

If the presence of a pipeline renders the planned use infeasible, it is possible that a potential purchaser 

would decide not to purchase the property. However, each potential purchaser has different criteria and 

differing capabilities to purchase land. 

The effect that an easement may have on property values is a damage-related issue and should be 

negotiated between the parties during the easement acquisition process or would be determined during 

condemnation proceedings. This negotiation is beyond the scope of this EIS. 

Property taxes for a piece of property are generally based on the actual use of the land. 

Construction of the pipeline would not change the general use of the land, but it would preclude 

construction of aboveground structures on the permanent right-of-way. If a landowner feels that the 

presence of a pipeline easement reduces the value of his or her land, resulting in an overpayment of 

property taxes, he/she may appeal the issue of the assessment and subsequent property taxation to the 

local property tax agency. This is the proper forum for this issue to be addressed. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-124 

4.9.6 Tax Revenues 

Construction and operation of the Crown Landing LNG Project would have beneficial impacts on 

local sales tax revenue. The total revenue of Logan Township in 2003 was $6,796,000 and $117,792,000 

for Gloucester County, New Jersey. Property taxes in Logan Township account for approximately 22 

percent of that amount, and 77 percent for Gloucester County. 

The construction of the Crown Landing LNG Project is anticipated to generate at least $600,000 

annually in direct revenues for state and local governments. This estimate does not include additional 

revenues generated from secondary sources. Operation of the proposed LNG terminal is anticipated to 

generate approximately $6 million is annual revenues for state and local governments. Although only a 

portion of this tax money would be received by Logan Township, it would be a significant portion of the 

local government’s annual revenues. 

The construction of the Logan Lateral is expected to generate revenues to state and local 

governments within Pennsylvania and New Jersey. These revenues would be generated from the $77.3 

million cost to construct the pipeline. The majority of these revenues would be collected from payroll 

taxes and sales taxes on materials purchased during construction. The operation of the pipeline is 

expected to generate approximately $1.1 million in property tax revenue annually to the states of 

Pennsylvania and New Jersey. The estimated $3,900 in yearly payroll taxes would be negligible. 

4.9.7 Environmental Justice 

Executive Order 12898 on Environmental Justice requires that each federal agency address 

disproportionately high and adverse health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and 

activities on minority populations and low-income populations. Each federal agency must also ensure 

that public documents, notices, and hearings are readily available to the public. As part of the preparation 

of this EIS, the NEPA review process must provide opportunities for effective community participation 

and involve consultation with affected communities. If the proposed action will result in significant 

adverse effects to minority or low-income populations or Native American tribes, the NEPA analysis 

should address those impacts as part of the alternatives analysis and identify appropriate mitigation 

measures to address the effects. 

The mailing list for the Crown Landing LNG and Logan Lateral Projects was initiated when the 

FERC’s NOI was issued and has been continually updated throughout the EIS process. All property 

owners affected by the two projects received notices about the projects without any distinction based 

upon minority or income status. The distribution list for this draft EIS included federal, state, and local 

agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native American tribes; affected 

landowners; intervenors to the FERC’s proceeding; and local libraries and newspapers (see Appendix A). 

Sections 1.4 and 1.5 of this EIS further describe the stakeholder involvement process and the public 

notification and review process, respectively. Section 4.10.2 describes contacts with Native American 

tribes that traditionally occupied the area. 

Crown Landing sponsored three informational open houses: March 9 in Claymont, Delaware; 

March 10 in Logan Township, New Jersey; and March 11 in Marcus Hook, Pennsylvania. Texas Eastern 

participated in the March 10 open house in Logan Township and then held additional open houses in 

Pennsylvania on March 30 in Brookhaven, March 31 in Chester Township, and April 1 in Chester. The 

primary purpose of these open houses was to provide project information to interested stakeholders and to 

respond to questions and comments regarding the projects. A FERC representative was in attendance at 

these open houses to provide information on its regulatory process. The FERC held public scoping 

meetings and site visits on May 5, May 6, and June 9, 2004 to provide the general public and 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-125 

governmental agencies with the opportunity to comment on both the proposed LNG terminal and 

pipeline. The locations and dates of these meetings were published in the NOI. 

Environmental Justice Areas and Potential Impacts 

We received comments regarding the environmental justice of siting the proposed pipeline 

facilities in Delaware County, Pennsylvania. To address these concerns, we identified environmental 

justice areas in the vicinity of the proposed project and conducted an analysis of potential impacts that 

could disproportionately affect these areas. We also evaluated both system and route alternatives to 

determine if there were other options for transporting the natural gas from the proposed LNG terminal 

(see section 3.0). 

To identify potential environmental justice areas, we reviewed available state, county, and 

municipal statistics regarding median income and poverty levels. Table 4.9.7-1 provides the general 

ethnic mix of the counties and communities that would be affected by the proposed pipeline. As shown 

on this table, the percentages of minority populations within Gloucester County and Logan Township are 

lower than the state averages. However, in Pennsylvania the African American and Native American 

minority populations in the City of Chester and Chester Township are considerably higher than the state 

or county average. 

TABLE 4.9.7-1 

Racial/Ethnic Statistics for the Project Area 

Racial/Ethnic Group, 2000 (percent) 

State/County/Community 

White Black Native 

American 

and 

Alaska 

Native 

Asian Native 

Hawaiian 

and Other 

Pacific 

Islander 

Persons 

Reporting 

Some Other 

Race 

Persons 

Reporting 

Two or More 

Races 

Persons 

of 

Hispanic 

or Latino 

Origin 

(percent) 

a/ 

NEW JERSEY 72.6 13.6 0.2 5.7 0.0 5.4 2.5 13.3 

Gloucester County 87.1 9.1 0.2 1.5 0.0 0.9 1.3 2.6 

Logan Township 82.0 13.5 0.1 1.8 0.0 1.2 1.4 2.7 

PENNSYLVANIA 85.4 10.0 0.1 1.8 0.0 1.5 1.2 3.2 

Delaware County 80.3 14.5 0.1 3.3 0.0 0.6 1.2 1.5 

City of Chester 18.9 75.7 0.2 0.6 0.0 3.0 1.5 5.4 

Chester Township 22.7 73.3 0.3 0.6 0.0 1.0 2.1 2.1 

Brookhaven 

Borough 95.6 2.0 0.1 1.2 0.0 0.4 0.6 1.1 

____________________ 

a/ People who identify themselves as Hispanic or Latino may be of any race. Thus the percent Hispanic should not be 

added to the percentage for racial categories. 

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, State and County QuickFacts. 

Table 4.9.7-2 provides the general economic status of the counties and communities where the 

proposed projects would be located. In Logan Township, the median household income ($67,148) is 

greater than the Gloucester County average of $54,273 and the State of New Jersey average of $55,146. 

In addition, the percentages of individuals below the poverty level and households receiving public 

assistance are lower than the county and state averages. In Pennsylvania, the communities of the City of 

Chester and Chester Township have median household incomes that are much lower than the Delaware 

County and State of Pennsylvania averages. The same trend can be seen in the percentage of persons 

below the poverty line and the percentage of households receiving public assistance. However, 

Brookhaven Borough has a median household income ($48,289) more indicative of the county average of 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-126 

$50,092. The percentages of persons below the poverty level and households receiving public assistance 

also follow the same trend in this community. 

TABLE 4.9.7-2 

Economic Statistics for the Project Area 

State/County/Locality Median Household 

Income (2000) 

Persons Below the Poverty 

Level (1999) (percent) 

Households Receiving Public 

Assistance (percent) 

NEW JERSEY $55,146 8.5 2.8 

Gloucester County $54,273 6.2 1.5 

Logan Township $67,148 4.3 0.8 

PENNSYLVANIA $40,106 11.0 3.1 

Delaware County $50,092 8.0 2.6 

Chester City $25,703 22.8 9.6 

Chester Township $32,576 17.1 5.9 

Brookhaven Borough $48,289 3.6 1.7 

____________________ 

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau 

The site for the LNG terminal is located in Logan Township. In economic terms, the population 

of Logan Township is better off than the average Gloucester County resident or New Jersey resident. At 

the proposed site specifically, the percentages of minority residents and persons living below the poverty 

level are less than 10 percent. Based on the economic status of residents in Logan Township, the siting of 

the proposed LNG terminal would not disproportionately affect minorities or persons living below the 

poverty level. 

An environmental justice area is defined as an area where the community’s minority population is 

equal to or greater than 50 percent of the community population and/or a community in which the 

percentage of persons living below the poverty level is higher than the county average. Figure 4.9.7-1 

shows environmental justice areas crossed by the proposed pipeline. The pipeline facilities associated 

with the Logan Lateral Project would traverse areas within the City of Chester and Chester Township 

where more than 70 percent of the population is a minority and the percentage of persons living below the 

poverty level is higher than the Delaware County average (see tables 4.9.7-1 and 4.9.7-2). 

Although the proposed pipeline route crosses environmental justice communities, it would not 

disproportionately affect these communities for the following reasons. First, the purpose and need of a 

pipeline from the LNG terminal would necessarily route the pipeline though this area. The route must 

cross these areas because the pipeline must provide service from the proposed LNG terminal to Texas 

Eastern’s Chester Junction Facility. Without this service, a portion of the purpose and need of the project 

would not be met. Second, Texas Eastern has routed the pipeline to follow, as much as possible, existing 

Texas Eastern pipeline rights-of-way and other existing rights-of-way. Finally, although the pipeline 

route does traverse areas of high minority population and areas with a greater number of persons living 

below the poverty level, the route also crosses areas of higher-income communities and areas with a 

minority population more indicative of the two counties where these communities are located. More 

specifically, of the approximately 10 miles of the proposed route on land, less than 3 miles traverse 

through environmental justice areas. The remaining portion of the on-land route crosses areas that are not 

classified as environmental justice areas, and are more indicative of the project area in general. In 

addition, 155 structures are located within 50 feet of the proposed construction right-of-way. Of this 

total, only 48, or about one-third, of these structures occur within the environmental justice areas and the 

other two-thirds of the structures are located outside of environmental justice areas. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-127 

Non-Internet Public 

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE 

CROWN LANDING LNG PROJECT and 

LOGAN LATERAL PROJECT 

Docket Nos. CP04-411-000 and CP04-416-000 

Figure 4.9.7-1 Environmental Justice Communities 

Public access for the above information is available only 

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

public.referenceroom@ferc.gov. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-128 

We received several comments on the draft EIS regarding routing the proposed pipeline through 

contaminated and polluted industrial areas within the low-income and minority communities. As 

discussed in section 4.11, construction of the proposed pipeline through these areas would be primarily 

limited to impacts on noise and air quality related to the construction vehicles. These impacts would 

temporarily occur during the construction period and would not further exacerbate existing pollution or 

contamination problems in theses areas. Operation of the proposed pipeline would not result in or 

contribute to permanent impacts on noise or air quality in the project area. To minimize the potential to 

contaminate soils along the pipeline route, Texas Eastern developed an SPCC Plan which specifies 

measures to prevent spills and leaks and procedures to be implemented in the event of a spill or leak 

during construction (see Appendix D). To minimize the spread of any existing contaminated soils that 

could be encountered along the pipeline route, Texas Eastern has indicated that it would develop a Plan 

for the Discovery and Management of Contaminated Soils and Groundwater. With these mitigative 

measures, we do not believe that the proposed natural gas pipeline would cause or contribute to pollution 

problems within the communities crossed by the pipeline route. 

In addition to the siting of the project, potential impacts during construction and operation of the 

project could also include visual impacts from the presence of the LNG storage tanks, traffic impacts 

associated with the construction and operation of the project, and air quality and noise impacts. A 

summary and analysis of these impacts as they may pertain to environmental justice is presented below. 

More detailed assessments of visual resources, traffic, air quality, and noise are included in sections 4.8.6, 

4.9.4, 4.11.1, and 4.11.2 of this final EIS, respectively. 

As discussed in section 4.8.6, the primary visual impact of the project on the surrounding area 

would be the LNG storage tanks. The LNG storage tanks would be equally visible from the Pennsylvania 

side of the Delaware River, the location of the low income and high minority areas, as the New Jersey 

side of the Delaware River. Furthermore, the Logan Generating Station, located adjacent to the proposed 

LNG terminal site, stands 180 feet and the associated combustion stack stands 430 feet. Therefore, visual 

impacts would not be disproportionate given that the LNG storage tanks would not be dissimilar from the 

current landscape and would be equally visible from both sides of the Delaware River. 

The increased amount of vehicular traffic during the construction of the Logan Lateral would 

impact the environmental justice areas crossed by the proposed pipeline. As described in section 4.9.4, 

these impacts would be minor and limited to the construction period. Increased traffic levels on U.S. 

Route 130 during the construction of the LNG terminal would be minimized through the implementation 

of the proposed mitigation measures described in section 4.9.4. Because similar impacts would occur in 

both environmental justice and non-environmental justice areas, disproportionate impacts would not occur 

from increased vehicular traffic. 

As discussed in section 4.11.1, operation of the proposed project would result in air emissions 

from two sources: LNG ships and tugs and stationary equipment (heaters and emergency engines) 

associated with the LNG facility. These air emissions would not cause or significantly contribute to a 

violation of an ambient air quality standard. Therefore, the environmental justice areas would not be 

disproportionately affected by the project. 

Impacts from noise during the construction and operation of the LNG terminal are discussed in 

section 4.11.2. The increased amount of noise during construction of the Logan Lateral would impact the 

environmental justice areas crossed by the proposed pipeline. These noise impacts would be temporary 

and limited to the construction area. Also, these temporary noise impacts would occur along the entire 

length of the pipeline and would not disproportionately affect the environmental justice areas in 

Pennsylvania. The construction and operation of the LNG terminal would not result in disproportionate 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-129 

impacts on environmental justice areas given the location of the proposed facility across the Delaware 

River from the environmental justice areas. 

In summary, we do not believe construction and operation of the proposed project would result in 

disproportionate adverse impacts on environmental justice communities. The projects are expected to 

generate a number of temporary and permanent employment opportunities, taxes and other revenue 

streams within the project area, and, with the use of appropriate mitigation measures, 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 described above would affect all of the communities crossed by the pipeline, and would not 

disproportionately impact only the environmental justice areas. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-130 

4.10 CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Section 106 of the NHPA (16 USC 470) requires the FERC to take into account the effects of its 

undertakings (including the issuance of a Certificate) on properties listed, or eligible for listing, on the 

NRHP and to provide the ACHP an opportunity to comment on its undertakings. Crown Landing and 

Texas Eastern, as non-federal parties, are assisting the FERC in meeting its obligations under section 106 

and the implementing regulations in 36 CFR 800. 

4.10.1 Results of the Cultural Resources Surveys 

LNG Terminal 

Aboveground Cultural Resources 

Crown Landing conducted background research and a field survey to identify aboveground 

historic properties that could be affected by construction of the proposed LNG terminal (Cleven and 

Williams, 2004). Crown Landing defined the area of potential effects (APE) for this investigation as the 

proposed terminal site plus a 1.5-mile-radius viewshed. 

Background research identified only one previously recorded historic property within the APE: 

the U.S. Route 130 Bridge across Oldmans Creek (Structure 1710152). The bridge is located outside the 

LNG terminal site but within the viewshed of the proposed facility. It consists of a two-lane, Waddelltype, vertical lift truss bridge built in 1936 and an adjoining operator’s house. The structure was listed on 

the NRHP in 1992 for its engineering and design. 

The field survey revisited Structure 1710152 and identified 31 additional built resources greater 

than 50 years in age within the APE. All 31 of the newly documented structures are located outside the 

LNG terminal site but within the viewshed of the facility. Of these, 28 structures are dwellings, one is a 

farmstead, one is a gas and service station, and one is a commercial building. The dwellings generally 

consist of simple, wood-frame, gabled houses dating from the late nineteenth to the mid twentieth 

centuries, with examples of Colonial Revival, Cape Cod, and Four Square style homes also present. The 

farmstead contains a ca. 1900, two-story, wood-frame house and five associated wood-frame 

outbuildings. The gas and service station is a ca. 1930 wood-frame, gable-front building. The 

commercial building consists of a ca. 1955, two-story masonry building. Crown Landing recommended 

all of the newly documented structures except the farmstead as ineligible for listing on the NRHP. Crown 

Landing indicated that the ca. 1900 farmstead may be significant for its association with the history of 

agriculture in Gloucester County and for the design and construction of its constituent buildings; and 

recommended it as potentially eligible for inclusion on the NRHP. 

Crown Landing subsequently assessed the potential affects of its project on the U.S. Route 130 

bridge and the ca. 1900 farmstead. Although both properties are located outside the LNG terminal site, 

the LNG tanks would be partially visible from both resources, and thus could potentially have a visual 

affect on the bridge and farmstead. Crown Landing concluded, however, that because the viewshed is not 

a character-defining feature of the bridge or the farmstead, the project would not affect either property. 

Crown Landing submitted a report on the results of its architectural survey to the New Jersey 

State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) (Cleven and Williams, 2004) and the FERC. In a letter dated 

August 31, 2004, the New Jersey SHPO indicated that “the project will have no adverse effect on the U.S. 

Route 130 Bridge over Oldmans Creek”. We agree. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-131 

Terrestrial Archaeological Resources

Crown Landing conducted background research and a field survey to identify any terrestrial 

archaeological sites that could be affected by construction of the proposed LNG terminal (Child et al., 

2004). The APE for this investigation was defined as the terminal site and an associated construction 

staging area. 

Background research identified four previously documented sites (28GL241, 28GL242, 

28GL243, and 28GL244) located immediately adjacent to, but outside of, the LNG terminal site and 

construction staging area. Sites 28GL242, 28GL243, and 28GL244 each were characterized as small 

concentrations of historic materials dating from the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Site 28GL241 

consisted of a prehistoric lithic artifact scatter dating from the Late Archaic through Late Woodland 

periods. All four sites previously were recommended eligible for listing on the NRHP. 

The field investigation combined pedestrian reconnaissance, shovel and auger testing, and 

backhoe trenching. One archaeological site was identified in the vicinity of the construction staging area. 

It consisted of a moderately dense scatter of prehistoric lithic materials, and appeared to represent an 

extension of previously documented Site 28GL241. Evidence of potentially intact cultural deposits was 

identified at the site, and the newly recorded extension of Site 28GL241 was recommended as eligible for 

listing on the NRHP. Crown Landing subsequently modified its construction plans to create a no-work 

buffer zone around the site, which would avoid disturbance or impact on the site and any area within 100 

feet of the site. 

A diffuse scatter of both prehistoric and historic artifacts also was observed within the 

construction staging area but outside the extension of Site 28GL241. This material was recovered from 

disturbed depositional contexts and could not be associated with Sites 28GL241, 28GL242, 28GL243, or 

28GL244, described above. Crown Landing concluded that the “prehistoric and historic materials located 

outside 28GL241 lack sufficient material and integrity to be designated as archaeological sites” (Child et 

al., 2004), and no additional testing of this area was recommended. No other archaeological sites were 

identified during the survey. 

Crown Landing submitted a report (Child et al., 2004) on the results of its terrestrial 

archaeological survey to the New Jersey and Delaware SHPOs and to the FERC. In its letter of August 

31, 2004, the New Jersey SHPO accepted the report and indicated that the project would have “no effect” 

on Site 28GL241, predicated on installation of the 100-foot protective buffer around the site, maintenance 

of the buffer throughout the duration of the project, installation and maintenance of heavy duty temporary 

fencing, and monitoring by an archaeologist to ensure appropriate installation and integrity throughout the 

project. In a letter dated September 16, 2004, the Delaware SHPO also accepted the report agreeing that 

no historic properties would be affected by the project. We concur with both SHPOs. 

Crown Landing subsequently accepted the avoidance conditions for Site 28GL241 in a written 

plan submitted to the New Jersey SHPO and the FERC. In a letter dated October 1, 2004, the SHPO 

agreed with the provisions of the plan. We also concur. 

Underwater Archaeological Resources

Crown Landing conducted background research and a field survey to identify any marine 

archaeological sites that could be affected by construction of the proposed LNG terminal (Child et al., 

2004). The APE for this investigation was defined as the proposed pier and berthing area in the Delaware 

River between the New Jersey shoreline and the Marcus Hook anchorage area. The portion of the project 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-132 

located within the anchorage area was excluded from the APE because it was disturbed by previous 

dredging. 

Background research failed to document any previously recorded cultural resources or 

shipwrecks within the APE. The field investigation consisted of a marine remote-sensing survey utilizing 

a magnetometer, depth sounder, sub-bottom profiler, and side-scan sonar to examine the bed of the 

Delaware River. No evidence of shipwrecks or other cultural resources was identified during the survey, 

and no additional archaeological investigations of the pier and berthing area were recommended. 

Crown Landing submitted a report (Child et al., 2004) on the results of its marine archaeological 

survey to the New Jersey and Delaware SHPOs, and to the FERC. The New Jersey SHPO accepted the 

report in its letter dated August 31, 2004, as did the Delaware SHPO in a letter dated September 16, 2004. 

Pipeline Facilities 

Aboveground Cultural Resources

Texas Eastern examined its proposed construction corridor to identify built resources that could 

be affected physically by construction of the proposed pipeline facilities in New Jersey and Pennsylvania 

(Breetzke, 2004a, 2004b). One aboveground resource, the Chester Creek Railroad Bridge, was identified 

in Pennsylvania. This bridge consists of a train trestle dating from the mid-nineteenth century. Texas 

Eastern recommended this resource as ineligible for inclusion on the NRHP. No built resources were 

identified within the construction corridor in New Jersey. 

In its initial review of the project, the Pennsylvania SHPO concluded that although significant 

built resources may be present in the project area, “there will be no effect on these properties” 

(Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, 2003). The Pennsylvania SHPO also reviewed the 

site form for the Chester Creek Railroad Bridge and concurred with Texas Eastern that this resource is 

ineligible for listing in the NRHP (Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, 2004). We also 

concur. 

Texas Eastern submitted separate reports (Breetzke, 2004a, 2004b) on the results of its survey to 

the New Jersey and Pennsylvania SHPOs, and to the FERC. In a letter dated October 7, 2004, the 

Pennsylvania SHPO concurred with the results of the investigation in Pennsylvania, and in a letter dated 

April 27, 2005, the New Jersey SHPO concurred with the survey results for New Jersey. We concur with 

both SHPOs. 

Texas Eastern subsequently conducted additional fieldwork to examine two reroutes (MPs 1.47 to 

1.68 and MP 3.34 to 3.68) in Pennsylvania, and two pipeline segments (MPs 7.26 to 7.90 and MPs 10.34 

to 10.85) and an HDD pull-back area in New Jersey. No built resources were identified as a result of 

these surveys. Texas Eastern submitted separate reports (Breetzke, 2005; Breetzke and Whitlatch, 2005) 

on the results of the fieldwork to the Pennsylvania and New Jersey SHPOs, and to the FERC. In a letter 

dated May 31, 2005, the Pennsylvania SHPO concurred with the survey results and recommendations for 

Pennsylvania and in a letter dated April 27, 2005, the New Jersey SHPO concurred with the survey results 

and recommendations for New Jersey. We concur with both SHPOs. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-133 

Terrestrial Archaeological Resources

Texas Eastern conducted background research and a field survey to identify any terrestrial 

archaeological sites that could be affected by construction of the proposed pipeline facilities in New 

Jersey and Pennsylvania (Breetzke, 2004a, 2004b). The APE for this investigation was defined as the 

proposed construction corridor as well as extra workspace areas and ancillary facilities. 

Background research identified two previously documented sites in Pennsylvania (36DE25 and 

36DE26) and one in New Jersey (28GL241) located within or immediately adjacent to the survey 

corridor. Site 36DE25 was characterized as a historic farmstead. Site 36DE26 was described as a 

prehistoric artifact scatter with an unidentified cultural/temporal affiliation. Site 28GL241, as discussed 

previously for the LNG terminal, consisted of a prehistoric lithic artifact scatter dating from the Late 

Archaic through Late Woodland periods. Site 36DE25 was not previously evaluated for listing in the 

NRHP. Site 36DE26 was previously recommended potentially eligible and Site 28GL241 as eligible for 

inclusion on the NRHP. 

The field investigation for the pipeline facilities combined pedestrian reconnaissance with shovel 

and auger testing and unit excavation. The survey examined a majority of the proposed pipeline lateral. 

Survey was not completed, however, from MPs 7.26 to 7.90 and MPs 10.34 to 10.85 in New Jersey. In 

addition, survey was not completed within a pull-back area for one of the HDD crossings in New Jersey. 

The investigation revisited Sites 36DE25 and 36DE26 and identified three previously 

undocumented resources (Sites 36DE127, 36DE128, and 36DE129). Two of the three previously 

unidentified sites (Sites 36DE127 and 36DE129) were found during the survey of an alternative pipeline 

corridor, and are not located along the proposed pipeline route. 

Although Sites 36DE25 and 36DE26 were recommended as potentially eligible for listing on the 

NRHP, Texas Eastern concluded that both sites are located outside of the proposed construction right-ofway and, therefore, would not be affected by the project. No additional testing of these two sites was 

recommended. However, installation of a barrier fence along the boundaries of the construction right-ofway in the vicinity of Site 36DE26 was recommended. 

Sites 36DE128 and 36DE129 both were characterized as historic artifact scatters associated with 

partially intact building foundations. Site 36DE127 was described as a light scatter of historic materials. 

Texas Eastern assessed all three sites as ineligible for listing on the NRHP, and no additional testing of 

these sites was recommended. 

Texas Eastern did not attempt to relocate or conduct additional testing at Site 28GL241. The 

delineation of site boundaries by Crown Landing indicated to Texas Eastern that the site is located outside 

the proposed construction corridor for the pipeline facilities and, therefore, would not be impacted by the 

project. Texas Eastern recommended installation of a fence along the boundaries of the construction 

corridor in the vicinity of the site. 

Texas Eastern submitted separate reports (Breetzke, 2004a, 2004b) on the survey results to the 

New Jersey and Pennsylvania SHPOs, and to the FERC. The Pennsylvania report contained avoidance 

plans for Sites 36DE25 and 36DE26, and the New Jersey report contained an avoidance plan for Site 

28GL241. In its October 7, 2004 letter, the Pennsylvania SHPO concurred with the recommendations of 

the Pennsylvania report, including the avoidance plans for Sites 36DE25 and 36DE26. In a letter dated 

April 27, 2005, the New Jersey SHPO concurred with the recommendations of the New Jersey report, 

including the avoidance plan for Site 28GL241. We concur with both SHPOs. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-134 

Texas Eastern subsequently conducted additional fieldwork to examine two reroutes (MPs 1.47 to 

1.68 and MPs 3.34 to 3.68) in Pennsylvania, and two pipeline segments (MPs 7.26 to 7.90 and MPs 10.34 

to 10.85) and an HDD pull-back area in New Jersey. Fieldwork consisted of pedestrian reconnaissance 

and auger testing; in addition, the results of geological coring and previous backhoe trenching in the 

vicinity of the New Jersey pipeline segments were reviewed. Texas Eastern also conducted deep testing 

along the pipeline corridor from MPs 9.5 to 9.7. Fieldwork for this investigation consisted of backhoe 

trenching and auger testing. 

No archaeological sites were identified during the survey of the reroutes, pipeline segments, and 

HDD pull-back area. Backhoe trenching near MP 9.5 documented a buried A horizon but no 

archaeological materials were recovered. No additional testing of the examined areas was recommended. 

Texas Eastern submitted separate reports (Breetzke, 2005; Breetzke and Whitlatch, 2005) on the 

results of the fieldwork to the Pennsylvania and New Jersey SHPOs. In a letter dated May 31, 2005, the 

Pennsylvania SHPO concurred with the survey results and recommendations in the Pennsylvania report, 

and in a letter dated April 27, 2005, the New Jersey SHPO concurred with the survey results and 

recommendations in the New Jersey report. We concur with both SHPOs. 

4.10.2 Native American Consultation 

Crown Landing identified and contacted four Indian tribes with historical ties to its project area: 

the Delaware Tribe of Indians, Delaware Nation of Western Oklahoma, Nanticoke Lenni-Lenape Indians, 

and the New Jersey Commission of Indian Affairs-Rankokus Indian Reservation. Each tribe expressed an 

interest in or commented on the project. The Delaware Tribe of Indians requested consulting party status 

for the project as well as a copy of the archaeological survey report, and they asked to be notified in the 

event that human remains or artifacts are discovered during construction. The Delaware Nation of 

Oklahoma and the Nanticoke Lenni-Lenape Indians each requested a copy of the archaeological survey 

report and asked to be notified in the event that human remains or artifacts are discovered during 

construction. The New Jersey Commission of Indian Affairs-Rankokus Indian Reservation advised 

Crown Landing that there are several known archaeological sites located in the project area. 

Crown Landing submitted copies of its archaeological survey report (Child et al., 2004) to the 

three tribes who requested them. Only the Delaware Tribe of Indians commented on the report. The tribe 

concurred with the findings of the investigation as well as the plans to avoid Site 28GL241, and deferred 

comment on the project to the New Jersey SHPO. 

Texas Eastern identified and contacted 16 Indian tribes with historical ties to its project area: the 

Absentee-Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma, Cayuga Nation, Delaware Nation of Oklahoma, Delaware Tribe 

of Indians, Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma, Oneida Indian Nation, Oneida Tribe of Indians of 

Wisconsin, Onondaga Indian Nation, Seneca Nation of Indians, Seneca-Cayuga Tribe of Oklahoma, St. 

Regis Mohawk Tribe, Stockbridge-Munsee Community of Wisconsin, Tonawanda Band of Seneca 

Indians, Tuscarora Nation, Nanticoke-Lenni Lenape Indian Center, and New Jersey Commission of 

Indian Affairs-Rankokus Indian Reservation. Eight of these tribes responded to Texas Eastern. The 

Cayuga Nation stated that it has an interest in the project. The Delaware Nation of Oklahoma and 

Delaware Tribe of Indians each requested a copy of the archaeological survey reports and asked to be 

notified in the event of an unanticipated discovery during project construction. The Eastern Shawnee 

Tribe of Oklahoma, Seneca Nation of Indians, Seneca-Cayuga Tribe of Oklahoma, and the NanticokeLenni Lenape Indian Center each asked to be notified in the event of an unanticipated discovery during 

project construction. The Oneida Indian Nation stated that the project area is located outside its 

aboriginal territory and, therefore, the tribe has no comment on the project. None of the other tribes 

responded to Texas Eastern’s project consultation letter. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-135 

Texas Eastern subsequently contacted the eight remaining tribes in addition to the Oneida Indian 

Tribe by telephone. The Oneida Indian Tribe, Onondaga Indian Nation, St. Regis Mohawk Tribe, and 

Tuscarora Nation each had no comment on the project but asked to be notified in the event of an 

unanticipated find during construction. The Absentee-Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma requested additional 

information on the project. The Stockbridge-Munsee Community of Wisconsin stated that the project is 

located outside its area of interest. The Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin requested copies of the 

archaeological survey reports and asked to be notified in the event of an unanticipated find during 

construction. The New Jersey Commission of Indian Affairs-Rankokus Indian Reservation did not 

comment on the project. . 

Lastly, Texas Eastern submitted copies of its cultural resources survey reports to four tribes: the 

Absentee-Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma, Delaware Nation of Oklahoma, Delaware Tribe of Indians, and 

Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin. In a follow-up telephone call, the Delaware Nation of Oklahoma 

advised Texas Eastern that it had no comments on the reports. In a reply letter, the Oneida Tribe of 

Indians of Wisconsin concurred with the results and recommendations in the survey reports, but asked to 

be notified in the event of an unanticipated find during construction. Neither the Absentee-Shawnee 

Tribe of Oklahoma nor the Delaware Tribe of Indians provided comments on the reports. 

4.10.3 Unanticipated Discoveries 

Crown Landing developed a plan for responding to the unanticipated discovery of historic 

properties or human remains during construction of the LNG terminal and submitted it to the New Jersey 

and Delaware SHPOs, and to the FERC, as an appendix to its archaeological survey report (Child et al., 

2004). The New Jersey SHPO accepted this report in its letter dated August 31, 2004 (New Jersey SHPO, 

2004), as did the Delaware SHPO in its letter dated September 16, 2004 (Delaware SHPO, 2004). 

Texas Eastern also developed a plan for responding to the unanticipated discovery of historic 

properties or human remains during construction of the pipeline facilities and submitted it to the New 

Jersey and Pennsylvania SHPOs, and to the FERC. The New Jersey SHPO concurred with the plan in a 

letter dated July 19, 2005, and the Pennsylvania SHPO concurred with the plan in a letter dated July 28, 

2005. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-136 

4.11 AIR QUALITY AND NOISE 

4.11.1 Air Quality 

Climate 

The climate in New Jersey is extremely variable. Cold continental air masses from central 

Canada and the northcentral United States produce cold winter weather often as low as 0 ̊ F. In the 

summer, the major system that influences New Jersey’s weather is a high pressure cell (the Bermuda 

High) generally located over the area extending from the Sargasso Sea region of the North Atlantic to the 

eastern Gulf of Mexico. The clockwise movement of winds around the Gulf of Mexico brings warm, 

moist air from the Gulf of Mexico to the eastern United States; resulting in hot and muggy summer days 

that occasionally reach 100 ̊ F. The wind direction in New Jersey varies, although wind observations 

indicate that the predominant wind direction is north. 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

The EPA has established National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for six pollutants: 

sulfur dioxide (SO2), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), ozone (O3), particulate matter less 

than 10 microns in diameter (PM10), and lead (Pb). The EPA is currently working to implement a 

NAAQS for particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5). The NAAQS were set at levels 

the EPA believed were necessary to protect human health (primary standards) and human welfare 

(secondary standards). The federal NAAQS for criteria pollutants are the same as the state standards 

established by the NJDEP and DNREC with the exception of a few secondary standards and a 1-hour 

NO2 “guideline” that the NJDEP uses to assess air quality. This NJDEP guideline is not an ambient air 

quality standard under the New Jersey regulations; however, it is used by NJDEP to assess the impacts of 

NO2 on a short-term basis. The standards established by the NJDEP are referred to as the New Jersey 

Ambient Air Quality Standards (NJAAQS). The project area is in attainment of the NAAQS for all 

criteria pollutants except ozone. The entire States of New Jersey and Delaware are designated as 

moderate “nonattainment” for ozone. The federal and state ambient air quality standards are summarized 

in table 4.11.1-1. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-137 

TABLE 4.11.1-1 

Ambient Air Quality Standards 

Air Pollutant Averaging 

Period 

Primary 

NAAQS 

(μg/m3

) 

Secondary

NAAQS 

(μg/m3) 

Primary 

NJAAQS 

(μg/m3) 

Secondary 

NJAAQS 

(μg/m3) 

Primary 

DAAQS 

(μg/m3) 

Secondary

DAAQS 

(μg/m3) 

Ozone 1-Hour a/ 235 235 235 160 c/ 235 235 

8-Hour b/ 157 157 - - 157 157 

Hydrocarbons 3-Hour i/ - - - - 160 - 

Carbon Monoxide 1-Hour c/ 40,000 - 40,000 40,000 40,000 - 

8-Hour c/ 10,000 - 10,000 10,000 10,000 - 

Nitrogen Dioxide 1-Hour d/ - - 470 - - - 

Annual e/ 100 100 100 100 100 100 

Particulate Matter less than 2.5 24-Hour f/ 65 65 - - 65 65 

microns i/ Annual g/ 15 15 - - 15 15 

Total Suspended Particulate 24-Hour c/ - - 260 150 260 150 

Annual h/ - - 75 60 75 60 

Lead Quarter e/ 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 

Particulate Matter less than 10 24-Hour c/ 150 150 - - 150 150 

microns Annual e/ 50 50 - - 50 50 

3-Hour c/ - 1,300 - 1,300 - 1,300 

24-Hour c/ 365 - 365 260 365 - 

Sulfur Dioxide 

Annual e/ 80 - 80 60 80 - 

____________________ 

a/ The expected number of days with maximum hourly average concentrations greater than the standard must be equal to or 

less than one. EPA revoked the 1-hour ozone standard on June 15, 2005. 

b/ The 3-year average of the fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentrations at each location within 

 an area over each year must not exceed standard 

c/ Not to be exceeded more than once per year (NAAQS)/12-month period (NJAAQS) 

d/ Not to be exceeded 

e/ Arithmetic mean not to be exceeded 

f/ The 3-year average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour concentrations must not exceed standard 

g/ The 3-year average of the annual concentrations from a single or multiple local sites must not exceed standard 

h/ Geometric mean of 24-hour concentrations during a 12 consecutive month period not to exceed standard 

i/ Concentration of hydrocarbons, exclusive of methane, taken over a 3-hour period from 6:00 to 9:00 a.m., local time 

i/ Values presented are based on existing NAAQS. It should be noted that on December 20, 2005 the EPA signed proposed 

revisions to the NAAQS for PM10 and PM2.5 and introduced a new NAAQS for PM10-2.5, and plans to take final action on the 

proposed revision in September 2006. 

μg/m3 micrograms per cubic meter 

Existing Air Quality 

Air quality data contained in reports from the NJDEP and monitoring data provided by the EPA 

Airdata network for 2001 were reviewed to characterize ambient air quality related to regulated criteria 

pollutants in the vicinity of the project area. The pollutants include O3, CO, NO2, PM2.5, total suspended 

particulate (TSP), Pb, PM10, and SO2. A summary of these data is presented in table 4.11.1-2. 

Air Quality Control Regions 

Air Quality Control Regions (AQCRs) were established by the EPA and local agencies, in 

accordance with section 107 of the CAA, as a means to implement the CAA and comply with the 

NAAQS through state implementation plans (SIPs). The AQCRs are intra- and interstate regions such as 

large metropolitan areas where the improvement of the air quality in one portion of the AQCR requires 

emission reductions throughout the AQCR. The project area is located in the Metropolitan Philadelphia 

Interstate AQCR. The AQCR was designated as a “severe nonattainment area” for the 1-hour ozone 

standard prior to June 15, 2005, when the standard was revoked. The AQCR is currently designated a 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-138 

“moderate nonattainment area” for the 8-hour ozone standard. On April 5, 2005, the AQCR was 

designated nonattainment for the existing PM2.5 NAAQS. On December 20, 2005, the EPA signed 

proposed revisions to the NAAQS for PM10 and PM2.5 and introduced a new NAAQS for PM10-2.5. The 

EPA is currently taking comments on the proposed revisions and must issue final standards by September 

27, 2006. Based on the EPA finalizing the standards in September 2006, the NJDEP and DNREC would 

be required to make recommendations to the EPA by November 2007 and July 2012 for areas to be 

designated attainment and nonattainment for the PM2.5 and PM10-2.5 NAAQS, respectively. For PM2.5 and 

PM10-2.5 NAAQS it is anticipated that the EPA would make final designations in November 2009 and May 

2013, which would become effective April 2010 and July 2013, requiring SIPs to be developed after 

designations. If required, New Jersey and Delaware would have to meet the revised PM2.5 and new 

PM10-2.5 NAAQS by April 2015 and July 2018, respectively, unless granted additional time to meet the 

standards.. The NJDEP and DNREC are responsible for enforcing compliance with the existing PM2.5

NAAQS under Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR) and Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

(PSD) permitting, if applicable. Emissions of PM2.5 from construction are evaluated below and in the 

General Conformity Analysis. 

TABLE 4.11.1-2 

Existing Ambient Air Concentrations for the Project Area 

Air Pollutant Monitoring Station Averaging Period Existing Air Quality 

(μg/m3

) 

Ozone Clarksboro 1-Hour 244 a/ 

Clarksboro 8-Hour 200 b/ 

Carbon Monoxide Camden Lab 1-Hour 7,105 c/ 

Camden Lab 8-Hour 5,824 c/ 

Nitrogen Dioxide Camden Lab 1-Hour 134 c/ 

Camden Lab Annual 38 d/ 

Particulate Matter less than 2.5 microns Gibbstown 24-Hour 45 c/ 

Gibbstown Annual 15 d/ 

Total Suspended Particulate Pennsauken 24-Hour 156 c/ 

Pennsauken Annual 54 d/ 

Clarksboro 3-Hour 109 c/ 

Clarksboro 24-Hour 72 c/ 

Sulfur Dioxide 

Clarksboro Annual 16 d/ 

Particulate Matter less than 10 microns Camden Lab 24-Hour 64 c/ 

Camden RRF Annual 26 d/ 

Lead Pennsauken Quarter 0.02 c/ 

____________________ 

a/ Concentration represents the 4th highest 1-hour average between 1999 and 2001 but number of days with 1-hour 

average over the standard is zero. 

b/ Concentration represents the 4th highest 8-hour average between 1999 and 2001 and the number of days with an 8-

hour average over the standard is 17. 

c/ Concentration is the maximum concentration measured for 2001. 

d/ Concentration is the annual average for 2001. 

μg/m3

 micrograms per cubic meter 

Regulatory Requirements for Air Quality 

The proposed LNG terminal would generate air emissions through both short-term construction 

activities and long-term operation of the stationary emission units at the facility. Emissions from all 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-139 

phases of construction and operation of the emission units would be subject to applicable state and federal 

air regulations. 

The new stationary air emission sources associated with operating the proposed LNG terminal are 

listed in table 4.11.1-3. 

Air emission sources in New Jersey and Delaware are regulated at the federal level under the 

CAA, as amended, and in New Jersey at the state level by the New Jersey Air Pollution Control Act 

(NJAPCA). The federal regulations established as a result of the CAA and the NJAPCA that are 

potentially applicable to the project include: 

• New Source Performance Standards (NSPS); 

• PSD/NSR; 

• Title V Operating Permits; 

• National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs); 

• Federal Class I Area Protection; 

• General Conformity; and 

• State Regulations. 

TABLE 4.11.1-3 

Emission Source Information for LNG Terminal Equipment 

Air Emission Source (quantity) Input Rating 

(MMBtu/hr) 

Output Rating Energy Source 

Water/Ethylene-Glycol Heaters (10) 98.4 (each) NA Natural Gas 

High-Pressure Flare (1) 0.085 (pilot) NA Natural Gas 

Low-Pressure Flare (1) 0.034 (pilot) NA Natural Gas 

Emergency Generator (1) NA 1 MW Diesel Fuel 

Diesel Fire Pump (1) NA 275 Hp Diesel Fuel 

LNG Ships (at berth) NA NA Fuel Oil/Natural Gas 

____________________ 

MMBtu/hr million British thermal units per hour 

NA No data available 

New Source Performance Standards

NSPS regulations (40 CFR 60) establish pollutant emission limits and monitoring, reporting, and 

recordkeeping requirements for various emission sources based on source type and size. These 

regulations apply to new, modified, or reconstructed sources. 

Subpart Dc of 40 CFR 60 applies to small industrial, commercial, or institutional steam 

generating units that are modified, constructed, or reconstructed after June 9, 1989 and have maximum 

heat input rates of more than 10 million British thermal units per hour (MMBtu/hr) but less than 100 

MMBtu/hr. Subpart Dc establishes specific emissions limits for SO2 (for coal- and oil-fired units) and 

PM (for coal- fired units). The proposed boilers would not be coal- or oil-fired, so the emission 

limitations would not be applicable. However, Subpart Dc would be applicable for reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Subpart Kb of 40 CFR 60 applies to any volatile organic liquid storage unit that is modified, 

constructed, or reconstructed after July 23, 1984 and has a capacity of 75 m3

 or greater. Even though the 

LNG would contain only a small quantity of volatile organic compounds it may still be, by definition, a 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-140 

volatile organic liquid because it has the potential to emit VOCs. However, there are several exemptions 

that may apply to LNG storage tanks at the proposed terminal. Subpart Kb exempts tanks that operate at 

an absolute pressure of greater than 204.9 kilopascals (kPa) or whose vapor pressure at storage 

temperature is less than 3.5 kPa. The proposed LNG storage tanks would operate above atmospheric 

pressure but below 204.9 kPa; however, the LNG tanks would operate at approximately -260Ε F and the 

vapor pressure of the VOC (assumed to be propane) at this temperature is 0.007 kPa. This is well below 

the applicability threshold of 3.5 kPa; therefore, the tank is not subject to NSPS Subpart Kb. 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration

Title I of the CAA establishes guidelines for the preconstruction/modification review of large air 

emission sources. Construction of sources in attainment areas must be reviewed in accordance with the 

PSD regulations. To be classified as a new major PSD source, the potential to emit (PTE) for the source 

must be either greater than 100 tons per year (tpy) for any pollutant regulated by the EPA under the CAA 

for sources that are among the 28 source categories listed in section 169 of the CAA, or greater than 250 

tpy for any pollutant regulated by the EPA under the CAA for sources that are not among the 28 source 

categories listed in section 169 of the CAA. A Best Available Control Technology (BACT) analysis and 

detailed dispersion modeling are required if a facility is classified as a major PSD source. 

The Crown Landing’s permit application has identified the closed loop shell-and-tube heat 

exchangers as fossil fuel boilers (or combination thereof) totaling more than 250 MMBtu/hr heat input. 

These are on of the 28 source categories identified in section 169 of the CAA; therefore, the applicability 

threshold for PSD review for the proposed LNG terminal is 100 tpy. 

Nonattainment New Source Review

Construction of sources in nonattainment areas must be reviewed in accordance with the 

nonattainment NSR regulations. As discussed above, the project area is designated “nonattainment” for 

ozone (40 CFR 81.331). As such, there are special requirements for sources of VOC and NOx because 

these pollutants are precursors to ground-level ozone formation and are regulated by section 182(f) of the 

CAA for ozone nonattainment areas. The EPA has delegated responsibility of the nonattainment NSR 

program to the NJDEP and DNREC. The NJDEP and DNREC have established nonattainment NSR 

requirements in NJAC 7:27-18 and DAC Regulation No. 25, respectively, outlining the review 

requirements for sources with a PTE greater than 25 tpy for NOx or VOC. The NJDEP and DNREC have 

also established several NOx and VOC regulations for specific source types. These regulations are 

discussed in the State Regulations section of this EIS. 

Table 4.11.1-4 presents the annual maximum potential emissions from the proposed LNG 

terminal and relevant PSD and NSR threshold criteria. 

As shown in table 4.11.1-4, the PTE NOx is greater than the NSR threshold. Therefore, the 

proposed LNG terminal would be subject to nonattainment NSR. The nonattainment NSR would require 

emission offsets and demonstration of compliance with the lowest achievable emission rate (LAER). The 

LAER is the most stringent emission limitation established in the SIP, or achieved in practice, for a 

similar source of air emissions. Crown Landing has proposed ultralow NOx burners achieving a NOx

concentration of less than 9 parts per million by volume at 3 percent oxygen in the stack gas. Approval of 

the LAER determination would be made by the NJDEP and DNREC during the preconstruction NSR 

permitting process. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-141 

TABLE 4.11.1-4 

Operating Air Emissions Summary for the Proposed LNG Terminal a/

NO2 CO VOC SO2 PM10/PM2.5

Emission Unit (Quantity) lb/hr tpy lb/hr tpy lb/hr tpy lb/hr tpy lb/hr tpy 

Water/Ethylene-Glycol Heaters 

(10) b/ 11.0 43.2 20.8 82.2 3.8 14.9 0.7 2.85 0.98 3.7 

 

Common Pilot for Flares c/ 0.02 0.07 0.04 0.18 1.2E-03 5.0E-3 1.3E-04 5.5E-4 1.6E-3 6.9E-3 

Emergency Generator (1) d/ 17.1 1.7 1.5 0.2 3.3 0.3 3.0 0.30 1.3 0.13 

Fire Pump (1) d/ 2.2 0.2 5.2 0.5 0.6 0.06 0.7 0.07 0.2 0.2 

LNG Ships (at berth) e/ 19.0 12.5 7.8 5.1 0.5 0.3 46.6 30.6 2.6 1.7 

Total - 57.7 - 88.1 - 15.6 - 33.8 - 5.6 

PSD Threshold Criteria NA 100 NA 100 NA 100 NA 100 NA 100 

NSR Threshold NA 25 NA NA NA 25 NA NA NA NA 

____________________ 

a/ Emissions of lead, beryllium, mercury, sulfuric acid mist, asbestos, vinyl chloride, fluorides, hydrogen sulfide, total 

reduced sulfur, reduced sulfur compounds, CFCs, halons, and ozone depleting substances are negligible. 

b/ Annual emissions are based on the lb/hr emission rates and 8,760 hours of operation per year for nine heaters. 

c/ Annual emissions are based on the lb/hr emission rates and 8,760 hours of operation per year. 

d/ Annual emissions are based on the lb/hr emission rates and 250 hours of operation per year. 

e/ Hourly emissions are based on ships burning fuel oil and LNG. Annual emissions are based on 146 ship calls/year (73 

ship calls running diesel electric and 73 ship calls burning fuel oil and natural gas) 

NO2 nitrogen dioxide 

CO carbon monoxide 

VOC volatile organic compound 

SO2 sulfur dioxide 

PM10 particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter 

PM2.5 particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter 

lb/hr pounds per hour 

tpy tons per year 

Because the air emission estimates for CO and VOC are based on manufacturer’s emission 

estimates and these emissions guarantees are used to avoid classification as a PSD or NSR major source 

for these pollutants, we recommend that: 

• Crown Landing provide to the Commission a copy of the final manufacturer’s 

emission guarantees and the NJDEP and DNREC final permits prior to 

construction. If the estimated PTE for CO or VOC is determined to be greater than 

the major source threshold, additional information regarding the method of 

compliance demonstration should also be provided prior to construction. This may 

include air dispersion modeling for CO or an LAER determination for VOC.

Title V Operating Permits

Title V of the CAA requires states to establish an air operating permit program. The 

requirements of Title V are outlined in 40 CFR 70 and the permits required by these regulations are often 

referred to as Title V or Part 70 permits. New Jersey has incorporated this program in NJAC 7:27-22. 

Delaware has incorporated this program in Delaware Administrative Code (DAC) Regulation No. 30. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-142 

Under NJAC 7:27-22 and DAC Regulation No. 30, major sources (i.e., sources with a PTE 

greater than a major source threshold level) are required to obtain a Title V operating permit. Title V 

major source threshold levels in New Jersey and Delaware are: 100 tpy for CO and PM10, 25 tpy for NOx

or VOC, 10 tpy for an individual hazardous air pollutant (HAP), or 25 tpy for any combination of HAPs. 

As shown in table 4.11.1-4, the PTE for NOx is greater than the major source threshold; therefore, the 

proposed LNG terminal would need to apply for and obtain a Title V operating permit from the NJDEP 

and, if determined to be necessary, from the DNREC. The requirement to obtain a Title V operating 

permit is post-construction and is not required for Commission approval. 

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants

The NESHAPs, codified in 40 CFR Parts 61 and 63, regulate HAP emissions. Part 61 was 

promulgated prior to the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) and regulates only eight types of 

hazardous substances (asbestos, benzene, beryllium, coke oven emissions, inorganic arsenic, mercury, 

radionuclides, and vinyl chloride). 

The 1990 CAAA established a list of 189 HAPs; resulting in the promulgation of Part 63. Part 

63, also known as the Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standards, regulates HAP 

emissions from major sources of HAP emissions and specific source categories that emit HAPs. Part 63 

defines a major source of HAPs as any source that has the potential to emit 10 tpy of any single HAP or 

25 tpy of HAPs in aggregate. 

LNG storage and process facilities are not one of the source categories regulated by Part 61; 

therefore, the requirements of Part 61 are not applicable. Part 63 establishes HAP emission standards for 

marine vessel loading operations (Subpart Y); oil and gas production facilities (Subpart HH); natural gas 

transmission and storage facilities (Subpart HHH); industrial, commercial, and institutional boilers and 

process heaters (proposed as Subpart DDDDD); and reciprocating internal combustion engines (Subpart 

ZZZZ). These subparts establish requirements for major sources of HAPs only. As indicated above, the 

potential HAP emissions (in aggregate) from the LNG terminal would be 8.3 tpy. The single largest HAP 

emitted by the terminal would be hexane with a PTE of 7.9 tpy. Therefore, the LNG terminal would not 

be a major source of HAPs and would not be subject to the NESHAPs. 

Federal Class I Area Protection

The U.S. Congress designated certain lands as Mandatory Federal Class I (Class I) areas in 1977. 

Class I areas were designated because the air quality was considered a special feature of the area (e.g., 

national parks or wilderness area). These Class I areas, and any other areas that have been redesignated 

Class I areas since 1977, are given special protection under the PSD program. The PSD program 

establishes air pollution increment increases that are allowed by new or modified air pollution sources. If 

the new source is required to comply with PSD program requirements and is near a Class I area, the 

source is required to determine its impacts at the nearby Class I area(s). The source is also required to 

notify the appropriate federal land manager(s) for the nearby Class I area(s). 

The proposed LNG terminal would not be subject to PSD review for CO and the nearest Federal 

Class I area is the Brigantine Wilderness Area located approximately 50 miles east of Logan Township. 

Therefore, the operational impacts of the proposed LNG Terminal on the Brigantine Wilderness Area are 

not required as part of the preconstruction permitting process. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-143 

General Conformity

Section 176(c)(1) of the CAA requires that a conformity determination be made if a federal action 

would generate emissions that would exceed the conformity thresholds levels (de minimis) of the 

pollutant(s) for which an air basin is in nonattainment. A conformity determination must show that the 

emissions would conform to the SIP and would not reduce air quality in the air basin, which can be 

demonstrated through offsets, SIP provisions, or modeling. Emissions from sources subject to NSR or 

PSD requirements are exempt and are deemed to have conformed. The requirements for a conformity 

determination are listed in 40 CFR Parts 6, 51, and 93, and became effective March 15, 1994. 

As described above, the project area was previously designated as a “severe nonattainment area” 

for the 1-hour ozone standard, but as of June 15, 2005 is only designated a “moderate nonattainment area” 

for the 8-hour ozone standard. A federal conformity determination is required for any project in a 

“moderate nonattainment area” that would result in combined direct and indirect emissions of either NOx

or VOCs equal to or greater than 100 and 50 tpy thresholds, respectively. Since the combined potential 

direct and indirect emissions of NOx from the proposed LNG terminal would be greater than 100 tons per 

year, a general conformity determination is required. 

As previously discussed, the project area is designated as a “moderate” nonattainment area for the 

8-hour ozone standard and non-attainment for PM2.5. There is currently no General Conformity 

applicability threshold listed for PM2.5 nonattainment areas; however, as recommended in a March 2005 

EPA memorandum regarding the implementation of the NSR requirements in PM2.5 nonattainment areas, 

a surrogate threshold of 100 tpy for PM10 moderate nonattainment areas has been used as the threshold. 

A draft General Conformity Determination was prepared and submitted for public comments on 

August 26, 2005. Based on comments received on the draft General Conformity Determination, a final 

General Conformity Determination will be prepared and published in accordance with 40 CFR §51.856. 

See Appendix K for a copy of the draft General Conformity Determination. 

Each federal agency is required to make a Conformity Determination before the action is taken. 

To allow FERC staff to complete the analysis and issue a final General Conformity Determination, we 

recommend that: 

• Prior to construction, Crown Landing and Texas Eastern should provide a full air 

quality analysis identifying all mitigation requirements required to demonstrate 

conformance with the applicable SIP and submit detailed information documenting 

how the project would demonstrate conformity in accordance with Title 40 CFR 

Part 51.858. The documentation should address each regulatory criteria listed in 

Part 51.858; provide a detailed explanation as to whether or not the project would 

meet each requirement; and for each criteria being satisfied, provide all supporting 

information on how the project would comply. Should any element of the project 

change substantially, Crown Landing and Texas Eastern should resubmit the 

aforementioned information so the OEP staff may determine the Conformity 

Determination of the revised action. 

New Jersey Regulations

Preconstruction Permits 

The NJDEP requires a preconstruction permit for all new facilities meeting specific criteria set 

forth in NJAC 7:27-8. The regulation requires commercial fuel burning equipment with maximum heat 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-144 

input rates of 1 MMBtu/hr or greater to obtain preconstruction permits. In accordance with the 

regulation, Crown Landing would need to obtain air permits for the water/ethylene-glycol heaters, 

emergency generator, and fire water pump prior to construction. 

Smoke and Particulate from Combustion Sources 

NJDEP regulation NJAC 7:27-3 (Subchapter 3) and 7:27-4 (Subchapter 4) limit visible (smoke) 

and particulate emissions from combustion equipment. Subchapter 3 establishes a 20 percent opacity 

limit for internal combustion sources, which includes the emergency generator, diesel water pump, mobile 

sources, and marine installations. Subchapter 3 also requires no visible emissions from the 

water/ethylene-glycol heaters except for 3 minutes in any consecutive 30-minute period. Subchapter 4 

establishes a particulate emission limit of 0.17 pounds per MMBtu for the water/ethylene-glycol heaters. 

The heaters would comply with the emission limitation and visible emission requirement by burning 

natural gas. 

Fuel Sulfur Content 

Subchapter 9 of NJAC 7:27 limits sulfur content of liquid fuels. Crown Landing proposes to use 

liquid fuels in the generator and fire pump. Crown Landing would comply with NJAC 7:27 by using low 

sulfur distillate oil with a sulfur content of less than 0.2 percent by weight to run the proposed liquid fuel 

equipment. 

Control of Volatile Organic Compounds and Oxides of Nitrogen 

Subchapter 16 of NJAC 7:27 applies to any stationary source or group of sources that emits or 

has the potential to emit VOCs. Subchapter 19 applies to any stationary source or group of sources that 

emits or has the potential to emit 25 tpy of NOx. Together these subchapters are referred to as the “VOC 

RACT Rule.” The heaters and emergency generator at Crown Landing would be subject to these 

regulations. Specifically, the heaters must have VOC emissions no higher than 50 parts per million by 

volume on a dry basis (ppmvd) at 7 percent oxygen, CO emissions no higher than 100 ppmvd at 7 

percent oxygen, NOx emissions no higher than 0.1 pounds per MMBtu, and adjusted combustion 

processes that comply with NJAC7:27-16.24 annually. The generator must have limited NOx emissions, 

CO emissions no higher than 500 ppmvd at 15 percent oxygen, and adjusted combustion processes that 

comply with NJAC7:27-16.24 annually. 

Emission Offset Rule 

Subchapter 18 of NJAC 7:27 applies to new air emission sources in or affecting nonattainment 

areas. As described above, the project area is designated as a “nonattainment area” for ozone. As such, 

NOx and VOC are regulated as nonattainment pollutants for the area. Prior to commencing construction, 

Crown Landing would be required under Subchapter 18 to obtain emission offsets from existing sources 

that have implemented a permanent, enforceable emission reduction. The emission offsets must be 

obtained at a ratio of 1.3 to 1 (i.e., Crown Landing must obtain 1.3 tons of offsets for every 1 ton of 

emissions it would generate). In addition to offsets, Crown Landing would be required to implement 

LAER for NOx emissions. The NJDEP would provide a LAER determination as part of the preconstruction permitting process. Crown Landing currently proposes the installation of ultra low NOx

burners on the heaters to reduce NOx emissions and to comply with LAER. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-145 

Operating Permits 

The operating permit program in New Jersey is regulated under Subchapter 22 of NJAC 7:27. As 

discussed in detail above, the LNG terminal would require a Title V operating permit. 

State-of-the-Art Requirements 

Under NJAC 7:27-8.12, new equipment and control apparatus are required to incorporate 

advances-in-the-art of pollution control for emission units that have the potential to emit more than a 

threshold quantity of an air pollutant. These requirements are typically referred to as the state-of-the-art 

(SOTA) requirements. The SOTA thresholds, which apply to each individual piece of equipment, are 5 

tpy for all criteria pollutants except lead, which has a SOTA threshold of 20 pounds per year. The SOTA 

thresholds for HAPs and toxic substances vary per compound. The proposed LNG terminal would be 

subject to the SOTA requirements for the NOx emissions from the heaters and the emergency generator 

and for the CO emissions from the heaters. Crown Landing’s implementation of LAER for NOx

emissions would satisfy the SOTA requirements. The NJDEP SOTA manual for boilers currently sets the 

limit for CO emissions at 0.05 pounds per MMBtu. NJDEP recently published proposed revisions to the 

boiler manual that would lower the CO emissions level to 0.039 pounds per MMBtu. The NJDEP would 

determine Crown Landing’s compliance with SOTA for CO emissions during the preconstruction 

permitting process. 

Delaware Regulations

The portion of the project constructed and operated in the State of Delaware would be potentially 

subject to the following air regulations: 

• DAC Regulation No. 2 and No. 25 (NNSR/PSD) – Preconstruction Permits 

• DAC Regulation No. 4 – Particulate Emissions from Fuel Burning Equipment 

• DAC Regulation No. 6 – Particulate Emissions from Construction and Materials 

Handling 

• DAC Regulation No. 8 – Sulfur Dioxide Emissions from Fuel Burning Equipment 

• DAC Regulation No. 12 – Control of Nitrogen Oxides Emissions 

• DAC Regulation No. 14 – Visible Emissions 

• DAC Regulation No. 17 – Source Monitoring, Record Keeping and Reporting 

• DAC Regulation No. 19 – Control of Odorous Air Contaminants 

• DAC Regulation No. 22 – Restriction on Quality of Fuel in Fuel Burning Equipment 

• DAC Regulation No. 24 – Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions 

• DAC Regulation No. 30 – Title V State Operating Permit Program 

• DAC Regulation No. 35 – Conformity of General Federal Actions to the State 

Implementation Plans 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-146 

• DAC Regulation No. 43 – Not to Exceed California Heavy Duty Diesel Engine Standards 

• DAC Regulation No. 45 – Excessive Idling of Heavy Duty Engines 

As a requirement of the preconstruction permitting process, Crown Landing would prepare and 

submit documentation to the DNREC demonstrating how the project would comply with applicable 

Delaware regulations. The DNREC would evaluate and approve the compliance documentation prior to 

issuing a final permit to construct and operate. 

Air Quality Impacts and Mitigation 

Construction of the proposed LNG terminal and pipeline facilities would have temporary adverse 

impacts on air quality due to fugitive dust emissions. The amount of fugitive dust would depend on 

several factors including the amount of exposed soil, moisture content of the soil, amount of vehicular 

traffic, and wind speed. Construction of the LNG terminal and pipeline would also result in tailpipe 

emissions from a variety of sources, including bulldozers, cranes, trucks, backhoes, side boom tractors, 

pile drivers, and dredging vessels. 

The fugitive dust and tailpipe emissions from construction of the LNG terminal and pipeline are 

expected to be localized, minor, and temporary. This would be particularly true for pipeline construction, 

which would be of relatively short duration in any one area. Both Crown Landing and Texas Eastern 

propose to control fugitive dust resulting from construction activities by applying water as necessary. The 

construction vehicle emissions would be minimized by complying with the EPA mobile source emission 

regulations which may include 40 CFR Parts 85, 86, 89, and 90. 

Operation of the LNG terminal would result in air emissions from mobile sources (LNG marine 

vessels, tugs, and commuter and delivery vehicles) and stationary equipment (heaters and emergency 

equipment) associated with the LNG facility. The estimated emissions from the stationary sources are 

summarized in table 4.11.1-4 and the mobile source emissions are summarized in table 4.11.1-5. 

Marine vessel emissions would be minimized by using diesel electric ships approximately half of 

the time. These ships are capable of using electricity while at berth to eliminate air emissions. When 

diesel electric ships are not used, Crown Landing would use ships that burn a combination of fuel oil and 

LNG. Emissions from mobile sources, not including LNG ships, are regulated primarily through fuel 

mandates and engine emission standards that must be met by the engine manufacturers. These fuel 

mandates and engine standards would likely reduce the mobile source emissions identified above. One of 

the most significant reductions would be the SO2 emissions from fuel oil and diesel fuel combustion as 

fuel mandates significantly reduce the allowable sulfur content in these fuels. 

The mobile source emissions from operation of the facility will be assessed in the general 

conformity determination for compliance with the SIP and demonstrate that the proposed project would 

not delay attainment of the ozone NAAQS. 

No air emissions would be directly generated by the pipeline during normal operation. Rare 

situations may require blowing down a segment of the pipeline; however, the only regulated emission that 

would be generated in such event is a small quantity of VOC. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-147 

TABLE 4.11.1-5 

Estimated Air Emissions from the Crown Landing LNG Mobile Sources a/

PM10 SO2

b/

 NOx CO VOC 

Source lb/delivery tpy lb/delivery tpy lb/delivery tpy lb/delivery tpy lb/delivery tpy 

Tugs – Transport 25 1.9 195 14.3 664 48.4 84 6.1 30 2.2 

LNG Ships – Transport c/ 47 1.8 839 31.2 486 30.2 309 16.4 221 8.4 

LNG Ships – Berthing c/ 47 1.7 839 30.6 342 12.5 141 5.1 9 0.3 

Commuter/Delivery Vehicles --- 0.0 --- 0.0 --- 2.0 --- 7.3 --- 0.6 

Total --- 5.4 --- 76.1 --- 93.1 --- 34.9 --- 11.5 

____________________ 

a/ The emissions assume 146 deliveries per year. 

b/ The SO2 emissions from the LNG ships are based on an estimated fuel sulfur content of 2.25 weight percent. 

c/ The emissions estimates per delivery are based on the worst case scenario. It was assumed that half of the LNG ships 

 would be powered by diesel electric systems and half would be powered by dual fuel steam boilers running fuel oil and LNG. 

NOx oxides of nitrogen 

CO carbon monoxide 

SO2 sulfur dioxide 

PM10 particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter 

VOC volatile organic compounds 

lb/delivery pounds per LNG ship delivery 

tpy tons per year 

4.11.2 Noise 

Noise Environment 

Project-related noise would affect the local environment during construction and operation of the 

proposed LNG terminal and pipeline. At any location, both the magnitude and frequency of 

environmental noise may vary considerably over the course of the day and throughout the week. This 

variation is caused in part by changing weather conditions and the effects of seasonal vegetative cover. 

Two measures used by federal agencies to relate the time-varying quality of environmental noise to its 

known effect on people are the 24-hour equivalent sound level (Leq(24)) and the day-night sound level 

(Ldn). The Leq(24) is the level of steady sound with the same total (equivalent) energy as the time-varying 

sound of interest, averaged over a 24-hour period. The Ldn is the average of the daytime sound level 

(Lday) and the nighttime sound level (Lnight) with 10 decibels on the A-weighted scale (dBA) added to the 

Lnight, to account for people’s greater sensitivity to sound during nighttime hours. Lday is the average 

sound level from 7 am to 10 pm Lnight is the sound representative of the location between the hours of 10 

pm and 7 am. 

In 1974, the EPA published Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect 

Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety. This publication evaluates the effects of 

environmental noise with respect to health and safety. The document provides information for state and 

local governments to use in developing their own ambient noise standards. The EPA has determined that 

to protect the public from activity interference and annoyance outdoors in residential areas, noise levels 

should not exceed an Ldn of 55 dBA. The FERC has adopted this criterion for new compression and 

associated facilities and it is used here to evaluate the potential noise impact from operation of the LNG 

terminal. An Ldn of 55 dBA is equivalent to a continuous noise level of 48.6 dBA for facilities that 

operate at a constant level of noise. The NJDEP regulates noise under NJAC 7:29-1; which prohibits 

continuous noise levels from industrial, commercial, public service, or community service facilities in 

excess of 65 dBA during the daytime (7 am to 10 pm) and 50 dBA during the nighttime (10 pm to 7 am) 

at any affected residential property line. Assuming a continuous noise source, the FERC standard of 55 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-148 

dBA Ldn is more stringent (i.e., compliance with the FERC standard will ensure compliance with the 

NJDEP noise regulation). 

There are several noise sensitive areas (NSAs) within 1 mile of the LNG terminal site. Figure 

4.11.2-1 shows the location of NSAs relative to the LNG terminal site. 

Table 4.11.2-1 lists the distance and direction of each NSA from the LNG terminal site. The 

closest NSA (NSA 1) is a residence located about 2,300 feet east of the site. 

TABLE 4.11.2-1 

Noise Sensitive Areas Near the Proposed LNG Terminal Site

NSA Distance and Direction a/ Description 

NSA 1 2,312 feet Southeast Residence 

NSA 2 2,488 feet Southeast Residence 

NSA 3 3,841 feet Southeast Residence 

NSA 4 4,432 feet Southeast Residence 

____________________ 

a/ Distance and direction of each NSA is relative to the eastern most LNG storage tank. 

NSA: Noise sensitive area 

An ambient sound survey of existing noise levels near the NSAs in the vicinity of the LNG 

terminal was conducted between August 19 and 21, 2003. The purpose of the sound survey was to 

document the existing acoustical environment near the NSAs prior to operation of the LNG terminal. 

Noise measurements were made for a period of about 40 hours at two locations: one adjacent to the 

boundary of NSA 1 approximately 20 feet from U.S. Route 130 and the other on the LNG terminal site 

approximately 450 feet from the Delaware shoreline. The data obtained from the sound survey were used 

to estimate the existing background noise levels at the NSAs for evaluating compliance with our noise 

requirement of 55 dBA Ldn and the New Jersey noise requirement of 65 dBA Leq(24) at any nearby 

residential property line. The estimated existing noise levels for the NSAs based on the sound survey are 

listed in table 4.11.2-2. 

There are a total of 124 residences and 9 business establishments within 50 feet of proposed 

pipeline construction work areas. No background data are available for the noise sensitive areas along the 

pipeline route. Because most of these residences are located along streets in the City of Chester, the 

expected ambient noise levels at these residences are likely higher than the ambient noise levels measured 

at the NSAs near the LNG terminal site. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-149 

Non-Internet Public 

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE 

CROWN LANDING LNG PROJECT and 

LOGAN LATERAL PROJECT 

Docket Nos. CP04-411-000 and CP04-416-000 

Figure 4.11.2-1 Noise Sensitive Areas 

Public access for the above information is available only 

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

public.referenceroom@ferc.gov. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-150 

TABLE 4.11.2-2 

Existing Noise Levels at the Closest Noise Sensitive Areas

Location Leq(24) Lday Lnight Ldn

NSA 1 54.2 56.3 52.2 59.5 

NSA 2 54.2 56.3 52.2 59.5 

NSA 3 54.2 56.3 52.2 59.5 

NSA 4 54.2 56.3 52.2 59.5 

____________________ 

Leq(24) 24-hour equivalent sound level 

Lday daytime sound level 

Lnight nighttime sound level 

Ldn day-night sound level 

Noise Impacts and Mitigation 

Construction of the LNG terminal would occur over approximately 3 years. Pile driving for the 

LNG storage tanks and the pier would be the most significant noise generating activity during the 

construction period. Pile driving would occur intermittently for approximately 6 to 8 months during 

daytime hours only. When in use, pile driving would generate noise approximately 60 percent of the time 

due to moving, attaching pile, and lifting activities. When the non-pile driving background noise is 

factored into the daytime Leq sound pressure level, the estimated noise produced by pile driving is reduced 

by approximately 2 decibels. Utilizing logarithmic noise attenuation calculations, the estimated pile 

driving noise impact at the nearest NSA would be about 64.5 dBA, which is just below the 65 dBA sound 

pressure level for daytime operations specified in the New Jersey Noise Control Regulations NJAC 7:29. 

Vibration impacts associated with the pile driving is not expected to impact the nearest NSA due to the 

distance and vibration attenuation associated with the underlying unconsolidated soil/sediment conditions 

at the site. 

The overall intensity of noise at nearby receptors would vary based on the type of equipment 

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

equipment and the sensitive receptor. As a result, noise impacts from construction activities are difficult 

to estimate. It is known that the noise associated with these construction activities would be intermittent, 

as equipment would be operated on an as-needed basis. Construction activities at the LNG terminal 

would generate short-term increases in sound levels predominately during daylight hours, when the most 

significant construction activities would occur. Generally, noise at a large construction site is about 95 

dBA at 10 feet. Based on a 6 dBA reduction per doubling of distance and approximately 2,300 feet to the 

nearest receptor, the construction noise level at the nearest NSA would be 47.8 dBA Leq(24) and 45.7 dBA 

Ldn. This equates to a total noise level of 55.1 dBA Leq(24) and a noise increase of 0.9 dBA at the nearest 

NSA when construction activities are occurring. 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 this increase would only occur during construction 

activities. 

Construction of the proposed pipeline would require operating construction equipment close to 

residential areas over a period of several months. With the exception of specific activities such as 

hydrostatic testing and critical stages of HDD, pipeline construction activities would occur largely during 

daylight hours. Pipeline construction is like having an assembly line, with crews 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 line, construction activities in any 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-151 

one area could last from several days to several weeks on an intermittent basis. While receptors in the 

immediate vicinity of the construction activities would experience an increase in noise, this effect would 

be temporary and local. The average noise level generated by the construction equipment that would be 

used for pipeline construction 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 Ldn 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. 

Texas Eastern proposes to use the HDD technique in several locations. HDD is a special 

situation since the source of noise (the drill engine) remains in a fixed location during construction for a 

much longer period of time than other pieces of equipment on a pipeline construction right-of-way. HDD 

may also require nighttime operation. However, mitigation is available for this activity such that it is 

possible to reduce impacts to an insignificant level in most situations. 

To ensure that NSAs are not exposed to excessive noise during nighttime HDD operations, we 

recommend that: 

• Prior to construction, Texas Eastern should submit a HDD noise analysis, mitigation 

and compliance plan for review and approval. This plan should demonstrate that 

noise generated by HDD operations is below 55 dBA Ldn at the nearest NSAs, and 

specify all noise mitigation equipment necessary to reduce noise below 55 dBA Ldn. 

Texas Eastern should detail the method by which they would ensure compliance and 

where noise surveys indicate that noise attributable to drilling exceeds 55 dBA Ldn, 

Texas Eastern should: 

a. immediately stop drilling and mitigate the noise at the affected 

NSAs to reduce the noise levels at those NSAs to 55 dBA Ldn or 

below, or 

b. offer temporary housing until project-related Ldn levels at the NSAs 

are 55 dBA or below. 

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

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

include water/ethylene-glycol heaters 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 4.11.2-3. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-152 

TABLE 4.11.2-3 

Noise Specifications for Proposed LNG Terminal a/ 

Description Quantity Overall Noise (dBA) at Distance (feet) b/ Shelter 

LNG Sendout Pump 7 <85 3.3 No Shelter 

Boil-off Gas Compressor 3 92 3.3 Boil-off Shelter 

High-Pressure Flare 1 107 50 No Shelter 

Boil-off Gas Blower 3 95 3.3 Boil-off Shelter 

Electric Firewater Pump 1 90 3.3 Utility Shelter 

Diesel Firewater Pump (Cat. engine) 1 100 3.3 Utility Shelter 

Water/Ethylene-Glycol Heater (Blowers) 10 95 3.3 Heater Shelter 

Water/Ethylene-Glycol Circulation Pump 4 92 3.3 Heater Shelter 

Warm Water/Ethylene-Glycol Circulation Pump 2 90 3.3 Heater Shelter 

Warm Water/Ethylene-Glycol Cooler 6 85 3.3 No Shelter 

Warm Water/Ethylene-Glycol Circulation Pump 3 90 3.3 Heater Shelter 

Plant/Instrument Air Compressor 2 80 3.3 Utility Shelter 

Main Booster Air Compressor 2 85 3.3 No Shelter 

Baseload Nitrogen Compressor 2 85 3.3 No Shelter 

Emergency Generator (Diesel) 1 109 3.3 Weather Protection 

Emergency Generator (Diesel) 1 86 23 Weather Protection 

Total Noise from Daily Operating 101.4 3.3 

______________ 

a/ The emergency equipment (identified in italics) are not included in the noise analysis because the equipment would not 

 operate during normal daily plant operation. 

b/ The overall noise level represents the total noise from the equipment category and does not account for noise 

 reductions from the enclosures and dike interference. 

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

calculations which assume 6 dBA reduction per doubling of distance. The results of this analysis are 

summarized in table 4.11.2-4. 

TABLE 4.11.2-4 

Estimated Noise Impact from Proposed LNG Terminal

Existing Noise Level 

(dBA) 

Level Attributable to 

Project (dBA) Total Noise (dBA) 

NSA 

Distance to 

NSA (feet) 

a/ Leq(24) Ldn Leq(24) Ldn Leq(24) Ldn

Future Increase 

(dBA) b/ 

NSA 1 2,312 54.2 59.5 44.5 50.9 54.6 60.1 0.4 

NSA 2 2,488 54.2 59.5 43.9 50.3 54.6 60.0 0.4 

NSA 3 3,841 54.2 59.5 40.1 46.5 54.4 59.7 0.2 

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

____________________ 

a/ Measured from the center of the LNG storage tank to the NSA. 

b/ Based on the increase in 24-hour equivalent sound levels. 

NSA noise sensitive area 

dBA decibels of the A-weighted scale 

Leq(24) 24-hour equivalent sound level 

Ldn day night sound level 

 

These results suggest that the maximum predicted Ldn and Leq(24) 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 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-153 

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

at all NSAs and the estimated Leq(24) 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 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 

dBA Ldn at an NSA or 50 dBA Leq(24) 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 filing a second noise survey 

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

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-154 

4.12 RELIABILITY AND SAFETY 

Three federal agencies share in the oversight of the safety and security of LNG import terminals: 

the Coast Guard, the 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. In conjunction with this, the Coast Guard determines the 

suitability of waterways for LNG marine traffic by issuing a LOR. 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 Interagency 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. 

The operation of the proposed Crown Landing LNG terminal poses a potential 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 including events occurring during the course of but not limited to LNG vessel transits. 

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 site7

. 

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

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 Skikda, 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 adjacent 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. 

 

7

 For a description of the incident and the findings of the investigation, see “U.S. Bureau of Mines, Report on the Investigation of the Fire at 

the Liquefaction, Storage, and Regasification Plant of the East Ohio Gas Co., Cleveland, Ohio, October 20, 1944, February 1946.” 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-155 

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. To ensure 

that all potential hazards are addressed, we have provided a recommendation in section 4.12.2, Cryogenic 

Design and Technical Review, to address this issue. 

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 are in section 4.12.9. 

4.12.1 LNG Hazards 

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

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

burns 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 

(-296o F) or several other cryogenic gases that have been routinely produced and transported in the United 

States. 

Methane, the 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 LNG 

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 back 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 burn slowly, tending to ignite combustible 

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

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-156 

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, or confined 

space aboard an LNG ship, 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 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 LNG ship in equivalent tons of trinitrotoluene (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 an 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 submitted 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 information 

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 staff’s 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 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-157 

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

recommend that: 

The following measures should apply to the LNG terminal design and construction details. 

Information pertaining to these specific recommendations should be filed with the Secretary 

for review and approval by the Director of OEP either: prior to initial site preparation; 

prior to construction of final design; prior to commissioning; or prior to commencement of 

service as indicated by each specific recommendation. Items relating to Resource Report 

13-Engineering and Design Material and security should be submitted as critical energy 

infrastructure information (CEII) pursuant to 18 CFR § 388.112 and PL01-1. Information 

pertaining to items such as: offsite emergency response; procedures for public notification 

and evacuation; and construction and operating reporting requirements would be subject to 

public disclosure. This information should be submitted a minimum of 30 days before 

approval to proceed is required. 

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

a. Identifies all combustion/ventilation air intake equipment and the 

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

refrigerants, flammable liquids, and flammable gases). 

b. 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 should file this review prior to initial site preparation. 

• 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 preparation. 

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

site preparation. 

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

initial site preparation. 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-chemical, fire extinguishing, 

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

preparation. 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 clearly 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, hose, and sprinkler, as well as piping and instrumentation 

diagrams, of the fire water system should be filed prior to initial site preparation. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-158 

• The final design of the hazard detection equipment should identify manufacturer 

and model. 

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

provided for each tank. 

• The final design should include a minimum of three onsite seismic instruments that 

would have the capability of actuating an automatic plant wide emergency 

shutdown 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, 

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 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 final design should include provisions to ensure that hot glycol/water 

circulation is in operation at all times, except during power failures, 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 design should include detection instrumentation and shut down 

procedures for vaporizer tube leak, shell side overpressure, or bursting disc failure. 

• The final design should include temperature measurement of the vaporizer common 

discharge header which should alarm the low temperature condition. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-159 

• The final design should include provisions to install temporary high pressure boiloff 

compression in the event that sendout operation is curtailed, or ceased for a period 

in excess of thirty days. Details should include plans and drawings of the boiloff gas 

recovery system and specifications of the equipment and compressors to be 

installed. 

• The final design should include automatic shutdown valves at the suction and 

discharge of the each boiloff blower and each boiloff 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 

electrical 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. 

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

• The final design 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 prior to and during LNG vessel unloading should 

be filed prior to commissioning. 

• Operation and maintenance procedures and manuals, as well as safety procedure 

manuals, should be filed prior to commissioning.

• Copies of the Coast Guard security plan and vessel operation plan should be 

provided to FERC staff prior to commissioning. 

• 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 

reports filed with the Secretary. Details should include a summary of activities, 

projected schedule for completion, problems encountered and remedial actions 

taken. Problems of significant magnitude should be reported to the FERC within 24 

hours. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-160 

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 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, 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, 

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, non-scheduled 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 submitted within 45 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 should be included in 

the semi-annual operational reports. Such information would provide the FERC 

staff with early notice of anticipated future construction/maintenance projects at the 

LNG facility. 

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

imbedded pipe supports, becomes less than the minimum specified operating 

temperature for the material the Commission should be notified 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-related incidents (i.e., attempts to 

enter site, suspicious 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. 

This notification practice should be incorporated into the LNG facility's emergency 

plan. Examples of reportable LNG-related incidents include: 

a. fire; 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-161 

b. explosion; 

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

d. death or personal injury necessitating in-patient hospitalization; 

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

f. unintended movement or abnormal loading by environmental causes, such 

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

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

or processes gas or LNG; 

g. 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; 

h. 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; 

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 that 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 facility that 

contains or processes gas or LNG; 

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

the LNG facility; or 

m. 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 

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.

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-162 

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 carriers); 

• 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 

• 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) are summarized below for the LNG storage tanks commonly found in proposals before the 

Commission. 

H.1 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.1. 

H.3 Double containment tank 

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 refrigerated 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. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-163 

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 a distance of 3 to 6 feet (1 

to 2 meters) 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 be 

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. 

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. Several full-containment tanks have 

started construction in the United States, while approximately 50 have been constructed worldwide. 

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

existing codes and regulations to full-containment tank. 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 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 meet the 

separation requirement. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-167 

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

containment) serves as the impoundment, a concept allowed under Parts 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 minimized. 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 be considered a containment and 

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

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

barrier could be considered an impounding area 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 earthen 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 maximum liquid 

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

with 49 CFR Part 193.2173 and Crown Landing’s stormwater management plan. This barrier would 

confine LNG on the project property in the event of any hypothetical catastrophic event, and would also 

prevent process area spills from leaving the plant.

4.12.4 Siting Requirements – Thermal and Dispersion Exclusion Zones 

Regulatory Requirements

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

193, subpart 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 other than 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 be provided with siting requirements in 

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

then Part 193 prevails. 

• Part 193.2057, Thermal radiation protection, requires that each LNG container and 

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

accordance with Section 2.2.3.2 of NFPA 59A. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-168 

• 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 Part 193 and NFPA 59A: 

• Three 41,739,184 gallon (158,000 m3

) 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 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 such as cargo transfer lines. 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 incorporation of NFPA 59A also changed the way in which design spills and impoundment 

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 source 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 incorporation of NFPA 59A, the design spill in Part 193 assumed the rupture of a single 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-169 

transfer 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 be assumed to be a 

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

authority having jurisdiction (i.e., DOT's 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 be 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 proposals before the Commission. 

Impoundment Systems 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 systems 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 be full containment storage tanks with a 246 

foot inside concrete wall diameter surrounding a 238 foot inner tank diameter, approximately 175 feet 

high at the apex. The volumetric capacity of 6,250,696 cubic feet (ft3) (177,000 m3) would exceed the 

110 percent requirement by 670,978 ft3 (19,000 m3). The site would also be surrounded by an earthen 

berm with dimensions of 900 feet wide by 780 feet long and 10 feet tall and an encompassing volume of 

7,020,000 ft3. 

Crown Landing’s proposed impoundment system would have a series of troughs under piping 

that drain to three co-located sumps. The largest of the sumps, the Unloading Line Sump which has 

dimensions of 240 feet wide by 171 feet long with a depth of 4 feet, is the outer and largest sump. The 

Tank Header Sump, which has dimensions of 83 feet long by 83 feet wide with a depth of 3 feet, is 

located inside the Unloading Line Sump. 

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, 

individually rated for 3,770 gpm. 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 131,335 gallons after accounting for 

increased flow due to the line break. This spill would be contained within impoundment troughs that are 

sloped to the 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 be pumped into the impoundment system is the 44-inch-diameter 

transfer line from the marine unloading berth. The piping for the marine cargo transfer system would be 

contained within an impoundment trough that is sloped to the Unloading Line Sump located northeast of 

the LNG storage tanks. The Unloading Line Sump would be sized to contain a 10-minute spill from the 

44-inch-diameter 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 44-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 

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

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-170 

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

LNG spill would flow back to the sump system to the northeast, located approximately midway between 

the process area and the earthen berm and inside the Unloading Line sump. The design spill for the 

process area would be the same as the 18-inch-diameter LNG tank withdrawal header and would flow 

through troughs to the Withdrawal Header Sump. 

FERC staff performed 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. FERC staff determined that the appropriate single accidental leakage source off the 44-inchdiameter unloading line was a 4-inch-diameter attachment. For the process area, the design spill from the 

2-inch-diameter line downstream from the LNG booster pumps would be an appropriate single accidental 

leakage source. Table 4.12.4-1 presents the impounding area and spill volumes for the various spill 

scenarios. As shown the table, the corresponding design spill volumes from the unloading line and 

process area would be less than the design spill for the 18-inch LNG tank withdrawal header. Therefore, 

since the sumps are co-located and each of the design spills flow into the LNG Tank Header Sump, the 

largest spill, the 18-inch LNG tank withdrawal header design spill, would be the controlling spill and used 

to calculate the thermal and vapor dispersion exclusion zones. 

TABLE 4.12.4-1 

Impoundment Areas for LNG Spills

Source Spill Size 

(gallons) 

Impoundment System Impoundment Size 

(gallons) 

Impoundment Sizing Spills: 

LNG Storage Tank 41,739,184 LNG Storage Tank Impoundment 

(concrete outer tank) 

46,758,453 

Marine Transfer Line 1,098,087 Unloading Line Sump 1,229,438 

LNG Tank Withdrawal Header 131,335 Tank Header Sump 154,600 

Sendout Pumps and Vaporizers 131,335 Tank Header Sump 154,600 

Design Spills: 

Marine Transfer Line 

 (4-inch-diamater attachment) 

56,113 Tank Header Sump 154,600 

LNG Tank Withdrawal Header 131,335 Tank Header Sump 154,600 

Sendout Pumps and Vaporizers 

 (2-inch-diameter attachment) 

68,451 Tank Header Sump 154,600 

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 NFPA 59A, using the "LNGFIRE III" 

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/ft2

-hr) incident flux 

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

distances were also determined for the 1,600 Btu/ft2

-hr incident flux level centered the both the process 

area sump. 

NFPA 59A establishes certain atmospheric conditions (0 mph wind speed, 70° F, and 50 percent 

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

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-171 

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: wind speed of 27 mph; ambient 

temperature of 18° F; and 30 percent relative humidity. FERC staff agrees that these conditions yield 

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

specified in NFPA 59A. 

FERC staff calculated thermal radiation distances for incident flux levels ranging from 1,600 to 

10,000 Btu/ft2

-hr 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 LNG Storage Tank 

Impoundment (concrete outer tank). The distances to the various thermal exclusion zones for the LNG 

Storage Tank Impoundment are shown in table 4.12.4-2. FERC staff concludes that the thermal exclusion 

zones from the LNG Storage Tank Impoundment comply with 49 CFR 193 and NFPA 59A. 

Crown Landing’s application for the proposed LNG terminal contained thermal radiation analysis 

for a 10-minute design spill into the Tank Header Sump within the system of impoundments. Crown 

Landing selected the design spill based on a release from the 18-inch LNG tank withdrawal header. The 

design spill size, flowing at full capacity for 10 minutes, for the 18-inch LNG tank withdrawal header 

would be 131,335 gallons. Thermal radiation distances were determined for the 1,600 Btu/ft2-hr incident 

flux level centered on the Tank Header Sump and is shown in table 4.12.4-2. FERC staff concludes that 

thermal exclusion zone for the Tank Header Sump complies with 49 CFR 193 and NFPA 59A. 

The thermal exclusion zones for the LNG Storage Tank Impoundment and the Tank Header 

Sump are shown in figure 4.12.4-1 and figure 4.12.4-2, respectively. 

TABLE 4.12.4-2 

Thermal Exclusion Zones

Source Exclusion Area NFPA 59A 

Section 2-2.3.2(a) 

Incident Flux 

(Btu/ft2

-hr) a/ 

Exclusion 

Zone (feet) 

LNG storage tank 

impoundment Outdoor assembly area occupied by 50 or more people. 1,600 933 

LNG storage tank 

impoundment Offsite structures used for occupancies or residences. 3,000 727 

LNG storage tank 

impoundment Property line that can be built upon. 10,000 426 

Tank Header Sump Property line that can be built upon. 1,600 422 

_______________________ 

a/ The 1,600 Btu/ft2

-hr flux level is associated with an exposed person experiencing burns within about 30 seconds. At 

 3,000 Btu/ft2

-hr, an exposed person would experience burns within 10 seconds, however a wooden structure would 

 not be expected to burn and affords protection to sheltered persons. At 10,000 Btu/ft2

-hr, clothing and wood can ignite 

 spontaneously. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-172 

Non-Internet Public 

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE 

CROWN LANDING LNG PROJECT and 

LOGAN LATERAL PROJECT 

Docket Nos. CP04-411-000 and CP04-416-000 

Figure 4.12.4-1 LNG Full Containment Tank Thermal Exclusion Zones 

Public access for the above information is available only 

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

public.referenceroom@ferc.gov. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-173 

Non-Internet Public 

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE 

CROWN LANDING LNG PROJECT and 

LOGAN LATERAL PROJECT 

Docket Nos. CP04-411-000 and CP04-416-000 

Figure 4.12.4-2 LNG Design Spill Thermal Exclusion Zone 

Public access for the above information is available only 

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

public.referenceroom@ferc.gov. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-174 

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 be 

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 be calculated 

for a 2.5 percent average gas concentration (1⁄2 the lower flammability limit [LFL] 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 be 

determined in accordance with section 2.2.3.5 of NFPA 59A. 

In accordance with section 2.2.3.3 of NFPA 59A, an average concentration of methane in air of 

50 percent of the LFL cannot cross a property line that can be built upon from a design spill into each 

impoundment. In this case, where all design spills flow into the common Tank Header Sump, compliance 

with section 2.2.3.3 would also meet the requirements of section 2.2.3.4 of NFPA 59A. 

As discussed in the draft EIS, Crown Landing used a cold vapor to liquid volumetric ratio of 

235:1 and calculated that 4,125,876 ft3 of cold vapor would result from the vaporization of an 18-inchdiameter LNG tank withdrawal header spill producing a volume of 17,557 ft3 of LNG. Crown Landing 

claimed that since the entire volume of cold vapor would be contained by the facility's earthen berm, 

occupying 4,125,876 ft3 of the 6,755,000 ft3 capacity, and that the vapor dispersion exclusion zone would 

not extend beyond the LNG terminal site. 

Comments filed on other projects have disputed the assertion that the entire volume of cold vapor 

would be contained within the main dike impoundment because it would be physically impossible for the 

vapor from the spill to fill the impoundment without warming and mixing with air while being evolved. 

The effects of provisions for containing vapors as a means of mitigating flammable vapor hazards 

are permitted to be considered in the calculations by NFPA 59A section 2.2.3.3. Increasing the vapor 

retention capacity can reduce the vapor source strength and correspondingly reduce the downwind 

distance to the 1⁄2 LFL. It is acknowledged that the calculations of vapor overflow rates do not account for 

the mixing of evolved vapor that is likely to occur over extended periods of time. This can be especially 

problematic for certain sump/impoundment configurations which allow for longer term vapor retention. 

As a result, FERC staff performed a supplementary vapor dispersion analysis for the 18-inchdiameter LNG tank withdrawal header design spill by conservatively assuming no earthen impoundment 

surrounding the LNG tank area. The Unloading Line Sump was treated as a dike for the Tank Header 

Sump, which is located inside the Unloading Line Sump. A DEGADIS simulation, with the atmospheric 

conditions specified by 49 CFR 193, predicts that 2.5 percent average gas concentration would extend 

738 feet. Therefore, the flammable vapor exclusion zone would not extend offsite, satisfying the 

requirements of 49 CFR 193 and NFPA 59A. 

Although the impoundment system technically complies with 49 CFR 193.2059, the issue of the 

lengthy distance from potential spill locations to the co-located sumps needs to be addressed. While it is 

an appropriate design philosophy to 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 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-175 

sumps. Long trenches 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 should examine provisions to retain any vapor produced along the 

transfer line trenches and other areas serving to direct LNG spills to associated 

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

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

Crown Landing should file final drawings and specifications for these measures 

with the Secretary prior to initial site preparation. 

4.12.5 Marine Safety 

The February 2004 Interagency Agreement provides the framework for the participating agencies 

to work in a coordinated manner to address the full range of issues regarding safety and security at LNG 

import terminals and the suitability of waterways for LNG marine traffic. The FERC closely coordinated 

its pre-certificate review of the proposal with the Coast Guard, which has authority over the safety of 

LNG vessels and the marine transfer area as well as the security of the LNG vessels and the entire LNG 

facility, and the suitability of waterways for LNG marine traffic. 

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

Whereas the land-based facilities have features to both limit the duration of LNG 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 4.12.5.4). 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 LNG ship in transit; 

• an LNG ship alliding8

 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. 

 

8

 “Allision” is the action of dashing against or striking upon a stationary object (e.g., the running of one ship upon another ship that is docked) 

– distinguished from “collision”, which is used to refer to two moving ships striking one another. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-176 

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 a conceptual LNG ship voyage, as proposed 

by the applicant, from the liquefaction facility to the import terminal, disclosing the risks at each step and 

how they would be 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 Bulk, 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-pressure 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 IMO 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 the 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 ports 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: 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-177 

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

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

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

security of the ship is under threat or it has been compromised; 

• Ships must have a comprehensive security plan for international port facilities, focusing 

on areas having direct contact with ships; and 

• Ships may have certain equipment onboard to help maintain or enhance the physical 

security of the ship. 

For the port facilities, the requirements must include: 

• Port facility security plan; 

• Facility Security Officer (FSO); and 

• Certain security equipment may be required to maintain or enhance the physical security 

of the facility. 

Both ships and ports must include the following: 

• Monitoring and controlling access; 

• Monitoring the activities of people and cargo; 

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

• Completion of the Declaration of Security. 

LNG Ship Transit in the Delaware River 

An internationally recognized Traffic Separation Scheme established by the IMO serves vessel 

traffic in the approach to the Delaware Bay and River. 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 and River are boarded by a pilot from the Delaware River Pilots who directs the transit to 

one of the destination docks at Wilmington, Marcus Hook, or Philadelphia. 

If the Coast Guard issues a LOR, as described in Section 1.3 “Permits, Approvals, and Regulatory 

Requirements”, finding the waterway suitable for LNG marine traffic, LNG ships would access the 

proposed LNG terminal via the federal navigation channel in the Delaware Bay and River (see figure 

4.12.5-1). One pilot would direct the LNG ship from Cape Henlopen on Delaware Bay to a point several 

miles downstream of the Delaware Memorial Bridge. From this location, two tractor tugs would escort 

the LNG ships up the Delaware River to the Marcus Hook anchorage area where an additional tractor tug 

would join the escort and a docking pilot would guide the vessel to the proposed unloading facility. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-178 

Non-Internet Public 

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE 

CROWN LANDING LNG PROJECT and 

LOGAN LATERAL PROJECT 

Docket Nos. CP04-411-000 and CP04-416-000 

Figure 4.12.5-1 Proposed Shipping Route as Described in Letter 

of Intent to the Coast Guard 

Public access for the above information is available only 

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

public.referenceroom@ferc.gov. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-179 

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

hours. Docking, LNG cargo unloading, and undocking would take approximately 24 hours. The LNG 

ship would normally depart during daylight hours on the second day. 

If the Coast Guard issues a LOR finding the waterway suitable for LNG marine traffic, in 

addition to the Delaware River Pilots, the Coast Guard would monitor the transit of the LNG vessel on the 

river and bay and while unloading cargo. The Coast Guard currently exercises control over vessels 

carrying dangerous cargoes within the Delaware River and Bay through enforcement of a Regulated 

Navigation Area (RNA) promulgated in 33 CFR 165.510. It is expected that controls placed on LNG ship 

transits would at a minimum reflect requirements contained in the current RNA. Typical Coast Guard 

requirements for other LNG import terminals include 96- and 24-hour advance notification of the ship 

arrival at which time Coast Guard personnel may board the LNG ship offshore for an inspection of the 

ship safety systems and a security sweep. Other Coast Guard requirements may include: establishment of 

a moving safety zone around the vessel while en route, a fixed security zone around the vessel during 

unloading operations, an inspection of the dock safety systems prior to commencing cargo transfer, and 

monitoring all operations until the vessel departs. Maintaining security of the dock and vessel would be 

the responsibility of the facility in cooperation with other federal, state, and local agencies as described in 

the Facility Security Plan (see section 4.12.6). 

LNG Vessel Casualties 

If the Coast Guard issues a LOR finding the waterway suitable for LNG marine traffic, the 

operational controls that would be imposed by the Coast Guard and the Delaware River pilots, as well as 

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

groundings, collisions, and allisions. The Coast Guard would enforce a moving safety zone around the 

LNG ship that would clear the channel of all vessels in the vicinity of the LNG ship to reduce the 

likelihood of any collisions, including those of the tonnage and speed required to cause an LNG spill (see 

section 4.12.5.4). The federal navigation channel extends approximately 74 nautical miles to the Marcus 

Hook area and approximately 86 miles to the Port of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The navigation channel 

downstream of Marcus Hook has a maintained navigation depth of 40 feet and a width of 800 feet. 

Deliberate Attack on an LNG Vessel 

In addition to addressing the potential hazards from LNG vessel incidents, the possibility of a 

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

vessel would be the responsibility of the owner/operator and the master of the vessel. Security of the 

LNG facility would be the responsibility of the owner/operator of the facility. Protection of the LNG 

vessel and the import terminal would involve personnel from the Coast Guard, Crown Landing security 

staff, and state and local law enforcement. If the Coast Guard issues a LOR finding the waterway suitable 

for LNG marine traffic, the Coast Guard would establish a moving safety zone around the LNG vessels in 

transit and a security zone around the LNG vessels while docked. Only personnel or vessels authorized 

by the Captain of the Port would be permitted in the safety and security zone. 

Crown Landing would provide security for the marine terminal according to a Facility Security 

Plan that must be prepared under 33 CFR Part 105. This plan would need to be approved by the Coast 

Guard Captain of the Port (see section 4.12.6). The requirements of this plan may include: 

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

consequences of an attack, and facility protective measures; 

• a Facility Security Plan with procedures for responding to security incidents; 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-180 

• a designated FSO responsible for implementing and periodically updating the Facility 

Security Plan and Assessment; 

• scalable 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 for approval 60 days prior to 

commencement of operations. In order to ensure that the responsibilities of Crown Landing’s security 

staff enhance overall security, we recommend that: 

• Prior to commissioning, Crown Landing should coordinate, as needed, with the 

Coast Guard to define the responsibilities of Crown Landing’s security staff in 

supplementing other security personnel and in protecting the LNG ships and the 

terminal. 

The Department of Energy (DOE) has released a study by Sandia National Laboratories entitled, 

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 

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 square meters 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 square meters. In most cases, an intentional breaching 

scenario would not result in a nominal hole of more than 5 to 7 square meters, which is a more 

appropriate range to use in calculating potential hazards from spills. These hole sizes are equivalent to 

circular hole diameters of 2.5 and 3 meters. 

The FERC commissioned a study by ABSG Consulting Inc. (ABSG) to search and review the 

literature on experimental LNG spills and on consequence methodologies that are applicable to modeling 

incidents of LNG spills on water. The methodology described in the ABSG study, Consequence 

Assessment Methods for Incidents Involving Releases 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 1 meter to 

3.9 meters. Using the methodology, we have estimated distances for a nominal 2.5-meter and 3-meter 

diameter hole to range from 4,372 to 4,883 feet for a thermal radiation of 1,600 Btu/ft2-hr, the level which 

is hazardous for persons located outdoors and unprotected, to 3,374 to 3,764 feet for 3,000 Btu/ft2-hr, an 

acceptable level for wooden structures; and to 2,033 to 2,261 feet for 10,000 Btu/ft2-hr, a level sufficient 

to damage process equipment for these size holes respectively.

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-181 

These intentional breach scenarios provide guidance to the Coast Guard in developing the 

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

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

and evacuation planning. The inbound vessel transit through the Delaware Bay ship channel would pass 

by Cape May, Arnold Point, Elsinboro Point, and Pennsville, New Jersey on the east side and Cape 

Henlopen, Delaware Point, Port Penn, Delaware City, and New Castle, Delaware on the west side. After 

passing New Castle, Delaware on the west side, the LNG vessel would pass under the Delaware 

Memorial Bridge, and by Penns Grove and Pedricktown, New Jersey on the east side and Wilmington, 

Edgemoor, Bellefonte, Claymont, and Marcus Hook, Delaware on the west side. 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 and Bay between 3 and 11 

knots, the adjacent communities would be exposed to a potential transient hazard between an estimated 10 

to 30 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. 

If the Coast Guard issues a LOR finding the waterway suitable for LNG marine traffic, the 

operational restrictions that would 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 LNG Vessel 

Transit Management Plan (see Section 4.12.5.2) 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 be required to prepare emergency 

procedures manuals, as required by 49 CFR 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(b)(3) requires “Coordinating with appropriate 

local officials in preparation of an emergency evacuation plan...” 

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

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

assumed to represent the evacuation zone for every 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. Subsequently, Section 311 of the 

Energy Policy Act of 2005 stipulated that the FERC must require the LNG operator to develop an 

Emergency Response Plan in consultation with the Coast Guard and state and local agencies. The FERC 

must approve the Emergency Response Plan prior to any final approval to begin construction. Therefore, 

we recommend that: 

• Crown Landing should develop an Emergency Response Plan (including 

evacuation) and coordinate procedures with the Coast Guard, state, county, and 

local emergency planning groups, fire departments, state and local law enforcement, 

and appropriate federal agencies. This plan should include at a minimum: 

a. designated contacts with state and local emergency response agencies; 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-182 

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/methods for residents along the route of the LNG vessel 

transit; 

e. locations of permanent sirens and other warning devices; and 

f. 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 

written approval by the Director of OEP prior to initial site preparation. Crown 

Landing should notify FERC staff of all planning meetings in advance and should 

report progress on the development of its Emergency Response Plan at 3-month

intervals. 

FERC has also received comments on other LNG terminal proposals expressing concern that the 

local community would have to bear some of the cost of ensuring the security and emergency 

management of the LNG facility and the LNG vessels while in transit and unloading at the berth. In 

addition, section 311 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 stipulates that the FERC must require the LNG 

operator to develop an Emergency Response Plan that includes a Cost-Sharing Plan before any final 

approval to begin construction. The Cost-Sharing Plan shall include a description of any direct cost 

reimbursements to any state and local agencies with responsibility for security and safety at the LNG 

terminal and near vessels that serve the facility. To allow the FERC an opportunity to review the plan, we 

recommend that: 

• The Emergency Response Plan should include a Cost-Sharing Plan identifying the 

mechanisms for funding all project-specific security/emergency management costs 

that would be imposed on state and local agencies. In addition to the funding of 

direct transit-related security/emergency management costs, this comprehensive 

plan should include funding mechanisms for the capital costs associated with any 

necessary security/emergency management equipment and personnel base. The 

Cost-Sharing Plan should be filed with the Secretary for review and written 

approval by the Director of OEP prior to initial site preparation. 

4.12.5.1 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 Traffic 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 . 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-183 

If the Coast Guard issues a LOR finding the waterway suitable for LNG marine traffic, the Coast 

Guard would require that one pilot direct the LNG ship throughout the entire approximately 74 nauticalmile transit of Delaware Bay and River to the LNG terminal site. The LNG ships would also be required 

to enter the channel during a rising tide to ensure sufficient water depth for safe navigation. Further, two 

tractor tugs would be required to make fast to the LNG ship to aid in passage beneath the Delaware 

Memorial Bridge. Once the LNG ship arrives at Marcus Hook, an additional tractor tug would escort the 

ship to the LNG terminal. 

If the Coast Guard issues a LOR finding the waterway suitable for LNG marine traffic, the Coast 

Guard would require that the three tugs maneuver the LNG ship to the dock and assist with berthing. It is 

further anticipated that the Coast Guard would require, after the LNG is offloaded, that the ship 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. In addition, at 

least one tug would be required to 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 which would allow the Coast Guard to 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 Traffic 

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 Commercial Vessels Transiting Delaware Bay and River

Destination 1999 2000 2001 2002 

Delaware Memorial Bridge 244 198 206 194 

Marcus Hook Berths 825 837 741 685 

Port of Philadelphia 2,317 2,335 2,309 2,237 

Total 3,386 3,370 3,256 3,116 

___________________ 

Rice Unruh & Raynolds Company (September 2003) 

Three types of vessels are included in the above ship traffic data: crude oil tankers, LPG ships, 

and other commercial vessels (e.g. barges). Less than 1 percent of the total ship traffic on the Delaware 

River are LPG ships. 

In addition, there are 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 traffic in the Delaware Bay 

and River but it is a yachting center and contains many marinas. 

Future Ship Traffic 

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 150 ships each year. This number of additional ships would be 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-184 

approximately double the current number of coal barges delivering to the Logan Pier at Marcus Hook. 

Based on the number of ships alone, the proposed project would have minimal impact on current ship 

traffic. However, if the Coast Guard issues a LOR finding the waterway suitable for LNG marine traffic, 

the vessel security requirements may cause delays to other marine traffic (see section 4.12.5.2 “Impact of 

Vessel and Facility Security Requirements”). 

Ship Traffic 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 (if Coast Guard issues a LOR finding the waterway suitable for LNG 

marine traffic) would enter the bay and river on flood tide, as is currently the case for 

vessels transiting the river with a fresh water draft in excess of 37 feet. 

• Tugs - If the Coast Guard issues a LOR finding the waterway suitable for LNG marine 

traffic, it is anticipated that LNG ships delivering cargo to the proposed terminal would 

have tug support from a point prior to the Delaware Memorial Bridge to the LNG 

terminal, during phases of arrival and departure, channel navigation, and for standby and 

fire 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. LPG ships) up the navigation channel. The 

details of this zone are outlined in RNA requirements for the Delaware River and Bay 

under 33 CFR 165.150. If the Coast Guard issues a LOR finding the waterway suitable 

for LNG marine traffic, it is anticipated that the Coast Guard regulations which would be 

promulgated for the proposed LNG vessels would, at a minimum, be as protective as the 

regulations currently affecting vessels carrying dangerous cargoes within the Delaware 

River and Bay. 

• Reduced Visibility – The Delaware Bay and River experiences fog mostly during spring 

and fall months. If the Coast Guard issues a LOR finding the waterway suitable for LNG 

marine traffic, LNG vessels would not be allowed to transit during times when visibility 

is 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 Winds - Based on initial simulations, Crown Landing believes operations could be 

conducted safely at wind speeds up to 20 knots but that high winds may delay operations. 

Impacts from wind on the LNG shipping schedule are not expected to be significant. 

• Pilotage – If the Coast Guard issues a LOR finding the waterway suitable for LNG 

marine traffic, 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 approximately 2-miles down river of the terminal and then 

proceed to maneuver the vessel to navigate the ship upriver to the LNG terminal berth. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-185 

If the Coast Guard issues a LOR finding the waterway suitable for LNG marine traffic, additional 

navigational safety measures may be necessary for LNG ships based on the procedures to be developed in 

the Coast Guard’s LNG Vessel Transit Management Plan. 

4.12.5.2 Requirements for LNG Ship Operations 

The Coast Guard exercises regulatory authority over LNG facilities that affect the safety and 

security of port areas and navigable waterways under Executive Order 10173; the Magnuson Act (50 

USC section 191); the Ports and Waterways Safety Act of 1972, as amended (33 USC section 1221, et 

seq.); and the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002 (46 USC section 701). The Coast Guard is 

responsible for matters related to navigation safety, vessel engineering and safety standards, and all 

matters pertaining to the safety of facilities or equipment located in or adjacent to navigable waters up to 

the last valve immediately before the receiving tanks. The Coast Guard also has authority for LNG 

facility security plan review, approval and compliance verification as provided in Title 33 CFR Part 105, 

and siting as it pertains to the management of vessel traffic in and around the LNG facility. 

The Coast Guard regulations found 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 Manual to the Captain of the Port Sector Delaware Bay for 

examination. 

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 are specific actions required in the case of a release of LNG (section 

127.321). 

As required by its regulations (section 127.009), the Coast Guard is responsible for issuing a 

Letter of Recommendation (LOR) as to the suitability of the waterway for LNG marine traffic with 

respect to the following items: 

• Density and character of marine traffic; 

• Locks, bridges, or other manmade obstruction in the waterway; and 

• The following factors adjacent to the facility: 

o Depth of water; 

o Tidal range; 

o Protection from high seas; 

o Natural hazards, including reefs, rocks, and sandbars; 

o Underwater pipes and cables; and 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-186 

o Distance of berthed vessels from the channel and the width of the channel. 

On June 14, 2005, the Coast Guard published a Navigation and Vessel Inspection Circular – 

Guidance on Assessing the Suitability of a Waterway for Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Marine Traffic

(NVIC). The purpose of this NVIC is to provide Coast Guard Captains of the Port/Federal Maritime 

Security Coordinators, members of the LNG industry, and port stakeholders with guidance on assessing 

the suitability of a waterway for LNG marine traffic that takes into account conventional navigation 

safety/waterway management issues contemplated by the existing LOI/LOR process, but in addition, will 

also take completely into account maritime security implications. In accordance with this guidance, each 

LNG project applicant is to submit a Waterway Suitability Assessment (WSA) to the cognizant COTP. 

The WSA is to address the transportation of LNG from the LNG tanker’s entrance into U.S. territorial 

waters, through its transit to and from the LNG receiving facility, including operations at the 

vessel/facility interface. In addition, the WSA should address the navigational safety issues and port 

security issues introduced by the proposed LNG operations. The NVIC 05-05 also provides specific 

guidance on the timing and scope of the WSA. 

The process of preparing the LOR begins when an applicant submits a Letter of Intent (LOI) to 

the local Captain of the Port. In accordance with 33 CFR 127.007, Crown Landing submitted a LOI to 

the Coast Guard on July 30, 2004 (see Appendix L). On December 3, 2004, the Coast Guard issued a 

notice in the Federal Register, requesting comments pertaining specifically to the maritime safety and 

security aspects of the proposed LNG Facility. In preparation for issuance of a LOR and the completion 

of certain other regulatory mandates, the comments received were incorporated into a formalized risk 

assessment process to assess the safety and security aspects of the facility, adjacent port areas, and 

navigable waterways. The Coast Guard held a public meeting on January 11, 2005, pursuant to the 

notice, which was attended by about 80 people. The Coast Guard’s comment period ended on January 18, 

2005. 

If the Coast Guard issues a LOR finding the waterway suitable for LNG marine traffic, the 

arrival, transit, cargo transfer, and departure of LNG ships in the Delaware River would be required to 

adhere to the procedures of a LNG Vessel Transit Management Plan to be developed by the Coast Guard 

Sector Delaware Bay. In addition, Crown Landing would develop Operations and Emergency Manuals in 

consultation with the Coast Guard. These procedures would be developed to ensure the safety and 

security of all operations associated with LNG ship transit and unloading. The LNG Vessel Transit 

Management Plan 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 Guard 

inspection and monitoring activities, and emergency operations. The Coast Guard Sector Delaware Bay 

would monitor each LNG ship in accordance with the LNG Vessel Transit Management Plan. 

Some of the anticipated key provisions of the LNG Vessel Transit Management Plan would be 

the establishment of a moving safety and/or security zone for all inbound and moored LNG ships, the use 

of tugs to assist in the Delaware River and to maneuver the ship into the berth, and the requirement that 

tug(s) remain with the LNG ship while it is moored at the berth. Additional provisions may be necessary 

given changing circumstances. 

Crown Landing Waterway Suitability Assessment (WSA) 

On June 14, 2005, Crown Landing submitted a WSA for the proposed project to the Captain of 

the Port for Coast Guard Sector Delaware Bay. The Coast Guard, with input from a special subcommittee 

of the Sector Delaware Bay Area Maritime Security Committee (AMSC), has completed a review of 

Crown Landing’s WSA in accordance with the guidance in NVIC 05-05. The AMSC LNG Review 

Subcommittee was composed of law enforcement, security, and public safety officials from the Federal 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-187 

government, and the states of Delaware, New Jersey and Pennsylvania, as well as regional maritime 

industry professionals. Its review focused on the navigation safety and maritime security risks posed by 

LNG marine traffic, and the measures needed to responsibly manage these security risks. 

Coast Guard Letter to FERC 

On December 1, 2005, the Coast Guard sent a letter to FERC, based on the above WSA and 

AMSC review, providing input on the capability of the port community to implement the risk 

management measures necessary to responsibly manage the risks of LNG marine traffic in the port (see 

Appendix L). As described in this document, the Coast Guard has preliminarily determined that the 

Delaware Bay and Delaware River to the proposed LNG terminal in Logan Township, NJ, may be 

suitable for accommodating the type and frequency of LNG vessels being proposed by the applicant. 

This determination, however, is preliminary because the required NEPA analysis has not yet been 

completed. This determination is also contingent upon the port security community having the 

appropriate resources to implement all the measures necessary to responsibly manage the safety and 

security risks of LNG marine traffic in this area. 

The Coast Guard’s letter to FERC discusses the relevant safety and security issues from the broad 

viewpoint of impact on the entire port, as well as provides a detailed review of specific points of concern 

along the LNG tanker’s proposed transit route. A detailed supplemental letter, also based on the WSA 

and AMFS review, describing the conceptual prevention/mitigation strategies, along with resource needs, 

has also been sent from the Coast Guard to the FERC on December 19, 2005. Specific details of these 

measures have been designated Sensitive Security Information as defined in Title 49 CFR Part 1520. 

Because any unauthorized disclosure of these details could be employed to circumvent the proposed 

security measures, it is not releasable to the public. Additionally, any security plan is a dynamic 

document that is subject to change with advances in technologies and improvements in intelligence 

gathering. 

As a result of the subcommittee’s review, the Coast Guard has preliminarily identified additional 

resources, public and/or private, that would be needed to implement prevention and mitigation strategies 

necessary for LNG operations. As stated in the above mentioned December 1, 2005 letter, neither the 

Coast Guard, nor the other state and local agencies that would have a safety and security role, are 

adequately staffed, equipped or funded to carry out the risk mitigation measures necessary to 

accommodate LNG vessel traffic for the Crown Landing LNG facility at this time. Consequently, the 

Coast Guard has recommended that Crown Landing submit to FERC, concurrent with its Emergency 

Response Plan, a comprehensive plan identifying the mechanisms for funding all project-specific 

security/emergency management costs (see section 4.12.5 “Emergency Response and Evacuation 

Planning”). 

If the Coast Guard issues a LOR finding the waterway suitable for LNG marine traffic, the 

security measures outlined in the letter to FERC and the above mentioned supplemental letter will be 

further developed into a detailed LNG Vessel Transit Management Plan, which would be become the 

basis for appropriate security measures for each Maritime Security threat level. This plan would clearly 

spell out roles, responsibilities and specific procedures for an LNG vessel transiting the Delaware Bay 

and River up to the proposed Crown Landing LNG terminal, as well as for all agencies involved in 

implementing security and safety during the operation. It would be required that, prior to the LNG vessel 

being granted permission to enter the Delaware Bay, both the vessel and facility must be in full 

compliance with the appropriate requirements of the Maritime Transportation Security Act and 

International Ship and Port Facility Security Code, and the security protocols to be established by the 

Captain of the Port in the LNG Vessel Transit Management Plan. The plan may include security 

measures such as: armed Coast Guard and other law enforcement agency vessels to enforce safety and 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-188 

security zones around the LNG vessels while in transit and moored at the terminal; shoreside and aerial 

surveillance along designated sections of the transit route; and other prevention/mitigation strategies. 

We recognize that the LNG Vessel Transit Management Plan would be a dynamic document that 

would be prepared well before import operations would commence, and that the port’s overall security 

picture may change over that time period. New port activities may commence, infrastructure may be 

added, or population density may change. Improvements in technology to detect, deter and defend 

against intentional acts may also develop. Therefore, we recommend that: 

• Crown Landing should annually review its waterway suitability assessment relating 

to LNG vessel traffic for the project; update the assessment to reflect changing 

conditions which may impact the suitability of the waterway for LNG marine 

traffic; provide the updated assessment to the Sector Delaware Bay Captain of the 

Port/Federal Maritime Security Coordinator (COTP/FMSC) for review and 

validation and if appropriate, further action by the COTP/FMSC relating to LNG 

vessel traffic; and provide a copy to FERC staff. 

Impact of Vessel and Facility Security Requirements 

The potential impacts of the proposed LNG vessel traffic for Crown Landing on other 

commercial and recreational boaters can be addressed in relation to several general security requirements: 

1) a moving safety zone for inbound LNG vessels; 2) a security zone around a moored LNG vessel; and 

3) other measures as deemed appropriate. 

If the Coast Guard issues a LOR finding the waterway suitable for LNG marine traffic the Coast 

Guard would promulgate a moving safety zone which would affect other vessels. Pursuant to such a 

regulation, no vessel would be allowed to enter the safety zone without first obtaining permission from 

the Coast Guard Captain of the Port. The Captain of the Port currently places similar restrictions on all 

vessels transiting the Delaware River and Bay carrying certain dangerous cargoes (CDC) by regulation in 

33 CFR 165.510. Presently, the moving safety zone around LPG ships is 1,000 yards ahead and behind, 

and 500 yards on either side of the vessel. If the Coast Guard issues a LOR finding the waterway suitable 

for LNG marine traffic, it is anticipated that the LNG ships would transit about 74 nautical-miles from the 

entrance of the Delaware Bay to the Crown Landing LNG terminal. For the majority of this trip, an LNG 

vessel would travel at an average speed of 10.5 to 11 knots. The LNG vessel would then slow to 

approximately 7 knots as it approaches and passes under the Delaware Memorial Bridge. After that point, 

it would travel at an average speed of 3 knots through the final 2-nautical-miles of the transit. Based on 

these assumed speeds, it would take about 7 hours for LNG ships to complete the trip from the entrance to 

the Delaware Bay to the LNG terminal as that is about the time it takes other deep draft vessels to reach 

the Marcus Hook berths. Minimum visibility conditions would have to be satisfied before the LNG ship 

would be allowed to proceed inbound from the ocean, ensuring that the Coast Guard could adequately 

monitor the safety zone. 

Currently there is a 100 yard security zone for moored or anchored vessels carrying dangerous 

cargo. The regulation provides the Coast Guard and local law enforcement personnel with the authority 

to implement additional control measures within the zone, such as check points, should such action be 

warranted based on a specific threat or credible intelligence. Additionally, it is important to note that the 

requirements of 33 CFR 165.150 were designed to apply to any CDC vessel transiting the Delaware Bay 

and River, and does give consideration to security measures that may be applied to mitigate risk. If the 

Coast Guard issues a LOR finding the waterway suitable for LNG marine traffic, the LNG Vessel Transit 

Management Plan would require a LNG-specific moored vessel security zone. Pursuant to this, although 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-189 

a specific zone has not been determined, one for moored LNG vessels would be designated by the Captain 

of the Port. 

The Coast Guard has preliminarily determined that if appropriate resources were available to 

implement certain necessary security measures, the Delaware River could accommodate the two or three 

LNG carriers per week that would supply Crown Landing’s proposed LNG terminal. This determination 

is preliminary because the required NEPA analysis has not yet been completed. This determination is 

also contingent upon the port security community having the appropriate resources to implement all the 

measures necessary to responsibly manage the safety and security risks of LNG marine traffic in this area. 

If the Coast Guard issues a LOR finding the waterway suitable for LNG marine traffic, in addition to the 

moving safety and security zones around the LNG vessels, it is anticipated that an LNG Vessel Transit 

Management Plan would minimize impact to other ship traffic, the Marcus Hook anchorage, escorts by 

armed law enforcement officials and a variety of waterway and shoreline surveillance measures. The 

Coast Guard preliminarily determined that under normal conditions, these measures should not affect 

vehicular traffic, nor restrict the public’s access to shore side recreation sites or unreasonably impede 

recreational boating. Nor do we believe they would have any other significant impacts. 

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 lanes 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 not be assumed that bridge closures would be used. Other 

alternatives to a complete bridge closure include closing the outboard lanes only, placing law enforcement 

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. 

If moving safety zones, security zones at the terminal, and one-way traffic were implemented, 

they would affect other commercial, ferry, and recreational traffic using the bay 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 zones, if implemented, may have the effect of temporarily limiting some 

commercial shipping route in the Delaware Bay and River to one-way traffic. This presently occurs with 

vessels carrying dangerous cargo (i.e., LPG) which can sometimes delay other vessels using the waterway 

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, and if the Coast Guard issues a LOR finding the waterway 

suitable for LNG marine traffic, as many as 120 to 150 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 vessels 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 LNG 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 LNG vessels per year, and 70 coal barges 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-190 

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 LNG 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-bound 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 routes only cross 

the LNG ship route and conflicts could be managed by schedule coordination. Commercial fishing boats 

might also be affected by the moving safety zone that could be imposed by the Coast Guard as LNG ships 

transit the Delaware Bay and River, particularly if the width of any moving safety 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, any 

moving safety zone regulation that would be promulgated by the Coast Guard would affect a moving zone 

around the ship, so these impacts would be temporary and of short duration at 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 of any 

moving safety zone. If the Coast Guard issues a LOR finding the waterway suitable for LNG marine 

traffic, to mitigate any adverse impacts of moving safety zone, 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 

LPG vessels and for other activities. The current 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 LNG ships. The 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 zone has the greatest potential to encompass the majority of the waterway width. For an LNG 

vessel in transit at traveling between 3 and 11 knots, recreational craft attempting to travel in the opposite 

direction at one of the narrow locations might need to wait between 7 and 26 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 usable width of the Delaware River in this location 

following installation of Crown Landing’s pier would be approximately 3,500 feet wide. Recreational 

vessels would have ample room to pass by or have only minor delays. 

During the public meetings, several people commented on the cost of applying additional security 

measures and the potential burden on local taxpayers. To meet its anticipated security responsibilities the 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-191 

Coast Guard most likely would need to request additional resources through its internal resource 

reprogramming process for inclusion in future appropriations. Additional funding for state and local 

resources would be provided by Crown Landing. In order to precisely determine the additional resources 

that would be necessary to provide the additional security to ensure safe transit of the LNG vessels, it 

would be necessary to finalize the LNG Vessel Transit Management Plan. Funding for security and 

management costs are discussed further in section 4.12.5 “Emergency Response and Evacuation 

Planning”. 

While the LOR would 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 security zones would be addressed later in the development of the Coast 

Guard’s LNG Vessel Transit Management Plan. This plan would be developed in conjunction with state 

and local law enforcement and emergency response communities. In addition, the Coast Guard would 

establish a moving safety zone and moored vessel 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 these zones. 

4.12.5.3 Environmental Impacts Associated with Coast Guard Actions 

The Coast Guard's issuance of a LOR is a federal action which requires compliance with NEPA, 

just as the FERC's authorization for construction and operation of a LNG facility requires compliance 

with NEPA. Alternatives regarding these actions are discussed in section 3. 

Some of the potential environmental impacts resulting from LNG vessel activities and transit 

would not be unique to LNG carriers and may also be addressed by previous Coast Guard NEPA analyses 

for existing regulations. Per the Coast Guard NVIC 05-05, all required Coast Guard NEPA analysis and 

documentation must be complete prior to the issuance of any LOR. 

Potential impacts on wildlife and aquatic resources are discussed in section 4.6. The potential 

impacts that result from LNG vessels in transit would be similar to those resulting from other ships using 

the navigation channel. Impacts include those related to prop wash, invasive species, and water 

withdrawal for ballast and cooling. Although no significant impacts on wildlife or aquatic resources a 

result of LNG marine traffic is expected, we recommend in section 4.6.2 that Crown Landing continue to 

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. 

LNG ships and support vessels would emit criteria pollutants, VOCs and HAPs during transit. 

We have identified the magnitude of these emissions in section 4.11.1. LNG vessel emissions while in 

transit and during maneuvers are considered indirect emissions and are applicable towards the general 

conformity determination (see Appendix K). Currently emissions from the LNG ships while at berth 

would be subject to Delaware state permitting. However, should the location or jurisdiction of the dock 

change to New Jersey, emissions from the LNG ship while at berth would be included in the general 

conformity determination. All LNG ship and support vessel emissions while in transit would be required 

to conform to the Delaware SIP. 

The LNG tanker would be operating in the federally approved channel and anchorage area en 

route to the terminal. We believe the use of this channel is consistent with the coastal zone management 

plan. Consistency with the Coastal Zone plans would be determined by New Jersey and Delaware as 

appropriate. The coastal effects associated with the Project, including coastal effects resulting from 

vessel transit, are addressed in section 4.8.3 to the extent this statute is applicable. As such, consistency 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-192 

with the CZMA is required as appropriate. We have recommended conditions in sections 4.8.3.1 and 

4.8.3.2 that Crown Landing obtain CZMA consistency from each state. 

The potential impacts associated with a release of LNG are discussed generally in the preceding 

and following sections. The establishment of temporary safety and security zones by the Coast Guard has 

been considered as a potential effect on recreational use of the waterway (see section 4.8.5). However, 

we do not expect these zones to have a significant effect on environmental resources. 

As a linear feature, the LNG transit corridor transects an assemblage of varying socioeconomic 

character determined by the presence of the waterway or other adjacent features. Further, the shipping 

route used by LNG vessels is not discretional. That is, the corridor was developed prior to the concept of 

its use for LNG traffic and alternative corridors are not available. Therefore, it is not possible to 

determine the vessel transit corridor based on environmental justice considerations. 

The transit corridor for the LNG carriers would traverse open water and estuarine habitats. 

Approximately 21 miles of the transit corridor are within confined waters where shoreline could be 

affected by accidental spills. Portions of the transit corridor are proximal to shoreline habitats from 

Elsinboro Point to the LNG terminal site, as most of the transit route is open water. Shoreline habitats 

adjacent to the transit corridor include salt marsh, emergent wetlands, forested wetlands, grasslands, 

upland forest, and shrublands. The aquatic and shoreline habitats support a variety of wildlife which are 

described in section 4.6 and 4.7. Figure 4.12.5-2 shows the potential extent of hazard distance from an 

accidental spill, the locations of significant parks, refuges, and other public recreation areas along the 

transit corridor. The Coast Guard would manage the Markus Hook Anchorage Area to allow the LNG 

ships into and out of the berth at the LNG terminal, there would be no environmental effect on the Marcus 

Hook Anchorage Area. 

LNG is less dense than fresh or sea water, so it floats on the surface. Immediately upon contact 

with any warmer substance such as water or air, it begins to evaporate. As the LNG vaporizes, a vapor 

cloud may form which is initially heavier than air and may be dispersed by wind. An LNG vapor cloud 

cannot explode in the open atmosphere, but it could burn. 

Since LNG is a cryogenic liquid, the greatest threat to aquatic life from an LNG spill would be 

thermal stress. Any aquatic life (including plankton, fish, birds, sea turtles, marine mammals, and any 

federally-listed species) that came into direct contact with the LNG would probably experience a sudden 

cold shock, and, depending in what context that contact occurred, the exposure could be lethal, especially 

to non-motile species. Most mobile underwater organisms would detect the temperature change and 

avoid the area. Wildlife occupying the water’s surface near the release could intercept the vapor cloud 

and suffer asphyxiation. However, the duration of this exposure is short, as noted below. Impacts to 

shoreline habitats and associated wildlife could occur, primarily, through the subsequent ignition of the 

LNG. The potential damage could involve the combustion of both vegetation and wildlife. 

The accident scenarios evaluated in Section 4.12.5.4 include release and ignition of natural gas 

formed by evaporation of spilled LNG. Natural gas combustion typically is not complete in spill 

scenarios. The products of incomplete combustion of natural gas include criteria pollutants, ozone 

precursors, toxic air contaminants and soot (carbon particulates). It should be noted that LNG fires 

typically do not last as long as liquid petroleum fires. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-193 

Non-Internet Public 

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE 

CROWN LANDING LNG PROJECT and 

LOGAN LATERAL PROJECT 

Docket Nos. CP04-411-000 and CP04-416-000 

Figure 4.12.5-2 Potential Sensitive Resources Along Ship Route 

Public access for the above information is available only 

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

public.referenceroom@ferc.gov. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-194 

The duration of an ignited accidental LNG spill detailed in 4.12.5.4 is approximately 48 minutes. 

For an ignited intentional LNG spill, the duration is approximately 11 minutes. The maximum increases 

in ambient pollutant concentrations due to the natural gas fire would occur downwind of the LNG spill. 

Ambient air pollutant concentrations in downwind areas could potentially exceed short-term NAAQS and 

State Ambient Air Quality Standards over the duration of the fire as well as soot deposition and 

diminished visibility due to soot transport. Given the distance to shore from a potential fire from most of 

the transit route in the Delaware Bay or River, it is unlikely that sensitive receptors (i.e., schools, day care 

centers, hospitals, retirement homes, convalescence facilities, and residences) would be exposed to 

substantial pollutant concentrations for a significant period. In the more populated area of the transit 

route closer to the terminal some of these receptors may be exposed to higher pollutant concentrations for 

the short duration of the fire. There would be no long-term effects. 

The pool formed from an unignited accidental LNG spill would completely evaporate in 

approximately 94 minutes. For an ignited intentional LNG spill, the pool would completely evaporate in 

approximately 7 minutes. As natural gas is not a criteria pollutant, no air quality impact would be 

expected from the evaporation of the LNG spill. However, methane, the primary component of LNG, is 

considered a greenhouse case and may contribute to global warming (Coast Guard, 2005). 

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

significant quantities of LNG being released. No incidents have occurred at existing LNG terminals 

during the 50 years of operation that resulted in any significant quantities of cargoes being released. 

Historically, the events most likely to cause a significant release of LNG were ship casualties such as 

collisions, allisions9, or groundings. Any event causing a release of LNG would have to occur with 

sufficient impact to breach the LNG ship’s double hull and cargo tanks. During the 44,000 voyages that 

have been completed since the inception of LNG maritime transportation, there has not been a serious 

accident at sea or in a port which resulted in a spill due to rupturing of the cargo tanks. 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 local pilots, the likelihood of a cargo containment 

failure and subsequent LNG spill from a vessel casualty – collision, grounding, or allision – is highly 

unlikely. However, the possibility of an LNG spill from a ship over the duration of the proposed Project 

must be considered. 

Given that an LNG cargo spill is highly unlikely, no significant socioeconomic impact associated 

with an accidental LNG release along the transit route would be expected. As described below, the 

duration of an LNG pool fire would be of short duration, i.e., from 1 to 2 1⁄2 hours. If there is an LNG 

spill on the transit route, it may result in a temporary interruption in ship traffic in the navigation channel; 

however, traffic in the navigation channel would quickly resume normal operations and any economic 

impact on the maritime industry would be minimal. 

If a pool fire occurred where the transit route is closer to shore, businesses within 2,200 feet of 

the center of a spill could be subject to a long-term loss of use. Vegetation and wooden structures 

subjected to greater than 3,000 Btu/ft2-hr10 may ignite. However, because the hazard area surrounding an 

LNG cargo vessel is transient (moving with the vessel along its route) it is not possible to accurately 

quantify the economic impact of an incident. Section 4.12.5.4 discusses the effects of an LNG spill in 

greater detail. 

 

9

 “Allision” is the action of dashing against or striking upon a stationary object (e.g., the running of one ship upon another ship that is docked) 

– distinguished from “collision,” which is used to refer to two moving ships striking one another. 10 At 3,000 Btu/ft2

-hr, an exposed person would experience burns within 10 seconds, however a wooden structure would not be expected to 

burn and affords protection to sheltered persons. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-195 

In accordance with Section 311 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, we recommend in section 

4.12.5 that Crown Landing develop an Emergency Response Plan in consultation with the Coast Guard 

and state and local agencies that includes a Cost-Sharing Plan before any final approval to begin 

construction. Therefore, no long-term impact relating to emergency evacuation of communities would be 

expected. 

The December 2004 Sandia Report, discussed in section 4.12.5 “Deliberate Attack on an LNG 

Vessel”, included an analysis of potential LNG cargo tank breaches due to accidental causes. The report 

found that accidental groundings, collisions with small vessels and low speed collisions with large vessels 

could cause minor ship damage but would not result in a cargo spill. This is due to the protection 

provided by the double hull structure, the insulation layer and the primary cargo tank of an LNG vessel. 

We do not believe that there would be any environmental significance attributed to these types of 

accidents. 

High speed collisions with large vessels striking at 90 degrees were found to potentially cause 

cargo tank breach areas of 0.5 to 1.5 square meters. For the resulting LNG spill and pool fire on water, 

the Sandia Report determined that the most significant impact on public safety and property would exist 

within about 800 feet, with minimal impact beyond 2,400 feet. Depending on the actual size of the cargo 

tank breach, the duration of the spill and ensuing pool fire could range from approximately 1 to 2 1⁄2 

hours. Using the methodology in the ABSG study, FERC staff determined that the site-specific distance 

to the 1,600 Btu/ft2-hr transient hazard area for an accidental cargo tank breach in the Delaware Bay and 

River would be approximately 2,867 feet. 

However, if the Coast Guard issues a LOR finding the waterway suitable for LNG marine traffic, 

it must also be recognized that the operational controls that would be imposed by the Coast Guard and 

local pilots, such as a moving LNG vessel safety zone and one-way traffic in narrow channels, would be 

specifically designed to prevent the collision scenarios that could result in an LNG cargo tank breach. As 

a result, the likelihood of an LNG spill from accidental causes is considered to be negligible. 

In the unlikely event of an LNG spill, the physical properties of LNG would limit any potential 

impacts. If spilled into water, the cryogenic liquid would vaporize rapidly upon contact with the warm air 

and water over a period of approximately 1 to 2 1⁄2 hours. Being less dense than water, LNG would float 

on the surface prior to vaporizing. Because LNG is not soluble in water and the LNG would completely 

vaporize shortly after being spilled, there would be no liquid left that could mix with and/or contaminate 

the water. 

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 the unlikely event that 

ignition did not occur, an LNG spill would rapidly vaporize on water and form a potentially flammable 

cloud. If the flammable vapor cloud encountered an ignition source, the cloud would burn back to the 

spill site, rather than outward towards shoreline habitats. 

Given these considerations, impacts to shoreline habitats as a result of an accidental LNG spill are 

unlikely to occur. A spill would be unlikely to result in significant impacts to shoreline habitats and 

wildlife that occur along the transit route. Hazard distances for intentional breaches are discussed in 

section 4.12.5.4. Although an intentional breach scenario may result in greater hazard distances, such 

scenarios are associated with the desire to inflict damage to major infrastructure, population and 

commercial centers, rather than to environmentally sensitive areas along the vessel route. Also, given the 

navigation controls and safety and security procedures in place to specifically prevent such accidents and 

intentional spill scenarios, the indirect impact associated with Coast Guard actions are not reasonably 

foreseeable events. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-196 

As discussed in section 4.12.5.2, if the Coast Guard issues a LOR finding the waterway suitable 

for LNG marine traffic, the Coast Guard may establish a moving safety zone, moored vessel security 

zone, and/or a regulated navigation area around the transiting LNG vessels and provide some level of 

escort as part of finalizing the LNG Vessel Traffic Management Plan. The LNG vessels would also 

undergo safety and security inspections to ensure compliance with U.S. and international standards. In 

addition, the LNG facility would submit a facility security plan for review and approval by the Coast 

Guard. However, due to uncertainty in the scope, frequency, prevailing maritime security levels, and the 

number of resources that would be dedicated on a recurring or episodic basis, the Coast Guard would 

ensure the appropriate NEPA environmental documentation for such actions is complete prior to 

commencement of these activities rather than in this EIS. 

4.12.5.4 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 Distrigas facility in Everett, 

Massachusetts. To date, more than 680 cargoes, with volumes ranging from 60,000 to 125,000 m3

, have 

been delivered into the Port of Boston without incident. During 2005, an estimated total of 631 billion 

cubic feet (241 cargoes) of LNG was imported into the United States. For 35 years, LNG shipping 

operations have been safely conducted in the United States. The world’s LNG ship fleet currently 

exceeds 173 carriers. 

Over the last 45 years, LNG ships have made over 44,000 voyages. 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 44,000 voyages that have been completed since the inception of LNG maritime 

transportation, there has not been a serious accident at sea or in a port which resulted in a spill due to 

rupturing of the cargo tanks. However, insurance records, industry sources, and public websites identify a 

number of incidents involving LNG vessels, including minor collisions with other vessels of all sizes, 

groundings, minor LNG releases during cargo unloading operations, and mechanical/equipment failures 

typical of large vessels. Some of the more significant LNG vessel 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. 

• El Paso Paul 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 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.

• Isabella 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.

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-197 

• Tellier 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 arms spilled onto the 

deck causing fracture of some plating. 

• Mostefa Ben Boulaid had LNG spill onto its deck during loading operations in Algeria in 

2002. The spill, which is believed to have been caused by overflow rather than a 

mechanical failure, caused significant brittle fracturing of the steelwork. The ship was 

required to discharge its cargo, after which it proceeded to dock for repair. 

• Khannur had a cargo tank overfill into the ship’s vapor handling system on September 

10, 2001 during unloading at Everett, Massachusetts. Approximately 100 gallons of 

LNG were vented and sprayed onto the protective decking over the cargo tank dome, 

resulting in several cracks. After re-inspection by the Coast Guard, the Khannur was 

allowed to discharge its LNG cargo. 

• 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. 

• Tenaga Lima grounded on rocks while proceeding to open sea east of Mopko, South 

Korea due to strong current in November 2004. The shell plating was torn open and 

fractured over an approximate area of 20 feet by 80 feet, and internal breaches allowed 

water to enter the insulation space between the primary and secondary membranes. The 

ship was refloated, repaired and returned to service. 

• Golar Freeze moved away from its docking berth during unloading on March 14, 2006 in 

Savannah, Georgia. The powered emergency release couplings on the unloading arms 

activated as designed and transfer operations were shut down. 

Ship Construction 

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 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 LNG ships in 49 CFR Part 154 were being 

developed. LNG carriers used in the U.S. waters must also be 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. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-198 

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 are normally separated from the inner hull by a layer of insulation 

approximately 1-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 (FPC, 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. 

The previous FPC study estimated the additional protection afforded by the double-hull would be 

effective in low energy collisions, and 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, EcoEléctrica L.P. prepared an 

analysis of the damage that could result from an oil tanker striking an LNG ship at berth (FERC, 1996). 

The analysis assumed a 125,000 m3

 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 LNG ship for a range of potential collision angles. The resulting minimum striking 

speeds are presented in table 4.12.5-2 for the two principal cargo systems. 

TABLE 4.12.5-2 

Minimum Striking Speed to Penetrate LNG Cargo Tanks

 Minimum Striking Speed (knots) 

Angle of Impact Spherical Tanks Membrane Tanks 

Greater than 60 degrees 4.5 3 

45 degrees 6.3 4 

30 degrees 9 6 

15 degrees 18 12 

For membrane tanks, the critical beam-on striking speed is 3.0 knots, and for spherical 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 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-199 

impact speed is 3.2 knots. In neither case does such an impact result in damage to the LNG cargo 

containment system or the release of LNG. 

In December 2004, the DOE released a study by Sandia National Laboratories, Sandia Report. 

The Sandia 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, collisions with 

small vessels and low speed (less than 7 knots) collisions with large vessels striking at 90 degrees could 

cause minor ship damage but would not result in a cargo spill. This is due to the protection provided by 

the double hull structure, the insulation layer, and the primary cargo tank of an LNG vessel. High speed 

(12 knots) collisions with large vessels striking at 90 degrees were found to potentially cause cargo tank 

breach areas of 0.5 to 1.5 square meters. 

Hazards 

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 

sufficient magnitude to rupture an LNG cargo tank, the damage would occur under water and the 

potential for ignition would be less than for collisions or allisions. In either case, an LNG spill would 

rapidly vaporize from contact with water and form a potentially flammable cloud. If not ignited, the 

flammable vapor cloud would 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 limit) 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 consistent 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. 

For an instantaneous one-tank spill with ignition, the final EIS for the Calcasieu LNG Project 

estimated that a hazardous thermal radiation level of 5,300 Btu/hr-ft2

 would extend 3,595 feet from the 

center of the spill. For an instantaneous one-tank spill without ignition, the final EIS for the Yukon 

Pacific LNG Project (FERC, March 1995) estimated that potentially flammable vapors could travel up to 

3.3 miles with a 10 mph wind and typical atmospheric stability. 

In October 2001, the use of a one-tank instantaneous release as the "worst case" scenario was reexamined by Quest Consultants, Inc. (Quest) as part of an effort by the DOE to determine the hazards 

associated with reopening the Distrigas LNG import terminal following the terrorist attacks of September 

11, 2001. It was determined that time-release spills through 1-meter and 5-meter diameter holes would 

more accurately simulate credible "worst case" damage scenarios. Maximum flammable vapor cloud and 

radiation hazards were calculated for the two spill scenarios. For a spill on water with ignition, the 

maximum distance to a radiant flux level of 1,500 Btu/ft2

-hr was estimated to be 1,770 feet. For a spill on 

water without ignition, a flammable vapor cloud of 2.5 miles was estimated. In November 2003, in 

response to comments concerning its October 2001 study, Quest clarified that its study only applied to 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-200 

LNG spills resulting from a collision with a large ship in Boston’s Outer Harbor where waves would 

restrict the spreading of LNG on water. 

Since the 2001 Quest study, there has been an emergence of studies by various parties to define 

the “worst case” scenario that would result from a deliberate, terrorist attack on an LNG ship and the 

subsequent release of cargo. Distances have been estimated to range from 1,770 to 4,200 feet for a 

thermal radiation level of 1,500 Btu/ft2

-hr. Part of the reason for the apparent discrepancies is the lack of 

large-scale historical incidents, and the need to extrapolate small-scale field test data to a worst case 

event. This inevitably leads to differing conservative assumptions among the various parties. For 

example, some models calculate a time-release cargo discharge through 1-meter or 5-meter diameter 

holes, while others assume that the cargo tank empties instantaneously. 

As a result, the FERC commissioned a study by ABSG to search and review the literature on 

experimental LNG spills and on consequence methodologies that are applicable to modeling incidents of 

LNG spills on water. Further, the goal of the study was to identify appropriate methods for estimating 

flammable vapor and thermal radiation hazard distances for potential LNG vessel cargo releases during 

transit and while at berth. The resulting study, Consequence Assessment Methods for Incidents Involving 

Releases from Liquefied Natural Gas Carriers, was released for public comment on May 14, 2004. On 

June 18, 2004, staff's responses to comments on the consequence assessment methods were issued. As 

discussed in greater detail in staff's responses, various components of the consequence assessment 

methodologies were revised based on comments received. In addition, the model was updated to include 

a lower limit on the characteristic wind speed. The revised study provides the methodology for 

calculating: (1) the rate of release of LNG from a cargo tank penetration for various sized holes; (2) the 

spreading of an unconfined LNG pool on water for both continuous spills and rapid (nearly instantaneous) 

releases; (3) the rate of vapor generation from a unconfined spill on water; (4) thermal radiation distances 

for LNG pool fires on water; and (5) and flammable vapor dispersion distances. 

A detailed evaluation of the consequences of a terrorist attack on a modern membrane LNG 

tanker was prepared by Lloyds Register North America for the Weaver’s Cove LNG Project and filed 

under CEII. The study evaluated the consequences of attacks on an LNG tanker by missiles and 

explosives. Finite element analysis was used to evaluate the effect of various sized charges on both the 

outer and inner hulls. A 1-meter diameter hole of the inner hull at the waterline was found to be the 

average most probable “worst case” scenario for hazard consequence assessments. This finding is 

consistent with the attack on the double-hull oil tanker Limberg which caused greater than a 5-meter 

diameter hole on the outer hull but only minor damage to the inner hull. A failure modes and effects 

analysis was used to understand internal LNG release characteristics; and a residual strength analysis used 

to investigate damage scenarios for a loaded LNG tanker. 

The December 2004 Sandia 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 square meters 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 square meters. In most cases, an intentional breaching 

scenario would not result in a nominal hole of more than 5 to 7 square meters, 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 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-201 

impacts beyond 1,600 meters (5,250 feet). Large, unignited LNG vapor releases were found to be 

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 or 6,300 to 6,825 feet), but would increase 

the expected fire duration. RPTs are possible for large spills but the effects would be localized near the 

spill source 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 calculate 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 typical 

140,000 m3 LNG ship, a potential spill of 23,000 m3 is estimated for the volume of LNG 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 18o F, a relative 

humidity of 30 percent, and a 20 mile per hour wind speed. 

TABLE 4.12.5-3 

LNG Spills on Water

LNG Release and Spread 

Hole diameter 1.0 meter 1.4 meters 2.5 meters 3.0 meters 3.9 meters 

Hole area 0.8 meter2 1.5 meters2 5.0 meters2 7.0 meters2 12.0 meters2

Spill time 94.0 minutes 48.0 minutes 15.0 minutes 10.4 minutes 6.2 minutes 

Pool Fire Calculations 

Maximum pool 

radius 340 feet 477 feet 816 feet 939 feet 1,102 feet 

Fire duration 94.1 minutes 48.1 minutes 15.2 minutes 10.7 minutes 6.5 minutes 

Distance to: 

1,600 Btu/ft2-hr 2,239 feet 2,861 feet 4,343 feet 4,833feet 5,457 feet 

3,000 Btu/ft2-hr 1,746 feet 2,245 feet 3,352 feet 3,726 feet 4,201 feet 

10,000 Btu/ft2-hr 1,075 feet 1,369 feet 2,020 feet 2,239 feet 2,518 feet 

However, Crown Landing proposes the potential use of up to a 200,000 m3 LNG ship. The 

limited information available regarding the design of future 200,000 m3 LNG ships suggests that the draft 

of the larger ships would remain the same due to the limited draft of the channel, while the length and 

width of the larger ships would increase. This would in effect increase the length and width of the cargo 

tanks, but not change the height, therefore not change the hydrostatic head. Preliminary information 

shows that the larger class ships would have five cargo tanks instead of four as on the 140,000 m3 ships. 

For a 200,000 m3 LNG ship compared to the results for a 140,000 m3 ship, the estimated distance to the 

1,600 Btu/ft2-hr zones would be less than 3 percent farther and the fire duration would be extended by 

about 13 percent. 

Although Crown Landing would design the terminal and unloading berth for LNG ships with 

capacities up to 200,000 m3, detailed dimensions of these future ships and the associated cargo tanks is 

unavailable. FERC staff was required to make assumptions in order to analyze the LNG spills on water 

from these larger ships. Therefore, in order to allow the Coast Guard to determine the continued 

suitability of the waterway for LNG marine traffic, we recommend that: 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-202 

• Prior to accepting ships greater than 140,000 m3

 in capacity, Crown Landing should 

provide the necessary information to demonstrate that the transient hazard areas 

identified in the final EIS are applicable. Crown Landing should file this 

information with the Secretary for review and written approval of the Director of 

OEP. This information should also be provided to the Coast Guard.

Flammable vapor dispersion calculations were based on an ambient temperature of 49 oF, 50 

percent relative humidity, a 4.5 mph wind speed and atmospheric stability class F. Based on a 1-meterdiameter hole, an unignited release would result in an estimated pool radius of 421 feet. The unignited 

vapor cloud would extend to 9,736 feet to the lower flammability limit and 13,171 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 1-meter-diameter hole by penetrating the outer hull, the inner hull, and cargo containment without 

ignition. Far more credible is that the event creating a 1-meter-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 1-meter-diameter hole before encountering an ignition source. 

The inbound transit through the Delaware Bay ship channel would pass by Cape May, Arnold 

Point, Elsinboro Point, and Pennsville, New Jersey on the east side and Cape Henlopen, Delaware Point, 

Port Penn, Delaware City, and New Castle, Delaware on the west side. After passing New Castle, 

Delaware on the west side, the LNG vessel would pass through the Delaware Memorial Bridge, and by 

Penns Grove and Pedricktown, New Jersey on the east side and Wilmington, Edgemoor, Bellefonte, 

Claymont, and Marcus Hook, Delaware on the west side. Some areas of development along the shoreline 

in these communities would be within a potential transient hazard area during the LNG vessel transit; 

while a small part of Marcus Hook and a generating station would be exposed to a potential hazard while 

the LNG vessel is at the dock and unloading cargo. 

The LNG ship would transit approximately 74 nautical-miles from the entrance of the Delaware 

Bay to the Crown Landing LNG terminal. The LNG vessel would transit the Delaware Bay at an average 

speed of 10.5 - 11 knots resulting in the adjacent communities located within the 4,883-foot distance to 

the 1,600 Btu/ft2-hr thermal radiation level for a nominal 3-meter diameter hole to be exposed to a 

potential transient thermal hazard for less than 10 minutes. After passing New Castle, Delaware on the 

west side the LNG vessel would slow to approximately 7 knots as it passes under the Delaware Memorial 

Bridge and makes it way upriver to within approximately 2 nautical miles of the Crown Landing 

Terminal. After that point the LNG vessel would travel at an average speed of 3 knots until reaching the 

Crown Landing terminal. While transiting the Delaware River after the Delaware Memorial Bridge, the 

transient hazard to shoreside communities would be approximately 30 minutes. In addition, a temporary 

hazard would exist around the slip during part of the 16- to 17-hour period while the LNG vessel is 

maneuvering and berthed at the dock including a portion of Allied Pier Chemical Ships located in Marcus 

Hook, the Logan power plant, Ferro Chemical Plant, a tanker truck cleaning area, and Marcus Hook 

Anchorage #1. 

For potential spills near Elsinboro, New Jersey, the number of housing units located within the 

4,883-foot distance to the 1,600 Btu/ft2-hr transient hazard area would be approximately 130. In the 

vicinity of Pennsville, New Jersey and New Castle, Delaware, 510 and 360 housing units would be 

located in the transient hazard area. About 1,710 and 160 housing units in Edgemoor and Bellefonte, 

Delaware would be located in the transient hazard area. Additionally, about 2,890 and 750 housing units 

in Claymont and Marcus Hook, Delaware would be located in the 1,600 Btu/ft2-hr transient hazard area. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-203 

In addition, the potential impact on the infrastructure and industrial development was also 

evaluated. A thermal radiation level of 10,000 Btu/ft2-hr is associated with potential damage to 

equipment and infrastructure. A fire associated with a potential spill resulting from a nominal cargo tank 

hole of an intentional event could expose the following infrastructure and industry within approximately 

2,239 feet to a thermal radiation level of 10,000 Btu/ft2-hr for 10- to 15-minutes: a small portion of the 

Allied Pier at Marcus Hook; approximately 1.3 miles of Interstate 495; approximately 1.5 miles of the 

Amtrak and Septa Transit railways; Dupont Edgemoor; a small portion of the Port of Wilmington; a small 

portion of Dupont Chamberworks; and the Delaware Memorial Bridge. In addition, a fire associated with 

a potential spill in the vicinity of Crown Landing’s dock resulting from a nominal cargo tank hole of an 

intentional event could expose the proposed LNG storage tanks to a thermal radiation level of 10,000 

Btu/ft2-hr for 10- to 15-minutes. 

For potential spills due to an accidental breach, a small portion of the residential area of 

Edgemoor was identified within the 2,891-foot distance to the 1,600 Btu/ft2-hr transient hazard area. 

Additional shore-side outdoor public use areas identified within 1,600 Btu/ft2-hr transient hazard area due 

to an accidental breach include Fox Point State Park, Pea Patch Island (Fort Delaware State Park), and 

Elsinboro Point. 

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 “worst case” intentional breach scenarios 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 “worst case” intentional breach 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, Subpart J - 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 Part 127. Requirements for 

maintaining security of the marine terminal are in 33 CFR Part 105. 

In the aftermath of the terrorist attacks that occurred 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 information 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 CEII is not readily available (RM02-4-000 and PL02-1-000 issued February 20, 2003). 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-204 

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 

information 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 established a new subchapter H in 33 CFR. In support of the rulemakings, the Coast Guard 

applied a risk-based 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 more 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; 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-205 

• 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 detect, 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 infrastructure, 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 Pipeline 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 rupture. 

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 

RSPA’s, OPS, administers the national regulatory program to ensure the safe transportation of natural gas 

and other hazardous materials by pipeline. It develops safety regulations and other approaches to risk 

management that ensure safety in the design, construction, testing, operation, maintenance, and 

emergency response of pipeline facilities. Many of the regulations are written as performance standards 

which set the level of safety to be 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 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-206 

boundaries; however, the DOT is responsible for enforcement action. The majority of the states have 

either 5(a) certifications or 5(b) agreements, while nine states act as interstate agents. 

The DOT pipeline standards are published in Parts 190-199 of Title 49 of the CFR. Part 192 of 

49 CFR specifically addresses natural gas pipeline safety issues. 

Under a Memorandum of Understanding on Natural Gas Transportation Facilities (Memorandum) 

dated January 15, 1993 between 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(a)(9)(vi) of 

the FERC's regulations require that an applicant certify that it will design, install, inspect, test, construct, 

operate, replace, and maintain the facility for which a certificate is requested in accordance with federal 

safety standards and plans for maintenance and inspection, or shall certify that it has been granted a 

waiver of the requirements of the safety standards by the DOT in accordance with section 3(e) of the 

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 aboveground 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 area classifications are defined as follows: 

Class 1 Location with 10 or fewer buildings intended for human occupancy. 

Class 2 Location with more than 10 but less than 46 buildings intended for human 

occupancy. 

Class 3 Location with 46 or more buildings intended for human occupancy or where the 

pipeline lies within 100 yards of any building, or small well-defined outside area 

occupied by 20 or more people on at least 5 days a week for 10 weeks in any 12-

month period. 

Class 4 Location where buildings with four or more stories aboveground are prevalent. 

Class locations representing more populated areas require higher safety factors in pipeline design, 

testing, and operation. Pipelines constructed on land in Class 1 locations must be installed with a 

minimum depth of cover of 30 inches in normal soil and 18 inches in consolidated rock. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-207 

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 1, 7.5 miles 

in Class 2, 4.0 miles in Class 3, and 2.5 miles in Class 4). Pipe wall thickness and pipeline design 

pressures, hydrostatic test pressures, 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 centerline to other nearby structures 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.

In 2002, Congress passed an act to strengthen the Nation's pipeline safety laws. The Pipeline 

Safety Improvement Act of 2002 (HR 3609) was passed by Congress on November 15, 2002, and signed 

into law by the President in December, 2002. No later than December 17, 2004, gas transmission 

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 series of rules 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 first method an HCA includes 

• current class 3 and 4 locations; 

• any area in Class 1 or 2 where the potential impact radius11 is greater than 660 feet and 

there are 20 or more buildings intended for human occupancy within the potential impact 

circle12; or 

• any area in Class 1 or 2 where the potential impact circle includes an identified site13. 

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. 

 

11 The potential impact radius is calculated as the product of 0.69 and the square root of the maximum allowable operating pressure of the 

pipeline in psi multiplied by the pipeline diameter in inches. 12 The potential impact circle is a circle of radius equal to the potential impact radius. 13 An identified site is an outside area or open structure that is occupied by 20 or more persons on at least 50 days in any 12-month period; a 

building that is occupied by 20 or more persons on at least 5 days a week for any 10 weeks in any 12-month period; or a facility that is 

occupied by persons who are confined, are of impaired mobility, or would be difficult to evacuate. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-208 

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. 

Texas Eastern would identify HCAs once the pipeline design has been undertaken to determine 

the pipeline centerline with respect to other structures or identified sites. 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 potential 

hazards. 

Part 192 requires that each operator must establish and maintain liaison with appropriate fire, 

police, and public officials to learn the resources and responsibilities of each organization that may 

respond to a natural gas pipeline emergency, and to coordinate mutual assistance. The operator must also 

establish a continuing education program to enable customers, the public, government officials, and those 

engaged in excavation activities to recognize a gas pipeline emergency and report it to appropriate public 

officials. 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 report on form F7100.2 within 20 

days. Reportable incidents are defined as any leaks that: 

• caused a death or personal injury requiring hospitalization; 

• required taking any segment of transmission line out of service; 

• resulted in gas ignition; 

• caused estimated damage to the property of the operator, or others, or both, of a total of 

$5,000 or more; 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-209 

• required immediate repair on a transmission line; 

• occurred while testing with gas or another medium; or 

• in the judgment of the operator was significant, even though it did not meet the above 

criteria. 

The DOT changed reporting requirements after June 1984 to reduce the amount of data collected. 

Since that date, operators must only report incidents that involve property damage of more than $50,000, 

injury, death, release of gas, or that are otherwise considered significant by the operator. Table 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 through 2005, recognizing the difference in reporting requirements. The 14.5-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.14

TABLE 4.12.7-1 

Natural Gas Service Incidents by Cause

Cause Incidents per 1,000 miles of Pipeline (percentage) 

1970-1984 1986-2005 

Outside force 0.70 (53.8) 0.10 (38.5) 

Corrosion 0.22 (16.9) 0.06 (23.1) 

Construction or material defect 0.27 (20.8) 0.04 (15.4) 

Other 0.11 ( 8.5) 0.06 (23.1) 

Total 1.30 0.26 

During the 14.5-year period, 5,862 service incidents were reported over the more than 300,000 

total miles of natural gas transmission and gathering systems nationwide. Service incidents, defined as 

failures that occur during pipeline operation, have remained fairly constant over this period with no clear 

upward or downward trend in annual totals. In addition, 2,013 test failures were reported. Correction of 

test failures removed defects from the pipeline before operation. 

Additional insight into the nature of service incidents may be 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 4.12.7-2 shows that human error in 

equipment usage was responsible for approximately 75 percent of outside forces incidents. Since April 

1982, operators have been required to participate in "One Call" public utility programs in populated areas 

to minimize unauthorized excavation activities in the vicinity of pipelines. The "One Call" program is a 

service used by public utilities and some private sector companies (e.g., oil pipelines and cable television) 

to provide preconstruction information to contractors or other maintenance workers on the underground 

location of pipes, cables, and culverts. The 1986 through 2005 data show that the portion of incidents 

caused by outside forces has decreased to 38.5 percent. 

 

14 Jones, D.J., G.S. Kramer, D.N. Gideon, and R.J. Eiber, 1986. "An Analysis of Reportable Incidents for Natural Gas Transportation and 

Gathering Lines 1970 Through June 1984." NG-18 Report No. 158, Pipeline Research Committee of the American Gas Association. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-210 

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 

Outside Forces Incidents by Cause (1970-1984)

Cause Percent 

Equipment operated by outside party 67.1 

Equipment operated by or for operator 7.3 

Earth movement 13.3 

Weather 10.8 

Other 1.5 

The frequency of service incidents is strongly dependent on pipeline age. While pipelines 

installed since 1950 exhibit a fairly constant level of service incident frequency, pipelines installed before 

that time have a significantly higher rate, partially due to corrosion. Older pipelines have a higher 

frequency of corrosion incidents, since corrosion is a time-dependent process. Further, new pipe 

generally uses more advanced coatings and cathodic protection to reduce corrosion potential. 

Older pipelines have a higher frequency of outside forces incidents partly because their location 

may be less well known and less well marked than newer lines. In addition, the older pipelines contain a 

disproportionate number of smaller diameter pipelines, which have a greater rate of outside forces 

incidents. Small diameter pipelines are more easily crushed or broken by mechanical equipment or earth 

movements. 

Table 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 partially protected pipe. The data shows that bare, cathodically 

protected pipe actually has a higher corrosion rate than unprotected pipe. This anomaly reflects the 

retrofitting of cathodic protection to actively corroding spots on pipes. 

TABLE 4.12.7-3 

External Corrosion by Level of Control (1970-1984)

Corrosion Control Incidents per 1,000 miles per Year 

None-bare pipe 0.42 

Cathodic protection only 0.97 

Coated only 0.40 

Coated and cathodic protection 0.11 

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 presents the average annual fatalities that occurred on natural gas transmission and 

gathering lines from 1970 to 2005. Fatalities between 1970 and June 1984 have been separated into 

employees and 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 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-211 

simplified reporting requirements in effect after June 1984 do not differentiate between employees and 

nonemployees. However, the data show that the total annual average for the period 1984 through 2005 

decreased to 3.6 fatalities per year. Subtracting two major offshore incidents in 1989, which do not 

reflect the risk to the onshore public, yields a total annual rate of 2.8 fatalities per year for this period. 

TABLE 4.12.7-4 

Annual Average Fatalities - Natural Gas Transmission and Gathering Systems a/, b/

Year Employees Nonemployees Total 

1970-June 1984 2.4 2.6 5.0 

1984-2005 c/ - - 3.6 

1984-2005 c/ - - 2.8 d/

_____________________

a/ 1970 through June 1984 - American Gas Association, 1986. 

b/ DOT Hazardous Materials Information System. 

c/ Employee/nonemployee breakdown not available after June 1984. 

d/ Without 18 offshore fatalities occurring in 1989 -- 11 fatalities resulted from a fishing vessel striking an offshore pipeline

 and 7 fatalities resulted from explosion on an offshore production platform. 

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 are not uniform among all categories. Nevertheless, the average 2.6 

public fatalities per year is relatively small considering the more than 300,000 miles of transmission and 

gathering lines in service nationwide. Furthermore, the fatality rate is approximately two orders of 

magnitude (100 times) lower than the fatalities from natural hazards such as lightning, tornados, floods, 

earthquakes, etc. 

TABLE 4.12.7-5 

Nationwide Accidental Deaths a/ 

Type of Accident Fatalities 

All accidents 90,523 

Motor vehicles 43,649 

Falls 14,985 

Drowning 3,488 

Poisoning 9,510 

Fires and burns 3,791 

Suffocation by ingested object 3,206 

Tornado, flood, earthquake, etc. 

(1984-93 average) 

181 

All liquid and gas pipelines 

(1978-87 average) b/ 27 

Gas transmission and gathering lines 

Nonemployees only (1970-84 average) c/ 2.6 

a/ All data, unless otherwise noted, reflects 1996 statistics from the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the 

 Census, "Statistical Abstract of the United States 118th Edition." 

b/ U.S. Department of Transportation, "Annual Report on Pipeline Safety - Calendar Year 1987." 

c/ American Gas Association, 1986. 

The available data show that natural gas pipelines continue to be a safe, reliable means of energy 

transportation. Based on approximately 301,000 miles in service, the rate of public fatalities for the 

nationwide mix of transmission and gathering lines in service is 0.01 per year per 1,000 miles of pipeline. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-212 

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. 

4.12.8 Additional Safety Issues Identified During Scoping 

Gas 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 quantities. 

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 

Supplement to the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Construction and Operation of an LNG 

Import Terminal at Raccoon Island Gloucester County, New Jersey. 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 more accurate data set to extrapolate. During the last 40 years, LNG 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 

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. 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 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-213 

requirements for one-way traffic and the moving safety and security zone around an LNG vessel will 

avoid the potential for a high speed collision with a large ship. 

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 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 LNG 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 of the power plants, the depth of water is about 30 feet outside the ship channel, thereby being 

too shallow for a 37-foot draft LNG 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 LNG 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 recommend that: 

• Prior to commencement of service, Crown Landing should consult with the COE 

and Coast Guard regarding possible impacts to the Marcus Hook anchorage area 

from LNG vessel operations, and file the results of the consultations with the 

Secretary. 

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 determination 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, or allision – is highly unlikely. For similar reasons, an 

accident involving the onshore LNG import terminal 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 Attacks - 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 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-214 

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. 

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 LPG, ammonia, and other volatile 

chemicals. Many of these substances pose a similar hazard to that of LNG. 

Risk Management - While the risks associated with the transportation of any hazardous cargo can 

never be entirely eliminated, they can be 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 are 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. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-215 

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 LNG 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 II 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. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-216 

TABLE 4.13-1 

Past, Present, and Future Projects That Could Cumulatively Impact Resources of 

Concern Near the Crown Landing LNG and Logan Lateral Projects 

Primary Environmental Impact 

Activity/Project Description 

Aquatic Resources 

Vegetation 

Public Services 

Vehicular Traffic 

Ship Traffic 

Land Use 

Air Quality/Noise 

Past and Present Activities/Projects 

Residential/Commercial 

Developments 

Various developments and 

redevelopments in Delaware County, PA 

and Gloucester County, NJ. 

3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Commercial/Recreational 

Fishing 

Historically, commercial fishing occurred 

in the Delaware River and currently some 

recreational fishing does occur in the 

river. 

3 3 

Regional Stormwater and 

Sewer Systems 

Stormwater outfalls discharge rainwater 

and sewage to the Delaware River 

system. 

3 

Commercial Development The Wharf on the Boardwalk development 

planned near MP 4.5 of the Logan Lateral 

route. 

 3 3 3 3 3

Maintenance Dredging The ship channel, marinas, and industrial 

ship berths are periodically dredged to 

maintain navigational depth. 

3 3 3 3

Fast Food Restaurant Kentucky Fried Chicken restaurant 

planned along Edgemont Avenue 

adjacent to Texas Eastern’s existing rightof-way. 

3 3 3 3

Proposed Activities/Projects 

Residential Development Proposed development approximately 2 

miles northeast of the LNG terminal site. 

3 3 3 3

Proposed Senior Home/Active 

Adult Community Development 

Development planned for approximately 

1,000 feet northwest of Texas Eastern’s 

Chester Junction. 

3 3 3 3

Proposed Office Building A 10,000 square foot office building is 

planned between Williamson Avenue and 

Edgemont Avenue in Chester, PA. 

 3 3 3

Business Park Business park with nine buildings planned 

in Chester Township north of Concord 

Road encompassing 68 acres. 

 3 3 3

School Expansion Chester Charter School plans an 

expansion of an existing unused facility on 

Green Avenue in Chester Township. 

 3 3 3

Equestrian Park The Gloucester County Improvement 

Authority is planning the conversion of a 

dredge spoil area to an equestrian park 

south of Raccoon Creek and west of U.S. 

Route 130. 

3 3 3 3 3

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-217 

TABLE 4.13-1 (cont’d) 

Past, Present, and Future Projects That Could Cumulatively Impact Resources of 

Concern Near the Crown Landing LNG and Logan Lateral Projects 

Primary Environmental Impact 

Activity/Project Description 

Aquatic Resources 

Vegetation 

Public Services 

Vehicular Traffic 

Ship Traffic 

Land Use 

Air Quality/Noise 

Mercer County Airport 

Expansion 

Mercer County has proposed a new 

44,000 square foot terminal building for 

Trenton-Mercer Airport as well as multiple 

taxiway enlargements, parking facilities, 

road realignment, and an equipment 

storage building. 

3 3 3 3 3

Runway 17-35 Extension 

Project 

Planned extension of Runway 17-35 at 

Philadelphia Airport. 

3 3 3 3

Capacity Enhancement 

Program 

Planned airfield redevelopment project at 

Philadelphia Airport. 

 3 3 3

Delaware River Main Channel 

Deepening Project 

The COE is planning to deepen the main 

channel of the Delaware River and to use 

portions of Raccoon Island for dredge 

disposal. 

3 3 3 3

Marine Terminal Logistics 

Distribution Center 

Gloucester County Improvement Authority 

proposes to dredge 10 acres of nearshore 

habitat in the Delaware River near 

Paulsboro, NJ. 

3 3 3 

Future Road or City Street 

Projects 

None currently documented 3 3 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-218 

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 measures contained in our Plan and Procedures, and the 

measures proposed in their project-specific SESC Plans and onshore and offshore SPCC Plans. As 

discussed in section 4.6, Crown Landing would also implement specific mitigation in accordance with our 

recommendation to compensate for the loss of shallow water habitat. This mitigation would minimize the 

effect of the project on shallow water habitat and ensure that the project does not contribute to the decline 

of this specific habitat type in the Delaware River system. 

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. 

In comments on the draft EIS, several agencies expressed concern about the potential for longterm cumulative effects from the loss of ichthyoplankton through regular intakes of large volumes of 

water for ballast water along with other facilities currently withdrawing water from the Delaware River. 

As presented in section 4.6.2, water withdrawals for the Crown Landing LNG Project are expected to 

result in the loss of about 1.2 million age-1 fish annually (all species combined). Existing facilities along 

the Delaware River are currently estimated to be withdrawing ichthyoplankton equivalent to over 630 

million age-1 fish annually. Thus, although the additional source of mortality from the proposed LNG 

terminal would in fact add to the losses currently occurring within the Delaware River system, estimated 

impacts on fishery resources from the Crown Landing LNG Project are equivalent to about 0.2 percent of 

the losses already occurring on the river at existing facilities. This additional source of mortality is not 

expected to result in population level effects on existing fishery resources. 

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 construction activities associated with the Crown Landing LNG and Logan 

Lateral Projects along with other construction projects would result in the removal of vegetation, 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-219 

alteration of wildlife habitat, displacement of wildlife, and could have other secondary effects in the 

project area such as increased population stress, 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 the 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 small. 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 

Eastern’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 

would restore the construction right-of-way to preconstruction conditions. Texas Eastern would install 

the pipeline across Chester Creek, Baldwin Run, 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. 

Threatened and Endangered Species 

In comments on the draft EIS, NOAA Fisheries expressed concern about the addition of vessel 

traffic in the vicinity of Delaware Bay and within the EEZ outside of the bay increasing the risk of vessel 

strikes of endangered species with specific concern regarding the North Atlantic right whale. The project 

could add up to 150 ships annually to the existing vessel traffic using Delaware Bay and River. This 

would be a minor addition to the number of vessels currently using these areas and through 

implementation of the appropriate conservation measures, the additional vessels are not expected to 

increase the frequency of vessel strikes on whales in the area. 

Shortnose sturgeon could be adversely affected by several activities associated with construction 

and operation of the proposed LNG terminal. Some of these activities (e.g., dredging, water withdrawals) 

currently occur regularly in other locations in the vicinity of the project area, and may affect individual 

sturgeon. The proposed project could result in additional cumulative impact; however, it is unlikely that 

the effects of the proposed project, when added to the existing disturbances in the river, would jeopardize 

the population of shortnose sturgeon in the Delaware River system. 

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 be 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 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-220 

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 be 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: 1) 

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 be 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 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 are located more than 5 miles from the construction 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 early 2006 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 

Commodore 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 traffic 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 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-221 

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. All open-cut road crossings 

would be completed as quickly possible. During the brief period when a trench is completely excavated 

across the road, steel plates would be available onsite to cover the open area to permit travel by 

emergency vehicles. 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, signage, 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 be 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 be backfilled or covered with steel plates daily. Impacts on local traffic would be temporary 

and limited to the period of construction. 

Ship Traffic 

Currently, commercial ship traffic entering the Delaware River averages about 3,000 ships 

annually. The Crown Landing LNG Project would result in one additional vessel entering the Delaware 

River every 2 to 3 days (an additional 100 to 150 ships per year). This would be a small addition in terms 

of existing ship traffic. However, security zones around LNG ships may constrain vessel movements 

within the Delaware River temporarily during LNG ship transits (see sections 4.9.4.2 and 4.12.5). The 

Delaware River Pilots manage marine traffic on the Delaware Bay and River and may be able to manage 

marine traffic through scheduling to minimize the impacts of the moving safety zone around the LNG 

ships on other marine traffic. 

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 proposed facilities would be 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. 

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 of the proposed LNG facility would also contribute cumulatively to air 

emissions and noise in the project area. 

Over the long term, 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, 

PM10/PM2.5, VOC, and Pb, the proposed terminal would not be a major source of air emissions under the 

PSD regulations (see section 4.11.1). The LNG terminal would however be subject to the nonattainment 

NSR regulations because emissions of NOx and VOC associated with operation would be more than 25 

tpy (see section 4.11.1) major source thresholds. The CO and NOx emissions from the facility would be 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-222 

minimized by the application of emission controls necessary to meet the NJDEP SOTA requirements. In 

addition, Crown Landing would need to demonstrate that the project would not have a negative effect on 

the local air quality. This could be done through SIP provisions, obtaining NOx offsets, and/or dispersion 

modeling. NOx and VOCs emissions from the proposed LNG 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., NOx, SO2, and PM10) 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.

Reliability and Safety 

Impacts on reliability and public safety would be mitigated through the implementation of 

applicable federal, state, and local rules and regulations for each individual project. The specific rules 

and regulations that apply to each individual project would ensure that the applicable design standards are 

implemented to protect the public and to prevent accidents and failures. The LNG terminal facilities 

would be sited, designed, constructed, operated, and maintained in compliance with the federal safety 

standards summarized in table 2.13-1. The pipelines and aboveground facilities associated with the 

Crown Landing LNG and Logan Lateral Projects would be designed, constructed, operated, and 

maintained in accordance with DOT Minimum Federal Safety Standards in Title 49 CFR Part 192. 

Several of the present or reasonably foreseeable future projects, including the proposed project, 

would involve cargo terminals that could be expected to ship hazardous materials. Accidents involving 

such materials represent a potential impact on public safety. Continued growth in international commerce 

is likely to result in increased quantities of hazardous materials being shipped to and from the region. 

It is difficult to evaluate the cumulative risk that such growth represents or has represented. In 

addition, it is difficult to measure the cumulative risk for an intentional attack on the Port or the LNG 

facility. The addition of the LNG facility and its associated LNG ships would not significantly change the 

risk of an intentional attack in the Delaware Bay or River. It is reasonable to assume that the rate of ship 

accidents (including those involving the release of hazardous materials) is likely to rise with more vessel 

traffic, which could cumulatively increase the risk of an accident having an impact on public safety. As 

previously discussed, the Delaware River Pilots manage vessel traffic to insure safe transit in the 

Delaware Bay and River. The Coast Guard would also enforce a moving safety zone and moored vessel 

security zone around LNG ships. These and other operational controls by the Coast Guard and Pilots 

Association for the Bay and River Delaware would minimize the risk of accidents involving LNG ships. 

Furthermore, the implementation of federal, state, and local rules and regulations concerning security and 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4-223 

the results of the WSA with its associated operations and Emergency Response Plan would minimize the 

risk to the LNG ship and terminal. 

Emergency response time is a key aspect of public health and safety. Projects that increase traffic 

congestion or interfere with access are the most likely source of adverse impacts on response times. The 

projects identified in table 4.12-1 are not expected to cause an increase in response times for emergency 

services. The Traffic Management Plans to be developed by Texas Eastern would also minimize any 

increase in emergency response times. No significant cumulative impacts on emergency services are 

expected because sufficient emergency services and facilities exist in the area to accommodate the 

cumulative projects. No significant cumulative impacts on emergency services are expected during 

operation of the proposed project. Section 4.12.5 includes our recommendation that Crown Landing 

prepare an Emergency Response Plan and coordinate procedures with local emergency planning groups 

fire departments, state and local law enforcement, the Coast Guard, and other appropriate federal agencies 

to be used in the event of an incident. Crown Landing would be required to prepare a comprehensive plan 

that identifies the cost sharing mechanisms for funding these emergency response costs. With the 

implementation of the coordination procedures in the Emergency Response Plan and the funding of 

additional emergency management equipment and personnel, no cumulative impacts would be expected 

on emergency response services during operation of the proposed project. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
5-1 

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 LOR and LNG Operations Plan, its own conclusions and recommendations, prior to 

construction and operation. The LOR 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 of the 

River and Harbors Act and section 404 of the CWA. The EPA has the authority to review and veto the 

COE decisions on the section 404 permits. 

We (the Commission’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, construction 

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 resulting from 

construction 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. 

If the Coast Guard issues a LOR finding the waterway suitable for LNG marine traffic, the 

arrival, transit, cargo transfer, and departure of LNG ships in the Delaware River would be required to 

adhere to the procedures of a LNG Vessel Transit Management Plan to be developed by the Coast Guard 

Sector Delaware Bay. In addition, Crown Landing would develop Operations and Emergency Manuals in 

consultation with the Coast Guard. These procedures would be developed to ensure the safety and 

security of all operations associated with LNG ship transit and unloading. 

The discussion below summarizes the environmental impacts and the proposed or recommended 

mitigation for each resource analyzed in this final 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 terminal 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 constructed 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 construction practices. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
5-2 

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 

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 terminal site could be subject to flooding by tropical 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-year flood elevation, the top of the earthen 

containment dike, which would completely surround the LNG tanks, would be approximately 6 feet 

above the 1,000-year flood elevation. 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 of the 

soils on the LNG terminal site are classified as prime farmland. Laboratory analyses of soils from the 

LNG terminal site indicate elevated concentrations of TPH, SVOCs, arsenic, and dieldrin in a few 

isolated areas. Only TPH and a single SVOC compound (benzo(a)pyrene) are 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 further delineate the extent of TPH- and SVOCcontaminated soils and excavate and dispose of the contaminated soils and associated aboveground tanks 

at a permitted disposal facility prior to construction. Crown Landing would also further delineate the 

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 be necessary to mitigate the 

arsenic and dieldrin contamination. Because most of the existing 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 exposure. 

Initial site preparation (grading and other soil-disturbing activities) could increase the potential 

for soil erosion on the LNG terminal site and sedimentation in adjacent waterbodies and wetlands. Crown 

Landing would minimize the potential for erosion and sedimentation by implementing the measures 

specified 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 10 percent of the soils 

that would be affected by pipeline construction are designated prime farmland (all in Pennsylvania). 

Most of the prime farmland soils are within or directly adjacent to commercial or residential 

developments and none of these soils are actively cultivated or available for farming; therefore, impacts 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
5-3 

on prime farmland would not be significant. Soil compaction and erosion impacts along the pipeline 

route would generally be minimal due to the limited area of soils susceptible to these impacts. Texas 

Eastern would control erosion and sedimentation, and minimize compaction by implementing the 

mitigation measures in its SESC Plan. 

About 16 percent of the soils that would be affected by pipeline construction activities exhibit 

poor revegetation potential. All of these soils occur in 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 revegetation 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 be 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 1.24 million 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 interstratified sands and silty sands. Preliminary chemical 

analyses of the proposed dredged sediments determined that eight metal contaminants were identified at 

elevated concentrations. The concentrations of most metals in all samples were below the NOAA TEL 

levels, indicating that the sediments would not be expected to pose a threat to the aquatic environment. 

Only the concentrations of arsenic, cadmium, and nickel exceeded the TEL screening values. However, 

these three metals are all well below their respective NOAA PEL values, suggesting limited potential for 

adverse impacts. Crown Landing plans to conduct a more extensive sediment sampling program 

following its NJDEP-approved SAP; however, due to a jurisdictional dispute between the states of 

Delaware and New Jersey, the sampling program has been delayed. 

To minimize the resuspension of sediments during dredging, Crown Landing would primarily use 

hydraulic cutterhead dredging to excavate the berth area. Dredged material would be transported by 

pipeline directly to an existing, permitted upland confined disposal facility located about 4 miles 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 

Groundwater

Construction and operation of the proposed LNG terminal and pipeline facilities would not 

significantly affect groundwater quality or quantity in the project area. 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 the LNG terminal site contains elevated concentrations of arsenic. 

Crown Landing will further investigate the elevated arsenic levels and consult with the NJDEP regarding 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
5-4 

measures to mitigate the arsenic impacts. These measures could include remedial actions and/or the use 

of institutional controls to prevent potential exposure to the arsenic. 

Contaminated groundwater could also be encountered during construction of the proposed Logan 

Lateral. We have recommended that Texas Eastern develop a Plan for the 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 construction are properly managed in 

accordance with applicable regulations. 

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 construction 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-Raritan-Magothy aquifer, an EPA-designated sole source aquifer. Crown 

Landing and Texas Eastern would avoid or minimize these impacts by implementation of our Plans and 

Procedures and project-specific SESC Plans. The potential for hazardous material spills to occur or affect 

groundwater resources would be also avoided or minimized by implementing project-specific SPCC 

Plans. 

Surface Water

Construction of the Crown Landing LNG Project could adversely affect surface water quality in 

the Delaware River during 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 penetration and lower the rate of photosynthesis and aquatic productivity of an area; 

introduce 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 1.24 

million cubic yards of sediment from the Delaware River. Based on computer modeling of dredginginduced 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 adsorbed metals could be 

released into 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. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
5-5 

Land-disturbing activities during construction of the onshore facilities of the proposed LNG 

terminal could also affect water quality of the Delaware River. Stormwater runoff from the 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 runoff during operations of the facility. 

Construction of the Logan Lateral Project would require crossing seven perennial waterbodies, 

including the Delaware River and five intermittent streams. Texas Eastern proposes to install the pipeline 

across Chester Creek, Baldwin Run, Delaware River, Raccoon Creek, and Birch Creek using the HDD 

construction technique. The HDD construction technique is a trenchless method that avoids disturbing 

the bed or the banks of the waterbody. For the remaining waterbodies, Texas Eastern would install the 

pipeline using the open-cut construction technique. The impacts of the open-cut 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 

construction activities and/or by erosion of cleared stream banks and riparian areas. Turbidity resulting 

from the resuspended sediments could reduce light penetration and the corresponding photosynthetic 

oxygen production. Resuspension 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 permanently filled or drained as a result of construction of the LNG 

terminal. Although no wetlands would be permanently filled or drained as a result of construction of the 

LNG terminal, construction of the Columbia Gas pipeline interconnect, stormwater outfall, and septic line 

would temporarily impact approximately 0.6 acre of wetlands. Following construction, the disturbed 

wetland areas would be restored to original contours and allowed to naturally revegetate. 

Although construction of the LNG terminal would not permanently impact wetlands, the LNG 

terminal would affect approximately 5.3 acres of wetland transition area. Transition areas provide an 

ecological transition zone from uplands to freshwater wetlands and provide temporary 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 hydrologic 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 mitigation. 

Crown Landing is preparing the following two mitigative measures to compensate for transition area 

impacts: 

• planting native tree 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. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
5-6 

We have recommended that Crown Landing continue to consult with federal and state agencies 

regarding the above mitigation options and file a final wetland transition area mitigation plan prior to 

construction. 

Construction of the Logan Lateral Project would disturb about 20.06 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 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 1.66 acres 

of 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 right-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 agricultural 

land, emergent wetlands, and scattered areas of open, forest, and shrub lands. The LNG terminal 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 surfaces 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 revegetated, and 

operational impacts on vegetation would be minimized by the vegetation maintenance practices specified 

in our Plan and Procedures and Texas Eastern’s SESC Plan. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
5-7 

Wildlife and Aquatic Resources 

Construction activities associated with the proposed LNG terminal and pipeline could affect 

wildlife habitat through the cutting, clearing, 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 

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, destruction 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 intakes 

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 

waterbodies crossed by the project. An inadvertent chemical or fuel spill in or near a waterbody could 

release contaminants, which could adversely affect fish and other aquatic organisms. The use of the 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 across 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, American plaice, Atlantic sea herring, bluefish, 

butterfish, summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass. The draft EIS included an EFH Assessment as 

necessary for compliance with the MSA. As a result of our analysis as presented in the EFH Assessment, 

we 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 

anadromous fish, a primary prey group for managed fish species. The suspension of sediments during 

dredging could temporarily affect the 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. NOAA Fisheries reviewed the EFH Assessment 

provided in the draft EIS and provided a conservation recommendation that offshore alternatives to the 

proposed project should be investigated. In accordance with this recommendation, we evaluated the 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
5-8 

potential for an offshore terminal in the general region of the proposed project. We determined that the 

proposed project location remains the environmentally preferable location for the LNG terminal relating 

to potential impacts of EFH and other resources. Additionally, implementation of the conservation 

measures 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 Species 

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 

right whale, bald eagle, pied billed grebe, peregrine falcon, shortnose sturgeon, Atlantic sturgeon, Kemps 

ridley sea turtle, green sea turtle, loggerhead sea turtle, bog turtle, and red-bellied turtle. With the 

exception of the bald eagle, shortnose sturgeon, and the Atlantic sturgeon, there is a low probability of 

these species occurring within the project vicinity and the project is not likely to adversely affect these 

species. Project activities would not destroy or remove any known bald eagle nests or roost trees but may 

disrupt bald eagles that are known to forage in the project area. Since Crown Landing has committed to 

providing mitigation for the permanent loss of foraging habitat, potential long-term impacts on bald eagle 

foraging and the impacts associated with construction would be short term and minor. Thus construction 

and operation of the proposed LNG terminal and pipeline may affect but are not likely to adversely affect

the bald eagle. In comments on the draft EIS, the FWS concurred that except for an occasional transient 

bald eagle, no other federally listed or proposed threatened or endangered species under FWS jurisdiction 

in New Jersey are known to occur within the project area and that the proposed projects would not 

adversely affect federally listed species. 

Crown Landing would avoid dredging during the period when sturgeon are migrating to 

spawning grounds. However, dredging associated with the proposed project could still reduce the amount 

of forage available and could entrain individuals if present near the hydraulic dredge cutterhead. Also, 

the intake of ballast water during LNG offloading could also result in the entrainment, impingement, or 

loss of shortnose sturgeon. Therefore, we determined that the Crown Landing LNG Project is likely to 

adversely affect the shortnose sturgeon. With the issuance of the draft EIS, we requested that NOAA 

Fisheries initiate formal consultation and issue a Biological Opinion specific to the shortnose sturgeon. 

As of issuance of this final EIS, we have not yet received the Biological Opinion from NOAA Fisheries. 

Construction of the proposed project would not be permitted to begin until we have completed our 

responsibilities under section 7 of the ESA, including finalization of the Biological Opinion. 

Because juvenile Atlantic sturgeons have the potential to occupy shallow water areas at the LNG 

site throughout the year, there is a potential for the project to affect the species, directly thorough 

entrainment and indirectly through habitat and prey loss. It is likely that measures implemented to avoid 

and/or minimize impacts on shortnose sturgeon would also provide conservation benefits to the Atlantic 

sturgeon. However, also similar to the shortnose sturgeon, there is a potential for individuals to be 

adversely affected by the proposed project. 

Land Use, Recreation, and Visual Resources 

The proposed LNG terminal would be located on a privately owned site on the south side of the 

Delaware River in Logan Township, Gloucester County, New Jersey. The site consists of approximately 

175 acres of land between U.S. Route 130 and the Delaware River. The site is currently undeveloped and 

contains mostly wetlands and active and inactive farm fields. The active farm fields have most recently 

been planted in soybeans. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
5-9 

Of the 175-acre site, about 39 acres would be permanently developed for the LNG terminal 

facilities. In addition to the 39 acres permanently developed for the LNG terminal facilities, about 4 acres 

would be used as a temporary staging and expanded work area during construction. The majority of the 4 

acres would be graded and returned to open space after construction; however, 0.5 acre would be used for 

a septic system drain field. Dual feed electric transmission lines would be extended to the LNG terminal 

site from the existing Conectiv electric substation across U.S. Route 130 from the site entrance and along 

the site access road to the terminal area. 

The Crown Landing LNG Project would also require about 32.55 acres of riverbed associated 

with the Delaware River for a pier (approximately 2.25 acres) and berthing facilities (approximately 30.3 

acres, including the area to be dredged). The majority of the offshore ship unloading facility would be 

located in Delaware waters within the boundaries of New Castle County. 

Of the 11 miles of the proposed pipeline, about 6.4 miles (58 percent) would be constructed 

within or adjacent to various existing rights-of-way. Of the 6.4 miles, 3.1 miles would be located within 

Texas Eastern’s existing pipeline easement (1.4 miles) or other existing pipeline easements (1.7 miles), 

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 use affected by construction of 

the pipeline facilities totaling about 51.5 acres (29 percent). The remaining land uses that would be 

disturbed consist of 50.8 acres (29 percent) of agricultural land, 23.4 acres (13 percent) of forest land, 

17.7 acres (10 percent) of roadway/railroad, 16.8 acres (9 percent) of commercial/industrial land, 15.4 

acres (9 percent) of other land, 1.4 acres (1 percent) of residential land, and 0.3 acre (<1 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 associated 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 extra workspaces) would be located within 50 feet of 147 residences or residential 

structures (e.g., garages, sheds) and 9 commercial/industrial structures. Texas Eastern would implement 

several measures to minimize construction-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. Six 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, 

Delaware, and Pennsylvania, respectively; and 2) require several federal permits and approvals. Crown 

Landing has not yet completed the process for the federal consistency certification for the LNG terminal. 

Although Texas Eastern has completed the process for the portion of the pipeline in Pennsylvania, it has 

not yet completed the process for the portion of the pipeline in New Jersey. Both Crown Landing and 

Texas Eastern would need to demonstrate consistency with the applicable state’s coastal zone 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
5-10 

management program and obtain concurrence of consistency from these agencies or the U.S. Department 

of Commerce prior to the FERC approving the start of any construction. 

In a letter dated February 3, 2005 from DNREC 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. On February 15, 2005, Crown Landing filed an 

appeal of the February 3, 2005 ruling with the State Coastal Zone Industrial Control Board. The State 

Coastal Zone Industrial Control Board held a public hearing on March 30, 2005 to consider Crown 

Landing’s appeal. The DNREC’s ruling was upheld by the State Coastal Zone Industrial Control Board 

at the March 30, 2005 hearing. Crown Landing had 20 days to appeal the State Coastal Zone Industrial 

Control Board’s decision to the Delaware Superior Court but no appeal was made. In another 

development, the NJDEP in a letter dated May 24, 2005 stated that although a portion of the pier would 

be located in Delaware waters, construction of the entire pier and any associated dredging would be 

subject to New Jersey’s exclusive review and permitting authority under the Compact of 1905. The State 

of New Jersey has advised the State of Delaware that Article VII of the Compact of 1905 prohibits 

Delaware from using its DSCZA authority or any other state permitting authority to block the 

construction of projects appurtenant to the New Jersey shoreline. In July 2005, New Jersey asked the 

U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case and in November 2005 the U.S. Supreme Court agreed (New Jersey 

v. Delaware, 126 S. Ct. 713 (U.S. Nov. 28, 2005)). 

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 around 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 pipeline facilities. Construction 

and operation of the project facilities are not expected to significantly affect recreational activities in the 

project area. 

Operation of the project facilities would impact recreational boating and fishing during the 

arrival, unloading, and departure of the LNG ships. If the Coast Guard issues a LOR finding the 

waterway suitable for LNG marine traffic, the Coast Guard would impose a moving safety zone around 

LNG ships during transit up the Delaware Bay and River and a moored security zone while berthed at the 

LNG terminal. If moving safety zones, security zones at the terminal, and one-way traffic were 

implemented, they would affect other commercial, ferry, and recreational traffic using the bay and river. 

The moving safety zones, if implemented, may have the effect of temporarily limiting some commercial 

shipping route in the Delaware Bay and River to one-way traffic. This presently occurs with vessels 

carrying dangerous cargo (i.e., LPG) which can sometimes delay other vessels using the waterway as they 

wait or anchor at suitable locations to allow these vessels to pass. This could cause impacts on 

recreational boating and fishing but the impacts would be temporary while the boat is in transit or moored 

at the ship unloading facility. Because the safety zone would be a moving zone around the ship, the 

impacts would be of short duration at any given point along the shipping route. The Coast Guard has 

stated that it would make every effort to minimize disruption to other water way users. 

New Jersey Resource Rule 7:7E-8.11 requires that coastal development adjacent to all coastal 

waters provide permanent perpendicular and linear access to the waterfront to the maximum extent 

practicable, including both visual and physical access. To comply with the rule, Crown Landing 

evaluated eight options for providing public waterfront access at various offsite locations. The eight sites 

were discussed with the NJDEP on August 9, 2005. Based on these discussions, it was determined that a 

site located just south of the Commodore Barry Bridge offered the most significant opportunities for 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
5-11 

public water access. Crown Landing is currently developing a specific enhancement plan for this site and 

has indicated that it will provide the plan to the NJDEP when it becomes available. 

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. 

Socioeconomics 

Construction and operation of the Crown Landing LNG and Logan Lateral Projects would have 

short- and long-term socioeconomic impacts. 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 economies. 

Sufficient law enforcement and fire response services are located within the project area to the 

extent that temporary impacts on these services are 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 construction 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 control measures to avoid or minimize these 

impacts. 

During operation of the LNG terminal, although there would be safety zones around transiting 

LNG ships, the addition of 120 to 150 LNG ships per year would not have a long-term impact on 

commercial ship traffic in the area. The moving safety zone enforced around each LNG ship and moored 

vessel security zone around the ship unloading facility while a ship is docked would be restricted to other 

commercial traffic unless permission to enter the zone is obtained from the Captain of the Port. Although 

the Coast Guard’s current RNA (33 CFR 165.510) is subject to change based on the results of their risk 

assessment, the Delaware River is wide enough in most areas to avoid significant impacts to other 

commercial ship traffic. However, the moving safety zones, if implemented, may have the effect of 

temporarily limiting some commercial shipping route in the Delaware Bay and River to one-way traffic. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
5-12 

This presently occurs with vessels carrying dangerous cargo (i.e., LPG) which can sometimes delay other 

vessels using the waterway as they wait or anchor at suitable locations to allow these vessels to pass. 

Construction and operation of the proposed projects would not result in disproportionate adverse 

impacts on environmental justice communities. The projects are expected to generate temporary and 

permanent employment opportunities, taxes and other revenue streams 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 of the LNG terminal would not affect 

either resource. Each of the remaining built resources was recommended 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 berthing areas in the Delaware River. The 

terrestrial archaeological survey relocated a previously documented prehistoric site (28GL241) 

recommended eligible for listing in the NRHP. Crown Landing subsequently redesigned its construction 

plans to create a no-work buffer zone within 100 feet of this site. As a result, no additional testing of the 

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 aboveground cultural resources survey of the pipeline facilities in 

Pennsylvania and New Jersey. One resource (a mid-nineteenth century train trestle) was identified in 

Pennsylvania and recommended ineligible for listing in the NRHP. No built resources were identified in 

New Jersey. Both the Pennsylvania and New Jersey SHPOs concurred with the survey results and 

recommendations. 

Texas Eastern also conducted terrestrial archaeological surveys of the pipeline facilities in 

Pennsylvania and New Jersey. The survey in Pennsylvania documented five archaeological sites, two of 

which (Sites 36DE25 and 36DE26) were recommended 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 be affected 

by construction of the pipeline facilities. No additional testing of these sites was recommended; however, 

installation of an avoidance fence at Site 36DE26 was recommended. The three other sites, which were 

identified during survey of a route alternative, were recommended ineligible for inclusion in the NRHP. 

The Pennsylvania SHPO concurred with the results and recommendations of the survey. 

No sites were documented as a result of the survey in New Jersey. Fieldwork by Crown Landing 

for the LNG terminal suggested that Site 28GL241 is located adjacent to the pipeline facilities, but this 

site would not be affected by project construction. 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 SHPO concurred with the results and 

recommendations of the survey. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
5-13 

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 equipment tailpipe emissions, LNG 

truck and ship emissions, tug boat emissions, and stationary source emissions (from the water/glycol 

heaters, flares, and reciprocating engines). These emissions would include PM10, SO2, NOx, VOC, and 

CO as well as small amounts of HAPs. The fugitive dust and tailpipe emissions during construction 

activities would be temporary, intermittent, and vary in location over time. These emissions would not 

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 NOx and CO. 

The operational air emissions from the LNG terminal would be minimized by using ultra dry low NOx

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 during the preconstruction 

permitting process. The NOx 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. A final applicability analysis and determination 

will be published after issuance of this final EIS and will demonstrate that the project would not delay the 

attainment of any standard for which the project area has been designated nonattainment. 

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, temporary, 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 of time (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 Ldn 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 Ldn and 

the NJDEP nighttime noise criterion of 50 dBA Leq. 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 of our 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; prior to construction after final design; prior to commissioning; or prior to 

commencement of service. 

Thermal radiation and flammable vapor hazard distances 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/ft2

, the 

level which is hazardous to unprotected persons located outdoors. Based on a 1-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 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
5-14 

source. However, the evaluation of safety is more than an exercise in calculating the consequences of 

worst case 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 

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, 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. 

As part of our marine safety analysis, we considered how vessel security requirements for LNG 

ships calling on the proposed LNG terminal 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 zone for inbound and outbound 

LNG vessels; 2) security zone around a moored LNG vessel; and 3) other measures as deemed 

appropriate. If the Coast Guard issues a LOR finding the waterway suitable for LNG marine traffic, the 

moving safety zone, and the 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 traffic would 

generally be small because most of the ferry routes only cross the LNG ship route and conflicts could be 

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 size of the Coast Guard-imposed moving safety 

and moored 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 announcements to give advance notice of each moving 

safety and moored 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 estimating 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 near 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 the 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 specific 

security/emergency management costs for the proposed project are not yet available. The final costs 

associated with security would be determined after the specific security needs and responsibilities have 

been established by the Coast Guard through consultations with other federal, state, and local agencies. 

As required by its regulations (section 127.009), the Coast Guard is responsible for issuing a LOR 

as to the suitability of the waterway for LNG marine traffic. Crown Landing submitted a LOI to the 

Coast Guard on July 30, 2004. On June 14, 2005, Crown Landing submitted a WSA for the proposed 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
5-15 

project to the Captain of the Port for Coast Guard Sector Delaware Bay. The Coast Guard, with input 

from a special subcommittee of the AMSC, has completed a review of Crown Landing’s WSA in 

accordance with the guidance in NVIC 05-05. The AMSC LNG Review Subcommittee was composed of 

law enforcement, security, and public safety officials from the Federal government, and the states of 

Delaware, New Jersey and Pennsylvania, as well as regional maritime industry professionals. Its review 

focused on the navigation safety and maritime security risks posed by LNG marine traffic, and the 

measures needed to responsibly manage these security risks. 

On December 1, 2005, the Coast Guard sent a letter to FERC, based on the above WSA and 

AMSC review, providing input on the capability of the port community to implement the risk 

management measures necessary to responsibly manage the risks of LNG marine traffic in the port. As 

described in this document, the Coast Guard has preliminarily determined that the Delaware Bay and 

Delaware River to the proposed LNG terminal in Logan Township, NJ, may be suitable for 

accommodating the type and frequency of LNG vessels being proposed by the applicant. This 

determination, however, is preliminary because the required NEPA analysis has not yet been completed. 

This determination is also contingent upon the port security community having the appropriate resources 

to implement all the measures necessary to responsibly manage the safety and security risks of LNG 

marine traffic in this area. 

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 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. 

Alternatives 

We evaluated the alternatives of no action or postponed action, system alternatives, alternative 

LNG terminal coastal areas, alternative LNG terminal sites, pier alternatives, and pipeline route 

alternatives. 

For the Coast Guard’s proposed action, which is the issuance of a Coast Guard LOR finding the 

waterway suitable for LNG marine traffic with certain conditions, the no action alternative would be the 

issuance of Coast Guard LOR finding the waterway not suitable for LNG marine traffic. Reasonable 

alternatives to the Coast Guard action of issuing an LOR include: 1) Issuance of a Coast Guard LOR 

finding the waterway suitable for LNG marine traffic without any conditions, and 2) Postponing the 

issuance of a Coast Guard LOR pending further analysis and study. 

While the no action or postponed 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 contribute to higher natural 

gas prices. Higher prices could potentially result in customers conserving or reducing the use of natural 

gas. Although additional conservation and efficiency measures may have some affect on the demand for 

natural gas, these efforts, based on EIA 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 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
5-16 

seems more likely as described by Alan Greenspan 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, the use of other fossil fuels such as coal or oil versus natural gas would increase the emission of 

regulated pollutants (e.g., nitrogen 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 storing imported LNG and delivering up to 1.4 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 of an existing LNG 

terminal to meet the proposed project objectives would not be possible without significant expansions 

and/or modifications to their 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) effectively limits them from serving 

the Mid-Atlantic market. The existing Distrigas and Cove Point LNG terminals are closer to the proposed 

LNG terminal (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 

sendout capacity of this facility. However, all of the storage and sendout capacity of the proposed 

expansion are fully subscribed and thus would not be available to Crown Landing’s customers. 

Moreover, the proposed expansion would include the construction of about 161 miles of pipeline and 

additional compression, 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 determined that all of the recently 

approved and most of the 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 six 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 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
5-17 

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 most of these projects could effectively serve the Mid-Atlantic region. 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 periods 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 eight 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 shore 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 route variations to the proposed pipeline route. 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 Easterns’ adoption of two 

route variations prior to filing its application, reject one route variation, and recommend that Texas 

Eastern adopt the third variation (the Palmer Street Variation) between MPs 3.13 and 3.31 to avoid 

impacts on wetlands. 

In conclusion, we have determined that the proposed Crown Landing and Texas Eastern projects, 

as modified by our recommended mitigation and minor route variation, are the preferred alternatives. 

5.2 FERC STAFF’S RECOMMENDED MITIGATION 

If the Commission issues any authorization for the proposed projects, we recommend that the 

Commission’s Order include measures 1 through 78. We believe that these measures would further 

mitigate the environmental impacts associated with construction and operation of the proposed projects. 

1. Crown Landing LLC (Crown Landing) and Texas Eastern Transmission, L.P. (Texas Eastern) 

shall follow the construction procedures and mitigation 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. request any modification to these procedures, measures, or conditions in a filing with the 

Secretary of the Commission (Secretary); 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
5-18 

b. justify each modification relative to site-specific conditions; 

c. explain how that modification provides an equal or greater level of environmental 

protection than the original measure; and 

d. receive approval in writing from the Director of the Office of Energy Projects (OEP) 

before using that modification. 

2. 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. the modification of conditions of the Commission’s Order; and 

b. the design and implementation of any additional measures deemed necessary (including 

stop work authority) to assure continued compliance with the intent of the environmental 

conditions as well as the avoidance or mitigation of adverse environmental impact 

resulting from project construction and operation. 

3. For liquefied natural gas (LNG) facilities, the Director of OEP has delegated authority to take all 

steps necessary to ensure the protection of life, health, property, and the environment during 

construction and operation of the project. This authority shall include: 

a. stop-work authority and authority to cease operation; and 

b. the design and implementation of any additional measures deemed necessary to assure 

continued compliance with the intent of the conditions of this Order. 

4. Prior to any construction, Crown Landing and Texas Eastern shall file an affirmative statement 

with the Secretary, certified by senior company officials, that all company personnel, 

environmental inspectors (EIs), and contractor personnel will be informed of the EI's authority 

and have been or will be trained on the implementation of the environmental mitigation measures 

appropriate to their jobs before becoming involved with construction and restoration activities. 

5. The authorized facility locations shall be as shown in the EIS, as supplemented by filed alignment 

sheets, and shall include the staff's 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 facilities 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. 

6. 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 route realignments or 

facility relocations, and staging areas, pipe storage yards, new access roads, and other areas that 

will be used or disturbed and have not been previously identified in filings with the Secretary. 

Approval for each of these areas must be explicitly requested in writing. For each area, the 

request must include a description of the existing land use/cover type, documentation of 

landowner approval, whether any cultural resources or federally listed threatened or endangered 

species will be affected, and whether any other environmentally sensitive areas are within or 

abutting the area. All areas shall be clearly identified on the maps/sheets/aerial photographs. 

Each area must be approved in writing by the Director of OEP before construction in or near 

that area. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
5-19 

 This requirement does not apply to route variations recommended herein or minor field 

realignments per landowner needs and requirements that do not affect other landowners or 

sensitive environmental areas such as wetlands. 

 Examples of alterations requiring approval include all route realignments and facility location 

changes resulting from: 

a. implementation of cultural resources mitigation measures; 

b. implementation of endangered, threatened, or special concern species mitigation 

measures; 

c. recommendations by state regulatory authorities; and 

d. agreements with individual landowners that affect other landowners or could affect 

sensitive environmental areas. 

7. At least 60 days before the start of construction of their respective project facilities, Crown 

Landing and Texas Eastern shall file initial Implementation Plans with the Secretary for the 

review and written approval by the Director of OEP describing how the companies 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 plans shall identify: 

a. 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 onsite construction and inspection personnel; 

b. the number of EIs assigned per spread, and how the company will ensure that sufficient 

personnel are available to implement the environmental mitigation; 

c. company personnel, including EIs and contractors, who will receive copies of the 

appropriate material; 

d. what training and instructions Crown Landing and Texas Eastern will give to all 

personnel involved with construction and restoration (initial and refresher training as the 

project progresses and personnel change), with the opportunity for OEP staff to 

participate in the training session(s); 

e. the company personnel (if known) and specific portion of Crown Landing and Texas 

Eastern’s organizations having responsibility for compliance; 

f. the procedures (including use of contract penalties) Crown Landing and Texas Eastern 

will follow if noncompliance occurs; and 

g. for each discrete facility, a Gantt or PERT chart (or similar project scheduling diagram), 

and dates for: 

i. the completion of all required surveys and reports; 

ii. the mitigation training of onsite personnel; 

iii. the start of construction; and 

iv. the start and completion of restoration. 

8. Texas Eastern shall develop and implement an environmental complaint resolution procedure. 

The procedure shall provide landowners with clear and simple directions for identifying and 

resolving their environmental mitigation problems/concerns during construction of the project 

and restoration of the right-of-way. Prior to construction, Texas Eastern shall mail the 

complaint resolution procedures to each landowner whose property will be crossed by the project. 

a. In its letter to affected landowners, Texas Eastern shall: 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
5-20 

i. provide a contact that the landowners shall call first with their concerns; the letter 

shall indicate how soon a landowner shall expect a response; 

ii. instruct the landowners that, if they are not satisfied with the response, they shall 

call Texas Eastern’s hotline; the letter shall indicate how soon to expect a 

response; and 

iii. instruct the landowner that, if they are still not satisfied with the response from 

Texas Eastern, they shall contact the Commission’s Enforcement Hotline at (888) 

889-8030. 

b. In addition, Texas Eastern shall include in its weekly status report a copy of a table that 

contains the following information for each problem/concern: 

i. the date of the call; 

ii. the identification number from the certified alignment sheets of the affected 

property; 

iii. the description of the problem/concern; and 

iv. an explanation of how and when the problem was resolved, will be resolved, or 

why it has not been resolved. 

9. Crown Landing and Texas Eastern shall each employ a team of EIs. The EIs shall be: 

a. responsible for monitoring and ensuring compliance with all mitigation measures 

required by this Order and other grants, permits, certificates, or other authorizing 

documents; 

b. responsible for evaluating the construction contractor’s implementation of the 

environmental mitigation measures required in the contract (see condition 6 above) and 

any other authorizing document; 

c. empowered to order correction of acts that violate the environmental conditions of this 

Order, and any other authorizing document; 

d. a full-time position, separate from all other activity inspectors; 

e. responsible for documenting compliance with the environmental conditions of this Order, 

as well as any environmental conditions/permit requirements imposed by other federal, 

state, or local agencies; and 

f. responsible for maintaining status reports. 

10. Crown Landing and Texas Eastern shall each file updated status reports prepared by the EI with 

the Secretary on a weekly basis until all construction and restoration activities are complete. On 

request, these status reports shall also be provided to other federal and state agencies with 

permitting responsibilities. Status reports shall include: 

a. 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 

sensitive areas; 

b. 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); 

c. corrective actions implemented in response to all instances of noncompliance, and their 

cost; 

d. the effectiveness of all corrective actions implemented; 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
5-21 

e. 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 

f. 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. 

11. 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. 

12. Within 30 days of placing the certificated facilities in service, Crown Landing and Texas 

Eastern shall each file an affirmative statement with the Secretary, certified by a senior company 

official: 

a. that the facilities have been constructed in compliance with all applicable conditions, and 

that continuing activities will be consistent with all applicable conditions; or 

b. identifying which of the certificate conditions 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. 

13. 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 contaminants 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 prior to construction. 

14. Texas Eastern shall adopt the Palmer Street Variation as described in section 3.5.3 as part of the 

proposed route. (Section 3.5.3) 

15. Crown Landing shall file with the Secretary the results of the physical characterization analyses 

of any new sediment cores collected for the project for review and comment by the Director of 

OEP prior to construction. The complete results, including supporting quality assurance/quality 

control data, shall be filed as public information. (Section 4.2.2) 

16. Crown Landing shall file the results of all additional sediment characterization analyses with the 

Secretary for review and comment by the Director of OEP prior to construction. The complete 

results, including supporting quality assurance/quality control data, shall be filed with the 

Commission as non-confidential, non-privileged information so that the Commission may 

provide access to the data to all agencies with jurisdiction over the project. (Section 4.2.2) 

17. Texas Eastern shall prepare a site-specific crossing plan if a crossing technique other than a 

horizontal directional drill (HDD) is proposed at Chester Creek (including Baldwin Run), 

Delaware River, Raccoon Creek, or Birch Creek. The site-specific crossing plans shall identify 

the method to be used to excavate the trench; the location of the spoil storage both in the river and 

onshore and the mitigative measures that will be used to control and store the spoil; the method to 

be used to backfill the trench; an explanation of the size requirements of the extra workspaces on 

each bank; a discussion of any special mitigation to minimize impact on riparian vegetation; and 

for navigable streams, include a discussion on how boat traffic interruption will be minimized. 

Texas Eastern shall file this plan with the Secretary concurrent with its application for other 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
5-22 

federal and state agencies for a permit to construct using the alternate method. The Director of 

OEP must review and approve these plans prior to construction. (Section 4.3.2) 

18. Crown Landing shall continue to consult with the New Jersey Department of Environmental 

Protection (NJDEP), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and other appropriate agencies, and 

prepare a final 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 determining 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. (Section 4.4) 

19. Texas Eastern shall continue to consult with the NJDEP, Pennsylvania Department of 

Environmental Protection (PADEP), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE), and other appropriate 

agencies on the preparation of the wetland mitigation plan. The wetland mitigation plan shall 

include details regarding the amount, location, and forms of mitigation proposed; a monitoring 

plan with clearly defined criteria for determining if and when the mitigation is successful; and 

remedial measures, as necessary, to ensure that compensatory mitigation is successful. Texas 

Eastern shall file the final wetland mitigation plan with the Secretary prior to construction. 

(Section 4.4) 

20. Crown Landing and Texas Eastern shall develop control plans to prevent the spread of 

Phragmites sp. in wetlands disturbed by the proposed projects that currently do not contain this 

species. These plans shall include those measures recommended by the Department of the 

Interior, as applicable, and shall be filed with the Secretary for the review and approval of the 

Director of OEP, prior to construction. (Section 4.5) 

21. Crown Landing shall continue coordinating with National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration (NOAA) Fisheries and other applicable agencies in developing a plan to mitigate 

for impacts on shallow water habitats. The plan, along with agency consultation, shall be filed 

with the Director of OEP for review and approval prior to initiating dredging activities in the 

Delaware River. (Section 4.6.2) 

22. Crown Landing shall consult with federal and state resource 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 construction. (Section 4.6.2) 

23. Crown Landing shall 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. Copies of consultations with these agencies shall be filed with the Secretary prior 

to construction. (Section 4.6.2) 

24. Crown Landing shall hire a qualified biologist to monitor the outlet at the dredge disposal site to 

determine whether sturgeon are being entrained. If monitoring indicates that sturgeon are being 

entrained, Crown Landing shall notify the Commission and NOAA Fisheries within 24 hours and 

shall suspend dredging operations until the Commission and NOAA Fisheries complete any 

necessary consultation and the Director of OEP allows dredging to resume. (Section 4.7.1) 

25. Crown Landing shall not begin construction activities until: 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
5-23 

a. FERC staff completes formal consultation with NOAA Fisheries, Protected 

Resources Division; and 

b. Crown Landing receives written notification from the Director of the OEP that 

construction may begin. (Section 4.7.1) 

26. Texas Eastern shall consult with the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission (PAFBC) to 

identify measures to avoid or minimize impacts on red-bellied turtle habitat and individuals 

during construction of the pipeline across Chester Creek using an open-cut crossing method. 

Copies of correspondence with the PAFBC shall be filed with the Commission prior to 

construction of the non-HDD crossing method. (Section 4.7.2) 

27. Texas Eastern shall file copies of correspondence with the New Jersey Division of Fish and 

Wildlife documenting any mitigation measures for the pied-billed grebe with the Secretary prior 

to construction of the pipeline. (Section 4.7.2) 

28. 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. (Section 4.8.3.1) 

29. Crown Landing file documentation of concurrence from the Delaware Department of Natural 

Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC) that the projects are consistent with the 

Delaware Coastal Management Program with the Secretary prior to construction. (Section 

4.8.3.2) 

30. Texas Eastern shall prepare a Traffic Management Plans for construction within or adjacent to 

town and city streets in the Chester, Aston, and Brookhaven in consultation with the appropriate 

town or city. The plans shall identify specific measures that will be used to minimize the 

temporary inconvenience of in-street construction, including anticipated work hours relative to 

commuting periods and how Texas Eastern will maintain non-emergency access to residences. 

The plans shall be filed with the Secretary for review and approval by the Director of OEP prior 

to construction. (Section 4.9.4.1) 

31. Crown Landing shall provide to the Commission a copy of the final manufacturer’s emission 

guarantees and the NJDEP and DNREC final permits prior to construction. If the estimated 

potential to emit for carbon monoxide (CO) or volatile organics (VOCs) is determined to be 

greater than the major source threshold, additional information regarding the method of 

compliance demonstration shall also be provided prior to construction. This may include air 

dispersion modeling for CO or a lowest achievable emission rate determination for VOCs. 

(Section 4.11.1) 

32. Prior to construction, Crown Landing and Texas Eastern shall provide a full air quality analysis 

identifying all mitigation requirements required to demonstrate conformance with the applicable 

state implementation plan and submit detailed information documenting how the project will 

demonstrate conformity in accordance with Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 

51.858. The documentation shall address each regulatory criteria listed in Part 51.858; provide a 

detailed explanation as to whether or not the project will meet each requirement; and for each 

criteria being satisfied, provide all supporting information on how the project will comply. 

Should any element of the project change substantially, Crown Landing and Texas Eastern shall 

resubmit the aforementioned information so that OEP staff may determine the Conformity 

Determination of the revised action. (Section 4.11.1) 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
5-24 

33. Prior to construction, Texas Eastern shall submit a HDD noise analysis, mitigation and 

compliance plan for review and approval. This plan shall demonstrate that noise generated by 

HDD operations is below 55 decibels on the A-weighted scale (dBA) day-night sound level (Ldn) 

at the nearest noise sensitive areas (NSAs), and specify all noise mitigation equipment necessary 

to reduce noise below 55 dBA Ldn. Texas Eastern shall detail the method by which they will 

ensure compliance and where noise surveys indicate that noise attributable to drilling exceeds 55 

dBA Ldn, Texas Eastern shall: 

a. immediately stop drilling and mitigate the noise at the affected NSAs to reduce 

the noise levels at those NSAs to 55 dBA Ldn or below, or 

b. offer temporary housing until project-related Ldn levels at the NSAs are 55 dBA 

or below. (Section 4.11.2) 

34. Crown Landing shall 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 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 dBA Ldn at an NSA or 50 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. (Section 4.11.2) 

The following measures shall apply to the LNG terminal design and construction details. 

Information pertaining to these specific recommendations shall be filed with the Secretary for 

review and approval by the Director of OEP either: prior to initial site preparation; prior to 

construction of final design; prior to commissioning; or prior to commencement of service as 

indicated by each specific recommendation. Items relating to Resource Report 13-Engineering and 

Design Material and security shall be submitted as critical energy infrastructure information (CEII) 

pursuant to 18 CFR § 388.112 and PL01-1. Information pertaining to items such as: offsite 

emergency response; procedures for public notification and evacuation; and construction and 

operating reporting requirements will be subject to public disclosure. This information shall be 

submitted a minimum of 30 days before approval to proceed is required. 

35. Crown Landing shall provide a technical review of its facility design that: 

a. Identifies all combustion/ventilation air intake equipment and the distance(s) to any 

possible hydrocarbon release (LNG, flammable refrigerants, flammable liquids, 

and flammable gases); 

b. Demonstrates that these areas are adequately covered by hazard detection devices 

and indicates how these devices will 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 initial site preparation. (Section 4.12.2) 

36. Procedures shall be developed to measure, monitor and if necessary, remove water from beneath 

the pile cap, to prevent freezing and frost heave, during construction. Procedures shall be filed 

prior to initial site preparation. (Section 4.12.2) 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
5-25 

37. An evaluation of the relief and flare systems shall be made and filed prior to initial site 

preparation. (Section 4.12.2) 

38. A complete plan and list of the hazard detection equipment shall be filed prior to initial site

preparation. The information shall include a list with the instrument tag number, type and 

location, alarm locations, and shutdown functions of the proposed hazard detection equipment. 

Plan drawings shall clearly show the location of all detection equipment. (Section 4.12.2) 

39. A complete plan and list of the fixed and wheeled dry-chemical, fire extinguishing, high 

expansion foam, hazard control equipment shall be filed prior to initial site preparation. 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 units. Plan drawings shall 

clearly show the planned location of all fixed and wheeled extinguishers. (Section 4.12.2) 

40. 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 shall be filed prior to initial site preparation. (Section 4.12.2) 

41. Crown Landing shall examine provisions to retain any vapor produced along the transfer line 

trenches and other areas serving to direct LNG spills to associated impoundments. Measures to 

be considered may include, but are 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 initial site preparation. (Section 4.12.4) 

42. 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 initial site 

preparation. 

43. 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: 

a. designated contacts with state and local emergency response agencies; 

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 transit; 

e. locations of permanent sirens and other warning devices; and 

f. 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 written 

approval by the Director of OEP prior to initial site preparation. Crown Landing shall notify 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
5-26 

FERC staff of all planning meetings in advance and shall report progress on the development of its 

Emergency Response Plan at 3-month intervals. (Section 4.12.5) 

44. The Emergency Response Plan shall include a Cost-Sharing Plan identifying the mechanisms for 

funding all project-specific security/emergency management costs that would be imposed on state 

and local agencies. In addition to the funding of direct transit-related security/emergency 

management costs, this comprehensive plan should include funding mechanisms for the capital 

costs associated with any necessary security/emergency management equipment and personnel 

base. The Cost-Sharing Plan should be filed with the Secretary for review and written approval 

by the Director of OEP prior to initial site preparation. (Section 4.12.5) 

45. The final design of the hazard detection equipment shall identify manufacturer and model. 

(Section 4.12.2) 

46. The final design of the fixed and wheeled dry-chemical, fire extinguishing, high expansion foam 

hazard control equipment shall identify manufacturer and model. (Section 4.12.2) 

47. The final design shall include equipment and instrumentation for the measurement of 

translational and rotational movement of the inner vessel for use during and after cool down. 

(Section 4.12.2) 

48. The final design shall include details of the boil-off gas flow measurement system provided for 

each tank. (Section 4.12.2) 

49. The final design shall include a minimum of three onsite seismic instruments that will have the 

capability of actuating an automatic plant wide emergency shutdown in the event of seismic 

activity approaching the site Operating Basis Earthquake. Crown Landing shall specify the set 

point to be used. (Section 4.12.2) 

50. The final design shall include a reliable measurement 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. (Section 4.12.2) 

51. The final design shall 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. (Section 4.12.2) 

52. The final design shall include drawings and specifications of the spill protection system to be 

applied to the LNG tank roofs. (Section 4.12.2) 

53. The final design shall include provisions to measure the discharge flow of each intank pump. 

(Section 4.12.2) 

54. The final design of the vaporizers shall 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 shall be automatically actuated. (Section 4.12.2) 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
5-27 

55. The final design shall include provisions to ensure that hot glycol/water circulation is in 

operation at all times, except during power failures, 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. (Section 4.12.2) 

56. The final design shall include detection instrumentation and shut down procedures for vaporizer 

tube leak, shell side overpressure, or bursting disc failure. (Section 4.12.2) 

57. The final design shall include temperature measurement of the vaporizer common discharge 

header which shall alarm the low temperature condition. (Section 4.12.2) 

58. The final design shall include provisions to install temporary high pressure boiloff compression 

in the event that sendout operation is curtailed, or ceased for a period in excess of thirty days. 

Details shall include plans and drawings of the boiloff gas recovery system and specifications of 

the equipment and compressors to be installed. (Section 4.12.2) 

59. The final design shall include automatic shutdown valves at the suction and discharge of the each 

boiloff blower and each boiloff compressor. (Section 4.12.2) 

60. The 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: will continuously monitor for the presence of a flammable fluid; will alarm the hazardous 

condition; and will shutdown the appropriate systems. (Section 4.12.2) 

61. The final design shall 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. (Section 4.12.2) 

62. In the event that open path detectors are used 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. (Section 4.12.2) 

63. Prior to Commissioning, Crown Landing shall coordinate, as needed, 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. (Section 4.12.5) 

64. The final design shall include details of the shut down logic. (Section 4.12.2) 

65. The final design shall include emergency shutdown of equipment and systems activated by 

hazard detection devices for flammable gas, fire, and cryogenic spills, when applicable. (Section 

4.12.2) 

66. Security personnel requirements prior to and during LNG vessel unloading shall be filed prior to 

commissioning. (Section 4.12.2) 

67. Operation and maintenance procedures and manuals, as well as safety procedure manuals, shall 

be filed prior to commissioning. (Section 4.12.2) 

68. Copies of the Coast Guard security plan and vessel operation plan shall be provided to FERC 

staff prior to commissioning. (Section 4.12.2) 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
5-28 

69. The contingency plan for failure of the outer LNG tank containment shall be filed prior to 

commissioning. (Section 4.12.2) 

70. FERC staff shall be notified of any proposed revisions to the security plan and physical security 

of the facility prior to commencement of service. (Section 4.12.2) 

71. Progress on the proposed construction project shall be reported in monthly reports filed with the 

Secretary. Details shall include a summary of activities projected schedule for completion, 

problems encountered and remedial actions taken. Problems of significant magnitude shall be 

reported to the FERC within 24 hours. (Section 4.12.2) 

72. 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 inspection, Crown Landing 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 organizations. 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 be submitted. (Section 4.12.2) 

73. Semi-annual operational reports shall 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 shall 

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, 

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, 

non-scheduled 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 shall be reported. Reports shall be 

submitted within 45 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 be included in the semi-annual operational reports. Such information will 

provide FERC staff with early notice of anticipated future construction/maintenance projects at 

the LNG facility. (Section 4.12.2) 

74. In the event the temperature of any region of any secondary containment, including imbedded 

pipe supports, becomes less than the minimum specified operating temperature for the material, 

the Commission shall be notified within 24 hours and procedures for corrective action shall be 

specified. (Section 4.12.2) 

75. 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-related incidents (i.e., attempts to enter site, suspicious activities) shall 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 

shall be made immediately, without unduly interfering with any necessary or appropriate 

emergency repair, alarm, or other emergency procedure. This notification practice shall be 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
5-29 

incorporated 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 hospitalization; 

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

f. unintended movement or abnormal loading by environmental causes, such as an 

earthquake, landslide, or flood, that impairs the serviceability, structural integrity, or 

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

g. 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; 

h. 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; 

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 that 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 facility that contains or processes gas or LNG; 

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

facility; or 

m. 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 life, health, property or the 

environment, including authority to direct the LNG facility to cease operations. Following the initial 

company notification, FERC staff will determine the need for a separate follow-up report or followup in the upcoming semi-annual operational report. All company follow-up reports shall include 

investigation results and recommendations to minimize a reoccurrence of the incident. (Section 

4.12.2) 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
5-30 

76. Crown Landing shall annually review its waterway suitability assessment relating to LNG vessel 

traffic for the project; update the assessment to reflect changing conditions which may impact the 

suitability of the waterway for LNG marine traffic; provide the updated assessment to the Sector 

Delaware Bay Captain of the Port/Federal Maritime Security Coordinator (COTP/FMSC) for 

review and validation and if appropriate, further action by the COTP/FMSC relating to LNG 

vessel traffic; and provide a copy to FERC staff. (Section 4.12.5.2) 

77. Prior to accepting ships greater than 140,000 cubic meters in capacity, Crown Landing shall 

provide the necessary information to demonstrate that the transient hazard areas identified in the 

final EIS are applicable. Crown Landing shall file this information with the Secretary for review 

and written approval of the Director of OEP. This information shall also be provided to the Coast 

Guard. (Section 4.12.5.4) 

78. Prior to commencement of service, Crown Landing shall consult with the COE and Coast 

Guard regarding possible impacts to the Marcus Hook anchorage area from LNG vessel 

operations, and file the results of the consultations with the Secretary. (Section 4.12.8) 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
APPENDIX A 

FINAL EIS DISTRIBUTION LIST FOR THE 

CROWN LANDING LNG AND 

LOGAN LATERAL PROJECTS 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
A-1 

APPENDIX A 

FINAL EIS DISTRIBUTION LIST 

Federal Government Agencies

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, CO

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, DC

Director Cultural Resources

Army Corps of Engineers, DC

James Hand 

 CECW-OR 

Army Corps of Engineers, MD 

 James Tomlin 

Army Corps of Engineers, NJ 

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

Linda 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, DE 

 Soil Conservation Service 

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 

 Office of the Secretary of Defense 

 Department of the Navy 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
APPENDIX A (cont’d) 

A-2 

Federal Government Agencies (cont’d)

 Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Navy 

Department of Defense, PA 

 Tobyhanna Army Depot 

 Commanding Officer 

Department of Defense, VA 

Air Force Real Property Agency 

Department of the Navy 

 Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Environment and Safety 

 Environmental Readiness & Planning

Department of Energy, DC

Office of Environmental Compliance

Office of Intergovernmental Affairs

Steve Lerner

Department of Homeland Security, DC 

U.S. Coast Guard 

 Frank Esposito, Environmental Compliance Law 

 Susan Hathaway, Environmental Management Division – NEPA 

 Kebby Kelley, Environmental Management Division – NEPA 

Department of Homeland Security, OH 

U.S. Coast Guard 

 Frank Blaha, CEU Cleveland 

Department of Homeland Security, PA

U.S. Coast Guard

Patrick Keffler

LCDR Timothy E. Meyers 

 Officer in Charge 

Captain John Sarubbi 

Department of Homeland Security, RI 

U.S. Coast Guard 

 Lucas Dlhoplosky, CEU Providence

Department of Homeland Security, VA 

U.S. Coast Guard 

 Commander U.S. Fifth Coast Guard District 

 Phillip J. Phillips, MLC LANT Civil Engineering 

 Ruth Ann Weidel 

Department of Housing and Urban Development, DC

Director of Environment

Department of Justice, DC

Land and Natural Resources Division

Department of Labor, DC

Office of Regulatory Economics

Department of Safety and Homeland Security, DE

 Secretary James Ford, Jr.

Department of State, DC

Office of Environment/Health

Department of the Interior, DC

 National Park Service

Office Environmental Policy and Compliance

Director

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
APPENDIX A (cont’d) 

A-3 

Federal Government Agencies (cont’d)

Department of the Interior, MD 

 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

 Nautical Data Branch, Station 7317 

Department of the Interior, NJ

Fish and Wildlife Service

Steve Mars 

 Edward Perry

 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - Fisheries 

 Julie Crocker 

 Anita Riportella 

Department of the Interior, PA

Fish and Wildlife Service

Jennifer Kagel

Maria Tur 

 National Parks Service 

 Wild and Scenic River Program 

 Mary Vavra

Department of the Interior, VA 

 Bureau of Land Management 

Department of the Interior, WI

 Milwaukee Field Office 

Department of Transportation, DC

Director of Environment & Policy

DOT/RSPA/Eastern Region

Alex Dankanich, CATS

Office of Pipeline Safety

Tom Fortner

RSPA/OPS/Eastern Region

William Gute, Director

Environmental Protection Agency, DC

Office of Federal Activities

Director

Environmental Protection Agency, NY 

 Marine & Wetlands 

 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, DC

Chief of Energy and Environment

Library of Congress, DC

Exchange & Gift Division, Federal Documents Section

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, PA

Greg Smith

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
APPENDIX A (cont’d) 

A-4 

Federal Government Agencies (cont’d)

Senate, DC

Committee on Energy and Natural Gas 

United States Postal Service 

 Dover, DE 

 Frederica, DE 

 Lewes, DE 

 Sea Isle City, NJ 

 Lavallette, NJ 

 National Park, NJ 

 Toms River, NJ 

 Woodbury, NJ 

 Essington, PA 

 Scranton, PA 

Federal Representatives and Senators

Delaware

Congressman Michael N. Castle

Kate Rohrer, 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

Larry Windley, 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. Lautenberg

Senator Robert Menendez 

Jennifer Sneed, Office of Senator Lautenberg

Pennsylvania

Carl Fitzgerald, Delaware County Staff Director for Congressman Robert Brady

Congressman Curt Weldon

Congressman Robert A. Brady 

Senator Arlen Spector

Senator Rick Santorum

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
APPENDIX A (cont’d) 

A-5 

State Representatives and Senators

Delaware

Representative V. George Carey

Wayne Smith, House Majority Leader 

Representative Robert J. Valihura Jr.

Senator Catherine A. Cloutier

Senator David McBride

New Jersey

Assemblyman John J. Burzichelli

Assemblyman Douglas H. Fisher

Senator Stephen M. Sweeney

Pennsylvania

Representative Thaddeus Kirkland 

Senator Dominic F. Pileggi

Native 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 American Indian Affairs, NJ

Brian Patterson, Bear Clan Representative, Men's Council, Oneida Indian Nation, NY

Clint Halftown, Heron Clan Representative, Cayuga Nation, NY

Anthony Wonderley, Oneida Nation Historian, Oneida Indian Nation, NY

Leo Henry, Chief, Tuscarora Nation, NY

Irving Powless, Jr., Chief, Onondaga Indian Nation, NY

Onondaga Nation, NY 

Kathleen Mitchell, THPO, Seneca Nation of Indians, Seneca-Iroquois 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

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
APPENDIX A (cont’d) 

A-6 

Native American Groups (cont’d)

Brice Obermeyer, NAGPRA Director, Delaware Tribe of Indians, OK

Leroy Howard, Chief, Seneca-Cayuga Tribe of Oklahoma, OK

Tina Danforth, Chairperson, Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin, WI

Robert Chicks, Tribal Chairman, Stockbridge-Munsee Community of Wisconsin, WI

Stockbridge-Munsee Tribal Council, WI

Oneida Business Committee, Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin, WI

Sherry Sirgens, Cultural Preservation Officer, WI 

State Government Agencies

Delaware

Governor Ruth Ann Minner 

Department of Safety and Homeland Security 

 David B. Mitchell, Secretary 

Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control

Phil Cherry, Director of Policy and Planning

John A. Hughes, Secretary 

 Ben Anderson 

 Sarah W. Cooksey 

 Robert Palmer

Accidental Release Prevention Program

 Bob Barrish

Air Quality Management Section

Paul Foster

Coastal Zone Act Program

Dennis Brown

Susan Love

Division of Fish & Wildlife

Craig Shirey 

 Delaware Natural Heritage Program

Jeff Tinsman

Karen Bennett

Division of Water Resources

Bill Moyer

Laura Herr

Emergency Management Agency

James Turner III, 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 Griffith

Tri-State Maritime Safety Association

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
APPENDIX A (cont’d) 

A-7 

State Government Agencies (cont’d)

Doug Dillon 

New Jersey

Governor Jon Corzine

Chamber of Commerce

James F. Leonard, Vice President, Government Relations 

Delaware River Basin Commission 

 Edward Santoro 

 Paul Scally

Department of Community Affairs

Division of Fire Safety

Lawrence Petrillo, Fire Marshal

Department of Environmental Protection

Ken Koschek 

 Deborah Fimbel 

 Bradley Campbell, Commissioner 

 Bureau of Coastal and Land Use Enforcement 

 Scott Brubaker, Manager 

Bureau of Tidelands Management

Rich Castagna, Commissioner 

 Jo Ann Cubberley, Manager

Gary Sondermeyer, Chief of Staff

Land Use Regulation Program

Mark N. Mauriello, Director

Patricia Cluelow, 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.

Department of Transportation 

 Nancy Adrian 

 Rick Meng, Supervisor of Permits 

 Owen Morris

Office of Counter-Terrorism

Sidney Caspersen

Soil and Water Conservation Society

Firman E. Bear Chapter 

State Police

Marine Police

Lt. Dean Rainier

Office of Fire Department Preparedness

Michael Gallagher, Emergency Response and Planning Specialist

Michael Hall, Assistant Supervisor

The New Jersey Historical Society 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
APPENDIX A (cont’d) 

A-8 

State Government Agencies (cont’d)

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. McGinty, Secretary 

 Bureau of Water Quality Protection 

 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 

Fish and Boat Commission 

 South Region 

Wildlife Management Agency 

 Pennsylvania Game Commission 

 Office of the Executive Director 

 Hugh Palmer 

Public Utility Commission 

 Bureau of Safety 

Historical & Museum Commission 

 Chan Funk 

Historical and Museum Commission 

 Wayne S. Spilove, Chairman 

County Government Agencies

New Castle County, DE

Chief Administrative Officer 

 Thomas P. Gordon, County Executive 

 New Castle Conservation District

New Castle Historical Society

Cape May County, NJ 

 Cape May County Engineer 

 Cape May County Planning Board 

Cumberland County, NJ 

 Cumberland County Engineer 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
APPENDIX A (cont’d) 

A-9 

County Government Agencies (cont’d)

 Manuel Ostroff, County Health Department 

Gloucester County, NJ 

 Bill Krebs 

 Charles E. Romick, Director 

 Dr. Warren S. Wallace 

 Frank J. DiMarco 

 Gloucester County Historical Society 

 Gloucester County Planning Department 

 Gloucester County Sheriff 

 Gloucester County Soil Conservation District 

 Gloucester County Utilities Authority 

 Helene M. Reed 

 J. Thomas Butts, Emergency Management Coordinator 

 James N. Hogan 

 John H. Fisher, III 

 Joseph A. Brigandi 

 Margaret Miners Smith 

 Robert M. Damminger, Deputy Director 

 William E. Rieger, Jr. 

 William Reager 

Middlesex County, NJ 

 Robert J. Nardi, Middlesex County Planning Board 

Mercer County, NJ 

 Mercer County Planning Division 

Monmouth County, NJ 

 David W. Morris, Jr., Monmouth County Planning Board 

Ocean County, NJ 

 Richard E. Lane, Ocean County Engineer 

 Ocean County Planning Board 

 Joseph J Przywara, Ocean County Health Department 

Salem County, NJ

Carl Wentzell 

Bucks County, PA 

 Bucks County Commissioners 

Delaware County, PA

Delaware County Historical Society

Ed Magargee

Haverford Township Historical Society

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
APPENDIX A (cont’d) 

A-10 

County Government Agencies (cont’d)

Joseph F McGinn, Sheriff

Marple Newtown Historical Society

Museum of the History of Delaware County

The Delaware County Commerce Center

Tim Murtaugh, Chairman of the County Council 

Monroe County, PA 

 Monroe County Conservation District 

 Craig Todd, District Manager 

Montgomery County, PA 

 Montgomery County Planning Commission 

 Kenneth B. Hughes 

Town Government Agencies

City of Delaware City, Delaware City, DE 

City of Wilmington, Wilmington, DE 

Erick Haley, Fire Chief, Claymont, DE

Andy Lovell, Logan EMS, Bridgeport, NJ

Art Smith, Councilperson, Logan Township, Bridgeport, NJ

Phyllis Atkinson, Construction Official, Township of Logan Construction Office, Bridgeport, NJ

Mayor Dave Azzari, Swedesboro, NJ

William Baitzel, Chief, Repaupo Volunteer Fire Department, Swedesboro, NJ

Veronica Bills, Councilperson, Logan Township, Bridgeport, NJ

Borough of Brielle, Brielle, NJ 

Borough of Island Heights, Island Heights, NJ 

Borough of Manasquan, Manasquan, NJ 

Borough of Runnemede, Runnemede, NJ 

Borough of Ship Bottom, Ship Bottom, NJ 

Walker Diving, Hammonton, NJ 

David P. Fanslau, Township Administrator, Township of Logan, Bridgeport, NJ

George Fisher, Chairman, Logan Township Planning Board, Bridgeport, NJ

Marsha Gaventa, Councilperson, Logan Township, Bridgeport, NJ

Gibbstown Post Office, Gibbstown, NJ 

Robert Heal, City Administrator, Wildwood, NJ 

Frank Minor, Mayor, Logan Township, Bridgeport, NJ

Brian Murscell, President BFD, Bridgeport Fire Department, Swedesboro, NJ

Logan Township Police Department, Bridgeport, NJ

Warren Rodgers, Deputy Mayor, Logan Township, Bridgeport, NJ

Michael Smith, Chief, Logan Township Police Department, Bridgeport, NJ

Patrick Spring, Fire Chief, Bridgeport Volunteer Fire Department, Bridgeport, NJ

Ocean City Planning Board, Ocean City, NJ 

William Teter, OEM Director, Logan Township Office of Emergency Management, Bridgeport, NJ

Township of Delran, Delran, NJ 

Gary Whalen, Executive Director, Logan Municipal Utilities Authority, Bridgeport, NJ

Mayor John C. Wright, Bridgeport, NJ

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
APPENDIX A (cont’d) 

A-11 

Town Government Agencies (cont’d)

Albert Argentine, Council President, Municipal Building, Marcus Hook, PA

Mervin Boyer, Council Vice President, Municipal Building, Marcus Hook, PA 

Mayor Wendell Butler, City of Chester, Chester, PA

Bruce A. Dorbian, Borough Manager, Municipal Building, Marcus Hook, PA

Commissioner John Finnegan, Chester Police Department, Chester, PA

Burnie Gallows, Director Public Safety, Marcus Hook, PA

Mayor Ralph Garzia, Borough of Brookhaven, Brookhaven, PA

Township of Lower Makefield, Yardley, PA 

Joseph Manerchia, Fire Chief, Marcus Hook, PA

George McClure, Mayor, Municipal Building, Marcus Hook, PA

Bill Payne, Director of City Planning, City of Chester, Chester, PA

Jay Smith, Code Enforcement Officer, Marcus Hook, PA

Tincum Township, Essington, PA 

Upland Police HDQRS, Brookhaven, PA 

Libraries

Brandywine Branch of the New Castle County Library, DE 

Gloucester County Library System, NJ 

Swedesboro Public Library, NJ 

Aston Public Library, PA 

J. Lewis Crozer Library, PA 

Media

Delaware Coast Press, Rehoboth Beach, DE 

Nancy Kesler, News – Journal Company, Wilmington, DE 

Mr. Robert Long, The News Journal, Wilmington, DE 

Milford Chronicle, Milford, DE 

Molly Murray, Wilmington News Journal, Georgetown, DE 

The News Journal, Wilmington, DE

Shawn Wagner, Newark Review, Newark, DE

Doug Campbell, Soundings Publications, Annapolis, MD 

The Coast Star, Manasquan, NJ 

Adam Fifield, Philadelphia Inquirer, South Jersey Bureau, Cherry Hill, NJ

Asbury Park Press, Neptune, NJ 

Burlington County Times, Willingboro, NJ 

Cape May County Gazette, Wildwood, NJ 

Cape May County Herald, Rio Grande, NJ 

Daniele Cruz, Gloucester County Times, Woodbury, NJ

Frank Gargano, General Manager, Gloucester County Times, Woodbury, NJ

Lisa Grzyboski, Courier-Post, Woodbury, NJ 

Larry Hajna, Courier-Post, Cherry Hill, NJ 

New Jersey Herald, Newton, NJ 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
APPENDIX A (cont’d) 

A-12 

Media (cont’d)

Phillipsburg Free Press, Phillipsburg, NJ 

Jeanne Ridgeway, Courier Post, Cherry Hill, NJ

The Sandpaper, Surf City, NJ 

Steve Sibbers, Gazette – Leader, Wildwood, NJ

Times – Beacon Corporation, Manahawkin, NJ 

Trenton Times, Trenton, NJ 

Gene Vernacchio, Courier-Post, Cherry Hill, NJ 

Associated Press, Philadelphia, PA 

Chester News, Chester, PA 

Delaware County Daily Times, Primos, PA 

Local News, West Chester, PA 

The News Eagle, Hawley, PA 

Perkasie New Herald, Perkasie, PA 

Philadelphia Daily News, Philadelphia, PA 

Pike County Dispatch, Milford, PA 

Reading Eagle, Sports Editor, Reading, PA 

The Reporter, Lansdale, PA 

Bob Reynolds, WNEP Television, Moosic, PA 

Scranton Times, Scranton, PA 

Scrantonian Tribune, Scranton, PA 

Ramona Smith, Philadelphia Daily News, Philadelphia, PA 

Times-Leader-News, Wilkes Barre, PA 

Organizations and Individuals

M-B Construction, Inc., Orinda, CA 

St. Francisville, LLC, Eureka, CA 

David S. Baron, Earthjustice, Washington, DC 

Leith Henry, Hunton and Williams, Washington, DC 

National Association of Negro Business and Professionals, Washington, DC 

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

David Bailey, Ten Bears Environmental, LLC, Newark, DE 

Skyla Barlow, Claymont, DE

Dr. Kenneth Bell, Dover, DE 

Neil Belles, Wilmington, DE

J. Norman Bennett, Rehoboth Beach, DE 

Dick Berwick, Dover, DE

Elaine M. Bisbee, Lewes, DE 

Daniel Bockover, President, Council of Civic Organizations/Brandywine Hundred, Wilmington, DE 

Lynn Borreggine, Claymont, DE 

Laurie E. Bortz, Claymont, DE 

Jean M. Bostwick, Wilmington, DE

Peter Brakhage, Newark, DE 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
APPENDIX A (cont’d) 

A-13 

Organizations and Individuals (cont’d)

Ms. Karen Emory Brittingham, Milford, DE

Kevin D. Brown, Claymont, DE

John C. Bryson, M.A.F.M.C., Dover, DE 

Eileen Butler, Delaware Nature Society, Hockessin, DE

C. 78 Stoltz Realty Company, Wilmington, DE 

Bruce A. Cabo, Wilmington, DE

C. Carey, Wilmington, DE 

Wendy Carey, Coastal & Estuarine Research, Inc., Lewes, DE 

C. Kenneth Carter, Selbyville, DE 

Ralph Churchill, Wilmington, DE

Jean P. Colbert, Wilmington, DE 

Thomas E. Colgan, Wilmington, DE 

Ms. Jean Conway, Council of Civic, Wilmington, DE

Christina Cook, New Castle, DE

William L. & Eileen P. Creighton, Middletown, DE

Mt. Cuba Astronomical Observatory, Inc., Greenville, DE

James C. Curtis, Ch. Eng. Veterans Adm. Medical Ct., Wilmington, DE 

Vicky Cwiertnie, Duffield and Associates, Wilmington, DE 

Mr. Mike D'Amico, Nassau, DE

James Dipinto, Department of Licenses & Inspection, Wilmington, DE 

George J. Danneman, Wilmington, DE

Mrs. Mary Dantzler, Smyrna, DE 

Nancy Davis, Claymont, DE

Mr. Matt Del Pizzo, President, Port Penn, DE

John L. Deming, Vice President, Gov't Relations, Ciba Specialty Chemicals, Newport, DE

Dr. Al Demio, Newark, DE

Allen A. Denio, PhD, Newark, DE

James Dennis, Dover, DE

Rev Charles Dennis, Ellendale, DE

Mr. Jim Dodd, Smyrna, DE

Droney Marine Construction, Inc., Millville, DE 

Ecological Assessment Services, Newark, 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

Allen Friedman, Wilmington, DE 

Juana Fuentes-Bowles, Director, Div. of Human Relations, Dept. of State, Dover, DE

Richard D. Galster, Jr., Delmara Power & Light Company, Newark, DE 

Richard Gardner, Dover, DE

Ms. Irene Goverts, Wilmington, DE

Mable Granke, Rehoboth Beach, DE 

Ms Joanne Griffin, Wilmington, DE

Hagley Museum, Wilmington, DE

Simeon Hahn, Wilmington, DE 

Dr. Bethany Hall-Long, Middletown, DE 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
APPENDIX A (cont’d) 

A-14 

Organizations and Individuals (cont’d)

Ms. Barbara Harbin, Claymont, DE

Mr. Holger H. Harvey, Odessa, DE

Jeremiah & Ruth Heartley, Claymont, DE

Debbie Heaton, Conservation Program Manager, Sierra Club Delaware Chapter, Wilmington, DE

Ms. Debbie Heaton, Middletown, DE

Raymond G. Heinzelmann, Ph.D., Gahagan & Bryant Associates, Inc., Wilmington, DE

Edward F. Heite, Camden Wyoming, DE 

Ray Hester, Claymont, DE

Jack Hickman, Bethany Beach, DE 

Mr. Paul Hirseman, New Castle, DE 

Bill Houtman, Wilmington, DE 

Wayne D. Hudson, Milton, DE 

John Hughes, Lewes, DE 

James Igo, Wilmington, DE

Ms. Margaret A. Ingram, Legislative Liaison, Dover, DE 

William S. Ingram, Jr., Lewes, DE 

E. Lowell Jacobs, Landmark Engineering, New Castle, DE 

Lee James, Claymont, DE

Mr. Alden Jenkins, Wilmington Waterfront Watch, Wilmington, DE

John R. Jones, Delaware River & Bay Authority, New Castle, DE 

Mr. Roger L. Jones, The Nature Conservancy, Delaware Chapter, 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 

J. Rodney King, Georgetown, DE 

William Klawitter, Wilmington, DE

Kathy Klein, Partnership for the Delaware Estuary, Wilmington, DE 

Lewis Kofrow, Claymont, DE

Wallace Kremer, Wilmington, DE

Mr. Jacob Kreshtool, Wilmington, DE

Lisa & Michael Lasher, Millsboro, DE 

Margaret Lawson, Claymont, DE

Mary Ann Levan, Ph.D., Atlantic Hydrolic, Inc., Newark, DE 

Max M. Levy, Wilmington, DE 

Lewes Dairy, Inc., Lewes, DE 

Library Morris, James, Hitchens, & William, Wilmington, DE 

Capt. A. W. Lingo, Rehoboth Beach, DE 

Irv Lipo, Wilmington, DE

James Lockwood, Claymont, DE

George Losse, President, Claymont Community Coalition, Claymont, DE

William E. Lowe, Lewes, DE 

June D. MacArtor, Bear, DE

James F. Macintire, Lewes, DE 

Mr. Ed Malin, Bear, DE

Gerald & Colleen Manley, Claymont, DE

John J. Marsh, Lewes, DE 

Mr. Mike McDowell, President, Middletown, DE

Elder L. McDuffy, Hamilton Park Advisory Council, New Castle, DE

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
APPENDIX A (cont’d) 

A-15 

Organizations and Individuals (cont’d)

Mary Anne McGonegal, Wilmington, DE

Ms. Meredith McGregor, Wilmington, DE

Ms Pamela Meitner, Wilmington, DE

Mr. Robert Melson, DE Academy Science, Newark, DE

V.S. Mertes, Rehoboth Bay Pollution Control, Rehoboth Beach, DE 

Charles Miller, Environmental Consulting Services, Middletown, DE 

Ms. Dorothy P. Miller, Newark, DE

Ms. Martha Miller, Dover, DE 

Anthony Monico, Newark, 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

Jesse E. Murray, Dagsboro, DE 

Mr. Tim O'Connor, Wyoming, DE

Ms. La Vaida Owens-White, Wilmington, DE

Jim Parks, Wilmington, DE 

H. Dale Parsons, Lewes, DE 

Kathleen Patane, Claymont, DE 

Ms. Grace Pierce-Beck, Dover, DE 

John & Marie Pittenger, Env. Activities, Wilmington, DE

Ms. Til Purnell, Millsboro, DE 

Robert E. Quinn, Wilmington, DE 

Francis Rafferty & Linda Sitarski, Claymont, DE

Kelvin W. Ramsey, Delaware Geological Survey, Newark, DE 

Lawrence M. Reardon, Wilmington, DE 

William S. Reynolds, Jr., Lewes, DE 

Michael Riska, Executive Director, Delaware Nature Society, Hockessin, DE

Thomas P. Robinson, Rehoboth Beach, DE 

Ms. Leah Roedel, DE River & Bay Shrln, Wilmington, DE 

Rohm and Hass Electronic Materials, Newark, DE

Seth Ross, Delaware Nature Society, Newark, DE

Arnie S. Samson, Townsend, DE 

Bill Satterfield, Executive Director, Delmarva Poultry Industry, Inc., Georgetown, DE

Ms. Glenda Scott, Georgetown, DE

Victor Schuler, VJ Schuler Environmental Consultants, Townsend, DE 

Mr. Donald Sharp, United Auto Workers, Newark, DE

Ms. Gwynne Smith, Wilmington, DE

Mr. David Sokola, Newark, DE

Mr. Carl Solberg, Dover, DE

Nicholas Staikos, Wilmington, DE

Sussex Conservation District, Georgetown, DE

Mr. Marvin Thomas, Wilmington, DE

John J. Thompson, Wilmington, DE 

Mr. Dave Timmons, Newark, DE

Mr. Stephen Tindall, Wilmington, DE

Pat Todd, Wilmington, DE 

David J. Torrens, Wilmington, DE

Town of Newport, Newport, DE 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
APPENDIX A (cont’d) 

A-16 

Organizations and Individuals (cont’d)

Town of Smyrna, Smyrna, DE 

Town of South Bethany, Bethany Beach, DE 

Tri-State Bird Rescue, Newark, DE

Mr. Harold Truxon, Ellendale, DE

W.G. Turner, Department of Public Works, Wilmington, DE 

Ms. Rita 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

Water Resources Agency of New Castle, University of Delaware, Newark, DE 

Mr. Winston Wayne, Wilmington, DE

Lyman Welch, Wilmington, DE 

Weymouth Architects, Wilmington, DE 

Delores Whildin, Claymont, DE

Ms. Teresa Whitaker, Dover, DE 

Martin C. Willis, New Castle, DE

Mr. Newlin E. Wood, Jr., Wilmington, DE 

G. Edward Wyatt, Jr., Rehoboth Beach, DE 

Aztec Development Company, Orlando, FL 

Shirley Barnett, Plant City, FL 

Gerald Bassett, Plant City, FL 

Morton J. Berman, Boca Raton, FL

Anjie Diaz, Aztec Development, Orlando, FL 

Capt. John L. Garrott, Hudson, FL 

Eugene Mori, Miami, FL

Gene & Peggy Radka, Jr., Fort Meyers Beach, FL 

Gloria & Gene Radka, Sr., Fort Meyers Beach, FL 

Salvatore & Cecilia Roma, c/o Eleanor Smith, POA, Ocala, FL

Southeast Floating Docks, St. Augustine, FL 

Mr. Ron Spencer, Mgr. Real Estate, CSX Real Property, Jacksonville, FL 

Frank Turk, V.P., International Dock Product, Inc., Hallandale, FL 

Gregory J. Bertha PE, Chicago Bridge & Iron Company, Plainfield, IL 

Dan Hussin, Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Company, Oak Brook, IL 

Floating Docks Mfg. Co., Indianapolis, IN 

Roger Korenstra, Better Way Products, Inc., New Paris, IN 

Bean Dredging Corporation, Belle Chasse, LA 

J.D. Lormand, Executive Director, Rocky Mountain Pipeline Contractors Assoc., Lafayette, LA

Eddie Soileau, Eunice, LA

Leon Bowdoin, Fall River, MA 

Jay Cashman, Inc., Quincy MA 

David F. Jenkins, Vice President, TRC Environmental Corporation, Lowell, MA 

Gus McLachlan, Duke Energy Gas Transmission, Waltham, MA

Tom McNiff, Off Shore Magazine, Winthrop, MA 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
APPENDIX A (cont’d) 

A-17 

Organizations and Individuals (cont’d)

Gene Muhlherr, Duke Energy Gas Transmission, Waltham, MA 

Thomas Plante, Westport, MA 

Realty Associates Fund Vi, LP, Boston, MA 

George Apple, Apple Marine Construction, Inc., Ocean City, MD 

Army Corps of Engineers Baltimore, MD 

Association of Maryland Pilots, Baltimore, MD 

Joyce Cofield, Delmarva Water Transport Committee, Salisbury, MD 

Greg DeCowsky, Earleville, MD

Ellicott Machine Corporation, Baltimore, MD 

Environmental Concern, Inc., St. Michaels, MD 

Robert Faby, Parkville, MD 

Mike Fazzino, Ruppert Environmental, Ashton, MD 

Claire Filemyr, Silver Spring, MD

Jim Grant, Soil Safe, Inc., Columbia, MD

Frederick R. Hopkins, Kingsville, MD 

Capt. Walter S. Howard, McDaniel, MD 

A. Kaufman, Sparks, MD 

Dave Keifer, Sierra Club of Delaware, Dover, MD

Patrick G. Lynch, Baltimore, MD 

Maryland Dept. of Transportation, Baltimore, MD 

Maryland Environmental Service, Millersville, MD 

Daniel R. Massey, Delmarva Power & Light Company, Salisbury, MD 

Jay W. Perry, Towson, MD 

Susan Peterson, Elkton, MD 

Frank W. Pine, EA Engineering Science and Technology, Sparks Glencoe, MD 

Charles H. Rogers, Towson, MD 

David W. Stambaugh III, Baltimore Maritime Exchange, Inc., Baltimore, MD 

Steamship Trade Association of Baltimore, Inc., Baltimore, MD 

M.R. Watson, President Association of Maryland Pilots, Baltimore, MD 

J.P. Welsh, Hayward Baker Company, Odenton, MD 

A.C. Hoyle Company, Iron Mountain, MI 

Durocher Dock & Dredge, Inc., Cheboygan, MI 

Bay West, Inc., Saint Paul, MN 

Randy Duncan, Natural Resource Group, Inc., Minneapolis, MN 

Naomi Jenson, Natural Resource Group, Inc., Minneapolis, MN 

Jeff Thommes, Natural Resource Group, Minneapolis, MN 

Mary Hodes, Morrisville, NC 

Robert W. Moore, Southport, NC 

Jacqueline Berg, Laconia, NH 

Julie Akers, Newtonville, NJ 

American Littorae Society, Highlands, NJ 

Asbury Park Press, Neptune, NJ 

Associated Environmental Applications, Egg Harbor City, NJ 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
APPENDIX A (cont’d) 

A-18 

Organizations and Individuals (cont’d)

AT&T Long Lines, Berlin, NJ 

Nancy Allen, Logan Township, NJ

John Ambrose, Ferro Plant Manager, Bridgeport, NJ

John Andrus, Ocean City, NJ 

Marlene Z. Asselta, President, Southern New Jersey Development Council, Turnersville, NJ

Steve Balzano, Stockholm, NJ 

Barnegat Bay Dredging, Harvey Cedars, NJ 

Donald D. Bell, President, Siegfried (USA), Inc., Pennsville, NJ 

Leonard Betz, Toms River, NJ 

Blauvbelt Engineers, Mount Laurel, NJ 

Ray & Marilyn Blickle, Pedricktown, NJ 

Mr. Michael Bogdan, Carpenter Environmental, Ramsey, NJ

Richard and Kimberly Bond, Logan Township, NJ

Dominick Borrelli, Logan Township, NJ

Joseph and Eleanor Borrelli, Logan Township, NJ

Joseph and Eleanor Borrelli, Pedricktown, NJ

Todd Bosco, Logan Township, NJ

Ida M. Boultinghouse, Bridgeport, NJ 

Peggy Bowen, New Jersey Council of Diving Club, Oakhurst, NJ 

Scott Bradbury, Bridgeport, NJ 

John Brennan, Atlantic County Planning Division, Atlantic City, NJ 

Brick Township Environmental Cons., Brick, NJ 

Brielle Anchorage, Brielle, NJ 

Roger Brown, Boat Regulation Commission, Brick, NJ 

Caldwell Diving Company, Inc., Toms River, NJ 

Michael J. Campbell, Logan Township, NJ

James Cardani, Atlantic City, NJ 

Sam Cardille, Wildwood, NJ 

Joseph G. Caruso, Mount Holly, NJ 

Robert Cassidy, Pedricktown, NJ

Century 21 Pacesetter, Forked River, NJ 

David Charles, President and CEO, Revere Industries LLC, Clayton, NJ 

Alfard D. Collier Jr., Swedesboro, NJ

Bruce B. Connell, P.E., P.P., Connell Engineering, Forked River, NJ 

Anthony Conte, Gibbstown, NJ 

Willard Cooper, Delaware River Port Authority, Camden NJ 

Corinthian Yacht Club, Cape May, NJ 

Frank I Corradetti, P.E., West Bay Construction, Inc., Somers Point, NJ 

Jerry Cosgrove, Gibbstown, NJ

Robert Costello, Logan Township, NJ

Romeo and Jennie Costello, Logan Township, NJ

Joanna Crane, Logan Township, NJ

Dorothy S. Cranmer, Clerk Township of Long Beach, Beach Haven, NJ 

Joel and Margaret Cressman, Sr., Logan Township, NJ 

Alice D’Arcy, New Jersey Pinelands Commission, New Lisbon, NJ 

Werner J. F. Dahl, Point Pleasant Beach, NJ 

Brendan Daly, Swedesboro, NJ

Rakesh Darji, Remington & Vernick Engineers, Haddonfield, NJ 

R. Mangaliso Davis, S.J.E.J.A., Camden, NJ

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
APPENDIX A (cont’d) 

A-19 

Organizations and Individuals (cont’d)

Kathleen A. Davis, Executive Vice President, Chamber of Commerce of Southern NJ, Voorhees, NJ

Elizabeth Davison Hyde, Roux Associates, Inc., West Deptford, NJ

Corby Deese, Jr., Logan Township, NJ 

Christopher Degrezia, Princeton, NJ

Debra P. DiLorenzo, President, Chamber of Commerce of Southern NJ, Voorhees, NJ

Charles Dippo, Folsom, NJ

Joseph A. Dobarro, Bureau of Shellfisheries, Port Norris, NJ 

Jennie Dobrowolski, Logan Township, NJ 

David Dorsey, Enterprise Transportation Co., Pedricktown, NJ

Gene Dougherty, Franklinville, NJ

Donald M. Douglass, Jr., Haddonfield, NJ 

Jim Duffe, Farmingdale, NJ 

David Warren Dutton, Sr, Logan Township, NJ

Duttons, Pedricktown, NJ 

Joseph J. Dyer, Sr., Salem, NJ 

R.S. Edwards, Swedesboro, NJ 

Oliver T. Edstrom, Egg Harbor City, NJ 

Steve Eisenhauer, Great Egg Harbor Watershed Association, Pitman, NJ 

Mr. Charles M. Evans, Solutia Inc. & Ferro Corp., Bridgeport, NJ

New Jersey Environmental Federation, Belmar, NJ

David Faust, Ocean, NJ 

Solutia Inc. Ferro Corp., Tax Dept., Bridgeport, NJ 

Sharon Finlayson, Pennsauken, NJ

Ruth Fisher, Citizens Association to Protect the Environment, South Dennis, NJ 

Walter Florimont, Wildwood, NJ 

Willard & Dorothy Folker, Bridgeport, NJ

Dennis Funaro, Department of Community Development, Moorestown, NJ 

Bruce D. Fusello, Bridgeport, NJ

Mike Gabor, Agate Construction Company, Inc., Ocean View, NJ 

Douglas A. Gaffney, Voorhees, NJ 

Garden State Dredging, Inc., Rio Grande, NJ 

Marsha Gaverta, Logan Township, NJ

Geological U Survey, Trenton, NJ 

Leo & Doris Gillen, Bridgeport, NJ

Richard Gimello, Exec. Dir., Maritime Resources, Trenton, NJ 

Nancy N. Goldberger, Long Beach Township, NJ 

Mr. Bob Golden, TRC Environmental, Lindhurst, NJ 

Michael J. Gross, Esq., Giordano, Halleran & Ciesla, Middletown, NJ 

T.J. Guzikowski, Colonial Pipeline Company, Woodbury, NJ 

Blair Hannigan, Woolwich Township, NJ

Judy Hansen, Cape May County Mosquito Commission, Cape May Court House, NJ 

George S. Hawkins, Chair, NJ Council of Watershed Associations, Pennington, NJ 

Healy Tibbits Buildings, Cranford, NJ 

David Heider, Logan Township, NJ

George W. Henn, Civil Engineers and Land Surveyors, Brick, NJ 

Jerry Hernandez, Logan Township, NJ

Richard M. Hluchan, Ballard Spahr Andrews & Ingersoll, Voorhees, NJ 

Margaret A. Hollifred, Bridgeport, NJ

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
APPENDIX A (cont’d) 

A-20 

Organizations and Individuals (cont’d)

Horn, Tyson, & Yoder, Inc., Beach Haven, NJ 

Estate of Raymond Hughes, Charles Hughes, Executor, Logan Township, NJ

David R. and Robin L. Hunt, Logan Township, NJ 

Frank Iacobucci, Bridgeport, NJ 

Don Ivins, Express Marine, Inc., Camden, NJ 

Jersey Devils, Inc., Brigantine, NJ 

Joyce Johnson, Carney’s Point, NJ 

Roy Jones, Camden, NJ

Robert E. Kelly, County Engineer’s Office, Lindenwold, NJ 

Keystone Urban Renl, Ltd. Partnership, Carneys Point, NJ

Samuel and Mary Kille, Logan Township, NJ

La Terre & Associates, Millville, NJ 

Kathleen La Vecchia, Lavallette, NJ 

Marcia Ledford, Soil Safe, Logan Township, NJ

James L. Lee, Thorofare, NJ

Richard Levitt, Northfield, NJ 

Alice L. Licciardello, Mickleton, NJ

Logan Township Municipal Utilities Authority, Bridgeport, NJ 

Kathy Love-Moore, Logan Township, NJ

Michael Lucey, Ocean City, NJ 

Lynch Giuliano And Associates, Brick, NJ 

Beth MacWatters, Thorofare, NJ

Stephen P. Magenta, General Maintenance and Labor, Inc., Thorofare, NJ

James Maley, Jr. Esquire, Gloucester County Improvement Authority, Marlton, NJ 

Kevin Maley, Vincentown, NJ 

Mrs. Noel Maley, Williamstown, NJ 

Marine Trade Association of New Jersey, Brick, NJ 

Beverly Marquette, Pennsville, NJ 

Michael J. McHale, Sea Isle City, NJ 

David McMillan, Newark, NJ 

Brian McPeak, Sawhill Michel and McPeak Associates, Absecon, NJ 

Michael Mead, Swedesboro, NJ

Mr. David Meiskin, Logan 529 Group, LLC, Freehold, NJ

Mobil Oil Corporation Environmental, Paulsboro, NJ 

Paul and Candace Mogavero, Logan Township, NJ

Edwin Morrow, Logan Township, NJ

Madelyn Mueller, Nacote Creek Shellfish Office, Port Republic, 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 

Neva Musella, Toms River, NJ 

Bill Neil, New Jersey Audubon Society, Scherman Hoffman Sanctuaries, Bernardsville, NJ 

Nelke, Constantine & Associates, Inc., Tuckerton, NJ 

New Jersey Bureau of Freshwater, Lebanon, NJ 

News Cr O Iht Pae, Toms River, NJ 

Anita Nichols, Logan Township, NJ

Mike Nichols, Woolwick Township, NJ 

Rodger Nogaki, Marlton, NJ

Jeffery Normant, Nacote Creek Shellfish Office, Port Republic, NJ 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
APPENDIX A (cont’d) 

A-21 

Organizations and Individuals (cont’d)

Margie Norton, Barnsboro, NJ

Linda Nothdurft, Logan Township, NJ

William J. O'Connor, Delaware River Port Authority, Camden, NJ

Ocean County Mosquito Extermination Co., Barnegat, NJ 

Office of the Borough Clerk, Surf City, NJ 

Office of New Jersey Heritage, Trenton 

Oldmans 130 Realty LLC, Holmdel, NJ

Joseph J. Orland, Avalon, NJ 

Eugene N. & Linda L. Osward, Jr., Bridgeport, NJ

Bob Otten, Logan Township, NJ

Gary Patterson, Commissioner, DE River Port Authority, Camden, NJ

Robert & Ruth Paz, Bridgeport, NJ

Pennoni Associates, Inc., Absecon, NJ 

Ray Pepper, Pepper Construction Company, Dividing Creek, NJ 

Michael F. Pesch, Vice President, Valero Paulsboro Refinery, Paulsboro, NJ 

Marlin Peterson, Westfield, NJ

William C. Pickett, Pedricktown, NJ

Samuel A. Pignatelli, VP, South Jersey Gas Company, Folsom, NJ

Constance E. Piling, Isaac Walton of Ocean County, Mantoloking, 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

R.A. Alaimo Associates, Mount Holly, NJ 

Raccoon Creek Boat Club, Gibbstown, NJ 

Red Carpet Lacey Realty Center, Forked River, NJ 

Bob Ringelheim, Princeton Junction, NJ 

Donald M. Rippey, Rutgers Agriculture Center, Toms River, NJ 

Jay Rodgers, Logan Township, NJ 

Salvatore A. Ross, Penns Grove, 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 

Elaine Scheetz, Logan Township, NJ

Mary Schubert, Bridgeport, NJ

Glenn R. Seelhorst, Toms River, NJ 

M.R. Shaw, Haddonfield, NJ 

Leakadia Sieracimski, Logan Township, NJ

New Jersey Sierra Club, Trenton, NJ 

Mark & Merry Simmons, Harvey Cedars, NJ 

James R. Smith, MD, Woolwich Township, NJ

Joseph Smyk, Logan Township, NJ 

John Sobieski, Logan Township, NJ

Jim Sousa, Logan Power Plant Manager, Swedesboro, NJ

Tony Spadaccini, Swedesboro, NJ

William and Joan Sparks, Logan Township, NJ

Charles E. Spires, Sr., Swedesboro, NJ

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
APPENDIX A (cont’d) 

A-22 

Organizations and Individuals (cont’d)

William J. & Donna M. Stewart, Logan Township, NJ

Fred Sting, Westmont, NJ

Bill Strite, Walker Diving Constructors, Inc., Hammonton, NJ 

Bill Sullivan, Westville, NJ 

William H. Taylor, P.E., Haddonfield, NJ 

Amy Thomas, Pennsville, NJ

Booker Thomas, Penns Grove, NJ 

Felicia Thomas-Friel, Esq., Managing Attorney-Gas, State of NJ Division of Ratepayer Advocate, 

Newark, NJ

George E. Thompkins, Seaside Heights, NJ 

Kim Thompson, Logan Township, NJ

Jeff Tittle, New Jersey Sierra Club, Trenton, NJ

Ray Tripoli, Public Service Electric & Gas Co., Newark, NJ 

Richard R. Trout, Operations Director, Johnson Matthey, West Deptford, NJ

Lloyd H. Tubman, Metro Corporate Campus One, Woodbridge, NJ 

John Tull, Logan Township, NJ

Andrew & Mary I. Valesky, Bridgeport, NJ

Varija Najarian and Associates, Eatontown, NJ 

Ray Walker, Maser Consulting P.A., Redband, NJ 

Wade Wander, Newton, NJ 

Charles R. Ward, Port Services, LLC, Sewell, NJ

Waterfront Constructors, Bridgeport, NJ 

Weichert Realtors, Forked River, NJ 

Deborah Weiner, Swedesboro, NJ

Artis R. Williams, Plant Manager, Air Products and Chemicals, Inc., Paulsboro, NJ

William Winters, Linwood, NJ 

Robert Winzinger, Inc., Hainesport, NJ 

R.L. Wrease, Sr., Swedesboro, 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 

Frank G. Young, Cherry Hill, NJ 

Zachariae Realty, Manahawkin, NJ 

Marjorie Zeff, Louis Berger & Associates, NJ 

Ziegenfuss Drilling Co., Ringoes, NJ 

Bob Funk, Reno, NV

Mike D’Amico, Massapequa, NY 

Dan DuBois, Albany, NY 

James S. Graham, National Timber Piling Council, Inc., Rye, NY 

Terry Gregg, Aquamatic Piers, Olcott, NY 

Capt. James B. Kane, Staten Island, NY 

William H. Koelbel, Marine Consultant, Geneva, NY 

Marine Consultants, New Rochelle, NY 

Sullivan Flotation System, Inc., Warwick, NY 

Edgar White, P.E., New York, NY 

Phil Arnold, P.G., Marathon Asylum Petroleum, Findlay, OH 

J.R. Van Nort, P.E., Syro Steel Company, Girard, OH 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
APPENDIX A (cont’d) 

A-23 

Organizations and Individuals (cont’d)

Atlantic – Meeco, Inc., Mcalester, OK 

Transcontinental Gas Pipeline Corp., Tulsa, OK

Aaron Tabernacle Church, Bishop William Blackwell, Sr., Chester, PA

Lawrence J. Abadie, Brookhaven, PA

Shawn S. & Dolores S. Adamek, Brookhaven, 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. & Partricia D. April, Glen Mills, PA

Philip A. & Eileen J. Askey, Wallingford, PA

Association of Business & Professional, Philadelphia, PA 

Paula Atwell, Brookhaven, PA

James J. & Eileen P. Babenko, Brookhaven, PA

John Bachle, Linwood, PA

Perry M. Rosemary Bannister, Chester, PA

John Bannon, Philadelphia, PA 

Richard Banta, Boothwyn, PA

Joseph A. Barnes, Ridley Park, PA 

Andrew S. & Patricia L. Barolo, Brookhaven, PA 

Eric & Diana Barraclough, Brookhaven, PA

Carol L. Bedrosian, Brookhaven, PA

Edwin H. Beisel, Brookhaven, PA

Thomas Belk, Jr., Holmes, PA 

Arthur Bell, Elaine Bell, Brookhaven, PA

Joseph E. Benton, McAllister Towing of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA

Berks – Mont. Municipal Authority, Gilbertsville, PA 

Jesse A. Berry, Gertrude Phillips, Chester, PA 

Charlotte Beverly, Chester, PA

Helene D. Bilson, Brookhaven, PA

Stephen H. Bixby, Wallingford, PA

Blazosky Associates, Inc., State College, PA 

John Jr. & Donna Blosinski, Gradyville, PA

Lane Bodley, Carroll Engineering Corporation, Warrington, PA 

Edward M. & Wanda Bogucki, Brookhaven, PA

George & Maria Borhegy, Brookhaven, PA

Jerry Bourgeault, Gerard Technology, Thorndale, PA 

Victor M. & Mattie B. Bowes, Chester, PA

Lawrence Bowman, Chester, PA

Henry A. Boyd, Chester, PA 

Christopher Boyle & Brett Slersky, Philadelphia, PA

Margaret V. Boyle, Brookhaven, PA

Joseph F. Bradley, Thornton, PA 

Brandywine Conservancy, Chadds Ford, PA

Brandywine Valley Association, West Chester, PA

Jason E. Breeden, Brookhaven, PA 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
APPENDIX A (cont’d) 

A-24 

Organizations and Individuals (cont’d)

Mary A. Brinkos, Maritrans, Inc., Philadelphia, PA 

Brodhead Watershed Association, Henryville, PA 

Karen Brooks, Brookhaven, PA

Alfred & Jeanne Brower, Brookhaven, PA

Carl T. & Debra Jean Brown, Brookhaven, PA

James T. & Josephine Brusenham, Chester, PA 

D.S. Bryant, Chester, PA

Ella D. Bryant, Chester, PA

Lillie B. and Donna M. Burch, Chester, PA 

Walter M. Burch, Jr., Chester, PA 

David Burk, Brookhaven, PA

James T. Jr. & Cheryl L. Burke, Brookhaven, PA

Scott E. Bush, BCM Eastern Incorporated, Plymouth Meeting, 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 

Britton Chance, Philadelphia, PA 

Chester Township, Chester, PA

City of Chester, Veteran's Memorial Park, Chester, PA 

Victor A. Cicero, Morrisville, PA 

Clotel Clement, Chester, PA

Arthur E. Colby Jr., Brookhaven, PA

Charles T. Coly, Philadelphia, PA 

Community of Christ, Light of Hope, Rev. James Reed, Philadelphia, PA

Conservation Soil One Credit Union, Harrisburg, PA 

Lou Cordivari, PennDot, Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, Media, PA

John J. Coscia, Executive Director, Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission, Philadelphia, PA

Harris Covon, Langhorne, PA 

John W. Coyne, Blue Bell, PA 

John E. Creighton, Agriculture Extension Office, Honesdale, PA 

Sophie R. & Ronald J. Crepack, Brookhaven, PA

Mr. B. Crimmins, VP Facilities, Chester Community Hospital, Brookhaven, PA

George Crum, Southwest Delaware County Municipal Authority, Aston, PA

Debra Culbert, Brookhaven, PA

William E. Dallam, Chester, PA

George H. Daly, Havertown, PA

Tina Daly, Phoenixville, PA 

Steve D'Angelo, Danbro L.P., Philadelphia, PA

William R. & Terry E. Davis, Chester, PA

Terence C. Davis, Donna McPartlan, E. Fallowfield, PA

Alvin D. Daviston, Jr., Chester, PA

Linda A. Dawson, Chester, PA

Dante N. Deannuntis, Media, PA

Delaware Riverkeeper Network, Washington Crossing, PA 

Ralph Delorenzo, Brookhaven, PA

William & Patricia DeMaio, Brookhaven, PA

James F. & Deborah A. Devlin, Brookhaven, PA

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
APPENDIX A (cont’d) 

A-25 

Organizations and Individuals (cont’d)

Roger Dickson, Rhonda D. Dickson, Brookhaven, PA

Joe Digulia, VP-GM Delaware County, Comcast Cablevision of Southeast PA, Inc., Wallingford, PA

District Director of Customs, Philadelphia, PA 

Theo Dobrowolski, Brookhaven, PA 

Marie F. Dockery, Chester, 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. Draper, Chester, PA

Nellie Duke & Fahd R. Youssef, Chester, PA

William J & Elsie G. Dunn, Brookhaven, PA

David A. & Michelle V. Duplicki, Brookhaven, PA

Philip Economou, Philadelphia Marine Center, Philadelphia, PA 

Edena Church, Chester, PA 

Edwards and Kelcey, Inc., West Chester, PA 

Allen Egner Beers, Brookhaven, PA

Emerald Lake Association, Long Pond, PA 

James, Ruth & Gilbert Emerson, Chester, PA

Gregory O. Evans, Mickael K. Evans, Chester, PA

Helen Evans, Chester, PA

Otis & Helen L. Evans et al, Chester, PA

Executive Manager & Chief Engineer, Chester, PA 

James T. Faley, Jr., Evelyn Faley, Chester, PA

Thomas M. Fasbinder, Brookhaven, PA

William N. Fenimore, Brookhaven, PA

Andrea Finn, Orth Rogers & Associates, Malvern, PA 

Andrea Finn, URS, Greiner, Woodward, Clyde, King of Prussia, PA 

Robt E. & Claire Finucane, Brookhaven, PA

Derek R. Flanagan, Brookhaven, PA

Mike Floyd, Philadelphia, PA

Joseph P. & Jean Foster, Brookhaven, PA

Michael Gabor, Urban Engineers, Inc., Philadelphia, PA 

Maureen Patricia Gallagher, Brookhaven, PA

LTC George Gallenthin, Philadelphia, PA

Joseph & Rose Garrity, Brookhaven, PA

Mayor Ralph Garzia, Borough of Brookhaven, Brookhaven, PA

Dennis F. Glackin, Glackin Associates, Paoli, PA 

Stephen & Louise Gogatz, Brookhaven, PA

Anne Marie Gohsler, Gohsler Wetland & Ecology Consultants, Aston, PA 

Anthony Grasso, Deccon Buildings, Drexel Hill, PA

Green Valley’s Association, Birchrunville, PA 

Elizabeth Grieco, Saylorsburg, PA 

George G. & Patricia A. Grier, Chester, PA

Thomas J. Gurick, Chairman, Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission, Philadelphia, PA 

Raquel Guzman, Philadelphia, PA

R.R. Haase, Jr., Buckeye Pipe Line Company, Emmaus, PA 

James & Dorothy T. Hall, Chester, PA

Albert A. & Tonya D. Haman, Chester, PA

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
APPENDIX A (cont’d) 

A-26 

Organizations and Individuals (cont’d)

Sylvia Handy, Chester, PA

Stephen J & Gerrie L. Harman, Brookhaven, PA

Frederick & Mary J. Harmer, Brookhaven, PA

David & Marietta Harper, Chester, PA 

William P. & Irene H. Hartigan, Chester, PA

Garrett R. & Debbie A. Hartzell, Brookhaven, PA

Marcus W. & Joanne Haseltine, Brookhaven, PA 

Ed Hazzouri, Sun Oil, Philadelphia, PA 

Ray Heinzelmann, West Chester, PA

Thomas Hemingway, Chester, PA

Donna Henry, Chester, PA

John W. Jr. & Thersa A. Henry, Brookhaven, PA

Joseph & Maxine Henson, 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. Houpt, Ridley Park, PA

John Huczko, Brookhaven, PA

Housing & Urban Development, Philadephia, PA

Frank J. Huessen, McAllister Towing of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA

Jeffrey Hunsicker, Pickering Corts, Summerson, Inc., Newtown, 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 Iannucci, Brookhaven, PA

Samuel & Joan Impagliazzo, Brookhaven, PA

Inchcape Shipping, SVC, Philadelphia, 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

James C. Johnson, West Chester, PA 

Mae B. Johnson, Brookhaven, PA 

Mary A. Johnson, Chester, PA

William & Lydia Johnson, Brookhaven, PA

Willie L. & Anna B. Johnson, Chester, PA

Edward & Lisette Jones, Brookhaven, PA

Jack Joyce, Philadelphia, PA 

Ms. Jan Kalb, White Clay Watershed, Landenberg, PA 

Hedwig Kierbiedz, Chester, PA

Patrick Killian, Executive Director, Redevelopment Authority of Delaware County, Media, PA

Cottman Kirkwood, Myrtle Starkey, Chester, PA

Kathe Kisela, Newtown Square, PA 

Andrey D. & Vera Kisha, Brookhaven, PA

Stanley Klemaszewski, Brookhaven, PA

Mahmoud Kneifati, Chester, PA 

Bobby Knolls, Vice President, The Franklin Mint, Aston, PA 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
APPENDIX A (cont’d) 

A-27 

Organizations and Individuals (cont’d)

Mary Kokoska, Brookhaven, PA

Michael Kolar, Rivertown Developers LP, Conshohocken, PA

John P. Koliba, Brookhaven, PA 

James Kooser, Rettew Associates, Inc., Camp Hill, PA 

Stella M. Koziol & Jacqueline Zelinski, Brookhaven, PA

Edward T. Kozlowski, Brookhaven, PA 

Kazzimierz Kozlowski, Chester, PA

Curtis Kratz, Souderton, PA 

Mr. Phil Kraus, Landenberg, PA

Jay S. & Harriet W. Kravitz, Brookhaven, PA

Donald Krupa, Chester, PA

Maya Kvan-Rossum, Delaware River Keepers, Washington Crossing, PA

Lackawanna Regional Planning Commission, Scranton, PA 

Carolyn J. Langley, Brookhaven, PA

John F. & Mary L. Larison, Brookhaven, PA

Wm & Eliz C. Lawlor, Brookhaven, PA

Irvin & Helen Lawrence, Chester, PA 

Mark Lee, Philadelphia, 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, Stratgeis Retail Properties 2, Wayne, PA

Walter A. Linewicz, Brookhaven, PA

Louis F. Lombardo, Huntington Valley, PA 

James & Sonia Long, Wallingford, PA

Tamara Long, Wallingford, PA

Stephen M. & Nichole A. Lorenski, Brookhaven, PA

Dr. Guy Lsteucek, Millersville University, Millersville, PA 

Hardy D. & Ella R. Lundy, Chester, PA 

Vincent Luzak, Chester, PA 

Herbert E. MacCombie, Jr., Broomall, PA 

Arturo Magnanti, Brookhaven, PA

Howard W. & Christine E. Maier, Brookhaven, PA

Moses Manley, Chester, 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

Lorena Mayer, Brookhaven, PA

Vernel Mayo, Chester, PA

Mayor’s Spanish-Speaking Officer, Philadelphia, PA 

Mark McCain, PSB Industries, Inc., Erie, PA 

James McCarthy, Norwood, PA 

John H & Ann Marie McCarthy, Brookhaven, PA

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
APPENDIX A (cont’d) 

A-28 

Organizations and Individuals (cont’d)

James & Judith McClain, Brookhaven, PA

Willie & Louise McClairen, Chester, PA

Mary C. & Carol A. McCloskey, Brookhaven, PA

Carl P. McCollough, Brookhaven, PA

John A. McDermott Jr., Brookhaven, PA

John M. & Bridget E. McGill, Brookhaven, PA

Joseph & Barbara McGonigle, Brookhaven, PA

Edward J. & Doris A. McKay, Brookhaven, PA

Norfolk Southern Railway Company, c/o James McKay, DMJM+HARRIS, Harrisburg, PA 

Captain Elizabeth J. McKeon, Philadelphia Ride the Ducks, Blue Bell, PA

Robert H. McKinney Association, Inc., Pottstown, PA 

Robert McKinstry, Ballard, Spahr, Andrews and Ingersoll, Philadelphia, 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

Moran Towing of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 

Joseph J. Monroe, Brookhaven, PA

David Montella, Brookhaven, PA 

Valsilessia Moore, Chester, PA

William J. Moran, Media, PA 

Shawn Morgan, Aston, PA

Doug Moser, Boothwyn, PA

Laurel F. Mueller, Soil Services Co., Inc., Forskville, PA 

Munro Ecological Service, Inc., Harleysville, PA 

Kent Murphy, Exelon Business Services Company, Philadelphia, PA

Frank & Mellissa Myers, Brookhaven, PA

Naval Air Station, Director of Personnel, Willow Grove, PA 

Wilfred & Doris R. Negron, Brookhaven, PA

Cary Nicholas, Executive Director, Audubon Pennsylvania State Office, Harrisburg, PA

Michael Nolen, The Nolan Group, Lafayette Hill, PA 

Raymond E. Nowsatha, Brookhaven, PA

Christopher J. Oakley & Carolyn Fry, Brookhaven, PA

Alice M. Obrien, Chester, PA

Michael O'Brien, Brookhaven, PA 

Office of Personnel Mgmt. Wm. Green, Philadelphia, PA 

Brendan T. O’Hara & Lori Kmett, Brookhaven, PA 

Bernard J. Orensky, Brookhaven, PA

Bill Orr, 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

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
APPENDIX A (cont’d) 

A-29 

Organizations and Individuals (cont’d)

William T. III & Cheryl A. Peabody, Brookhaven, PA

Pennsylvania Fish Commission, Elm, 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

The Pocono Record, Stroudsburg, PA 

Robert L. Polishuk, Media, PA

Jay R. Pollard, Brookhaven, PA

Mark & Cathy M. Pollock, Brookhaven, PA

Denise Poole, Brookhaven, PA

Frank Potter, Chester, PA

George R. & Blanche M. Price, Chester, PA

Ronald J. Jr. & Christine D. Probert, Brookhaven, PA

Roman Pronczak, Blue Bell, PA 

David Prox, Brookhaven, PA

Annette Pyatt, Chester, PA

Gregory Quatchak, Civil & Environmental Consultants, Pittsburgh, PA 

Pat Quigley, Norristown, PA 

Bill Quinn, Area Supervisor, Texas Eastern Transmission, LP, Uwchland, PA

Robert J. & Stacey L. Raker, Brookhaven, PA

Randor Township, Wayne, PA 

William J. & Lisa M. Ravert, Chester, PA

Cathy Regan, Pennsylvania Natural Diversity Inventory, Middletown, PA 

Stephen & Beth Ann Reinhart, Brookhaven, PA 

John Reynolds, Phildadelphia, PA

Jacqueline L. Rinaldi, Brookhaven, PA

Jonathan E. Rinde, Esq., Manko, Gold, Katcher, & Fox, LLP, Bala Cynwyd, PA 

RMC Environmental, Stowe, PA 

Jennifer Robinson, Wildlands Conservancy, Emmaus, PA 

Heriberto & Mary Rosario, Chester, PA

Artemis Roth, Washington Crossing, PA 

Paul Royer, Duke Energy Gas Transmission, Uwchland, PA

Richard A. & Karen M. Ruark, Brookhaven, PA

Richard N. Rudolf, Chester, PA 

Cecilia Saddler, Chester, PA

Patricia Salvadore, Frances Brady, Brookhaven, PA

Donald R. & Caterina F. Salvino, Brookhaven, PA

Nicholas Sanbe, Ronald P. Lee, Chester, PA

Richard W. & Agnes D. Sands, Brookhaven, PA

Saturation Work Program State Office Building, Philadelphia, PA 

John Savoy, SMS, Inc., Aston, PA

David Allen & Lynn M. Saxton, Brookhaven, PA

Peter C. Schlett, Chester, PA

James A. Schmid, Ph.D., Schmid & Company, Inc., Media, PA 

David Scioechitti, Executive Director, Redevelopment Authority of Chester, Chester, PA

Jane Segal, Merrill Sporkin, Villanova, PA

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
APPENDIX A (cont’d) 

A-30 

Organizations and Individuals (cont’d)

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, Wallingford, PA

Larry Simmons, Brookhaven, PA

Robert C. & Elizabeth P. Singley, Brookhaven, PA

Michael & Gina Skinner, Chester, PA 

John K. & Dixie Skolnicki, Brookhaven, PA

James & Ann Skulski, Brookhaven, PA

John A. & F. Kristine Skulski, Brookhaven, PA

E. Smith or E. Averette Opportunities, Philadelphia, PA 

Fritz Spokias, Jr., Jim Thorpe, PA 

Rodney Stark, Exelon Generating, LLC, Philadelphia, PA

Gretchen R. Starkey, Chester, PA

State Employment PA Job Service, Philadelphia 

John J. Stokes, Allentown, PA 

Stone Harbor Land Surveyors & Engineers, Stone Harbor, NJ 

Mary F. Stroffolino, Brookhaven, PA 

June E. Stubbs, Brookhaven, PA

Sun Pipeline Company, Philadelphia, PA 

Superintendent U.S. Mint, Philadelphia, PA 

C. Rowland Swain, Bristol, PA 

Adele Szczepanski et al, Chester, PA

William & Julia Tabron, Chester, PA

Delaware County Tax Claim Bureau, Media, PA

Delinquent Tax Claim Bureau, Delaware County, Media, PA

Anne Taylor, Brookhaven, PA

Bruce A. & Suzanne M. Tharp, Brookhaven, PA

Steven D. & Pamela Theisen, Boothwyn, PA

Clarence C. & Therest Thomas, Chester, PA 

John Thomas, Media, PA

Robert & Clara Thomas, Chester, PA

Albert A. & Kim Y. Thompson, Chester, PA

Sylvester & Arcisa Thompson, Chester, PA

Philip M. Tigue, Aston, PA

Joseph H. Tran, Kim Nguyen, Brookhaven, PA

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 Twardowski Jr., Boothwyn, PA

McKinley & Barbara Tyler, Chester, PA

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
APPENDIX A (cont’d) 

A-31 

Organizations and Individuals (cont’d)

VA Regional Office Personnel Division, Philadelphia, PA 

Robert & Michelle Velez, Brookhaven, PA

Veterans Administration Hospital, Hospital Director, Wilkes Barre, PA 

Daniel B. Vicario, Brookhaven, PA

Rosemarie Walls, Brookhaven, PA

Mary Walker, Roy F. Weston, Inc., West Chester, PA 

Pat Walsh, Yerkes Association, West Chester, PA 

Warner Company, Devault, PA 

Charlie L. Warren II, Chester, PA

Water Resources Association of the Delaware, Valley Forge, PA 

Hector A. & Pamela D. Watson, Chester, PA

Dr. Joyce Wells, Principal, Toby Farms Elementary School, Chester, PA

Western Pennsylvania Conservancy, Pittsburgh, PA 

Karl Westerville, Project Leader, Rivertown Developers, LP, Conshohocken, PA 

Lamont N. & Patricia C. White, Chester, PA

A. Simeon & Victoria Whitehill, Lima, PA

Kimberly Wilcox, Chester, PA

Curtis Williams, Chester, PA

James Williams, William – Hyla, Wycombe, 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. & Lorraine M. Wilwert, Brookhaven, PA

Isabel Wimmer, Aston, PA

John B & Patricia A. Winters, Brookhaven, PA

Jonathan & Alana Winters, Brookhaven, PA

Lisa Witomski, Bridgewater Associates, Chester, PA 

Ronald & Dorothy C. Wood, Brookhaven, PA

John Yagecic, Bensalem, PA 

Lloyd Yarnell, Brookhaven, PA

John E. Youngdahl, Amtrak, Philadelphia, PA

George Zagame, Jr., Brookhaven, PA

Ehab M. & Tina Zahran, Brookhaven, PA 

Margaret & Allee Zeigler, Chester, PA 

Larry Brown, Natural Resource Group, Inc., Providence, RI 

Mike Timpson, Natural Resource Group, Inc., Providence, RI 

Janis Farmer, Katy, TX 

Nell Gutierrez, Duke Energy Regulatory Affairs, Houston, TX 

ODS – Petrodata Group, Houston, TX 

Rotocast Flotation Products, Brownwood, TX 

J. Patrick Tielborg, Pipeline Contractors Association, Dallas, TX 

Charlie O’Brien, South Shields, UK

Bayshore Concrete Products, Inc., Cape Charles, VA 

William J. Blanton, Lake Services of VA, Inc., Dumfries, VA 

Chesapeake Materials, Inc., Dumfries, VA 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
APPENDIX A (cont’d) 

A-32 

Organizations and Individuals (cont’d)

Robert C. Dively, Sea Technology, Ltd., Gloucester, VA 

Luxury Dock, Chantilly, VA 

Capt. L.H. Newton, Virginia Beach, VA 

Kenneth Redinge, Atlantic Resource Management, Inc., Onancock, VA 

Skyline Steel Corporation, Fairfax, VA 

Tidewater Construction Corporation, Norfolk, VA 

Andrew K. Mearns, Bellingham Marine Industries, Inc., Bellingham, WA 

Jim Meriwether, Merco Marine, Wellsburg, WV 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
APPENDIX B 

TYPICAL RIGHT-OF-WAY CROSS SECTIONS 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Appendix B

Logan Lateral Project

Typical Right-of-Way Cross Sections

Configuration Parallel to Existing 14-inch Pipeline 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Appendix B

Logan Lateral Project

Typical Right-of-Way Cross Sections

Configuration Parallel to Existing 14-inch Pipeline 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Appendix B

Logan Lateral Project

Typical Right-of-Way Cross Sections

Configuration of New Right-of-Way 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Appendix B

Logan Lateral Project

Typical Right-of-Way Cross Sections

Configuration through Existing Road or Railroad 

MP 0.30 TO 1.19MP 2.71 TO 2.92MP 2.95 TO 3.15MP 3.71 TO 4.00MP 4.02 TO 4.20

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Appendix B

Logan Lateral Project

Typical Right-of-Way Cross Sections

Configuration Parallel to Existing 14-inch Pipeline 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Appendix B

Logan Lateral Project

Typical Right-of-Way Cross Sections

Configuration Parallel to Existing 14-inch Pipeline 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Appendix B

Logan Lateral Project

Typical Right-of-Way Cross Sections

Configuration Parallel to Existing 14-inch Pipeline 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Appendix B

Logan Lateral Project

Typical Right-of-Way Cross Sections

Configuration of New Right-of-Way 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Appendix B

Logan Lateral Project

Typical Right-of-Way Cross Sections

Configuration of New Right-of-Way 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Sheet 10 of 19

Appendix B

Logan Lateral Project

Typical Right-of-Way Cross Sections

Configuration Parallel to Existing 12-inch Pipeline

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Appendix B

Logan Lateral Project

Typical Right-of-Way Cross Sections

Configuration of New Right-of-Way 

MP 2.92 TO 2.95MP 3.44 TO 3.71MP 4.20 TO 4.45

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
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 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Appendix B

Logan Lateral Project

Typical Right-of-Way Cross Sections

Configuration of New Right-of-Way 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Appendix B

Logan Lateral Project

Typical Right-of-Way Cross Sections

Configuration of New Right-of-Way 

MP 1.19 TO 1.21MP 4.45 TO 5.44MP 6.90 TO 7.35MP 9.03 TO 9.28

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Appendix B

Logan Lateral Project

Typical Right-of-Way Cross Sections

Configuration of Right-of-Way along Ferry Road 

MP 5.44 TO 6.90

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Appendix B

Logan Lateral Project

Typical Right-of-Way Cross Sections

Configuration Parallel to Existing Transco Pipeline 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Appendix B

Logan Lateral Project

Typical Right-of-Way Cross Sections

Configuration Parallel to Existing Transco Pipeline 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Appendix B

Logan Lateral Project

Typical Right-of-Way Cross Sections

Configuration Parallel to Existing Transco Pipeline

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
APPENDIX C 

TEMPORARY EXTRA WORKSPACES AND 

ACCESS ROADS 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
C-1 

TABLE C-1 

Temporary Extra Workspaces Associated with the Logan Lateral Project 

State Milepost Description Dimensions 

(feet) Acres 

PENNSYLVANIA 0.00 Water source access 165x50 0.19 

 0.19 Staging for road crossing 25x100 0.05 

 0.28 Staging for road crossing irregular 0.09 

 1.23 Staging for road crossing 110x300 0.68 

 1.27 Staging for HDD 75x330 0.57 

 1.57 Staging for HDD 100x200 0.42 

 1.85 Staging for stream 35x100 0.08 

 1.97 Staging for road crossing 35x135 0.10 

 2.00 Staging for congestion irregular 0.52 

 2.18 Staging for congestion irregular 0.07 

 2.42 Staging for RR crossing 50x100 0.11 

 2.46 Staging for RR crossing 25x100 0.05 

 Off-site Remote staging/wareyard irregular 4.83 

 2.95 Staging for road crossing irregular 0.19 

 3.01 Staging for street-lay irregular 0.17 

 3.05 Staging for street-lay 75x110 0.18 

 3.06 Staging for street-lay 75x200 0.35 

 3.41 Staging for street-lay 25x100 0.05 

 3.44 Staging/wareyard irregular 6.14 

 3.71 Staging for RR crossing irregular 0.55 

 3.84 Staging for street-lay 75x160 0.27 

 3.90 Staging for street-lay 125x130 0.37 

 4.01 Staging for RR and congestion irregular 0.39 

 4.13 Staging/wareyard irregular 5.33 

 4.37 Staging for HDD irregular 0.71 

Pennsylvania Total 22.46 

NEW JERSEY 5.37 Access for water source irregular 0.22 

 5.39 Staging for HDD irregular 0.80 

 6.47 Material staging for HDD irregular 5.26 

 6.93 Staging for HDD irregular 2.99 

 7.36 Staging for HDD 100x300 0.68 

 7.38 HDD pullback area 50x1,700 1.99 

 8.61 HDD material staging/contractor 

yard irregular 28.75 

 8.99 Staging for HDD irregular 0.46 

 9.31 Staging for HDD 100x200 0.46 

 9.54 Staging for road crossing 35x100 0.08 

 9.56 Staging for road crossing 35x100 0.08 

 9.73 Staging for road crossing 35x100 0.08 

 9.75 Staging for road crossing 35x100 0.08 

 9.86 Staging for RR crossing 35x100 0.08 

 9.88 Staging for RR crossing 35x100 0.08 

 10.00 Staging for road crossing 50x100 0.11 

 10.03 Staging for road crossing 50x100 0.11 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
C-2 

 10.22 Staging for waterway crossing 65x100 0.14 

TABLE C-1 (cont’d) 

Temporary Extra Workspaces Associated with the Logan Lateral Project 

State Milepost Description Dimensions 

(feet) Acres 

 10.28 Staging for waterway crossing 35x100 0.08 

 10.81 Staging for waterway crossing 35x350 0.28 

 10.83 Staging for waterway crossing 50x100 0.11 

 11.00 Staging for metering station 100x100 0.23 

New Jersey Total 43.15 

Project Total 65.61 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
C-3 

TABLE C-2 

Access Roads Associated with the Logan Lateral Project 

State Milepost Access 

Road # Description a/ Width (feet) 

Length 

(feet) Acres 

PENNSYLVANIA 0.00 PAR-0.00 Permanent access road. 

Existing private gravel road. 

15 167 0.05 

 1.66 TAR-1.66 Temporary access road. 

Existing private road, part paved 

and part gravel. 

15 1,992 0.68 

 2.11 PAR 2.11 Permanent access road. 

Existing paved parking lot and 

portion of new. 

15 273 0.09 

 2.64 TAR-2.64 Temporary access road. 

Existing private road. 

15 333 0.11 

 4.41 PAR-4.41 Permanent access road. 

Existing paved road. 

15 350 0.12 

Pennsylvania 

Total 

 1.05 

NEW JERSEY 8.62 TAR-8.62 Temporary access road. 

Existing private dirt road. 

15 3,361 1.15 

 9.06 TAR-9.06 Temporary access road. 

Existing private road, part paved 

and part dirt. 

15 868 0.29 

 9.49 TAR-9.49 Temporary access road. 

Existing private dirt road. 

15 70 0.02 

 9.56 TAR-9.56 Temporary access road. 

Existing private dirt road. 

15 50 0.02 

 9.74 TAR-9.74 Temporary access road. 

Existing private paved road. 

15 230 0.07 

 10.02 TAR10.02 Temporary access road. 

Existing private paved and dirt 

road. 

15 5,211 1.79 

New Jersey Total 3.34 

Project Total 4.39 

____________________ 

a/ Modifications would only be made to gravel roads and would only consist of the addition of gravel. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
APPENDIX D 

TEXAS EASTERN’S SOIL EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION 

CONTROL PLAN 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Duke Energy Gas Transmission 

 

DUKE ENERGY GAS 

TRANSMISSION 

SPILL PREVENTION CONTROL 

AND COUNTERMEASURE (SPCC) PLAN/ 

PREPAREDNESS, PREVENTION, AND 

CONTINGENCY (PPC) PLAN 

Prepared By: 

Environmental Construction Permitting 

5400 Westheimer Court, SP-777 

Houston, TX 77056-5310 

Revised September 8, 2004

(for Logan Lateral Project)

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Duke Energy Gas Transmission 

Spill Prevention Control and Counter Measure Plan Page 1 

Table of Contents

1.0 General Description........................................................................................................2 

2.0 Controlled 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 

4.3.1 Tanks ..................................................................................................................5 

4.3.2 Containers...........................................................................................................5 

4.3.3 Loading/Unloading Areas ..................................................................................6 

4.3.4 Concrete Coating Areas for Field Joints ............................................................7 

4.4 Emergency Equipment ...............................................................................................8 

5.0 Contingency Plan and Emergency Procedures...............................................................8 

5.1 Responsibilities Of Company And Contractor Personnel..........................................8 

5.1.1 First Responder...................................................................................................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 Construction Permitting (ECP) Responsibilities .....................11 

5.2 Spill Clean-Up/Waste Disposal Procedures .............................................................11 

5.2.1 Oil/Fuel Spills...................................................................................................11 

5.2.2 Hazardous Substance Releases.........................................................................11 

5.2.3 Unanticipated Release of Hydrostatic Test Water............................................12 

5.3 Disposal of Contaminated Materials/Soils ...............................................................12 

5.4 Equipment Cleaning/Storage....................................................................................12 

6.0 Housekeeping Program ................................................................................................13 

7.0 External Factors............................................................................................................13

8.0 Unanticipated Hazardous Material Discovery Plan.........................................13

APPENDIX “A” - TABLES ....................................................................................................14 

TABLE I - Material And Waste 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 – Areas for Potential Leaks and Spills ..................................................................21 

APPENDIX “B” - MSDS SHEETS .........................................................................................22 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Duke Energy Gas Transmission 

Spill Prevention Control and Counter Measure Plan Page 2 

1.0 General Description 

Duke Energy Gas Transmission (Company) has prepared a Spill Prevention Control and 

Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan which incorporates the Preparedness, Prevention, and Contingency 

(PPC) Plan, as well as emergency provisions. The Company’s overall objective is to develop a 

functional contingency plan that meets all applicable federal, state, and local emergency response 

programs. This plan is designed to minimize hazards to human health and/or the environment from 

any unplanned sudden or non-sudden releases of oils, toxic, hazardous, or other polluting materials to 

the air, soil, surface water or groundwater. This plan also addresses unanticipated release of 

hydrostatic test water, especially in areas where the pipelines have been treated with mercaptan and in 

areas of known PCB contamination. 

The Company’s objective is to develop a functional contingency plan to be used on pipeline 

construction projects in accordance with all federal, state, and local emergency response programs. 

This plan was prepared to meet the requirements of the: 

• Federal Water Pollution Control Act 

• Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 

• Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 

• Toxic Substances Control Act 

This plan identifies: 

• Type and quantity of material handled 

• Measures taken for spill preparedness and prevention 

• Company and Contractor emergency response procedures 

• Responsibilities of designated emergency coordinators 

• Emergency Evacuation Plan 

• Spill incident reporting procedures 

• Arrangements with local emergency response teams 

2.0 Controlled Copy List of Contingency Plans 

The Environmental Construction Permitting (ECP) group in Engineering Services is responsible for 

the accuracy of the plan related to regulatory issues, coordination and distribution of the plan, and the 

preparation of any necessary revisions to the plan. 

A copy of the contingency plan and any revisions will be: 

• Maintained at the construction field office 

• Maintained by Company Emergency Coordinator (EC) 

• Distributed by ECP to the engineering teams and to the transmission field offices 

• Distributed by the engineering teams to the appropriate local representatives 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Duke Energy Gas Transmission 

Spill Prevention Control and Counter Measure Plan Page 3 

The controlled copy list of holders of the contingency plan representing the primary response units 

includes: 

Department Location

Environmental Construction Permitting Houston 

Houston Environment, Health & Safety (Houston EHS) Houston 

Engineering (Project Team Director) Various 

Transmission (Director, Technical Services) Houston 

Transmission - Division Environmental Coordinator (DEC) Division Office 

Transmission (Area Superintendent) Area Office 

Police Department Local 

Fire Department Local 

Hospital Local 

Emergency Medical Team Local 

2.1 Amendments to the Contingency Plan 

 The contingency plan will be amended when one of the following occurs: 

• Plan proves to be ineffective in an emergency 

• Material and waste inventory needs updating 

• Changes to Federal or State regulations 

• Changes to Local regulations where applicable 

At least once every five years there will be a review, evaluation, and re-certification of the 

plan to be coordinated by the Manager of ECP. Portions of this plan not affecting the overall 

scope or design may be changed without re-certification. 

3.0 Material and Waste Inventory 

The Material and Waste Inventory (Appendix A, Table I) will be completed by the Contractor prior to 

construction. This table provides a list of chemicals used or stored at the site that have the potential 

of causing environmental degradation or endangerment of public health and safety through accidental 

releases. This list includes nutrients, such as fertilizers and sanitary wastes; solid waste, such as scrap 

metals, masonry products and other construction raw materials and debris; construction chemicals, 

such as paints, soil additives and acids for cleaning; petroleum products, such as fuels and lubricants; 

and other materials including concrete wash from mixers, explosives, etc. 

Material Safety Data Sheets for all hazardous substances listed in Table I will be included in Appendix 

A and are to be provided by the contractor. Other potential waste from this site, not included in Table 

I, would include construction debris, rock and excess soil. 

4.0 Spill and Leak Preparedness and Prevention 

The purpose of this section is to demonstrate that the construction site is adequately equipped to meet 

preparedness and prevention requirements, as required under the Hazardous Waste Management 

Regulations. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Duke Energy Gas Transmission 

Spill Prevention Control and Counter Measure Plan Page 4 

4.1 Employee Training 

Contractors and company personnel are to be trained in hazardous waste management 

procedures that will enable them to respond effectively to emergencies by familiarizing them 

with emergency procedures, emergency equipment, and emergency communication systems. 

Personnel who handle, sample, or come in direct contact with oils or hazardous matter are to 

undergo basic training stressing the importance of pollution control. Spill prevention control 

procedures are to be thoroughly explained during the training briefings which will be 

conducted by the Contractor Superintendent (Contractor Emergency Coordinator) and the 

Company Chief Inspector (Company Emergency Coordinator) or their designated 

representative on the job site. The Company Emergency Coordinator (EC) is responsible for 

maintaining verification of the training. 

Before construction, all project Chief Inspectors and Environmental Inspectors will receive a 

copy of this SPCC Plan and an approved list of emergency response contractors (see Table 

III). Inspectors will be trained regarding equipment maintenance, fuel and hazardous material 

handling, spill prevention procedures and spill response, as specified herein. 

All personnel involved in the construction of the proposed facilities will be aware of the 

SPCC/PPC Plan. Regular training briefings will be conducted on an as required basis by the 

Contractor Superintendent and the Company Chief Inspector on the job site. These briefings 

shall include the following: 

• Precautionary measures to prevent spills 

• Potential sources of spills, including equipment failure or malfunction 

• Standard operating procedures in the event of a spill 

• Applicable notification requirements 

• Equipment, materials and supplies available for clean-up of a spill 

4.2 Security 

Note: Include project site specific security information here (see Appendix A, Table V). 

Hazardous wastes and waste containing PCBs greater than 50 ppm will be stored in a secured 

location (i.e. fenced, locked, etc.). Fuel storage areas will be located to minimize, as much as 

possible, tampering by unauthorized personnel during non-operational hours. 

4.3 Prevention and Preparedness 

It is unlikely that a discharge from the construction site into waters of the state will occur. The 

construction site should have onsite spill prevention and control facilities, as well as routine 

inspections of tank and container storage areas that help reduce the potential for oil and 

hazardous material releases to the soil or surface waters. In areas where hazardous materials 

are required to be stored or utilized within a wetland, the contractor is required to prepare and 

submit for approval a secondary containment plan prior to working in the wetland area. 

Generally, minor spills or leaks will be contained within secondary containment areas. Areas 

where potential spills and leaks may occur are listed in Appendix A, Table VI (listing to be 

completed by Company EC). 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Duke Energy Gas Transmission 

Spill Prevention Control and Counter Measure Plan Page 5 

4.3.1 Tanks 

The Contractor will take the following precautions to prevent a spill from occurring 

within tank storage areas: 

• Operate only those tanks for fuel and material storage, which meet the approval of 

the Company; 

• Single wall tanks shall be provided with temporary secondary containment that 

will hold at least 110% of the tank capacity of the largest tank inside the 

containment area; 

• Remove any precipitation from the containment area to maintain the available 

containment volume at 110% of the volume of material stored. Inspect the 

precipitation first for evidence of oil, including a sheen, or other contaminants. If 

a sheen or other indicators of oil or contamination is present, collect the material 

for proper disposal off-site; 

• Use only self-supporting tanks constructed of carbon steel or other materials 

compatible with the contents of each tank; 

• PCB (50 ppm or greater) storage tanks shall be double-walled or have secondary 

containment that will hold 200% capacity of the tank; 

• Elevate tanks a maximum of two (2) feet above grade; 

• Tank storage shall be located in areas that are at least 100 feet from all waterbodies, wetlands, and designated municipal watershed areas; and located at least 

200 feet from a private water supply well and 400 feet from a community or 

public water supply well. Certain exceptions as approved ECP and EHS are listed 

in Appendix A, Table IV; 

• All tanks shall be inspected daily for leaks and deterioration by the Contractor EC 

or designee. The results of all inspections shall be recorded on the “Inspection 

Log” (Houston EHS SOP Form # 19-18). Copies of form 19-18 for 

unsatisfactory storage area inspections are to be distributed to Houston EHS and 

the project manager. Leaking and/or deteriorated tanks shall be repaired or 

replaced as soon as the condition is first detected; 

• Keep tanks and secondary containment drains closed when not in use; 

• Ensure vehicle mounted tanks are equipped with flame/spark arrestors on all vents 

to prevent self ignition; 

• Do not store incompatible materials in sequence in tanks prior to decontamination. 

(A general list of potentially incompatible materials that may be used during 

construction are included in Appendix A, Table I); 

• Decontaminate tanks used to store hazardous materials prior to use at a different 

construction location if there is the potential to contaminate the next material to be 

placed in the tank. The tanks should always be decontaminated if they are to be 

returned to a vendor. The tanks should also be decontaminated if they are being 

returned a Company yard and no immediate specific same service use is 

scheduled; 

• If a tank contains a Hazardous Material, then transportation should follow the 

steps outlined in Environmental SOP Chapter 4 – Waste Transportation. 

4.3.2 Containers 

The Contractor will take the following precautions to prevent a spill from occurring 

within container storage areas: 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Duke Energy Gas Transmission 

Spill Prevention Control and Counter Measure Plan Page 6 

• For drum storage, reference Environmental SOP 3-D (Drum Specifications) and 

Appendix B of the SOP’s (explanation of DOT Drum Markings). Company EC is 

to have a copy of the current Environmental SOP’s; 

• Ensure containers remain closed when not in use; 

• All containers with a storage capacity of greater than 55 gallons shall have 

temporary containment (see Appendix A, Table I for type of temporary 

containment); 

• Small cans of gasoline, diesel, solvents, etc., should be stored within the 

temporary containment or within secured trailers or vehicles when not in use; 

• Do not store incompatible materials in sequence in containers prior to 

decontamination. (A general list of potentially incompatible materials that may be 

used during construction are included in Appendix A, Table I); 

• Decontaminate containers used to store hazardous materials prior to use at a 

different construction location if there is the potential to contaminate the next 

material to be placed in the container. The containers should always be 

decontaminated if they are to be returned to a vendor. The containers should also 

be decontaminated if they are being returned a Company yard and no immediate 

specific same service use is scheduled; 

• If a container contains a Hazardous Material, then transportation should follow the 

steps outlined in Environmental SOP Chapter 4 – Waste Transportation; 

• No incompatible material shall be stored together in the same containment area; 

• Leaking and/or deteriorated containers shall be replaced as soon as the condition 

is first detected; 

• Container storage shall be located in areas that are at least 100 feet from all waterbodies, wetlands, and designated municipal watershed areas; and located at least 

200 feet from a private water supply well and 400 feet from a community or 

public water supply well. Certain exceptions as approved ECP and EHS are listed 

in Appendix A, Table IV; 

• All container storage and containment areas being used to store waste or products 

shall be per the guidelines described in SOP-10, Facility Inspections. 

4.3.3 Loading/Unloading Areas 

The Contractor will take the below listed precautions to prevent a spill from occurring 

within loading and unloading areas when those areas are located at the construction 

site. Company personnel shall be present during loading and unloading activities. 

• Transferring of liquids and refueling shall only occur in pre-designated and preapproved locations that are at least 100 feet from all water-bodies and wetlands; 

and located at least 200 feet from a private water supply well and 400 feet from a 

community or public water supply well. Exceptions may be approved by the 

Environmental Inspector if no reasonable alternatives are available and secondary 

containment is used. Certain exceptions are listed in Appendix A, Table IV; 

• All loading/unloading areas will be closely monitored to prevent any leaks and 

spills; 

• The area beneath loading/unloading location shall be inspected for spills before 

and after each use; 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Duke Energy Gas Transmission 

Spill Prevention Control and Counter Measure Plan Page 7 

• All hose connections shall utilize drip pans at the hose connections while 

loading/unloading liquids. If a leak or spill occurs, the loading/unloading 

operation will be stopped and the spill will be contained, cleaned up and collected 

prior to continuing the operation; 

• All outlets of the tank trucks shall be inspected prior to leaving the loading and 

unloading area to prevent possible leakage from the truck while in transit; 

• Each refueling vehicle shall have a sufficient number of shovels, brooms, 10 mil 

polyethylene sheeting, and fire protection equipment to contain a moderate 

oil/fuel spill; 

• Any service vehicle used to transport lubricants and fuel must be equipped with 

an emergency response kit. At a minimum, this kit must include: 

- 25 lbs of granular oil absorbent 

- 10, 48" x 3" oil socks 

- 5, 17" x 17" oil pillows 

- 1, 10" x 4" oil boom 

- 20, 24" x 24" x 3/8" oil mats 

- Garden size, 6 mil, polyethylene bags 

- 10 pair of latex gloves 

- 1, 55-gallon polyethylene open-head drum; 

In addition, a smaller chemical response kit shall be available which contains: 

- 1 bag of loose chemical pulp 

- 2 to 3, 17" x 17" chemical pillows 

- 2, 48" x 3" chemical socks 

- 5, 18" x 18" x 3/8" adsorbent mats 

- garden-size, 6 mil, polyethylene bags 

- 10 pair of latex gloves, 

- 1, 30-gallon polyethylene open-head drum 

- hazardous waste labels. 

4.3.4 Concrete Coating Areas for Field Joints 

Concrete coating of field joints shall be performed at least 100 feet from the edge of 

all water-bodies; where topographic conditions and/or work space limitations 

necessitate application of concrete coating within 100 feet of a water-body, sufficient 

containment measures shall be implemented so as to eliminate the spill of any 

concrete coating materials into a wetland or waterbody. Containment such as the 

following (or equivalent as approved by Company EC in a secondary containment 

plan to be submitted by the Contractor) shall be used: 

• Concrete coating materials shall be temporarily stored in an earthen berm with a 

polyethylene underling lining of 10 mil thickness, or in a portable containment 

tray constructed of steel plate measuring a minimum of four (4) feet square by one 

(1) foot deep; 

• Portable-mechanical mixing equipment, if required, shall be operated within a 

containment area constructed of temporary earthen berms and polyethylene 

underling lining a minimum of 10 mil thickness; 

• Manual mixing of concrete materials in a portable container (such as a 55 gallon 

drum cut in half, or equivalent) shall be performed within an earthen berm with 

polyethylene underling lining of 10 mil thickness, or within a portable 

Deleted: W

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Duke Energy Gas Transmission 

Spill Prevention Control and Counter Measure Plan Page 8 

containment tray constructed of steel plate, measuring a minimum of four (4) feet 

square by one (1) foot deep. 

4.4 Emergency Equipment 

The construction site/contractor ware yard will have adequate manpower and equipment 

necessary to divert any spill from reaching water bodies and wetland areas. Emergency 

equipment shall include, but is not limited to shovels, backhoes, dozers, front-end loaders, oil 

absorbent booms, pillows, socks and/or mats, granular oil absorbent and chemical absorbent 

pulp. A list of emergency response equipment and personal protective equipment is provided 

in Appendix A, Table II. 

5.0 Contingency Plan and Emergency Procedures 

Emergency response procedures have been developed for this construction project to provide guidance 

in responding to fires, explosions, oils or hazardous waste, or hazardous waste constituents to the air, 

land or waters of the state regardless of the quantity involved in the incident. 

For unanticipated release of hydrostatic test waters, the company will utilize Best Management 

Practices, as described in the Company Erosion and Sediment Control Plan as soon as possible after 

the release. 

5.1 Responsibilities Of Company And Contractor Personnel 

The Contractor and Company on-site personnel have responsibilities for spill prevention, 

control and countermeasures. For some projects, as specified by the Company, a Company 

Area Field Construction Office, staffed with appropriate environmental compliance personnel, 

will perform the ECP responsibilities. 

If notification is given that an evacuation is necessary, all personnel will evacuate the 

construction area via the primary evacuation route (site specific map with evacuation route to 

be attached for plant projects) and await further instructions from the EC. If direct access to 

the primary evacuation route is restricted by fire, spill, smoke, or vapor, facility personnel will 

evacuate the facility via alternate evacuation routes to the nearest accessible open area. 

5.1.1 First Responder 

Any individual who first observes a spill or any other imminent or actual emergency 

situation will take the following steps: 

• Assess the situation to determine if the situation poses an immediate threat to 

human health or the environment. 

• Identify hazardous substances involved, if any. 

• Report the emergency or spill to the Company and Contractor EC(s) immediately. 

• Standby at a safe distance and keep others away. 

• Activate emergency shutdown, if necessary. 

 The Contractor Superintendent will act as the EC for the Contractor. The Chief 

Inspector will act as the EC for the Company. The responsibilities of the EC will be as 

follows: 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Duke Energy Gas Transmission 

Spill Prevention Control and Counter Measure Plan Page 9 

5.1.2 Contractor EC Responsibilities 

The Contractor EC will coordinate the response to all spills which occur as a result of 

Contractor operations. The Contractor will not coordinate the response of spills of 

pipeline liquids, hazardous wastes, or the unanticipated release of hydrostatic test 

waters, these spills will be coordinated by the Company EC. 

 Contractor EC Responsibilities: 

• Determine any immediate threat to human health, the environment, and the 

neighboring community; 

• Ensure personnel safety and evacuate if necessary. 

• Identify source, character, amount, and extent of release; 

• Determine if hazardous substances are involved; 

• Inform the Company EC and follow instructions; 

• Direct and document remediation efforts to contain and control spill release; 

• Document remedial efforts; 

• Coordinate cleaning and disposal activities; 

5.1.3 Company Responsibilities 

The Company EC will be responsible for coordinating the clean up of all spills of 

pipeline liquids, hazardous wastes, and any unanticipated release of hydrostatic test 

water. 

5.1.4 Company EC Responsibilities 

Upon notification of pipeline liquid spills, hazardous materials spills, or the 

unanticipated release of hydrostatic test waters: 

• Assess situation for potential threat to human health, environment and the 

neighboring community; 

• Implement evacuation, if necessary; 

• Activate emergency shutdown, if necessary; 

• Ensure personnel safety; 

• Control source as conditions warrant; 

• Notify immediately the Emergency Spill Hotline at 1-800-735-6364 (select 

the appropriate transmission division) and those listed in Appendix A, Table 

III immediately for spills that meet the following criteria: 

a. one (1) pound or more of a solid material (excluding HDD mud) 

spilled on land 

b. five (5) gallons or more of a liquid spilled on land 

c. creates a sheen on water 

d. unanticipated release of hydrostatic test water; 

• If necessary, notify the local fire department, law enforcement authority, or 

health authority as appropriate. The following information should be 

provided: 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Duke Energy Gas Transmission 

Spill Prevention Control and Counter Measure Plan Page 10 

a. name of the caller and callback number 

b. the exact location and nature of the incident 

c. the extent of personnel injuries and damage 

d. the extent of release 

e. the material involved, and appropriate safety information; 

• Ensure that waste or product which may be incompatible with a released 

material is kept away from the affected area; 

• Keep any potential ignition source away from emergency area, if spilled 

material is flammable; 

• Minimize affected area with appropriate containment or diking; 

• Assemble required spill response equipment as required (protective clothing, 

gear, heavy equipment, pumps, absorbent material, empty drums, etc.) 

• Place spilled material in appropriate containers, in accordance with the 

Environment Standard Operating Procedures; 

• Label and store containers in accordance with the Environmental Standard 

Operating Procedures; 

• Coordinate waste disposal and equipment decontamination with Houston 

EHS; 

• Terminate response; 

• Ensure that all emergency response equipment is fully functional. Any 

equipment that cannot be reused shall be replaced; 

• For spills of PCB’s, contact Houston EHS for special spill response 

requirements related to PCB spills; 

• Assist with the coordination of cleanup and disposal activities as described in 

Sections 5.2, 5.3 and 5.4; 

• If necessary, contact outside remediation services, in coordination with 

Houston EHS, to assist with clean up; 

• Complete Waste Removal Storage and Disposal Record Form (WRSDR and 

WDR Forms to be obtained from Houston EHS) to track waste generated 

during this project; 

• Complete Field Spill Report (Environmental SOP 19-6) and distribute 

accordingly; 

• For unanticipated release of hydrostatic test waters, notify state contact if 

required by state permit in accordance with timeframes required by state 

permit; 

• When required by permit, arrange for immediate sampling of the test water 

(from the pipe or a representative sample of released water where possible), or 

soil where the test water was released, and water from adjacent water-body if 

test water was released into the water-body. Analysis of the samples will be 

in accordance with hydrostatic test discharge permit criteria plus, where 

applicable, mercaptans; 

• Local Right of Way agent will notify township manager and/or mayor. 

5.1.5 Division Environmental Coordinator (DEC) Responsibilities 

• Provide technical assistance on spill cleanup procedures 

• Determine if the release requires reporting to non-project specific regulatory 

agencies 

• Provide written and verbal reports to the above regulatory agencies 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Duke Energy Gas Transmission 

Spill Prevention Control and Counter Measure Plan Page 11 

• Contact outside remediation services through consultation with Houston EHS 

• Coordinate with Houston EHS and arrange for the transport of hazardous waste 

and waste containing PCB’s 

• Coordinate with ECP relative to any project specific permit requirements 

5.1.6 Environmental Construction Permitting (ECP) Responsibilities 

• Determine if the release requires reporting to any project specific permitting 

agencies 

• Provide written and verbal reports as required 

• Coordinate with DEC 

5.2 Spill Clean-Up/Waste Disposal Procedures 

The following identifies the clean-up and control measures to be utilized in the event of a spill 

of oil, fuel or a hazardous substance or unanticipated release of hydrostatic test water. 

5.2.1 Oil/Fuel Spills 

• Ensure no immediate threat to surrounding landowners or environment; 

• Remediate small spills and leaks as soon as feasible. Use adsorbent pads 

whenever possible to reduce the amount of contaminated articles; 

• Restrict the spill by stopping or diverting flow to the oil/fuel tank; 

• If the release exceeds the containment system capacity, immediately construct 

additional containment using sandbags or fill material. Every effort must be made 

to prevent the seepage of oil into soils and waterways; 

• If a release occurs into a facility drain or nearby stream, immediately pump any 

floating layer into drums. For high velocity streams, place oil booms or hay bales 

between the release area and the site boundary and downstream of affected area. 

As soon as possible, excavate contaminated soils and sediments; 

• After all recoverable oil has been collected and drummed, place contaminated 

soils and articles in containers; 

• For larger quantities of soils, construct temporary waste piles using plastic liners 

placing the contaminated soils on top of the plastic and covered by plastic. 

Plastic-lined roll-off bins should be leased for storing this material as soon as 

feasible; 

• Label the drum following the procedures outlined in the Company’s 

Environmental Procedures Manual; 

• Move drum to secure staging or storage area; 

• Document and report cleanup activities to the Company EC as soon as feasible. 

• If environmentally sensitive resources (wetlands, water-bodies) exist in the area, 

ensure that Best Management Practices as described in Company’s E&SCP are 

utilized to minimize impact to these resources; 

5.2.2 Hazardous Substance Releases 

• Ensure no immediate threat to surrounding landowners or environment; 

• Identify the material and quantity released; 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Duke Energy Gas Transmission 

Spill Prevention Control and Counter Measure Plan Page 12 

• Block off drains and containment areas to limit the extent of the spill. Never wash 

down a spill with water; 

• Ensure that Personal Protective Equipment and containers are compatible with the 

substance; 

• Collect and reclaim as much of the spill as possible using a hand pump or similar 

device. Containerize contaminated soils in an appropriate DOT container in 

accordance with the Company’s Environmental Standard Operating Procedures 

Manual. (Note: Environmental SOP’s are located in all division and area offices 

and kept by all engineering teams.) Never place incompatible materials in the 

same drum; 

• Sample the substance for analysis and waste profiling, according to instructions 

from the Houston EHS; 

• Decontaminate all equipment in a contained area and collect fluids in drums; 

• Label the drum following Houston EHS SOP’s; 

• Move the drum to secure staging or storage area; 

• Document and report activities to Houston EHS as soon as feasible. 

• If environmentally sensitive resources (wetlands, water-bodies) exist in the area, 

ensure that Best Management Practices as described in Company’s E&SCP are 

utilized to minimize impact to these resources; 

5.2.3 Unanticipated Release of Hydrostatic Test Water 

• Ensure no immediate threat to surrounding landowners or environment; 

• If environmentally sensitive resources (wetlands, water-bodies) exist in the area, 

ensure that Best Management Practices as described in Company’s E&SCP are 

utilized to minimize impact to these resources; 

5.3 Disposal of Contaminated Materials/Soils 

• The Contractor shall work with the Houston EHS to characterize waste generated during 

this project. All wastes generated, as a result of spill response activities will be analyzed 

to determine if hazardous, or if PCBs are greater than 1 ppm. Knowledge of the 

contaminant(s) may be applied to classify the waste/spill materials as determined by 

Houston EHS; 

• The Contractor is responsible for the proper disposal of wastes generated during this 

project that is determined by Houston EHS to be non-hazardous and to contain PCBs less 

than 1 ppm. This includes obtaining applicable authorizations and registrations per 

Environmental SOP 1-D-3 for waste disposal; 

• Houston EHS is responsible for the proper disposal of hazardous wastes and PCB wastes 

containing PCBs greater than 1 ppm generated during this project, including obtaining 

applicable EPA Identification Numbers; 

• Hazardous wastes and waste containing PCBs shall be stored in a secured location (i.e. 

fenced, locked, etc.) until such time as this material is transported off-site. At no time will 

hazardous waste be stored for a period exceeding 90 days nor a waste with PCBs greater 

than 50 ppm be stored for a period exceeding 30 days. 

5.4 Equipment Cleaning/Storage 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Duke Energy Gas Transmission 

Spill Prevention Control and Counter Measure Plan Page 13 

• Upon completion of remedial activities, the Contractor shall be responsible for 

decontaminating emergency response equipment used to remediate a spill resulting from 

their operations. The Company will be responsible if the spill is hazardous material, 

pipeline liquids, or hydrostatic test water; 

• Waste disposal for any contaminated waste generated as a result of the decontamination 

process shall be the responsibility of Houston EHS. 

• The Contractor shall be responsible for replacing all spent emergency response equipment 

prior to resuming construction activities if spill resulted from their operations; 

• Reusable personal protective equipment shall be tested and inventoried by the Contractor 

prior to being placed back into service; 

6.0 Housekeeping Program 

The construction area will be maintained in a neat and orderly manner. Solid wastes, such as food 

wrappings, cigarette butts and packets, styrofoam cups and plates, and similar wastes will be disposed 

of off-site, not in the construction excavation area. Any spills or leaks will be cleaned up as 

expeditiously as possible. Trash will be routinely collected for off-site disposal. Container storage 

areas will be maintained in a neat and orderly manner. 

7.0 External Factors 

There will be no direct effect on the construction site due to a power outage or snowstorm. In the 

event of a flood or strike, all tanks and containers would be removed from the right-of-way and placed 

in a secure area. 

8.0 Unanticipated Hazardous Material Discovery Plan 

Texas Eastern is developing an Unanticipated Hazardous Material Discovery Plan for inclusion into 

the SPCC/PCC plans that specifies procedures for handling contaminated soil and/groundwater (both 

known and unanticipated) encountered during construction. The Unanticipated Hazardous Material 

Discovery Plan will include language that Texas Eastern will advise its Environmental Inspectors and 

construction contractors prior to construction on potential locations where contamination may be 

encountered and procedures developed to properly handle contaminated soil and/or groundwater 

during construction in accordance with applicable federal and state regulations. Texas Eastern 

proposes to submit the revised SPCC/PCC with the Unanticipated Hazardous Material Discovery Plan 

to the FERC for review and approval as part of the project’s Implementation Plan. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Duke Energy Gas Transmission 

Spill Prevention Control and Counter Measure Plan Page 14 

APPENDIX “A” - TABLES

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Duke Energy Gas Transmission 

Spill Prevention Control and Counter Measure Plan Page 15 

TABLE I - Material And Waste Inventory 

Oil and Fuel to be used or stored on site during construction: 

Commercial Chemicals to be used or stored on site during construction: 

Hazardous and Non-Hazardous Wastes to be used or stored on site during construction: 

Incompatible Materials to be used or stored on site during construction: 

Type of Temporary Containment containers to be used:

TABLE I TO BE COMPLETED BY CONTRACTOR 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Duke Energy Gas Transmission 

Spill Prevention Control and Counter Measure Plan Page 16 

TABLE II - Emergency Response And Personal Protective Equipment 

Spill Response: 

Equipment Quantity Location 

Fire Protection: 

Equipment Quantity Location 

Personnel Protection: 

Equipment Quantity Location 

TABLE II TO BE COMPLETED BY CONTRACTOR EC 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Duke Energy Gas Transmission 

Spill Prevention Control and Counter Measure Plan Page 17 

TABLE III – Key Emergency Contacts 

The list of key personnel who will be contacted in the event of an emergency or spill incident include the 

following: 

1. Company Emergency Contacts Contact Name Phone Number

1. Company Emergency Coordinator 

 (within 15 minutes of incident) 

2. 24-hour spill emergency hotline 1-800-735-6364 

 (DEC Name and Division) 

 (within 15 minutes of incident) 

3. Project Manager 

4. Project Environmental Lead (PEL) 

 (within 60 minutes of incident) 

5. Field Construction (Houston Office) 

2. Contractor Emergency Contact

1. Contractor Emergency Coordinator 

3. Local Authorities – As necessary

Department Number

State Police 

Local Police 

Local Fire Department 

Hospital 

Ambulance 

4. Environmental Agencies

Notification to be made by DEC and PEL representative 

5. Potential Environmental Remedial Service Contractors (verify prior to issuing project specific 

SPCC Plan)

Clean Harbors Environmental Services, Inc. -Howard Alexander (800) 782-8805 

Safety-Kleen (FS), Inc. Edward A. Mitchell (281) 478-7700 

U. S. A. Environment - Cesar Garcia (713) 425-6925 or cell phone (832) 473-5354 

 WRS Infrastructure and Environment Inc. Steve Maxwell Cell phone 281 731-0886

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Duke Energy Gas Transmission 

Spill Prevention Control and Counter Measure Plan Page 18 

TABLE III TO BE COMPLETED BY COMPANY EC 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Duke Energy Gas Transmission 

Spill Prevention Control and Counter Measure Plan Page 19 

TABLE IV - Tank And Container Storage Exception Areas 

Tank and container storage shall be located in areas that are at least 100 feet from all 

water-bodies and wetlands, and at least 200 feet from a private water supply well and 400 

feet from a community or public water supply well. 

The below exceptions have been approved by ECP and EHS. 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Duke Energy Gas Transmission 

Spill Prevention Control and Counter Measure Plan Page 20 

TABLE V – Project Site Specific Security Information 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Duke Energy Gas Transmission 

Spill Prevention Control and Counter Measure Plan Page 21 

TABLE VI – Areas for Potential Leaks and Spills 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Duke Energy Gas Transmission 

Spill Prevention Control and Counter Measure Plan Page 22 

APPENDIX “B” - MSDS SHEETS 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
APPENDIX E 

ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT ASSESSMENT FOR THE 

CROWN LANDING LNG PROJECT 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
E-1 

APPENDIX E 

Essential Fish Habitat Assessment 

Crown Landing LNG Project 

1.0 INTRODUCTION 

The 1996 amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act 

(MSFCMA) mandated the identification and protection of important marine and anadromous fisheries 

habitats. The regional fishery management councils, with assistance from the National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), are 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) filed 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 proposed LNG terminal to its existing 

interstate gas transmission system (Docket No. CP04-416-000). Texas Eastern’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 Eastern’s proposed pipeline are being evaluated together by the FERC. Because construction of 

the project in estuarine habitats could adversely affect EFH, the FERC is consulting with the NMFS and 

prepared this EFH Assessment to comply with the MSFCMA. Texas Eastern’s pipeline facilities are not 

expected to affect EFH; therefore, although this EFH Assessment addresses the Crown Landing LNG 

Project, the focus is on the LNG 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 Environmental 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 meters 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 LNG terminal facilities would consist of: 

• a ship unloading facility with a single berth capable of receiving LNG ships with cargo 

capacities of up to 200,000 cubic meters (m3

); 

• three 150,000 m3

 (net capacity) full containment LNG storage tanks; 

• a closed loop shell and tube heat exchanger vaporization system; and 

• various ancillary facilities, including administrative offices, warehouse/maintenance 

building, main control center, guardhouse, and a pier control room. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
E-2 

The EIS includes a comprehensive discussion of the facilities as well as an evaluation of 

alternatives (see sections 2.0 and 3.0 of the EIS). See figure 2.2-1 in the 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 be 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) EFH designations tables 

were reviewed to identify managed 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 Oldmans 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 3-1 

Salinity Ranges for the Life Stages of Managed Fish Species Potentially Occurring in the 

Mixing Zone within the Delaware River Estuary a/ 

 Typical Salinity Range of Occurrence (ppt b/)

Managed Species Eggs Larvae Juveniles Adults 

Winter flounder (Pleuronectes americanus) 10 – 32 3.2 – 30 19 – 21 15 – 33 

Windowpane flounder (Scopthalmus aquosus) -- -- 15 – 33 5.5 – 36 

American plaice (Hippoglossoides platessoides) -- -- > 32 -- 

Atlantic sea herring (Clupea harengus) -- -- 26 – 32 -- 

Bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix) -- -- 23 – 33 > 25 

Butterfish (Peprilus triacanthus) -- -- 3.0 – 37 -- 

Summer flounder (Paralicthys dentatus) -- -- 22 – 35 18 – 35 

Scup (Stenotomus chrysops) -- -- >15 -- 

Black sea bass (Centropristus striata) -- -- > 18 -- 

____________________

a/ Mixing zone as defined by NOAA Fisheries (2004) 

b/ ppt = parts per thousand 

Note: Salinity in project area is generally less than 1 ppt. 

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; 

mesohaline 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 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
E-3 

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 3-1). 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 be expanded to include other 

species for which EFH may not be 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, blueback 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 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 upstream of Oldmans Creek along the 

Delaware River and, therefore, does not occur at the proposed LNG terminal site, aquatic habitats that 

would be affected by the project support prey for managed species. The primary areas inhabited by prey 

species near the proposed LNG 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 includes 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 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
E-4 

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 both 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 subtidal 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 of the area to fish. 

The Upper Delaware River provides key spawning and nursery habitat for the American shad 

along its entire length. Also, the proposed LNG 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 finfish 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 deepwater, especially in the upper reaches of the Delaware 

River estuary, and would be likely to inhabit the area following dredging. 

Effects of Dredging

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 disrupt migratory 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 restricted 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 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
E-5 

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 anadromous species. However, the larger polyhaline species, such as brown bullhead, white 

catfish, 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 the 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 anadromous fish during fish migration and 

spawning, Crown Landing revised its dredging schedule to avoid dredging and other in-water 

construction activities from March 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 currently working with the applicable resource 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. 

Effects of Water Withdrawals

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 m3

 and 200,000 m3 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 are about 5,200 m3

/h for a 138,000 m3 ship and about 7,500 m3 for a 200,000 m3 ship. Thus the 

likely intake rates for the 138,000 m3

 and 200,000 m3 ships are estimated to be about 23,000 gpm and 

34,000 gpm, respectively. The total area of the two lower intake openings is 3.55 m2

. Openings are 

protected by bar-type grids having 4.5 mm bars spaced 25 mm apart, reducing the clear flow area to 2.36 

m2

. 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 about 13.7 million gallons of ballast water at the marine terminal, 

it is likely that ballast water intakes would result in the entrainment, impingement, 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 potential 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 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
E-6 

impacts from cooling water intake structures within the Delaware River system. In the Delaware River 

case study (EPA, 2002), actual impingement 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 LNG 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 a maximum of 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 4-1). 

TABLE 4-1 

Estimate of Potential Impacts of Ballast Water Withdrawal by LNG Ships Using the Proposed LNG Terminal on Selected 

Fish Species in the Delaware River a/ 

Fish Species Age-1 Equivalents (individuals) b/ Yield Lost (pounds) c/ Production Foregone (pounds) d/ 

Alewife 42 0 39 

American Shad 3 0 28 

Atlantic Croaker 54,043 11,004 30,722 

Atlantic Menhaden 7,630 3,830 666 

Bay Anchovy 956,693 0 22,912 

Blue Crab 5,561 176 1,036 

Blueback Herring 185 0 101 

Silverside 350 0 0 

Spot 78,322 8,772 21,140 

Striped Bass 1,456 2,022 10,489 

Weakfish 4,287 3,368 12,292 

White Perch 4,287 6 1,137 

Non-RIS Fishery Species 

e/ 45,800 4,091 52,746 

Non-RIS Forage Species 

e/ 27,202 0 978 

Estimated Total 

Entrained by LNG Ships 1,185,861 33,269 154,286

Estimated Total 

Entrained by Delaware 

River Facilities (EPA, 

2002) f/

630,733,201 16,679,018 61,215,570 

____________________ 

a/ Assuming on average150 LNG ships would visit the proposed LNG terminal annually and that each carrier would intake 

 about 13.7 million gallons of ballast water. 

b/ “Age-1 Equivalents” are the number of impinged and entrained individuals that would otherwise have survived to be age-1 

 plus the number of impinged individuals which are assumed to be impinged at age 1. 

c/ “Yield Lost” is a measure of the amount of fish or shellfish that is not harvested because the fish are lost to impingement

 and entrainment. 

d/ “Production Foregone” is the expected total amount of future growth of individuals that would be impinged or entrained 

 had they not been impinged or entrained. Foregone production for forage species is used to estimate the subsequent 

 reduction in harvested species yield that results from a decrease in the food supply. 

e/ RIS are “recreationally important species” as defined by EPA (2002). See EPA (2002) for a list of species in these 

 categories. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
E-7 

TABLE 4-1 

Estimate of Potential Impacts of Ballast Water Withdrawal by LNG Ships Using the Proposed LNG Terminal on Selected 

Fish Species in the Delaware River a/ 

Fish Species Age-1 Equivalents (individuals) b/ Yield Lost (pounds) c/ Production Foregone (pounds) d/ 

f/ This estimation includes 12 other currently operating facilities along the Delaware River. See EPA (2002) for additional 

 details on these facilities. 

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 LNG 

carriers during operation of the proposed LNG 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 

entrainment and impingement losses from hydrostatic test water withdrawals (table 4-2). Unlike ballast 

water withdrawals that would occur throughout the year and repeat annually, water withdrawals for 

hydrostatic testing of the LNG 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 proportion of the losses at the Logan 

Generating Plant which occur throughout 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. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
E-8 

TABLE 4-2 

Estimate of Potential Impacts of Hydrostatic Test Water Withdrawal during Construction of the Proposed LNG Terminal on 

Selected Fish Species in the Delaware River a/

Fish Species Age-1 Equivalents (individuals) 

b/

Yield Lost (pounds) 

c/ 

Production Foregone (pounds) 

d/

Alewife 2 0 1 

American Shad 0 0 1 

Atlantic Croaker 1,930 393 1,097 

Atlantic Menhaden 273 137 24 

Bay Anchovy 34,168 0 818 

Blue Crab 199 6 37 

Blueback Herring 7 0 4 

Silverside 13 0 0 

Spot 2,797 313 755 

Striped Bass 52 72 375 

Weakfish 153 120 439 

White Perch 268 0 41 

Non-RIS Fishery Species 

e/ 1,636 146 1,884 

Non-RIS Forage Species 

e/ 972 0 49 

Total 42,470 1,187 5,525

____________________ 

a/ Assumes three LNG storage tanks would be hydrostatically tested and that each tank would require the withdrawal of 

 about 25 million gallons of water from the Delaware River. 

b/ “Age-1 Equivalents” are the number of impinged and entrained individuals that would otherwise have survived to be age-1 

 plus the number of impinged individuals which are assumed to be impinged at age 1. 

c/ “Yield Lost” is a measure of the amount of fish or shellfish that is not harvested because the fish are lost to impingement

 and entrainment. 

d/ “Production Foregone” is the expected total amount of future growth of individuals that would be impinged or entrained 

 had they not been impinged or entrained. Foregone production for forage species is used to estimate the subsequent 

 reduction in harvested species yield that results from a decrease in the food supply. 

e/ RIS are “recreationally important species” as defined by EPA (2002). See EPA (2002) for a list of species in these 

 categories. 

To minimize 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 of Pier Construction

The pier for the ship unloading facility would be supported by approximately 80 steel piles, each 

3 feet in diameter 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 substrate within the footprints of the 

individual pilings, of which 1,800 square feet would occur in the intertidal or subtidal shallows. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
E-9 

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 hammers produce intense, sharp spikes of sound that can 

injure fish. In some cases, fish may be startled by the first few strikes of an impact hammer. 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 be about 30 to 45 minutes depending on the load criteria and the soils 

encountered. Additional time would be required for barge 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 decibels1

, 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 et al., 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 of the mooring dolphins are being driven. 

Although some fish may become acclimated to certain sounds, acoustic disturbance could cause 

other fish to avoid the construction area. If pile installation occurred during anadromous fish migrations, 

the avoidance of the nearshore areas 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 seems unlikely that 

these effects would substantially 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 1 to avoid impacts on 

migrating and spawning fish species. In addition, we recommend in section 4.6.2 of the EIS that Crown 

 

1

 All sound levels are expressed as decibels at a reference pressure of 1 micropascal. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
E-10 

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 are 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, LNG 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 

important 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 importance 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 be 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 leachates, 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 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 Delaware River. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
E-11 

The 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 Crown 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 clearing/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 or upland vegetation; 

• noise impacts from pile driving; 

• disturbance to benthic substrates; 

• 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 completed 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 offloading 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 or 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 adverse population level 

effects on managed species, other recreationally important fish species, or forage species. 

6.0 CONSERVATION MEASURES 

Crown Landing 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 downstream of the site. The placement of dredged material in an onshore area is 

another important measure proposed by Crown Landing to minimize potential impacts on federally 

managed fish species and EFH, including prey species. Also, Crown Landing is working with the 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
E-12 

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 resources, especially eggs and larvae. 

These conservation measures are discussed in additional detail in section 4.6.2 of the 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 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 Versar, Inc. June 1991. 

EPA. 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. 

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 Arun River during piling at 

County Wharf, Littlehampton. Unpublished report prepared for David Wilson Homes Ltd. by 

Subacoustech 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 Subacoustech 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. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
E-13 

NOAA Fisheries. 2003. Non-fishing Impacts to Essential Fish Habitat and Recommended Conservation 

Measures. NOAA Fisheries, 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 Northeastern United States. 

http://www.nero.noaa.gov/hcd/index2a.htm. 

NOAA Fisheries. 2004b. Guide to Essential Fish Habitat Designations in the Northeastern United States. 

http://www.nero.noaa.gov/hcd/webintro.html. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
APPENDIX F 

RESIDENCES AND OTHER STRUCTURES WITHIN 50 FEET 

OF THE CONSTRUCTION WORK AREA FOR THE LOGAN 

LATERAL PROJECT 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
F-1 

TABLE F-1 

Residences and Other Structures Within 50 Feet of the Construction Work Area for the Logan Lateral 

Project 

State Milepost Feature 

Distance from Edge 

of Construction 

ROW (ft.) 

Description 

PENNSYLVANIA 0.00 Residence 19 House – adj. to staging 

 0.00 Residence 48 House – adj. to staging 

 0.03 Residence 4 House 

 0.04 Residence 32 House 

 0.07 Residence 14 House 

 0.07 Residence 45 House 

 0.14 Garage 15 Garage 

 0.19 Building 0 Kentucky Fried Chicken 

 0.29 Building 45 Brookhaven Shopping Center 

 0.33 Residence 43 House 

 0.34 Residence 44 House 

 0.35 Residence 31 House 

 0.35 Residence 46 House 

 0.37 Residence 42 House 

 0.38 Residence 38 House 

 0.39 Residence 40 House 

 0.40 Residence 38 House 

 0.41 Residence 40 House 

 0.41 Residence 38 House 

 0.41 Residence 43 House 

 0.42 Residence 38 House 

 0.43 Residence 37 House 

 0.44 Residence 38 House 

 0.45 Residence 37 House 

 0.46 Residence 39 House 

 0.46 Residence 38 House 

 0.48 Residence 38 House 

 0.49 Residence 31 House 

 0.51 Residence 41 House 

 0.51 Residence 42 House 

 0.51 Residence 42 House 

 0.52 Residence 38 House 

 0.52 Residence 36 House 

 0.53 Residence 37 House 

 0.54 Residence 37 House 

 0.56 Residence 43 House 

 0.57 Residence 37 House 

 0.57 Residence 43 House 

 0.57 Residence 40 House 

 0.58 Residence 38 House 

 0.59 Residence 41 House 

 0.59 Residence 38 House 

 0.59 Residence 43 House 

 0.61 Residence 36 House 

 0.61 Residence 38 House 

 0.61 Residence 42 House 

 0.62 Residence 38 House 

 0.63 Residence 37 House 

 0.63 Residence 37 House 

 0.64 Residence 38 House 

 0.65 Residence 41 House 

 0.65 Residence 43 House 

 0.66 Residence 38 House 

 0.67 Residence 40 House 

 0.68 Residence 40 House 

 0.68 Residence 38 House 

 0.70 Residence 39 House 

 0.71 Residence 33 House 

 0.71 Residence 39 House 

 0.73 Residence 38 House 

 0.73 Residence 41 House 

 0.76 Residence 35 House 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
F-2 

TABLE F-1 (cont’d) 

Residences and Other Structures Within 50 Feet of the Construction Work Area for the Logan Lateral 

Project 

State Milepost Feature 

Distance from Edge 

of Construction 

ROW (ft.) 

Description 

 0.77 Residence 41 House 

 0.78 Residence 37 House 

 0.81 Residence 40 House 

 0.81 Residence 43 House 

 0.82 Residence 39 House 

 0.84 Residence 39 House 

 0.85 Residence 40 House 

 0.85 Residence 39 House 

 0.86 Residence 46 House 

 0.88 Residence 47 House 

 0.89 Residence 35 House 

 0.91 Residence 41 House 

 0.91 Residence 41 House 

 0.92 Residence 29 House 

 0.93 Residence 37 House 

 0.94 Residence 48 House 

 0.95 Residence 41 House 

 0.96 Residence 39 House 

 0.97 Residence 42 House 

 0.98 Residence 39 House 

 0.98 Residence 41 House 

 0.99 Residence 42 House 

 1.00 Residence 36 House 

 1.00 Residence 35 House 

 1.02 Residence 41 House 

 1.02 Residence 41 House 

 1.04 Residence 41 House 

 1.04 Residence 46 House 

 1.04 Residence 40 House 

 1.05 Residence 38 House 

 1.05 Residence 39 House 

 1.07 Residence 40 House 

 1.07 Residence 43 House 

 1.09 Residence 40 House 

 1.09 Residence 33 House 

 1.10 Residence 43 House 

 1.11 Residence 38 House 

 1.14 Residence 35 House 

 1.15 Residence 32 House 

 1.16 Residence 34 House 

 1.16 Residence 33 House 

 1.18 Residence 33 House 

 1.22 Residence 8 House 

 1.23 Garage 8 Garage 

 1.23 Residence 48 House 

 1.34 Building 0 Upland School Bus and 

Maintenance Building 

 2.05 Building 10 Bakery 

 2.10 Shed 23 Small Storage shed 

 2.12 Building 30 Trucking Terminal 

 2.18 Building 0 Verizon Building 

 2.65 Building 0 Industrial Building 

 2.68 Building 0 Industrial Building 

 2.72 Residence 29 House 

 2.74 Residence 32 House 

 2.75 Residence 32 House 

 2.76 Residence 30 House 

 2.76 Residence 24 House 

 2.77 Residence 37 House 

 2.77 Residence 16 House 

 2.79 Residence 38 House 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
F-3 

TABLE F-1 (cont’d) 

Residences and Other Structures Within 50 Feet of the Construction Work Area for the Logan Lateral 

Project 

State Milepost Feature 

Distance from Edge 

of Construction 

ROW (ft.) 

Description 

 2.80 Residence 22 House 

 2.82 Residence 30 House 

 2.82 Residence 34 House 

 2.82 Residence 30 House 

 2.84 Residence 4 House 

 2.86 Residence 31 House 

 2.86 Residence 34 Duplex 

 2.87 Residence 34 House 

 2.88 Residence 20 House 

 2.89 Residence 30 House 

 2.90 Residence 32 House 

 2.90 Residence 28 Duplex 

 2.91 Residence 34 House 

 2.92 Residence 0 House 

 2.93 Residence 0 House 

 3.03 Residence 25 House 

 3.05 Residence 23 House 

 3.07 Residence 17 House 

 3.10 Residence 30 House 

 3.15 Residence 10 House 

 3.17 Residence 10 House 

 3.71 Building 9 Industrial Building 

 3.75 Residence 10 House 

 3.78 Residence 8 House 

 3.78 Residence 2 House 

 3.79 Residence 7 House 

 3.82 Residence 6 House 

 3.82 Residence 46 House 

 3.84 Residence 6 House 

 3.89 Residence 8 House 

 3.94 Residence 4 House 

 3.96 Residence 0 House 

 4.44 Residence 43 House 

NEW JERSEY 7.23 Residence 10 House 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
APPENDIX G 

REFERENCES AND CONTACTS 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
G-1 

APPENDIX G 

REFERENCES AND CONTACTS 

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. 2003. ToxFAQs for Aldrin/Dieldrin, as listed 

October 29, 2003. Available online at: http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/tfacts1.html. 

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. 1995. Ashley, J. T. F., D. J. Velinsky, M. Wilhelm, 

J.E. Baker, D. Secor, and M. Toaspern. 2004. Bioaccumulation of Polychlorinated Biphenyls in 

the Delaware River Estuary. Report number 03-03F, submitted to the Delaware River Basin 

Commission, 15 January, 2004. 

American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy. 2003. Natural Gas Price Effects of Energy 

Efficiency and Renewable Practices and Policies. December 2003. 

American Bureau of Shipping. 2002. Guidance Notes for Building and Classing Offshore LNG 

Terminals. May 2002. 43 pp. 

Andrle, R.F., and J.R. Carroll. 1988. The atlas of breeding birds in New York State. Cornell University, 

Ithaca, New York. 551 pp. 

Ashley, J. T. F., D. J. Velinsky, M. Wilhelm, J.E. Baker, D. Secor, and M. Toaspern. 2004. 

Bioaccumulation of Polychlorinated Biphenyls in the Delaware River Estuary. Report number 03-

03F, submitted to the Delaware River Basin Commission, 15 January, 2004. 

Atlantic Sturgeon Status Review Team. 1998. Status Review of Atlantic Sturgeon (Acipenser 

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 streams in upstate New York. In: 

Sixth International Symposium on Environmental Concerns in Rights-of-Way Management. Eds. 

J. Williams, J. Goodrich-Mahoney, J. Wisniewski, and J. Wisniewski. New Orleans, Louisiana. 

Elsevier Publishers, NY. 

Breetzke, 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 I Cultural Resources Report for the Texas Eastern Logan Lateral Project in 

Delaware County, Pennsylvania. Environment and Archaeology, LLC, Florence, Kentucky. 

Breetzke, D. 2005. Addendum Phase I Cultural Resources Report for the Texas Eastern Logan Lateral 

Project in Delaware County, Pennsylvania. Environment & Archaeology. Florence, Kentucky. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
APPENDIX G (cont’d) 

G-2 

Breetzke, D. and R. Whitlatch. 2005. Addendum Phase I Cultural Resources Report for the 

Texas Eastern Logan Lateral Project in Gloucester County, New Jersey. Environment & 

Archaeology. Florence, Kentucky.

Bryngelson, R. 2004. Conservation Law Foundation, Conference on LNG Terminal Siting, July 29, 

2004. Available at: http://www.clf.org/bepart/LNG_conf_Bryngelson_Excelerate_Energy.pdf

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. 

California Energy Commission. 2006. West Coast LNG Projects and Proposals. Retrieved on March 24, 

2006 from the world wide web at http://www.rrc.state.tx.us/divisions/gs/LNGproject.html. 

Cartisano, Linda A. 2004. Letter dated November 19, from Linda A. Cartisano (City Solicitor) to John 

Sheridan (Duke Energy). 

Charles River Associates. 2002. The Ability 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. 

Clark, J., S. Mars, and D. Wilkinson. 2004. Telephone communication on September 13 between Dave 

Blaha and Julia Tims (ERM) and J. Clark (NJDEP), Steve Mars (FWS), and Don Wilkinson 

(NJDEP). 

Clark, David E. and Leslie A. Nieves. 1993. An Interregional Hedonic Analysis of Noxious Facility 

Impacts on Local Wages and Property Values. Journal of Environmental Economics and 

Management. Academic Press. 

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 Department of Environmental Protection. 1999. Wildlife in Connecticut. Endangered and 

Threatened Species Series: Kemp’s (Atlantic) Ridley Sea Turtle. 

Delaware Coastal Management Program. 2004. Comprehensive Update and Routine Program 

Implementation August, 2004. Program Summary Supplement to 1979 Document. 

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. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
APPENDIX G (cont’d) 

G-3 

Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control. 2003. Delaware State Public 

Boat Access Areas, Tidal Water Fishing/Boating Access Areas. Available at: 

http://www.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 LNG 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: 

http://www.state.nj.us/drbc/thedrb.htm

Energy Information Administration. 2003. Annual Energy Outlook 2003 with Projections to 2025. 

Energy Information Administration - Report #:DOE/EIA-0383(2003). January 9, 2003. 

Energy Information Administration. 2004. Annual Energy Outlook 2004, Supplemental Tables. January 

2004. 

Energy Information Administration. 2005. Annual Energy Outlook 2005 with Projections to 2025. 

Energy Information Administration - Report #:DOE/EIA-0383(2005). February 2005. 

Enviroweb 2003. Raccoon Creek Watershed Factsheet. Available at:http://www.sjwatersheds. 

org/watershedorgs/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. 1995. Yukon Pacific LNG Project. Final Environmental 

Impact Statement. FERC/EIS-0071. 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. 1996. Eco Électrica LNG Import Terminal and Cogeneration 

Project. Final Environmental Impact Statement. FERC/EIS-0099F. PRPB/EIS94-62-1219JPU 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. 2001. Phase III/HubLine Project - Final Environmental Impact 

Statement. Docket Nos. CP01-4-000, CP01-5-000, and CP01-8-000. November 2001. 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. 2002. Islander East Pipeline Project – Final Environmental 

Impact Statement. Docket Nos. CP01-384-000 and CP01-387-000. August 2002. 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. 2003. New England Natural Gas Infrastructure. Docket No. 

PL04-01-000. Staff Report of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. December 2003. 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. 2005. Cove Point Expansion Project. Draft Environmental 

Impact Statement. Docket No. CP05-130-000, CP05-132-000, and CP05-131-000. April 2005. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
APPENDIX G (cont’d) 

G-4 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. 2006. Eco Électrica LNG Import Terminal and Cogeneration 

Project. Final Environmental Impact Statement. FERC/EIS-0099F. PRPB/EIS94-62-1219JPU. 

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 H. Striffler (ENSR) and M. Fusco 

(Friends of Chester Creek). 

Glaholt, R.G., M. Nunas, and S. Ong. 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. 

Gloucester County Improvement Authority. 2005. Personal communication on September 9, between J. 

Lee (Natural Resource Group, Inc.) and G. Strachan (Gloucester County Improvement 

Authority). 

Goodrich, L.J., M. Brittingham, 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. F. 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 Burkhead, N. M. 1994. Freshwater fishes of Virginia. American Fisheries. 

Kane, R. 2001. Phragmites Use by Birds in New Jersey. Available at:http://www.njaudubon.org/

Conservation/opinions/05-012.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 Construction Classing of Offshore LNG 

Terminals. LNG Express - June 2002. Volume XII, No. 6. 

LNG Express. 2003. Offshore LNG Terminals Become Focus in Wake of Terrorist Threats. LNG 

Express – July 2003. Volume XIII, No. 7. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
APPENDIX G (cont’d) 

G-5 

LNG Express. 2004. Texas and Louisiana Lead Nation in Number of Proposed LNG Terminals Vol. 

XIV, No.6, June 2004. 

LNG Express. 2005a. Gulf Gateway Energy Bridge Opens for Business. LNG Express Vol. XV, No. 9, 

May 1, 2005. 

LNG Express. 2005b. Insulated LNG Pipeline for Subsea Environments. LNG Express Vol. XV, No. 

11, June 1, 2005. 

LNG Express. 2005c. Highlights of LNG Actions at FERC. LNG Express Vol. XV, No.22, November 

1, 2005 

LNG Express. 2005d. Freedom LNG Terminal Spending Delayed by Vote of Philadelphia Gas 

Commission. LNG Express Vol. XV, No 22, November 15, 2005. 

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 Loggerhead 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/tsunami/Faq/. 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2004a. National Data Buoy Center, NDBC Station 

44025. Available at: http://seaboard.ndbc.noaa.gov/station_page.php?station=44025

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2004b. U.S. Mainland Hurricane Strikes by State, 

1900-1996. Accessed on September 9, 2004 at http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/paststate.html. 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2004c. 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 opinion for Dredging 

Activities within the Philadelphia District. Northeast Region. November 26. 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - Fisheries. 1998. Final Recovery Plan for the 

Shortnose 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 shortnose sturgeon. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
APPENDIX G (cont’d) 

G-6 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - 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 Fisheries Service & US Fish and Wildlife Service. Atlantic Sturgeon Status 

Review. September 1998. 

National Park Service. 2004. National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. Available at: 

http://www.nps.gov/rivers/

National Petroleum Council. 2003. Balancing Natural Gas Policy: Fueling Demands of a Growing 

Economy. Volume I. Summary of Findings and Recommendations 

National Wildlife Federation. 2004. http://www.nwf.org/wildlife/kempsridleyseaturtle/

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. 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 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. 1997. The Management and Regulation 

of Dredging Activities and Dredged Material in New Jersey’s Tidal Waters. October, 1997.

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, Kathleen 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, Kathleen 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 

Carberry. September 16, 2003. 

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. 2003c. Personal communication with Jim Joseph. 

September 16, 2003. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
APPENDIX G (cont’d) 

G-7 

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. 2003d. Informal consultation letter from NJDEP 

to ENSR International 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/greenacres/scorp.pdf. 

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. 2004a. New Jersey Integrated Water Quality 

Monitoring and Assessment Report. 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 Environmental Protection. 2004c. Informal consultation letter from NJDEP 

to Crown Landing regarding their review of the Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS for the Crown 

Landing LNG Import Terminal. June 30, 2004. 

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: https://njgin.state.nj.us/NJ_NJGIN

Explorer/index.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, 

LLC). 

New Jersey Natural History Museum. 2004. Personal communication on September 3, 2004 between D. 

Parris (New Jersey Natural History Museum) and D. Breetzke (Environment and Archaeology, 

LLC). 

New Jersey Paleontological Society. 2003. Personal communication on October 29, 2003 between R. 

Dann (New Jersey Paleontological Society) and D. Belin (ERM). 

New York Independent System Operator. 2001. Power Alert: New York’s Energy Crossroads. March 

2001. 

Northeast Gateway Energy Bridge, LLC. 2005. Northeast Gateway Energy Bridge Deepwater Port 

Project (Docket USCG-2005-22219-24), Volume 1 of 10. 

O’Herron, J.C and R.W. Hastings. 1985. A study of Shortnose 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. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
APPENDIX G (cont’d) 

G-8 

O’Herron, J.C., T. Lloyd, and K. Laidig. 1994. A survey of fish in the Delaware 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 for 

Congress. Congressional Research Service Report for Congress. September 9, 2003. 

Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. 2003. The Pennsylvania Department 

of Conservation and Natural Resources. Fish, Reptiles, and Amphibians. Available at: 

http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/wrcf/franda.htm. 

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. 2002. The Pennsylvania Coastal Zone 

Management Program – Fact Sheet. 0140-FS-DEP2019. 

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/watermgt/wqp/wqstandards/303d-Report.htm

Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission. 2001. Pennsylvania Fishes. Pennsylvania Fish and Boat 

Commission. 

Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission. 2003a. 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/pfbcmaps/delphiamain.htm. 

Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission. 2004. Informal 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/topogeo/maps/map10.pdf. 

Pennsylvania Geological Survey. 1997. Directory 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, 28 p. 

Pennsylvania Geological Survey. 2003. Earthquake Hazard in Pennsylvania (2nd Edition): 4th ser., 

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). 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
APPENDIX G (cont’d) 

G-9 

Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission. 2003. Letter dated November 19, from K. Carr 

(Chief, Division of Archaeology and Protection) to D. Breetzke (Environment & Archaeology, 

LLC). 

Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission. 2004. Letter dated April 2, from J. Cutler (Bureau 

Director) to D. Breetzke (Environment & Archaeology, LLC). 

Railroad Commission of Texas. 2006. Onshore LNG Supply Terminal Projects Proposed for Texas. 

Retrieved on March 24, 2006 from the world wide web at 

http://www.rrc.state.tx.us/divisions/gs/LNGproject.html 

Real Estate Counseling Group of Connecticut, Inc. 1995. Anticipated Price Effects on Single-Family 

Residential Properties Associated with Proximity to LNG Storage Facilities. 

Robertson, P.K., and C.E. Wride. 1998. Evaluating Cyclic Liquefaction Potential Using the Cone 

Penetration Test. Canadian Geotechnical 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. 

Sandia Report. December 2004. Guidance on Risk Assessment and Safety Implications of a Large 

Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) Spill Over Water. Sandia National Laboratories. SAND 2004-

6258 

Shirey, C.A., Martin, C.C., and Stetzar, E.J. 1999. Atlantic Sturgeon Abundance and Movement in the 

Lower Delaware River. Delaware Fish and Wildlife Aquatic Resources Education Center. 

Shirey, 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 (ENSR) 

and D. Rosenblatt (NJDEP Watershed Management Program). 

Steady, Richard. 2005. Telephone communication on June 10, between M. Timpson (Natural Resource 

Group, Inc.) and R. Steady (Dredging Contractor – Weeks Marine, 856-963-0963). 

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. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
APPENDIX G (cont’d) 

G-10 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1985. Interim Guidance for Predicting Quality of Effluent Discharged 

from Confined Dredged Material Disposal Areas – Test Procedures. Environmental Effects of 

Dredging Technical Notes EEDP-04-2. June, 1985. 

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 Resources 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 Environmental Impact Report (EOEA 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 Department. 

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.dot.gov (use only No. 14294 when searching the web site) Accessed July 7, 2004. 

U.S. Coast Guard. 2005. Compass Port LLC Deepwater Port License Application - Draft Environmental 

Impact Statement. Docket number USCG-2004-17659, February 11, 2005. pp 4-73. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1962. Soil Survey of Gloucester County, New Jersey. 84 pp, with maps. 

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. 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. 1999. The Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act 1990 to 

2010. EPA Report to Congress. EPA – Office of Air and Radiation; Office of Policy. EPA-410-

R-99-001. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
APPENDIX G (cont’d) 

G-11 

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://www.epa.gov/owow/estuaries/programs/de.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 

Shortnose 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, Pleasantville, NJ. 19p + Appendices. 

U.S. Fish 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. A real Geology of the Chester Quadrangle, Pennsylvania, Delaware, New 

Jersey. Scale: 1:62,500. 

U.S. Geological Survey. 1982. Landslide Overview Map of the Conterminous United States. Geologic 

Survey Professional Paper 1183. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Geological Survey. 1997. Ground Water Atlas of the United States – Delaware, Maryland, New 

Jersey, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia. Hydrologic Investigations Atlas 

730-L. Reston, Virgina. 

U.S. Geological Survey. 1999a. Inventory and Regional Susceptibility for Holocene Debris Flows and 

Related Fast Moving Landslides in the Conterminous United States. 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. 2002b. Geological Survey Minerals Yearbook - 2002, Pennsylvania. 

U.S. Geological Survey. 2002c. Water Resource Data, New Jersey, Water Year 2002, Volume 1: 

Delaware River Basin, Water Data Report NJ-02-01. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
APPENDIX G (cont’d) 

G-12 

U.S. Geological Survey. 2003. Major Aquifers in New Jersey. Available at: 

http://nj.usgs.gov/gw/aquifer.html. 

U.S. Geological Survey. 2004a. Mineral Resources On-Line Spatial Data. Available at 

http://mrdata.usgs.gov/index.html 

U.S. Geological Survey. 2004b. Quaternary Faults and Folds Database of the United States. Available 

at: http://qfaults.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-D-0009, available on line at: (http://www.nap.usace.army.mil/cenap-pl/w1.pdf) 

Vinkour, W., and J. Shubert. 1987. Effects of Gas Pipeline Construction on the Aquatic Ecosystem of 

Canada Creek, Presque Isle County, Michigan. Gas Research Institute Report GRI-87/0027. 

Vladykov, V. and J. Greeley. 1963. Order Acipenseroidei. Centr. Dept. des Pêcheries Quebec No. 53. 

p. 60 

Vowinkel, E. F., A.E. Grosz, J. L. Barringer, Z. Szabo, P. E. Stackelberg, J. A. Hopple, J. N. Grossman, 

E. A. Murphy, M. Serfes, and S. Spayd. 2001. Distribution of Arsenic in the Environment in 

New Jersey. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Trenton, NJ. 

Wade, D.D., Brock, B.L., Brose, P.H., Grace, J.B., Hoch, G.A., and Patterson III, W.A. 2000. Fire in 

eastern ecosystems. In Wildland fire in ecosystems: effects of fire on flora. J.K. Brown, editor, 

USDA Forest Service GTR-RMRS-42-vol. 2. pp. 53-96. 

Water Resources Education Network. 2003. Pennsylvania’s Aquifers. Available at: 

http://pa.lwv.org/wren/pubs/primer.html. 

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. 

WPC. 2003b. Seismic Hazard Study Report – Liberty [now Crown Landing] LNG Project, Logan 

Township, Gloucester County, New Jersey. WPC Project No. SAV2-03-168. November 26, 2003. 

Yagecic, John. 2002. Delaware Estuary Surficial Sediment Results. Presentation of Delaware River 

Basin Commission on October, 24, 2002. 

Yokel, Felix Y. 2004. Review of Geotechnical Engineering Investigation and Seismic Hazard Study, 

Crown Landing LNG Project, Logan Township, New Jersey. June 29, 2004. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
APPENDIX H 

LIST OF PREPARERS 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
H-1 

APPENDIX H 

LIST OF PREPARERS

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

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 

Boros, Laurie - Cultural Resources

 B.A., Anthropology/Archaeology, 1980, Queens College, C.U.N.Y. 

Thomas, Hugh V. – Reliability and Safety 

M.E., Mechanical/Environmental 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, Threatened and Endangered Species 

B.S., Fisheries and Wildlife, 2000, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University 

Lykens, Alisa – Wildlife, Threatened and Endangered Species 

B.S., Biology, 1986, Old Dominion University 

Suter, Phillip – Air Quality, Noise, Reliability and Safety 

B.S., Chemical Engineering, 2004, Pennsylvania State University 

Tomasi, Eric J. - Air Quality and Noise, Reliability and Safety 

B.S., - Aerospace Engineering, 1994, Boston University 

Zerby, Chris M. – Reliability and Safety 

 M.S., Civil Engineering, 1974, University of Maryland 

 B.S., Mechanical Engineering, 1970, Lehigh University

Natural Resource Group, Inc. 

Brown, Larry – Technical Director, Alternatives 

 B.S., Biology, 1981, Bates College 

Duncan, Randy - Project Manager, Project Description

M.S., Water Resources Management (Aquatic Biology), 1982, University of Wisconsin 

 B.A., Biology, 1978, Luther College 

Bednarczyk, Paul – Socioeconomics 

B.S., Applied Economics and Management (Environmental and Resource Economics), 2001, 

 Cornell University

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
APPENDIX H (cont’d) 

H-2 

Braun, Bill - Geology, Groundwater

 M.S., Course Work, Geology, 1980-1983, South Dakota School of Mines and Technology 

 B.A., Earth Sciences, 1980, St. Cloud State University 

Hargrove, Ross - Vegetation 

 B.S., Forest Resources, 2000, University of Minnesota 

Jensen, Bart – Surface 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 

Robblee, 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 

 

Thommes, Jeffrey – Deputy Project Manager, Wildlife and Aquatic Resources, Special Status 

Species 

 M.S., Zoology (Wildlife Ecology), 1994, Southern Illinois University 

 B.S., Zoology, 1992, Southern 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 

Vann, J. Scot - Air Quality, Noise 

 M.S., Environmental Engineering, 1996, University of Texas 

B.S., Civil Engineering, 1994, Texas A&M University 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
APPENDIX I 

FINAL SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PLAN 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
APPENDIX J 

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES ON THE DRAFT EIS 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
APPENDIX J 

J-1 

COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIS AND RESPONSES 

INDEX 

Document Number Commentor

FEDERAL AGENCIES 

FA1 U.S. Department of the Interior 

FA2 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

FA3 U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service 

STATE AGENCIES 

SA1 Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control 

SA2 Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control 

SA3 State of New Jersey Board of Public Utilities 

SA4 New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection / Office of Pollution 

Prevention and Right To Know 

SA5 New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection / Office of Pollution 

Prevention and Right To Know 

SA6 New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection / Office of Dredging and 

Sediment Technology 

SA7 Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control 

COMPANIES AND ORGANIZATIONS 

CO1 Coalition Against Toxics 

CO2 Whitehill Manufacturing Corporation 

CO3 Sierra Club / Delaware Chapter 

CO4 Council of Civic Organizations 

CO5 Maritime Exchange / Pilots’ Association / Mariners’ Advisory Committee 

CO6 Weymouth Architects & Planners 

CO7 Cullen and Dykman LLP for KeySpan Delivery Companies’ 

CO8 Green Delaware 

CO9 Chamber of Commerce, Southern New Jersey 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
APPENDIX J (cont’d) 

Document Number Commentor

J-2 

CO10 New Jersey Environmental Federation 

CO11 Consolidated Edison of New York, Inc. and Orange and Rockland Utilities Inc. 

CO12 Cullen and Dykman LLP for KeySpan Delivery Companies’ 

CO13 Delaware Riverkeeper 

CO14 PSEG Companies 

CO15 Green Delaware 

CO16 Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. 

INDIVIDUALS 

IND1 Philip Fuhrman 

IND2 Maryanne McGonegal 

IND3 Pat Barcello 

IND4 Helene A. Malloy 

IND5 Mark Perri 

IND6 Philip Fuhrman 

IND7 Tony Spadaccini 

IND8 A. Simon Whitehill 

IND9 Tony Spadaccini 

IND10 John W. Martin 

IND11 Ellen Lebowitz 

IND12 Coralie A. Pryde 

IND13 Tony Spadaccini 

IND14 Tony Spadaccini 

IND15 Charles G. Pratz, Jr. 

IND16 David Torrens 

IND17 Wallace L. Kremer 

IND18 Irene Murray 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
APPENDIX J (cont’d) 

Document Number Commentor

J-3 

IND19 Kathleen Patane & others 

IND20 Elaine Marie Scheetz 

PROJECT APPLICANT 

A1 Crown Landing LLC 

A2 Texas Eastern Transmission, LP 

A3 Crown Landing LLC 

PUBLIC MEETING 

PM1 Public Meeting at Swedesboro, New Jersey 

PM2 Public Meeting at Chester, Pennsylvania 

PM3 Public Meeting at Claymont, Delaware 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Comments on the Draft EIS and Responses 

FEDERAL AGENCIES 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Federal Agencies 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Federal Agencies 

FA1-1 As requested, the U.S Fish and Wildlife Ser

the cover of the final environmental impact sAddressed” letter at the front of the final EIS 

FA1-1 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Federal Agencies 

FA1-2 Section 4.7 has been revised to reflect the 

occasional transient bald eagles, no other jurisdiction are known to occur within the pro

FA1-3 Section 4.7 of the draft EIS states “Should 

nesting in the area), the FWS would reevaluaeagles and, if impacts are anticipated, mitiThis sentence is retained in the final EIS aconsultation if new nests are identified in the 

FA1-4 Section 4.7 has been revised to reflect the 

the bog turtle nor any other federally listed Pennsylvania would be adversely affected by 

FA1-5 Comment noted. FA1-6 This recommendation was included in the dr

However, because project impacts would nbald eagle, even without foraging habitat mthe mitigation plan be completed prior to cobe included in the final EIS. 

FA1-1 

(cont’d) 

FA1-2 FA1-3 FA1-4 FA1-5 FA1-6 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Federal Agencies 

FA1-7 The purpose and need for the proposed fac

The capacity of the existing pipelines to evaluated in section 3.5. As discussed in sTransmission Company (Columbia) nor Corporation (Transco) can transport singly proposed by Crown Landing, LLC (Crown maximum deliveries to Columbia and Transsendout capacity of the project, it would not pthe proposed three interconnects. Also, the request for additional transportation capacitTransmission, LP (Texas Eastern) system to in the region. 

FA1-8 The proposed liquefied natural gas (LNG) te

sendout a baseload rate of 1.2 billion cubic number, the potential sendout from the faciligas annually. The number of ships require438 Bcf of natural gas would depend on thdeliveries to the terminal. At the present timefleet have cargo capacities of 138,000 cubi

anticipated to increase in the future and accommodate ships with a cargo capacity o

of natural gas annually, around 145 delive

needed. If 200,000 m3 ships make the deliv

would drop to about 100 per year. 

FA1-9 Section 3.5 has been revised to clarify the caFA1-10 Comment noted. FA1-11 There are other pipelines located near the p

Transco, and Texas Eastern are the only intlocated near the proposed LNG terminal site

FA1-12 Section 4.8.3.2 has been revised to include 

position on the Crown Landing LNG Project Coastal Zone Act of 1971 (DSCZA). 

FA1-6 

(cont’d) 

FA1-7 FA1-8 FA1-9 

FA1-10 FA1-11 FA1-12 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Federal Agencies 

FA1-13 Section 4.8.5.2 has been revised to inclu

impacts on recreational use of the DelawarLanding LNG Project. 

FA1-14 Section 4.6 has been revised to reflect a cha

would withdraw for ballast water while in the While these volumes would still result in thaquatic organisms, even the larger volumes expected to result in population level effects be expected to have adverse population levdesignated Essential Fish Habitat (EFH). Crown Landing has proposed to increase thtaken in for ballast which would in turn redureduce the amount of ichthyoplankton taken it is unlikely that the proposed change would 0.5 feet per second as recommended by Agency (EPA) and other agencies, and thuscontinue to occur in similar magnitude to thoresponse to Comment A1-17). 

FA1-15 Alternative sites downstream of the propos

alternatives are evaluated in sections 3.3.3 a

FA1-16 Alternatives methods to obtain ballast wate

LNG ships are not practicable or feasible. reducing the amount of water withdrawn dunecessary for ship stability to reduce potewithin the ship berth. The remaining ballasduring return transit by LNG ships down tresponses to Comments A1-17 and FA1-14. 

FA1-17 As stated in section 4.6 of the EIS, we have 

consult with the applicable resource ageadditional mitigation measures to minimize iwithdrawals during LNG offloading. 

FA1-18 We disagree that the loss of this habitat is u

section 4.6.2, Crown Landing has agreed agencies to develop a mitigation plan that achabitats. Additionally, National Oceanic (NOAA) Fisheries has indicated that impacmitigated and has requested to be invomitigation (see the response to Comment FA

FA1-13 

FA1-14 FA1-15 FA1-16 FA1-17 FA1-18 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Federal Agencies 

FA1-19 As described in section 4.3.2, Crown Land

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Sysassociated with hydrostatic testing, which main order to comply with specific discharge lim

FA1-20 Section 4.7 notes the capture of this ind

acknowledges potential impacts on both thsturgeon. 

FA1-21 As discussed in section 4.6.2, Crown La

instream construction activities in the DelaAugust 1. Due to the potential for the ship bfor fish eggs and larvae, Crown Landing haamount of ballast water taken on by ships remaining water needs during return transit recommended that Crown Landing continuagencies to determine the need for additiowater withdrawals. The results of these conFederal Energy Regulatory Commission construction (see the responses to Commen

FA1-22 Timing is an essential component of an ade

proposed project area. This timing comcompletion of a study and incorporation of st

FA1-18 

(cont’d) 

FA1-19 FA1-20 FA1-21 FA1-22 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Federal Agencies 

FA1-23 Section 4.5 has been revised to include the 

the spread of Phragmites sp. from project ac

FA1-24 As required by the Council of Environmenta

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 1502.1minimize, rectify, reduce, and compensate identified, where appropriate, throughout all 40 CFR 1502.22, we have clearly identifilacking and identified criteria by which potenrecognize that some impacts identified in wetlands, wetland transition areas, shallow additional consultation with other state appropriate mitigative measures. In these that Crown Landing and Texas Eastern consdevelop mitigation plans for review by the Fthe FWS was involved in the identification of Filing Process, it was identified as one recommendations and thus will continue to involved in the development, review, and apanticipate that the mitigation plans developePolicy Act (NEPA) process will be used foprocesses. 

FA1-25 Crown Landing’s proposed berth is locat

Anchorage. Currently there is a 100 yard sevessels carrying dangerous cargo. The rGuard (Coast Guard) and local law enforcemimplement additional control measures withshould such action be warranted based intelligence. Additionally, it is important to n165.150 were designed to apply to any vessetransiting the Delaware Bay and River, and dor security measures that may be applied tissues a LOR finding the waterway suitablGuard would require LNG-specific safety specific zone has not been set for a moored vessels would be set by the Captain of tdevelop a detailed LNG Vessel Transit Mprocedures to ensure that no vessels are blvessel through the anchorage. AdditionaGuard’s security assessment has been adde

FA1-23 

FA1-24 FA1-25 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Federal Agencies 

FA1-26 The Captain of the Port currently places res

Delaware River and Bay carrying certain daCFR 165.510. Presently, the moving safetyards ahead and behind, and 500 yards on Guard preliminarily determined that it would LNG vessels, but this information is designa49 CFR Part 1520 and is not releasable to thallowed to enter the security and safety zonfrom the Captain of the Port. Additional detsecurity assessment has been added to the t

FA1-27 Section 4.8.5.2 has been revised to includ

Department of Environmental Protection’s (public access to the waterfront as well as thto comply with this rule. 

FA1-28 We believe that the draft EIS comprehens

proposed projects, the need for the projeadequately addressed agency and public csupplemental draft EIS is unwarranted and been no major changes to the proposed pnew circumstances or information related to 

FA1-26 

FA1-27 FA1-28 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Federal Agencies 

FA1-28 (cont’d) 

The FERC contacted and received commentFWS, EPA, NOAA Fisheries, NJDEP, and Resources and Environmental Control (DNRcomments into the document. The CEQ’s regulations at 40 CFR 1502.prepare a supplement to either a draft odetermines that the purposes of NEPA wilregulations also state that the purposes oissuance of a supplemental draft EIS when sproposed action that are relevant to environsignificant new circumstances or information that have bearing on the proposed action or there is sufficient new information from Crowthat indicates the proposed actions would affa significant manner or to a significant extent 

FA1-28 

(cont’d) 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Federal Agencies 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Federal Agencies 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Federal Agencies 

FA2-1 As described in section 4.4, Crown Landing 

they would coordinate with the appropriate compensatory mitigation plans as part of obstate permits. Section 4.4 has been remitigation options currently being evaluateEastern. 

FA2-1 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Federal Agencies 

FA2-2 Crown Landing and Texas Eastern would be 

Erosion, Revegetation, and Maintenance Waterbody Construction and Mitigation construction of the LNG terminal and pipEnvironmental Inspector (EI) be responsible soil stabilization needs in all areas and properly installed. The Procedures require spread be knowledgeable of wetlands in the verifying wetland boundaries within the consTexas Eastern would be responsible for hirinto perform the duties specified in our Plan FERC would conduct inspections to ensuProcedures and the conditions of the Commi

FA2-3 The Delaware River Basin Commission wo

those portions of the projects affecting the 1.3-2 have been revised to include the peneeded from this agency. 

FA2-4 These permits are listed in tables 1.3-1 and 1FA2-5 Sections 4.3.1 and 4.3.2 have been revise

municipal water as a source of hydrostatic te

FA2-6 Section 2.4.1.3 describes the proposed dred

Section 4.2.2 has been revised to inclusediments in the project area. Additiona

dredge disposal activities are provided in Capplication, which was filed with the FERC oour website. 

FA2-7 The proposed dredge disposal facility (own

Inc.) has permitted capacity, to provide sevecustomers along the Delaware Bay and Rive

FA2-8 A General Conformity applicability analyses 

includes sources of emissions from the profrom the marine dredges unless exempt (e.gfederal Nonattainment New Source Review Deterioration (PSD) permitting program) 51.853(c),(d). 

FA2-2 

FA2-3 FA2-4 FA2-5 FA2-6 FA2-7 FA2-8 FA2-9 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Federal Agencies 

FA2-8 (cont’d) 

If the proposed project emissions are prethresholds listed in 40 CFR § 51.853(b), a fuwill be prepared and published in accordacomplete. 

FA2-9 Comment noted. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Federal Agencies 

FA2-10 A separate air permit application addr

(NSR)/PSD requirements in detail would submitted to the appropriate federal and staso as to obtain the necessary pre-constructioapplication materials are typically not rCommission, but are available during the public review and comment. 

FA2-11 The EIS includes information on other plann

area in section 4.13. A discussion of shiincluded in section 4.8. 

FA2-12 See the response to Comment A1-5. FA2-13 Maps of thermal exclusion zones have been FA2-14 Comment noted. At this time we are not aw

proposed project facilities to address Coasrequirements. If Crown Landing revises review of the revised project would be requir

FA2-10 FA2-11 FA2-12 FA2-13 FA2-14 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Federal Agencies 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Federal Agencies 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Federal Agencies 

FA3-1 The original sediment characterization data 

assurance forms were filed under the pre-fiinformation. Subsequent filings in the filed marked as privileged/confidential. We do nodata set is necessary in the EIS, howevejurisdictional authority over the proposed pdata that impact their respective jurisdictionresults of the preliminary sediment charactethe Commission (Secretary) in response subsequent to publication of the draft EIS. Wset of physical and chemical analyses for thavailable when Crown Landing is able to cprogram. Section 4.2.2 has been revised to information. 

FA3-2 Section 4.2.2 has been revised to includ

contamination data for the project area, inclubiphenyl (PCB) contamination. 

FA3-1 FA3-2 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Federal Agencies 

FA3-3 We anticipate that additional depth-specif

conducted as part of Crown Landing’s re(SAP). Section 4.2.2 has been revised to NJDEP. After reviewing the plan we believthe proposed dredged materials. Resuspenwould be limited as the proposed berth wouon two sides and a stabilized terrace systeberth area. The lower portion of the terrace the bottom of the berth area, creating a relaof the berth. Any sediment resuspended tankers would most likely be confined to tharea. Section 4.3.2 has been revised to resuspension due to ship passage and prope

FA3-4 The original sediment sampling for the propo

late 2003, before the November 2004 oil Section 4.2.2 has been revised to include additional contamination from the oil spill aclean-up required prior to initiation of any dre

FA3-5 Section 4.2.2 has been revised to reflect the 

rather than “criteria.” Regarding the additiothat the Clean Water Act (CWA) does not mmaterials proposed for upland disposal. In a

identified in the preliminary sediment screecontaminants were identified at concentraEffects Level (TEL) screening value. Theswould pose only limited risk to benthic organin significant impacts on pelagic species, would likely result in limited release to the near surface (0 to 6 inches) contaminant levtesting, and no near surface sampling is proSAP. However, use of the proposed cuttecombination with the likely depth of dredge elevated contaminant concentrations in the mixed and diluted by deeper sediments with 

FA3-6 The density and adequacy of sediment sa

were addressed in the preparation of CrowAlthough we believe the six cores collecteadequate to characterize the sediment, we sampled may not have been adequate to fpotential contaminants. Section 4.2.2 has information regarding the concentrations contaminants. 

FA3-2 

(cont’d) 

FA3-3 FA3-4 

FA3-5 FA3-6 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Federal Agencies 

FA3-7 As indicated in section 4.2.2, the core samp

the proposed depth of dredging for the propsilty sediment observed in the berth area deposited material and is likely representa

dredged for the proposed [Crown Landing] bonly the silty sediments in the deep channproposed dredged sediments. Due to a jurisof Delaware and New Jersey, Crown Lasampling and analysis required to provcharacteristics of the proposed dredged serecommended that Crown Landing file the characterization of the proposed dredged maand comment by the Director of the Office ostart of construction. 

FA3-8 If additional contaminants, particularly PC

sediments, additional mitigation measures 

operations to minimize the potential for tra

Section 4.2.2 has been revised to include mitigation measures for dredging operations

FA3-9 If PCBs are identified in the near-surf

concentrations, the contaminated dredged mof in an appropriate facility. Section 4.2.2 hdisposal options. 

FA3-7 FA3-8 FA3-9 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Federal Agencies 

FA3-10 We agree that dredging may result in the 

recognize the importance of this habitat. Asection 4.6.2 that the applicant coordinate wto develop a mitigation plan to compensate f

FA3-11 See the response to Comment FA3-10. FA3-12 Section 4.6 of the final EIS has been r

conditions at the proposed project site (see a

10). 

FA3-13 Section 4.6 has been revised to include t

mitigation of impacts on shallow water habita

FA3-10 FA3-11 FA3-12 FA3-13 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Federal Agencies 

FA3-14 Comment noted. FA3-15 Hydrostatic test water withdrawal would 

construction of the facility. As discussed potential impacts of entrainment and impingwithdrawals, Crown Landing would screen wedgewire screen and limit the velocity at pursuant to recommendations from NOAA Fi

FA3-16 Section 3.3.2.1 has been revised to includ

alternatives. 

FA3-13 

(cont’d) 

FA3-14 FA3-15 FA3-16 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Federal Agencies 

FA3-17 We believe that, except for ballast water inta

and other recreationally or commercially imbe mitigated for through proposed and recoplans. Therefore, any anticipated adverse iof the proposed projects are expected to responses to Comments A1-17 and FA1-14)

FA3-18 Shallow water habitat converted to deep wat

ship berth would be mitigated for through similar type of habitat replacement as agreagencies. This mitigation is expected to cofunction, including the production of prey swithdrawals associated with the proposed ppopulation level effects on prey species in likely to have adverse population level imp(see the responses to Comments A1-17 and 

FA3-17 FA3-18 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Federal Agencies 

FA3-19 See the response to Comment FA3-16. FA3-20 The FERC responded to NOAA Fisheries 

Marine Fisheries Service or NMFS) conserequired timeframe. 

FA3-21 The FERC submitted a letter to NOAA F

requesting initiation of formal consultation This letter also requested that NOAA Fishbiological assessment for the proposed prprovided comments on the draft EIS reqassessment be prepared and submitted thapotential impacts on this species. We prequested by NOAA Fisheries, and throuinformed that NOAA Fisheries had adeqconsultation process. Section 7 consultatinitiation of construction. 

FA3-22 As noted in the response to Comment 

numerous guidance documents and regulaserve as the biological assessment for the pdraft EIS with this intent and as such, we belapplicable information to allow a complete except as noted in the response to CommenComment FA3-21). 

FA3-23 All LNG vessels that would call on the 

required to transit in the established channewith additional information resulting from Waterway Suitability Assessment (WSA). 

FA3-19 FA3-20 FA3-21 FA3-22 FA3-23 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Federal Agencies 

FA3-24 Crown Landing has initiated a 1-year st

Delaware River near the proposed project siconducted during summer 2005 have beeassist in determining potential project impsection 4.7 of this final EIS. 

FA3-25 Section 4.13 contains a complete review o

federal activities that are reasonably certain have an impact on federally listed species. 

FA3-26 Section 4.7 contains a complete discussion 

federally listed species identified by the potentially occurring in the project area thaThose species in which the project would hare they required to be, but other species idiscussed in detail. 

FA3-24 FA3-25 FA3-26 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Federal Agencies 

FA3-27 Section 4.8.3 has been revised to include 

consistency regulations. 

FA3-27 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Federal Agencies 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Comments on the Draft EIS and Responses 

STATE AGENCIES 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
State Agencies 

SA1-1 Section 4.8.3.2 has been revised to incl

Delaware’s position on the Crown Landing LDSCZA. 

SA1-2 The text referenced in section 1.3 is consiste

5 of the document entitled “Delaware CComprehensive Update and Routine Pro2004”, which states that: “The Federal Coa1972 as amended (CZMA) (16 USC §1451 federal agency conducting or supporting actithe coastal zone, affecting any land or watecoastal zone, must do so in a manner whpracticable [emphasis added], consistenManagement Program (DCMP).” Informatioin section 4.8.3. 

SA1-1 

SA1-2 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
State Agencies 

SA1-3 If the FERC elects to issue an Order Granti

the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and Issuing Certhe FERC would not take final action and allountil Crown Landing has satisfied all of the Order. At this time, we anticipate including would require Crown Landing proceed with provided a coastal zone consistency ceDelaware that the project is consistent with state’s coastal management program as detrecommendation in section 4.8.3.2). 

SA1-4 Section 4.8.3.2 has been revised to incl

Delaware’s position on the Crown Landing LDSCZA. 

SA1-5 Section 1.2 addresses the projected dema

Atlantic region and the need to replace American natural gas. The sendout capacity (baseload of 1.2 Bcfd) was determined by Csuch as projected market demand for thimported LNG, available capacity on regionspecific design constraints. Based on our that there is a need for at least 1.2 Bcfd of region. Therefore, we evaluated other potsimilar sendout capacity would be needed to 

SA1-6 NEPA requires that federal agencies rigo

evaluate all reasonable alternatives to a propa clear basis for choice among options by public (40 CFR 1502.14). Consistent with typically employs a step-wise screening apprIn using this approach, the FERC analyzes ais clear that an alternative is not reasonable greater environmental impacts that cannot alternatives that appear to be the most reaslevels of environmental impact are reviewed 3.0 has been revised to include additionaddress agency and public comments. 

SA1-2 

(cont’d) 

SA1-3 SA1-4 SA1-5 SA1-6 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
State Agencies 

SA1-7 Section 3.2.1 has been revised to include a

the proposed expansion of the existing Cocomparison of the proposed Cove Point L

Crown Landing LNG and Logan Lateral Proje

SA1-8 The FERC has a responsibility to assess 

achieve the purpose and need of the propCFR 1502.13 of the CEQ regulations, the underlying purpose and need to which proposing the alternatives including the ppurpose of the project is to deliver a baseloathe Mid-Atlantic market. Potential alternacombination achieve this proposed sendout LNG facility, are evaluated in section 3.0. 

SA1-9 Section 3.3.2.1 has been revised to inc

offshore alternatives. 

SA1-10 Any project located within Delaware Bay w

and/or Delaware state waters and thus woeither one or both states coastal zone m3.3.2.2 has been revised to include a discusoffshore waters of Delaware Bay. 

SA1-11 See the response to Comment SA1-6. Our 

Baltimore is not a reasonable alternative. 

SA1-7 SA1-8 SA1-9 

SA1-10 SA1-11 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
State Agencies 

SA1-12 As stated in section 4.12.2, study and ev

proposed design and installation of the Crobeen performed by Commission staff. Tsubmitted for the proposed facility to date abut would be the basis for any detailed damount of the design involving final selectioprocess conditions, and resolution of some completed in the next phase of the project granted by the Commission This information FERC staff for review and approval. As a result of the technical review of the infoconference on January 11-12, 2005, severthat require additional consideration andcompany. Crown Landing would be requireand receive written approval from the Comm

SA1-13 Additional detail resulting from the Coast G

been added to the text in section 4.12.5. 

SA1-14 See the response to Comment A1-5. SA1-15 Additional detail regarding communities wit

been added to section 4.12.5 (see also the re

SA1-16 See the response to Comment FA3-6. 

SA1-11 (cont’d) SA1-12 SA1-13 SA1-14 SA1-15 SA1-16 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
State Agencies 

SA1-17 See the response to Comment FA3-1. SA1-18 See the response to Comment FA3-5. SA1-19 See the response to Comment FA3-4. SA1-20 Additional modeling of potential water colu

when additional sediment data are availabrecommended that Crown Landing file the quality modeling conducted based on the SAP. The results of any additional water qwith the Secretary for review and comment the start of project construction. 

SA1-21 Section 4.6 of the draft EIS includes a refe

area as a critical nursery area for striped basdescribe the project area as the primarDelaware River stock of striped bass. Table EIS notes that the Atlantic sturgeon is consiof Delaware. 

SA1-22 Species of concern for the general projec

consultation with the appropriate state and potential impacts on those species were asprofessional judgment along with discAdditionally, Crown Landing has initiated presence in the Delaware River near the proresult from sampling conducted during summto NOAA Fisheries to assist in determining palso summarized in section 4.7 of the final E

SA1-17 

SA1-18 SA1-19 SA1-20 SA1-21 SA1-22 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
State Agencies 

SA1-23 See the response to Comment SA1-22. 

SA1-24 See the response to Comment SA1-22. SA1-25 Section 4.6 has been revised to require Cr

agencies in discussions regarding mitigatioresources. 

SA1-26 Section 4.6 has been revised to include the 

the project area. 

SA1-23 SA1-24 SA1-25 SA1-26 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
State Agencies 

SA1-27 Section 4.6 has been revised to include the 

the project area. 

SA1-28 The Subaqueous Lands Permit required by DSA1-29 Section 4.11.1 has been revised to address 

for the portion of the project located in the St

SA1-26 (cont’d) SA1-27 SA1-28 SA1-29 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
State Agencies 

SA2-1 Section 4.8.3.2 has been revised to incl

Delaware’s position on the Crown Landing LDSCZA. 

SA2-1 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
State Agencies 

SA3-1 Section 1.2 has been revised to include th

Utilities’ statement of need for the proposed 

SA3-1 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
State Agencies 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
State Agencies 

SA4-1 SA4-1 Offshore alternatives are discussed in sectio

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
State Agencies 

SA4-2 Section 4.8.5.2 has been revised to include a

impacts on recreational uses of the DelawCrown Landing LNG Project. 

SA4-3 Potential project impacts on general aquatic 

and forage fish) were discussed throughout detail in Appendix E. Further, although final completed, we have recommended that Croapplicable resource agencies to develop apfor impacts on shallow water habitat. 

SA4-4 Crown Landing has agreed to implement a t

August 1 in which no in-water construction a

SA4-5 Monitoring at the hydraulic dredge outlet 

sturgeon potentially occurring in the projecrevised to specify that requirement. Consultand will be completed prior to initiation of con

SA4-6 Section 4.3.2 has been revised to include a 

reusing hydrostatic test water to test the thre

SA4-2 SA4-3 SA4-4 SA4-5 SA4-6 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
State Agencies 

SA4-7 As described in section 4.3.2, Crown Landin

NPDES permit for discharges associated may require pre-treatment of the water in discharge limits. 

SA4-8 Impacts on ichthyoplankton and the resulting 

the draft EIS were adopted from the EPA’s River in support of the revised 316(b) regulentrainment and impingement of aquatic oevaluated as recently as 2004 and thus is preclude the need for additional independenimpact. However, due to the estimated imprelated to the project, we have recommendediscussions with the appropriate agencies available to minimize those impacts (see th17 and FA1-14). 

SA4-9 The width of the river at the proposed LNG t

in section 4.12.5.2. 

SA4-10 Section 4.8.5.2 has been revised to include a

impacts on recreational use of the DelawCrown Landing LNG Project. 

SA4-11 Section 4.8.5.2 has been revised to includ

7:7E-8.11 regarding public access to the wevaluated by Crown Landing to comply with 

SA4-12 Section 4.7 has been revised to reflect the 

eagle habitat mitigation plans to account for 2005. 

SA4-7 SA4-8 SA4-9 

SA4-10 SA4-11 SA4-12 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
State Agencies 

SA4-13 Comment noted. SA4-14 Because of the potential for individual shortn

dredging of the berth for the proposed projeof formal consultation with NOAA Fisheconsultation process may provide additionaCrown Landing would be required to impimpacts on this species. It is expected thbenefit the Atlantic sturgeon. 

SA4-15 Table 4.6.2-1 lists 26 representative game 

known to occur in the vicinity of the proposspecies with nursery and/or spawning habita

SA4-16 We acknowledge in section 4.6.2 that Ame

Atlantic menhaden, Atlantic sturgeon, sturgeon, and striped bass may all use the pnursery habitat. We also discuss the potrespective habitat, and their migrations construction activities. In an effort to avothese aquatic resources, Crown Landing construction activities in the Delaware River 1. Additionally, section 4.6.2 has been revincreases in suitable habitat as the water qua

SA4-17 See the responses to Comments A1-17, FA1SA4-18 In its comments on the draft EIS, Texas 

prepare and implement a Horizontal DirecPlan for each location where this method address the monitoring of the drilling operatfrac-outs, and the disposal of drilling mud. that it would file this plan with the FERC for r

SA4-19 Although pipeline construction in the vicini

individuals of small mammals and birds, woor population of game or nongame speciesdoes not appear to be needed. 

SA4-12 (cont’d) 

SA4-13 SA4-14 SA4-15 SA4-16 SA4-17 SA4-18 SA4-19 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
State Agencies 

SA4-20 Crown Landing has not filed any modified 

FERC as the result of the DNREC’s decision revises its plans, additional environmental would be required. 

SA4-21 Crown Landing has filed plan views and c

LNG ship berth with its section 404 permit was filed with the FERC on April 20, 200permit application are consistent with the d2.4.1.3. 

SA4-22 Maintenance dredging of private docking fa

portion of the Delaware River will be an onCrown Landing LNG Project. The Weeks privately operated site that is currently acclocations outside of New Jersey. Weeks current permitted capacity would provide sevTherefore, identification and permitting of abe necessary even if the Crown Landing LNG 

SA4-20 SA4-21 SA4-22 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
State Agencies 

SA4-23 The dredging operations would be cond

applicable New Jersey and Delaware dredghas been revised to include a discussiobetween the project site and the proposed di

SA4-24 See the response to Comment FA3-6. 

approved Crown Landing’s SAP for chadredged sediments. However, due to a jurisof Delaware regarding sample collection in Landing has been unable to collect the smaterial. In the final EIS, we have recommthe results of the sediment sampling anSecretary for review and comment by the Dof construction of the project. 

SA4-25 Sections 4.9.4.2 and 4.12.5 have been 

discussion of commercial shipping and recrresults of the Coast Guard’s review of Crowship traffic and recreational boating are expe

SA4-26 Alternative sites downstream of the prop

evaluated in section 3.3.3. 

SA4-27 The potential to collocate the proposed LNG 

existing coal barge unloading pier for thStation is discussed in section 3.4. Althoexisting pier would most likely reduce envdredging), we determined that the pier would for the reasons discussed in section 3.4. 

SA4-28 The potential impact of an accidental allision 

ship is greater than an allision associated wigreater mass and striking force of a large veintentional attack on an LNG ship are add4.12.6 The existing Cove Point LNG Terminal is loc(i.e., Chesapeake Bay) than the proposed siCove Point LNG Terminal site is more than 5 

SA4-23 

SA4-24 SA4-25 SA4-26 SA4-27 SA4-28 SA4-29 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
State Agencies 

SA4-28 (cont’d) 

Thus there is more area for other ships to mallision. Additionally, the fact that the pier fodoes not include a shallow water buffer advantages of having one at the proposed si

SA4-29 The relative reduction in shallow water imp

riverbed affected associated with Pier Option location of the berth in the river. Specificallyborders deep water (that is about 40 feet in the berth could be reoriented and still proteadditional dredging, shallow water, and rivestructure constructed on the north side of Pifrom errant ships would likely extend into awhich would have an impact on other ships u

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
State Agencies 

SA4-30 As discussed in section 4.2.2, the vibracore

sediments at the proposed LNG terminal sfeet below the sediment-water interface. collected from this depth represents about water, which indicates that the cores initialextended to within ±5 feet of the propose

comparisons of the analytical data from the collected from throughout the Marcus HooFurther, the close agreement among thconcentrations of constituents in both data s

reasonable. A review of core logs for the Sindicates that the upper 6 to 8 feet of the clays. We expect that the sediment at thwould be similar. Although the mean anconstituents from the Marcus Hook berth athe sediments at the Crown Landing site, th1.2 to 5 times those at the proposed bertcomparable concentrations. 

SA4-31 Review of Crown Landing’s WSA determine

Bay may be suitable for accommodating thvessels proposed pending completion of the additional security measures. The LNG designed to contain LNG spills and minimLNG facility must meet the thermal and flarequirements (49 CFR 193). 

SA4-32 Procedures for obtaining information 

Infrastructure (CEII) are on the FERC webs

Resources. 

SA4-33 See the responses to Comments FA1-25 a

would determine the need for modifying the Areas in the Delaware Bay and River in 33 C

SA4-34 Section 4.8.5.2 has been revised to includ

Rule 7:7E-8.11 regarding public access to thevaluated by Crown Landing to comply with 

SA4-30 SA4-31 SA4-32 SA4-33 SA4-34 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
State Agencies 

SA4-35 Section 4.10.1 addresses the comments of 

Preservation Officer (SHPO). Crown Lanrecommended by the New Jersey SHPO 28GL241. 

SA4-36 Section 4.10.1 has been revised to address 

completed its archaeological survey of conducted the additional studies recommenThe results of these studies are summarized 

SA4-37 Section 4.11.1 has been revised to inc

particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in designation of Gloucester County. 

SA4-35 SA4-36 SA4-37 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
State Agencies 

SA4-38 Section 4.11.1 has been revised to properly 

Pollution Control Act regulates sources of air 

SA4-39 Mitigation measures specified in the current 

to the NJDEP have been included in sectioconsideration when determining General Crequired, demonstrating conformance. 

SA4-38 SA4-39 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
State Agencies 

SA5-1 SA5-1 Comment noted. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
State Agencies 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
State Agencies 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
State Agencies 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
State Agencies 

SA6-1 SA6-1 Comment noted. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
State Agencies 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
State Agencies 

SA7-1 SA7-1 Comment noted. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
State Agencies 

SA7-2 SA7-2 Comment noted. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Comments on the Draft EIS and Responses 

COMPANIES AND ORGANIZATIONS 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
`

Companies/Organiza

CO1-1 Section 4.12.5 has been updated with addit

the Coast Guard’s security assessment. 

CO1-2 See the response to Comment CO1-1. CO1-3 The thermal radiation and flammable vapor 

import terminal facility are based on the worCFR part 193 and National Fire Protection Production, Storage, and Handling of LNG cause of the event, whether it be accidental hazards, the likelihood of a hazardous ecauses is highly unlikely, given the extensoperational controls and the structural desigthe final EIS incorporates the results of the Safety Implications of a Large Liquefied Natu(Sandia Report) which found the consequscenario to be much less than an intentional hazards analysis focuses on intentional caus

CO1-4 Comment noted. CO1-5 From July 2005 through January 2006, the 

special subcommittee of the Sector DelawaCommittee (AMSC), recently completed a resubmitted on June 14, 2005, in accordance Coast Guard Navigation and Vessel InspectAMSC LNG Review Subcommittee was csecurity, and public safety officials from thstates of Delaware, New Jersey and Penmaritime industry professionals. Their revieposed by LNG marine traffic, and the memanage these security risks. As a result ohas preliminarily determined that the Delawthe proposed LNG terminal in Logan Towaccommodating the type and frequency of This determination, however, was contincommunity having the appropriate resources necessary to responsibly manage the safmarine traffic within the affected area. Presnor the other state and local agencies that role, are adequately staffed, equipped or mitigation measures necessary to accomm4.12.5 has been updated with additional Coast Guard’s security assessment. 

CO1-1 CO1-2 CO1-3 CO1-4 

CO1-5 CO1-6 CO1-7 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Companies/Organiza

CO1-5 

(cont’d) 

Section 311 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 require the LNG operator to develop an Eincludes a Cost-Sharing Plan before aconstruction. The Cost-Sharing Plan shadirect cost reimbursements to any staresponsibility for security and safety at the that serve the facility. The plan will need to to initial site preparation. We have updated recommendation 76 in section 5.2. 

CO1-6 Offshore alternatives are discussed in sectioCO1-7 The EIS evaluates the safety of both the 

facility and the related LNG vessel transit Delaware River to the proposed terminal, intechnical review of the proposed terminal deanalysis found no excluded uses within the import terminal, and that while the risks atransit cannot be entirely eliminated, they can 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Companies/Organiza

CO2-1 Comment noted. The typical cross-section 

been revised. 

CO2-1 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Companies/Organiza

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Companies/Organiza

CO3-1 The EIS was prepared in accordance with 

regulations, which require that an agency e

significant adverse effects [emphasis adde(see 40 CFR 1502.22). 

CO3-2 Review of the WSA by the Coast Guard foun

vehicular traffic should not be affected and 

4.12.5. Railroads should also not be imp4.12.5. 

CO3-3 On June 14, 2005, the Coast Guard iss

Inspection Circular – Guidance on Assessinfor Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Marine Traof this NVIC 05-05 is to provide Coast GuaMaritime Security Coordinators (FMSC), meport stakeholders with guidance on assessifor LNG marine traffic that takes into acsafety/waterway management issues contemIntent (LOI)/Letter of Recommendation (LOalso take completely into account maritime sprocess addresses the transportation of entrance into U.S. territorial waters, through receiving facility, and includes operations at addition, the WSA addresses the navigasecurity issues introduced by the proposed LFrom July 2005 through January 2006, the special subcommittee of the Sector Decompleted a review of Crown Landing’s WSin accordance with guidance promulgated in As a result of this review, the Coast Guard hthe Delaware Bay and Delaware River to Logan Township, NJ, may be suitable for frequency of LNG vessels being proposed. was contingent upon the port security comresources to implement all the measures nethe safety and security risks of LNG marine Presently, neither the Coast Guard, nor the that will have a safety and security role, are funded to carry out the risk mitigation measuthis proposal. Section 4.12.5 has been updresulting from the Coast Guard’s security ass

CO3-1 CO3-2 

CO3-3 CO3-4 CO3-5 CO3-6 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Companies/Organiza

CO3-3 

(cont’d) 

Section 311 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 require the LNG operator to develop an Eincludes a Cost-Sharing Plan before aconstruction. The Cost-Sharing Plan shadirect cost reimbursements to any staresponsibility for security and safety at the that serve the facility. The plan will need to to initial site preparation. We have updated recommendation 76 in section 5.2. 

CO3-4 Comment noted. CO3-5 Comment noted. CO3-6 The alternative analysis in the draft EIS ide

and proposed LNG terminals around the couthese alternatives would not be preferable alternative analysis also identified and reviewLNG terminal sites and considered whether to the proposed site. Our analysis looked at For example, one of the disadvantages idenBaltimore area would be the impact of developed areas in and around the city. Walternatives in the final EIS to include additregarding the existing Cove Point LNG facDelaware River. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Companies/Organiza

CO3-7 See the response to Comment CO3-3. Se

with additional information resulting from assessment. 

CO3-8 See the response to Comment FA1-26. CO3-9 Sections 4.9.3 and 4.12.5 have been revised 

potential costs that would be incurred as a and who would be responsible for those cost

CO3-10 As EPA regulations require, environment

completed for those communities which woconstruction and operation of the proposed of the proposed project through a notice houses, and the FERC-sponsored public scolocations of these open houses and meetinand 4.9.7. These open houses and meeregardless of race, sex, or creed. 

CO3-6 

(cont’d) 

CO3-7 CO3-8 CO3-9 

CO3-10 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Companies/Organiza

CO3-10 

(cont’d) 

The communities in Delaware would not be and thus were not included in the environmewe recognize the safety issues associated wassociated risks to those communities adTherefore, we discuss the safety concertransport in section 4.12.5. 

CO3-11 Section 4.6.1 of the EIS has been revis

potential impacts of an accidental release oPatch Island. 

CO3-12 We assume that this comment is intende

sturgeon because the Atlantic sturgeon (as not federally listed as threatened or endafederal listing. The draft EIS was develocomponents of a biological assessment withand was submitted to NOAA Fisheries wconsultation for purposes of meeting the Frelating to the shortnose sturgeon. Howecomments on the draft EIS requesting assessment be prepared and submitted that on potential impacts on this species. We prorequested by NOAA Fisheries, and through informed that NOAA Fisheries had adequaconsultation process. Section 7 consultatioinitiation of construction. 

CO3-13 General impacts on wildlife and habitat at 

along the proposed pipeline route are deslimited wildlife resources present near those revised to include a discussion of potesignificant wildlife areas as a result of a catthe LNG ships. 

CO3-10 

(cont’d) 

CO3-11 CO3-12 CO3-13 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Companies/Organiza

CO3-14 The habitats at the proposed terminal site 

are of limited quality due to previous distdisturbance. Thus although the general reduring certain time periods throughout the would be affected by the proposed projecsupporting these rare species. As such, adthe importance of the migratory flyway Nonetheless, section 4.6 has been revisepotential impacts on sensitive or significaBombay Hook National Wildlife Refuge as a associated with the LNG ships. 

CO3-15 Section 4.12.5 analyzes the loss of 23,000 m

tank on a 140,000 m3 LNG ship. The secti

the impact of an accidental breach scenaSandia Report. The thermal radiation hazardLNG on water would be less than 0.5 mile infrastructure and residences located within LNG spills on water are also identified in thassociated with the LNG vessel transit cancan be managed. While the worst-case sspills in section 4.12.5 provide guidance on thazards, they should not be assumed to repevery potential incident. As with any other 

actual severity of the incident will determevacuated, if any, rather than a worst-case mthat the emergency evacuation plans will based upon increasing severity of events. 

CO3-16 Section 4.9.5 has been revised to furthe

property values. 

CO3-17 The thermal radiation and flammable vapo

section 4.12 of the EIS would primarily be offshore waters. Also, the thermal radiation spills on water, as evaluated in section 4.12.1 mile from the spill location. Residencehazard area for LNG spills on water are Although the risks associated with the LNG eliminated, they can be managed. 

CO3-13 

(cont’d) 

CO3-14 CO3-15 CO3-16 CO3-17 CO3-18 CO3-19 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Companies/Organiza

CO3-17 

(cont’d) 

As indicated in section 4.12, we have coninvolving the proposed project are unlikely Because we realize that the risks associatenever be entirely eliminated, we have recomeasures in section 4.12, including a reqdevelop an Emergency Response Plan proposed project. As a result, it is unlikelwould affect the public. The thermal radiation and flammable vapor import terminal facility are based on the worCFR part 193 and NFPA 59A, regardless of it be accidental or intentional. For LNG veshazardous event resulting from accidental the extensive operational experience, the structural design of the LNG vessel. Furtheresults of the Sandia Report which found the breach scenario to be much less than an intemarine hazards analysis is based on intattacks. 

CO3-18 The draft EIS evaluated a spill of 23,000 m3 

based on the volume of the largest cargo tanincludes consequence scenarios based ofrom the Sandia Report, as well as the pocargo tanks. Page 46 of the Sandia Report escenario presented considers the potential fdue to a long-duration fire that might occur... size of such a cascading fire and the thermawere calculated assuming three simultaneoexplains that, in reality, these tank ruptures wThis scenario is discussed in section 4.12.contains a consequence analysis based on vFor LNG vessel hazards, the likelihood of a haccidental causes is highly unlikely, given the experience, the operational controls and the vessel. Further, the final EIS incorporates thwhich found the consequences of an accidenless than an intentional breach. As a result, based on intentional causes, i.e., terrorist att

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Companies/Organiza

CO3-19 Section 4.12.5 of the final EIS has been 

located within the transient hazard area for the risks associated with the LNG vesseliminated, they can be managed. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Companies/Organiza

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Companies/Organiza

CO4-1 Section 4.8.3.2 has been revised to i

Delaware’s position on the Crown LandinDSCZA. 

CO4-2 CO4-3 The proposed site conforms to existing s

the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOany remote siting criteria requirements. determined that the proposed site is relatthe alternative sites that we evaluated. Hremote alternatives such as the existing Cnot find any of these alternatives prefediscussion of a 50-miles-pipeline limit doecriteria but rather to the length of senreasonable to consider from an environmthe alternative analysis. 

CO4-4 Sections 4.9.3 and 4.12.5 have been revi

potential costs that would be incurred as and who would be responsible for those co

CO4-5 Section 3.0 has been revised to include 

alternative sites along the New Jersey sho

CO4-1 CO4-2 CO4-3 CO4-4 CO4-5 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Companies/Organiza

CO5-1 Comment noted. CO5-2 Comment noted. 

CO5-1 CO5-2 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Companies/Organiza

CO5-3 Comment noted. CO5-4 Comment noted. 

CO5-3 CO5-4 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Companies/Organiza

CO6-1 A discussion of safety for Crown Landing’

in section 4.12 of the EIS. 

CO6-1 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Companies/Organiza

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Companies/Organiza

CO7-1 This will be addressed in any Order th

proceeding. 

CO7-1 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Companies/Organiza

CO7-1 

(cont’d) 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Companies/Organiza

CO7-1 

(cont’d) 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Companies/Organiza

CO7-1 

(cont’d) 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Companies/Organiza

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Companies/Organiza

CO8-1 The thermal radiation hazards for the wo

evaluated in section 4.12.5 of the EIS, wspill location. For LNG vessel hazards, thresulting from accidental causes is higoperational experience, the operational cothe LNG vessel. Further, the final EIS incReport which found the consequences of be much less than an intentional breach. analysis is based on intentional causes, irisks associated with the LNG vessel trathey can be managed. 

CO8-2 Section 4.9.5 has been revised to furt

property values. 

CO8-3 It is correct that the City of Fall Rive

promulgate regulations to apply the same vapor exclusion zones established by DO49 CFR Part 193.2057 and 193.2059 to Guard issued a request for public comFederal Register (69 FR 63979) with comresponse to a request by the Rhode Islanperiod was reopened until May 9, 2005. The EIS evaluated the hazards from Ltransient and temporary hazard areasInteragency Agreement, the FERC cooGuard concerning marine safety issues, safety standards. 

CO8-1 CO8-2 CO8-3 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Companies/Organiza

CO8-4 Comment noted. 

CO8-5 The draft EIS evaluated a spill of 23,000 

based on the volume of the largest carghave revised the analysis in section 4.12.5 largest cargo tank from a 200,000 m3 LN

the largest cargo tank above the waterline

CO8-6 The Energy Policy and Conservation A

FERC’s role in the siting of onshore LNG stipulates that the Commission shall act as of coordinating all applicable federal authcomplying with NEPA for a liquefaction oUnder EPACT each federal agency construction, expansion, or operation of a gas terminal must cooperate with the Cdeadlines established by the Commiadministrative agency does not complete is required before a person may conliquefaction or gasification natural gas schedule established by the Commission, 

• a determination has been 

appropriate sections of unreasonable; and 

• the agency has failed to 

within the deadline set by 

that approval may be conclusively presumEPACT also states that the Commission sthe liquefaction or gasification natural gas and local safety considerations prior to iss

CO8-7 Population comparisons between Crown 

are beyond the scope of this document. 

CO8-3 

(cont’d) 

CO8-4 CO8-5 CO8-6 CO8-7 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Companies/Organiza

CO9-1 Section 1.2 addresses the need for new e

region and section 4.9 discusses the ecprojects. 

CO9-2 Section 1.2 addresses the need for a rel

Mid-Atlantic region. 

CO9-1 CO9-2 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Companies/Organiza

CO10-1 After September 11, 2001, the Coast Gu

U.S. Department of Homeland Security. The Coast Guard is a cooperating agencof marine safety and security issues. Tinclude the Captain of the Port Authority. focuses on navigation and ship safety isand waterfront facilities. The Coast Gcapacity, the Coast Guard is responsible LNG ship transits to and from port are s11, 2001, regulations were put in place reand facility security plans. These plaresponsibilities of agencies and the projecthe Coast Guard and must demonstrate implement these plans are available. terminal facility could not operate until tplace. From July 2005 through January 2006, Homeland Security), with input from a spDelaware Bay AMSC, recently completeWSA, submitted on June 14, 2005, promulgated in Coast Guard NVIC 05Subcommittee was composed of law esafety officials from the federal governmNew Jersey, and Pennsylvania, as weprofessionals. Their review focused on marine traffic, and the measures needesecurity risks. As a result of this review, determined that the Delaware Bay and Determinal in Logan Township, NJ, may be type and frequency of LNG vessels beinhowever, was contingent upon the porappropriate resources to implement aresponsibly manage the safety and secwithin the affected area. Presently, neithstate and local agencies that will have adequately staffed, equipped or funded measures necessary to accommodate thbeen updated with additional information Waterway Suitability Review. 

CO10-1 CO10-2 CO10-3 CO10-4 CO10-5 CO10-6 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Companies/Organiza

CO10-2 See the response to Comment CO10-1. CO10-3 Sedimentation effects on the Delaware R

and installation of the pipeline would be lbe conducted primarily using a hydraulic the work. This type of dredge generates sediment of any dredging technique. Cafurther reduce potential sedimentation imconducted to remove sandy sediments noted in Crown Landing’s SAP), the powould be limited because most of the ssuspension quickly and in close proximpipeline would be installed across the lDelaware River, using the HDD techniqucombination with Texas Eastern’s soil erowould significantly reduce the potential Delaware River and tributary streams. 

CO10-4 Comment noted. CO10-5 Emissions from the LNG ships are addresCO10-6 Environmental justice analysis has been 

which would be directly impacted by the 

proposed facility. The community of Chesthis analysis with regard to the constructiLogan Lateral. The impacts on this cdisproportionate as a significant portion o

environmental justice communities (sectiothe safety issues associated with LNG srisks to those communities adjacent to thdiscuss the safety concerns associated w4.12.5. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Companies/Organiza

CO10-7 The highly flammable nature of natural g

excellent source of energy. The safety imthoroughly discussed in section 4.12. 

CO10-8 See the response to Comment CO10-1. CO10-9 Although the risks associated with the LN

eliminated, they can be managed. 

CO10-10 Section 4.8.3.2 has been revised to i

Delaware’s position on the Crown LandinDSCZA. 

CO10-11 Environmental justice analysis has been 

which would be directly impacted by the proposed facility. The community of Chesthis analysis with regard to the constructiLogan Lateral. The impacts on this cdisproportionate as a significant portion oenvironmental justice communities (sectiothe safety issues associated with LNG srisks to those communities adjacent to thdiscuss the safety concerns associated w4.12.5. 

CO10-12 Section 3.2.3 has been revised to include 

terminal in Philadelphia. 

CO10-13 As discussed in section 1.2, due to dimin

natural gas, there is a need to import naother countries with stranded reserves to this energy source. Crown Landing woulsources around the world. Trinidad anumerous countries currently supplying LN

CO10-14 Federal siting and design requirements fo

2.8.1-1. Section 3.1 has been revised talternative energy sources and conservati

CO10-7 CO10-8 CO10-9 

CO10-10 CO10-11 CO10-12 CO10-13 CO10-14 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Companies/Organiza

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Companies/Organiza

CO11-1 This will be addressed in any Order th

proceeding. 

CO11-1 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Companies/Organiza

CO11-1 

(cont’d) 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Companies/Organiza

CO11-1 

(cont’d) 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Companies/Organiza

CO11-1 

(cont’d) 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Companies/Organiza

CO11-1 

(cont’d) 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Companies/Organiza

CO11-1 

(cont’d) 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Companies/Organiza

CO11-1 

(cont’d) 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Companies/Organiza

CO11-1 

(cont’d) 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Companies/Organiza

CO11-1 

(cont’d) 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Companies/Organiza

CO11-1 

(cont’d) 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Companies/Organiza

CO11-1 

(cont’d) 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Companies/Organiza

CO11-1 

(cont’d) 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Companies/Organiza

CO11-1 

(cont’d) 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Companies/Organiza

CO11-1 

(cont’d) 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Companies/Organiza

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Companies/Organiza

CO12-1 This will be addressed in any Order th

proceeding. 

CO12-1 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Companies/Organiza

CO12-1 

(cont’d) 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Companies/Organiza

CO12-1 

(cont’d) 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Companies/Organiza

CO12-1 

(cont’d) 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Companies/Organiza

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Companies/Organiza

CO13-1 It is highly unlikely that the proposed LNG 

that could not be adjusted to meet pipelin

also occur in the storage tanks resultTherefore, we do not anticipate the need proposed facility. 

CO13-2 It is correct that the Coast Guard Captain 

has the authority to refuse entry of an Lthe LNG cargo to another LNG ship is delivering its cargo to a different port in po

CO13-3 LNG fires can be extinguished by dry che

methodologies in dealing with an LNG dependant. Firewater can be used for nucontrol, cooling of adjacent equipmenvaporization, etc. Crown Landing’s hazard detection, emergency shutdown systems are designsystems are installed throughout the stemperature and hazardous gas detectortransfer areas. Hazard detection would consist of ctemperature detectors, high temperatudetectors, and smoke detectors. The emergency shutdown system of thsources of flammable fluids and stops majHazard control would consist of: fixed anfire extinguishing units; portable hand held (CO2) fire extinguishers; and a firewater s

59A Section 9.4.2, the fire water supp“...provide for the simultaneous supply systems, including monitor nozzles, at involved in the maximum single incidenallowance of 1,000 gallons per minute (gpless than 2 hours.” 

CO13-4 Section 3.1 has been revised to include 

conservation and efficiency. 

CO13-1 

CO13-2 CO13-3 CO13-4 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Companies/Organiza

CO13-5 The Cove Point LNG Terminal Expansion 

by the FERC and a draft EIS was issued The Commission will not make a decisiopostpone action on the Cove Point LNG after the NEPA review is complete. Sectioanalysis of the project and discusses the to the Crown Landing LNG and Logan Lat

CO13-6 Section 4.8.3.2 has been revised to i

Delaware’s position on the Crown LandinDSCZA. 

CO13-7 Based on review of section 5.5.3 of the De

Basin Regulations - Water Supply Usageused for shipping purposes is an exempt u

CO13-8 The scenario of explosive device within a 

tank has not been identified as a credible storage tanks and LNG vessel cargo tankis insufficient oxygen within the containevapors. 

CO13-5 CO13-6 CO13-7 CO13-8 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Companies/Organiza

CO14-1 See the responses to Comments CO3-3 a

The LOI/LOR process is described in sectwhile the LOR would address the suitabilLNG ship transportation, it would not commence LNG operations. Issues relaand security would be addressed later Guard’s in a detailed Transit Managemdeveloped in conjunction with state aemergency response communities. In establish a safety and/or security zone unin transit and while docked. Only persoCaptain of the Port are permitted within th

CO14-2 See the response to Comment CO7-1. 

CO14-1 CO14-2 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Companies/Organiza

CO14-3 Crown Landing would be responsible for 

injuries in the event of an accident. 

CO14-2 

(cont’d) 

CO14-3 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Companies/Organiza

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Companies/Organiza

CO15-1 Section 3.1 has been revised to include 

conservation and efficiency. 

CO15-2 The thermal radiation hazards for the wo

evaluated in section 4.12.5 of the EIS, wspill location. For LNG vessel hazards, thresulting from accidental causes is higoperational experience, the operational cothe LNG vessel. Further, the final EIS incReport which found the consequences of be much less than an intentional breach. analysis is based on intentional causes, i.eSection 4.12.5 of the final EIS has beelocated within the transient hazard area fthe risks associated with the LNG veeliminated, they can be managed. Impacts to other waterway users due to tDelaware Bay and Delaware River have bthe EIS. 

CO15-1 CO15-2 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Companies/Organiza

CO15-3 The Commission has not completed its re

thus has not made a decision whether to on the project. The FERC has only commthat are necessary to complete its review its responsibility as the lead federal agenregulations for implementing NEPA. responsibility to act on projects that are 

Each of the environmental reviews that potential alternative projects that have bereasonable amount of information. 

CO15-4 The FERC is required to process applicat

pipelines as they are received. The apLNG and Logan Lateral Projects are bprojects filed with the FERC and Crown Lor will not receive any special treatment. 

CO15-5 Offshore alternatives are discussed in secCO15-6 Comment noted. 

CO15-3 CO15-4 CO15-5 CO15-6 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Companies/Organiza

CO16-1 This will be addressed in any Order th

proceeding. 

CO16-1 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Companies/Organiza

CO16-1 

(cont’d) 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Companies/Organiza

CO16-1 

(cont’d) 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Comments on the Draft EIS and Responses 

INDIVIDUALS 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Individuals 

IND1-1 Section 4.8.5.2 has been revised to includ

impacts on recreational use of the DelCrown Landing LNG Project. 

IND1-2 The Coast Guard, with input from a spe

Delaware Bay AMSC, recently completeWSA, submitted on June 14, 2005, promulgated in NVIC 05-05. The AMSC composed of law enforcement, security, afederal government, and the states Pennsylvania, as well as regional maritireview focused on the security risks posemeasures needed to responsibly manage The Captain of the Port currently places rthe Delaware River and Bay carrying regulation in 33 CFR 165.510. PresentlyLPG ships is 1,000 yards ahead and behinthe vessel. The Coast Guard will establivessels. No other vessel will be allowed first obtaining permission from the Captaresulting from the Coast Guard’s review oadded to the text in section 4.12.5. 

IND1-1 

IND1-2 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Individuals 

IND1-3 Potential threats against an LNG vess

addressed in the series of AMSC LNG RThis information will be used in the dedetailed Transit Management Plan. Thconjunction with state and local law enfor

communities. 

IND1-4 The Coast Guard’s duties include both m

Landing must obtain Coast Guard approplans before it can bring LNG ships to detailed report describing the conceptua

along with resource needs, has been promeasures outlined in this report will forVessel Transit Management Plan. This measures, an escort of the LNG vessel to to enforce a moving safety zone around surveillance conducted by a mixture of assets. While the vessel is at the dowaterborne law enforcement assets to enmoored vessel to complement the Fainformation gathered at security workdetermined that it would not be necessarMemorial Bridge unless the threat conconcern about security issues. Additionaroadways were not considered necessary

IND1-3 IND1-4 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Individuals 

IND2-1 Section 4.8.3.2 has been revised to i

Delaware’s position on the Crown LandinDSCZA. 

IND2-1 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Individuals 

IND2-2 The FERC does not dictate to applicants 

state and local permitting processes. Crowand state permits and approvals, includPermit (see section 4.8.3.2), independenreview process. Both Texas Eastern and for other federal permits (e.g., COE secompletion of the EIS. However, fedepermits until at least 30 days after the finathe EPA. In addition, the FERC cannot authorization to begin construction) for a laws have been complied with, including c

IND2-3 Section 4.8.3.2 has been revised to i

Delaware’s position on the Crown LandinDSCZA. As discussed in section 1.1, the and assess potential impacts on the natwould result from the implementation assessment includes not only the laws project but also resource-specific impactproposed and recommended mitigation monly specifically referenced in one section aims to protect are discussed throughout on the history of Delaware’s Coastal Zone 

IND2-4 The FERC evaluated many factors, includ

people in the project area, during the prepFERC addressed cumulative impacts of 4.13. As discussed in section 4.8.3.2, Crown concurrence from the DNREC that the pthe CZMA before the project could be con

IND2-1 

(cont’d) 

IND2-2 IND2-3 IND2-4 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Individuals 

IND3-1 Offshore alternatives are discussed in sec

IND3-1 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Individuals 

IND4-1 See response to IND1-4. Although the ris

transit cannot be entirely eliminated, they 

IND4-2 The proposed site conforms to existing s

the DOT and thus does not conflict requirements. Additionally, our alternatsited alternatives such as the existing Cov

IND4-3 Sections 4.9.3 and 4.12.5 have been revi

potential costs that would be incurred as and who would be responsible for those co

IND4-4 The EIS does not make any claims that 

the price of natural gas. Section 1.2 projects would provide additional natura

region to meet increasing energy demaprovide another source of natural gas to moderate price volatility as domestic sourc

IND4-5 Comment noted. 

IND4-1 IND4-2 IND4-3 IND4-4 

IND4-5 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Individuals 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Individuals 

IND5-1 See the responses to Comments CO1-1 aIND5-2 See the response to Comment CO1-3. IND5-3 Comment noted. IND5-4 See the response to Comment CO1-5. IND5-5 Offshore alternatives are discussed in secIND5-6 See the response to Comment CO1-7. IND5-7 Traffic impact is discussed in section 4.12

IND5-1 IND5-2 IND5-3 IND5-4 IND5-5 IND5-6 IND5-7 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Individuals 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Individuals 

IND6-1 See the response to Comment IND1-4. IND6-2 The thermal radiation and flammable va

section 4.12 of the EIS would primarily boffshore waters. Also, the thermal radiatiospills on water, as evaluated in section 4.11 mile from the spill location. Residencetransient hazard area for LNG spills on section. Although the risks associated wbe entirely eliminated, they can be manag

IND6-1 IND6-2 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Individuals 

IND7-1 The FERC has conducted several public 

obtain comments on the proposed projecthrough public notices. All of these incorporated into the EIS, where appropriEIS and the public record, the FERC Comproposed projects are in the public interes

IND7-2 Comment noted. IND7-3 Our review indicates that the smaller si

near the Paulsboro site are two factors thproposed site. Section 3.3.3 provides aother factors that were evaluated to compa

IND7-1 IND7-2 IND7-3 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Individuals 

IND7-4 See the response to Comment CO1-1. IND7-5 See the response to Comment CO1-2. IND7-6 See the response to Comment CO1-3. IND7-7 Comment noted. IND7-8 See the response to Comment CO1-5. IND7-9 Offshore alternatives are discussed in sec

IND7-10 See the response to Comment CO1-7. 

IND7-4 IND7-5 IND7-6 IND7-7 IND7-8 IND7-9 

IND7-10 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Individuals 

IND8-1 See the response to Comment CO2-1. IND8-2 See the response to Comment CO2-1. 

IND8-1 IND8-2 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Individuals 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Individuals 

IND9-1 Comment noted. IND9-2 Additional safety requirements have been 

these are discussed in section 4.12.7. 

IND9-1 IND9-2 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Individuals 

IND9-3 The pipeline will meet the safety requirem

section 4.12.9. 

IND9-4 The pipeline will be designed as tested to 

required by the DOT. 

IND9-5 The pipeline would be at a depth to meet tIND9-6 Comment noted. 

IND9-7 The pipeline would be designed to meet th

required by DOT and is discussed in secti

IND9-3 IND9-4 IND9-5 IND9-6 IND9-7 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Individuals 

IND10-1 Section 4.12 of EIS evaluates the safety 

terminal facility and the related LNG vesBay and Delaware River to the proposedesign and technical review of the propsystems. The analysis found no excludefor the import terminal, and that while thvessel transit cannot be entirely eliminatedAlternative sites downstream of the poffshore alternatives are evaluated irespectively. 

IND10-2 Section 3.3.3 provides a discussion of 

downstream of the proposed site. 

IND10-3 Comment noted. 

IND10-1 IND10-3 IND10-2 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Individuals 

IND11-1 Section 4.12 of EIS evaluates the safety 

terminal facility and the related LNG vesBay and Delaware River to the proposedesign and technical review of the propsystems. The analysis found no excludefor the import terminal, and that while thvessel transit cannot be entirely eliminated

IND11-2 Offshore alternatives are discussed in se

LNG ships is discussed in section 4.12.5. 

IND11-1 IND11-2 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Individuals 

IND12-1 See the response to Comment CO8-7. IND12-2 See the response to Comment CO1-5. 

The thermal radiation and flammable vasection 4.12 of the EIS would primarily boffshore waters. Also, the thermal radiatiospills on water, as evaluated in section 4.11 mile from the spill location. Residencetransient hazard area for LNG spills on section. Although the risks associated wbe entirely eliminated, they can be manag

IND12-3 Sections 4.9.3 and 4.12.5 have been revi

economic impact. 

IND12-4 The need for natural gas is addressed in 

interfere with the role of state or local citizens. 

IND12-5 Due to its cryogenic state, it is only feasib

the draft EIS, we reported this length to be that LNG Express reported in 2005 conducted to develop an insulated pipelin

distances of about 18 miles. Where lonLNG is vaporized to natural gas, which through pipelines over great distances. It would be possible to locate the LNG interstate pipeline systems but this would 

sendout pipeline. Because the length of tthe amount of land disturbed, increasing would increase the amount of disturbantypically result in more tree clearing and mA longer sendout pipeline also generally than a shorter pipeline. 

IND12-1 IND12-2 IND12-3 

IND12-4 IND12-5 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Individuals 

IND13-1 Crown Landing proposes the use of full 

The storage tanks would have a primary outer container and would be designed so container and secondary container could The inner container would be made of 9 container would be pre-stressed reinforccontainer would have a carbon steel lincarbon steel liner is to contain vapor ppercent nickel steel primary container. beyond the requirements of the regulastructure around the site that can provide for preventing potential spills from flowing various LNG storage tank designs is in se

IND13-2 The secondary outer concrete container 

serve as the impoundment for that tank. designed to hold 110 percent of the pwhich would be in compliance with the FePart 193. Crown Landing proposes an that can provide an additional layer of pspills from flowing off site. Further discussections 4.12.3 and 4.12.4. 

IND13-1 IND13-2 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Individuals 

IND13-3 Crown Landing proposes both low press

are incorporated into a common 120 fooflare system would only be used during anormal operations. A controlled flare sycontrolled vent system. The low pressure flare would accommotanks that is generated during holding, in would render the boiloff gas compressors the tank pressure exceeds the maximum valve automatically relieves excess vapoheader to the low pressure flare. Additionto provide safe discharging of all low 

terminal. The high pressure flare is provpressure relief vents, such as for the compressors. The high pressure flare sizrated natural gas flow capacity from one o

IND13-4 See the response to Comment IND13-3. 

IND13-2 

(cont’d) 

IND13-3 

IND13-4 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Individuals 

IND13-5 The Btu content of the LNG received at 

vary depending on source. Mixing of thoccur in the storage tanks. The Commissfurther in any Order the Commission may 

IND13-6 The Coast Guard is working closely with 

how cargo tank insulation would perform degree to which insulation decompositioundamaged cargo tanks. Under the Februthe FERC coordinates closely with the safety and security issues as they improcess for LNG import terminals. 

IND13-7 Section 4.12.5 discusses effects of the s

traffic. 

IND13-5 IND13-6 IND13-7 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Individuals 

IND13-8 See the response to Comment FA1-25. IND13-9 Sections 4.8.5.2 and 4.9.4.2 have bee

information regarding impacts on recreatDelaware River associated with the Crown 

IND13-10 Crown Landing does not propose burying 

LNG would be vaporized at the terminaterminal into the transmission system. 

IND13-7 

(cont’d) 

IND13-8 IND13-9 

IND13-10 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Individuals 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Individuals 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Individuals 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Individuals 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Individuals 

IND14-1 Comment noted. IND14-1 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Individuals 

IND14-1 

(cont’d) 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Individuals 

IND14-2 Section 4.12 of EIS evaluates the safety 

terminal facility and the related LNG vesBay and Delaware River to the proposedesign and technical review of the propsystems. The analysis found no excludefor the import terminal, and that while thvessel transit cannot be entirely eliminated

IND14-2 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Individuals 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Individuals 

IND15-1 Comment noted. IND15-2 Section 4.12 of EIS evaluates the safety 

terminal facility and the related LNG vesBay and Delaware River to the proposedesign and technical review of the propsystems. The analysis found no excludefor the import terminal, and that while thvessel transit cannot be entirely eliminatedAs explained in section 4.12, LNG is transported and stored. The thermal hazards for the onshore LNG import termthe plant property line or adjacent offshore 

IND15-3 Comment noted. 

IND15-1 IND15-2 IND15-3 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Individuals 

IND15-4 See the response to Comment CO10-1. IND15-4 

IND15-3 

(cont’d) 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Individuals 

IND16-1 Comment noted. IND16-1 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Individuals 

IND17-1 Section 4.8.3.2 has been revised to i

Delaware’s position on the Crown LandinDSCZA. 

IND17-1 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Individuals 

IND17-2 The statement is based on the operationa

vessel transit and historical experience ratassessment. The safety analysis in section 4.12 of the Eactual configuration of the site, the locatiothe marine aspects of the proposal in evalregards to the onshore facilities, FERC apCFR Part 193 that DOT promulgated undeBoth the thermal radiation and the flammazones would remain within the plant propeThe EIS also evaluates the hazards from Ltransient and temporary hazard areas alonThe thermal radiation hazards for the worsevaluated in section 4.12.5 of the EIS, wospill location. Residences located within thspills on water are also identified in that seassociated with the LNG vessel transit cancan be managed. 

IND17-3 We agree that the estimation of hazard d

size of the hole in the cargo tank thcalculations. The EIS presents calculationignited LNG spill on water and a flammaLNG spill for several hole sizes, based assessments. The marine hazard analysis in section 4.1range of intentional breach scenarios (u

2004 Sandia Report. As stated in the scenario in most cases would not result in 7 m2, which replaces the average most pr

EIS. 

IND17-4 This would not entirely eliminate risks, bu

location or change the nature of the risks. 

IND17-1 

(cont’d) 

IND17-2 IND17-3 IND17-4 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Individuals 

IND17-5 Crown landing is working with local, 

management and security stakeholderResponders Task Force, chaired by the was formed in November 2004. The tafrom: local fire, law enforcement, and emOffices of Emergency Management from New Jersey Division of Fire Safety and thto the National Association of State Fire mCounter-terrorism; the New Jersey State Investigation. The Coast Guard has also task force. Section 311 of the Energy Policy Act of 20require the LNG operator to Development consultation with the Coast Guard and stamust approve the Emergency Response begin construction. Crown Landing will coto develop its emergency response planEnergy Policy Act of 2005 stipulates that operator to develop an Emergency RespSharing Plan before any final approval to Sharing Plan shall include a description oto any state and local agencies with respthe LNG terminal and near vessels that serecommendations in section 4.12.5 that submit these plans review and approval by 

IND17-6 We have evaluated various alternatives in 

environmental criteria to determine if anproposed site. 

IND17-7 Section 3.3.3 provides a discussion of 

downstream of the proposed site. Crown Landing has requested authorizpursuant to section 3 of the NGA. This apowers of eminent domain. Thus it is onobtain a site for the LNG terminal puarrangement with the landowner. We are lands that are currently available in New have no knowledge of the land identifDNREC. 

IND17-5 

IND17-6 IND17-7 IND17-8 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Individuals 

IND17-8 The proposed site conforms to existing s

the DOT and thus does not conflict requirements. 

IND17-9 The reference to a 50-mile-pipeline limit 

siting criteria but rather to the length of sreasonable to consider from an environmthe alternative analysis. 

IND17-10 The EIS also evaluates the hazards from 

transient and temporary hazard areas (along the LNG vessel transit route. The worst case LNG spills on water, as evaluwould be less than 1 mile from the spill lothe transient hazard area for LNG spills osection. See the responses to Comments CO3-15 

IND17-8 

(cont’d) 

IND17-9 

IND17-10 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Individuals 

IND18-1 See responses to CO3-15 and CO3-17. IND18-2 Various sections of the final EIS have b

analysis of potential impacts along the pro

IND18-3 The Coast Guard will make a determinat

channel for LNG ships as part of its reviethe LOR. 

IND18-4 The proposed projects would not affect t

or nuclear facilities in the project area. Seand safety issues associated with the prop

IND18-1 IND18-2 IND18-3 IND18-4 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Individuals 

IND18-5 Section 4.12 of EIS evaluates the safety 

terminal facility and the related LNG vesBay and Delaware River to the proposedesign and technical review of the propsystems. See the response to Comment CO10-1. 

IND18-5 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Individuals 

IND18-6 Asphyxiation is caused by a methane-ric

zones, where asphyxiation can occur, aradjacent offshore waters. An analysis ofrom an LNG spill on water is in section 4.See the response to Comment CO10-1. 

IND18-5 

(cont’d) 

IND18-6 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Individuals 

IND18-6 

(cont’d) 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Individuals 

IND19-1 Section 4.12 of EIS evaluates the safety 

terminal facility and the related LNG vesBay and Delaware River to the proposedesign and technical review of the propsystems. 

IND19-2 Section 4.9.5 has been revised to furt

property values. 

IND19-1 IND19-2 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Individuals 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Comments on the Draft EIS and Responses 

APPLICANT 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Applicant 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Applicant 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Applicant 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Applicant 

A1-1 The recommendation in section 4.11.1 has be

air permit application materials and final issue

the Commission prior to the start of construccompliance testing/monitoring records requireshould be provided to the FERC as soon as th

A1-2 Crown Landing requested clarification rega

requirements of the draft EIS recommenrecommendation meets the intent of allowing front end engineering design prior to the detaaddition, depending on what vapor retention Landing, the siting requirements in 49 CFR issues must be addressed with an appropriaTherefore, we have changed the timing of thconstruction” to “prior to initiation site preparatsection 4.12.4 and recommendation 41 in sect

A1-1 

A1-2 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Applicant 

A1-3 Crown Landing requested clarification rega

requirements of the draft EIS recommendaLanding that the appropriate compliance commissioning”. We have updated the recommendation 63 in section 5.2 of the final E

A1-4 Section 4.8.3.2 has been revised to include an 

on the coastal zone management process in DLanding LNG Project. 

A1-2 

(cont’d) 

A1-3 A1-4 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Applicant 

A1-5 Section 311 of the Energy Policy Act of 200

require the LNG operator to develop an Emerga Cost-Sharing Plan before any final approvaSharing Plan shall include a description of aany state and local agencies with responsibLNG terminal and near vessels that serve the approved by the FERC prior to initial site prepin section 4.12.5 and recommendation 44 in se

A1-4 

(cont’d) 

A1-5 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Applicant 

A1-5 

(cont’d) 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Applicant 

A1-5 

(cont’d) 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Applicant 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Applicant 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Applicant 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Applicant 

A1-6 The Executive Summary has been revised to 

no effect on the bald eagle, and the LNG teaffect this species. 

A1-7 In the final EIS, the number of LNG ships to c

has been revised to a range of 100 to 150 sabout 125 ships per year. 

A1-8 In section 2.2.2, the sentence referring to just 

sources has been deleted. The first sentence indicate potential worldwide sources of LNG. 

A1-6 A1-7 A1-8 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Applicant 

A1-9 The number of tugs assisting the LNG ships 

and 4.12.5. 

A1-10 Section 3.0 has been revised to clarify the r

proposed project applications. 

A1-11 We revised the site name due to its proximity 

Station. 

A1-8 

(cont’d) 

A1-9 

A1-10 A1-11 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Applicant 

A1-12 As discussed in section 3.3.3, 49 CFR 193.2

storage tanks within a horizontal distance of runway or 0.25 mile from the nearest part of a LNG tank at the Mantua Creek Site would noexisting or planned runways and thus worequirements. The discussion of the Shurarevised to include additional information reganear the site. 

A1-13 We estimated population densities within 1 

Landview® 5 software, which was jointly dev

Bureau, U.S. Geological Survey, and NOAA. 

A1-14 We do not agree that application of the NOAA 

for initial assessment of the proposed dredgvalues and sediment quality guidelines assessment of proposed dredged sediments. compared to the screening levels to initially threaten resources of concern to NOAA (Buchguidelines and screening quick reference leinterpretive tools to estimate the possible toxconcentrations in sediments and the effect oecological receptors. These screening guidedredged materials as well as contaminated remediation. 

A1-11 

(cont’d) 

A1-12 A1-13 A1-14 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Applicant 

A1-15 Section 4.2.2 has been revised to discuss the 

and approved by the state of New Jersey. between the states of Delaware and New Jesampling has been delayed. As a resultrecommendation from FERC staff for Crown sampling and analysis of the proposed dredgethe Commission for review and comment construction. The results and all supporting record for review and comment by the approwith jurisdiction over the proposed dredging ac

A1-16 Tables 4.4-1 and 4.5-1 have been revised 

temporarily affect 0.56 acre of wetlands. 

A1-17 The discussion of ballast water impacts in se

associated with ballast water withdrawal using delivering to the proposed LNG terminal each of water required for ballasting of these ships billion gallons. Additionally, given that ichthyoplankton densities in the main river chberth, potential benefits of proposed reductioberth are not obvious and can not be expectincreasing the duration in which water would rate would also be reduced, thus likely reductaken in with ballast water. 

A1-15 

A1-16 A1-17 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Applicant 

A1-17 (cont’d) 

Nonetheless, it is unlikely that the proposed rate to less than 0.5 feet per second as recagencies, and thus, impacts on ichthyoplanktto occur in similar magnitude to those providemodified its berth design to minimize the potecontainment basin for ichthyoplankton, thereballast water intakes to withdraw water contathan the baseline conditions in the river. 

A1-18 Section 4.4 has been revised to include additio

wetland mitigation plan. 

A1-19 Table 4.4.2 has been revised to be consiste

used on figure 4.4-1. 

A1-17 

(cont’d) 

A1-18 A1-19 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Applicant 

A1-20 The text has been corrected in the final EIS. A1-21 Section 4.6 has been revised to indicate th

foraging. 

A1-22 Table 4.6.2-1 has been revised to exclude refe

striped bass. 

A1-23 Although noise-related impacts on aquatic or

activities would not occur during the primary maffect spawning individuals, use of the projejuveniles and the potential presence of stwarrants consideration of the need for addition

further minimize potential impacts. 

A1-20 

A1-21 A1-22 A1-23 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Applicant 

A1-23 (cont’d) 

As such, we continue to recommend that appropriate resource agencies to discuss measures. 

A1-24 Section 4.6 has been revised to indicate t

platform would be 25 feet above the water surf

A1-25 Section 4.7 has been revised to include add

proposed bald eagle mitigation measures. 

A1-26 Section 4.8 has been revised to make this corr

A1-23 

(cont’d) 

A1-24 A1-25 A1-26 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Applicant 

A1-27 The typographical error in section 4.9.3 has beA1-28 Section 4.12.3 has been revised to indicate t

water in accordance with its site-specific storm

A1-29 We have updated the text in section 4.12.4. 

A1-26 

(cont’d) 

A1-27 A1-28 A1-29 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Applicant 

A1-30 The usable width of the Delaware River follow

pier would be approximately 3,500 feet. We 4.12.5. 

A1-31 We have updated the text in section 4.12.9. A1-32 The error in section 4.13 has been corrected. 

A1-29 

(cont’d) 

A1-30 A1-31 A1-32 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Applicant 

A1-33 Section 4.9.5 has been revised to indicate th

same side of U.S. 130 as the terminal. 

A1-34 Although methane is the primary component o

volatile organic (VOC). The definition of VOexcludes methane, ethane, and other compophotochemical reactivity. Propane, a minor meet the definition of a VOC and was, therefor

A1-35 Table 4.11.1-4 has been revised to include th

each criteria pollutant. Emissions resulting from the LNG ships at NJDEP as stationary source emissions and thin the NSR air permit application and subseqemissions would occur in Delaware waters anThe DNREC does recognize emissions from sand thus will require them to be authorized process. These emissions are associated withave been added to table 4.11.1-4 for completTable 4.11.1-4 has been revised to include the (i.e., a combined flare unit). 

A1-33 A1-34 A1-35 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Applicant 

A1-36 The Title V Operating Permit discussion in s

clarify that the requirement to apply for and post-construction and issuance of a Title V Commission approval. 

A1-37 The discussion of the fuel mandates in section 

that they do not apply to the ships. 

A1-38 Sections 5 and 4.4 have been revised to inclu

associated with construction of the stormwatline. 

A1-36 A1-37 A1-38 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Applicant 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Applicant 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Applicant 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Applicant 

A2-1 The company name has been revised as requA2-2 Section 3.5.3 includes a revised evaluation of A2-3 Comment noted. A2-4 Comment noted. The discussion of HDD in 

been revised as appropriate. 

A2-1 A2-2 A2-3 A2-4 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Applicant 

A2-5 Comment noted. A2-6 Comment noted. A2-7 Comment noted. A2-8 Comment noted. 

A2-4 

(cont’d) 

A2-5 A2-6 A2-7 A2-8 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Applicant 

A2-9 Both sections 4.3.1 and 4.8.4 refer to three h

the pipeline route, which is consistent with pagin the draft EIS. The three sites consist of the and the PECO Chester Generating Statiocontamination. 

A2-10 Table 4.3.2-1 has been revised to include 

Oldmans Creek. 

A2-11 The number of access roads in section 2.3.2 h

table C-2 of Appendix C. 

A2-12 As indicated in section 4.8.2.2, there are 

commercial/industrial buildings located within area. These 156 structures are included in discrepancy between the 156 structures identithe 155 structures identified in table 8.2-1 in the fact that we identified 1 additional strucconstruction work area that was not identifieReport 8 (Kentucky Fried Chicken at MP 0.19)

A2-13 Table 4.5-1 addresses vegetation communitie

terminal. We assumed that this commcommunities affected by the proposed Logan in table 4.5-2 rather than table 4.5-1. Also, tacres of cropland being affected by the propthan 50.38 as noted in the comment. The foTexas Eastern’s final Environmental Resource 2004. In table 8.1-2, the construction right-of-encompassing 18.72 acres of agricultural encompass 0.46 acres. In table 8.1-6, agaffected by four extra workspaces or staging The sum of these values adopted from Texequals 50.8 acres of agricultural land. 

A2-8 

(cont’d) 

A2-9 

A2-10 A2-11 A2-12 A2-13 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Applicant 

A2-14 Table 4.4-2, the Executive Summary, and s

reflect that the project would covert approwetlands to either scrub shrub or emergent we

A2-15 The pipeline route on figure 2.2.3-1 has been rA2-16 The pipeline route on figure 2.2.3-1 has been r

A2-14 A2-15 A2-16 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Applicant 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Applicant 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Applicant 

A3-1 A3-1 Comment noted. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Comments on the Draft EIS and Responses 

PUBLIC MEETINGS 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

PM1-1 Section 4.8.3 has been revised to inclu

CZMA as it relates to the Crown Landing L

PM1-2 Section 3.1 has been revised to address 

programs in slowing the demand for natur

PM1-1 PM1-2 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

PM1-3 See response to CO13-8. 

PM1-2 

(cont’d) 

PM1-3 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

PM1-3 

(cont’d) 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

PM1-4 Our review indicates that the smaller si

near the Paulsboro site are two factors thproposed site. Section 3.3.3 provides aother factors that were evaluated to compa

PM1-4 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

PM1-5 See responses to CO1-1, CO1-2, CO1-3, 

PM1-4 

(cont’d) 

PM1-5 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

PM1-6 Offshore alternatives are discussed in secPM1-7 See response to IND19-1. 

PM1-5 

(cont’d) 

PM1-6 PM1-7 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

PM1-8 PM1-8 Comment noted. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

PM1-8 

(cont’d) 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

PM1-9 PM1-9 Comment noted. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

PM1-10 Comment noted. PM1-11 Comment noted. 

PM1-10 PM1-11 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

PM1-12 Comment noted. 

PM1-11 

(cont’d) 

PM1-12 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

PM1-13 Comment noted. 

PM1-12 

(cont’d) 

PM1-13 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

PM1-14 See response to IND18-5. Alternatives ar

PM1-14 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

PM1-15 Section 4.12.5 discusses the effects to vePM1-16 The Coast Guard’s duties include both m

Landing must obtain Coast Guard approplans before it can bring LNG ships to detailed report describing the conceptuaalong with resource needs, has been promeasures outlined in this report will forVessel Transit Management Plan. This measures, an escort of the LNG vessel to to enforce a moving safety zone around surveillance conducted by a mixture of assets. While the vessel is at the dowaterborne law enforcement assets to enmoored vessel to complement the Facility 

PM1-14 

(cont’d) 

PM1-15 PM1-16 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

PM1-17 As discussed in section 4.11.1, Crown Lan

required to comply with all applicable air q

PM1-17 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

PM1-18 Impacts on federally listed species are ad

We have requested initiation of formal cregarding the shortnose sturgeon. The include measures that would minimize imp

PM1-19 While construction would temporarily affe

believe that the mitigation measures propoEastern in combination with requirements agencies would minimize impacts on these 

PM1-20 See the response to CO1-5. 

PM1-17 

(cont’d) 

PM1-18 PM1-19 PM1-20 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

PM1-21 Comment noted. PM1-22 Offshore alternatives are discussed in secPM1-23 Section 1.2 addresses the need for natu

and assesses alternative energy sources. 

PM1-21 PM1-22 PM1-23 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

PM1-24 The draft EIS was provided to the librari

the Gloucester County Library System in N

PM1-25 The only proposed facility proposed wit

communities is the natural gas pipeline. Ocontribute to the contamination, or further area. Environmental impacts within Chesto the short-term air quality impacts assocHowever, we recognize the safety isstransport and the associated risks to thDelaware River. Therefore, we discuss thwith LNG ship transport in section 4.12.5. 

PM1-24 PM1-25 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

PM1-25 

(cont’d) 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

PM1-26 As discussed in section 4.11.1, Crown Lan

required to comply with all applicable air q

PM1-27 Sections 4.10.1 and 4.10.2 addresses a

consultation conducted for the projects. field surveys conducted by Crown Lasummarized in section 4.10.1. The resummarized in section 4.10.2. 

PM1-26 PM1-27 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

PM1-28 Comment noted. 

PM1-27 

(cont’d) 

PM1-28 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

PM1-29 PM1-29 See response to CO1-5. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

PM1-30 Section 4.3.2 of the final EIS provides a

quality impacts that would occur as a resuand pipeline facilities. While constructioquality, we believe that the mitigation mealong with requirements of other reguimpacts on water quality. 

PM1-31 Comment noted. PM1-32 Emissions from the LNG ships are addresPM1-33 As EPA regulations require, environm

completed for those communities which wconstruction and operation of the propoChester, Pennsylvania was included in construction and operation of the proposethis community were not found to be disprof the pipeline would traverse non-en(section 4.9.7). However, we recognize LNG ship transport and the associated risto the Delaware River. Therefore, we associated with LNG ship transport in sect

PM1-34 See response to CO3-17. 

PM1-30 PM1-31 PM1-32 PM1-33 PM1-34 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

PM1-35 Section 4.8.3.2 has been revised to i

Delaware’s position on the Crown LandinDSCZA. 

PM1-36 The only proposed facility proposed wit

communities is the natural gas pipeline. Ocontribute to the contamination, or further area. Environmental impacts within Chesto the short-term air quality impacts assocHowever, we recognize the safety isstransport and the associated risks to thDelaware River. Therefore, we discuss thLNG ship transport in section 4.12.5. 

PM1-37 Comment noted. PM1-38 See response to IND15-2. PM1-39 The only proposed facility proposed wit

communities is the natural gas pipeline. Ocontribute to the contamination, or further area. Environmental impacts within Chesto the short-term air quality impacts assocHowever, we recognize the safety isstransport and the associated risks to thDelaware River. Therefore, we discuss thLNG ship transport in section 4.12.5. 

PM1-40 See the response to Comment CO10-13. 

PM1-35 PM1-36 PM1-37 PM1-38 PM1-39 PM1-40 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

PM1-41 Offshore alternatives are discussed in sec

PM1-40 

(cont’d) 

PM1-41 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

PM1-42 The purpose of the public meeting was to 

These comments were reviewed and preparation of the final EIS. The findings FERC Commissioners and other federal on whether to authorize the proposed actio

PM1-42 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

PM1-43 The FERC is the lead agency for the N

facility. The Coast Guard is responsibtransit and offloading of the LNG vesseenforces its Federal Safety Standards istandards in NFPA 59A. 

PM1-43 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

PM1-44 An economic analysis of this type is 

However, section 3.1 has been revised to energy conservation programs in slowing gas supplies. 

PM1-44 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

PM1-45 We are unaware of any proposals by Cr

Wilmington, Delaware. Section 3.0 has discussions of alternatives. 

PM1-44 

(cont’d) 

PM1-45 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

PM1-45 

(cont’d) 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

PM1-46 See the response to Comment CO8-3. 

The EIS identifies that there are major diinvolved in the accident at Skikda and thadisaster is not considered to be a creevaluates the proposed equipment for pothe accident. The EIS describes the facsystems that would be used to handle poteSimilarly, there are major difference betwerefineries and the Crown Landing’s prodisaster at the proposed terminal is not co

PM1-46 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

PM1-46 

(cont’d) 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

PM1-46 

(cont’d) 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

PM1-47 Comment noted. PM1-48 Thank you for your comments. 

PM1-47 PM1-48 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

PM1-48 

(cont’d) 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

PM1-48 

(cont’d) 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

PM1-49 PM1-49 Comment noted. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

PM1-50 PM1-50 Thank you for your comments. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

PM1-50 

(cont’d) 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

PM1-51 Section 4.12 of EIS evaluates the safety 

terminal facility and the related LNG vesBay and Delaware River to the proposedesign and technical review of the propsystems. See the response to Comment SA1-12. 

PM1-51 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

PM1-51 

(cont’d) 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

PM1-51 

(cont’d) 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

PM1-51 

(cont’d) 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

PM1-52 PM1-52 Comment noted. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

PM1-52 

(cont’d) 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

PM1-53 Comment noted. PM1-54 Section 4.12 of EIS evaluates the safety 

terminal facility and the related LNG vesBay and Delaware River to the proposedesign and technical review of the propsystems. The thermal radiation and flammable vasection 4.12 of the EIS would primarily boffshore waters. Also, the thermal radiatiospills on water, as evaluated in section 4.11 mile from the spill location. Residencetransient hazard area for LNG spills on section. Although the risks associated wbe entirely eliminated, they can be manag

PM1-53 PM1-54 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

PM1-54 

(cont’d) 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

PM1-55 See the response to Comment IND15-2. PM1-55 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

PM1-55 

(cont’d) 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

PM1-56 See the response to Comment IND15-2. PM1-57 Comment noted. 

PM1-56 PM1-57 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

PM1-58 See the response to Comment CO3-17. PM1-59 Offshore alternatives are discussed in sec

PM1-58 PM1-59 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

PM1-60 Sections 4.9.3 and 4.12.5 have been revi

potential costs that would be incurred as and who would be responsible for those co

PM1-59 

(cont’d) 

PM1-60 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

PM1-61 Comment noted. 

PM1-60 

(cont’d) 

PM1-61 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

PM1-61 

(cont’d) 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

PM1-62 Section 4.12 of EIS evaluates the safety 

terminal facility and the related LNG vesBay and Delaware River to the proposedesign and technical review of the propsystems. The analysis found no excludefor the import terminal, and that while thvessel transit cannot be entirely eliminated

PM1-62 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

PM1-63 Thank you for your comments. 

PM1-62 

(cont’d) 

PM1-63 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

PM1-64 Comment noted. 

PM1-63 

(cont’d) 

PM1-64 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

PM2-1 Property values are addressed in section 4

PM2-1 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

PM2-2 PM2-2 Property values are addressed in section 4

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

PM2-2 

(cont’d) 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

PM2-3 Property values are addressed in section 4PM2-4 See the response to Comment PM1-65. 

PM2-3 PM2-4 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

PM2-5 Rupture of the pipeline is very unlikely. 

section 4.12.7. 

PM2-5 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

PM2-6 PM2-6 Property values are addressed in section 4

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

PM2-7 The only proposed facility proposed wit

communities is the natural gas pipeline. Ocontribute to the contamination, or further area. Environmental impacts within Chesto the short-term air quality impacts assocHowever, we recognize the safety isstransport and the associated risks to thDelaware River. Therefore, we discuss thLNG ship transport in section 4.12.5. 

PM2-7 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

PM2-7 

(cont’d) 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

PM2-7 

(cont’d) 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

PM2-7 

(cont’d) 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

PM2-7 

(cont’d) 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

PM2-7 

(cont’d) 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

PM2-7 

(cont’d) 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

PM2-8 Sections 4.10.1 and 4.10.2 address a

consultations conducted for the projects. 

field surveys conducted by Crown Lasummarized in section 4.10.1. The re

summarized in section 4.10.2. 

PM2-7 

(cont’d) 

PM2-8 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

PM2-9 Offshore alternatives are discussed in sec

PM2-10 See the responses to Comments PM1-57 

PM2-8 

(cont’d) 

PM2-9 

PM2-10 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

PM2-10 

(cont’d) 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

PM2-11 See the response to Comment CO10-1. 

PM2-10 

(cont’d) 

PM2-11 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

PM2-12 Comment noted. 

PM2-11 

(cont’d) 

PM2-12 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

PM2-12 

(cont’d) 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

PM2-13 PM2-13 Safety is addressed in section 4.12.5. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

PM2-13 

(cont’d) 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

PM3-1 See the response to Comment CO3-15. 

PM3-2 Vehicle and ship traffic are discussed in se

PM3-1 

PM3-2 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

PM3-3 Section 3.3.3 has been revised to include 

more of the alternatives could meet the neproject. 

PM3-4 Sections 4.8.5.2 and 4.9.4.2 have bee

information regarding impacts on recreatDelaware River associated with the Crown 

PM3-2 

(cont’d) 

PM3-3 PM3-4 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

PM3-5 Security costs are discussed in section 4.1PM3-6 A discussion of the potential impacts of an 

occurs has been added to section 4.6 heronry on Pea Patch Island. 

PM3-4 

(cont’d) 

PM3-5 PM3-6 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

PM3-7 We requested initiation of formal consulta

EIS to NOAA Fisheries. Section 7 consthe initiation of construction (see also the 

PM3-8 Along most of the transit route through 

would be several miles from land and anland. If a release were to occur in the ohave any long-term effects to recreation LNG would dissipate rapidly. 

PM3-9 See the responses to Comments CO3-3 a

PM3-6 

(cont’d) 

PM3-7 PM3-8 

PM3-9 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

PM3-9 

(cont’d) 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

PM3-9 

(cont’d) 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

PM3-10 The Salem and Hope Creek Nuclear Pow

Island, which is a 3-mile long, 1-mile-wiBridge, New Jersey. Artificial Island is bthe south and west, Alloway Creek and and Hope Creek and associated wetlandbeen revised to include an analysis of Artterminal site. 

PM3-11 Section 4.12 of EIS evaluates the safety 

terminal facility and the related LNG vesBay and Delaware River to the proposedesign and technical review of the propsystems. The analysis found no excludefor the import terminal, and that while thvessel transit cannot be entirely eliminated

PM3-10 PM3-11 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

PM3-11 

(cont’d) 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

PM3-11 

(cont’d) 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

PM3-12 Section 4.8.3.2 has been revised to i

Delaware’s position on the Crown LandinDSCZA. 

PM3-12 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

PM3-12 

(cont’d) 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

PM3-13 PM3-13 See the responses to Comments IND1-3 a

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

PM3-13 

(cont’d) 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

PM3-14 Traffic is discussed in section 4.12.5. PM3-15 See the response to Comment IND1-4. 

PM3-13 

(cont’d) 

PM3-14 PM3-15 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

PM3-16 Comment noted. Section 4.8.3.2 has b

information on Delaware’s position on the relates to the DSCZA. 

PM3-15 

(cont’d) 

PM3-16 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

PM3-16 

(cont’d) 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

PM3-17 Comment noted. 

PM3-16 

(cont’d) 

PM3-17 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

PM3-18 Traffic is discussed in section 4.12.5. 

PM3-17 

(cont’d) 

PM3-18 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

PM3-18 

(cont’d) 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

PM3-19 PM3-19 Comment noted. See also the response t

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

PM3-19 

(cont’d) 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

PM3-19 

(cont’d) 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

PM3-19 

(cont’d) 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

PM3-19 

(cont’d) 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

PM3-19 

(cont’d) 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

PM3-19 

(cont’d) 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

PM3-20 PM3-20 See the response to Comment IND2-3. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

PM3-21 Section 4.8.3.2 has been revised to i

Delaware’s position on the Crown LandinDSCZA. A discussion on alternatives to tProject is included in section 3.0. 

PM3-22 Ship traffic is discussed in section 4.12.5. 

PM3-20 

(cont’d) 

PM3-21 PM3-22 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

PM3-23 Vehicle traffic is discussed in section 4.12

PM3-22 

(cont’d) 

PM3-23 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

PM3-23 

(cont’d) 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

PM3-24 Ship traffic is discussed in section 4.12.5. 

PM3-23 

(cont’d) 

PM3-24 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

PM3-24 

(cont’d) 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

PM3-25 The DSCZA is addressed in section 4.8.3

to include additional information on DeLanding LNG Project as it relates to the D

PM3-25 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

PM3-25 

(cont’d) 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

PM3-26 PM3-26 See the response to Comment PM3-11. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

PM3-27 PM3-27 See the response to Comment PM3-11. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

PM3-28 PM3-28 Thank you for your comment. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

PM3-28 

(cont’d) 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

PM3-29 There are major difference between 

refineries and the Crown Landing’s propoin section 4.12, LNG is not explosive astored. Therefore, a similar disaster aconsidered a credible event. 

PM3-29 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

PM3-29 

(cont’d) 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

PM3-29 

(cont’d) 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

PM3-29 

(cont’d) 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

PM3-29 

(cont’d) 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

PM3-30 Section 4.12 of EIS evaluates the safety 

terminal facility and the related LNG vesBay and Delaware River to the proposedesign and technical review of the propsystems. The analysis found no excluded for the import terminal, and that while thvessel transit cannot be entirely eliminated

PM3-29 

(cont’d) 

PM3-30 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

PM3-30 

(cont’d) 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

PM3-30 

(cont’d) 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

PM3-30 

(cont’d) 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

PM3-30 

(cont’d) 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

PM3-30 

(cont’d) 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

PM3-30 

(cont’d) 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

PM3-30 

(cont’d) 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

PM3-30 

(cont’d) 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

PM3-30 

(cont’d) 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

PM3-30 

(cont’d)

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

PM3-31 PM3-31 Thank you for your comments. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

PM3-32 Sections 4.8.5.2 and 4.9.4.2 have bee

information regarding impacts on recreatDelaware River associated with the Crown 

PM3-32 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

PM3-33 Sections 2.2.2 and 4.12.5 contain discuss

LNG ships, including membrane-type LNG membrane containment system, the shiptank wall, with an inner tank membrane se

PM3-33 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

PM3-33 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

PM3-34 The FERC conducted an independen

information submitted by Crown Landing conclusions of Crown Landing’s studiesother sources of information and contacted assist in the evaluation of the project. believe another review of the project by an 

PM3-34 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

PM3-35 PM3-35 See the response to Comment CO8-3. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

PM3-36 Section 4.8.3.2 has been revised to i

Delaware’s position on the Crown LandinDSCZA. 

PM3-35 

(cont’d) 

PM3-36 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

PM3-37 Our alternatives analysis does conside

proposed site, but also note that the prsafety siting criteria established by the discussed in section 3. 

PM3-36 

(cont’d) 

PM3-37 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

PM3-38 Section 1.2 addresses the need for new 

Atlantic region. PM3-38 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

PM3-38 

(cont’d) 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

PM3-38 

(cont’d) 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

PM3-39 Comment noted. PM3-40 Fox Point Park is located within the tran

ship route. An LNG vessel transiting in would be under tug assist and may have eofficials and a variety of waterway and 4.12 of EIS evaluates the safety of the Delaware Bay and Delaware River to the found that while the risks associated with entirely eliminated, they can be managed. 

PM3-39 PM3-40 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

PM3-41 Section 4.8.5.2 has been revised to includ

impacts on recreational use of the DelCrown Landing LNG Project. 

PM3-40 

(cont’d) 

PM3-41 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

PM3-42 Section 4.12 of EIS evaluates the safety 

terminal facility and the related LNG vesBay and Delaware River to the proposedesign and technical review of the propsystems. The analysis found no excluded for the import terminal, and that while thvessel transit cannot be entirely eliminatedSee the responses to Comments CO3-3 a

PM3-41 

(cont’d) 

PM3-42 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

PM3-42 

(cont’d) 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

PM3-42 

(cont’d) 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

PM3-43 PM3-43 Thank you for your comments. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

PM3-43 

(cont’d) 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

PM3-44 PM3-44 See the response to Comment PM3-42. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

PM3-44 

(cont’d) 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

PM3-45 See the response to Comment PM3-42. 

PM3-44 

(cont’d) 

PM3-45 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Public Meeting 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
APPENDIX K 

DRAFT GENERAL CONFORMITY DETERMINATION 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
i

Draft General Conformity Determination 

Crown Landing LNG and Logan Lateral Projects 

Docket Nos. CP04-411-000 and CP04-416-000 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1.0 Introduction to Proposed Action .............................................................................................1

2.0 General Conformity - Regulatory Background.......................................................................2

2.1 General Conformity Requirements .....................................................................................2

2.2 General Conformity Applicability ......................................................................................3

3.0 Assesment of Project Emissions .............................................................................................3

4.0 General Conformity Determination – New Jersey ..................................................................4

4.1 Consistency With All Relevant SIP Requirements.............................................................5

4.2 Emission Budgets/Attainment Demonstration for the AQCR ............................................5

4.3 Project Emissions Offsetting...............................................................................................6

5.0 General Conformity Determination – Delaware .....................................................................7

5.1 Consistency With All Relevant SIP Requirements.............................................................7

5.2 Emission Budgets/Attainment Demonstration for the AQCR ............................................8

5.3 Project Emissions Offsetting...............................................................................................8

6.0 General Conformity Determination – Pennsylvania ...............................................................9

6.1 Consistency With All Relevant SIP Requirements.............................................................9

6.2 Emission Budgets/Attainment Demonstration for the AQCR ..........................................10

6.3 Project Emissions Offsetting.............................................................................................10

7.0 Additional Considerations.....................................................................................................11

8.0 Finding of Conformity ..........................................................................................................11

ATTACHMENT 

Table A NOx/VOC Emissions for the Proposed Crown Landing LNG and Logan Lateral Projects 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
K-1

1.0 INTRODUCTION TO PROPOSED ACTION 

 On September 16, 2004, Crown Landing LLC (Crown Landing), a BP Energy Company affiliate, 

filed an application with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) seeking 

authorization to site, construct, and operate a liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal on the shoreline of the 

Delaware River in Logan Township, Gloucester County, New Jersey. Texas Eastern Transmission, LP 

(Texas Eastern) also filed an application on September 17, 2004 with the FERC under section 7(c) of the 

NGA for an associated natural gas pipeline (referred to as the Logan Lateral Project). 

 The LNG terminal would consist of facilities capable of unloading LNG ships, storing up to 

450,000 cubic meters (m3

) of imported LNG (9.2 billion cubic feet of natural gas equivalent), vaporizing 

the LNG, and sending out natural gas at a baseload rate of 1.2 billion cubic feet per day (Bcfd) and a 

maximum rate of 1.4 Bcfd (using spare equipment). Crown Landing proposes to interconnect the LNG 

facilities with three pipelines. One interconnect would be with the new pipeline that Texas Eastern 

proposes to construct and operate (i.e., Logan Lateral) between its existing Chester Junction facility in 

Brookhaven Borough, Pennsylvania to the proposed LNG terminal. The other two interconnects would 

be with existing pipelines that currently cross the site, one pipeline owned and operated by Columbia Gas 

Transmission Company (Columbia Gas) and the other pipeline owned and operated by Transcontinental 

Gas Pipe Line Corporation (Transco). The Crown Landing LNG Project would have a maximum delivery 

capacity of 0.5 Bcfd to the Columbia Gas pipeline system, 0.6 Bcfd to the Transco pipeline system, and 

0.9 Bcfd to the Texas Eastern pipeline system. 

 

 The LNG terminal and pipeline facilities would consist of: 

• a ship unloading facility capable of receiving LNG ships with capacities up to 200,000 

m3

; 

• three 150,000 m3

 (net capacity) full-containment LNG storage tanks, comprised of 9 

percent nickel steel inner tank, pre-stressed concrete outer tank, and a concrete roof; 

• a closed-loop shell and tube heat exchanger vaporization system; 

• various ancillary facilities, including administrative offices, warehouse/maintenance 

building, main control center, guardhouse, and a pier control room; 

• three meter and regulation stations located on the proposed LNG terminal site; and 

• approximately 11.00 miles of 30-inch-diameter natural gas pipeline (4.92 miles in 

Pennsylvania and 6.08 miles in New Jersey), a pig launcher and receiver facility at the 

beginning and end of the pipeline, a mainline valve, and a meter and regulation station at 

the end of the pipeline. 

 Air emissions would be generated during both construction and operation of these facilities. 

Construction equipment would generate emissions during construction of the LNG terminal and pipeline. 

Operation of the LNG facility would also result in the generation of emissions from the LNG ships and 

tugs transporting LNG to the terminal and from heaters used to vaporize the LNG prior to sending out via 

the pipelines. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
K-2

 The project location, Logan Township, is located in the Metropolitan Philadelphia Interstate Air 

Quality Control Region (AQCR), which is currently designated moderate nonattainment for the 8-hour 

ozone standard. Previously, the AQCR was designated as severe nonattainment for the 1-hour ozone 

standard and on June 14, 2005, the 1-hour ozone standard was vacated by the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA). The States of Delaware and New Jersey, however, contend that the current 1-

hour standard is more protective of ambient air quality. Additionally, the AQCR is designated as nonattainment for particulate matter with a diameter less than 2.5 microns (PM2.5). Therefore, oxides of 

nitrogen (NOx), volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and PM2.5 are regulated as nonattainment pollutants 

for this project and may trigger the general conformity requirements established by the EPA. The AQCR 

is in attainment for all other criteria pollutants. 

2.0 GENERAL CONFORMITY - REGULATORY BACKGROUND 

 The EPA promulgated the General Conformity Rule on November 30, 1993 in Volume 58 of the 

Federal Register (FR) Page 63214 (58 FR 63214) to implement the conformity provision of Title I, 

section 176(c)(1) of the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA). Section 176(c)(1) requires that the federal 

government not engage, support, or provide financial assistance for licensing or permitting, or approving 

any activity not conforming to an approved CAA implementation plan. In New Jersey and Delaware, the 

applicable plans are the New Jersey State Implementation Plan for the Attainment and Maintenance of the 

Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NJ SIP) and the Delaware Phase II Attainment Ozone 

Demonstration for Philadelphia-Wilmington-Trenton Ozone Nonattainment Area (DE SIP). Pennsylvania 

recently submitted the State Implementation Plan Revision For the Rate of Progress Plan for the One-hour 

Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard For the Philadelphia Interstate Nonattainment Area (PA 

SIP). The NJ, DE and PA SIPs have been approved by the EPA for the regulation of air emissions and 

enforcement of air quality rules to attain the ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). 

 The General Conformity Rule is codified in Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 

Part 51, Subpart W and Part 93, Subpart B, “Determining Conformity of General Federal Actions to State 

or Federal Implementation Plans.” The General Conformity Rule applies to all federal actions except 

programs and projects requiring funding or approval from the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), 

the Federal Highway Administration, the Federal Transit Administration, or the Metropolitan Planning 

Organization. In lieu of a conformity analysis, these latter types of programs and projects must comply 

with the Transportation Conformity Rule promulgated by the DOT on November 24, 1993 (58 FR 

62197). 

2.1 GENERAL CONFORMITY REQUIREMENTS 

Title I, section 176(c)(1), of the CAA defines conformity as the upholding of "an implementation 

plan's purpose of eliminating or reducing the severity and number of violations of the NAAQS and 

achieving attainment of such standards." Conforming activities or actions should not, through additional 

air pollutant emissions: 

• Cause or contribute to new violations of any NAAQS in any area; 

• Increase the frequency or severity of any existing violation of any NAAQS; or 

• Delay timely attainment of any NAAQS or interim emission reductions. 

 The General Conformity Rule establishes conformity in coordination with and as part of the 

National Environmental Policy Act process. The rule takes into account air pollution emissions 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
K-3

associated with actions that are federally funded, licensed, permitted, or approved, and ensures emissions 

do not contribute to air quality degradation, thus preventing the achievement of state and federal air 

quality goals. In short, General Conformity refers to the process of evaluating plans, programs, and 

projects to determine and demonstrate that they meet the requirements of the CAA and applicable SIP. 

The purpose of this General Conformity requirement is to ensure that federal agencies consult with state 

and local air quality districts so that these regulatory entities know about the expected impacts of the 

federal action and can include expected emissions in their SIP emissions budget. 

2.2 GENERAL CONFORMITY APPLICABILITY 

 Pursuant to the General Conformity Rule, a federal agency must make a General Conformity 

Determination for all federal actions in nonattainment or maintenance areas where the total of direct and 

indirect emissions of a nonattainment pollutant or its precursors exceeds levels established by the 

regulations. 

As previously discussed, the project area is designated as a “moderate” nonattainment area for the 

8-hour ozone standard and non-attainment for PM2.5. A General Conformity Determination in a moderate 

ozone nonattainment area that is located inside an ozone transport region is required for any project that 

would result in combined direct and indirect emissions of NOx equal to or greater than 100 tons per year 

(tpy) or of VOCs equal to or greater than 50 tpy. There is currently no General Conformity applicability 

threshold listed for PM2.5 nonattainment areas; however, as recommended in a March 2005 EPA 

memorandum regarding the implementation of the New Source Review requirements in PM2.5

nonattainment areas, a surrogate threshold of 100 tpy for PM10 moderate nonattainment areas was used 

for this analysis. A General Conformity Determination is not required for actions where the total of direct 

and indirect emissions is below these emissions levels and does not represent 10 percent or more of a 

nonattainment or maintenance area's total emissions of those pollutants. If the total direct and indirect 

emissions for any pollutant are greater than 10 percent of the nonattainment area’s total emissions for that 

pollutant, then the action is defined as a regionally significant action and a General Conformity 

Determination would be required. 

Consistent with section 176 (c)(1) of the CAA, a federal action is generally defined as any 

activity engaged in or supported in any way by any department, agency, or instrumentality of the federal 

government (40 CFR 51.852). Federal actions include providing federal financial assistance or issuing a 

federal license, permit, or approval. Where the federal action is a permit, license, or other approval for 

some aspect of a non-federal undertaking, the relevant activity is the part, portion, or phase of the nonfederal undertaking that requires the federal license, permit, or approval. Because the FERC would 

authorize the construction and operation of the proposed Crown Landing LNG Project pursuant to section 

3 of the Natural Gas Act and the Logan Lateral Project pursuant to section 7(c), they are considered 

federal actions, and the resulting emissions of NOx, VOCs, and PM2.5 must be assessed to determine if 

they would conform to the NJ, DE, and PA SIPs. 

This Draft General Conformity Determination has been prepared pursuant to the CAA, section 

176(c)(1) to assess whether the emissions that would result from the FERC’s action in authorizing the 

construction of the Crown Landing LNG and Logan Lateral Projects would be in conformity with the 

applicable SIPs. 

3.0 ASSESMENT OF PROJECT EMISSIONS 

 The proposed air emissions for the Crown Landing LNG and Logan Lateral Projects were 

prepared using widely-accepted methods. Direct and indirect emissions were estimated for both 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
K-4

construction and operation of the proposed project. In general, the land-based, marine-based, and 

dredging construction equipment emissions were estimated by multiplying emission factors for each 

engine type by the amount of power produced by operating hours. Emissions from the on-road mobile 

sources were estimated using the methodology and emission factors from the EPA MOBILE 6.2 model. 

LNG ship and tug emissions were estimated using emission factors for existing, similar facilities and 

proposed fuel/energy input to the ships during roundtrip operation in state waters. A project emissions 

summary table is included in Attachment A. 

 Based on an a review of Tables A-1 and A-2, the estimated direct and indirect emissions of NOx

associated with the Crown Landing LNG and Logan Lateral Projects are expected to exceed the 100 tpy 

applicability threshold in 2006 and 2007, while the estimated direct and indirect emissions of VOC and 

PM2.5 are expected to be below the 50 tpy and 100 tpy applicability thresholds, respectively, throughout 

the life of the project. Therefore, a General Conformity Determination for NOx is required. 

Since emissions resulting from the project would occur in New Jersey, Delaware and 

Pennsylvania, a General Conformity Determination has been prepared for all three states. It should also 

be noted that SIPs demonstrating attainment with the 8-hour standard are being developed and will be 

adopted by the three states and submitted to the EPA for approval by June 15, 2007. Therefore, the 

General Conformity Determination is based on the SIPs developed for the 1-hour ozone standard 

currently in place. 

In accordance with General Conformity requirements listed in Title 40 CFR Part 93.158(a) and 

(c), the project must: 

• comply with the control measures and regulations that are relied upon in the applicable 

SIP; and 

• the total of direct and indirect emissions for the proposed Crown Landing LNG and 

Logan Lateral Projects must be specifically identified and accounted for in the SIP’s 

attainment demonstration; or 

• the total of direct and indirect emissions for the proposed Crown Landing LNG Project 

must be offset through a revision in the SIP or similar enforceable measure so that there 

is no net increase in emissions; or 

• for any criteria pollutant, except ozone, the total of direct and indirect emissions for the 

proposed Crown Landing LNG and Logan Lateral Projects must be evaluated through an 

area-wide and/or local air quality modeling analysis that shows that the action does not 

cause or contribute to any new violation of any standard in any area or increase the 

frequency of severity of any existing violation of any standard in any area. 

The following sections describe how the project would conform to these requirements for each of 

the three states where the project would be located. 

4.0 GENERAL CONFORMITY DETERMINATION – NEW JERSEY 

 On August 31, 1998, New Jersey submitted to the EPA a SIP revision referred to as the Ozone 

Attainment Demonstration SIP by the EPA or alternatively as the Phase II Ozone SIP. The NJDEP 

submitted a revision to the ozone attainment plan in October 2001 to the EPA entitled State 

Implementation Plan Revision for the Attainment and Maintenance of the One-Hour Ozone National 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
K-5

Ambient Air Quality Standard. Additional revisions to the NJ SIP were also finalized in April 2003 and 

May 2004. The revised NJ SIP identified the latest NOx emission budgets, control measures, and 

regulations that will be implemented in the AQCR. The proposed Crown Landing LNG and Logan 

Lateral Projects emission sources that will be located and operated in New Jersey must comply with the 

control measures and regulations that are relied upon, and the only remaining criteria that must be met to 

demonstrate conformity with the NJ SIP is to either demonstrate that project construction emissions of 

NOx are specifically identified and accounted for in the SIP’s attainment demonstration or that project 

construction emissions would be completely offset through a revision in the SIP or similar enforceable 

measure so that there is no net increase in emissions in the AQCR. 

4.1 CONSISTENCY WITH ALL RELEVANT SIP REQUIREMENTS 

The emission control measures and regulations that have been included in the NJ SIP that may 

potentially apply to the Crown Landing LNG and Logan Lateral Projects are summarized in table 1. 

TABLE 1 

Crown Landing LNG and Logan Lateral Projects 

Control Measures in the New Jersey Ozone Nonattainment Area

Name of Control Measure Type of Measure Applicability to the Crown Landing LNG Project 

Basic/Enhanced Motor Vehicle 

Inspection State rule Potentially applicable to delivery/commuter vehicles 

Clean-Fuel Fleets State rule Potentially applicable to delivery/commuter vehicles 

National LEV Program Federal rule Potentially applicable to construction equipment 

Alternate Fuel Incentive Program Federal rule Potentially applicable to construction equipment 

Federal Non-road Heavy Duty 

Diesel Engines Federal rule Potentially applicable to construction equipment 

Federal Marine Engines Federal rule Potentially applicable to LNG ship and tug engines 

NOx SIP Call EPA requirement The NOx trading program may apply to project emissions 

Several of the regulations identified in table 1 would indirectly affect the emissions from the 

proposed project by implementing new standards for refineries and engine manufacturers. These 

regulations include the heavy duty non-road diesel engine rule and the federal marine engine rule. Crown 

Landing would use construction equipment powered by diesel engines during construction of the facilities 

subject to these federal programs. Implementation and compliance with these programs would be 

required by the engine manufacturers, not Crown Landing. Therefore, it is assumed that the Crown 

Landing LNG Project would be in compliance with these regulations. The NJDEP also implemented NOx

and VOC emission requirements for stationary sources including emissions trading programs and 

reasonably available control technology (RACT) requirements. The stationary sources at the proposed 

LNG terminal will require an air permit from the NJDEP that would ensure compliance with these 

requirements, if applicable. As such, the emissions generated by the Crown Landing LNG and Logan 

Lateral Projects would comply with the NJ SIP provisions. 

4.2 EMISSION BUDGETS/ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION FOR THE AQCR 

The projected emissions identified in the NJ SIP are the emission budgets for the AQCR as it 

plans to meet the 1-hour ozone standard. The project’s estimated emissions were not specifically 

identified or accounted for in the SIP and the NJDEP has not committed to revising the budgets to 

accommodate them. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
K-6

However, the emissions budgets for the SIP being prepared to demonstrate attainment with the 8-

hour standard for ozone are under development. Conformance with the 8-hour SIP can be demonstrated 

if the Governor of New Jersey or the Governor’s designee for SIP actions makes a written commitment to 

the EPA that, in accordance with Title 40 CFR Part 93.158(a)(5)(i)(B), the following information is 

provided: 

• a specific schedule for adoption and submittal of a revision to the SIP that would achieve 

the needed emission reductions before the time emissions from the federal action would 

occur; 

• identification of specific measures for incorporation into the SIP that would result in a 

level of emissions that, together with all other emissions in the nonattainment area, would 

not exceed any emissions budget specified in the applicable SIP/AQMP; 

• a demonstration that all existing applicable SIP requirements are being implemented in 

the area for the pollutants affected by the federal action, and that local authority to 

implement additional requirements has been fully pursued; 

• a determination that the responsible federal agencies have required all reasonable 

mitigation measures associated with their action; and 

• written documentation that includes all air quality analyses supporting the conformity 

determination. 

Crown Landing is currently discussing this option with the NJDEP. If such a commitment is 

obtained, it would be provided to the FERC and included in the Final General Conformity Determination. 

4.3 PROJECT EMISSIONS OFFSETTING 

As required by the NJDEP to demonstrate conformity with the NJ SIP, Crown Landing must 

develop an air mitigation plan that includes emission reduction strategies to completely offset the 

proposed project emissions of NOx every year they are predicted to exceed the General Conformity 

applicability thresholds. The air mitigation plan must identify reduction measures to generate emissions 

offsets that will be contemporaneous with applicable project emissions. Emissions offsets, as defined in 

40 CFR §51.852, are quantifiable reductions, consistent with the applicable SIP attainment and reasonable 

further progress demonstrations, surplus to reductions required by, and credited to, other applicable SIP 

provisions, enforceable at both the state and federal levels, and permanent within the timeframe specified 

by the program. The air mitigation plan must be submitted, reviewed, and approved by the NJDEP and 

EPA. Table 2 summarizes the year-by-year portion of the project emissions requiring offsets. 

It should be noted that the operating emissions resulting from the LNG terminal stationary 

sources are not included with the totals listed in table 2. As mentioned in section 4.1, those emissions 

would be authorized through the federal Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR) permitting process 

and would have already been required to be offset. Crown Landing is currently working with the NJDEP 

to develop the air mitigation plan. Once completed and approved by the EPA and NJDEP, the plan will 

be included in the Final General Conformity Determination. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
K-7

TABLE 2 

Crown Landing LNG and Logan Lateral Projects 

State of New Jersey Project Emissions Requiring Offsets

Year NOx 

(tpy) Comments 

2005 --- Total project emissions do not exceed General Conformity threshold. 

2006 53.3 Emissions from land-based construction equipment and commuter/delivery vehicles. 

2007 65.3 

Emissions from land-based construction equipment at the LNG terminal and the portion of the 

emissions generated in NJ from the construction of the Logan Lateral and commuter/delivery 

vehicles. 

2008 --- Total project emissions do not exceed General Conformity threshold. 

2009 and 

beyond --- Total project emissions do not exceed General Conformity threshold. 

5.0 GENERAL CONFORMITY DETERMINATION – DELAWARE 

 

In May 1998, Delaware submitted to the EPA a SIP revision entitled the Delaware Phase II 

Attainment Ozone Demonstration for Philadelphia-Wilmington-Trenton Ozone Nonattainment Area (DE 

SIP). Subsequent revisions termed Rate of Progress Plans (RPPs) to the DE SIP were also submitted in 

December 2000 and April 2003. The latest RPP identified the most recent emission budgets, control 

measures, and regulations that will be implemented in the AQCR. The proposed Crown Landing LNG 

Project emission sources that will be located and operated in Delaware must comply with the control 

measures and regulations that are relied upon, and the emissions for the proposed project must not exceed 

the emission budgets provided in the DE SIP. 

5.1 CONSISTENCY WITH ALL RELEVANT SIP REQUIREMENTS 

 The emission control measures and regulations that have been included in the DE SIP that may 

potentially apply to the Crown Landing LNG and Logan Lateral Projects are summarized in table 3. 

TABLE 3 

Crown Landing LNG and Logan Lateral Projects 

Control Measures in the Delaware Severe Ozone Nonattainment Area 

Name of Control Measure Type of Measure Applicability to the Crown Landing LNG Project 

Federal Marine Engines Federal rule Potentially applicable to LNG ship and tug engines 

NOx SIP Call EPA requirement The NOx trading program may apply to project 

emissions 

Crown Landing would use marine construction equipment powered by diesel engines during 

construction of the facility. During operation, the LNG would be transported by LNG ships that would be 

escorted by tugs that may be powered by engines subject to these federal programs. Implementation and 

compliance with these programs would be required by the engine manufacturers, not Crown Landing. 

Therefore, it is assumed that the project would be in compliance with these regulations. The DNREC also 

implemented NOx and VOC emission requirements for stationary sources, including emissions trading 

programs and RACT requirements. The LNG ships at berth would be considered stationary sources at the 

proposed LNG terminal and Crown Landing would be required to demonstrate compliance with these 

requirements, if applicable, prior to obtaining an air permit from the DNREC. As such, the emissions 

generated by the project would comply with the DE SIP provisions. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
K-8

5.2 EMISSION BUDGETS/ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION FOR THE AQCR 

The projected emissions identified in the DE SIP are the emission budgets for the AQCR as it 

plans to meet the 1-hour ozone standard. The project’s estimated emissions were not specifically 

identified or accounted for in the SIP and the DNREC has not committed to revising the budgets to 

accommodate them. 

However, the emissions budgets for the SIP being prepared to demonstrate attainment with the 8-

hour standard for ozone are under development. Conformance with the 8-hour SIP can be demonstrated 

if the Governor of Delaware or the Governor’s designee for SIP actions makes a written commitment to 

the EPA that, in accordance with Title 40 CFR Part 93.158(a)(5)(i)(B), the following information is 

provided: 

• a specific schedule for adoption and submittal of a revision to the SIP that would achieve 

the needed emission reductions before the time emissions from the federal action would 

occur; 

• identification of specific measures for incorporation into the SIP that would result in a 

level of emissions that, together with all other emissions in the nonattainment area, would 

not exceed any emissions budget specified in the applicable SIP/AQMP; 

• a demonstration that all existing applicable SIP requirements are being implemented in 

the area for the pollutants affected by the federal action, and that local authority to 

implement additional requirements has been fully pursued; 

• a determination that the responsible federal agencies have required all reasonable 

mitigation measures associated with their action; and 

• written documentation that includes all air quality analyses supporting the conformity 

determination. 

Crown Landing is evaluating this option. If Crown Landing obtains such a commitment, it would 

be provided to the FERC and included in the Final General Conformity Determination. 

5.3 PROJECT EMISSIONS OFFSETTING 

As required by the DNREC to demonstrate conformity with the DE SIP, Crown Landing must 

acquire emission credits to completely offset the proposed portion of the project emissions of NOx

generated in the State of Delaware every year the total project emissions are predicted to exceed the 

General Conformity applicability thresholds. Crown Landing would have to obtain available emission 

reduction credits (ERCs) certified by the DNREC in accordance with the Emissions Banking and Trading 

Program rules codified as Regulation No. 34. Table 4 summarizes the year-by-year portion of the project 

emissions requiring offsets. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
K-9

TABLE 4 

Crown Landing LNG and Logan Lateral Projects 

State of Delaware Project Emissions Requiring Offsets

Year NOx

(tpy) Comments 

2005 --- Total project emissions do not exceed General Conformity Threshold. 

2006 122.0 NOx emissions from marine-based construction equipment.

2007 17.0 NOx emissions from marine-based construction equipment.

2008 --- Total project emissions do not exceed General Conformity Threshold.

2009 and 

beyond --- Total project emissions do not exceed General Conformity Threshold.

It should be noted that the operating emissions resulting from the LNG carriers at berth are not 

included with the totals listed in table 4. As mentioned in section 5.1, those emissions are regulated in 

Delaware as stationary source emissions and would be authorized through the federal NNSR permitting 

process and would have already been required to be offset. Information documenting the notification 

submitted to the DNREC and subsequent approval of ERCs acquired by Crown Landing through 

purchase or other trade is not yet available. 

6.0 GENERAL CONFORMITY DETERMINATION – PENNSYLVANIA 

 

In February 2004, Pennsylvania submitted to the EPA a SIP revision entitled the State 

Implementation Plan Revision For the Rate of Progress Plan for the One-hour Ozone National Ambient 

Air Quality Standard For the Philadelphia Interstate Nonattainment Area. This revision, approved by the 

EPA on May 21, 2004 identified the most recent emission budgets, control measures, and regulations that 

will be implemented in the AQCR. The proposed Crown Landing LNG and Logan Lateral Projects 

emission sources that would be located and operated in Pennsylvania must comply with the control 

measures and regulations that are relied upon, and the emissions for the proposed project must not exceed 

the emission budgets provided in the PA SIP. 

6.1 CONSISTENCY WITH ALL RELEVANT SIP REQUIREMENTS 

 The emission control measures and regulations that have been included in the PA SIP that may 

potentially apply to the Crown Landing LNG and Logan Lateral Projects are summarized in table 5. 

TABLE 5 

Crown Landing LNG and Logan Lateral Projects 

Control Measures in the Pennsylvania Severe Ozone Nonattainment Area 

Name of Control Measure Type of Measure Applicability to the Crown Landing LNG Project 

Vehicle Emissions Inspection/Maintenance 

Program State rule Potentially applicable to delivery/commuter vehicles 

National LEV Program Federal rule Potentially applicable to construction equipment 

Alternate Fuel Incentive Program Federal rule Potentially applicable to construction equipment 

Federal Non-road Heavy Duty Diesel Engines Federal rule Potentially applicable to construction equipment 

The regulations identified in table 5 would indirectly affect the emissions from the proposed 

project by implementing new standards for refineries and engine manufacturers. These regulations 

include the heavy duty non-road diesel engine rule. During construction of the proposed facilities, Texas 

Eastern would use construction equipment powered by diesel engines which are subject to these federal 

programs. Implementation and compliance with these programs would be required by the engine 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
K-10

manufacturers, not Texas Eastern. Therefore, it is assumed that the Crown Landing LNG and Logan 

Lateral Projects would be in compliance with these regulations. As such, the emissions generated by the 

Crown Landing LNG and Logan Lateral Projects would comply with the PA SIP provisions. 

6.2 EMISSION BUDGETS/ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION FOR THE AQCR 

The projected emissions identified in the PA SIP are the emission budgets for the AQCR as it 

plans to meet the 1-hour ozone standard. The project’s estimated emissions were not specifically 

identified or accounted for in the SIP and the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection 

(PDEP) has not committed to revising the budgets to accommodate them. 

However, the emissions budgets for the SIP being prepared to demonstrate attainment with the 8-

hour standard for ozone are under development. Conformance with the 8-hour SIP can be demonstrated 

if the Governor of Pennsylvania or the Governor’s designee for SIP actions makes a written commitment 

to the EPA that, in accordance with Title 40 CFR Part 93.158(a)(5)(i)(B), the following information is 

provided: 

• a specific schedule for adoption and submittal of a revision to the SIP that would achieve 

the needed emission reductions before the time emissions from the federal action would 

occur; 

• identification of specific measures for incorporation into the SIP that would result in a 

level of emissions that, together with all other emissions in the nonattainment area, would 

not exceed any emissions budget specified in the applicable SIP/AQMP; 

• a demonstration that all existing applicable SIP requirements are being implemented in 

the area for the pollutants affected by the federal action, and that local authority to 

implement additional requirements has been fully pursued; 

• a determination that the responsible federal agencies have required all reasonable 

mitigation measures associated with their action; and 

• written documentation that includes all air quality analyses supporting the conformity 

determination. 

Crown Landing is evaluating this option. If Crown Landing obtains such a commitment, it would 

be provided to the FERC and included in the final General Conformity Determination. 

6.3 PROJECT EMISSIONS OFFSETTING 

As required by the PDEP to demonstrate conformity with the PA SIP, Crown Landing or Texas 

Eastern must acquire emission credits to completely offset the portion of the proposed project emissions 

of NOx generated in the State of Pennsylvania every year the total project emissions are predicted to 

exceed the General Conformity applicability thresholds. Crown Landing or Texas Eastern would have to 

obtain available emission reduction credits (ERCs) certified by the PDEP in accordance with the 

Emissions Banking and Trading Program rules codified as Article III, Chapter 127, Subchapter E. Table 

6 summarizes the year-by-year portion of the project emissions requiring offsets. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
K-11

TABLE 6 

Crown Landing LNG and Logan Lateral Projects 

State of Pennsylvania Project Emissions Requiring Offsets

Year NOx

(tpy) Comments 

2005 --- Total project emissions do not exceed General Conformity Threshold. 

2006 0 Total project emissions exceed General Conformity threshold.; however, the Pennsylvania portion 

of the project does not start until 2007

2007 20.6 NOx emissions from construction equipment and commuter/delivery vehicles associated with the 

4.9 miles portion of the Logan Lateral Project located in Pennsylvania.

2008 --- Total project emissions do not exceed General Conformity Threshold.

2009 and 

beyond --- Total project emissions do not exceed General Conformity Threshold.

Information documenting the notification submitted to the PDEP and subsequent approval of 

ERCs acquired by Crown Landing through purchase or other trade is not yet available. 

7.0 ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS 

In addition, the Crown Landing LNG and Logan Lateral Projects may potentially result in NOx

emission reductions that are far greater than the NOx emissions generated by the LNG terminal project 

and associated sources (e.g., LNG ships). This emission reduction would occur when power plants and 

residential consumers convert boilers and furnaces to higher-efficiency natural gas-fired units. However, 

these NOx emissions reductions would not be enforceable reductions and, therefore, do not meet the offset 

criteria of 40 CFR §93.158. 

8.0 FINDING OF CONFORMITY 

As discussed, documentation supporting conformity with the applicable SIPs in accordance with 

Title 40 CFR Part 93.158 has not been filed with the FERC; therefore, the analysis is not complete. A full 

analysis must be completed, and any mitigation requirements necessary for a finding of conformity must 

be identified before a determination of conformity can be made. 

Upon receipt of the required information from Crown Landing, the FERC will complete the 

analysis and issue a Final General Conformity Determination for the Crown Landing LNG and Logan 

Lateral Projects. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
ATTACHMENT A

NOX/VOC EMISSIONS FOR THE PROPOSED CROWN LANDING LNG AND LOGAN 

LATERAL PROJECTS 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
NOx VOC NOx VOC NOx VOC NOx VO

Emissions Source Category (tpy) (tpy) (tpy) (tpy) (tpy) (tpy) (tpy) (tpConstruction Activities: Land-based Equipment (LNG Terminal) 8.5 0.5 47.5 2.8 34.8 2.0 20.0 1

Land-based Equipment (Logan Lateral) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 45.2 3.6 0.0 0Marine-based Equipment 0.0 0.0 122.0 28.0 17.0 6.0 0.0 0Commuter/Delivery Vehicles (LNG Terminal) 3.8 0.7 5.8 4.1 4.9 4.4 0.9 0Commuter/Delivery Vehicles (Logan Lateral) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 1.3 0.0 0

Subtotal for Construction Activities: 12.3 1.1 175.3 34.9 102.9 17.2 20.9 2

Operating Activities: LNG Terminal (Sationary Sources) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 23 b 10

LNG Carrier (Berth) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.2 b 0.2 

LNG Carrier (Transport) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.1 4Tug Boats 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 24.2 1Commuter/Delivery Vehicles 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.6 0

Subtotal for Operating Activities: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 41.9 16

Total for Construction and Operating Activities: 12.3 1.1 175.3 34.9 102.9 17.2 62.8 18

Federal Conformity Thresholds (tpy) by Designation: NOx VOC

Moderate (8-hour ozone designation) 100 50

Federal Conformity Thresholds Exceeded (8-hr): (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes

Total: No No Yes No Yes No No N

NOTES:

a Emissions estimates based on information provided in January 18, 2005 submittal to FERC titled "Response to FERC January 7, 2005 Additional Information Request.", except for the emission estimates associate

 with the construction of the Logan Lateral Pipeline that were based on the information provided in the December 22, 2004 submittal to the FERC titled "Response to FERC 11/10/2004 FERC Staff Data Request".

b The LNG terminal stationary source emissions would be authorized through the federal Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR) permitting process and therefore are exempt

 in accordance with Title 40 CFR 51.853(d)(1) from being included in the total sum of direct and indirect emissions to evaluate federal general conformity applicability. NOx = nitrogen oxidesVOC = volatile organic compounds

2005 2006 2008

TABLE A

NOx/VOC Emissionsa for the Propsed Crown Landing LNG and Logan Lateral Projects

2007 (Attainment Year) 

Project Emissions

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
APPENDIX L 

U.S. COAST GUARD 

LETTER OF INTENT AND WATERWAY SUITABILITY 

ASSESSMENT LETTER 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
July 30, 2004

Captain Jonathan D. Sarubbi, USCG

Captain of the Port and Commanding Officer

Marine Safety Office, Group Philadelphia

One Washington Avenue

Philadelphia, PA 19147

Re: Crown Landing LNG Project Letter of Intent

Dear Captain Sarubbi:

This Letter of Intent is submitted pursuant to 33 CFR Part 127.007(a) for the

Crown Landing LNG Project. The Crown Landing LNG terminal is a proposed new

waterfront facility handling liquefied natural gas (LNG). The facility will be

constructed, owned, and operated by Crown Landing LLC, a wholly-owned

subsidiary of BP America Inc. The facility will be located in Logan Township,

Gloucester County, New Jersey on the Delaware River. The site is located at

approximately River Mile 78 and adjacent to the Marcus Hook Anchorage.

Crown Landing is currently engaged in the Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission's (FERC) pre-filing process for this Project and expects to file a formal

application with FERC in September 2004. The USCG MSO/Group -Philadelphia

has participated in this pre-filing process. Crown Landing currently plans to begin

construction in the summer of 2005 (assuming all required permits and approvals

have been obtained) and begin LNG import operations in 2008.

Crown Landing is committed to designing, constructing, and operating a safe and

secure facility and ensuring the safe transit of the LNG carriers to and from the

terminal, in consultation with the U.S. Coast Guard. The Crown Landing LNG

Project is designed in accordance with the requirements of the U.S. Coast Guard's

Waterfront Facilities Handling LNG (33 CFR 127), U.S. Department of

Transportation's (DOT) Federal Safety Standards for Liquefied Natural Gas

Facilities (49 CFR 193), and the National Fire Protection Association's (NFPA)

Standards for the PrtXluction, Storage, and Handling of Liquefied Natural Gas

(NFPA 59A). Crown Landing is preparing a Facility Operations Manual and

Emergency Manual for review by the Coast Guard in developing a Letter of

Recommendation pursuant to 33 CFR Part 127.009. This is completed in draft

form, and will be forwarded to you for discussion and finalization. Crown Landing

will also be developing, in conjunction with the USCG specific recommendations

for the Deiaware River, a Security Plan in accordance with the Maritime

Transportation Security Act. This will be forwarded to you as soon as it is

available, but no later than the end of the fourth quarter 2004.

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Crown Landing is submitting attachments with this Letter of Intent to provide the

required information. The attachments contain information that is exempt from

the mandatory disclosure requirements of the Freedom of Information Act, 5 USC

§ 552. In particular, the attachments contain Crown Landing's trade secrets and

commercial or financial information that is privileged and confidential, which

makes those documents exempt from disclosure under Exemption 4 of the

Freedom of Information Act, 5 USC § 552(b)(4). Any attachment that contains

information that falls within any Exemption to the Freedom of Information Act, 5

USC § 552(b)(1)-(9), is marked "Contains Privileged and Confidential Information

- Do Not Release" and should not be released. See 33 CFR § 1.10-1; 711e Coast

Guard Freedom of Information (FOIA) and Plivacy Acts Manua~ Commandant

Instruction M5260.3 (June 14, 1996), as revised.

We look forward to consulting with the Coast Guard in obtaining a letter of

Recommendation for the Crown Landing LNG Project.

Sincerely,

fJ. S'rj!. .[aAA ~

Lauren B. Segal

Vice-President, Crown Landing LLC

501 Westlake park Blvd.

Houston, TX 77079

(281) 366-2259

Attachments

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Development of New Waterfront Facility Handling LNG

1. Owner and Operator

Crown landing LLC

50.1 Westlake Park Blvd.

Houston, TX 77079

Point of Contact: James Busch

Phone: (281) 366-3531

Fax: (281) 366-5090

2. Address of Facility

Route 130 Logan Township

Block 101, Lot 2

Logan Township, Gloucester County, NJ

Point of Contact: James Busch

Phone: (281) 366-3531

Fax: (281) 366-5090

3. Location of Facility

The Crown Landing Site is located in Logan Township, Gloucester County, New

Jersey (see Figures 1 & 2). The site is located on the Delaware River, about 78

miles from the mouth of Delaware Bay and is shown on NOAA National Ocean

Service Chart 12312 (Delaware River Wilmington to Philadelphia). It lies north

of Old mans Creek and west of, and adjacent to, the Logan Generating Station,

a pulverized coal-fired power plant. Road access to the site is via US Route 130

and lies approximately 3 miles south of the Commodore Barry Bridge, which

spans the Delaware River between Gloucester County, New Jersey and

Delaware County, Pennsylvania. The site lies across the Delaware River from

Marcus Hook, Pennsylvania, and is approximately 10 miles upriver from

Wilmington, Delaware, and approximately 15 miles downriver from Philadelphia,

Pennsylvania, and Camden, New Jersey. The berth will be located at

approximately latitude 39 degrees 47.8 minutes north and longitude 75 degrees

25.0 minutes west.

1

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
4. Description of the Facility

The proposed terminal will be an LNG import, storage, and re-gasification

facility (Figure 3). LNG carriers will berth at a new pier and LNG will be

transferred by pipeline from the carriers to one of three storage tanks, each

with a net capacity of 150,000 cubic meters (m3) and a gross capacity of

158,000 m3. The facility will have vaporization (i.e., re-gasification) equipment

capable of sending out natural gas at a rate of 1.2 billion cubic feet per day

(bcfd) with a peaking capacity of 1.4 bcfd. The project will tie on-site into two

existing pipelines owned and operated by Columbia Gas Transmission Company

(Columbia) and Transcontinental Gas Pipe Une Corporation (Transco). Texas

Eastern Transmission, LP (Texas Eastern) will construct an approximately 12-

mile lateral from the Project Site to Chester Junction on the PennSylvania side

of the Delaware River.

Marine Fad/ities

The pier for the proposed Project will consist of a 1,960-foot-long by 35-footwide trestle and a single berth designed to accommodate LNG carriers up to

200,000 m3 in capacity (Figure 4). When constructed, the berth will include

four breasting dolphins equipped with fenders and quick release hooks and five

mooring dolphins equipped with quick release hooks to safely moor the LNG

carrier. The berth will include walkways between the dolphins and the platform

for personnel access and a gangway between the carrier and the platform for

the transfer of crew. Crown Landing will install an electronic berthing aid

system to assist berthing operations and to monitor mooring loads while the

LNG vessel is alongside. Prior to arrival of any LNG carrier, a mooring study will

be conducted for the vessel to optimize the deployment of mooring lines to

restrain the vessel while on the berth, and to minimize movement relative to

the berth.

The trestle will provide the structural support for the cryogenic piping,

containment trough, and utility lines from the shore to the berth and will

accommodate one travel lane for light vehicles. The delivered LNG will be

transferred from the ship to the terminal LNG storage tanks using the ship's

pumps. LNG will be unloaded from the ship through three 16-inch liquid

unloading arms and will be b'ansported from the pier through a 44-inchdiameter liquid unloading line to the storage tanks. The unloading line will be

capable of filling the LNG tanks through top or bottom fill nozzles. Boil-off gas

(BOG) blowers will return part of the vapor generated, in the shore tank, during

the unloading process to the ship through one 16-inch-diameter vapor retum

arm. The remainder of the vapor is compressed and sent out as product.

During the holding mode of terminal operation (when no ship is unloading), a

12-inch line circulates LNG from the shore tanks to the main header at the end

2

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
of the pier. The LNG returns through the liquid unloading line to keep the line

cold.

The liquid unloading and vapor return arms will be fitted with powered

emergency release couplings that prevent damage to the arms and minimize

the loss of liquid to a total of approximately 4 gallons in the event that an

emergency requires the unloading arms to be disconnected from the ship.

The location of the terminal is protected from significant wave height that may

affect a LNG carrier due to the distance from the sea. This distance from the

sea also effectively protects the terminal and ship from excessive winds. Wind

limits from specific directions will be established for berthing and unberthing

operations as well as transfer operations. The LNG carrier will not commence

an inbound transit if the wind is forecast to exceed these predetermined limits

while the vessel is expected to be in transit, berthing or at the berth. The LNG

carrier will vacate the berth should a wind be forecast to occur in excess of the

transfer or unberthing limits while the LNG carrier is at the berth.

Berth

To accommodate the LNG carriers, Crown Landing proposes to dredge an

approximately 1,200-foot-long by 500-foot-wide slip berth oriented

perpendicular to the shipping channel and adjacent anchorage. The berth area

will be dredged to 40 feet below mean lower low water to match the current

depth of the shipping channel. The slip orientation also considers the flow of

the Delaware River, which is perpendicular to the berth, making solely currentdriven entrance to the berth impossible. This berth orientation was selected

entirely for safety reasons; the surrounding shallow water will protect the LNG

carrier while at berth from errant ships, in that the restrictive water depth on

either side of the slip would cause a vessel that is large enough to cause

significant damage to the LNG carrier to ground prior to entering the slip. The

LNG carrier, while berthed, will not encroach into the Marcus Hook anchorage

and will be approximately half a mile from the main channel, where ships

transit at a controlled transit speed, thus further redudng the possibility of

collision or allision.

The orientation and position of the berth, and associated slip, has been

successfully trialed on a full mission ship simulator, with the assistance of

experienced Delaware River Pilots and Docking Pilots at Marine Safety

International in Newport, Rhode Island. This exerdse ensures that the LNG

carriers can berth and unberth in the most severe current and wind conditions

that would be allowed for operations to proceed. During these simulations, the

number and bollard pull of required tugs was pre1iminarily assessed. Further

simulator work will be required to finalize the tug requirements. Prior to

3

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
operation of the terminal, all relevant Pilots will be trained in the berthing and

unberthing maneuvers in conjunction with the Tug Masters.

Marine Operations

We anticipate that the ship operations will involve the following procedures.

. The carriers will stay at sea prior to entry into the Delaware Bay for an

advised arrival time at the designated boarding area for the USCG

security boarding team, if required, or the pilot station. It is not the

intention that the LNG carriers will anchor in the Bay while inbound.

. An LNG carrier in transit to the Crown Landing terminal will notify the

terminal, the USCG, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS),

pilots, tug operators, and shipping agents at least 96 hours prior to

arrival. Advance notification will include certification that all safetyrelated equipment is properly functional.

. USCG inspectors may conduct a pre-arrival security inspection of the

carrier prior to entry into U.S. territorial waters and before commencing

the transit up the Delaware River to the Crown Landing terminal.

. A state-and-federaily-licensed marine pilot from the Pilots' Association for

the Bay and River Delaware (i.e. the Delaware River pilots) will board the

LNG carrier off Cape Henlopen and pilot the vessel from the mouth of

the Delaware Bay to just past the Delaware Memorial Bridge where a

Docking Pilot will board and pilot the LNG carrier to its berth at the

Crown Landing terminal.

. The LNG carriers will form a convoy with other large, deep draft vessels

to transit up the Delaware River on the rising tide, which allows an

organized arrival of vessels at ports of call. It is expected that, as the

proposed terminal is downsueam of the larger refineries, the LNG

carriers will be at the rear of the convoy. The LNG carriers will be

protected by moving safety zones, as is the current situation with LPG

and crude oil carriers.

. To negate any possibility of the LNG carrier striking the bridge, before

arrival at the Delaware Memorial Bridge, a tug will make fast to the after

part of the LNG carrier to be available to assist the vessel as it passes

under the bridge.

. On approaching the Crown Landing terminal, two further tugs will be

made fast and will assist in maneuvering and berthing the carrier.

. Ships will be berthed with the bow facing the anchorage to allow for

rapid departure if needed. The bow also presents the least vulnerable

part of the ship to any potential collision or allision threats from other

vessels.

. One or more tugs will remain on standby with the carrier throughout the

unloading operations. Standby tug duties will include preventing any

vessel from approaching the moored LNG carrier as well as assisting the

4

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
.

.

.

.

.

.

LNG carrier's departure in an emergency. The tugs will be specially

designed and equipped for the terminal, having significant bollard pull,

being extremely maneuverable, and having very significant fire fighting

capabilities.

After berthing, the INS will board the vessel with the USCG to check the

crew against the crew list previously supplied.

Once cleared to do so by the INS, safety system inspections by USCG

personnel of both the terminal and the ship will take place in conjunction

with pre-transfer meetings that will include discharge procedures and

safety checklist review. Concurrently with these inspections and

meetings, physical connection of the hard-wired communications

systems between the carrier and the terminal and radio contact will be

made and tested.

Once the procedures have been agreed and communications established,

connection of the unloading arms will commence. Constant

communication will be maintained between carrier and terminal

personnel throughout the vessel's stay at the berth by a fIXed telephone

link and radio.

In addition, the automated emergency shutdown system will be

connected between the ship and terminal to allow mutual emergency

shutdown in the event of an unexpected occurrence.

When the unloading arms have been connected and the emergency shut

down system tested, transfer of LNG will take place following the

procedures agreed between the ship and the shore and approved by the

USCG.

Following unloading, tugs will assist in departure; and the carrier will

proceed seaward under the initial supervision of the Docking Pilot and

subsequent supervision of the Delaware River Pilot. Each carrier will

require approximately 24 hours to berth, unload, and unberth.

Outbound, the ships will have a draft that will enable them to transit the

river at any state of the tide and will commence the transit after

discussion and agreement with the USCG and the Delaware Pilots

Association.

.

5. LNG Vessel Characteristics and Frequency of Shipments

LNG will be delivered to the terminal in double-hulled LNG carriers ranging in

capacity from 138,000 m3 to 200,000 m3. The larger carriers measure up to

approximately 1,050 feet long with up to approximately a 170 foot wide beam,

and draw 38 feet of water.

5

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
The Crown Landing terminal wjll handle approximately 100 - 150 vessels per

year, depending upon natural gas demand and carrier size, with shipments

arriving about every two to three days.

Crown Landing has studied the traffic density and characteristics of the river,

including the movement of ocean going and inland vessels, and preliminary

studies conclude that the Crown Landing Project will not impose any significant

hindrance to current, or anticipated future, traffic flows. Results of these traffic

studies will be made available for review.

6. Waterway Channels and Land Use Identification

Waterway Channels used by LNG vessels en route to the fadliiy

The ships will travel approximately 78 miles up through the Delaware River

navigation channel (Figure 5), passing under the Delaware Memorial Bridge,

which has a vertical clearance of approximately 188 feet.

The carriers will traverse the following segments of the Delaware River

navigation system, starting in Delaware Bay at River Mile 0:

Brandywine Range

Miah Maull Range

Cross Ledge Range

Liston Range

Baker Range

Reedy Island Range

New Castle Range

Bulkhead Bar Range

Deepwater Pt. Range

Cherry Island Range

Bellevue Range

Marcus Hook Range

Marcus Hook Anchorage

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

The transit course is shown on NOM NOS Charts 12304, 12311 and 12312.

6

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Commercia~ Industlia~ Environmentally Sensitive & Residential Areas In and

Adjacent to the WatelWay

The Crown Landing Site is located at approximately River Mile (RM) 78. The

shoreline along the lower portions of the Delaware River (RM 0 - GO) includes

the following environmentally sensitive areas (Figures 6 - 8):

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Higbee Beach Wildlife Management Area (WMA)

Dennis Creek WMA

Corson WMA

Heislerville WMA

Egg Island Berrytown WMA

Fortescue WMA

New Sweden WMA

Dix WMA

Mad Horse Creek WMA

Pea Patch Island

At approximately RM 51 the carriers will pass more than one nautical mile west

of the Salem Nuclear Plant; and at RM 58, the carriers will pass east of the C&D

Canal. With the exception of the industrial and residential facilities near

Delaware City (approximately RM GO), the shoreline along the Delaware River

remains relatively undeveloped with environmentally sensitive areas (e.g., Fort

Mott State Park and the Killcohook National Wildlife Refuge) as previously

identified until approximately RM 64.

At RM 64, the carriers will transit past the towns of Penns Beach and Pennsville

in New Jersey and New Castle in Delaware. Relatively low-density residential,

some commercial, and occasional industrial uses are located along the shoreline

between RM 64 and RM 68. In the vicinity of the Delaware Memorial Bridge

(RM 68 - 71), industrial uses dominate, including Conectiv's Deepwater

Generating Station and DuPont's Carneys Point Chambers Works in New Jersey,

solid waste landfills, dredged material placement sites, and the Port of

Wilmington in Delaware.

Except for the Town of Penns Grove, the shoreline upstream of RM 71 on the

New Jersey side is rural with a mix of environmentally sensitive areas and

former dredge material placement sites until the Crown landing Site is reached.

Immediately upriver of the Crown landing Site are the Logan Generating

Station and Ferro Industries chemical plant. Across the river in Delaware, 1-495

and the Amtrak rail line run along the Delaware River shoreline, with residential

and commercial uses farther back from the river. At approximately RM 78,

across from the Crown landing Site, industrial uses (primarily petrochemical

7

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
plants and refineries) dominate in northern Delaware and southern

Pennsylvania.

8

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
. List of Attachments

Figure 1. USGS locus map

Figure 2. Aerial photograph of site showing proposed facilities

Figure 3. Aerial photograph of site and adjacent waters

Figure 4. Berth diagram

Figure 5. NOAA NOS charts showing site location

Figure 6. Map of environmentally sensitive areas

Figure 7. Map of land classifications

Figure 8. Map of land classifications

9

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20051219-0434 Received by FERC OSEC 12/16/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

Unimd States lam-~-8 1 w,~ 

corn (;uard im 05 OEC 16 

,,..,~Y 

Mr. Mark Robinson 

Director of Energy Projects 

Director of Gas-Environment and Engineering, PJ 11 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

888 First Street, NW 

Washington, DC 20426 

 POLI-L/II-o00 

Dear Mr. Robinson: 

On Nove~nb~ 30, 2005, I completed a review of the Waterway Suitability Assessmenlfor LNG 

Marine Tra~c, Crown Landing Project, dated June 14, 2005,'Rev 4.0, submitted by BP America 

Inc./Crown Landing LLC. This review was conducted following the guidance provided in U.S. 

Coast Guard Navisafion and Vessel Inspe~on Circular (NVIC) 05-05 of June 14, 2005. This 

review focused on the navigation safety and maritime security risks posed by LNG marine 

tra~c, and the measures needed to responsibly manase these risks. 

Based upon my review, which included a detailed project analysis and security recommecdations 

by the Crown Landing LNG Review Subcommittee of the USCG Sector Delaware Bay Area 

Maritime Security Committee, I have prdiminarily determined that the Delaware River, from 

Twin Capes to the site of the proposed terminal in Logan Townsh/p, NJ, may be suitable for 

accommodating the type mui f~quency of LNG vessels proposed in the above mentioned 

Assex~ment This determination is preliminary because the required NEPA analysis has not yet 

been completed. 

Further, this determination is contingent upon the various agencies involved in the navigation 

s~.qc~l and n~e security process having the appro]~ resources Io implc~nc~t all the 

measures necessary to responsibly manage the risks ofLNO mmine traffic in this area. This 

review was focused solely on navigation safety and maritime sectwity issues, end did not address 

shore side ¢=~ergency response or consequence management issues. 

Presently, neither the Coast Guard, nor ~e other state end local agencies that will have a 

navigation safety and maxi|ime security role, are adequately staffed, equippedor funded to carry 

out all the risk mitis~on measures necessary to accommodate this proposal. The sp~fi¢ 

mit/safion measures, and whcre applicable, the resoorce shon'fi~ necessary to implement them, 

arc descn'bed in a separate supplomentary report which is be/~ lXovided to you un~ ~ ~ 

and condi~ons established for handling Scnsitivc Security Information. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20051219-0434 Received by FERC OSEC 12/16/2005 in Docket#: CP04-411-000 

Subj: Crown Landing LNG WSA Review 16611 

For further information, plcasc oontact my project office% Lieutenant Commamicr Tim Mcycrs at 

(215) 271-4860, or c-mail: Timothv.E.M~zmil. 

USCG 

Commsndcr USCG Sector Dclawm'c Bay 

Copy:. CCGD5(m) 

Coammndant (O-MSO) 

State of Dclawarc, Department of Safety & Homeland Sccurity 

State ofNcw Jcrscy, Office of Emcrgcncy M~cnt 

State of New Jc~cy, O~cc of Counter Terrorism 

Connnonwealth of Pennsylvania, Office of Homeland Security 

Commonweal~ of Pemmylvania, Emergency Management Agcncy 

BP Amcrica Inc. 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
APPENDIX M 

SUBJECT INDEX 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
M-1 

APPENDIX M 

SUBJECT INDEX 

24-hour equivalent sound level....................................................... 4-147, 4-148, 4-150, 4-152, 4-153, 5-24 

aboveground facility ......................................................ES-2, 2-16, 2-18, 2-32, 2-37, 3-7, 3-64, 3-65, 4-17, 

4-90, 4-94, 4-113, 4-120, 4-206, 4-222, 5-9, 5-11 

aboveground storage tanks (ASTs)................................................................................................ 4-12, 4-14 

ABSG Consulting Inc. (ABSG)...........................................................................4-180, 4-195, 4-200, 4-201 

access road ...................................................................ES-2, 1-17, 2-12, 2-16, 2-18, 4-16, 4-45, 4-54, 4-88, 

4-90, 4-119, 5-6, 5-9, 5-18 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP).....................................................1-6, 1-9, 1-12, 4-130 

air emissions....................................................... ES-6, 1-4, 3-4, 3-5, 3-29, 3-31, 3-32, 4-128, 4-138, 4-140, 

4-146, 4-221, 5-13 

air quality ...............................................................ES-5, ES-6, 1-2, 1-4, 3-4, 3-21, 3-27, 3-32, 4-93, 4-128, 

4-136, 4-137, 4-142, 4-143, 4-146, 4-194, 4-215, 4-222, 5-9, 5-13, 5-16, 5-23 

allision ........................................................................ES-7, 3-60, 4-175, 4-194, 4-195, 4-199, 4-213, 5-14 

anadromous fish........................................................ES-4, ES-11, 4-32, 4-34, 4-56, 4-59, 4-60, 4-61, 4-62, 

4-66, 4-83, 4-108, 5-7 

area of potential effect (APE) ..............................................................................4-130, 4-131, 4-132, 4-133 

Atlantic sturgeon................................................ ES-4, 4-57, 4-58, 4-65, 4-78, 4-79, 4-80, 4-81, 4-83, 4-84, 

4-85, 4-219, 5-8, 5-22 

attainment........................................................................................ 4-136, 4-138, 4-140, 4-143, 4-146, 5-13 

average annual daily traffic (AADT) .....................................................................................................4-119 

bald eagle ........................................................... ES-4, 1-16, 3-42, 3-47, 3-50, 3-54, 3-56, 4-43, 4-45, 4-73, 

4-76,4-77, 4-78, 5-5, 5-8 

Baldwin Run ....................................................................................2-28, 4-34, 4-39, 4-59, 4-219, 5-5, 5-21 

Ballast .............................................................. ES-4, 1-16, 2-10, 2-11, 2-31, 3-31, 3-33, 4-38, 4-64, 4-65, 

4-66, 4-67, 4-69, 4-71, 4-80, 4-81, 4-84, 4-176, 4-191, 4-196, 4-218, 5-7, 5-8, 5-22 

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) ................................................................................ 3-4, 4-140 

BG LNG Services, L.L.C. (BG LNG) .................................................................................... 3-9, 3-10, 3-20 

Biological Assessment (BA).................................................................................................. ES-4, 1-6, 4-73 

Birch Creek .........................................................1-16, 2-28, 3-50, 4-34, 4-39, 4-40, 4-45, 4-53, 4-55, 4-59, 

4-67, 4-86, 4-97, 4-98, 4-219, 5-5, 5-21 

bog turtle ..............................................................................................................ES-4, 4-73, 4-74, 4-82, 5-8 

boil-off gas....................................................................................................... 2-8, 2-32, 4-151, 4-158, 5-26 

British Thermal Unit (Btu).............................. 1-4, 2-8, 2-32, 3-9, 3-32, 4-170, 4-171, 4-180, 4-194, 4-195, 

4-199, 4-200, 4-201, 4-202, 4-203, 4-212, 5-13 

Broadwater LNG Project ................................................................................... 3-19, 3-20, 3-26, 3-28, 3-29 

carbon dioxide (CO2) .....................................................................1-3, 2-36, 3-4, 4-176, 4-198, 4-222, 5-16 

carbon monoxide (CO) .............................................ES-6, 3-32, 4-136, 4-137, 4-141, 4-142, 4-144, 4-145, 

4-147, 4-221, 5-13, 5-23 

certain dangerous cargoes (CDC) ..........................................................................................................4-188 

Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (Certificate).......ES-8, 1-1, 1-8, 1-9, 1-10, 1-12, 2-1, 2-9, 

3-1, 3-2, 4-1, 4-130, 4-176, 4-196 

Chester Creek......................................................2-28, 2-30, 3-65, 3-69, 3-70, 4-34, 4-39, 4-40, 4-50, 4-53, 

4-55, 4-59, 4-67, 4-74, 4-85, 4-93, 4-96, 4-132, 4-219, 5-5, 5-6, 5-21, 5-23 

ChevronTexaco Corporation (ChevronTexaco)............................................................................. 3-18, 3-25 

Clean Air Act (CAA) ..................................................1-7, 4-100, 4-137, 4-139, 4-140, 4-141, 4-142, 4-143 

Clean Water Act (CWA)......................................................................1-7, 1-9, 1-12, 4-33, 4-42, 4-100, 5-1 

clearing and grading............................................................................................................ 2-23, 4-40, 4-218 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
APPENDIX M (cont’d) 

M-2 

coastal marsh............................................................................................................................................3-31 

Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (CZMA) .................................... 1-5, 1-7, 4-97, 4-99, 4-100, 4-192 

Coastal Zone Management Program (CZMP) ........................................................................ 1-7, 3-33, 3-42 

coastal zone.....................................ES-5, 1-7, 3-35, 3-37, 3-38, 4-97, 4-98, 4-99, 4-100, 4-101, 4-191, 5-9 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)...............................ES-1, ES-8, 1-2, 1-5, 1-6, 1-7, 2-1, 2-9, 2-18, 2-19, 

2-32, 2-34, 2-37, 3-1, 3-36, 3-54, 3-56, 4-6, 4-42, 4-71, 4-98, 4-100, 4-108, 4-122, 4-130, 4-139, 

4-140, 4-141, 4-142, 4-143, 4-146, 4-157, 4-163, 4-167, 4-170, 4-171, 4-174, 4-176, 4-179, 4-

181, 4-184, 4-185, 4-186, 4-187, 4-188, 4-191, 4-197, 4-203, 4-204, 4-206, 4-208, 4-222, 5-11, 5-

23, 5-24 

collision.................................................. ES-7, 2-10, 4-75, 4-76, 4-121, 4-175, 4-179, 4-180, 4-194, 4-195, 

4-196, 4-198, 4-199, 4-200, 4-212, 4-213, 5-14 

Columbia Gas Transmission Company (Columbia) ................ ES-1, ES-3, 1-1, 2-1, 2-11, 2-32, 3-15, 3-21, 

3-30, 3-34, 3-36, 3-39, 3-45, 3-58, 3-59, 3-64, 3-65, 3-70, 4-43, 4-48, 4-54, 4-89, 5-5 

commercial shipping........................................................................................................... 4-189, 5-10, 5-11 

Commodore Barry Bridge......................................................2-23, 3-17, 3-52, 3-54, 3-56, 4-56, 4-74, 4-87, 

4-94, 4-105, 4-107, 4-109, 4-112, 4-114, 4-119, 4-220, 5-10 

compensatory mitigation..............................................................................................4-45, 4-47, 5-21, 5-22 

construction schedule...............................................................................................................................4-96 

construction workers................................ 4-15, 4-115, 4-116, 4-117, 4-119, 4-120, 4-220, 4-221, 5-2, 5-11 

containment..............................................ES-7, 1-1, 2-4, 2-6, 2-10, 2-11, 2-19, 2-33, 4-4, 4-14, 4-15, 4-38, 

4-39, 4-49, 4-54, 4-155, 4-159, 4-160, 4-162, 4-163, 4-167, 4-168, 4-169, 4-194, 4-198, 4-202, 4-

213, 5-2, 5-14, 5-27, 5-28 

containment............................................................................................................................................. ES-7 

contaminant of concern (COC)..................................................................................................................2-9 

contamination........................................... ES-2, ES-9, 1-16, 3-68, 3-69, 3-74, 4-14, 4-15, 4-19, 4-24, 4-25, 

4-28, 4-30, 4-31, 4-34, 4-39, 4-63, 4-69, 4-101, 4-102, 4-104, 4-107, 4-123, 4-128, 4-195, 4-215, 

5-2, 5-3, 5-4, 5-10 

copper ....................................................................................................... 4-20, 4-22, 4-34, 4-37, 4-61, 5-4 

corrosion .............................................................................2-11, 2-19, 2-20, 2-37, 4-40, 4-41, 4-206, 4-210 

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ).........................................................ES-11, 1-2, 1-15, 1-16, 4-42 

Critical Energy Information Infrastructure (CEII).................................................4-157, 4-200, 4-203, 5-24 

cryogenic..............................................................ES-6, ES-10, 1-15, 2-4, 2-8, 2-11, 3-26, 3-30, 3-50, 4-39, 

4-154, 4-155, 4-156, 4-159, 4-160, 4-162, 4-192, 4-195, 4-197, 4-201, 5-13, 5-27, 5-28 

cumulative impacts .......................................................1-16, 3-34, 4-71, 4-215, 4-218, 4-219, 4-220, 4-223 

day-night sound level (Ldn) ..................... ES-6, 4-147, 4-148, 4-150, 4-151, 4-152, 4-153, 5-13, 5-23, 5-24 

daytime sound level (Lday).......................................................................................................... 4-147, 4-150 

decibels of the A-weighted scale (dBA) .................ES-6, 4-147, 4-148, 4-150, 4-151, 4-152, 4-153, 4-222, 

5-13, 5-23, 5-24 

deepwater port.................................................................................................... 3-23, 3-24, 3-32, 3-33, 3-34 

Delaware Administrative Code (DAC).....................................................4-140, 4-141, 4-142, 4-145, 4-146 

Delaware Coastal Management Program (DCMP)..................................................4-99, 4-100, 4-101, 5-23 

Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC).........ES-5, ES-10, 1-7, 

1-10, 1-14, 3-34, 4-20, 4-25, 4-32, 4-53, 4-58, 4-60, 4-65, 4-66, 4-73, 4-98, 4-99, 4-100, 4-101, 4-

107, 4-136, 4-138, 4-140, 4-141, 4-142, 4-146, 5-8, 5-10, 5-23 

Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC)........................1-10, 1-14, 4-24, 4-29, 4-32, 4-34, 4-36, 4-107 

Delaware River ..................................................ES-2, ES-3, ES-4, ES-5, ES-10, 1-1, 1-8, 1-10, 1-13, 1-14, 

1-16, 2-1, 2-4, 2-8, 2-11, 2-12, 2-19, 2-20, 2-21, 2-23, 2-27, 2-28, 2-31, 2-38, 3-12, 3-17, 3-20, 3-

21, 3-36, 3-38, 3-43, 3-47, 3-50, 3-52, 3-54, 3-56, 3-64, 3-65, 3-68, 3-69, 3-74, 4-2, 4-9, 4-11, 4-

14, 4-20, 4-22, 4-23, 4-24, 4-26, 4-29, 4-30, 4-31, 4-32, 4-33, 4-34, 4-35, 4-36, 4-38, 4-39, 4-40, 

4-41, 4-42, 4-43, 4-48, 4-52, 4-53, 4-54, 4-55, 4-56, 4-57, 4-58, 4-59, 4-60, 4-61, 4-62, 4-63, 4-

65, 4-66, 4-67, 4-69, 4-70, 4-74, 4-75, 4-77, 4-78, 4-79, 4-80, 4-81, 4-83, 4-84, 4-85, 4-87, 4-88, 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
APPENDIX M (cont’d) 

M-3 

4-89, 4-96, 4-97, 4-98, 4-100, 4-101, 4-102, 4-104, 4-105, 4-106, 4-107, 4-108, 4-109, 4-110, 4-

111, 4-112, 4-114, 4-115, 4-117, 4-119, 4-120, 4-121, 4-122, 4-128, 4-129, 4-131, 4-132, 4-177, 

4-179, 4-181, 4-182, 4-183, 4-184, 4-186, 4-187, 4-188, 4-189, 4-190, 4-202, 4-203, 4-213, 4-

215, 4-216, 4-217, 4-218, 4-219, 4-220, 4-221, 4-222, 5-1, 5-2, 5-3, 5-4, 5-5, 5-7, 5-8, 5-9, 5-10, 

5-11, 5-12, 5-15, 5-21, 5-22 

Delaware State Coastal Zone Act of 1971 (DSCZA) ....................................ES-5, 4-99, 4-100, 4-101, 5-10 

design spills..................................................................................... 2-33, 4-168, 4-169, 4-170, 4-171, 4-174 

dewatering.......................................................................................................... 2-26, 4-11, 4-14, 4-17, 4-40 

Distrigas of Massachusetts, L.L.C. (Distrigas) .......................3-6, 3-8, 3-9, 3-11, 4-119, 4-196, 4-199, 5-16 

Dominion Cove Point LNG, LP (Dominion)...................................................................3-6, 3-8, 3-11, 5-16 

double containment.................................................................................................................... 4-162, 4-163 

dredging ........................................................................1-7, 1-9, 1-12, 1-16, 2, 4, 5, 9, 10, 2-12, 2-19, 2-21, 

2-23, 2-37, 2-38, 3-3, 3-7, 3-8, 3-12, 3-23, 3-28, 3-29, 3-31, 3-33, 3-34, 3-35, 3-37, 3-39, 3-45, 3-

47, 3-50, 3-52, 3-54, 3-56, 3-58, 3-59, 3-60, 4-2, 4-4, 4-11, 4-14, 4-19, 4-20, 4-22, 4-24, 4-25, 4-

26, 4-27, 4-30, 4-34, 4-35, 4-36, 4-37, 4-38, 4-42, 4-59, 4-60, 4-61, 4-63, 4-64, 4-69, 4-70, 4-79, 

4-80, 4-81, 4-82, 4-83, 4-84, 4-88, 4-97, 4-98, 4-101, 4-108, 4-112, 4-119, 4-122, 4-132, 4-146, 

4-184, 4-216, 4-217, 4-218, 4-219, 4-220, 5-1, 5-2, 5-3, 5-4, 5-7, 5-8, 5-9, 5-10, 5-17, 5-22 

dust control ..............................................................................................................................................2-28 

earthquake.....................................................................................4-5, 4-6, 4-7, 4-8, 4-161, 4-211, 5-2, 5-29 

eel .......................................................................................................................................... 4-57, 4-59 

elutriate test..............................................................................................................................................4-24 

emergency response.........................................ES-8, 4-5, 4-118, 4-157, 4-181, 4-182, 4-191, 4-203, 4-205, 

4-208, 4-220, 4-223, 5-11, 5-24, 5-25 

emergency shutdown (ESD) ......................................................2-35, 2-37, 4-158, 4-159, 4-208, 5-26, 5-27 

eminent domain..................................................................................................................... 3-37, 3-59, 4-93 

emission ............................................................. ES-6, 1-3, 1-16, 2-10, 3-4, 3-5, 3-32, 4-111, 4-128, 4-137, 

4-138, 4-139, 4-140, 4-141, 4-142, 4-143, 4-144, 4-145, 4-146, 4-147, 4-191, 4-221, 4-222, 5-13, 

5-16, 5-23 

endangered .................................................... ES-4, 1-2, 1-6, 3-31, 3-47, 3-50, 4-57, 4-73, 4-74, 4-75, 4-76, 

4-78, 4-82, 4-83, 4-85, 4-86, 4-219, 5-8, 5-18, 5-19 

Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) .......................................1-5, 1-6, 1-12, 4-71, 4-73, 4-78, 4-82, 5-8 

energy efficiency................................................................................................................................ 3-3, 3-5 

Energy Information Administration (EIA) ..................................................1-3, 1-4, 3-2, 3-3, 3-4, 3-5, 5-15 

entrainment ......................................................ES-4, ES-10, 1-16, 3-29, 3-33, 4-40, 4-41, 4-61, 4-64, 4-66, 

4-67, 4-69, 4-70, 4-72, 4-79, 4-80, 4-81, 4-83, 4-84, 4-85, 5-7, 5-8 

Environmental Assessment (EA)................................................................................................... 3-15, 3-26 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) ..................... ES-1, ES-2, ES-4, ES-8, ES-10, ES-11, 1-2, 1-3, 1-6, 

1-7, 1-8, 1-14, 1-15, 1-16, 1-17, 2-19, 2-38, 3-1, 3-2, 3-3, 3-7, 3-14, 3-15, 3-16, 3-18, 3-30, 3-33, 

3-34, 3-50, 3-56, 3-59, 3-60, 3-71, 4-1, 4-20, 4-24, 4-30, 4-51, 4-66, 4-71, 4-72, 4-73, 4-75, 4-79, 

4-81, 4-82, 4-123, 4-124, 4-128, 4-140, 4-174, 4-196, 4-199, 4-202, 4-212, 4-218, 4-219, 5-1, 5-7, 

5-8, 5-13, 5-15, 5-17, 5-18, 5-30 

Environmental Inspector (EI)................................................................................................ 2-31, 5-18, 5-20 

environmental justice............................................... ES-5, ES-10, 3-38. 4-115, 4-125, 4-126, 4-128, 4-129, 

4-192, 5-12 

Environmental Resource Management ....................................................................................................4-86 

erosion ................................................................ ES-2, 2-27, 2-29, 2-32, 4-9, 4-14, 4-16, 4-17, 4-18, 4-19, 

4-40, 4-41, 4-45, 4-51, 4-53, 4-63, 4-68, 4-70, 4-218, 5-2, 5-3, 5-5 

Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) .................................................................................ES-4, 1-6, 4-71, 4-72, 5-7 

European Standard for LNG Facilities (EN 1473)..................................................................... 4-162, 4-163

evacuation planning ........................................................................................................ 4-118, 4-181, 4-203 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
APPENDIX M (cont’d) 

M-4 

Excelerate Energy L.L.C. (Excelerate) ..................................3-10, 3-11, 3-18, 3-19, 3-23, 3-24, 3-25, 3-26, 

3-27, 3-28, 3-29, 3-30, 3-31, 3-32 

exclusion zone..................................................................3-8, 3-37, 3-45, 3-58, 4-108, 4-163, 4-167, 4-168, 

4-169, 4-170, 4-171, 4-174 

Executive Order ...............................................................................................ES-1, 1-5, 2-18, 4-124, 4-185 

faulting .............................................................................................................................................. 4-5, 4-7 

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)..................................................................................................3-36 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) ................ ES-1, ES-2, ES-5, ES-6, ES-8, 

ES-9, ES-10, ES-11, ES-12, 1-1, 1-2, 1-5, 1-6, 1-7, 1-8, 1-9, 1-11, 1-12, 1-13, 1-14, 1-15, 1-17, 2-

1, 2-8, 2-19, 2-27, 2-31, 3-1, 3-2, 3-5, 3-6, 3-7, 3-8, 3-9, 3-12, 3-13, 3-14, 3-15, 3-15, 3-16, 3-17, 

3-19, 3-20, 3-21, 3-27, 3-29, 3-35, 3-58, 3-59, 3-64, 3-74, 4-1, 4-17, 4-19, 4-26, 4-55, 4-71, 4-72, 

4-73, 4-79, 4-80, 4-81, 4-83, 4-84, 4-85, 4-93, 4-98, 4-99, 4-124, 4-130, 4-131, 4-132, 4-133, 4-

134, 4-135, 4-141, 4-142, 4-143, 4-147, 4-153, 4-154, 4-155, 4-156, 4-157, 4-159, 4-160, 4-162, 

4-163, 4-167, 4-168, 4-169, 4-170, 4-171, 4-174, 4-175, 4-180, 4-181, 4-182, 4-187, 4-188, 4-

191, 4-195, 4-198, 4-199, 4-200, 4-201, 4-203, 4-204, 4-205, 4-206, 4-212, 5-1, 5-10, 5-13, 5-15, 

5-17, 5-18, 5-20, 5-21, 5-22, 5-23, 5-25, 5-27, 5-28, 5-29, 5-30, 5-39 

federal navigation channel .............................................................. 4-64, 4-177, 4-179, 4-181, 4-189, 4-215

Federal Power Commission (FPC) ............................................................................................ 4-198, 4-212 

FERC’s Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation and Maintenance Plan (FERC Plan) .................ES-4, 2-19, 

2-23, 2-26, 2-27, 2-31, 4-9, 4-14, 4-19, 4-30, 4-31, 4-38, 4-45, 4-48, 4-51, 4-55, 4-63, 4-218, 5-2, 

5-3, 5-4, 5-5, 5-6, 5-7 

FERC’s Wetland and Waterbody Construction and Mitigation Procedures (FERC Procedures) ......... ES-3, 

2-19, 2-20, 2-27, 2-28, 2-29, 4-40, 4-47, 4-67, 4-68, 4-69, 5-5, 5-6, 5-7 

firewater ......................................................................................................... 2-20, 2-36, 4-30, 4-176, 4-198 

fish ................................................................ ES-4, 1-2, 1-13, 1-16, 3-29, 3-31, 3-33, 4-32, 4-33, 4-34, 

4-56, 4-57, 4-58, 4-59, 4-60, 4-61, 4-62, 4-63, 4-65, 4-66, 4-67, 4-68, 4-69, 4-70, 4-71, 4-79, 4-

81, 4-84, 4-107, 4-108, 4-192, 4-215, 4-218, 5-7 

fishing ..........................................................................1-16, 3-28, 3-31, 4-75, 4-105, 4-106, 4-107, 4-108, 

 4-109, 4-110, 4-122, 4-190, 4-211, 4-216, 5-10 

flammable vapor cloud ................................................................... 2-34, 4-155, 4-174, 4-195, 4-199, 4-202

floating, storage, and regasification unit (FSRU) .............................................. 3-20, 3-25, 3-26, 3-28, 3-33 

flooding.................................................................................................................... 2-10, 4-5, 4-9, 4-17, 5-2 

fugitive dust ....................................................................................................................... ES-6, 4-146, 5-13 

full containment ........................................................................................................ ES-1, 2-6, 4-163, 4-169 

gallons per minute (gpm) .............................................................4-28, 4-38, 4-40, 4-65, 4-69, 4-168, 4-169

geologic hazards............................................................................................................ ES-2, 4-5, 4-209, 5-1 

geology .......................................................................................................................................... 1-2, 4-113 

gravity-based structure (GBS) .....................................................................................3-20, 3-25, 3-28, 3-33 

groundwater ......................................................... ES-3, 3-68, 3-69, 4-9, 4-17, 4-19, 4-28, 4-29, 4-30, 4-31, 

4-82, 4-101, 5-3, 5-4 

Guidance on Risk Analysis and Safety Implications of a Large Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Spill Over 

Water (Sandia Report) .................................................................4-180, 4-195, 4-199, 4-200, 4-212 

hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) ............................................................................4-142, 4-145, 4-191, 5-13 

heronry ....................................................................................................................................................4-53 

high consequence areas (HCAs) ................................................................................................ 4-207, 4-208 

horizontal direction drill (HDD) ...........................2-18, 2-28, 2-29, 2-30, 3-8, 3-67, 3-69, 3-70, 4-34, 4-39, 

4-40, 4-45, 4-50, 4-55, 4-59, 4-67, 4-74, 4-76, 4-78, 4-81, 4-83, 4-85, 4-86, 4-108, 4-132, 4-133, 

4-134, 4-150, 4-151, 4-219, 5-5, 5-6, 5-7, 5-21, 5-23 

Horizontal Directional Drill Monitoring and Contingency Plan (Contingency Plan) .......... 2-29, 4-19, 4-39 

horsepower (hp) ..................................................................................................... 2-21, 3-6, 3-7, 3-10, 3-64 

hydric soils...............................................................................................................................................4-17 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
APPENDIX M (cont’d) 

M-5 

hydrostatic test .............................................2-23, 2-27, 2-29, 3-28, 4-8, 4-30, 4-35, 4-41, 4-69, 4-70, 4-80, 

4-81, 4-84, 4-150, 4-207, 5-4 

ichthyoplankton............................................... ES-10, 3-33, 4-64, 4-65, 4-66, 4-69, 4-80, 4-81, 4-84, 4-218 

impingement .................................................... ES-10, 1-16, 3-29, 3-33, 4-40, 4-41, 4-64, 4-66, 4-67, 4-69, 

4-70, 4-72, 4-80, 4-83, 4-197, 5-8 

impoundment system ...............................................................................................2-32, 2-33, 4-169, 4-174 

inspection ..................................................................ES-10, ES-12, 1-15, 2-9, 2-11, 2-32, 4-6, 4-55, 4-160, 

4-179, 4-186, 4-196, 4-197, 4-205, 4-206, 4-207, 4-208, 5-1, 5-19, 5-28 

insurance rates....................................................................................................... ES-10, 1-16, 4-122, 4-123 

International Code for the Construction and Equipment of Ships Carrying Liquefied Gases in Bulk (Gas 

Tanker Code) ..............................................................................................................................2-10 

International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS)..........................................................4-176 

International Maritime Organization (IMO) ..........................3-28, 4-65, 4-176, 4-177, 4-182, 4-197, 4-198 

KeySpan LNG, L.L.C (KeySpan).................................................................................................. 3-14, 3-20 

land use .......................................................................... 1-2, 2-12, 2-34, 3-12, 3-21, 3-33, 3-34, 3-37, 3-65, 

4-88, 4-89, 4-90, 4-113, 4-115, 4-123, 4-215, 4-221, 5-9, 5-18 

landform.................................................................................................................................................4-113 

launcher.................................................................................................................................. ES-2, 1-1, 2-12 

lead (Pb)........................................................... ES-8, ES-9, 1-2, 1-5, 3-2, 3-36, 4-8, 4-16, 4-18, 4-20, 4-22, 

4-34, 4-35, 4-37, 4-41, 4-61, 4-64, 4-71, 4-136, 4-137, 4-141, 4-145, 4-154, 4-161, 4-202, 4-221, 

5-4, 5-15, 5-17, 5-29 

leaking underground storage tank (LUST) ....................................................................... 4-19, 4-102, 4-103 

Letter of Recommendation (LOR)..................................ES-1, ES-8, ES-9, 1-5, 1-6, 1-7, 2-1, 2-8, 3-1, 3-2, 

4-108, 4-154, 4-177, 4-179, 4-181, 4-183, 4-184, 4-185, 4-186, 4-187, 4-188, 4-189, 4-190, 4-

191, 4-195, 4-196, 5-1, 5-10, 5-14 

liquefied petroleum gas (LPG)..........................................4-108, 4-121, 4-122, 4-154, 4-183, 4-184, 4-188, 

4-189, 4-190, 4-197, 4-212, 4-214, 5-10, 5-12 

LNG storage tanks ............................................................. ES-1, ES-2, ES-5, 1-12-4, 2-8, 2-18, 2-19, 2-20, 

2-30, 2-33, 2-34, 2-35, 2-36, 3-6, 3-9, 3-12, 3-25, 3-30, 3-36, 3-37, 3-38, 3-54, 4-2, 4-7, 4-14, 4-

38, 4-40, 4-54, 4-69, 4-70, 4-80, 4-84, 4-111, 4-112, 4-128, 4-140, 4-148, 4-150, 4-152, 4-154, 4-

156, 4-161, 4-162, 4-163, 4-168, 4-169, 4-171, 4-203, 5-11, 5-29 

LNG terminal facilities .................................................ES-2, ES-3, 1-17, 2-4, 2-12, 2-18, 2-19, 4-43, 4-48, 

4-88, 4-109, 4-222, 5-9 

LNGFIRE III..........................................................................................................................................4-170 

Logan Generating Station ............................. ES-7, 1-16, 1-17, 2-1, 2-8, 2-20, 3-59, 3-60, 3-74, 4-22, 4-28, 

4-66, 4-69, 4-88, 4-104, 4-110, 4-119, 4-122, 4-128, 4-189, 5-14 

Logan Lateral...........................................................ES-1, ES-2, ES-3, ES-4, ES-5, ES-10, ES-11, 1-1, 1-5, 

1-7, 1-8, 1-12, 1-13, 1-14, 1-15, 1-16, 1-17, 2-1, 2-12, 2-13, 2-14, 2-15, 2-16, 2-18, 2-23, 2-30, 2-

32, 2-37, 3-1, 3-3, 3-5, 3-7, 3-10, 3-17, 3-34, 3-64, 3-65, 4-1, 4-2, 4-4, 4-6, 4-29, 4-31, 4-32, 4-33, 

4-34, 4-39, 4-45, 4-46, 4-49, 4-50, 4-52, 4-54, 4-55, 4-71, 4-73, 4-81, 4-83, 4-85, 4-89, 4-90, 4-

91, 4-92, 4-94, 4-96, 4-97, 4-98, 4-99, 4-101, 4-105, 4-115, 4-116, 4-117, 4-123, 4-124, 4-126, 4-

128, 4-206, 4-207, 4-212, 4-215, 4-216, 4-217, 4-218, 4-219, 4-220, 4-222, 5-1, 5-2, 5-4, 5-5, 5-6, 

5-7, 5-9, 5-11 

lowest achievable emission rate (LAER)................................ ES-6, 4-140, 4-141, 4-144, 4-145, 5-13, 5-23 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) ...............ES-4, 1-5, 1-6, 1-9, 1-12, 

4-71, 4-72, 5-7 

maintenance dredging ............................................................................... 1-16, 2-37, 2-38, 4-38, 4-64, 4-80 

maintenance ...........................................................ES-2, ES-4, 1-1, 1-16, 2-9, 2-19, 2-32, 2-37, 2-38, 4-32, 

4-33, 4-34, 4-38, 4-42, 4-46, 4-47, 4-50, 4-51, 4-55, 4-64, 4-68, 4-80, 4-115, 4-131, 4-154, 4-159, 

4-160, 4-185, 4-205, 4-206, 4-209, 5-6, 5-7, 5-27, 5-28 

Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA)....................................................................................... 1-9, 1-12 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
APPENDIX M (cont’d) 

M-6 

Maritime Security (MARSEC) ......................................ES-7, 1-6, 4-180, 4-186, 4-187, 4-188, 4-204, 5-29 

Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) ...........................................................................4-142 

maximum allowable operating pressure (MAOP) ............................................................ 4-161, 4-207, 5-29 

mean lower low water (MLLW) ..................................................................................2-21, 4-20, 4-57, 4-58 

mean sea level (MSL) ............................................................................................................................4-109 

membrane tank........................................................................................................................... 4-162, 4-198 

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) ...............................................................................................4-206 

Memorandum of Understanding on Natural Gas Transportation Facilities (Memorandum)....... 4-30, 4-206 

mercury .................................................................................4-20, 4-23, 4-34, 4-37, 4-61, 4-141, 4-142, 5-4 

metals ..................................................... ES-2, 4-12, 4-20, 4-22, 4-23, 4-26, 4-29, 4-34, 4-35, 4-36, 4-37, 

4-38, 4-61, 4-162, 5-3, 5-4 

methane..............................................................................4-137, 4-155, 4-156, 4-174, 4-194, 4-199, 4-205 

milepost (MP) .............................................................. 2-12, 2-16, 2-17, 2-18, 3-65, 3-68, 3-69, 3-70, 3-71, 

4-2, 4-4, 4-9, 4-15, 4-16, 4-29, 4-34, 4-41, 4-45, 4-50, 4-86, 4-90, 4-92, 4-94, 4-96, 4-105, 4-106, 

4-114, 4-118, 4-132, 4-133, 4-134, 4-216, 5-17 

million British thermal units per hour (MMBtu/hr)........................................................ 4-139, 4-140, 4-144 

million cubic feet per day (MMcfd)............................................................ 3-8, 3-12, 3-21, 3-24, 3-25, 3-32

minimum striking speed.........................................................................................................................4-198 

modeling ................................................................ES-4, 4-35, 4-36, 4-37, 4-38, 4-64, 4-140, 4-141, 4-143, 

4-180, 4-199, 4-200, 4-222, 5-4, 5-23 

monitoring..........................................................ES-3, ES-12, 2-4, 2-10, 2-29, 2-32, 4-29, 4-31, 4-36, 4-39, 

4-45, 4-47, 4-51, 4-80, 4-84, 4-131, 4-137, 4-139, 4-158, 4-176, 4-179, 4-186, 4-203, 4-204, 4-

205, 5-1, 5-4, 5-20, 5-22, 5-26 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) ...........................................4-136, 4-137, 4-146, 4-194 

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs) ................................. 4-139, 4-142 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) ........................................... ES-1, ES-10, ES-11, 1-2, 1-6, 1-8, 

1-15, 1-16, 3-1, 3-3, 3-14, 3-18, 3-19, 3-36, 3-38, 3-70, 4-42, 4-71, 4-124, 4-154, 4-187, 4-189, 4-

191, 4-196, 5-15 

National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) ....................................2-18, 2-32, 2-34, 2-35, 3-36, 4-6, 4-7, 

 4-159, 4-163, 4-167, 4-168, 4-169, 4-170, 4-171, 4-174, 5-2, 5-27 

National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA)........................................1-5, 1-6, 1-9, 1-10, 1-12, 1-13, 4-130 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) ................. ES-2, ES-4, ES-10, 1-6, 1-9, 1-12, 

1-14, 3-27, 3-31, 4-8, 4-10, 4-20, 4-22, 4-23, 4-24, 4-25, 4-56, 4-60, 4-62, 4-64, 4-66, 4-69, 4-71, 

4-72, 4-73, 4-75, 4-76, 4-78, 4-79, 4-80, 4-81, 4-82, 4-83, 4-84, 4-98, 4-219, 5-3, 5-7, 5-8, 5-22 

National Park Service (NPS) ...................................................................................................................4-33 

National Petroleum Council (NPC) ................................................................................................... 1-3, 1-4 

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) ............................................... 1-13, 4-41, 4-70 

National Register of Historic Places (NRHP)..................ES-6, 1-6, 3-67, 4-130, 4-131, 4-132, 4-133, 5-12 

Natural Gas Act (NGA) ................................................................1-1, 1-7, 1-9, 1-12, 3-17, 3-37, 3-59, 4-93 

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)...................................................................................4-16 

Navigation and Vessel Inspection Circular (NVIC) ........................................ES-7, 1-6, 4-186, 4-191, 5-15 

need ..................................................... ES-4, ES-5, ES-7, ES-8, 1-3, 1-14, 1-16, 1-17, 2-12, 2-16, 2-18, 

2-19, 2-20, 2-26, 2-27, 2-29, 2-32, 2-37, 3-3, 3-4, 3-6, 3-9, 3-10, 3-12, 3-17, 3-26, 3-27, 3-28, 3-

29, 3-31, 3-32, 3-33, 3-34, 3-37, 3-42, 3-45, 3-47, 3-50, 3-52, 3-54, 3-56, 3-58, 3-59, 3-60, 3-64, 

3-65, 3-69, 3-70, 4-9, 4-14, 4-20, 4-24, 4-30, 4-38, 4-39, 4-41, 4-48, 4-63, 4-65, 4-66, 4-69, 4-70, 

4-79, 4-81, 4-84, 4-90, 4-92, 4-93, 4-99, 4-108, 4-118, 4-126, 4-142, 4-144, 4-150, 4-153, 4-156, 

4-162, 4-174, 4-179, 4-180, 4-181, 4-187, 4-190, 4-191, 4-200, 4-205, 4-213, 4-222, 5-7, 5-9, 5-

13, 5-14, 5-15, 5-18, 5-22, 5-24, 5-27, 5-29 

NEPA Pre-filing Process................................................................................................1-8, 3-14, 3-19, 3-70 

Neptune LNG, L.L.C. (Neptune LNG).............................................................. 3-18, 3-20, 3-24, 3-25, 3-29 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
APPENDIX M (cont’d) 

M-7 

New Jersey Administrative Code (NJAC) ....................................4-5, 4-12, 4-20, 4-33, 4-42, 4-140, 4-141, 

4-142, 4-143, 4-144, 4-145, 4-147, 4-150 

New Jersey Air Pollution Control Act (NJAPCA) ................................................................................4-139 

New Jersey Ambient Air Quality Standards (NJAAQS) ........................................................... 4-136, 4-137 

New Jersey Coastal Management Program (NJCMP).......................................................... 4-98, 4-99, 5-23 

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) ...................... ES-5, ES-6, ES-10, 1-7, 1-8, 

1-9, 1-12, 1-14, 4-12, 4-14, 4-15, 4-24, 4-25, 4-29, 4-30, 4-32, 4-34, 4-39, 4-42, 4-43, 4-45, 4-47, 

4-56, 4-58, 4-60, 4-63, 4-66, 4-73, 4-76, 4-77, 4-80, 4-84, 4-85, 4-98, 4-99, 4-101, 4-107, 4-109, 

4-136, 4-137, 4-138, 4-140, 4-141, 4-142, 4-143, 4-144, 4-145, 4-147, 4-153, 4-219, 4-222, 5-2, 

5-3, 5-5, 5-8, 5-10, 5-13, 5-21, 5-22, 5-23 

New Jersey Division of Fish and Wildlife (NJDFW) ......................4-63, 4-64, 4-74, 4-80, 4-83, 4-86, 5-23 

New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)............................................................................. 4-139, 4-140 

New Source Review (NSR) .......................................ES-6, 4-138, 4-139, 4-140, 4-141, 4-143, 4-221, 5-13 

nighttime sound level (Lnight)...................................................................................................... 4-147, 4-150 

nitrogen dioxide (NO2).........................................................................................4-136, 4-137, 4-141, 4-221 

nitrogen oxides (NOx) ............................................ES-6, 2-6, 3-4, 3-32, 4-140, 4-142, 4-143, 4-144, 4-145, 

4-147, 4-221, 4-222, 5-13, 5-16 

no action.................................................................................................. ES-8, 3-1, 3-2, 3-3, 3-5, 5-15, 5-16 

noise sensitive area (NSA)................................................................ 4-148, 4-150, 4-152, 4-153, 5-23, 5-24 

Northeast Gateway Energy Bridge, L.L.C. (Northeast Gateway)...............................3-18, 3-20, 3-24, 3-25, 

3-27, 3-28, 3-29, 3-32, 3-33 

Notice of Availability (NOA) ............................................................................................ ES-11, 1-15, 1-16 

Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Crown Landing Project, 

Request for Comments on Environmental Issues, and Notice of Joint Public Scoping Meeting 

(NOI).............................................................................. ES-10, 1-7, 1-14, 1-15, 3-24, 4-124, 4-125 

Office of Energy Projects (OEP) .............................................1-2, 4-20, 4-26, 4-40, 4-51, 4-60, 4-80, 4-81, 

4-121, 4-143, 4-157, 4-161, 4-182, 4-202, 5-17, 5-18, 5-19, 5-21, 5-22, 5-23, 5-24, 5-25, 5-26, 5-

29, 5-30 

Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS).............................................1-14, 1-15, 4-163, 4-169, 4-204, 4-205, 4-207 

offload ...................................................................2-4, 2-8, 2-11, 2-31, 3-11, 3-25, 3-26, 3-32, 3-33, 3-59, 

4-39, 4-183, 5-8 

offshore ..................................................ES-9, 2-1, 2-12, 2-19, 2-36, 3-6, 3-8, 3-10, 3-11, 3-16, 3-17, 3-20, 

3-23, 3-24, 3-25, 3-26, 3-27, 3-28, 3-29, 3-30, 3-31, 3-32, 3-33, 3-37, 3-59, 4-48, 4-56, 4-58, 4-

63, 4-71, 4-72, 4-88, 4-99, 4-100, 4-179, 4-211, 4-218, 5-7, 5-9, 5-13, 5-17 

Oldmans Creek............................................................... 1-16, 2-1, 4-24, 4-29, 4-32, 4-33, 4-34, 4-35, 4-45, 

4-49, 4-52, 4-54, 4-56, 4-58, 4-59, 4-60, 4-77, 4-78, 4-106, 4-107, 4-109, 4-114, 4-130, 5-5 

open-cut ............................................................. ES-3, 2-28, 2-29, 2-30, 3-69, 3-70, 4-39, 4-40, 4-59, 4-68, 

4-85, 4-120, 4-221, 5-5, 5-23 

ozone (O3) ............................................ 1-4, 4-136, 4-137, 4-140, 4-141, 4-143, 4-144, 4-146, 4-192, 4-222 

particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter (PM10)....................................3-4, 4-136, 4-137, 4-138, 

4-141, 4-142, 4-143, 4-147, 4-221, 4-222, 5-13 

parts per billion (ppb)...............................................................................................................................4-24 

Pea Patch Island .........................................................................................................1-16, 4-53, 4-54, 4-203 

peak ground acceleration (PGA)................................................................................................................4-7 

Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (PADCNR).........4-82, 4-83, 4-85, 4-86 

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP)...................ES-10, 1-7, 1-13, 1-14, 3-71, 

4-31, 4-32, 4-34, 4-42, 4-47, 4-73, 4-98, 4-101, 4-102, 5-8, 5-22 

Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission (PAFBC)............................... 1-13, 4-82, 4-83, 4-85, 4-107, 5-23 

Pennsylvania Geological Survey (PGS) ................................................................................... 4-5, 4-6, 4-10 

peregrine falcon ...................................................................................................................... 4-86, 4-87, 5-8 

pesticides................................................................................................... 4-11, 4-14, 4-26, 4-29, 4-30, 4-86 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
APPENDIX M (cont’d) 

M-8 

Philadelphia Gas Works (PGW) .................................................................................................... 3-12, 3-15 

pied-billed grebe ....................................................................................... 1-16, 4-53, 4-55, 4-85, 4-86, 5-23 

pier ......................................................... ES-2, ES-5, ES-8, ES-9, 1-1, 1-7, 2-4, 2-12, 2-21, 2-33, 2-37, 

3-1, 3-20, 3-31, 3-39, 3-45, 3-58, 3-59, 3-60, 3-64, 4-31, 4-38, 4-54, 4-60, 4-62, 4-63, 4-79, 4-88, 

4-98, 4-100, 4-101, 4-108, 4-109, 4-110, 4-111, 4-112, 4-131, 4-132, 4-150, 4-190, 5-9, 5-10, 5-

12, 5-15, 5-17 

pile driving.................................................................................4-62, 4-79, 4-83, 4-84, 4-108, 4-146, 4-150 

polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) ................................................................................4-11, 4-24, 4-26, 4-107 

polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) ..............................................................................................4-11 

population density..................................................................................................3-20, 4-115, 4-188, 4-206 

postponed action ............................................................................................ ES-8, 3-1, 3-2, 3-5, 5-15, 5-16 

potential to emit (PTE).................................................................... 4-140, 4-141, 4-142, 4-144, 4-145, 5-23 

pounds per square inch gauge (psig).............................................................................................. 2-6, 4-156 

prevention of significant deterioration (PSD).........4-138, 4-139, 4-140, 4-141, 4-142, 4-143, 4-145, 4-221 

prime farmland........................................................................................................................ 4-11, 4-17, 5-2 

Probable Effects Level (PEL) ...................................................................ES-3, , 4-22, 4-23, 4-24, 4-61, 5-3 

prop wash...................................................................................... ES-4, 4-38, 4-64, 4-80, 4-191, 4-218, 5-7 

property values.........................................................................................ES-10, , 1-16, 4-115, 4-122, 4-123 

public health............................................................................................................................... 4-200, 4-223 

public meeting............................................................................................................................ 4-186, 4-190 

public services...................................................................................ES-5, 4-115, 4-118, 4-215, 4-219, 5-11 

quahog ....................................................................................................................................................3-31 

Quest Consultants, Inc. (Quest) ................................................................................................. 4-199, 4-200 

Raccoon Creek............................................................. 2-28, 3-50, 4-34, 4-39, 4-40, 4-50, 4-53, 4-55, 4-59, 

4-67, 4-76, 4-77, 4-86, 4-94, 4-97, 4-98, 4-106, 4-110, 4-216, 4-219, 5-5, 5-6, 5-21 

railroad ........................................................................ 2-16, 2-17, 2-18, 2-30, 3-65, 3-67, 3-68, 3-71, 4-89, 

4-90, 4-96, 4-207, 4-219, 5-9 

rapid phase transition (RPT) ...................................................................................................... 4-156, 4-201 

recreation ..................................................................... ES-7, ES-8, ES-10, 1-2, 1-16, 3-9, 3-34, 3-36, 3-38, 

3-39, 3-42, 3-58, 3-71,4-32, 4-33, 4-34, 4-59, 4-89, 4-105, 4-106, 4-107, 4-108, 4-112, 4-114, 4-

122, 4-182, 4-183, 4-188, 4-189, 4-190, 4-192, 4-215, 4-216, 5-10, 5-11, 5-14, 5-25 

recreational boating............................................................... ES-8, 4-106, 4-108, 4-122, 4-189, 4-190, 5-10 

red-bellied turtle......................................................................................... ES-4, 3-31, 4-82, 4-85, 5-8, 5-23 

Regulated Navigation Area (RNA)............................................................ 4-108, 4-122, 4-179, 4-184, 5-11 

renewable energy .................................................................................................................1-3, 1-4, 3-3, 3-5 

Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA) ......................................................................4-205 

residence ............................................................ES-5, ES-6, 1-16, 2-23, 2-28, 3-34, 3-36, 3-37, 3-65, 3-68, 

3-69, 3-70, 3-71, 4-40, 4-89, 4-93, 4-94, 4-95, 4-115, 4-120, 4-121, 4-123, 4-148, 4-150, 4-151, 

4-171, 4-194, 4-222, 5-9, 5-13, 5-23 

residential areas.................................................2-26, 3-64, 4-17, 4-18, 4-49, 4-52, 4-55, 4-94, 4-95, 4-113, 

4-147, 4-150, 4-203 

restoration .................................................. ES-3, ES-4, 2-18, 2-27, 2-29, 4-4, 4-18, 4-19, 4-31, 4-40, 4-43, 

4-46, 4-48, 4-51, 4-54, 4-55, 4-95, 4-97, 4-106, 4-120, 4-208, 4-219, 5-5, 5-6, 5-18, 5-19, 5-20, 5-

21 

revegetation.....................................................2-27, 2-29, 4-18, 4-19, 4-47, 4-49, 4-51, 4-54, 4-68, 5-3, 5-6

Ridley Creek ................................................................................................................2-27, 4-41, 4-70, 4-96 

right-of-way ......................................................ES-2, ES-3, ES-4, 2-16, 2-17, 2-18, 2-23, 2-26, 2-27, 2-28, 

2-29, 2-32, 3-67, 3-68, 3-69, 4-16, 4-18, 4-19, 4-29, 4-31, 4-46, 4-47, 4-49, 4-50, 4-51, 4-55, 4-

89, 4-90, 4-92, 4-93, 4-94, 4-95, 4-96, 4-106, 4-111, 4-113, 4-120, 4-123, 4-126, 4-133, 4-151, 4-

216, 4-219, 5-3, 5-4, 5-6, 5-9, 5-12, 5-19, 5-21 

riparian ................................................................1-8, 4-40, 4-52, 4-68, 4-76, 4-98, 4-101, 4-219, 5-5, 5-21 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
APPENDIX M (cont’d) 

M-9 

river otter..................................................................................................................................................4-52 

route alternative .....................................................................................ES-8, ES-9, 3-65, 4-125, 5-12, 5-15 

route variation ............................................................................................................. ES-9, 3-70, 5-17, 5-18 

safety ........................................................................ ES-1, ES-5, ES-6, ES-7, ES-8, ES-9, ES-10, ES-12, 

1-2, 1-5, 1-6, 1-16, 2-1, 2-8, 2-9, 2-10, 2-11, 2-18, 2-21, 2-28, 2-29, 2-32, 2-37, 3-1, 3-2, 3-17, 3-

20, 3-23, 3-28, 3-31, 3-33, 3-36, 3-37, 3-39, 3-42, 3-45, 3-58, 3-60, 3-64, 3-68, 3-69, 3-70, 4-4, 4-

6, 4-7, 4-26, 4-31, 4-47, 4-60, 4-65, 4-75, 4-93, 4-95, 4-108, 4-109, 4-112, 4-119, 4-121, 4-122, 

4-147, 4-154, 4-155, 4-156, 4-159, 4-160, 4-161, 4-167, 4-175, 4-176, 4-179, 4-182, 4-184, 4-

185, 4-186, 4-187, 4-188, 4-189, 4-190, 4-191, 4-192, 4-195, 4-196, 4-197, 4-200, 4-203, 4-205, 

4-206, 4-207, 4-211, 4-212, 4-213, 4-220, 4-221, 4-222, 4-223, 5-1, 5-4, 5-6, 5-9, 5-10, 5-11, 5-

13, 5-14, 5-15, 5-16, 5-17, 5-27, 5-28, 5-29 

safety zone ...................................................... ES-7, ES-8, 4-75, 4-108, 4-122, 4-179, 4-184, 4-188, 4-189, 

4-190, 4-191, 4-195, 4-196, 4-221, 4-222, 5-10, 5-11, 5-14 

Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP) ............................................................ 2-23, 4-20, 4-24, 4-25, 4-26, 5-3 

Sandia National Laboratories..................................................................................................... 4-180, 4-199 

schedule ..........................................................ES-4, ES-7, 4-61, 4-160, 4-184, 4-190, 5-7, 5-14, 5-20, 5-28 

sea turtle........................................................................ES-4, 3-31, 4-73, 4-74, 4-82, 4-83, 4-85, 4-192, 5-8 

Secretary of the Commission (Secretary) ...................... 1-7, 1-10, 4-20, 4-26, 4-40, 4-45, 4-47, 4-51, 4-63, 

4-66, 4-76, 4-86, 4-99, 4-100, 4-101, 4-121, 4-153, 4-157, 4-160, 4-175, 4-182, 4-202, 4-213, 5-

17, 5-18, 5-19, 5-20, 5-21, 5-22, 5-23, 5-24, 5-25, 5-26, 5-28, 5-30 

section 401 .............................................................................................................................. 1-7, 3-35, 4-42 

section 404 ............................................................................................................... 1-7, 1-9, 1-12, 4-42, 5-1 

section 7 ...............................................................ES-1, ES-4, ES-8, 1-1, 1-5, 1-9, 1-12, 2-1, 3-1, 3-2, 4-73, 

4-74, 4-78, 4-81, 4-82, 4-93, 4-98, 4-185, 5-8 

security ..................................................................ES-1, ES-7, ES-8, ES-9, ES-12, 1-5, 1-6, 1-7, 1-16, 2-1, 

2-9, 2-35, 3-1, 3-3, 3-17, 3-28, 3-33, 3-45, 3-52, 3-54, 3-56, 3-70, 4-60, 4-65, 4-100, 4-108, 4-

109, 4-112, 4-118, 4-121, 4-122, 4-154, 4-155, 4-157, 4-159, 4-160, 4-175, 4-176, 4-177, 4-179, 

4-180, 4-182, 4-184, 4-185, 4-186, 4-187, 4-188, 4-189, 4-190, 4-191, 4-192, 4-195, 4-196, 4-

203, 4-204, 4-205, 4-213, 4-221, 4-222, 5-1, 5-10, 5-11, 5-14, 5-15, 5-24, 5-26, 5-27, 5-28 

security zone .................................................................... ES-7, ES-8, ES-9, 1-16, 2-1, 3-1, 3-3, 3-28, 3-33, 

3-45, 3-52, 3-54, 3-56,4-108, 4-109, 4-121, 4-122, 4-179, 4-186, 4-188, 4-189, 4-190, 4-191, 4-

192, 4-196, 4-213, 4-221, 4-222, 5-10, 5-11, 5-14 

sediments ......................................................................ES-2, ES-4, 1-2, 1-16, 2-21, 2-23, 2-28, 2-29, 2-37, 

3-28, 3-59, 4-2, 4-10, 4-14, 4-16, 4-18, 4-19, 4-20, 4-22, 4-23, 4-24, 4-25, 4-26, 4-27, 4-34, 4-35, 

4-36, 4-37, 4-38, 4-40, 4-43, 4-45, 4-47, 4-60, 4-61, 4-63, 4-64, 4-68, 4-79, 4-101, 4-150, 4-218, 

5-3, 5-4, 5-5, 5-6, 5-7, 5-21 

seismic ............................................................................................... ES-2, , 4-5, 4-6, 4-7, 4-8, 4-158, 5-26 

sendout pipe ..................................................................1-2, 2-6, 2-8, 2-32, 3-6, 3-9, 3-10, 3-11, 3-17, 3-20, 

3-25, 3-26, 3-28, 3-31, 3-32, 3-33, 3-34, 3-38, 3-39, 3-45, 3-47, 3-50, 3-52, 3-54, 3-58, 5-16 

ship traffic .................................................................... 3-28, 3-31, 3-35, 3-38, 3-60, 4-53, 4-66, 4-74, 4-75, 

4-115, 4-121, 4-122, 4-183, 4-184, 4-189, 4-194, 4-215, 4-221, 5-11 

ship unloading facilities ................................. ES-1, ES-2, 1-1, 2-1, 2-4, 2-12, 2-18, 2-19, 2-21, 2-30, 2-32, 

2-37, 3-9, 3-20, 3-35, 3-59, 4-19, 4-30, 4-35, 4-38, 4-48, 4-62, 4-83, 4-88, 4-108, 4-122, 4-181, 5-

3, 5-4, 5-7, 5-9, 5-10, 5-11 

shortnose sturgeon ............................................. ES-4, 1-16, 3-31, 4-73, 4-74, 4-78, 4-79, 4-80, 4-81, 4-84, 

4-85, 4-219, 5-8 

single containment .................................................................................................................................4-162 

Skikda, Algeria ............................................................................................................... 4-154, 4-155, 4-197 

socioeconomics................................................................................................................................ 1-2, 3-27 

soil liquefaction....................................................................................................................4-5, 4-7, 4-8, 5-2 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
APPENDIX M (cont’d) 

M-10 

soils ..............................................................ES-2, ES-3, ES-11, 1-2, 2-26, 2-27, 2-29, 3-68, 3-69, 3-74 

4-5, 4-7, 4-8, 4-11, 4-14, 4-15, 4-16, 4-17, 4-18, 4-19, 4-22, 4-23, 4-30, 4-31, 4-38, 4-47, 4-62, 4-

82, 4-101, 4-102, 4-113, 4-128, 4-218, 5-1, 5-2, 5-3, 5-6 

spawning ................................................... ES-4, 1-16, 4-56, 4-59, 4-60, 4-61, 4-63, 4-68, 4-71, 4-78, 4-79, 

4-81, 4-83, 4-84, 4-107, 4-108, 5-7, 5-8 

special status species................................................................................................................................4-73 

Spill Prevention and Control Plan (SPCC) ...........................ES-3, 2-19, 2-23, 4-19, 4-30, 4-31, 4-63, 4-69, 

4-128, 4-218, 5-3, 5-4, 5-7 

State Coastal Zone Industrial Control Board ..................................................................... ES-5, 4-100, 5-10 

State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) ....................................ES-6, 1-14, 4-130, 4-131, 4-132, 4-133, 

4-134, 4-135, 5-12 

state implementation plan (SIP)...........................................4-137, 4-140, 4-143, 4-146, 4-191, 4-222, 5-23 

stormwater management ...........................................................2-33, 4-9, 4-38, 4-39, 4-49, 4-63, 4-167, 5-5 

stormwater runoff................................................................................................... 4-9, 4-38, 4-39, 4-63, 5-5 

stringing and bending..................................................................................................................... 2-23, 2-26 

subsidence.......................................................................................................................................... 4-5, 4-9 

sulfur dioxide (SO2) ......................................... 3-4, 3-32, 4-104, 4-136, 4-137, 4-139, 4-141, 4-146, 4-147, 

4-221, 4-222, 5-13, 5-16 

Supreme Court ................................................................................................................... ES-5, 4-101, 5-10 

surface waters.......................................................4-32, 4-34, 4-35, 4-40, 4-55, 4-63, 4-69, 4-76, 4-218, 5-4

suspended solids............................................................................................................................. 4-36, 4-68 

system alternatives..................................................................ES-8, 3-1, 3-3, 3-5, 3-8, 3-9, 3-21, 3-64, 5-15 

tax ............................................................................ES-5, 3-3, 4-115, 4-123, 4-124, 4-129, 5-11, 5-12 

Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company (Tennessee Gas)................................................................................3-30 

terrorism............................................... ES-7, 1-16, 3-29, 4-155, 4-175, 4-176, 4-179, 4-199, 4-200, 4-203, 

4-204, 4-205, 4-213, 4-214, 5-14 

thermal exclusion zone ..................................................................... 3-36, 3-37, 4-163, 4-167, 4-168, 4-171 

thermal radiation ......................................................ES-7, 2-36, 3-17, 3-45, 3-47, 3-50, 3-52, 4-155, 4-167, 

 4-170, 4-171, 4-180, 4-199, 4-200, 4-201, 4-202, 4-203, 4-213, 5-13 

threatened............................................................... ES-4, 1-2, 1-6, 3-31, 4-57, 4-73, 4-74, 4-76, 4-82, 4-83, 

4-85, 5-8, 5-18, 5-19 

tons per year (tpy) .................................. 3-4, 3-32, 4-140, 4-141, 4-142, 4-143, 4-144, 4-145, 4-147, 4-221 

total suspended solids (TSS).......................................................................................................... 4-36, 4-37 

traffic ..................................................................ES-1, ES-5, ES-7, ES-8, ES-9, , 1-2, 1-5, 1-6, 1-7, 1-16, 

2-1, 2-29, 2-30, 3-1, 3-2, 3-5, 3-21, 3-30, 3-31, 3-37, 3-69, 3-70, 3-71, 4-16, 4-40, 4-53, 4-73, 4-

75, 4-76, 4-87, 4-93, 4-97, 4-108, 4-109, 4-115, 4-119, 4-120, 4-121, 4-122, 4-128, 4-146, 4-154, 

4-175, 4-177, 4-179, 4-181, 4-182, 4-183, 4-184, 4-185, 4-186, 4-187, 4-188, 4-189, 4-190, 4-

191, 4-192, 4-194, 4-195, 4-196, 4-201, 4-213, 4-215, 4-219, 4-220, 4-221, 4-222, 4-223, 5-1, 5-

9, 5-10, 5-11, 5-14, 5-15, 5-21, 5-29 

transfer area................................................................................................ 3-36, 4-154, 4-168, 4-175, 4-185 

transportation ................................................... ES-7, ES-8, 1-3, 1-4, 1-5, 1-6, 3-10, 3-11, 3-23, 3-35, 3-64, 

4-35, 4-115, 4-116, 4-119, 4-155, 4-175, 4-186, 4-191, 4-194, 4-196, 4-197, 4-203, 4-204, 4-205, 

4-206, 4-211, 4-212, 4-214, 4-221, 5-14 

tugs .........................................................................ES-4, 2-31, 4-38, 4-64, 4-121, 4-128, 4-146, 4-177, 

4-183, 4-184, 4-186, 4-198, 4-218, 5-7, 5-13 

turbidity...................................................................................ES-4, 3-9, 3-29, 4-30, 4-31, 4-38, 4-40, 4-47, 

4-57, 4-58, 4-60, 4-61, 4-63, 4-64, 4-67, 4-68, 4-70, 4-79, 4-82, 4-218, 5-4, 5-5, 5-6, 5-7 

turning basin.......................................................................................................................... 3-35, 3-42, 3-58 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE)............................................... ES-10, 1-7, 1-9, 1-12, 1-14, 3-3, 3-56, 

3-71, 4-20, 4-23, 4-24, 4-26, 4-30, 4-35, 4-36, 4-37, 4-42, 4-43, 4-47, 4-56, 4-58, 4-64, 4-71, 4-

78, 4-87, 4-97, 4-101, 4-111, 4-112, 4-213, 4-215, 4-217, 4-218, 5-1, 5-3, 5-4, 5-9, 5-22, 5-30 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
APPENDIX M (cont’d) 

M-11 

U.S. Coast Guard (Coast Guard)................................ ES-1, ES-7, ES-8, ES-9, ES-10, ES-12, 1-2, 1-5, 1-6, 

1-7, 1-9, 1-14, 1-15, 2-1, 2-8, 2-9, 2-10, 2-18, 2-31, 3-1, 3-2, 3-5, 3-16, 3-17, 3-18, 3-23, 3-24, 3-

25, 3-26, 3-28, 3-30, 3-36, 3-39, 3-45, 3-52, 3-54, 3-56, .4-26, 4-71, 4-75, 4-108, 4-109, 4-119, 4-

121, 4-122, 4-154, 4-159, 4-175, 4-176, 4-177, 4-178, 4-179, 4-180, 4-181, 4-183, 4-184, 4-185, 

4-186, 4-187, 4-188, 4-189, 4-190, 4-191, 4-192, 4-194, 4-195, 4-196, 4-197, 4-198, 4-201, 4-

202, 4-203, 4-204, 4-212, 4-213, 4-222, 4-223, 5-1, 5-10, 5-11, 5-14, 5-15, 5-27, 5-30 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) ........................................................................4-4, 4-11, 4-15, 5-2 

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)..............................................................................1-3, 1-4, 4-180, 4-199 

U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).................ES-10, 1-14, 1-15, 2-18, 2-19, 2-20, 2-27, 2-32, 2-37 

3-17, 3-18, 3-23, 3-30, 4-55, 4-154, 4-167, 4-168, 4-169, 4-204, 4-205, 4-206, 4-207, 4-208, 4-

209, 4-211, 4-222 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)........................................ES-10, ES-11, 1-4, 1-7, 1-14, 1-16 

3-4, 3-5, 3-16, 4-11, 4-14, 4-20, 4-28, 4-33, 4-56, 4-66, 4-67, 4-70, 4-71, 4-136, 4-137, 4-140, 4-

143, 4-146, 4-147, 4-151, 5-1, 5-4 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) ES-4, ES-10, -6, 1-9, 1-12, 1-14, 4-45, 4-46, 4-66, 4-71, 4-73, 4-74, 

4-76, 4-77, 4-78, 4-79, 4-82, 4-83, 5-8, 5-21 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS).............................................................................. 4-5, 4-7, 4-9, 4-28, 4-32 

ultraviolet/infrared (UV/IR)........................................................................................................... 2-34, 2-35 

underground storage tanks (USTs) ................................................................................... 4-19, 4-103, 4-104 

United States Code (USC) .............................................................. ES-1, 1-5, 1-6, 4-73, 4-97, 4-130, 4-185 

vapor dispersion zone ..............................................................................................................................3-36 

vapor handling system ............................................................................................................ 2-4, 2-8, 4-197 

vaporization system ..................................................................................... ES-2, 1-1, 2-8, 3-11, 3-27, 3-29 

vaporizer .............................................................2-6, 2-8, 3-6, 3-24, 3-29, 3-32, 4-39, 4-158, 4-159, 4-175, 

4-195, 4-199, 5-26, 5-27 

vehicle traffic ...........................................................................................................................................3-17 

visual resources........................................................................1-2, 4-105, 4-111, 4-112, 4-113, 4-128, 5-11 

volatile organic compound (VOC)..................................................... 3-32, 4-11, 4-29, 4-139, 4-140, 4-141, 

4-142, 4-143, 4-144, 4-146, 4-147, 4-191, 4-221, 5-13, 5-23 

Water Quality Certification..................................................................................................... 1-7, 3-35, 4-26 

water quality.................................................................ES-3, ES-4, 1-16, 3-27, 3-29, 3-37, 3-52, 3-58, 3-59 

...4-20, 4-26, 4-27, 4-30, 4-31, 4-32, 4-33, 4-35, 4-37, 4-38, 4-39, 4-40, 4-42, 4-47, 4-56, 4-57, 4-

58, 4-60, 4-63, 4-70, 4-215, 4-218, 5-3, 5-4, 5-5, 5-6, 5-7 

water use ........................................................................................................................1-2, 3-31, 4-32, 4-97 

waterbodies ..........................................................................ES-2, ES-2, ES-11, 1-7, 2-18, 2-23, 2-28, 2-29, 

3-17, 3-28, 3-31, 3-33, 3-58, 3-65, 3-68, 3-69, 4-5, 4-14, 4-18, 4-33, 4-34, 4-39, 4-40, 4-42, 4-49, 

4-52, 4-55, 4-59, 4-63, 4-67, 4-68, 4-69, 4-70, 4-85, 4-86, 4-93, 4-122, 5-2, 5-5, 5-7 

Waterway Suitability Assessment (WSA) ............ES-7, 1-6, 4-108, 4-122, 4-186, 4-187, 4-223, 5-14, 5-15 

Weeks Marine, Inc...........................................................................2-23, 2-37, 2-38, 4-20, 4-24, 4-25, 4-64 

welding and coating ....................................................................................................................... 2-23, 2-27 

wetland ............................................................................ES-2, ES-3, ES-9, ES-10, ES-11, ES-12, 1-2, 1-7, 

1-9, 1-12, 1-16, 2-1, 2-16, 2-23, 2-26, 2-29, 3-17, 3-20, 3-21, 3-30, 3-31, 3-33, 3-34, 3-38, 3-42, 

3-45, 3-47, 3-50, 3-52, 3-54, 3-56, 3-58, 3-65, 3-68, 3-69, 3-71, 4-14, 4-17, 4-18, 4-35, 4-42, 4-

43, 4-45, 4-46, 4-47, 4-48, 4-49, 4-50, 4-51, 4-52, 4-54, 4-55, 4-59, 4-77, 4-82, 4-85, 4-86, 4-88, 

4-89, 4-90, 4-92, 4-99, 4-109, 4-110, 4-192, 4-215, 4-219, 5-1, 5-2, 5-5, 5-6, 5-8, 5-17, 5-18, 5-

21, 5-22 

wetland mitigation ............................................................................................................... ES-3, 4-47, 5-22 

wildlife ................................................................ ES-4, 1-2, 3-21, 3-30, 4-32, 4-33, 4-34, 4-43, 4-51, 4-52, 

4-54, 4-55, 4-56, 4-113, 4-191, 4-192, 4-195, 4-218, 4-219, 5-5, 5-7 

zinc ..............................................................................................2-37, 4-20, 4-22, 4-35, 4-37, 4-61, 5-4 

zoning ....................................................................... 3-37, 3-38, 3-45, 3-47, 3-50, 3-52, 3-54, 3-56, 4-221 

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006
Document Content(s)

01 Cover Letter.PDF.......................................................1

02 FEIS Cover_Vol 1.PDF...................................................7

02 FEIS Cover_Vol 2.PDF...................................................9

03 Table of Contents.PDF.................................................12

04 Executive Summary.PDF.................................................25

05 Section 1-Introduction.PDF............................................37

06 Section 2-Description of the Proposed Action.PDF .....................54

07 Section 3-Alternatives.PDF............................................92

08 Section 4-Environmental Analysis.PDF.................................166

09 Section 5-Conclusions and Recommendations.PDF .......................389

Appendix A-Distribution List.PDF........................................419

Appendix B-Typicals.PDF.................................................452

Appendix C-TWS and Access Roads.PDF.....................................471

Appendix D-SESC Plan.PDF................................................475

Appendix E-EFH Assessment.PDF...........................................599

Appendix F-Residential Table.PDF........................................613

Appendix G-References and Contacts.PDF..................................617

Appendix H-List of Preparers.PDF........................................630

Appendix I-Final SAP.PDF................................................633

Appendix J-Comment Responses.PDF........................................662

Appendix K-General Conformity Determination.PDF........................1105

Appendix L-Coast Guard Letters.PDF.....................................1120

Appendix M-Subject Index.PDF...........................................1136

Document Accession #: 20060428-4004 Filed Date: 04/28/2006