**Resource Report 6 -- Geological Resources**

**AES Sparrows Point LNG Terminal & Mid-Atlantic Express Pipeline**

+-----------------------------------------+------------+---------------+
| **SUMMARY OF REQUIRED FERC REPORT       |            |               |
| INFORMATION**                           |            |               |
+-----------------------------------------+------------+---------------+
| **TOPIC**                               | **FERC     | **Report      |
|                                         | R          | Reference or  |
|                                         | eference** | Not           |
|                                         |            | Applicable**  |
+-----------------------------------------+------------+---------------+
| 1.  Identify the location (by milepost) | §          | Section 6.5 & |
|     of mineral resources and any        | 380        |               |
|     planned or active surface mines     | .12(h)(1), | Table 6.5-1   |
|     crossed by the proposed facilities. | (2)        |               |
|                                         |            |               |
|     -   Describe hazards to the         |            |               |
|         facilities from mining          |            |               |
|         activities, including           |            |               |
|         subsidence, blasting, slumping  |            |               |
|         or landsliding or other ground  |            |               |
|         failure.                        |            |               |
+-----------------------------------------+------------+---------------+
| 2.  Identify any geologic hazards to    | §          | Section 6.6 & |
|     the proposed facilities.            | 38         |               |
|                                         | 0.12(h)(2) | Table 6.3-1   |
|     -   For the offshore this           |            |               |
|         information is needed on a      |            | Not           |
|         mile-by-mile basis and will     |            | Applicable    |
|         require completion of           |            |               |
|         geophysical and other surveys   |            |               |
|         before filing.                  |            |               |
+-----------------------------------------+------------+---------------+
| 3.  Discuss the need for and locations  | §          | Section 6.4   |
|     where blasting may be necessary in  | 38         |               |
|     order to construct the proposed     | 0.12(h)(3) | Table 6.3-1   |
|     facilities.                         |            |               |
+-----------------------------------------+------------+---------------+
| 4.  For LNG projects in seismic areas,  | §          | Section 6.6.1 |
|     the materials required by "Data     | 38         | & Resource    |
|     Requirements for the Seismic Review | 0.12(h)(5) | Report 13     |
|     of LNG Facilities," NBSIR84-2833.   |            |               |
+-----------------------------------------+------------+---------------+
| 5.  For underground storage facilities, | §          | Not           |
|     how drilling activity by others     | 38         | Applicable    |
|     within or adjacent to the           | 0.12(h)(6) |               |
|     facilities would be monitored, and  |            |               |
|     how old wells would be located and  |            |               |
|     monitored within the facility       |            |               |
|     boundaries.                         |            |               |
+-----------------------------------------+------------+---------------+

**Additional Information**

+---------------------------------------------------------+------------+
| Identify any sensitive paleontological resource areas   | Section    |
| crossed by the proposed facilities. (Usually only       | 6.8        |
| raised in scoping or required by land-managing agency.) |            |
+---------------------------------------------------------+------------+
| Briefly summarize the physiography and bedrock geology  | Section    |
| of the project area.                                    | 6.3        |
|                                                         |            |
|                                                         | Table      |
|                                                         | 6.3-1      |
+---------------------------------------------------------+------------+
| If the application is for underground storage           | Not        |
| facilities:                                             | Applicable |
|                                                         |            |
| -   Describe monitoring of potential effects of the     |            |
|     operation of adjacent storage or production         |            |
|     facilities on the proposed facility, and vice       |            |
|     versa;                                              |            |
|                                                         |            |
| -   Describe measures taken to locate and determine the |            |
|     condition of old wells within the field and buffer  |            |
|     zone and how the applicant would reduce risk from   |            |
|     failure of known and undiscovered wells; and        |            |
|                                                         |            |
| -   Identify and discuss safety and environmental       |            |
|     safeguards required by state and Federal drilling   |            |
|     regulations.                                        |            |
+---------------------------------------------------------+------------+

**TABLE OF CONTENTS**

Page

LIST OF TABLES [iv](#__RefHeading___Toc152466145)

6\. GEOLOGICAL RESOURCES [1](#geological-resources)

6.1 Introduction [1](#introduction)

6.2 Objective and Applicability [1](#objective-and-applicability)

6.3 Geologic Setting [1](#geologic-setting)

6.3.1 Sparrows Point LNG Terminal [2](#sparrows-point-lng-terminal)

6.3.2 Mid-Atlantic Express Pipeline [4](#mid-atlantic-express-pipeline)

6.4 Blasting [5](#blasting)

6.5 Mineral Resources [7](#mineral-resources)

6.6 Potential Geologic Hazards [8](#potential-geologic-hazards)

6.6.1 Seismic Risk [8](#seismic-risk)

6.6.2 Soil Liquefaction [9](#soil-liquefaction)

6.6.3 Landslides [11](#landslides)

6.6.4 Subsidence [11](#subsidence)

6.6.5 Other Geologic Hazards [12](#other-geologic-hazards)

6.7 Avoidance and Minimization of Adverse Effects
[14](#avoidance-and-minimization-of-adverse-effects)

6.8 Paleontology Resources [14](#paleontology-resources)

6.9 Underground Storage Facilities [15](#underground-storage-facilities)

6.10 References [15](#references)

**TABLES**

**FIGURES**

**Appendix 6A** Project Blasting Plan

**APPENDIX 6B** Correspondence

**APPENDIX 6C** FERC Data Request Response Matrix

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc152466145 .anchor}LIST OF TABLES

**Table No. Title**

**Table 6.3-1 Summary of Geologic Conditions Traversed by Project**

**Table 6.5-1 Summary of Mineral Resources Within 0.25 Miles of the
Project**

**LIST OF FIGURES**

**Figure No. Title**

**Figure 6.3-1 Geologic Conditions -- Mid-Atlantic Express Pipeline and
Sparrows Point LNG Terminal**

**Figure 6.6-1 Seismic Zone Map -- Sparrows Point Project**

  -------------------------------------------------------------------------
  **Term**        **Description**
  --------------- ---------------------------------------------------------
  \"              inches

  °F              degree Fahrenheit

  bbl             barrels

  bbl/h           barrels per hour

  ANSI            American National Standards Institute

  API             American Petroleum Institute

  ASME            American Society of Mechanical Engineers

  ATWS            Additional Temporary Workspace

  BIA             Bureau of Indian Affairs

  BIBI            Benthetic index of biotic integrity

  BMP             Best Management Practice

  BMS             Burner Management System

  BOG             boiloff gas

  Bscfd / bscfd   billion standard cubic feet per day

  Btu             British thermal unit

  Btu/(ft^2^hr)   British thermal unit per feet squared per hour

  C5 plus         pentane plus

  CCTV            closed circuit television

  CEQ             Council on Environmental Quality

  CFR             Code of Federal Regulations

  CO              carbon monoxide

  COE             U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

  COMAR           Code of Maryland Regulations

  CROW            Construction right-of-way

  CWA             Clean Water Act

  cy              cubic yard

  CZMA            Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972

  DB&B            double block and bleed

  DCS             distributed control system

  DMRF            Dredge Material Recycling Facility

  Dth/day         Dekatherms per day

  EA              Environmental Assessment

  EIA             Energy Information Administration

  EIS             Environmental Impact Statement

  EPC             Engineering, Procurement and Construction

  ER              Environmental Report

  ERC             emergency release coupling

  ESA             Endangered Species Act of 1973

  ESD             emergency shutdown

  ESD-1           Pier Emergency Shutdown

  ESD-1-1         Activation of the unloading arm/vapor return arm ERCs on
                  Berth 1 and Berth 2

  ESD-2           Total Terminal Emergency Shutdown

  FAA             Federal Aviation Administration

  FBE             Fusion-Bonded Epoxy

  FEED            Front End Engineering Design

  FERC            Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

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

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

  FM              Factory Mutual

  fps             feet per second

  ft              feet

  gpm             gallons per minute

  h               hour(s)

  H&MB            heat and material balance

  HAZID           Hazard Identification

  HAZOP           Hazard And Operability

  HDD             Horizontal Direction Drilling

  HDMS            Hazard Detection and Mitigation System

  HHV             higher heating value

  HID             High Intensity Discharge

  HIPPS           High Integrity Pipeline Protection System

  Hp / hp         horsepower

  HP              high pressure

  HTF             heat transfer fluid

  IESNA           Illuminating Engineering Society of North America

  in              inch

  inches H~2~O    inches of water

  inches Hg       inches of mercury

  inches Hg/h     inches of mercury per hour

  IP              intermediate pressure

  ISO             International Organization for Standardization

  Kts             knots

  kV              kilovolt

  kVA             kilovolt Ampere (one thousand Volt Amperes)

  LDC             Local Distribution Company

  LFL             lower flammability limit

  LHV             lower heating value

  LNG             Liquefied Natural Gas

  LNG Terminal    Sparrows Point LNG Import Terminal

  LP              low pressure

  LTD             Level, Temperature, Density

  M&R             Metering and Regulator

  m^3^            cubic meters

  m^3^/hour       cubic meters per hour

  MAOP            Maximum Allowable Operating Pressure

  mbar            millibar

  mbar/hour       millibar per hour

  MCC             Motor Control Center

  mcf             million cubic feet

  MCR             Main Control Room

  MDE             Maryland Department of the Environment

  MDNR            Maryland Department of Natural Resources

  Mg/l            Microgram per Liter

  MIS             Management Information System

  MLLW            mean low low water

  MLV             Mainline valve

  MMBtu/hr        million British thermal units per hour

  MMcf/day        million cubic feet per day

  MMscfd          million standard cubic feet per day

  MP              Milepost

  mph             miles per hour

  MW              megawatt

  N/A             not applicable

  NAVD            North American Vertical Datum

  NDE / NDT       Nondestructive Examination / Nondestructive Testing

  NEC             National Electrical Code

  NEPA            National Environmental policy Act of 1969

  NFPA            National Fire Protection Association

  NGA / NGPA      Natural Gas Act / Natural Gas Policy Act

  NHPA            National Historic Preservation Act of 1969

  NMFS            National Marine Fisheries Service

  NOI             Notice of Intent

  No. ins         number of inches

  NOAA            National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

  NOx             nitrogen oxides

  NPDES           National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

  NPL             National Priority List

  NPS             National Park Service

  NRCS            Natural Resources Conservation Service

  NRHP            National Register of Historic Places

  NSA             Noise Sensitive Area

  NWI             National Wetland Inventory

  O&M             Operations And Maintenance

  OBE             Operating Basis Earthquake

  OD              Outside Diameter

  OSHA            Occupational Safety and Health Administration

  P&ID            piping and instrumentation diagram

  PAH             Poly Aromatic Hydrocarbon

  PCB             Polychlorinated Biphyenyls

  PCMS            Plant Control and Monitoring System

  PCR             Platform Control Room

  PDEP            Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection

  PDM             Processed Dredged Material

  PIANC           Permanent International Association Navigation Congress

  PM              particulate matter

  PPB / ppb       parts per billion

  PPM / ppm       parts per million

  PPT / ppt       Parts per trillion

  psf             pounds per square foot

  psig            pounds per square inch gauge

  PVC             Poly Vinyl Chloride

  RGS             Rigid Galvanized Steel (conduit)

  ROW             Right-of-Way

  RR              Resource Report

  RTD             resistance temperature detector

  RTU             remote terminal unit

  RUSLE           Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation

  SAV             Aquatic vegetation

  SCADA           Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition

  scfh            standard cubic foot (feet) per hour

  scfm            standard cubic foot (feet) per minute

  SCUBA           Self-contained Underwater Breathing Apparatus

  SHPO            State Historic Preservation Officer

  SIP             State Implementation Plan

  SIS             Safety Instrumented System

  SPCC            Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure

  SSE             Safe Shutdown Earthquake

  SSURGO          Soil Survey Geographic

  STATSCO         State Soil Geographic

  SWPPP           Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan

  Tcf             Trillion Cubic Feet

  TCP/IP          Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol,

  THPO            Tribal Historic Preservation Office

  TMDL            Total Maximum Daily Load

  TOC             Total organic carbon

  Trap            Pig Launcher Receiver Facility

  UL              Underwriters Laboratories

  UPS             Uninterruptible Power Supply

  USCG            United States Coast Guard

  USDA            United States Department of Agriculture

  USDOE           United States Department of Energy

  USDOT           United States Department of Transportation

  USEPA / EPA     United States Environmental Protection Agency

  USFWS           U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

  USGS            U.S. Geological Survey

  usg             United States gallons

  usgpm           United States gallons per minute

  V               voltage

  VOC             volatile organic compound

  WWTP            Waste Water Treatment Plant

  §               Section
  -------------------------------------------------------------------------

# GEOLOGICAL RESOURCES

## Introduction

AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC (Sparrows Point LNG) proposes to construct,
own, and operate a new liquefied natural gas (LNG) import, storage, and
regasification terminal (LNG Terminal) at the Sparrows Point Industrial
Complex situated on the Sparrows Point peninsula east of the Port of
Baltimore in Maryland. LNG will be delivered to the LNG Terminal by LNG
marine vessels, offloaded from these vessels to shoreside storage tanks,
regasified to natural gas on the LNG Terminal site (Terminal Site), and
the regasified natural gas transported to consumers by pipeline. The LNG
Terminal will have a regasification capacity of 1.5 billion standard
cubic feet of natural gas per day (bscfd), with the potential to expand
to 2.25 bscfd. Regasified natural gas will be delivered to markets in
the Mid-Atlantic Region and northern portions of the South Atlantic
Region through an approximately 88-mile, 30-inch outside diameter
interstate natural gas pipeline (Pipeline) to be constructed and
operated by Mid-Atlantic Express, L.L.C. (Mid-Atlantic Express). The
Pipeline will extend from the LNG Terminal to points of interconnection
with existing interstate natural gas pipeline systems near Eagle,
Pennsylvania. Together the LNG Terminal and Pipeline projects are
referred to as the Sparrows Point Project or Project. Both Sparrows
Point LNG and Mid-Atlantic Express (hereinafter collectively referred to
as AES) are subsidiaries of The AES Corporation.

The Project footprint is located in the counties of Baltimore, Harford,
and Cecil in Maryland and the counties of Lancaster and Chester in
Pennsylvania. The Terminal Site, which is located entirely within
Baltimore County, is a parcel located within a former shipyard. The
route proposed for the Pipeline (Pipeline Route), which crosses all of
the listed counties, includes industrial, commercial, agricultural, and
residential lands. Together, the Terminal Site and the Pipeline Route
comprise the Project Area.

As described in Section 1.10 of Resource Report 1, *General Project
Description*, The AES Corporation is considering the possibility of
building a combined cycle cogeneration power plant (Power Plant) on the
Terminal Site. The Power Plant would be configured with one F-Class
combustion gas turbine, one steam turbine, and associated auxiliaries.
The Power Plant would operate only on natural gas and would produce
approximately 300 megawatts (MW) of clean electric power within an area
of high energy demand. The Power Plant would be connected to the local
utility electric system by an overhead electric power transmission line.

## Objective and Applicability

Resource Report 6, *Geological Resources,* describes the geologic
setting and resources for the Project, and identifies potential geologic
hazards that may be associated with its construction and operation. As
appropriate, additional geologic and geotechnical data will be obtained
for those facilities requiring site-specific geologic and geotechnical
data for construction design. Facilities or components for which such
additional data will be collected will include, at a minimum, the LNG
Terminal foundations and horizontal directional drill (HDD) crossings
for major waterbodies and streams (see Resource Report 2, *Water Use and
Quality*). A report summarizing the preliminary site-specific
geotechnical design study for the LNG Terminal is included with Resource
Report 13, *Engineering and Design Material*, Appendix J. Site-specific
geotechnical investigations will be performed for HDD crossings (at the
Susquehanna and Back Rivers) either during design or prior to
construction. Further evaluation for the feasibility of HDD at
additional crossings (for example, at the Gunpowder Falls, Deer and
Octoraro Creek crossings) will be completed prior to construction. These
reports will be provided to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(FERC) as completed, which is expected at this time to be by the second
quarter of 2008.

## Geologic Setting

The Project is located within the Atlantic Coastal Plain Province (the
Embayment Section -- Western Shore Lowlands Region) and the Piedmont
Plateau Physiographic Province (Upland and Lowlands Sections).
Specifically, the LNG Terminal is located completely within the Western
Shore Lowlands Region (Embayment Section) of the Atlantic Coastal Plain,
while the Pipeline Route splits the provinces at the Fall Line that is
generally coincident with the stratigraphic break in the vicinity of
milepost (MP) 18. The Project facilities, physiographic provinces, and
geologic setting information are summarized in Table 6.3-1.

The Project Area begins within the Atlantic Coastal Plain Province at
the proposed LNG Terminal and extends north along the proposed Pipeline
Route to approximately MP 18. The Atlantic Coastal Plain Province is a
low-lying region with little topographic relief, ranging up to a few
hundred feet of elevation above mean sea level. The Coastal Plain
Province is dominated by unconsolidated to poorly-consolidated Triassic
to Quaternary age sediment deposits (gravel, sand, silt and clay) that
are up to 8,000 feet thick near the Atlantic Coast. These sediments thin
out toward the northern and western limits of the Province, eventually
pinching out at the Piedmont Plateau Province boundary at an irregular
contact line known as the Fall Line. These deposits (included in the
Potomac Group) range from poorly- to well-sorted and represent high to
low-energy stream and mud or backwater flat environments that are the
source of interbedded finer and coarser grain materials. These sediments
were generally derived by erosion of former uplands and mountains to the
west of this area. Additional limited areas of Quarternary age surficial
sediments or deposits are present within this portion of the Project
Area. These include Alluvium (generally located in stream flood plains,
upland gathering areas or estuarine marshes) and Fill (heterogeneous
material - sediments, rock, dredge spoil).

The balance of the Pipeline Route is located within the Piedmont Plateau
Province (north of MP 18 to MP 88) in Maryland and Pennsylvania. The
Piedmont Plateau Province is a low- to moderate-relief region
characterized with broad, rounded to flat-topped hills and shallow
valleys. The Upland Section contains slightly more relief (ranging
upward to more than 1,000 feet of elevation), while the Lowlands Section
contains less relief (elevations of less than approximately 500 feet).
The Uplands Section is characterized by folded and faulted crystalline
igneous and metamorphic bedrock, including schist, gneiss, gabbro and
quartzite. Surficial deposits of upland gravels (higher hilltop
elevations MP 18 to 20) and Alluvium (generally stream flood plains) are
present within this Section. The Lowlands Section (at MP 79.4 to 81.3)
is generally characterized as a zone of carbonate-based (limestone or
dolomite) and metamorphic (marble, schist or quartzite) rock. Soils or
overlying sediments in the Piedmont Plateau Province have been generally
derived from fluvial erosion and deposition. There are no glacial
deposits within the limits of the Project Area because the southernmost
advance of the glacial ice did not extend this far south.

### Sparrows Point LNG Terminal

The LNG Terminal is proposed to be situated on the Sparrows Point
Peninsula in Baltimore County, Maryland, a low-lying peninsula located
at the eastern portion of the Baltimore Harbor that contains heavy
industrial facilities. The Sparrows Point Peninsula is relatively flat,
with a total relief of less than 15 to 20 feet.

The mapped sediments in the vicinity of the Sparrows Point Peninsula
(both onshore and offshore) are identified as Quarternary-age Lowland
Deposits. The mapped sediments are consistent with the regional
description of the Atlantic Coastal Plain Province, i.e., gravel, sand,
silt and clay. These deposits are likely to be several hundred feet
thick in the vicinity of the Terminal Site, as the estimated depth to
rock is more than 200 to 300 feet below ground surface to the west in
the City of Baltimore Inner Harbor area, and more than 800 to 900 feet
below ground surface to the east at the Back River Neck area (Maryland
Geological Survey, 1977, 1979).

Land-based explorations in the form of rotary test borings revealed soil
formations consisting of granular fill underlain by loose to
medium-dense sands and clays, which are in turn underlain by medium
dense to very dense sands and stiff clays. The land test borings
extended to depths up to 126 feet below existing grade. Detailed
descriptions of the soil strata encountered in the explorations
(generally in order of increasing depth) are as follows (Haley &
Aldrich, 2006a):

-   *Miscellaneous Fill* -- This stratum generally consisted of medium
    dense, gray-brown to dark brown silty to clayey sand containing
    fragments of wood, slag, cinders and ash. The thickness of this
    layer ranged from 4.5 to 19.5 feet.

-   *Talbot Formation --* The Talbot Formation was encountered in all
    the recent test borings below the Fill layer and generally consisted
    of gray-brown sands along the southern side of the proposed tank
    locations to gray silts and clays over the remainder of the Terminal
    Site. The thickness of this layer ranged from 35 to 115 feet.

-   *Patapsco Formation (Potomac Group) --* Apparent Patapsco Formation
    deposits were encountered below the Talbot Formation to the final
    depth of the borings and consisted of gray sands to gray silts and
    clays.

During the 2006 investigations, groundwater levels in the boreholes at
the completion of drilling ranged from approximately El. 5.5 to El. -20
feet (Haley & Aldrich, 2006a). These water levels were measured in
completed, cased test borings and were not obtained from observation
wells. No pumping or bailing was performed in the cased boreholes before
obtaining the readings, and water levels appear to be generally
representative of Terminal Site conditions at the time of investigation.

As part of a 2005 environmental site assessment investigation at the
Terminal Site by GZA GeoEnvironmental Inc., six pairs of groundwater
monitoring wells were installed across the Terminal Site. In addition,
two surface water gauging stations were installed on pier structures on
the west side of the Terminal Site. Surface and groundwater gauging from
March 2005 indicated groundwater flows generally westward and
southwestward toward the shoreline (GZA GeoEnvironmental Inc., 2005). A
graving dock southwest of the Terminal Site contains groundwater pumps
integral to the graving dock operations, that (based on the 2005
measurements) locally depressed the water table up to 20 feet (southwest
of the Terminal Site).

Based on the 2005 and 2006 observed water level conditions, and given
that the fact that there is some local tidal fluctuations (generally
less than 1 to 2 feet) it is anticipated that groundwater levels at the
Terminal site may vary; however, it is not anticipated they will vary
significantly (GZA GeoEnvironmental Inc., 2005; Haley & Aldrich, 2006;
and NOAA, 2001). Furthermore, while the nearby graving dock pumping
systems influence groundwater conditions, it is anticipated that
groundwater flow direction at the Terminal Site would remain generally
westward towards the shoreline even if the pumping operations diminish
or cease.

A database search for private and public water supply wells in the area
of the LNG Terminal indicates that that nearest water supply wells to
the Terminal Site are at approximately MP 6; thus, water withdrawal that
might influence groundwater levels in the vicinity of the Terminal Site
does not appear to be occurring.

A water-bearing formation known as the Potomac Aquifer is present
beneath the Terminal Site (Haley & Aldrich, 2006b). The Potomac Aquifer
is one of several sub-aquifers included in the Northern Atlantic Coastal
Plain Aquifer. This regional aquifer system extends along the coast from
New Jersey southward through North Carolina, and consists of a complex
series of individual aquifers in generally unconsolidated sediments that
are separated by confining units of silt and clay. Six major
subdivisions of this regional aquifer system have been identified. Not
all units are present throughout the limits of the Northern Atlantic
Coastal Plain Aquifer. In the vicinity of the Terminal Site the only
subunit present is the Potomac Aquifer. This is the lowest and largest
of the aquifer subunits and extends throughout most of the Northern
Atlantic Coastal Plain Aquifer. The Potomac Aquifer is characterized
primarily by sands of the Potomac Group. It is generally considered to
be a confined aquifer, and receives most of its ground-water recharge
from the subsurface and not from surface infiltration (USGS, 1985).

Refer to Resource Report 2, *Water Use and Quality*, Section 2.3 for
aquifer characteristics.

Offshore vibracore drilling explorations were completed at the Terminal
Site in May 2006 to support the LNG Terminal Site preliminary design.
The vibracore borings were drilled to depths ranging from approximately
34 feet to 63 feet below the water surface. Each exploration encountered
black or gray silt deposits beginning at the mudline. Those borings
performed at a distance from the shoreline (generally in or near the
dredged shipping channel) encountered silts throughout the entire boring
depths. Borings performed closer to shore also encountered interbedded
sand and clay below the initial silt layers. The clay thickness was
greatest in close proximity to the shore, and the sand occurrence was
generally greatest in the borings located centrally between the shore
and the shipping channel.

The subsurface conditions at the Terminal Site have been evaluated from
a geotechnical standpoint to determine potential soil settlement
characteristics, bearing capacity, dynamic loading response and other
foundation design related factors. The offshore sediment conditions were
investigated in 2006 (as described above) to support engineering for the
dredging and spoil material management. These studies are summarized in
the Preliminary Geotechnical Report on Sparrows Point included as
Appendix J in Resource Report 13, *Engineering Design Material*.

### Mid-Atlantic Express Pipeline 

The Pipeline Route is composed of an approximately 88-mile long corridor
extending north from the Coastal Plain Province (Western Lowland Region)
into the Piedmont Plateau. A summary of the geologic conditions,
stratigraphic formations, and physiographic provinces along the Pipeline
Route is provided by county, state and milepost on Table 6.3-1.

As described in the geologic setting above, the mapped formations along
the Pipeline Route generally include the following:

-   *Unconsolidated Deposits* -- present within the Coastal Plain
    Province section (MP 0 to 18) primarily consisting of clays, sands
    and gravels from the Talbot, Patapsco, Arundel, and Patuxent
    Formations with some areas of artificial fill and alluvium at or
    near water bodies.

-   *Bedrock with overlying soils* -- present within the Piedmont
    Plateau Province (MP 18 to 87) primarily consisting of folded and
    faulted crystalline igneous and metamorphic bedrock, including
    schist, gneiss, gabbro and quartzite. There are also mapped
    surficial deposits of upland gravels (along higher hilltop
    elevations MP 18 to 20) and alluvium (generally present in stream
    flood plains) present.

-   The Lowlands Section of the Piedmont Plateau Province (at MP 79.4 to
    81.3) is generally characterized as carbonate-based (limestone or
    dolomite) and metamorphic (marble, schist or quartzite) rock with
    overlying soils (of varying thickness locally).

Ground surface is less than 20 feet above mean sea level at MP 0.0 of
the Pipeline Route.[^1] There is little relief along this segment of the
Pipeline Route with the sole exception of some gently-rising,
flat-topped hills at the north end. This relief ranges up to 100 feet at
the point where the Coastal Plain Province transitions into the Piedmont
Plateau Province. Within the Piedmont Plateau Province, elevations range
from 100 to 200 feet (at MP 18 to MP 20) and to points further north,
elevations generally range from 150 to 650 feet (MP 20 to MP 87.6). The
Lowlands Section of the Piedmont Plateau Province (MP 79.4 to MP 81.3)
represents a broad valley with an elevation of approximately 250 feet.
This section of the Piedmont Plateau Province is characterized as
gently-sloping hills with shallow valleys.

Aquifers are present beneath the Pipeline Route in both Maryland and
Pennsylvania. Refer to Resource Report 2, section 2.3 for a summary of
aquifers and characteristics.

Slopes along the Pipeline Route break down as follows: 67 percent in
areas of 0 to 8 percent slope; 25 percent in areas of 8 to 25 percent
slope; 7 percent in areas of 15 to 25 percent slope; and one percent in
areas with greater than 25 percent slope. In summary, the Pipeline Route
can be characterized as generally low to moderate relief and flat to
gently-sloping topography.

## Blasting

An evaluation to identify locations within the Project Area with
potential for bedrock less than five feet below ground surface was
completed using the National Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Soil
Survey Geographic (SSUGRO) database, geologic map information and field
reconnaissance (Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2006). A summary
of areas with the potential for shallow or outcropping bedrock has been
identified on Table 6.3-1. Locations where bedrock may be within five
feet of the surface are included in Table 7.3.1 of Resource Report 7,
*Soils*. Resource Report 2 and Project Alignment Sheets (Resource Report
1, Appendix 1A) identify water supply wells within 150 feet of the
Pipeline construction right-of-way. Resource Report 2 and Appendix 2D
also contain a summary of wetlands and water bodies affected by the
Pipeline construction right-of-way. Resource Report 8, *Land Use,
Recreation and Aesthetics*, and the Project Alignment Sheets summarize
structures and adjacent or crossing pipelines. No springs were
identified proximate to the Project Area.

In areas of shallow bedrock, alternative trenching techniques may be
used depending on rock characteristics and feasibility. These could
include:

-   Ripping and cutting with a backhoe;

-   Hoe-ramming with a hydraulic ram that fractures rock with rapid
    percussive impacts;

-   Trenching equipment, which is usually accomplished with cutting
    teeth on a large rotating wheel; or

-   Non-explosive demolition agents such as S-Mite, which are placed in
    holes drilled in the rock, and can expand and fracture the rock.

Alternatively, controlled blasting techniques may be employed during
construction in areas of shallow bedrock. Controlled blasting techniques
would be employed to facilitate construction in a manner that will
impact only near-surface materials, i.e., blasting would be limited in
intensity to confine fracturing to shallow rock. Specific areas where
blasting may be required would be determined during construction. The
proposed Pipeline generally parallels an existing Columbia Gas
Transmission Company (Columbia) pipeline for approximately 54 miles,
from MP 32.4 to MP 87.6. In areas where shallow bedrock was encountered
during installation of the Columbia pipeline, it is presumed that
blasting techniques may have been used at certain locations, and thus
the feasibility of utilizing shallow blasting techniques has been
previously established.

To minimize or avoid potential impacts associated with blasting
activity, blasting will be completed by a licensed blasting contractor
in accordance with applicable Federal, State and local regulations and
in accordance with the Project Blasting Plan (attached as Appendix 6A).
The blasting contractor will be required to evaluate potential resources
existing in proximity to the locations requiring blasting, and will
develop measures for avoiding or minimizing potential impacts. The
evaluation process and documentation will include the following:

-   Contractor development of site-specific Project Blasting Plan;

-   Written notice to affected landowners one week prior to blasting,
    along with a confirmation notice at least 24 hours before any
    blasting;

-   The opportunity for a meeting between affected landowners and AES
    for the purpose of providing relevant information to the landowners
    (either as a scheduled group meeting or individual discussions
    depending on the number of potentially affected landowners);

-   Use of warning signs; site access control; audible warning signals
    before and after a blast;

-   Procedures for safe blasting materials handling, storage and use;

-   Performance of blasting in accordance with applicable guidelines and
    regulations;

-   Location of buried utilities in the work area;

-   Pre- and post-blast condition surveys on the exteriors and interiors
    of structures or utilities within 150 feet of the blasting locations
    (with permission of the landowners);

-   Seismograph vibration monitoring during blasting to assess
    vibrations generated by a blast;

-   Optimization of blast charge size and delay timing to minimize
    vibration;

-   Use of matting to contain fly-rock; and,

-   Pre and post-blast surveys of water supply wells within 150 feet of
    the blasting area. This will include water quality sampling and an
    attempt to obtain readily-available information on well yield or
    other well data.

All construction activities will be performed in accordance with
measures outlined in Site-Specific Residential Mitigation Plan for all
residences within 25 feet of the Pipeline construction right-of-way (and
FERC-required mitigation measures for residences with 50 feet of the
Project construction right-of-way). Further details on this are included
in Resource Report 8, *Land Use, Recreation and Aesthetics*.

All authorizations required by Federal, State and local regulations will
be obtained prior to any construction-phase blasting activities.
Additional mitigative efforts may be employed on a case-by-case basis to
respond to unusual issues or landowner concerns, including providing
temporary alternative lodging accommodations during the period of actual
blasting.

At a minimum, the following regulations will apply to use of explosives
and blasting-related work:

-   Occupational Safety And Health Administration (OSHA) 1910.109,
    "Explosives and Blasting Agents";

-   OSHA 1926.900 through 914, "Blasting and The Use of Explosives";

-   Maryland Code, Public Safety Article, Title 11, Subtitle 1,
    "Explosives"; and,

-   Pennsylvania Code, Title 25, Part I, Subpart D, Article IV, Chapters
    87.127, 210 and 211.

Blasting activities will also be completed in accordance with local
(county, town, etc.) ordinances or permit conditions, as appropriate.
Table 6A-1 in Appendix 6A summarizes potential permits or approvals that
may be required by municipalities along the Pipeline Route.

In the unlikely event that damage to structures or utilities occurs in
connection with any blasting activities that may be required during
construction of the Pipeline, AES will promptly repair or restore such
structures or utilities to pre-blast conditions, including repair or
replacement of water supply wells.

For the offshore shipping channel development at the Terminal Site
(based on historic data and 2006 vibracore sampling performed to date),
no offshore blasting is anticipated.

## Mineral Resources

An assessment of mineral resources in the Project Area and within
approximately 0.25 miles of the construction right-of-way was conducted
using aerial photographs, USGS topographic maps, field reconnaissance,
land parcel ownership records, and publicly-available mineral resource
information. Contact was made with the Maryland and Pennsylvania
Geologic Surveys, and information from their published directories of
mineral producers and oil and gas resource maps, supplemented the
sources described above. There were no resources such as oil or gas
production, exploration or storage areas, bituminous coal or anthracite
mining fields, or mineral mining sites (including gold mining)
identified within 0.25 miles of the Project Area. Six unconsolidated
material (sand, gravel or clay) pits or rock quarries (for aggregate
production) were identified within 0.25 miles of the Project Area and
are summarized on Table 6.5-1.

Details on the operations noted as mining facilities (e.g., mining
methodology, potential mine expansion limits, etc.) were reviewed with
the property owners and local agencies -- three of the facilities were
found to be inactive or no longer in use, summarized as follows:

-   The clay pit located at MP 12.9 is located on a separate property
    600 feet west of the Pipeline construction right-of-way. The
    Pipeline right-of-way in this area is within or adjacent to the
    Baltimore Gas & Electric (BG& E) electric transmission corridor.

-   The other two facilities (at MP-48.9) are privately-owned rock
    quarries approximately 100 feet south of the Pipeline construction
    right-of-way. These facilities presently generate coarse
    serpentinite aggregate. The pipeline right-of-way is located beyond
    Quarry Road and adjacent to the existing Columbia pipeline
    right-of-way.

Based on the Pipeline's location relative to the existing mining
operations, roads and existing utility rights-of-way, and the reported
lack of any expansion plans, it does not appear that there will be any
impacts to these operations. However efforts to identify additional
information on mining operations will continue as the proposed Pipeline
Route is finalized, and will be taken into account during design
accordingly.

A review of the environmental database search report for the Project
Area did not indicate that any of the apparent mineral resource sites
listed in Table 6.5-1 had documented environmental releases (First
Search Technology Corporation, June 2006). A registered petroleum
underground storage tank was shown for the facility at MP 48.9; however,
no indications of a release or other environmental issues were reported.
Based on a review of the topographic relationship and separation
distance between the mining facilities and the proposed Pipeline Route,
it is not currently anticipated that any of these mining operations
would present significant adverse environmental or other impacts to the
Pipeline construction or operation, nor would future operations of the
mining facilities impact the Pipeline construction or operation.

A summary of telephone conversations regarding the active mining
facilities is included in Appendix 6B.

## Potential Geologic Hazards

### Seismic Risk

The potential seismic ground motions for the Terminal Site and the
Pipeline Route were evaluated using the National Earthquake Hazard
Reduction Program (NEHRP) Spectral Acceleration Maps and information
available from the USGS (International Code Council, 2003). The USGS and
NEHRP Spectral Acceleration Maps depict the estimated probability that
certain levels of ground movement from a seismic event will occur at a
particular location during a specified period of time. The USGS and
NEHRP maps have been used in the development of the seismic provision
for the International Building Code, which is the applicable building
code in Pennsylvania and Maryland.

The maximum considered earthquake ground motion for the conterminous
United States is shown with the Project Area on Figure 6.6-1. The
estimations presented on the maps are based on past seismic history at a
location, and are used to develop provisions of building codes (e.g.,
for structures, bridges, highways and utilities such as natural gas
pipelines). Values on these seismic maps are referred to as maximum
seismic acceleration (S~a~) values, and are presented as a relative
percentage of gravitational acceleration. Further information regarding
seismic hazards near the Terminal Site and Pipeline Route are
characterized in the Site-Specific Seismic Evaluation (Haley & Aldrich
Inc. 2006). The Site-Specific Seismic Evaluation was based on
FERC-referenced seismic design guidance document: "Data Requirements for
the Seismic Review of LNG Facilities," NBSIR84-2833. The data indicate
the Project Area is located in a region of generally low seismic risk.

The following sections discuss specifics of the seismic risk analyses
for the Terminal Site and Pipeline Route individually.

#### Sparrows Point LNG Terminal

An evaluation of the seismic risk associated with the LNG Terminal has
been performed and is presented in a separate report entitled "Site
Specific Design Response Spectra and Assessment of Liquefaction
Potential," which is included in its entirety as Appendix F to the
Preliminary Geotechnical Report on Sparrows Point (Appendix J in
Resource Report 13, *Engineering Design Material*).

The evaluation took into consideration the characteristics of the
overburden deposits present beneath the Terminal Site, with assumptions
for depths to and type of (soft or hard) bedrock, which is anticipated
to be in excess of 500 feet below ground surface (Maryland Geological
Survey, 1977 and 1979). The natural soil deposits vary from north to
south within the proposed LNG tank footprints -- these variations were
also accounted for in the evaluation. There are no faults present
beneath or near the Terminal Site (Maryland Geologic Survey, 2006).

In summary, the Terminal Site is located in an area that has experienced
far fewer significant earthquakes than northern and southern areas of
the East Coast; however, several lesser earthquakes have occurred in
this area, and the area has also experienced some ground shaking from
larger and more distant earthquakes (Haley & Aldrich, 2006a). Published
USGS maximum spectral acceleration (S~a~; also referred to as the
maximum seismic acceleration coefficient) data indicate the Terminal
Site to be within a region of relatively low seismicity (USGS, 2003);
specifically, the maximum value of S~a~ is *0.17g*, where *g* is the
gravitational constant.

Ground motion analyses accounting for several variables relating to soil
deposit thicknesses, bedrock depth and types, and empirically-derived
shear wave (V~s~) velocities were performed using the PROSHAKE computer
program. The resulting design spectra have been evaluated for the Safe
Shutdown Earthquake (SSE; the maximum earthquake potential for which
certain structures, systems, and components important to safety, are
designed to sustain and remain functional) and the Operating-Basis
Earthquake (OBE; the vibratory ground motion for which those features of
the plant necessary for continued operation without undue risk to the
health and safety of the public will remain functional). The SSE is an
approximately 2,500-year event; the OBE is a 475-year event.

The resultant design spectra curves included in the seismic assessment
report will be utilized in LNG Terminal structure design.

#### Mid-Atlantic Express Pipeline 

Maximum seismic acceleration coefficients (S~a~) ranging from
approximately *a=0.20g* to *a=0.32g* (International Code Council, 2003)
were determined for the 0.2-second spectral response along the Pipeline
Route. Further, S~a~ ranging from approximate *a=0.06g* to *a=0.08g*
(International Code Council, 2003) were determined for the 1.0-second
spectral response along the Pipeline Route. As with the Terminal Site
discussed above, these values represent the magnitude of a potential
seismic event with a mean return period of approximately 2,500 years.

The geologic reference maps indicate the Pipeline Route passes through a
narrow area of faulted bedrock in Pennsylvania in the vicinity of MP
78.9 to 82.5. Regionally, this area includes the Martic fault,
Embreesville thrust fault, Cream Valley fault, and several un-named
faults (Pennsylvania Geologic Survey, 1980, 2005a, 2005b). The faults
anticipated to be intersected are the northeast-southwest oriented
Martic fault at approximate MP 78.9 and an unnamed, north-south oriented
strike-slip fault at approximate MP 82.3 to 82.5. The Martic fault at MP
78.9 represents the stratigraphic break between the Octararo Schist
(uplifted side) and the Canestoga limestone. The strike-slip fault at MP
82.3 to 82.5 is parallel to Brandywine Creek, which indicates it may be
structurally related to and may control the local drainage patterns.

Published literature indicates the faults mapped along the Pipeline
Route in Pennsylvania as well as other regional faults are primarily
basement rock faults and were likely formed during the Paleozoic
(several hundred million years ago) and Cenozoic (several tens of
million years ago) eras (Pennsylvania Geologic Survey, 2005).

The mid-Atlantic and central Appalachian region, including Maryland, is
generally characterized by a low level of earthquake activity. The
faults identified in Maryland are not known or suspected to be active.
All earthquakes recorded within Maryland have been of magnitude 3.7 or
less, and have not caused appreciable damage (Maryland Geologic Survey,
2006).

Pennsylvania also has a relatively low level of seismic activity.
Historical earthquakes have been related to faults in the basement
complex and have been generally minor, although a few have caused minor
to moderate damage. The largest earthquake in Pennsylvania history had a
magnitude of 5.2 and occurred in the northwestern part of the state in
1998. It should be noted that no observable displacement at the surface
has occurred as a result of any earthquakes in eastern North America.
The observed earthquake activity may represent reactivation of faults
formed during the Cenozoic/Mesozoic extension that are now under
regional compression. (Pennsylvania Geologic Survey, 2005).

Based on the information reviewed, there appears to be a relatively low
potential for seismic-related impacts associated with the Pipeline
Route. Regardless, specific evaluation of relevant factors, such as
seismic potential, surface topography and soil conditions along the
Pipeline Route will be considered during the detailed Pipeline design.
The Pipeline will be designed to meet or exceed the codes and standards
identified in Resource Report 11, including the U.S. Department of
Transportation's regulations at Title 49, CFR Part 192, \"Transportation
of Natural and Other Gas by Pipeline: Minimum Federal Safety
Standards,\" as well as other industry standards (ASCE, ASME, ANSI,
etc.), and applicable codes typically employed for the design of buried
pipe. If necessary, to meet or exceed these codes, engineering measures
will be incorporated into the Pipeline design (for example, increased
pipe wall thickness, increased yield strength, modified welding
requirements, or modified installation techniques).

### Soil Liquefaction

#### Soil liquefaction can be caused by cyclic ground shaking typically associated with earthquakes in susceptible areas. The potential for soil liquefaction is influenced by multiple variables, including depth of groundwater, soil type, relative soil density, gradation of soil deposits, and depositional environment.  {#soil-liquefaction-can-be-caused-by-cyclic-ground-shaking-typically-associated-with-earthquakes-in-susceptible-areas.-the-potential-for-soil-liquefaction-is-influenced-by-multiple-variables-including-depth-of-groundwater-soil-type-relative-soil-density-gradation-of-soil-deposits-and-depositional-environment. .unnumbered}

#### Sparrows Point LNG Terminal

The liquefaction potential for the Terminal Site was assessed as part of
the seismic risk assessment referenced above. The assessment concluded:

-   The majority of the field density (N-) values obtained during the
    geotechnical drilling program indicated the soil density exceeds the
    minimum required to safeguard against liquefaction;

-   Eight of the N-values were below the minimum for liquefaction; the
    locations of these values indicate a *potentially* more susceptible
    soil layer near the southwestern-most proposed tank location.

-   Additional boreholes should be drilled prior to detailed design to
    obtain a more detailed assessment of soil density to provide
    sufficient data for LNG Terminal design.

The Talbot Formation, which immediately underlies the fill soils at the
Terminal Site, is variable in nature and is characterized as interbedded
clay, silt and sand. Soil types that are most susceptible to
liquefaction are typically medium to fine sands, where significant
pore-water pressure can develop during a significant cyclic shaking
event. In the southern portion of the Terminal Site the underlying
Talbot Formation is primarily sand. The "Site Specific Design Response
Spectra and Assessment of Liquefaction Potential," referenced above,
recommended that prior to final LNG Terminal design additional boreholes
be completed in this area to confirm the presence of the loose sand
layer and collect additional data proximate to the LNG tank locations to
support the foundation design. If, during final design, it is concluded
that there is a liquefiable sand layer, then the potential effects of
liquefaction will be considered and factored into the H-pile design of
the LNG tank foundations to compensate for potential effects associated
with liquefaction, such as reduction of soil shearing strength and
ground settlement.

#### Mid-Atlantic Express Pipeline

Based on the relatively low seismic potential within the area of the
Pipeline Route, the existing bedrock or soil conditions, the relative
age of deposition, and the lack of any documented incidence of soil
liquefaction in that area, the potential for soil liquefaction to occur
along the Pipeline Route is considered to be relatively low. Only one
area of potentially susceptible soil has been identified at MP 3.0 to
4.1 (Maryland Geological Survey, 1968, 1976, 1977, 1979, 1986;
Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, 1980;
USGS, 2003).

As indicated above, areas of underlying soils in the Talbot Formation
were identified at the Terminal Site during geotechnical investigation
to be potentially susceptible to soil liquefaction. The Talbot Formation
(in areas mapped with sand as the primary component) is also crossed by
the Pipeline Route from MP 3.0 to 4.1. The soils in this formation
coupled with other geophysical conditions (such as elevated water table
or saturated soils), could be potentially susceptible to soil
liquefaction during a seismic event. Specific evaluation of relevant
factors, such as seismic potential, surface topography and reported soil
conditions along the Pipeline Route, will be considered during the
detailed Pipeline design. The Pipeline will be designed to meet or
exceed the codes and standards identified in Resource Report 11,
including the U.S. Department of Transportation regulations at Title 49,
CFR Part 192, \"Transportation of Natural and Other Gas by Pipeline:
Minimum Federal Safety Standards.\" If necessary, to meet or exceed
these codes, engineering measures will be incorporated into the Pipeline
design (for example, weighting the Pipeline or increasing the
flexibility or strength of the pipe). Under normal operating conditions,
liquefaction of the surrounding soils is not the primary hazard to the
pipeline, but rather buoyancy induced by liquefaction, which will be
addressed during detailed design, if necessary based on soil conditions.

### Landslides 

The potential for landslides or slope failures in the Project Area is
influenced by several factors including slope steepness, soil type and
thickness, soil and bedrock structure and lithology, climate, hydrology,
and geomorphic history. Clay deposits and deeply-fractured shallow or
outcropping bedrock on steep slopes are generally the conditions that
are most susceptible to landslide occurrence.

#### Sparrows Point LNG Terminal 

The Terminal Site will be situated on Sparrows Point, which is underlain
by soils of the Potomac Group, a mixture of silts, sands and clays. This
general area was identified on the National Landslide overview map of
the United States as having moderate susceptibility/low incidence for
landslides. This indicates there is a low reported incidence of
landslides -- specifically less than 1.5 percent of the mapped area.
Although there is limited relief in this region, the LNG Terminal has
been located where no steep slopes are present. This will essentially
eliminate the potential for slope failures for the Terminal Site. To
review localized conditions, an evaluation was completed of steep
(greater than 25 percent) slope areas and soils with elevated (greater
than 50 percent) clay content. No areas within or near the Terminal Site
were identified as susceptible to landslides.

#### Mid-Atlantic Express Pipeline

The Pipeline Route is identified as having a moderate/low susceptibility
for landslides (USGS, 1997). After reviewing data for localized
conditions along the Pipeline Route, three areas were identified as
potentially steep or susceptible to landslides. On the basis of
topography and soil conditions, these three areas include: north of
Little Gunpowder Falls (MP 22.4); immediately south of Deer Creek (MP
35.4); and immediately south of Susquehanna River (MP 43.9).

The Susquehanna River crossing will be accomplished using the HDD
methodology, effectively eliminating any consideration of landslides as
a potential impact. The HDD crossing method will drill beneath these
areas of steep slopes, therefore avoiding slopes and issues associated
surficial soil slumping or landslides. The other two areas are stream
crossings, and localized factors such as apparent bedrock competency and
heavy vegetative cover should minimize the potential for slope failures.

Geotechnical investigations are planned to support HDD crossing analysis
at the Susquehanna crossing, but no additional geotechnical
investigations are planned for the Deer Creek or Little Gunpowder Falls
crossings. These locations will be given further consideration during
the Pipeline detailed design phase, currently scheduled to be completed
by the second quarter of 2008. To further minimize or avoid potential
impacts from landslides or slope failure in areas of potential
susceptibility, construction of the Pipeline will be completed in
accordance with the Environmental Construction Plan (provided as
Appendix 2A to Resource Report 2, *Water Use and Quality*), including
measures to ensure appropriate grading, limit undercutting or
overloading slopes, and provide for appropriate revegetation and
maintenance during operation.

### Subsidence

Carbonate bedrock weathers uniquely, and under certain conditions it can
be dissolved by mildly-acidic soil, groundwater or precipitation. Such
weathering can potentially result in features in rock such as
depressions, voids or caves. Surface expression of these features in the
form of ground subsidence is referred to as karst topography, which can
include subtle surface depressions and in extreme cases sinkholes.
Subsidence can also result if "loss of ground" occurs from underground
mining operations.

#### Sparrows Point LNG Terminal 

No potential karst features were identified at the proposed Terminal
Site. No sinkholes or areas of underground mining were identified within
any portion of the Terminal Site, as shown in the Mineral Resources
geologic review (Section 6.5 above). Further, no evidence of subsidence
or ground disturbance was recorded during the field surveys in this
area. Based on the estimated depth of over 500 feet to bedrock at the
Terminal Site (Maryland Geological Survey, 1977, 1979) the potential for
subsidence due to solution of bedrock is very low.

#### Mid-Atlantic Express Pipeline

During the geologic literature review, at the state/regional level, one
area of potential karst features is crossed by the Pipeline Route (at
approximately MP 79.5 to 81). This area has a reported mapped density of
approximately one karst feature per 10 acres (Pennsylvania Department of
Conservation and Natural Resources, 2003). On a relative scale, the
karst area traversed by the Pipeline Route has a relatively low density
of karst features. Further, during the routing and field surveys,
consideration was given to avoiding any mapped, observed or documented
karst features.

A further review of the area of potential karst features on localized
mapping identified details of sinkhole and karst features in Chester
County, Pennsylvania (Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and
Natural Resources, 1993). A review of this detailed localized mapping
identified only one specific mapped feature in this zone present along
the Project Area, a potential depression at MP 80.4 in the town of
Downington. This symbol is mapped as a 'potential' karst feature and no
evidence of subsidence or ground disturbance was recorded along the
Pipeline Route during the field surveys in this area. The location is
currently level agricultural land immediately east of Lloyd Avenue, and
there was no documented data regarding interconnection of the inferred
potential karst feature and local groundwater conditions.

Three private water supply wells exist near the Pipeline Route between
approximately MP 80 and MP 81. Details on the depth or construction of
these wells is not known. If they are constructed in the bedrock, they
may have an influence on water levels in the vicinity of the Pipeline;
however due to the relatively shallow installation of the proposed
Pipeline, effects of the Pipeline construction on the wells, or effects
on the Pipeline by the wells, are unlikely. If blasting is required
during construction in the vicinity of these (or any other) supply wells
the measures identified in Section 6.4 and Appendix 6A -- Project
Blasting Plan will be employed.

In this area of mapped karst features, if any additional documented
features or field observations of karst-related conditions are
identified along the Pipeline Route, they will be evaluated during the
detailed Pipeline design. Accordingly, if necessary, engineering
measures may be incorporated into the Pipeline design (for example,
increased pipe wall thickness, increased yield strength, modified weld
requirements or modified backfill approaches). No drilling, test borings
or HDD in areas with higher potential for subsidence is currently
planned.

Construction will be completed in accordance with the Sparrows Point
Project -- Environmental Construction Plan and Best Management
Practices, appended to Resource Report 2, *Water Use and Quality*
(Appendix 2A and 2B, respectively). Use of proper erosion control
devices and minimization of disturbance to surface drainage patterns
will avoid or further minimize potential impacts within the area of
karst topography.

During operation, routine right-of-way monitoring inspections will be
completed as described in Resource Report 1, *General Project
Description*. This monitoring will include visual ground surface
inspection, as well as aerial flyovers, to confirm there are no new
karst-related surface features which could potentially impact Pipeline
operations.

### Other Geologic Hazards

Additional potential geologic hazards affecting construction or
operation may include volcanism or flooding.

*[Volcanism]{.underline}:*

Based on the geologic resource and reference materials identified above
and an understanding of the Project Area, there is no indication of
conditions conducive to volcanism in the vicinity of either the Terminal
Site or the Pipeline Route, and no volcanic deposition has been
documented. In general, the entire eastern seaboard of the United States
is devoid of current volcanic activity due to the lack of the necessary
conditions such as diverging or converging crustal plates, or the
presence of an isolated, active or dormant volcano resulting from a "hot
spot" in the mantle underlying the crust (United States Geological
Survey, 2006a). As such, potential volcanism is not considered to be of
concern for either the Terminal Site or the Pipeline Route.

*[Flooding (Sparrows Point LNG Terminal)]{.underline}:*

The Terminal Site is to be located in a coastal setting and therefore
the Terminal Site is subject to tidal fluctuations in surface and
groundwater levels. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) tidal data for the 1983 to 2001 Tidal Epoch indicate the Mean
Higher High Water (MHHW) level is Elevation 0.506 m (1.66 feet). This is
equivalent to 0.83 feet above North American Vertical Datum-1988 (NAVD).

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map
indicates the 500-year (Zone "B") flood limits do not encroach onto the
proposed Terminal Site (FEMA, 1996). In addition, the grade of the
Terminal Site will be raised during construction, and a bulkhead will be
installed at the waterline, which will further reduce the potential for
any flooding impacts at the Terminal Site.

Hurricane flooding has been known to occur in the area of the Terminal
Site. Because such flooding represents the worst-case meteorological
event in the area of the Terminal Site, it is used for the basis for
determining the volume and velocity of flood control design efforts. The
Terminal Site will incorporate appropriate flood control design
elements, including establishment of shore protection features, to
protect against hurricane flooding, and site storm water collection and
drain systems, to allow collection and removal of rain and flood waters
from the Terminal Site. Specifically, shore protection will be installed
to protect against flooding and storm surges resulting from hurricanes
and severe weather.

*[Flooding (Mid-Atlantic Express Pipeline)]{.underline}:*

Based on the geologic reference materials and field surveys along the
Pipeline Route, there may be areas adjacent to the stream and wetland
crossings that are susceptible to localized seasonal flooding. Specific
measures will be employed to avoid or minimize potential construction or
operation impacts related to flooding at these wetland and water bodies,
including for example: specialized construction techniques in wetland
areas, minimizing disturbance to vegetation along stream bank areas,
avoiding (to the extent practical) paralleling water bodies or crossing
at non-perpendicular angles, restoration measures at water body and
wetland crossings (to restore pre-existing contours or hydraulic
conditions, respectively). These construction techniques are outlined in
Resource Report 2, *Water Use and Quality*, and, more specifically, in
the Sparrows Point Project -- Environmental Construction Plan and Best
Management Practices, appended to Resource Report 2 (Appendix 2A and 2B,
respectively). Additional evaluation of the waterbody and wetland
crossings, with respect to potential for flooding impacts, will be
undertaken during the detailed design phase.

*[Potential for Acidic Water Leaching from Exposed
Bedrock]{.underline}:*

The potential for acidic water to be produced by precipitation
contacting exposed bedrock in or from excavations has been considered.
Bedrock is not anticipated to be encountered at the Terminal Site
(Maryland Geological Survey, 1977, 1979; Haley & Aldrich, 2006a). Areas
with the potential for shallow bedrock on Pipeline Route are summarized
on Table 6.3-1.

Acidic runoff from contact with exposed bedrock (or tailings) is well
documented in portions of Pennsylvania associated with coal mining
operations and their associated geologic formations (USGS, 2006b).
Susceptible bedrock conditions typically include formations rich in
sulfur-containing minerals, which when exposed to precipitation react to
create acidic runoff (ultimately impacting surface water quality
downstream). However, the Pipeline Route is not located in or near any
of these coal mining regions (USGS, 2006b). Since these sulfur-rich
bedrock conditions are not anticipated, exposure of excavated bedrock
(if and where encountered) will be of a very short duration based on the
nature of pipeline construction. Accordingly, there is not significant
potential for creation of acidic runoff during construction.

## Avoidance and Minimization of Adverse Effects

Avoidance and minimization of potential adverse effects on construction
and operation of the Project from geologic conditions or hazards was a
primary consideration during the siting, routing, and alternative
analysis. The Pipeline Route was modified as necessary to avoid or
minimize potential impacts to mineral resources, as described in more
detail in Resource Report 10, *Alternatives*.

During the route selection process for the Pipeline, including desktop
analysis of map resources and survey activities in the field, specific
effort was made to avoid areas of steep slopes and landslide
susceptibility. These considerations have reduced the potential for
slope stability issues during construction and operation.

In areas with potential shallow bedrock conditions that cannot be
avoided, efforts will be taken to minimize potential impacts during
construction. As indicated in the section above, an evaluation of
alternative construction techniques will be performed, including
controlled blasting. Monitoring and engineering controls, as identified
in the Project Blasting Plan (attached as Appendix 6A), will be employed
to avoid or minimize potential impacts during construction.

## Paleontology Resources

[Maryland]{.underline}:

Geologic reference materials indicate paleontological resources are
present in southern, central and western Maryland, specifically dinosaur
fossils present in Triassic and Cretaceous-aged formations (Weishampel
and Young, 1996; Maryland Geologic Survey, 2005b). Noteworthy specimen
fossils found in Maryland include *Astrodon johnstoni* (official
Maryland State dinosaur) and *Ecphora gardnerae gardnerae* (official
Maryland State fossil shell). However, these are not recorded in the
geologic formations encountered at the Terminal Site or along the
Pipeline Route. Fossils of plants such as seeded ferns have been
identified in northeastern Maryland, including Harford, and Cecil
Counties, proximate to the Pipeline Route. However, as indicated below,
these do not appear to represent significant paleontological resources
requiring any action if encountered.

[Pennsylvania]{.underline}:

In Pennsylvania, the trilobite, *Phacops rana,* is the Pennsylvania
state fossil and can be found in Devonian age formations (Pennsylvania
Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, 2006). No significant
vertebrate fossils such as dinosaur bones have been encountered in
Pennsylvania, with the exception of a few Triassic-aged fossils in rock
units in the Gettysburg area (Pennsylvania Geologic Society, 2006). In
addition, mastodon bones have been found in the northern tier of the
state.

Potentially significant paleontological resources include bones, rare
plant or animal species or "undiscovered" invertebrate fossils in the
rock record. According to both the Maryland and Pennsylvania Geologic
Surveys, no requirements exist for notification if fossils of any type
are encountered in an excavation; however, if apparently significant
paleontological resources (i.e. obvious potential dinosaur bones) are
discovered during construction, the Maryland or Pennsylvania State
Geologic Surveys will be contacted, as appropriate.

## Underground Storage Facilities

The Project will not involve the construction or operation of any
underground natural gas storage facilities.

## References

1.  First Search Technology Corporation, Environmental First Search
    Report for Sparrows Point Maryland, Report No. 15 June 2006.

2.  Federal Emergency Management Agency, Digital Flood Insurance Rate
    Map - Baltimore County, Maryland Q3 Flood Data, 1996.
    http://www.msgic.state.md.us.

3.  GZA GeoEnvironmental Inc., Final Draft Phase II Environmental Site
    Assessment SPS LLLP (SPS) Sparrows Point Shipyard Property, April
    2005.

4.  Haley & Aldrich, Inc., Resource Report 13, Appendix J: Preliminary
    Geotechnical Report on AES Sparrows Point- Appendix F, August 2006a.

5.  Haley & Aldrich, Inc., Draft Resource Report 2: Water Use and
    Quality, AES Sparrows Point LNG Terminal & Mid-Atlantic Express
    Pipeline, August 2006b.

6.  International Code Council, 2003 International Building Code Figures
    1615(2) and 1615(1), 2003.

[]{.mark}

7.  Johns Hopkins Magazine Article, D. Weishampel and L. Young,
    Dinosaurs on the East Coast, June 1996.

8.  Haley & Aldrich, Inc., telephone communication with James P. Reger,
    Chief, Dept. of Environmental Geology & Mineral Resources, Maryland
    Geological Survey, 13 July 2006.

9.  Haley & Aldrich, Inc., telephone communication with William
    Kochanov, Pennsylvania Geologic Survey, 13 July 2006.

10. Maryland Geological Survey website, (http://www.mgs.md.gov/)

11. Maryland Geological Survey, Information Circular No. 53 - Report
    Directory of Mineral Producers in Maryland, 1995.

12. Maryland Geological Survey, Physiographic Provinces and their
    Subdivisions in Maryland, 2001.

13. Maryland Geological Survey, Fact Sheet 11 - Foundation Engineering
    Problems and Hazards in Karst Terrranes, 2005a.

14. Maryland Geological Survey, Earthquakes and Maryland, 2006.

[]{.mark}

15. Maryland Geological Survey, Petrologic and Chemical Investigation of
    Chemical Weathering in Mafic Rocks, Eastern Piedmont of Maryland,
    1974.

16. Maryland Geological Survey, Fact Sheet 12 - Astrodon johnstoni: The
    Maryland State Dinosaur, 2005b.

17. Maryland Geological Survey, Fact Sheet 7 - Fossils in Counties of
    Maryland, 2005.

18. Maryland Geological Survey website, Maryland's Geologic Features:
    Dinosaurs!, 2005c.

19. Maryland Geological Survey, Shoreline Changes - Sparrows Point
    Quardangle, 2001.

20. Maryland Geological Survey, Harford County geology, 1968.

21. Maryland Geological Survey, White Marsh Quadrangle geology, 1976.

22. Maryland Geological Survey, Middle River Quadrangle geology, 1977.

23. Maryland Geological Survey, Bulletin 37 - The Geology of Cecil
    County, 1990

24. Maryland Geological Survey, Baltimore East Quadrangle geology, 1979.

25. Maryland Geological Survey, Pamphlet Series -- Brief Description of
    the Geology of Maryland, 2005.

26. National Bureau of Standards, "Data Requirements for the Seismic
    Review of LNG Facilities," NBSIR84-2833.

27. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Tidal Bench
    Mark and Datum information, Station ID: 8574680, 2001.
    (http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/data_menu.shtml?stn=8574680%20Baltimore,%20MD&type=Bench%20Mark%20Sheets).

28. Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of
    Agriculture. Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO*)* Database for,
    Maryland and Pennsylvania, 2006.
    (http://www.ncgc.nrcs.usda.gov/products/datasets/ssurgo/).

29. Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of
    Agriculture. State Soil Geographic (STATSGO) Database for Maryland
    and Pennsylvania, 2006.
    (http://www.ncgc.nrcs.usda.gov/products/datasets/statsgo/).

30. Pennsylvania Geologic Survey, website.
    [http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/topogeo/]{.underline}

31. Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources,
    Bedrock Geological Map of the Unionville Quadrangle Chester County,
    Pennsylvania.

32. Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources,
    Bedrock Geology of the Coatesville Quadrangle, Chester County,
    Pennsylvania, 2004.

33. Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Maps
    1 and 7 -- Geologic Map of Pennsylvania, 1980.

34. Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources,
    Educational Series No. 9 - Landslides in Pennsylvania, 2001.

35. Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Map
    13 - Physiographic Provinces of Pennsylvania, 2000.

36. Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Map
    59 - Glacial Deposits of Pennsylvania, 2000.

37. Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Map
    61 - Atlas of Preliminary Geologic Quadrangle Maps of Pennsylvania,
    1981.

38. Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Map
    15 - Limestone and Dolomite Distribution in Pennsylvania, 2000.

39. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection -- Bureau of
    Abandoned Mine Reclamation, Science of Acid Mine Drainage
    website, 2006. ,
    http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/minres/bamr/amd/science_of_AMD.htm

40. Pennsylvania Geologic Survey, Earthquake Hazard in Pennsylvania,
    1989.

41. Pennsylvania Geologic Survey, Basement Depth and Related Geospatial
    Database for Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania Geologic Survey, 4th ser.,
    Open-File General Geology Report 05-01.0, 2005a.
    (www.dcnr.state.pa.us/topogeo/openfile)

42. Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Map
    68 - Density of Mapped Karst Features in South-Central and
    Southeastern Pennsylvania, 2003.

43. Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources,
    Educational Series 11 - Sinkholes in Pennsylvania, 1999.

44. Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Open
    File Report 93-01 - Sinkholes and Karst-related Features of Chester
    County, Pennsylvania, 1993.

45. Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Open
    File Report 97-04 - Directory of the Nonfuel-Mineral Producers in
    Pennsylvania, 1997.

46. Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Open
    File Report Open File General Geology Report 05-01.0, Precambrian
    Basement map of the Appalachian Basin and Piedmont Province in
    Pennsylvania, 2005b.

47. Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Map
    11 - Distribution of Pennsylvania Coals, 2000.

[]{.mark}

48. Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Map
    10 - Oil and Gas Fields of Pennsylvania, 1993.

49. Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, The
    State Fossil, 2006
    (http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/topogeo/collecting/state_fossil.aspx).

50. Pittsburgh Geological Society, "Dinosaurs in Pennsylvania?", 2006
    (http://pittsburghgeologicalsociety.org/localinterest/dinosaurs.pdf).

51. United States Geological Survey, 2002 USGS National Seismic Hazard
    Maps, Conterminous United States, Revised April 2003.

52. United States Geological Survey, Water Supply Paper 2275 -- National
    Groundwater Summary 1984: hydrologic events, selected water-quality
    trends, and ground-water resources - Maryland and the District of
    Columbia, 1985.

53. United States Geological Survey, Professional Paper 1183 - Landslide
    Overview Map of the Conterminous United States, 1982.

54. United States Department of the Interior Office of Surface Mining,
    Abandoned Mine Land Program, Pennsylvania Coal Mining Related
    Abandoned Mine Land Problems, 2006.

55. United States Geological Survey, Volcano Hazards Program website,
    2006a. http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/

56. United States Geological Survey Water Resources of Pennsylvania
    website -- Coal Mine Drainage Projects, 2006b.
    http://pa.water.usgs.gov/projects/amd/

57. United States Geological Survey, Open File Report 97-289 - Digital
    Compilation "Landslide Overview Map of the Conterminous United
    States", 1997.

58. United States Geological Survey, Topographic Quadrangle Maps
    (Coatesville, PA 1997; Delta, PA 1992; Downingtown, PA 1992; Fawn
    Grove, PA 1992; Kirkwood, PA 1992; Oxford, PA 1992; Parkesburg, PA
    1992; Unionville, PA 1953; Wagontown, PA 1981; Wakefield, PA 1992;
    West Grove, PA 1997; Conowingo Dam, MD 1995; Rising Sun, MD 1992;
    Baltimore East, MD 1974; Bel Air, MD 1986; Curtis Bay, MD 1974;
    Jarrettsville, MD 1974; Middle River, MD 1975; Sparrows Point, MD
    1974; and White Marsh, MD 1986).

**APPENDIX 6A**

**Project Blasting Plan**

**APPENDIX 6B**

**Correspondence**

**APPENDIX 6C**

**FERC Data Request Response Matrix**

[^1]: Unless otherwise noted, all elevations are provided in feet above
    mean sea level from United States Geological Survey (USGS)
    topographic contour data.