Jordan Cove LNG Project

30 June 2006

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

[Federal Register: June 30, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 126)]

[Notices]

[Page 37564-37567]

From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

[DOCID:fr30jn06-67]

[[Page 37564]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. PF06-25-000; Docket No. PF06-26-000]

Jordan Cove Energy Project, L.P. and Pacific Connector Gas

Pipeline, L.P.; Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact

Statement for the Proposed Jordan Cove LNG and Pacific Connector Gas

Pipeline Projects, Request for Comments on Environmental Issues and

Notice of a Joint Public Meeting

June 23, 2006.

The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or

Commission) and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Coast Guard

(Coast Guard) are in the process of evaluating the Jordon Cove

Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Project planned by Jordan Cove Energy

Project, L.P. (Jordan Cove), and the associated natural gas sendout

pipeline planned by Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline, L.P. (PCGP). The

project would consist of an onshore LNG import and storage terminal

located on the bay side of the north spit of Coos Bay, Coos County,

Oregon, and an approximately 223-mile-long, 36-inch-diameter natural

gas pipeline extending from the Jordon Cove LNG terminal southeastward

across Douglas, Jackson, and Klamath Counties, Oregon, to an

interconnection with the existing Pacific Gas and Electric Company's

(PG&E) pipeline system in Modoc County, California.

As a part of this evaluation, the FERC staff will prepare an

environmental impact statement (EIS) that will address the

environmental impacts of the project and the Coast Guard will assess

the maritime safety and security of the project. The FERC will produce

a single comprehensive EIS to cover both the LNG terminal and sendout

pipeline combined. As described below, the FERC and the Coast Guard

will hold a joint public meeting in Coos Bay to allow the public to

provide input to these assessments. The FERC will host additional

public meetings along the pipeline route to provide input to the

assessment of the pipeline component of the project.

The Commission will use the EIS in its decision-making process to

determine whether or not to authorize the project. This Notice of

Intent (NOI) explains the scoping process we \1\ will use to gather

information on the project from the public and interested agencies and

summarizes the process that the Coast Guard will use. Your input will

help identify the issues that need to be evaluated in the EIS and in

the Coast Guard's maritime safety and security assessment. Please note

that scoping comments are requested by July 24, 2006.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ ``We,'' ``us,'' and ``our'' refer to the environmental staff

of the FERC's Office of Energy Projects.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments on the project may be submitted in written form or

verbally. Further details on how to submit written comments are

provided in the Public Participation section of this NOI. In lieu of

sending written comments, we invite you to attend any of the following

public scoping meetings scheduled as follows:

Monday, July 10, 2006, 6:30 p.m.: Umpqua Community College, Campus

Center Dining Room/Timber Room, 1140 Umpqua College Rd., Roseburg, OR

97470. 541-440-4600.

Tuesday, July 11, 2006, 6 p.m.: Southwestern Oregon Community College,

Hales Performing Arts Center, 1988 Newmark Ave., Coos Bay, OR 97420.

541-888-2525.

Wednesday, July 12, 2006, 7 p.m.: Red Lion Inn, Rogue River Ballroom,

200 N. Riverside Ave., Medford, OR 97501. 541-779-5811.

Thursday, July 13, 2006, 6:30 p.m.: Oregon Institute of Technology,

Auditorium, College Union, 3201 Campus Dr., Klamath Falls, OR 97601.

41-885-1030.

The second public scoping meeting listed above (Coos Bay) will be

combined with the Coast Guard's public meeting regarding the maritime

safety and security of the project. At the meeting, the Coast Guard

will discuss: (1) The waterway suitability assessment that the

applicant will conduct to determine whether or not the waterway can

safely accommodate the LNG carrier traffic and operation of the planned

LNG marine terminal; and (2) the facility security assessment that the

applicant will conduct in accordance with the regulations of the

Maritime Transportation Security Act to assist with the preparation of

a Facility Security Plan. The Coast Guard will be issuing a separate

meeting notice in the Federal Register for the maritime safety and

security aspects of the project under Coast Guard District 13 docket

number CGD13-06-028.

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

recommendation for siting as it pertains to the management of vessel

traffic in and around the LNG facility.

Upon receipt of a letter of intent from an owner or operator

intending to build a new LNG facility, the Coast Guard Captain of the

Port conducts an analysis that results in a letter of recommendation

issued to the owner or operator and to the state and local governments

having jurisdiction, addressing the suitability of the waterway to

accommodate LNG vessels. Specifically the letter of recommendation

addresses the suitability of the waterway based on:

The physical location and layout of the facility and its

berthing and mooring arrangements.

The LNG vessels' characteristics and the frequency of LNG

shipments to the facility.

Commercial, industrial, environmentally sensitive, and

residential areas in and adjacent to the waterway used by the LNG

vessels en route to the facility.

Density and character of the marine traffic on the

waterway.

Bridges or other manmade obstructions in the waterway.

Depth of water.

Tidal range.

Natural hazards, including rocks and sandbars.

Underwater pipelines and cables.

Distance of berthed LNG vessels from the channel, and the

width of the channel.

In addition, the Coast Guard will review and approve the facility's

operations manual and emergency response plan (33 CFR 127.019), as well

as the facility's security plan (33 CFR 105.410). The Coast Guard will

also provide input to other Federal, state, and local government

agencies reviewing the project.

In order to complete a thorough analysis and fulfill the regulatory

mandates cited above, the applicant will be conducting a Waterway

Suitability Assessment (WSA), a formal risk assessment evaluating the

various safety and security aspects associated with the Jordan Cove LNG

proposed project. This risk assessment will be accomplished through a

series of workshops focusing on the areas of waterways safety, port

security, and consequence management, with involvement from a broad

cross-section of government and port stakeholders with expertise in

each of the respective areas. The workshops

[[Page 37565]]

will be by invitation only. However, comments received during the

public comment period will be considered as input in the risk

assessment process. The results of the WSA will be submitted to the

Coast Guard to be used in determining whether the waterway is suitable

for LNG traffic.

This NOI is being sent to Federal, state, and local government

agencies; elected officials; affected landowners; environmental and

public interest groups; Indian tribes and regional Native American

organizations; commentors and other interested parties; and local

libraries and newspapers. We encourage government representatives to

notify their constituents of this planned project and encourage them to

comment on their areas of concern.

Summary of the Proposed Project

The proposed project would consist of a 1.0 billion standard cubic

feet per day (bscfd) capacity LNG import/storage terminal facility and

a 223-mile-long, 36-inch-diameter sendout pipeline. A map depicting the

general location of the Jordan Cove LNG import terminal and PCGP's

proposed pipeline route is attached to this NOI as Appendix 1.\2\

Jordan Cove and PCGP indicated they intend to file their formal

applications with the FERC on January 31, 2007.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\2\ The appendices referenced in this notice are not being

printed in the Federal Register. Copies are available on the

Commission's Web site (excluding maps) at the ``e-Library'' link or

from the Commission's Public Reference Room or call (202) 502-8371.

For instructions on connecting to e-Library refer to the end of this

notice. Copies of the appendices were sent to all those receiving

this notice in the mail.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jordan Cove LNG Import Terminal

The proposed Jordon Cove LNG import terminal would include the

following elements:

Dredged 1,700-foot-diameter turning basin/ship maneuvering

area located within Coos Bay;

A single LNG ship unloading slip/berth, dredged from an

upland adjacent to Coos Bay;

LNG unloading system at the berth, consisting of three 16-

inch-diameter unloading arms and one 16-inch-diameter vapor return arm,

with a unloading capacity rate of 12,000 cubic meters per hour

(m³/hr);

LNG transfer system from the berth to the storage tanks,

consisting of one 2,600-foot-long, 36-inch-diameter cryogenic unloading

line;

LNG storage system, consisting of two full-containment LNG

storage tanks, each with a capacity 160,000 m³ (or 1,006,000

barrels). Each tank would be equipped with two can-type fully submerged

LNG in-tank pumps with an individual capacity rate of 5,300 gallons per

minute (gpm);

Boil-off gas (BOG) recovery system, consisting of three

cryogenic centrifugal BOG compressors, each with a rated capacity of

2,300 cubic feet per minute (ft³/min), and two non-cryogenic

reciprocating BOG pipeline compressors with an individual capacity

rated at 2,500 ft³/min;

LNG transfer system from the storage tanks to the

vaporizers, consisting of six pot-mounted LNG booster pumps each sized

for 2,200 gpm;

LNG vaporizer system, consisting of six submerged

combustion vaporizers each sized for 200 million standard cubic feet

per day;

A natural gas liquids (NGL) extraction facility, with the

NGL to be sold to an entity other than Jordan Cove and transported from

the terminal using existing railroad lines;

A 30 megawatt, natural gas-fired, simple cycle combustion

turbine power plant to provide a supplemental source of electric power

for the LNG terminal;

Waste heat recovery system;

Emergency vent system, LNG spill containment system, fire

water system, utility system, hazard detection system, and control

system; and

Buildings and support facilities.

Jordan Cove proposes to initiate construction of the terminal in

the winter of 2007-2008, and anticipates placing the project into

service in the fourth quarter of 2010.

PCGP Sendout Pipeline

The PCGP sendout pipeline would consist of the following elements:

A 223-mile-long, 36-inch-diameter steel underground

natural gas pipeline, extending from the proposed Jordon Cove LNG

terminal southeast, crossing Coos, Douglas, Jackson, and Klamath

Counties, Oregon, and into Modoc County, California, with capacity to

deliver 1.0 bscfd at a maximum allowable operating pressure (MAOP) of

1,440 pounds per square inch (psig);

Butte Falls Compressor Station, at about Milepost (MP)

127, Jackson County, Oregon, consisting of two new 10,310 horsepower

compressor units;

Interconnections with three existing natural gas pipeline

systems, including Williams Northwest Pipeline's Grants Pass Lateral,

PG&E's 400 and 401 pipelines, and potentially Tuscarora Gas

Transmission's pipeline;

Four receipt or delivery meter stations, including the

Coos Bay Receipt Meter Station at MP 0.0 in Coos County, Oregon, the

Clarks Branch Delivery Meter Station at about MP 68, Douglas County,

Oregon, the Tulelake Delivery Station at MP 223, Modoc County,

California, and the potential Tuscarora Delivery Meter Station also at

MP 223;

A gas control communication system, consisting of radio

towers at each meter station, and the compressor station, and

additional facilities at existing mountain top radio communication

towers, and two new additional master radio sites at unspecified

locations;

Mainline block valves at 15 locations along the pipeline

route; and

Pig launchers and receivers located at each end of the

pipeline (Coos Bay Meter Station and Tulelake Meter Station).

PCGP proposes to begin construction of the sendout pipeline in the

summer of 2009, and anticipates the completion of installation and

restoration activities by the spring of 2011.

The EIS Process

The NEPA requires the Commission to take into account the

environmental impacts that could result from an action when it

considers whether or not an LNG import terminal or an interstate

natural gas pipeline should be approved. The FERC will use the EIS to

consider the environmental impacts that could result if it issues

project authorizations to Jordan Cove and PCGP under sections 3 and 7

of the Natural Gas Act. The NEPA also requires us to discover and

address concerns the public may have about proposals. This process is

referred to as ``scoping.'' The main goal of the scoping process is to

focus the analysis in the EIS on important environmental issues. With

this NOI, the Commission staff is requesting public comments on the

scope of the issues to be addressed in the EIS. All comments received

will be considered during preparation of the EIS.

In the EIS we will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of

the construction, operation, maintenance, and abandonment of the

proposed project under these general headings:

Geology and Soils.

Water Resources.

Vegetation and Wildlife.

Land Use, Recreation, and Visual Resources.

Cultural Resources.

Socioeconomics.

Air Quality and Noise.

Reliability and Safety.

Cumulative Impacts.

We will also evaluate possible alternatives to the proposed project

or portions of the project, and make recommendations on how to lessen

or avoid impacts on affected resources.

[[Page 37566]]

Our independent analysis of the issues will be included in a draft

EIS. The draft EIS will be mailed to Federal, state, and local

government agencies; elected officials; affected landowners;

environmental and public interest groups; Indian tribes and regional

Native American organizations; commentors; other interested parties;

local libraries and newspapers; and the FERC's official service list

for this proceeding. A 90-day comment period will be allotted for

review of the draft EIS. We will consider all comments on the draft EIS

and revise the document, as necessary, before issuing a final EIS. We

will consider all comments on the final EIS before we make our

recommendations to the Commission. To ensure that your comments are

considered, please follow the instructions in the Public Participation

section of this NOI.

Although no formal application has been filed, the FERC staff has

already initiated its NEPA review under its pre-filing process. The

purpose of the pre-filing process is to encourage early involvement of

interested stakeholders and to identify and resolve issues before an

application is filed with the FERC. In addition, the Coast Guard, which

would be responsible for reviewing the maritime safety and security

aspects of the planned project and regulating maritime safety and

security if the project is approved, has initiated its review of the

project as well.

With this NOI, we are asking Federal, state, and local agencies

with jurisdiction and/or special expertise with respect to

environmental issues, to express their interest in becoming cooperating

agencies for the preparation of the EIS. These agencies may choose to

participate once they have evaluated the proposal relative to their

responsibilities. The Coast Guard and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

have already agreed to be cooperating agencies for this project. In

letters dated May 9, 2006, we requested that the Oregon Department of

Energy (ODE), U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service (USFS),

U.S. Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau

of Land Management (BLM), and Fish and Wildlife Service also become

cooperating agencies. The ODE and NMFS have declined our invitation to

be cooperating agencies in the production of the EIS, but may

reconsider at any time during the pre-filing review process.

The EIS will examine the proposed action and alternatives that

require administrative or other actions by other federal agencies. The

USFS has identified the possible need to amend the existing Umpqua,

Rouge River-Siskiyou, and Fremont-Winema National Forest Land and

Resource Management Plans. The BLM has identified the possible need to

amend the existing Resource Management Plans of the Coos Bay, Roseburg,

and Medford Districts and the Klamath Falls Resource Area.

Currently Identified Environmental Issues

We have already identified issues that we think deserve attention

based on a preliminary review of the projects, and information provided

by Jordan Cove and PCGP. This preliminary list of issues, which is

presented below, may be revised based on your comments and our

continuing analyses.

Impact of LNG vessel traffic on other Coos Bay users,

including commercial ships, fishing and recreational boaters.

Potential impacts of dredging the turning basin and LNG

ship dock on water quality and estuarine fishery resources.

Potential impacts of the LNG terminal on residents in the

Coos Bay area, including safety issues at the import and storage

facility, noise, air quality, and visual resources.

Potential impact of the LNG terminal on air traffic at the

North Bend airport.

Potential for geological hazards, including seismic

activity, to have impacts on both the proposed LNG import terminal and

sendout pipeline.

Potential impacts of the pipeline on waterbodies and

wetlands, including issues of erosion control.

Potential impacts of the pipeline on vegetation, including

the clearing of forest.

Potential impacts of the pipeline on threatened and

endangered species, and wildlife habitat.

Potential impacts of the pipeline on cultural resources.

Public Participation

You can make a difference by providing us with your specific

comments or concerns about the planned project. By becoming a

commentor, your concerns will be addressed in the EIS and considered by

the Commission. Your comments should focus on the potential

environmental effects, reasonable alternatives (including alternative

facility sites and pipeline routes), and measures to avoid or lessen

environmental impacts. The more specific your comments, the more useful

they will be. To ensure that your comments are timely and properly

recorded, please follow these instructions:

Send an original and two copies of your letter to: Magalie

R. Salas, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First

St., NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426 .

Label one copy of your comments for the attention of DG2E/

G3.

Reference Docket Nos. PF06-25-000 and PF06-26-000 on the

original and both copies.

Mail your comments so that they will be received in

Washington, DC on or before July 24, 2006. We will provide the Coast

Guard with copies of all comments received by the FERC during the

scoping period.

The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing of any

comments in response to this NOI. For information on electronically

filing comments, please see the instructions on the Commission's Web

site at http://www.ferc.gov under the ``e-Filing'' link and the link to

the User's Guide as well as information in 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii).

Before you can file comments you will need to create a free account,

which can be accomplished on-line.

The public scoping meetings (dates, times, and locations listed

above) are designed to provide another opportunity to offer comments on

the proposed project. Interested groups and individuals are encouraged

to attend the meetings and to present comments on the environmental

issues that they believe should be addressed in the EIS. A transcript

of each meeting will be generated so that your comments will be

accurately recorded.

Once Jordan Cove and PCGP formally file their applications with the

Commission, you may want to become an ``intervenor,'' which is an

official party to the proceeding. Intervenors play a more formal role

in the process and are able to file briefs, appear at hearings, and be

heard by the courts if they choose to appeal the Commission's final

ruling. An intervenor formally participates in a Commission proceeding

by filing a request to intervene. Instructions for becoming an

intervenor are included in the User's Guide under the ``e-filing'' link

on the Commission's Web site. Please note that you may not request

intervenor status at this time. You must wait until a formal

application is filed with the Commission.

[[Page 37567]]

Environmental Mailing List

If you wish to remain on the environmental mailing list, please

return the attached Mailing List Retention Form (Appendix 2 of this

NOI). If you do not return this form, we will remove your name from our

mailing list.

To reduce printing and mailing costs, the draft and final EIS will

be issued in both compact disk (CD-ROM) and hard copy formats. The FERC

strongly encourages the use of CD-ROM format in its publication of

large documents. Thus, all recipients will automatically receive the

EIS on CD-ROM. If you wish to receive a paper copy of the draft EIS

instead of a CD-ROM, you must indicate that choice on the return

mailer.

Additional Information

Additional information about the project is available from the

Commission's Office of External Affairs, at 1-866-208-FERC (3372) or on

the FERC Internet website (http://www.ferc.gov) using the ``eLibrary

link.'' Click on the eLibrary link, select ``General Search'' and enter

the project docket number excluding the last three digits (i.e., PF06-

25 or PF06-26) in the ``Docket Number'' field. Be sure you have

selected an appropriate date range. For assistance with eLibrary, the

eLibrary helpline can be reached at 1-866-208-3676, TTY (202) 502-8659,

or by e-mail at FercOnlineSupport@ferc.gov. The eLibrary link on the

FERC Internet Web site also provides access to the texts of formal

documents issued by the Commission, such as orders, notices, and rule

makings.

In addition, the FERC now offers a free service called

eSubscription that allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and

submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you

spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with

notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to

the documents. To register for this service, go to http://www.ferc.gov/esubscribenow.htm

Public meetings or site visits will be posted on the Commission's

calendar located at http://www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/EventsList.aspx

along with other related information.

Finally, Jordan Cove and PCGP have established their own Internet

websites for this project. The Web sites includes a project overview,

status, answers to frequently asked questions, and links to related

documents. The Jordan Cove Web site is at http://www.jordancoveenergy.com The PCGP Web site is at http://.

http://www.pacificconnectorgp.com. Additional information can be obtained

directly from Jordan Cove by calling Bob Braddock at 541-266-7510 (e-

mail: bobbraddock@attglobal.net) or from PCGP by calling Jan Camp at

360-666-2106 (e-mail: pacificconnector@williams.com).

Magalie R. Salas,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. E6-10304 Filed 6-29-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P