**Resource Report 3 -- Vegetation and Wildlife**

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

+------------------------------------------+-----------+---------------+
| **SUMMARY OF REQUIRED FERC REPORT        |           |               |
| INFORMATION**                            |           |               |
+==========================================+===========+===============+
| **TOPIC**                                | **FERC    | **Report      |
|                                          | Re        | Reference or  |
|                                          | ference** | Not           |
|                                          |           | Applicable**  |
+------------------------------------------+-----------+---------------+
| 1.  Classify the fishery type of each    | §         | Sections      |
|     surface waterbody that would be      | 380       | 3.3.1         |
|     crossed, including fisheries of      | .12(e)(1) |               |
|     special concern.                     |           |               |
|                                          |           |               |
| -   This includes commercial and sport   |           |               |
|     fisheries as well as coldwater and   |           |               |
|     warmwater fishery designations and   |           |               |
|     associated significant habitat       |           |               |
+------------------------------------------+-----------+---------------+
| 2.  Describe terrestrial and wetland     | §         | Sections 3.4  |
|     wildlife and habitats that would be  | 380       | and 3.5       |
|     affected by the project.             | .12(e)(2) |               |
|                                          |           |               |
| -   Describe typical species with        |           |               |
|     commercial, recreational or          |           |               |
|     aesthetic value.                     |           |               |
+------------------------------------------+-----------+---------------+
| 3.  Describe the major vegetative cover  | §         | Section 3.4,  |
|     types that would be crossed and      | 380       |               |
|     provide the acreage of each          | .12(e)(3) | Table 3.4-1   |
|     vegetative cover type that would be  |           |               |
|     affected by construction.            |           |               |
|                                          |           |               |
| -   Include unique species or            |           |               |
|     individuals and species of special   |           |               |
|     concern                              |           |               |
|                                          |           |               |
| -   Include nearshore habitats of        |           |               |
|     concern                              |           |               |
+------------------------------------------+-----------+---------------+
| 4.  Describe the effects of construction | §         | Section 3.3.3 |
|     and operation procedure on the       | 380       |               |
|     fishery resources and proposed       | .12(e)(3) |               |
|     mitigation measures.                 |           |               |
|                                          |           |               |
| -   Be sure to include offshore effects, |           |               |
|     as needed.                           |           |               |
+------------------------------------------+-----------+---------------+
| 5.  Evaluate the potential for           | §         | Sections      |
|     short-term, long-term and permanent  | 380       | 3.5.2 and     |
|     impact on the wildlife resources and | .12(e)(4) | 3.6.2         |
|     state-listed endangered or           |           |               |
|     threatened species caused by         |           |               |
|     construction and operation of the    |           |               |
|     project and proposed mitigation      |           |               |
|     measures.                            |           |               |
+------------------------------------------+-----------+---------------+
| 6.  Identify all federally listed or     | §         | Sections      |
|     proposed endangered or threatened    | 380       | 3.6.1 and     |
|     species that potentially occur in    | .12(e)(5) | 3.6.2         |
|     the vicinity of the project and      |           |               |
|     discuss the results of the           |           |               |
|     consultations with other agencies.   |           |               |
|     Include survey reports as specified  |           |               |
|     in 380.12(e)(5).                     |           |               |
|                                          |           |               |
| -   See § 380.13(b) for consultation     |           |               |
|     requirement. Any surveys required    |           |               |
|     through § 380.13(b)(5)(I) must have  |           |               |
|     been conducted and the results       |           |               |
|     included in the application.         |           |               |
+------------------------------------------+-----------+---------------+
| 7.  Identify all federally listed        | §         | Sections      |
|     essential fish habitat (EFH) that    | 380       | 3.3.2 and     |
|     potentially occurs in the vicinity   | .12(e)(6) | 3.3.3         |
|     of the project and the results of    |           |               |
|     abbreviated consultations with NMFS, |           |               |
|     and any resulting EFH assessment.    |           |               |
+------------------------------------------+-----------+---------------+
| 8.  Describe any significant biological  | §         | Sections      |
|     resources that would be affected.    | 380.1     | 3.3.1, 3.3.2, |
|     Describe impact and any mitigation   | 2(e)(4&7) | 3.4, and 3.6  |
|     proposed to avoid or minimize that   |           |               |
|     impact.                              |           |               |
|                                          |           |               |
| -   For offshore species be sure to      |           |               |
|     include effects of sedimentation,    |           |               |
|     changes to substrate, effects or     |           |               |
|     blasting, etc. This information is   |           |               |
|     needed on a mile-by-mile basis and   |           |               |
|     will require completion of           |           |               |
|     geophysical and other surveys before |           |               |
|     filing.                              |           |               |
+------------------------------------------+-----------+---------------+

  ------------------------------------------------------ ----------------
  **SUMMARY OF REQUIRED FERC REPORT INFORMATION**        

  **TOPIC**                                              **Report
                                                         Reference or Not
                                                         Applicable**

  **Additional Information Often Missing and Resulting   
  in Data Requests**                                     

  Provide copies of correspondence from federal and      Appendix 3C
  state fish and wildlife agencies along with responses  
  to their recommendations to avoid or limit impact on   
  wildlife, fisheries, and vegetation.                   

  Provide a list of significant wildlife habitats        Table 3.5-1
  crossed by the project. Specify locations by milepost, 
  and include length and width of crossing at each       
  significant wildlife habitat.                          
  ------------------------------------------------------ ----------------

**TABLE OF CONTENTS**

**Page**

3\. Vegetation and Wildlife [1](#vegetation-and-wildlife)

3.1 Introduction [1](#introduction)

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

3.3 Fisheries Resources [2](#fisheries-resources)

3.3.1 Existing Resources [3](#existing-resources)

3.3.2 Fisheries of Special Concern [6](#fisheries-of-special-concern)

3.3.3 Construction and Operation Impacts and Mitigation
[10](#construction-and-operation-impacts-and-mitigation)

3.4 Vegetation [14](#vegetation)

3.4.1 Existing Resources [14](#existing-resources-1)

3.4.2 Vegetative Communities of Special Concern
[18](#vegetative-communities-of-special-concern)

3.4.3 Construction and Operation Impacts and Mitigation
[18](#construction-and-operation-impacts-and-mitigation-1)

3.5 Wildlife Resources [19](#wildlife-resources)

3.5.1 Existing Resources [20](#existing-resources-2)

3.5.2 Wildlife Resources of Special Concern
[22](#wildlife-resources-of-special-concern)

3.5.3 Construction and Operation Impacts and Mitigation
[26](#construction-and-operation-impacts-and-mitigation-2)

3.6 Endangered and Threatened Species
[27](#endangered-and-threatened-species)

3.6.1 Existing Resources [28](#existing-resources-3)

3.6.2 Construction and Operation Impacts and Mitigation
[31](#construction-and-operation-impacts-and-mitigation-3)

3.7 References [38](#references)

**TABLES**

APPENDIX 3A Finfish/Epibenthic Invertebrate Data Report

APPENDIX 3B Essential Fish Habitat Assessment

APPENDIX 3C Agency Correspondence

APPENDIX 3D FERC Data Request Response Matrix

LIST OF TABLES

**Table No. Title**

Table 3.3.1-1 Marine Finfish Species Likely to Occur Within the Proposed
Project Area or Along Proposed Marine traffic Routes

Table 3.3.1-2 Diadromous and Freshwater Finfish Species Likely to Occur
Along the Proposed Pipeline Route and the Terminal Project Area

Table 3.3.1-3 Benthic Taxa Recorded During MDNR Over Five-Year Survey
(FY2001-FY2005) and AES Sampling Efforts Conducted In June and October
2006

Table 3.3.1-4 Waterbodies Crossed by the Sparrows Point Project

Table 3.3.1-5 Location of Aboveground Facilities

Table 3.3.1-6 Location of Staging Areas

Table 3.3.2-1 Trawl Catch Abundance at the Sparrows Point LNG Terminal
Site, June/October 2006 Samplings

Table 3.3.2-2 EFH-Designated Species and Life History Stages for the
Sparrows Point LNG Terminal Site

Table 3.4-1 Vegetation Cover Types Affected by Construction and
Operation of the Sparrows Point Project

Table 3.5-1 Significant Wildlife Habitats Potentially Affected by the
Sparrows Point Project

Table 3.6-1 Endangered and Threatened Species Potentially Affected by
the Sparrows Point Project

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

  °F              degree Fahrenheit

  bbl             barrels

  bbl/h           barrels per hour

  AMSC            Area Maritime Security Committee

  ANSI            American National Standards Institute

  AOR             Area of Responsibility

  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

  COTP            Coast Guard Captains of the Port

  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

  LOI             Letter of Intent

  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

  MCMERG          Mid-Chesapeake Marine Emergency Response Group

  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

  NAS Pax River   Naval Air Station Patuxent River

  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

  NVIC            Navigation and vessel Inspection Circular

  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

  POTW            Publicly-owned Treatment Works

  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

  PWSA            Preliminary water way suitability assessment

  PVC             Poly Vinyl Chloride

  QA              Quality Assurance

  QC              Quality Control

  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

  WSA             Water way suitability assessment

  WWTP            Waste Water Treatment Plant

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

# Vegetation and Wildlife

## 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

This report describes existing fish and wildlife resources, plant
communities, sensitive species, and habitats that may be directly or
indirectly affected by the Project. It considers potential impacts
related to facility construction and operation, along with avoidance,
minimization, and mitigation measures designed to address these
potential impacts. Section 3.3 describes fisheries resources in the
Project Area, along LNG marine traffic transit routes and in waterbodies
crossed by the Pipeline. Section 3.4 discusses characteristic vegetation
community types in the Project Area and along the LNG marine traffic
transit routes. Section 3.5 discusses wildlife resources in the Project
Area and along the LNG marine traffic transit routes. Section 3.6
presents information on state and federally listed endangered and
threatened species in the Project Area and marine traffic transit route.
Finally, Section 3.7 provides a list of references used in the
preparation of this report.

Information was derived from three principal sources: project‑specific
communication with federal and state agencies; published and unpublished
natural resources data pertaining to the Project Area; and field surveys
of the Project Area from May through October 2006. The field surveys
involved concurrent wetland delineation and habitat surveys along the
proposed pipeline right‑of‑way (ROW) and access roads, aboveground
facility sites, and staging areas, and aquatic surveys at the location
of the Terminal Site. AES's wetland delineation and waterbody
identification reports are contained in Resource Report 2, *Water Use
and Quality*.

## Fisheries Resources

The regulatory framework of fisheries protection is presented below,
followed by sections describing presence and types of fisheries in the
Project Area.

Game and non-game fish species are regulated and protected under various
federal laws, including the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act of 1980
(16 U.S.C. §§ 2901‑2911) and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of
1958 (16 U.S.C. § 661 *et seq*.). The Project will also be reviewed
under both Maryland and Pennsylvania state programs.

The State of Maryland does not have a specific fishery classification
system for its streams (MDE 2003). However, the State of Maryland has
assigned water quality designations to protect, maintain and improve the
quality of Maryland surface waters. Specifically, three components of
water quality standards are as follows:

-   Designated uses;

-   Water quality criteria to protect the designated use; and

-   Anti-degradation policy.

From these three components, the State of Maryland has derived eight
uses for its surface waters:

-   Use I: Water Contact Recreation, and Protection of Nontidal
    Warmwater Aquatic Life.

-   Use I-P: Water Contact Recreation, Protection of Aquatic Life, and
    Public Water Supply.

-   Use II: Support of Estuarine and Marine Aquatic Life and Shellfish
    Harvesting.

    -   Shellfish Harvesting Subcategory.

    -   Seasonal Migratory Fish Spawning and Nursery Subcategory
        (Chesapeake Bay Only).

    -   Seasonal Shallow-Water Submerged and Nursery Subcategory
        (Chesapeake Bay Only).

    -   Open-Water Fish and Shellfish Subcategory (Chesapeake Bay Only).

    -   Seasonal Deep-Water Fish and Shellfish Subcategory (Chesapeake
        Bay Only); and,

    -   Seasonal Deep-Channel Refuge Use (Chesapeake Bay Only).

        -   Use II-P: Tidal Fresh Water Estuary -- includes applicable
            Use II and Public Water Supply.

        -   Use III: Nontidal Cold Water.

        -   Use III-P: Nontidal Cold Water and Public Water Supply.

        -   Use IV: Recreational Trout Waters.

        -   Use IV-P: Recreational Trout Waters and Public Water Supply.

Pennsylvania classifies surface waters into five "use" categories. These
categories include aquatic life, water supply, recreation, special
protection, and navigation (Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Protection 2006). Those surface waters classified for fish and other
aquatic life are further divided into four subcategories as follows:

-   CWF -- *Cold Water Fishes---*maintenance and/or propagation of fish
    species including the family *Salmonidae* and additional flora and
    fauna that are indigenous to cold water habitat.

-   WWF -- *Warm Water Fishes---*maintenance and propagation of fish
    species and additional flora and fauna that are indigenous to a warm
    water habitat.

-   MF -- *Migratory Fishes*---Passage, maintenance and propagation of
    anadromous and catadromous fishes and other fishes that ascend to
    flowing waters to complete their life cycle.

-   TSF -- *Trout Stocking Fishes*---Maintenance of stocked trout from
    February 15 to July 31, and maintenance and propagation of fish
    species and additional flora and fauna which are indigenous to a
    warm water habitat.

Field data and available resource maps were used to classify each
waterbody crossing.

### Existing Resources

#### Terminal Site and Marine Traffic Transit Route

The tidal Patapsco River bordering the Terminal Site is utilized by a
variety of estuarine fish and crustaceans. Tables 3.3.1-1 and 3.3.1-2
list representative marine and diadromous fish species that may occur in
the waters adjacent to the Terminal Site and along the proposed marine
traffic route. The Patapsco River provides a migratory corridor for
anadromous and catadromous fish that annually move to and/or from
spawning and nursery grounds in the nontidal Patapsco River mainstem,
and tributaries such as Gwynns Falls and Curtis Creek. These species
include alewife (*Alosa pseudoharengus*), blueback herring (*Alosa
aestivalis*), American shad (*Alosa sapidissima*), white perch (*Morone
americana*), yellow perch (*Perca flavescens*) and American eel
(*Anquilla rostrata*) (O'Dell et al. 1975, National Marine Fisheries
Service \[NMFS\] -- Habitat Conservation Division \[HCD\] 2006). The
lower Patapsco River estuary also provides late nursery habitat for the
young-of-the-year of species which are ocean-spawned, or spawned in
other areas of the Chesapeake Bay. These species include striped bass
(*Morone saxatilis*), bluefish (*Pomatomus saltatrix*), summer flounder
(*Paralichthys dentatus*), winter flounder (*Pseudopleuronectes
americanus*), spot (*Leiostomus xanthurus*), Atlantic croaker
(*Micorpogon undulates*) and blue crab (*Callinectes sapidus*) (Lippson
1973, Cronin 1971, United States Army Corps of Engineers \[COE\] 2006,
NMFS HCD 2006).

Additionally, a large volume of data exists regarding potential benthic
macroinvertebrate species present within the Chesapeake Bay area, with
multiple locations within or adjacent to the proposed Project Terminal
Site. Benthic data retrieved from a benthic community database
maintained by the Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MDNR)
indicated that a total of 32 different species have been collected over
a five-year period (September 30, 2000 to September 30, 2005; refer to
Table 3.3.1-3). The polychaete, *Streblospio benedicti*, was present in
high numbers throughout the five-year period, and studies have shown
that this species is associated with high pollution levels and is often
used as an indicator of polluted waters (Gray et al 1979, Hartwell et al
2004). AES's samplings conducted on June 28, 2006 and October 18, 2006
produced similar results, as a total of 20 species were collected with
*S. benedicti* being one of the dominant species (Appendix 3A, Table 11
and Table 12). Of the 20 species collected, seven species overlapped
with those obtained from the MDNR database over the past five years.

As described in Section 2.4.9.2 of Resource Report 2, *Water Use and
Quality*, AES plans to install a fire fighting system at the Terminal
Site. The primary fire fighting system will contain two on-shore
firewater pumps, each capable of providing the entire firewater demand
(100 percent redundancy). The firewater system that will be installed at
the Terminal Site will be a private, fresh water distributed fire main
loop that is fed via fire pumps from a firewater storage tank. The
distributed loop will provide firewater to various sprinkler systems,
automatic water systems, hydrants, monitors and other systems as needed.
The storage tank capacity will be sufficient to provide water to the
largest system demand for two hours. The fire water tank will be
supplied with water from the city water main.

In addition, there will be an LNG storage tank deluge system to protect
storage tanks that may be exposed to high levels of heat in the
extremely unlikely event of a fire involving an adjacent tank or sump.
The deluge system will be fed from dedicated pumps taking suction from
the Patapsco River. The seawater fire pumps will be installed along the
water\'s edge on the western shoreline of the Terminal Site. The pumps
will be vertically mounted centrifugal pumps and will take suction from
the Patapsco River. These pumps will supply fire water to the LNG tank
deluge system at a design flow of 4,500 gallons per minute (gpm) (and a
maximum capacity of 6,750 gpm) per pump. The seawater fire water pump
intake structure will be configured with in-take screens designed to
prevent ingress of debris, and to maintain inlet velocities below two
feet per second (fps), with a velocity cap to minimize the effect of
flow on local marine life. While AES does not propose to construct a
cooling water intake system, the Maryland regulations governing cooling
water intake systems (COMAR 26.08.03) were utilized as the guidance for
the conceptual design of the proposed fire water intake structure that
would be used to provide water for the LNG tank deluge system at the
Terminal Site.

The Power Plant, if constructed, would not require an outside source of
cooling water while operating in conjunction with the proposed LNG
Terminal. All cooling needs would be supplied via a heat/cold exchange
system with the LNG Terminal. Therefore the operation of the Power Plant
would not result in impacts to marine life.

The Terminal Site will include construction of new stormwater management
systems as described in Section 1.5.1.1.I of Resource Report 1, *General
Project Description*. AES will apply for coverage under a "Maryland
General Permit for Stormwater Discharge" (Title 26 of the Code of
Maryland regulation) associated with Industrial Activity for the LNG
Terminal. Power plants are excluded from coverage under the General
Permit; AES nevertheless would design the Power Plant with appropriate
stormwater controls to minimize stormwater runoff associated with
outdoor elements of the Power Plant, and to ensure that such stormwater
would be routed to the Baltimore County publicly-owned treatment works
(POTW) (or through a different, appropriately permitted discharge).
Therefore, stormwater runoff from the operation of the Power Plant would
not result in impacts to marine life.

The transit corridor for LNG marine traffic servicing the Project would
include open water and estuarine habitats on the Chesapeake Bay.
Consideration was given to potential impacts on marine fisheries
resources that could result from ballasting operations and engine
cooling water intakes.[^1] No ballast discharge will occur under routine
operations. Direct impacts to marine organisms may be expected in the
form of entrapment, entrainment or impingement as a result of ballast
uptake and ship cooling operations. Based on available species diversity
and abundance data (AES field surveys; see Appendix 3A), any impacts to
marine organisms from ballasting and ship cooling operations are
expected to be minimal, as limited numbers of species and individuals
have been found within the proposed area near the Terminal Site.

There will be an estimated maximum of 200 LNG marine traffic visits per
year. The ships will range in size from 217,000 to 125,000 cubic meter
(m^3^) capacity. Per ship, a maximum pump rate of approximately 16,000
gallons per minute (gpm), and an average rate of about 12,000 gpm over a
12- to 16-hour period, is expected as a typical LNG ship can hold up to
80,000 m^3^ of ballast water during offloading operations. The intake
aperture on the ships would be about 25 to 30 feet below the water
surface, and would be outfitted with mesh screens to further minimize
potential impact to nearby organisms.

In compliance with the International Convention for the Control and
Management of Ships\' Ballast Water and Sediments enacted by the
International Maritime Organization (IMO), the National Invasive Species
Act of 1996 (NISA), and the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention
and Control Act of 1990 (NANPCA), all LNG carriers calling at the LNG
Terminal will be required to have on board, and implement, a duly
approved Ballast Water Management Plan (BWMP). The BWMP will be specific
to each ship, and include a detailed description of the actions to be
taken to implement the ballast water management requirements. For
instance, ballast water loaded in port or taken on board while
transiting to inshore waters will be changed with open ocean water
during passage between ports of call. The BWMP will determine the
specific locations where ballast water exchange may take place, if
anywhere, within the territorial waters of the United States.

In addition to water withdrawal for ballast, LNG ships servicing the
Project may also withdraw water for cooling the ship's boilers, engines
or onboard equipment. Typically, the intakes will be screened to prevent
foreign objects or fish being pumped into the ballast tanks. The
specific volumes needed for this operation are not available; however,
based on the limited annual LNG ship traffic and the small amounts of
cooling water needed for each ship's engines, these withdrawals are not
anticipated to result in any appreciative impacts beyond those described
for ballast water intake, and all cooling water intake use would be
limited to non-contact cooling water to limit the potential for impact
to thermal change in the discharge water content.

#### Pipeline Facilities

Based on a review of the sources of information summarized above and
performance of the May - October 2006 field surveys, it has been
determined that the Pipeline will cross 111 perennial streams, 66
intermittent streams and two open water/wetland complexes that provide
potential fisheries habitat. Access roads will also cross two perennial
streams and one intermittent stream (access roads are shown on USGS maps
in Resource Report 1, *General Project Description*). Table 3.3.1-4
lists the waterbodies, including type, crossing width, fisheries
classification and proposed crossing method.

The Pipeline will cross 133 waterbodies that support coldwater
fisheries, and 42 that support non-coldwater fisheries (see Table
3.3.1-1). Five of the waterbodies support spawning by anadromous fish:
White Marsh Run (approximate MP 15.5), Gunpowder Falls (approximate MP
18.28), Deer Creek (approximate MP 35.54), Susquehanna River/Conowingo
Pool (approximate MP 44.23), and the Octoraro River (approximate MP
56.31) (NMFS HCD 2006). Coastal rivers that support anadromous species
are important aquatic resources from both a freshwater and saltwater
perspective because anadromous species reside in both environments at
different times of the year or during different life stages. The
anadromous species that spawn within or migrate through the above listed
waterbodies include alewife, blueback herring, white perch, hickory shad
and American shad (NMFS HCD 2006).

#### Aboveground Facilities

Construction of the Pipeline will require installation of nine mainline
block valves (MLBVs) and three interconnect metering facilities. Table
3.3.1-5 provides the location of each of these aboveground facilities,
summarizes vegetative cover types, and provides the acreages associated
with both temporary and permanent impacts to these vegetative cover
types. All aboveground facilities will be located outside of waterbodies
and fisheries, and their adjacent areas, to minimize potential impacts.

#### Staging Areas

Table 3.3.1-6 provides the location of each of the proposed staging
areas, summarizes vegetative cover types, and provides the acreages
associated with both temporary and permanent impacts to these vegetative
cover types.

With respect to the proposed LNG Terminal, AES is proposing a 10,000
cubic yard per day dredged material recycling facility (\"DMRF\") that
will occupy approximately five acres of the upland portion of the
Terminal Site. The DMRF is shown on Figure 1C-2 of Resource Report 1,
*General Project Description*.  Existing site roadways will be used to
transport the processed dredged material (\"PDM\") from the DMRF to the
temporary PDM storage area.  The temporary contiguous PDM storage area
will consist of an additional 10-acre area (the DMRF and contiguous PDM
storage area comprising a total aggregate area of approximately 15
acres), which will be covered by bituminous paving or lined with a
10-mil HDPE (high density polyethylene) liner covered by 6- to 12-inches
of existing site soil or imported soil. Additionally, AES is proposing
to use an area, approximately 20 acres to the north of the site, for
construction laydown and a marshalling yard for equipment, as well as an
additional area for temporary storage of PDM (See Resource Report 1,
Figure 1.3-2, Sheet 7).

With respect to the Pipeline Route, there are several types of staging
areas proposed, including pipe yards, rail sidings, laydown areas, and
contractor yards. These typical staging areas will be areas located
outside of waterbodies, their adjacent areas, and fisheries to minimize
potential impacts.

### Fisheries of Special Concern

Fisheries of special concern include fisheries with exceptional
recreational value, waterbodies that provide habitat for federally or
state-listed threatened or endangered species and waterbodies that
support commercial fisheries that are maintained naturally or by
stocking programs. Also included, as fisheries of special concern, is
federally listed essential fish habitat (EFH) in the vicinity of a
project.

#### Terminal Site and LNG Marine traffic Transit Route

The Magnuson‑Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSFCMA),
as amended in 1996, was established to promote the protection of EFH in
the review of projects, conducted under federal permits, licenses or
other authorities, that affect or have the potential to affect such
habitat. EFH is defined in the MSFCMA as those waters and substrate
necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to
maturity. Federal agencies that authorize, fund, or undertake activities
that may adversely impact EFH must consult with the NMFS. Because the
Project will potentially impact EFH, consultation with the NMFS on the
Project is therefore required. Correspondence with the NMFS confirmed
that AES needed to prepare an EFH assessment for the Project (Nichols
2006a). Generally, the EFH consultation process includes agency
notification, preparation of an EFH assessment, EFH conservation
recommendations submitted to the action agency by the NMFS and a
response from the federal action agency. Copies of this correspondence
are included in Appendix 3C.

The upper Chesapeake Bay and its tidal tributaries, along with certain
areas along the proposed LNG marine traffic transit routes, have been
designated as EFH for numerous finfish species, and for management of
their life stages under the MSFCMA. AES reviewed the NMFS web site (NMFS
2006) to determine the species and life stages of fish, shellfish, and
mollusks for which EFH has been designated in the Project Area. The Web
site identifies EFH species in selected 10-minute by 10-minute squares
of latitude and longitude, and provides a geographic species list of EFH
designations. The Patapsco River is not identified on the Web site, but
the NMFS recommended using the Chester River estuary data in preparing
an assessment for the Terminal Site, as salinity regimes and ecological
conditions are generally similar between the Chester and Patapsco Rivers
(NMFS HCD 2006). The NMFS noted that, based on salinity tolerances and
the ecology of federally managed species that occur in the Chesapeake
Bay, only some of the species with designated EFH for the Chester River
estuary are likely to occur in the Patapsco River. Therefore, AES
consulted other scientific literature on fishes of the Chesapeake Bay
(e.g., Murdy et al. 1997, COE 2006), and conducted in-water surveys
during June and October of 2006 to determine which managed species and
life stages are present in the vicinity of the proposed LNG Terminal.
Table 3.3.2-1 lists the species that were collected during this survey.
White perch, a species that tolerates a wide range of salinity
conditions, was the most common species collected.

During the finfish surveys, AES also obtained water samples for the
waters in the area of the Terminal Site (see attached survey report in
Appendix 3A). The water quality data included salinity levels that
ranged from approximately six to eight parts per thousand. Dissolved
oxygen levels, particularly from locations near the bottom of the water
column, were at the low end of the range considered suitable for
biological activity (i.e., approximately two milligrams per liter
(mg/l)). In sum, dissolved oxygen levels in the area of the Terminal
Site are likely to limit the presence and abundance of many finfish
species, and low salinity levels will limit the occurrence of many
marine finfish species (Tagatz 1961, Miller et al. 2002).

AES prepared a comprehensive assessment of EFH for the species that may
be present in the vicinity of the Terminal Site and along the proposed
marine traffic transit routes; Table 3.3.2-2 lists the designated
species and life stages that are included in the EFH Assessment. The
draft EFH assessment is provided in Appendix 3B. A total of 99 bony
finfish (this estimate includes 26 species in addition to the
snapper-grouper complex that is recognized as such by SAFMC \[1998\] and
is comprised of 73 species), 13 shark/skate species and five
invertebrate species, are currently designated as EFH species in the
vicinity of the proposed Terminal Site and the area that encompasses
proposed LNG marine traffic transit routes within U.S territorial
waters. Only two of these species, bluefish (*Pomatomus saltatrix*) and
summer flounder (*Paralichthys dentatus*) were collected during the June
and October 2006 sampling events (Table 3.3.2-1). A previous EFH
assessment performed in part for this area of the Patapsco River also
concluded that, of the species listed in Table 3.3.2-1, only juvenile
and adult summer flounder, and juvenile and adult bluefish, were likely
to occur in the vicinity of the Terminal Site (COE 2006).

The EFH assessment also included an evaluation of potential impacts to
non-EFH designated commercially and recreationally important species
(e.g., blue crab \[*Calinectes sapidus*\], striped bass \[*Morone
saxatilis*\], etc.) for the vicinity of the proposed Terminal Site, as
this area will be subjected to temporary construction-based impacts. For
those EFH-designated species expected to be present within the vicinity
of the Terminal Site, the proposed Project and its construction are not
expected to have any adverse impacts. For bluefish or any mid-water
EFH-designated species, a temporary displacement can be expected.
However, this species is highly mobile and would avoid direct impact, as
well as continue foraging on prey items such as epifaunal organisms or
small fish in nearby, unaffected areas of the Patapsco River Estuary.
For summer flounder or any bottom-feeding EFH-designated species, direct
impact would also be minimal, as they too are a mobile species and could
potentially avoid the construction equipment. The impact of dredging on
local forage habitat areas would be temporary, with recruitment and
recolonization occurring immediately after construction. For those
species expected to occur along the proposed LNG marine traffic transit
route, mortality associated with ship movements and operations (such as
propeller wash) may be expected for coastal pelagic and highly migratory
species, although little or no direct impact is expected given the
mobility of these species. No direct or indirect impacts to benthic
habitat or bottom-dwelling finfish are expected, as the LNG carrier
routes will primarily traverse deep waters.

Finally, Habitats of Particular Concern (areas defined by NMFS \[2006b\]
that are "discreet subsets of EFH that provided extremely important
ecological functions or are especially vulnerable to degradation"
\[e.g., submerged aquatic vegetation\]) are known to exist in the
immediate vicinity of the Terminal Site but several may occur along
potential LNG marine traffic transit routes (although these routes have
not been determined as of yet and will most likely depend on fluctuating
factors such as weather and market trends). All but one of these areas
can be found off the south Atlantic coasts of North and South Carolina,
specifically within the areas of The Point, 10 Fathom Ledge, Big Rock,
Georgetown Hole, the Charleston Bump Complex and in areas adjacent to
the Outer Banks, Cape Hatteras and the Ocracoke Islands. The remaining
HAPC has been identified in the lower region of Chesapeake Bay and is
thought to be used as nursery and pupping grounds by sandbar sharks
(*Charcharinus plumbeus*). AES will continue to consult with the NMFS to
minimize potential impacts to EFH and to facilitate development of
conservation recommendations by the NMFS.

#### Pipeline Facilities

The MDNR - Wildlife and Heritage Service (WHS) and the Pennsylvania Fish
and Boat Commission (PFBC) identified no significant fish habitats or
unique natural aquatic communities along the affected area of the
Pipeline Route (see Appendix 3C) (MDNR-WHS 2006, PFBC 2006).

Title 25, Chapter 93 of the Pennsylvania Code establishes special
protection for High Quality (HQ) waters and Exceptional Value (EV)
waters, which are streams or watersheds with excellent water quality and
waters that have environmental, recreational, or ecological features of
special significance. Table 3.3.1-4 lists the streams to be crossed by
the Pipeline as well as their water quality classification. Pennsylvania
Code §93.4b defines HQ and EV waters as the following:

> \(a\) *Qualifying as High Quality Water.* A surface water that meets
> one or more of the following conditions is a High Quality Water.
>
> \(1\) Chemistry
>
> \(i\) The water has long-term water quality, based on at least one
> year of data that exceeds levels necessary to support the propagation
> of fish, shellfish and wildlife and recreation in and on the water by
> being better than the water quality criteria in §93.7, Table 3
> (relating to specific water quality criteria) or otherwise authorized
> by §93.8a(b) (relating to toxic substances), at least 99 percent of
> the time for the following parameters: dissolved oxygen, aluminum,
> iron, dissolved nickel, dissolved copper, dissolved cadmium,
> temperature, pH, dissolved arsenic, ammonia nitrogen, dissolved lead
> and dissolved zinc.
>
> \(ii\) The PDEP may consider additional chemical and toxicity
> information, which characterizes or indicates the quality of water, in
> making its determination.
>
> \(2\) Biology. One or more of the following exists:
>
> \(i\) Biological assessment qualifier
>
> \(A\) The surface water supports a high-quality aquatic community
> based on information gathered using peer-reviewed biological
> assessment procedures that consider physical habitat, benthic
> macroinvertebrates or fishes, based on the Environmental Protection
> Agency's (EPA) Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams and
> Rivers: Periphyton, Benthic Macroinvertebrates and Fish (Barbour et
> al. 1999), as updated and amended). The surface water is compared to a
> reference stream or watershed, and an integrated benthic
> macroinvertebrate score of at least 83 percent shall be attained by
> the referenced stream or watershed.
>
> \(B\) The surface water supports a high quality aquatic community
> based on information gathered using other widely accepted and
> published peer-reviewed biological assessment procedures that the PDEP
> may approve to determine the condition of the aquatic community of a
> surface water.
>
> \(C\) The PDEP may consider additional biological information that
> characterizes or indicates the quality of a water in making its
> determination.
>
> \(ii\) *Class A wild trout stream qualifier*. The surface water has
> been designated a Class A wild trout stream by the Fish and Boat
> Commission following public notice and comment.
>
> \(b\) *Qualifying as an Exceptional Value Water*. A surface water that
> meets one or more of the following conditions is an Exceptional Value
> Water:
>
> \(1\) The water meets the requirements of subsection (a) above and one
> or more of the following:
>
> \(i\) The water is located in a National wildlife refuge or a State
> game propagation and protection area.
>
> \(ii\) The water is located in a designated State park natural area or
> State forest natural area, national natural landmark, Federal or State
> wild river, Federal wilderness area or National recreational area.
>
> \(iii\) The water is an outstanding national, State, regional or local
> resource water.
>
> \(iv\) The water is a surface water of exceptional recreational
> significance.
>
> \(v\) The water achieves a score of at least 92 percent (or its
> equivalent) using the methods and procedures described in subsection
> (a)(2)(i)(A) or (B) above.
>
> \(vi\) The water is designated as a "wilderness trout stream" by the
> Fish and Boat Commission following public notice and comment.
>
> \(2\) The water is a surface water of exceptional ecological
> significance.

In general, special protection waters (HQ and EV waters) must be
maintained at their existing quality, and wastewater treatment
requirements must comply with §95.1. The Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection (PDEP) lists HQ and EV waterbodies by county on
the Internet (PDEP 2006). Based on that list, eight of the waterbodies
affected by the Pipeline in Lancaster and Chester counties of
Pennsylvania are designated as HQ or EV.

#### Aboveground Facilities

Construction of the Pipeline will require installation of nine MLBVs and
three interconnect metering facilities. Table 3.3.1-5 provides the
location of each of these aboveground facilities, summarizes vegetative
cover types, and provides the acreages associated with both temporary
and permanent impacts to these vegetative cover types.

All aboveground facilities are located outside of waterbodies and
fisheries, and placed outside of adjacent areas to minimize potential
impacts.

### Construction and Operation Impacts and Mitigation

#### Terminal Site and LNG Marine Traffic Transit Route

AES prepared a comprehensive assessment of EFH-designated species that
may occur in the Project area and LNG marine traffic transit route
(Appendix 3B). This assessment included an evaluation of potential
impacts to important recreational and commercial, non-designated species
(Appendix 3B, Table 6). Important non-designated species were captured
in the vicinity of the Terminal Site during fish sampling surveys
conducted by AES in June and October 2006. A total of 13 species were
captured between both sampling events; a complete list is provided in
Table 3.3.2-1. Potential direct impacts to non-designated species
include displacement from dredging activities during some of the life
stages (e.g., juvenile striped bass, blue crab, spot, juvenile and adult
Atlantic croaker and white perch), and gill abrasion and suffocation due
to increased sedimentation and turbidity. Potential indirect effects
include removal of benthic prey organisms for bottom-feeding designated
and non-designated species. The impact of dredging on local forage
habitat area would be temporary, lasting only until the dredged area is
re-colonized by new benthic organisms. Re-colonization would take place
shortly after, perhaps within months after dredging, as reported in
other studies of dredged areas (Reish 1979, Pagliai 1985, Nichols et al.
1990).

As a result of the construction of the proposed Project, there are
several potential direct impacts that could affect the finfish and
benthic communities within the entrance channel, turning basin and
berthing area of the Terminal Site. These include the potential for
direct mortality, the loss of habitat, and increase in turbidity, which
could cause gill abrasion and possibly affect sight feeders.

Dredging of the nearshore area would cause direct mortality to the
benthic communities within the disturbed aquatic areas (i.e., entrance
channel, turning basin and berthing area) of the proposed Terminal Site.
Additionally, dredging and construction of the nearshore area would
cause a temporary loss of available habitat to the finfish and benthic
communities within the disturbed area. However, the footprint of the
proposed entrance channel, turning basin and berthing area associated
with the Terminal Site is small relative to the entire Patapsco River
Estuary, hence the overall impact to the existing benthic communities is
expected to be minimal, as recruitment and re-colonization of the
disturbed area would be plentiful from nearby, unaffected portions of
the estuary. Dredging may also cause direct mortality to finfish
species. However, the impact would also be minimal as fish are highly
mobile species, and would avoid the area of disturbance and utilize
nearby habitat during construction. Should mortality to finfish occur,
it would be limited to the slow-moving larval stage.

A temporary increase in sedimentation can be expected as a result of
dredging, demolition and construction activities. A significant increase
in sedimentation could potentially lead to gill abrasion and cause
suffocation to finfish species, as well as hinder predation efficiency
of sight feeding fish at or adjacent to the proposed Terminal Site.
However, these potential impacts will be offset by use of the dredge
techniques described in Section 2.4.8.4 of Resource Report 2, *Water Use
and Quality*. Additionally, these potential impacts may be further
offset by the fact that the Patapsco River Estuary receives two diurnal
tidal fluctuations, thereby increasing sediment dissipation rates and
allowing for quicker settlement of sediment of the water column.

The most significant indirect impact throughout the nearshore Terminal
Site area would be the loss of available food for bottom feeding finfish
species, particularly from the removal of benthic infaunal communities
and some epifaunal prey organisms. However, the negative effects of prey
removal will be temporary, lasting only as long as it takes for benthic
invertebrates to re-colonize. Therefore, while there would be an
immediate loss of some prey resources to some bottom feeding finfish,
the overall indirect impact from the loss of food sources will be small
as re-colonization would begin immediately after construction, and full
recovery might be expected within months as reported in other studies of
dredged areas (Reish 1979, Pagliai 1985).

Currently, the Patapsco River, including Baltimore Harbor, has been
closed indefinitely to shellfish harvest, so the proposed demolition of
pier 2 and a portion of the relieving platform near pier 1 will pose no
immediate threat to any shell-fisheries within or adjacent to the
Terminal Site. Commercial harvest of migratory species such as blue crab
and striped bass is minimal in the Patapsco, accounting for only 0.002
percent and 0.003 percent, respectively, of the total harvest for the
state of Maryland (MDNR 2005a). Because any resulting impact from the
proposed dredging, demolition, or construction will be temporary, and
time of year constraints may be imposed (if deemed necessary), it is
unlikely that any of the migratory fisheries occurring adjacent to the
proposed Terminal Site will be negatively impacted. Additionally,
multiple species of herring and shad, yellow perch, white perch, and
American eel are of commercial and recreational importance within the
Chesapeake Bay system. Similar to striped bass, theses species are
highly mobile and migratory, and will most likely not suffer any
negative impact as a result of the proposed pier demolition.

Potential impacts to fish from sound or pressure waves resulting from
demolition/construction noise are possible, but unlikely. Changes in
ambient water pressure during pile driving and/or blasting could have
negative impacts on finfish species with gas-filled swim bladders that
are in near proximity to the proposed Terminal Site during
demolition/construction activities. For aquatic species, risk of injury
or mortality resulting from noise is generally related to the effects of
rapid pressure changes, especially on gas-filled spaces in the animal's
body (Carlson et al 2005). The main sensory organ used by fish to detect
low-frequency (less than 100 Hz) waterborne signals is the lateral-line.
The lateral-line organ is mostly involved in processing acoustic signals
when the source is within a few body lengths of the fish. Otoliths
located within the skull of the fish are sensitive to vibration rather
than sound pressure. In fish species that contain gas-filled swim
bladders, pressure waves are converted to vibrations via the swim
bladder and are transferred to the otoliths, allowing the fish to detect
both sound and vibration. High energy waves that may result from
demolition activities may violate these sensory systems; however,
finfish species with swim bladders that are reduced or altogether absent
(demersal species such as flounder typically do not have swim bladders
and tend to be less susceptible to blast impacts) should not be impacted
(COE 2004; Popper and Clark 1976). Field tests have shown the weight of
the charge and distance from the detonation or pile driving are the most
important factors affecting the extent of injury and mortality to local
finfish, although water depth, substrate, depth of the fish, and size
and species of fish are also important (COE 2004, Keevin and Hempen
1997, Wiley et al. 1981, Teleki and Chamberlain 1978). During previous
sampling efforts within the vicinity of the proposed Terminal Site,
minimal numbers of finfish were collected within 50 meters of the finger
piers. Additionally, a pier inspection involving divers using
self-contained underwater breathing apparatus (SCUBA) and underwater
video (available upon request) indicated that no finfish were present in
or around the finger piers surveyed, therefore decreasing the potential
for negative effects of construction related noise and pressure
emissions on local fish.

Qualitatively, the pier inspections also revealed that only a minimal
number of epibenthic species utilize the concrete slabs, steel piles,
and wood piles, as habitat. From field identifications provided by the
SCUBA team, barnacles (subclass Cirripedia), fan worms (*Sabella spp.*)
and zebra mussels (*Dreissena polymorpha*) were the most abundant and
would suffer no negative impacts as re-colonization rates for these
animals are high. Additionally, positive impacts could be associated
with the removal of highly invasive species like the zebra mussel, but
it is unlikely that the proposed demolition would provide a permanent
solution. Positive impacts to the benthic communities may result from
the proposed demolition, as more bottom space will be created and/or
restored within the immediate vicinity of the proposed Terminal Site.
Although a short term negative impact on local benthic communities
within the immediate vicinity of the proposed construction is likely
(displacement and potential mortality), rapid recolonization is expected
since the majority of species found in the proposed area of the Terminal
Site are opportunistic. The Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE)
has further substantiated this claim in a previously published federal
navigation channel Use Attainability Analysis (MDE 2005) in which the
following statement was included:

The existing benthic community in the Outer and Inner Harbor
deep-dredged channels can be characterized as unstable due to frequent
disturbances, such as the 42-foot dredging project, annual maintenance
dredging and prop-washes associated with ship movements, and is thought
to consist primarily of opportunistic species. The community likely to
recolonize in the deep dredged channels would be similar in nature to
the existing benthic community, since the existing benthic community is
unstable and frequently disturbed, and recolonization may occur within a
relatively short time.

No negative impacts to marine mammals or reptiles are anticipated to
occur within the proposed Terminal Site, as sightings or captures of
these animals are rare in that area. Moreover, marine reptiles such as
turtles prefer habitat that is primarily composed of submerged aquatic
vegetation (SAV), which is notably absent within the vicinity of the
Terminal Site, making any long-term occupation improbable. Additionally,
both marine mammals and reptiles are extremely mobile and could likely
vacate the areas in the vicinity of the Terminal Site under adverse
conditions.

AES will comply with the requirements of Federal and state permits for
the Project and, in order to prevent unnecessary negative impact,
mitigation measures will be taken during the proposed pier
demolition/construction phases. The NMFS stated in a May 23, 2006 letter
that it supports AES's efforts to reduce dredging in the Patapsco River
and to pursue innovative re-use technology for dredge material generated
by construction of the LNG Terminal. The NMFS also supports AES's
decision to construct a closed-loop heat transfer fluid (HTF)
vaporization system for the proposed LNG Terminal, which will avoid
resource impacts that would otherwise be associated with an open system
requiring water withdrawal from and discharge to the Patapsco River
(NMFS HCD 2006). The current LNG Terminal design also uses seawater
pumps to provide deluge water to the LNG storage tanks (to cool tanks in
the highly unlikely event that an adjacent tank should catch fire). 
These pumps will take suction from the Chesapeake Bay, and would run
only during routine testing and in a large fire scenario.  Additionally,
as described in Section 2.4.8 of Resource Report 2, *Water Use and
Quality*, silt curtains will be used as required to minimize turbidity,
and a cofferdam will be installed to minimize in-water construction,
thereby reducing the need to conduct underwater sheet-pile-driving
operations overall.

AES evaluated the potential for the required dredging to a depth of 45
feet below MLLW to increase the salinity and lower dissolved oxygen (DO)
within the vicinity of the Terminal Site, as a result of connecting with
the main channel for the Patapsco River estuary. The evaluation assessed
the impacts of lower DO and increased salinity to the re-establishment
of existing populations of benthic organisms within the offshore areas
immediately adjacent to the Terminal Site. The MDNR created an Index of
Biotic Integrity for the Patapsco/Back River basin that classifies the
health of the Patapsco River as very poor, the lowest rating possible
(MDNR 2005b). More specifically, DO averaged 1.2 mg/l and 0.67 mg/l
during a seven-month collection period during the 2004 and 2005 sampling
seasons, respectively, making it unlikely that the Baltimore Harbor
region and the area adjacent to the Terminal Site within the Patapsco
River can adequately support most biological life for any long term
duration. Given the low levels of DO that currently exist within the
area adjacent to the Terminal Site, it is unlikely that any additional
decreases in water quality would affect existing biological communities,
as those currently found within the vicinity of the Terminal Site are
seemingly well adapted to poor conditions.

For those species expected to occur along the proposed LNG marine
traffic transit route, mortality associated with ship movements and
operations (such as propeller turbulence) may be expected for coastal
pelagic and highly migratory species whose egg and larval stages are
planktonic (Holland 1986, Nielsen et al. 1986, Pearson et al. 1989);
although little or no direct impact is expected for the juvenile and
adult stages of these species given their mobility. Additionally, no
direct or indirect impacts to benthic habitat or bottom-dwelling finfish
are expected as the potential LNG carrier routes will likely traverse
deep waters. No significant indirect impacts would likely result from
the nominal increase in marine traffic along the potential transit
routes. A possible cumulative and/or synergistic impact associated with
the proposed nominal increase in marine traffic (and associated transit
routes) could result inasmuch that an overall increase in
ocean/bay/harbor traffic may increase the mortality rate of planktonic
eggs and larvae (Holland 1986, Nielsen et al. 1986, Pearson et al.
1989). It is not yet (and may never be) known if the relationship
between traffic and mortality would be linear or exponential with the
latter being the least desirable. Impacts associated with increased LNG
marine traffic and mitigation measures are discussed in detail within
the EFH (Appendix 3B).

#### Pipeline Facilities

Table 3.3.1-4 identifies the proposed crossing methods for all
waterbodies that will be crossed by the Pipeline and associated access
roads. AES will continue consultation with state and federal
environmental agencies to reach consensus on the preferred crossing
method for each waterbody along the Pipeline Route. Avoidance and/or
minimization of impacts to aquatic resources, including fisheries, is
integral to method selection.

Impacts to fisheries resources and other aquatic communities from
in-stream trenching can be both direct and indirect. The impacts will
depend primarily on the physical characteristics of the streams (e.g.,
presence of water and flow, substrate, channel configuration) and time
of year. Of these characteristics, the presence of water with
perceptible flow is of overriding significance and is assumed in the
following discussion.

All streams that exhibit flow at the time of construction will be
crossed using dry ditch construction methods (e.g., dam and pump, flume,
and, for selected streams, horizontal directional drill (HDD). Proper
waterbody construction and restoration procedures will serve to minimize
the short-term water quality impacts associated with construction of the
waterbody crossings.

The NMFS recommended that the five waterbodies known to support
anadromous fish be crossed using HDD techniques (NMFS HCD 2006). Those
waterbodies include White Marsh Run (MP 15.45), Gunpowder Falls (MP
18.25), Deer Creek (MP 35.54), Susquehanna River/Conowingo Pool (MP
44.23) and Octoraro River (MP 56.31). Based on preliminary assessments,
White Marsh Run, Gunpowder Falls, Deer Creek and Octoraro River are
being evaluated to be dry crossed utilizing flumes or dam and pump
techniques under low flow conditions to avoid migrations of anadromous
fish. The Susquehanna River/Conowingo Pool is being evaluated to be
crossed utilizing HDD techniques.

Some in‑stream and shoreline vegetative cover may be altered or lost at
waterbody crossing locations. Submerging and emergent vegetation,
in‑stream logs and rocks, and undercut banks provide cover for fish and
other aquatic biota. Fish that normally reside in these areas may be
displaced. However, this habitat alteration or loss will be
insignificant because of the relatively small area affected at each
crossing location. In addition, bank restoration techniques are designed
to promote re-growth of riparian vegetation.

AES will maintain a minimum separation distance of 100 feet between
equipment refueling and service areas associated with Pipeline
construction and all intermittent and perennial streams, so as to avoid
affecting aquatic biota or their habitat from potential fuel or other
petroleum product spills. Any accidental spill or equipment malfunction
resulting in a spill will be promptly contained and properly cleaned up,
as specified in the Project's Spill Prevention, Control and
Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan. Spill kits will be required on all
construction equipment as a standard operating procedure. Environmental
inspectors will inspect the construction areas to ensure that leaks or
spills have not occurred at the stream crossings and to respond to any
spills that may occur.

During operation, fisheries resources are unlikely to be impacted by
maintenance mowing or manual removal of woody vegetation along the
Pipeline Route. Vegetation control will be conducted solely by
mechanical means; no herbicides will be used within 100 feet of
waterbodies and wetlands, except as allowed by the appropriate land
management agency or state agency.

#### [Waterbody Crossing Mitigation]{.underline} {#waterbody-crossing-mitigation .unnumbered}

To the greatest extent practicable, the construction method utilized for
each waterbody crossing will be compatible with the environmental
sensitivity and physical characteristics of each waterbody. AES will
consult with and maintain communication with state and federal agencies
throughout the planning, permitting, and design process, as warranted,
to ensure that the proper construction method is selected and
implemented. AES will follow the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's
(FERC) *Plan and Procedures* and the SPCC Plan, and utilize the
Construction Best Management Practices (BMPs) during the construction
process. Adoption of procedures, including compliance with seasonal and
time constraints for in-stream work, use of appropriate sediment control
devices, spoil storage and extra workspace setbacks, and storing and
re-fueling equipment at least 100 feet away from waterbodies, will limit
downstream sedimentation and other pollutant inflows from adjacent
upland areas during and after construction.

Construction and restoration at waterbody crossings will be completed as
quickly as practicable and in accordance with the FERC's time limits,
where applicable, unless additional time is expressly permitted by
federal and state agencies, or unforeseen circumstances (e.g., inclement
weather) should dictate otherwise. Short construction time frames will
limit the spatial and temporal extent of sedimentation and turbidity
impacts on fish, other in‑stream biota and aquatic habitat.

#### Aboveground Facilities

Aboveground facilities will be located outside of waterbodies and
fisheries, and placed outside of adjacent areas to minimize potential
impacts. Impacts to fisheries resources and other aquatic communities
from aboveground facilities is not anticipated.

## Vegetation

The following sections describe the major vegetation cover types that
will be crossed or otherwise affected by the Project. Project effects on
vegetation are summarized in Table 3.4-1. Federally and state-listed
endangered and threatened plants are discussed in Section 3.6.

### Existing Resources

Descriptions of the Ecoregions of the United States (United States
Department of Agriculture \[USDA\] 1995) provides a hierarchical
classification system for ecological units on a national and regional
scale. All areas of the country are described as being within a specific
Domain, Division and Province. The Project Area is located in the Humid
Temperate Domain (USDA 1995). The Humid Temperate Domain is located
between 30 to 60 degrees North and is characterized by both tropical and
polar air massed pronounced seasons, with strong annual cycles of
precipitation and temperate climates (USDA 1995); this Domain includes
both broadleaf and evergreen forests. Two Divisions are found within the
Project Area including the predominant Hot Continental Division (220)
and the upper part of the Subtropical Division (230). The Hot
Continental Division defines eastern climate regions that fall within
the temperate isotherm boundaries of 72 degrees Fahrenheit (^o^F) for
the warmest month and 32 ^o^F for the coldest month. The distinguishing
climate boundary between the Hot Continental Division and Subtropical
Division is defined by the warmest temperature during winter months, or
32 ^o^F (USDA 1995). Provinces occurring in the Project Area include the
Outer Coastal Plain Mixed Province located within the Subtropical
Division (LNG Terminal and south portion of Pipeline Route) and the
Eastern Broadleaf Forest (Oceanic) Province located within the Hot
Continental Division (mid-to upper Pipeline Route).

The southern portion of the Pipeline Route and the LNG Terminal falls
within the extreme upper part of the Subtropical Division / Outer
Coastal Plain Mixed Province. Under the USDA description for this
province, which includes areas as far south as Georgia, it is
characterized by sandy coastal regions that are covered by second-growth
forests of longleaf, loblolly and slash pines. Inland areas support
deciduous forest. Because of the far northern location of the Pipeline
Route and Terminal Site within the Subtropical Division and current land
use factors, these vegetative communities do not occur along or within
the vicinity of the Project Area.

The northern portion of the Pipeline Route falls within the Hot
Continental Division / Eastern Broadleaf Forest (Oceanic) Province.
Vegetation in this area is winter deciduous forest, dominated by tall
broadleaf trees that provide a continuous dense canopy in summer but
shed their leaves completely in winter (USDA 1995). Land use within the
vicinity of the Pipeline Route has converted much of the forest into
agricultural fields and other early successional habitats.

The following sections provide brief descriptions of the vegetation
cover types and associated plant species composition for each of the
Project's proposed facilities. Information for this section was obtained
during field surveys and from aerial photograph interpretation for the
Project Area (these photos are used as a base layer on the alignment
sheets).

#### Terminal Site and LNG Marine traffic Transit Route

The Terminal Site is located in a highly industrialized area that
recently operated as a shipbuilding facility. The entire 80-acre parcel
consists of developed land occupied by abandoned buildings, roads,
docks, relieving platform, and railroad beds with essentially no
associated natural vegetation. The 80-acre area includes 45 acres for
the Terminal site and an additional 35 acres for two areas associated
with the DMRF (discussed further in Section 3.4.1.4 below). The aquatic
portion of the Project Area has also been disturbed and is subject to
maintenance dredging operations. As illustrated in Table 3.4-1
Vegetation Cover Types Affected by Construction and Operation of the
Sparrows Point Project, of the 80-acre parcel, 45 acres will be
permanently affected by the construction and operation of the LNG
Terminal. In addition, approximately 118 acres of aquatic area will be
temporally disturbed during dredging operations for the approach
channel, the turning basin and construction of the pier, as shown in
Table 2.4-5 of Resource Report 2, *Water Use and Quality*.

SAV was identified by the NMFS as a habitat of particular concern in the
Chesapeake Bay (NMFS HCD 2006). Based on preliminary mapping of the 2005
distribution of SAV throughout the Chesapeake Bay (Virginia Institute of
Marine Sciences \[VIMS\] 2006), no SAV beds are present in the proposed
workspace areas for the approach channel, turning basin, and docking
facilities adjacent to the Terminal Site. An in-water survey conducted
by AES in June of 2006 corroborated the VIMS mapping effort, and
indicated an absence of SAV in the waters immediately adjacent to the
Terminal Site (see attached survey report in Appendix 3A).

No negative impacts to SAV along the proposed LNG marine traffic transit
routes are expected, as no SAV beds have been documented along the
proposed transit route (Orth et al. 2005). The VIMS, along with the
Chesapeake Bay Program, have collected extensive data regarding SAV
locations throughout the Bay, and no growth has been documented within
the major navigational channels that lead to the Patapsco River.
Relatively deep channel depths and frequent environmental disturbances
within the bay (vessel traffic, channel maintenance, etc.) typically
prevent SAV from successfully establishing and, therefore, it is
unlikely that any negative effects will result from the added LNG marine
traffic. In regards to inbound LNG marine traffic approaching from
territorial waters, no negative impact on SAV is expected because it is
not thought that any of the SAV species of concern such as eelgrass
(*Zostera marina*) is found seaward of the Chesapeake Bay, and if any
SAV does exist in territorial waters it is unlikely that it would be
negatively impacted by vessels in transit, due to the fact that the
overall depth of the water would offer protection from propeller
turbulence and other harmful factors.

#### Pipeline Facilities

Vegetative cover types that will be crossed by the Pipeline consist of
wooded areas (traversed for a distance of 114,364 feet, affecting 250.4
acres), open areas (i.e., agricultural land, pasture, and existing
overhead transmission and pipeline ROW) (traversed for a distance of
245,716 feet, affecting 569.5 acres), aquatic areas (traversed for a
distance of 16,257 feet, affecting 28.6 acres) and developed areas
(traversed for a distance of 87,345 feet, affecting 182.7 acres) (see
Table 3.4-1).

Wooded areas crossed by the Pipeline consist primarily of small woodlots
and hedgerows. Dominant tree species include red maple (*Acer rubrum*),
tulip tree (*Liriodendron tulipifera*), black cherry (*Prunus
serotina*), black walnut (*Juglans nigra*), American beech (*Fagus
grandifolia*), red oak (*Quercus rubra*) and white oak (*Quercus alba*).
Understory saplings and shrubs include arrowwood viburnum (*Viburnum
dentatum*), witch hazel (*Hamamelis virginiana*), bush honeysuckle
(*Diervilla lonicera*), multiflora rose (*Rosa multiflora*), highbush
blueberry (*Vaccinum corymbosum*) and lowbush blueberry (*Vaccinium
angustifolia*). The dominant herbaceous plants include Allegheny
blackberry (*Rubus allegheniensis*), field garlic (*Allium vineale*),
Japanese honeysuckle (*Lonicera japonica*), Virginia creeper
(*Parthenocissus quinquefolia*), bittersweet (*Celastrus orbiculatus*),
deer tongue (*Panicum clandestinum*), goldenrods (*Solidago spp*.),
Christmas fern (*Polystichum acrostichoides*), marginal wood fern
(*Dryopteris marginalis*) and wood aster (*Aster divaricatus*).

Open areas crossed by the Pipeline consist of cultivated fields, hay
fields, pastures, successional old fields, and the existing Baltimore
Gas & Electric Company (BG&E) overhead transmission and Columbia Gas
Transmission Corporation ("Columbia") pipeline ROWs. Although not
reflected in the distance traversed, there is an abundance of open land
within the construction ROW (CROW) along the proposed Pipeline Route due
to the amount of construction workspace that overlaps existing cleared
ROWs. Dominant plants in cultivated fields include corn (*Zea mays*),
wheat (*Triticum aestivum*), rye (*Secale cereale*), barley (*Hordeum*
*vulgare*) and oat (*Avena sativa*). Dominant plants in pastures and hay
fields include orchard grass (*Dactylis glomerata*), Kentucky bluegrass
(*Poa pratensis*), redtop (*Agrostis sp*.), timothy (*Phleum pretense*),
barley (*Hordeum vulgare*), Canada bluegrass (*Poa compressa*), smooth
brome grass (*Bromus inermis*), crown vetch (*Vicia sativa*), cow vetch
(*Vicia cracca*) and white clover (*Trifolium repens*). Successional old
fields and the existing ROWs are dominated by orchard grass, crown vetch
(*Vicia sativa*), partridge pea (*Cassia fasciculate*), common milkweed
(*Asclepias syriaca*), slender bushclover (*Lespedeza virginica*), panic
grass (*Panicum sp.*), deer tongue grass (*Panicum clandestinum*),
Canada goldenrod (*Solidago canadense*), hay-scented fern (*Dennstaedtia
punctilobula*) and Allegheny blackberry (*Rubus allegheniensis*). An
invasive species that occurs along the ROW is common reed (*Phragmites
australis*).

Aquatic areas crossed by the Pipeline include stream riparian corridors
and wetlands. Stream riparian corridors range from grassy buffers to
emergent herbaceous and shrub communities to forested buffers. Dominant
tree species in these areas include red maple (*Acer rubrum*), black gum
(*Nyssa sylvatica*), silver maple (*Acer saccharinum*), American elm
(*Ulmus Americana*), sycamore (*Platanus occidentalis*), river birch
(*Betula nigra*) and black willow (*Salix nigra*). Dominant shrub
species along stream riparian areas include winterberry (*Ilex
verticillata*), arrowwood viburnum (*Viburnum dentatum*), highbush
blueberry (*Vaccinium corymbosum*), spicebush (*Lindera benzoin*) and
multiflora rose (*Rosa multiflora*). Herbaceous vegetation dominating
these areas includes spotted jewelweed (*Impatiens capensis*),
arrow-leaved tearthumb (*Polygonum sagittatum*), halberd-leaved
tearthumb (*Polygonum arifolium*), late goldenrod (*Solidago gigantea*),
Canada goldenrod (*Solidago canadense*), deer tongue (*Panicum
clandestinum*), common greenbrier (*Smilax rotundifolia*), poison ivy
(*Toxicodendron radicans*), Japanese honeysuckle (*Lonicera japonica*),
Virginia creeper (*Parthenocissus quinquefolia*) and bittersweet vine
(*Celastrus orbiculatus*).

Palustrine wetland areas crossed by the Pipeline included several types:
open aquatic marshes, semi-open emergent marshes, emergent marshes,
herbaceous wet meadows, shrub-emergent meadows, wooded swamps and
floodplain forests. Open aquatic marshes are dominated by arrowhead
(*Sagittaria latifolia*), arrow arum (*Peltandra virginica*),
narrow-leaf cattail (*Typha angustifolia*) and broad-leaf cattail
(*Typha latifolia*). Semi-open emergent marshes and emergent marshes
areas are dominated by awl sedge (*Carex stipata*), tussock sedge
(*Carex stricta*), lurid sedge (*Carex lurida*), fringed sedge (*Carex
crinata*), rice cutgrass (*Leersia oryzoides*), creeping spike rush
(*Eleocharis* *acicularis*), soft rush (*Juncus effuses*), reed canary
grass (*Phalaris arundinacea*), fowl meadow grass (*Poa palustris*),
woolgrass (*Scirpus cyperinus*), manna grass (*Glyceria* *striata*),
eastern joe-pye weed (*Eupatoriadelphus dubius*), New England aster
(*Aster novae-angliae*), boneset (*Eupatorium perfoliatum*), blueflag
iris (*Iris versicolor*), sweetflag (*Acorus calamus*), sensitive fern
(*Onoclea sensibilis*) and cinnamon fern (*Osmunda cinnamomea*). Shrub
emergent marshes are dominated by similar species found in emergent
marsh areas with the addition of a strong woody shrub component.
Dominant shrub species within these areas include silky dogwood (*Cornus
amomum*), winterberry (*Ilex verticillata*), common elderberry
(*Sambucus canadense*), speckled alder (*Alnus rugosa*), swamp rose
(*Rosa palustris*) and buttonbush (*Cephalanthus occidentalis*). Wooded
swamps encountered are typically forested wetlands with a strong shrub
component. Dominant species include red maple (*Acer rubrum*), American
elm (*Ulmus americana*), pin oak (*Quercus palustris*), green ash
(*Fraxinus pennsylvanica*), black gum (*Nyssa sylvatica*), sweetgum
(*Liquidambar styraciflua*), arrowwood viburnum (*Viburnum* *dentatum*),
witch hazel (*Hamamelis virginiana*), highbush blueberry (*Vaccinum
corymbosum*), winterberry (*Ilex verticillata*) and silky dogwood
(*Cornus amomum*).

Developed areas along the Pipeline Route consist of road and railroad
crossings and residential, industrial and other land use categories as
defined in Resource Report 8, *Land Use, Recreation and Aesthetics*.
These areas generally have no associated natural vegetation with the
exception of weedy forbs, grasses and shrubs.

#### Aboveground Facilities

Construction of the Pipeline will require installation of nine mainline
block valves and three interconnect metering facilities (Table 3.3.1-5).

The permanent land requirements for these facilities are limited to the
footprint of the facility and sufficient area to secure the sites with
fencing and provide needed access. A typical layout of meter-regulator
and interconnect facilities is provided in Resource Report 1, Figure
1.3-5. Additional land at these locations will be required on a
temporary basis during construction to provide sufficient access and
adequate space for material laydown, equipment, and worker safety.
Following construction, land use in temporary construction workspaces
will be restored or allowed to revert naturally to preconstruction land
use types and vegetation cover types. Some permanent land use impacts
may result but are expected to be minimal and overlap as possible with
existing pipeline right-of-way associated with the existing facilities.
These areas are necessary for the retention of permanent operational
areas resulting from modifications to each aboveground facility
following construction.

Table 3.3.1-5 provides the location of each of these aboveground
facilities, summarizes vegetative cover types, and provides the acreages
associated with both temporary and permanent impacts to these vegetative
cover types.

#### Staging Areas

Table 3.3.1-6 provides the location of each of the proposed staging
areas, summarizes vegetative cover types, and provides the acreages
associated with both temporary and permanent impacts to these vegetative
cover types.

With respect to the DMRF that will occupy approximately 5 acres of the
upland portion of the Terminal Site, existing site roadways will be used
to transport the PDM from the pugmill processing system to the temporary
PDM storage area.  The temporary PDM storage area will consist of an
additional approximately 10 acre area (the DMRF and PDM storage area
thus comprising a total aggregate area of approximately 15 acres), which
will be covered by bituminous paving or lined with a 10-mil HDPE (high
density polyethylene) liner covered by 6- to 12-inches of existing site
soil or imported soil. Additionally, AES is proposing to use an area,
approximately 20 acres to the north of the Terminal Site, for
construction laydown and a marshalling yard for equipment (See Resource
Report 1, *General Project Description*, Figure 1.3-2, Sheet 2).

With respect to the Pipeline Route, there are several types of staging
areas proposed, including pipe yards, rail sidings, laydown areas, and
contractor yards. These staging areas will typically be located outside
of waterbodies, their adjacent areas, and other sensitive land uses, to
minimize potential impacts.

### Vegetative Communities of Special Concern

AES contacted the MDNR Environmental Review Unit (ERU), MDNR WHS,
Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (PDCNR),
Pennsylvania Game Commission (PGC) and PFBC requesting information
regarding significant natural communities that may occur within the
Project Area.

Based on the review of the Project Area in Maryland, the MDNR ERU
determined that portions of the Project are located in the Chesapeake
Bay Critical Area, and that portions of the Project may be subject to
The Forest Conservation Act that protects forests and roadside trees
(MDNR ERU 2006). More detailed discussion of the areas identified by
MDNR EDU is included in Section 3.5.2 Wildlife Resources of Special
Concern. MDNR WHS determined initially that the proposed Pipeline Route
crosses through two Nontidal Wetlands of Special State Concern (NTWSSC),
which are regulated by the MDE (MDNR WHS 2006). However, based on AES
field survey data, the proposed Pipeline Route only crosses one NTWSSC,
which occurs at mile post 22.2 to 22.3 on Wild Cat Branch, a stream
located within Gunpowder Falls State Park. The second NTWSSC roughly
parallels the proposed Pipeline Route from mile post 46.4 to 46.6, with
the closest point being approximately 130 feet northwest of the proposed
Pipeline Route. AES will consult with MDE regarding delineating NTWSSC
boundaries according to its regulations and provide the MDE an
opportunity to review the wetland information during the 2007 field
season. The MDNR WHS reported that sensitive plant species were known to
occur within or close to wetlands in the Gunpowder Falls State Park and
the Pilot area.

The PDCNR reported that the Project may impact several State-listed
plant species of concern and, if suitable habitat is present, surveys
should be conducted at the appropriate time of the year. The PGC and
PFBC determined that no significant natural communities will be impacted
by Project components within Pennsylvania (see Appendix 3C).

In addition, AES submitted letters to the Maryland and Pennsylvania
field offices of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) requesting
assistance in identifying any significant habitats or other natural
landscape features that may be directly or indirectly impacted by the
construction and operation of the Project. The USFWS responses did not
identify any unique vegetation communities within the Project Area (see
Appendix 3C).

### Construction and Operation Impacts and Mitigation

Impacts to vegetative resources are not anticipated at the Terminal
Site, as the area is highly industrialized. The entire 80-acre parcel
consists of developed land occupied by abandoned buildings, roads,
docks, relieving platform. Furthermore, no negative impacts to SAV along
the proposed LNG marine traffic transit routes are expected as no SAV
beds have been documented along the proposed transit route.

Construction of the Pipeline facilities will result in some long-term
and short-term impacts to vegetation. Table 3.4-1 presents the acreage
of clearing required for each vegetation cover type (open areas, wooded
areas, aquatic areas, and developed areas). The area that will be
permanently converted (i.e., maintained as herbaceous cover) will
include 134.2 acres of upland forest. Clearing of forest will cause
long-term impacts to vegetation as it will take many years to
reestablish forest vegetation. Clearing will cause minor, short-term
impacts to open lands, as these areas will be decompacted, reseeded, and
allowed to revegetate naturally to preconstruction conditions.
Implementation of Construction BMPs and the Project Environmental
Construction Plan (\[ECP\] based on FERC's Plan and Procedures*)*,
included in Resource Report 2, *Water Use and Quality*, Appendix 2A and
2B, respectively, will minimize long- and short-term impacts to
vegetation cover types.

Construction of the Pipeline facilities will necessitate the removal of
surface vegetation from workspaces. The ground surface will be graded to
facilitate installation of the Pipeline and to allow safe operation of
equipment. During grading, the root systems of herbs, shrubs and small
trees will likely be disturbed. In areas where it is necessary to remove
larger trees, those trees will be cut and their stumps left in place
unless stumps are in the trench-line or constitute a hazard for the safe
operation of equipment. In all these situations, AES will minimize soil
erosion by adherence to its Construction BMPs, including the Project ECP
(see Resource Report 2, *Water Use and Quality*, Appendix 2B).

Most impacts to vegetation are expected to be minor and short-term. In
open areas with herbaceous cover, re-colonization of disturbed ground by
annual and perennial species is characteristically rapid and occurs
within one growing season. Where necessary, AES will develop
area-specific revegetation and restoration plans in consultation with
the COE, county soil and water conservation district offices, and
private landowners. These plans will provide specifications for
appropriate seed mixes. These plans will also include measures to
prevent the introduction of nuisance, exotic, or invasive plant species,
and will be in accordance with the revegetation guidelines in AES's
Construction BMPs.

Clearing of woody shrubs and trees will have longer-term impacts because
shrubs and trees take more time to re-establish than herbaceous
vegetation. During re-colonization, a shrub- or tree-dominated community
will evolve through several successional stages before assuming its
original profile. Tree removal will be minimized to the maximum extent
practicable, and replanting will be in accordance with local, state and
federal agency requirements. Woody shrubs and trees will be allowed to
revegetate in temporary workspace areas, but the permanent corridor will
be maintained in an herbaceous state in accordance with the Project ECP
(in Appendix 2A, based on FERC's Plan and Procedures) to facilitate
access, accommodate underground utilities in a shared ROW, and comply
with the safety requirements of 49 CFR Part 192.

In agricultural land, vegetation removal will entail crop harvesting if
construction commences when crops are present. If construction takes
place when crops are absent, vegetation removal will be limited to
post-harvest stubble and/or ruderal weeds. Topsoil will be segregated
from underlying subsoil, stored separately along the Pipeline Route
during construction, then replaced following installation of the
Pipeline. Impacts on agricultural vegetation from soil compaction will
be avoided by testing for compaction and mitigating severely compacted
soils by plowing with deep tillage equipment.

Aboveground facilities are proposed along the Pipeline Route; therefore,
impacts to vegetative cover types will be similar. Additional similar
impacts associated with access roads to these facilities are
anticipated. AES anticipates that only existing temporary access roads
will be used and will be restored to original condition or better
following construction. Although there may be some minor widening of
tertiary access roads, no new access roads will be created for the
project.

Once the Pipeline and aboveground facilities are installed and
operational, mechanical methods such as brush-hogging will be used as
necessary in upland areas to keep the permanent ROW clear of excessive
woody vegetation.

Impacts associated with proposed staging areas to vegetation are
expected to be minor and short-term. In open areas with herbaceous
cover, re-colonization of disturbed ground by annual and perennial
species is characteristically rapid and occurs within one growing
season. Where necessary, AES will develop area-specific revegetation and
restoration plans in consultation with the county soil and water
conservation district offices, and private landowners. These plans will
provide specifications for appropriate seed mixes. These plans will also
include measures to prevent the introduction of nuisance, exotic, or
invasive plant species, and will be in accordance with the revegetation
guidelines in AES's Construction BMPs. Table 3.4-1 shows the acreage of
clearing required for each vegetation cover type (open areas and
developed areas).

## Wildlife Resources

Game and non-game wildlife species are regulated and protected under
various federal laws, including the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act
of 1980 (16 U.S.C. §§ 2901-2911), the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
of 1958 (16 U.S.C. § 661 *et seq*.), and the Endangered Species Act of
1973 (16 U.S.C. § 1531 *et seq*.). These species are also reviewed under
state programs administered by the MDNR and the PGC. Maryland statutes
that apply to this Project include the Maryland Nongame and Endangered
Species Conservation Act (Annotated Code of Maryland 10-2A-01), the
Nontidal Wetland Protection Act (Annotated Code of Maryland . § 5-901 et
seq.), the Critical Area Act, and the Forest Conservation Act (Natural
Resources Article 5- 1601--1612, Annotated Code of Maryland). This
section identifies and discusses the various wildlife species associated
with the vegetative cover types identified in Section 3.4, including
upland forest, open land, developed lands and wetlands. It also
identifies unique or significant habitats, such as wildlife refuges and
wildlife management areas.

### Existing Resources

Wildlife species require adequate food, water, cover and living space
for the survival of individuals and maintenance of population viability.
The various habitats within the Project Area support a variety of
mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians and invertebrates as described
below. Based on agency consultation, no significant state game refuges,
Wildlife Management Areas, or National Wildlife Refuges will be affected
by the Project (PDCNR 2006, MDNR WHS 2006, United States Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS) 2006).

The proposed Pipeline crosses Gunpowder Falls State Park in two
locations (MDNR ERU 2006); potential impacts to sensitive species and
habitats found in Gunpowder Falls State Park are discussed in sections
3.4.2, and 3.5.2.

The MDNR WHS identified unique/sensitive areas that may potentially be
affected by the Project (Appendix 3C; MDNR WHS 2006). At the Terminal
Site, a waterbird colony and a historic waterfowl concentration area
were identified (discussed below in Section 3.5.1.1). Along the Pipeline
route sensitive areas consist of NTWSSC, Forest Interior Dwelling Bird
habitat, a Least Tern colony, and several habitats that support
state-listed plant species in the Back River, Susquehanna River, White
Marsh, and Gunpowder Falls State Park (discussed in Section 3.5.1.2).
The federally listed species, state-listed species, and species of
concern associated with these areas were also identified on the MDNR WHS
Sensitive Species Project Review Areas (SSPRA), which consist of digital
data layers that provide an overview of all state-regulated and
designated areas involving sensitive and listed species. The following
generally describes the wildlife associated with the habitats found
within each component of the Project (MDNR 2006a, PGC 2006).

#### Terminal Site and Marine Traffic Transit Route

Industrial areas, such as the abandoned steel manufacturing and
shipbuilding facility at the proposed Terminal Site, typically support
commensal species such as the rock pigeon (*Columba livia*), house
sparrow (*Passer domesticus*), European starling (*Sturnus vulgaris*),
house mouse (*Mus musculus*) and Norway rat (*Rattus norvegicus*).
Several habitat generalists, including the American toad (*Bufo
americana*), eastern garter snake (*Thamnophis sirtalis*), American crow
(*Corvus brachyrhynchos*) and raccoon (*Procyon lotor*) have adapted
well to these altered landscapes and often occur there. There are two
waterbird colonies each located approximately 1.5 miles from the
terminal site. The first is located at the southern tip of Sparrows
Point, and one on Fort Carroll Island. The protection area for both of
these locations neither impinges on the Terminal site or the LNG marine
traffic routes to the Terminal, so no impacts are anticipated. However,
since waterbird colonies are a protected resource in Maryland, therefore
protective measures may need to be implemented, as discussed below in
section 3.5.2.

Wildlife resources along the LNG marine traffic transit route include
marine mammals, sea turtles, seabirds, and fish. Marine mammals include
cetaceans (whales, dolphins, porpoises) and pinnipeds (seals, sea lions,
walruses). Cetacean species typically found along the LNG marine traffic
transit route include northern right whale (*Eubalaena glacialis*), fin
whale (*Balaenoptera physalus)*, minke whale (*Balaenoptera
acutorostrata*), humpback whale (*Megaptera novaeangliae*), sperm whale
(*Physeter macrocephalus*), pilot whale (*Globicephala sp.)*, Atlantic
spotted dolphin (*Stenella frontalis*)*,* common dolphin (*Delphinus
delphis*), striped dolphin (*Stenella coeruleoalba*), and bottlenose
dolphin (*Tursiops truncates*) (Leatherwood and Reeves 1983, NOAA 2006).
The pinniped species typically found along the LNG marine traffic
transit route is the harbor seal (*Phoca vitulina*) (Whitaker et al.
1992, NOAA 2006). Sea turtle species likely to be found include green
(*Chelonia mydas*), Kemps' ridley (*Lepidochelys kempi*), leatherback
(*Dermochelys coricea*), and loggerhead (*Caretta caretta*) (NOAA 2006).
Seabirds spend the majority of their life in the open ocean, at the
continental shelf break, and closer inshore and come on land only to
reproduce. Pelagic seabirds that may be found along the LNG marine
traffic transit route include petrels (Family *Procellariidae*) and
northern gannets (*Sula bassanus*). Some seabirds that frequent the
continental shelf break include shearwaters (Family *Procellariidae*),
northern fulmars (*Fulmaris glacialis*), and gulls. Coastal seabirds
include sea ducks such as scoter species (*Melanitta sp.*), brown
pelicans (*Pelecanus* *occidentalis*), and terns (*Sterna sp.*) (North
American Birds 2000). The marine traffic transit route is discussed in
greater detail within Section 3.3, including fish species discussed in
Sections 3.3.1.1 and 3.3.2.1.

#### Pipeline Facilities

Wildlife habitats along the Pipeline Route consist primarily of a mix of
wooded and open areas, with scattered aquatic habitats and developed
areas. Woodland habitats are mostly small woodlots and hedgerows.
Mammalian species likely to occur within these woodlands include
white-tailed deer (*Odocoileus virginianus*), gray squirrel (*Sciurus
carolinensis),* eastern chipmunk (*Tamias striatus*), raccoon (*Procyon
lotor*), gray fox (*Urocyon cinereoargenteus*), white-footed mouse
(*Peromyscus leucopus*) and several species of shrews and moles.
Representative bird species may include the eastern screech-owl (*Otus
asio*), eastern wood-pewee (*Contopus virens*), downy woodpecker
(*Picoides pubescens*), black-capped chickadee (*Parus atricapillus*),
white-breasted nuthatch (*Sitta carolinensis*), red-eyed vireo (*Vireo
olivaceus*) and ovenbird (*Seiurus aurocapilla*). Typical reptiles and
amphibians may include eastern box turtle (*Terrapene carolina
carolina*), common garter snake (*Thomnophis sirtalis*), black rat snake
(*Elaphe obsoleta obsoleta*) and American toad (*Bufo americanus*).

Cultivated fields, hay fields, pastures, successional old fields, and
the existing utility ROWs provide habitat for wildlife adapted to open
environments. Aerial foragers such as the barn swallow (*Hirundo
rustica*), eastern kingbird (*Tyrannus tyrannus*), and red bat
(*Lasiurus borealis*) are typical insectivores in this habitat. Areas
with dense growths of grasses and forbs support songbirds such as the
American goldfinch (*Carduelis tristis*), eastern meadowlark (*Sturnella
magna*), savannah sparrow (*Passerculus sandwichensis*) and grasshopper
sparrow (*Ammodramus savannarum*). Mammals such as the woodchuck
(*Marmota monax*) and meadow vole feed on grasses and forbs in these
habitats. The presence of high densities of prey species, such as the
meadow vole (*Microtus pennsylvanicus*) and short-tailed shrew (*Blarina
brevicauda*), often attracts predators to early successional fields.
Examples include the eastern garter snake (*Thamnophis sirtalis*), great
horned owl (*Bubo virginianus*), red-tailed hawk (*Buteo jamaicensis*),
American kestrel (*Falco sparverius*) and red fox (*Vulpes vulpes*).

Aquatic habitats crossed by the Pipeline include streams and wetlands.
Amphibian species that likely occur in these habitats include the spring
peeper (*Psuedacris crucifer*), green frog (*Rana clamitans*), northern
leopard frog (*Rana pipiens*) and wood frog (*Rana sylvatica*). Reptiles
that may be found in wetland and riparian areas include the northern
water snake (*Nerodia sipedon*), snapping turtle (*Chelydra serpentine*)
and painted turtle (*Chrysemys picta*). Birds that commonly breed in
these habitats include the red-winged blackbird (*Agelaius phoeniceus*),
swamp sparrow (*Melospiza georgiana*) and common yellowthroat
(*Geothlypis trichas*). Representative mammals include semi-aquatic
species such as the muskrat (*Ondatra zibethicus*) and beaver (*Castor
canadensis*).

Developed areas along the Pipeline Route support wildlife species that
have adapted to human environments. Representative species include the
rock pigeon, house sparrow, European starling, house mouse, and Norway
rat. Several habitat generalists, such as the American toad, eastern
garter snake, American crow, American robin (*Turdus migratorius*),
raccoon and opossum (*Didelphis virginiana*) may also occur in these
habitats.

Habitats along the Pipeline Route support wildlife species of
recreational or commercial value for hunting or trapping (MDNR 2006a).
Upland game species likely to be in the Project Area include
white-tailed deer, crow and cottontail rabbit (*Sylvilagus floridanus*).
Forest game species include wild turkey (*Meleagris gallopavo*) and gray
squirrels. Some furbearer species that may occur in the Project Area
include muskrat, beaver, raccoon, gray fox, opossum (*Didelphis
virginiana),* striped skunk (*Mephitis mephitis*) and coyote (*Canis
latrans*). Some migratory game birds of recreational value that may
occur along the Pipeline Route include doves, coot, ducks and geese
(MDNR 2006a, PGC 2006).

#### Aboveground Facilities

AES has sited aboveground facilities along the Pipeline Route at the
locations noted in Table 3.3.1-5. The aboveground facilities are located
in wooded and open areas similar to the areas described above in Section
3.5.1.2. Aboveground facilities are located outside of significant
wildlife resource areas.

#### Staging Areas

AES has sited staging areas outside of significant wildlife resource
areas at the locations noted in Table 3.3.1-6. 3.5.1.3. The staging
areas are located in developed and open areas similar to those areas
described within Section 3.5.1.2.

### Wildlife Resources of Special Concern

Wildlife resources of special concern include significant or sensitive
habitats that provide breeding, rearing, nesting or calving areas,
migration routes, or overwintering cover or forage areas. The PGC, and
Maryland and Pennsylvania field offices of the USFWS identified no
designated significant or sensitive wildlife habitats in the Project
Area (see Appendix 3C). However, the PGC and MDNR WHS identified several
rare or listed wildlife species associated with sensitive habitat that
are discussed below and in Section 3.6. The agencies identified no
National Wildlife Refuges, Wildlife Management Areas, or game lands
within one quarter-mile of the Project Area. The MDNR WHS identified
three significant wildlife habitats in the vicinity of the Terminal
Site, including waterbird colonies at the southern tip of Sparrows Point
and at Fort Carroll Island, and a waterfowl concentration area (MDNR WHS
2006) (Table 3.5-1). The waterbird colonies are located approximately
1.5 miles south and southwest, respectively, from the Terminal Site. The
breeding season is generally from 15 March through 15 August. Protection
of waterbird colonies (i.e., herons, egrets, terns) is provided through
the U.S. Migratory Bird Treaty Act. To protect waterbird nesting
colonies from disturbance, a one quarter-mile radius protection area is
established and entry is restricted during the breeding season (MDNR WHS
2006). Disturbance activity includes construction that causes
abandonment, and subsequent mortality, of chicks by adults. The open
waters adjacent to or part of the Terminal Site are known historical
waterfowl concentration areas, which is a Chesapeake Bay Critical Area
(see discussion below). Any construction of water-dependent facilities
must coordinate with the MDNR WHS (MDNR WHS 2006).

The MDNR WHS identified two NTWSSC; one within the Gunpowder Falls State
Park and one in the Pilot area along the Pipeline Route (MDNR WHS 2006).
The Nontidal Wetland Protection Act is part of Maryland's wetland
regulatory program, which strives for no net loss of wetland acreage or
function, and for a net resource gain in nontidal wetlands over present
conditions. The NTWSSC and the associated 100-foot upland buffer are
regulated by the MDE. Several sensitive plant species are known to occur
within or in close proximity to the wetlands. As discussed in Section
3.4.2, AES field survey data indicates that the proposed Pipeline
crosses only one NTWSSC, which occurs at mile post 22.2 to 22.3 within
Gunpowder Falls State Park (Table 3.5-1), while the other NTWSSC
identified by MDNR WHS is approximately 130 feet northwest of the
proposed Pipeline Route. At the formal filing of the Resource Reports
with the FERC, a combined permit application to the COE and MDE will be
provided for wetland and waterbody crossings of the project, along with
a copy of the wetlands delineation report contained in the Resource
Report filing. Application review will afford the opportunity to comment
on the Project for any necessary wetland permits that may be associated
with NTWSSC.

The waters along the LNG marine traffic transit route provide breeding,
forage, and/or migration habitat for listed species. Four species of sea
turtles (Loggerhead, Kemp's ridley, green, leatherback), Atlantic
sturgeon, shortnose sturgeon, and four species of whales (North Atlantic
right, humpback, fin, sperm) potentially occur in this area. Loggerhead,
Kemp's ridley, and green sea turtles are present in the Chesapeake Bay
and its tidal tributaries from April 1 through November 30. Leatherback
sea turtles, though primarily pelagic, are present seasonally in the
area. The Bay provides forage habitat for loggerhead, Kemp's ridley, and
green sea turtles (Colligan 2006). Leatherbacks would most likely use
the area for migration. A small and vulnerable population of sturgeon
exists in the Chesapeake Bay area; the area provides breeding and forage
habitat. North Atlantic right, humpback, and fin whales are rare
visitors to the Chesapeake Bay but outside the Bay is a high use area
during migration. Sperm whales may be present further offshore. In
particular, the endangered North Atlantic right whale uses the mouth of
the Chesapeake Bay area as a seasonal migration corridor (Colligan
2006).

In response to concerns about the quality and productivity of the
Chesapeake Bay, the Chesapeake Bay Critical Area Protection Program was
established in 1984 with the passage of the Critical Area Act, a
comprehensive resource protection program for the Bay and its
tributaries. The law identified the \"Critical Area\" as all land within
1,000 feet of the Mean High Water Line of tidal waters or the landward
edge of tidal wetlands, and all waters of and lands under, the
Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries. The law mandated the development of
regulations (Criteria) by the Critical Area Commission, which oversees
the development and implementation of local land use programs. Based on
goals set forth by the Critical Area Act, minimum requirements were
developed to protect water quality, conserve plant and wildlife habitat,
and direct growth and development. The Critical Area Act and its
Criteria are implemented at the local level and most jurisdictions work
to secure compliance with the law either through the permitting process
or through management plans that may include mitigation and restoration;
a Project Notification Form is required for this process. The following
describes the basic Criteria (MDNR 2006d):

-   Critical Area Land Categorization: land is categorized by its
    predominant use and the intensity of its development. There are
    three categories, which include Intensely Developed Areas (IDAs),
    Limited Development Areas (LDAs) and Resource Conservation Areas
    (RCAs). IDAs are areas of twenty or more adjacent acres where
    residential, commercial, institutional or industrial land uses
    predominate, and where little natural habitat occurs. Any
    development or redevelopment within the IDA must reduce water
    quality impacts associated with stormwater runoff to a level at
    least 10 percent below the load generated by the same site prior to
    development (the "10% Rule"). LDAs are areas in which development is
    of a low or moderate intensity. They contain areas of natural plant
    and animal habitats, and are not dominated by agriculture, wetland,
    forest, barren land, surface water or open space. The quality of
    runoff from these areas has not been substantially altered or
    impaired. RCAs are characterized by natural environments or by
    resource-utilization activities such as agriculture, aquaculture,
    commercial forestry and fisheries activities. The Criteria limit new
    development in RCAs to one dwelling unit per 20 acres; the
    \"1-in-20\" criterion helps to maintain a natural character and
    avoid fragmentation of areas. New commercial and industrial
    facilities are not allowed in RCAs.

-   Preserving Natural Resources: each local jurisdiction must identify
    and provide for the establishment, preservation, and maintenance of
    Habitat Protection Areas. These areas include: a naturally vegetated
    100-foot buffer (the Buffer); nontidal wetlands; the habitats of
    threatened and endangered species, and species in need of
    conservation, and their habitat; significant plant and wildlife
    habitat; and, anadromous fish-spawning areas.

-   Growth Allocation: to accommodate future growth, a local
    jurisdiction is authorized under the Critical Area Act to change a
    land use designation and allow development at a density or intensity
    exceeding the limits of a site's original designation.

-   Native Trees and Shrubs Recommended for Planting in the Critical
    Area.

There are a total of 12 Critical Area crossings along the Pipeline
Route, with a total of 3.0 miles (15,955 feet) crossed (Table 3.5-1).
All Critical Area lands are in the southern portion of the Project Area
(shown on Table 8.5.4-1 in Resource Report 8. There are fifteen (15,772
feet) crossings of IDA lands, five (5,183 feet) crossings of LDA lands,
and no (0 feet) crossings of RCA lands along the Project Route. There
are a total of six access road crossings and three pipe yard crossings
of Critical Areas(Table 3.5-1). There are five access road crossings of
IDA lands (3840 feet) and one access road crossing of LDA land (1120
feet). There are three pipeyards and the Terminal Site located in IDA
lands (Table 3.5-1). The significant wildlife habitats identified by
MDNR WHS are Criteria for the Chesapeake Bay Critical Area Protection
Program.

One of the requirements of the Critical Area Criteria is the protection
and conservation of breeding habitat for forest interior dwelling birds
(FIDS). The MDNR WHS identified potential FIDS habitat in the forested
areas on or adjacent to the Pipeline Route (MDNR WHS 2006). FIDS species
require large (greater than or equal to 100 acres) forest areas to breed
and maintain viable populations; many FIDS are declining in Maryland
(Jones et al. 2000). Interior forest is defined as forested land cover
at least 300 feet from non-forest land cover or from primary, secondary
or county roads (i.e., roads considered large enough to break the
canopy) (MDNR 2006c). High quality FIDS habitat is defined as a
predominantly mature hardwood or mixed hardwood‑pine forest tract, at
least 100 acres in size, of which forest interior habitat comprises at
least 25% of the total forest area. This habitat also must contain one
or more of the following (Jones et al. 2000, MDNR 2006c):

-   Contiguous forest acreage of greater than 500 acres;

-   Riparian forest bordering a perennial stream or river and, on
    average, at least 600 feet in width;

-   At least one highly area-sensitive species or Black-and-white
    Warbler, as a probable or confirmed breeder;

-   Mature river terrace, ravine or cove hardwoods, located at least 300
    feet from the nearest forest edge; at least five contiguous acres of
    old growth forest (as defined in the 1989 MDNR report \"Old Growth
    Forest Ecosystems\") located at least 300 feet from the nearest
    forest edge.

Class I FIDS habitat is high quality forest area of greater than 500
interior acres, class II is high quality habitat of less than 500
interior acres, and class III is low quality FIDS habitat (MDNR 2006c).
Low quality forests may present opportunities for habitat restoration or
enhancement. Where there is permanent fragmentation and there is no
potential FIDS habitat, FIDS conservation is not required. Twenty-five
species of FIDS potentially breed in the Critical Area occurring in the
Project Area. Most are small songbirds such as warblers, vireos and
flycatchers. Thirteen of the 25 species are highly area-sensitive; these
species are most vulnerable to forest loss, fragmentation and habitat
degradation, and are generally rare or uncommon on the Maryland Coastal
Plain. The presence of one highly area-sensitive bird species nesting in
a forest is an indicator of high-quality FIDS habitat.

There are a total of 40 potential FIDS habitat crossings along the
Pipeline Route. There are a total of approximately 7.0 miles or 36,956
feet crossed by the Pipeline, 1.2 miles or 6,455 feet crossed by nine
access roads, and 2.25 acres crossed by two pipe yards (Table 3.5-1).
However, because the pipeline is routed almost entirely along existing
road and other utility corridors (which have already resulted in
fragmentation), there is minimal potential impact to FIDS habitat. If it
is determined that new corridor may be required at some point through
FIDS habitat, AES will coordinated with MDNR to develop appropriate
mitigation measures to minimize impacts to this habitat.

The Maryland Forest Conservation Act (FCA; Natural Resources Article 5-
1601--1612, Annotated Code of Maryland) was passed in 1991 to protect
the State's forest resources during development (Galvin et al. 2000,
MDNRFS 2006). The FCA establishes standards for local authorities to
enforce during development. The objectives are to minimize the loss of
forestland from development and to ensure that priority areas for forest
retention and forest planting are identified and protected prior to
development. Compliance is required for any project for which grading or
sediment control is required on a unit of land 40,000 feet (0.42
hectares or greater. Applicants must submit two documents: a Forest
Stand Delineation (FSD) and a Forest Conservation Plan (FCP). The FSD
and FCP documents must be prepared by a Maryland licensed forester, a
Maryland licensed landscape architect or other qualified professional as
determined by the MDNR-Forest Service (MDNRFS 2006).

The FSD identifies the existing forest cover and environmental features
on the proposed development site. The FSD must identify forest stands,
specimen trees, and sensitive areas such as steep slopes, hydric or
erodible soils, critical habitat areas, streams, and floodplains.
Submittal components include an application form, map, and summary
analysis of field data. The map is used to direct the location of
impacts away from priority areas onsite. It is submitted at the initial
stages of the project plan approval, and the completed FSD is used to
prepare the FCP.

The FCP follows a priority sequence, which MAE will comply with,
concerning impacts to and retention of priority areas identified in the
FSD. The FCP indicates the limits of disturbance for the proposed
project, and how existing forested and sensitive areas will be protected
during and after development. Thresholds for clearing, afforestation and
reforestation are established based on the net tract area, land-use
category, existing forest cover and proposed clearing area. The
submittal components include an application form, worksheet, tree
protection specifications, mitigation planting plan, maintenance
agreement and the long-term protection agreement to be placed on the
retained forest and mitigation areas. This plan is part of the site plan
and construction bid document package. A FCP is submitted with the final
project plan, or application for a grading or sediment control permit.

Roadside trees in Maryland are a protected resource identified by MDNR
(MDNR ERU 2006). Maryland's Roadside Tree Law and its regulations, which
MAE will comply with as applicable, were developed to protect roadside
trees by ensuring their proper care and protection, and to ensure their
compatibility with an efficient and dependable public utility system
(MDNRFS 2006). Any tree that originates within a public road
right-of-way is considered a roadside tree under the Roadside Tree Care
Law (NRA 5-406) and regulations (COMAR 08.07.02). Any projects that plan
to remove, trim, or plant trees within the public right-of-way are
required to obtain a permit from the MDNR Forest Service (MDNR ERU
2006).

The proposed Pipeline Route is in the vicinity of Deer Creek and its
tributaries (Table 3.3.1-4), which have been designated as a Scenic
River by Maryland (MDNR ERU 2006). Designated Scenic and Wild Rivers
possess outstanding scenic, geologic, ecologic, historic, recreational,
agricultural, fish, wildlife, cultural and other similar resources
values. The Scenic and Wild Rivers Act (1968) mandates the preservation
and protection of natural values associated with rivers designated as
Scenic and/or Wild. Public Lands Policy and Planning prepares a plan for
each designated river and each river also has its own Scenic and Wild
River Advisory Board. These Boards are responsible for reviewing
inventories, plans, studies, and regulations applicable to their
jurisdictions and for making recommendations on such matters to the
Scenic and Wild Rivers Review Board. AES will coordinate with MDNR's
Scenic and Wild Rivers Coordinator to determine potential impacts and
mitigation measures for Deer Creek and its tributaries.

Maryland's Rural Legacy Program is designed to preserve large blocks of
contiguous open space that are among the State's most valuable because
of their agricultural, natural and cultural resources. The proposed
Pipeline Route crosses several Rural Legacy Program and Maryland
Agricultural Land Preservation easements (MDNR ERU 2006). The proposed
activities related to construction of the Pipeline will need to be
reviewed for consistency with the terms of the easements held or funded
by the State of Maryland; AES will undertake consultation with the Rural
Legacy Program director as needed.

### Construction and Operation Impacts and Mitigation

The transit corridor for LNG marine traffic servicing the Project would
include open water and estuarine habitats on the Chesapeake Bay.
Potential LNG marine traffic transit routes outside of the Chesapeake
have not been determined as of yet and will most likely depend on
fluctuating factors such as weather and market trends. Potential impacts
to marine mammals and sea turtles include the risk of ship strikes from
marine traffic and noise disturbance from large vessels for marine
mammals. Marine mammals are protected under the Marine Mammal Protection
Act (1972)**,** and several species are also protected under the
Endangered Species Act (1973). Marine mammals and sea turtles are
vulnerable to ship traffic at sea, particularly in areas crowded with
commercial and recreational vessels. Several hundred animals are wounded
or killed by interactions every year (U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy
2004). For example, ship strikes are a leading cause of mortality for
endangered North Atlantic right whales (see discussion in Section
3.6.2).

Marine mammal populations may also be disturbed by noise from shipping
(U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy 2004). Many marine mammals use sound to
communicate, navigate, feed, and sense their surroundings; these natural
behaviors can be disrupted when other sounds interfere. Large commercial
vessels produce relatively loud and predominately low frequency sounds.
The sounds of individual vessels can contribute to overall ambient noise
levels; adverse impacts on marine mammals, and their biological
significance, are currently unknown. Except for extremely busy shipping
lanes or harbors, in which resident species could experience some
hearing loss over long periods of exposure to industrial activity, the
primary auditory effect of vessel noise on marine animals may be the
masking of biologically significant sounds (Southall 2005). Because most
of the acoustic energy radiated from large commercial vessels is below 1
kHz, the greatest potential for masking exists for groups of marine
animals that produce and receive sounds in this band for critical
biological functions. This primarily includes the mysticetes (baleen
whales), pinnipeds (particularly the phocids), and fish (Southall 2005).

Protection of seabirds falls under the jurisdiction of the USFWS.
Potential risks to seabirds from LNG marine traffic would be minimal as
this is not a primary threat (i.e. nesting disturbance, non-native
pests, marine debris, pollution, contaminants, and overfishing of prey
species) for this group of species.

No significant impacts would likely result from the nominal increase (2
-- 3 vessels per week) in marine traffic along the potential transit
routes, provided AES adheres to United States Coast Guard navigation
rules, the Traffic Separation Scheme that has been implemented for
Chesapeake Bay (Pearson et al. 1989), and mitigation measures for listed
whales and sea turtles (discussed in Section 3.6.2). A possible
cumulative impact associated with the proposed nominal increase in
marine traffic could result as an overall increase in ocean/bay/harbor
traffic may increase the risk potential for ship strikes for marine
mammals and sea turtles. LNG marine traffic should avoid sensitive
wildlife habitats such as whale concentration areas.

The total acreage of impacts to wildlife habitats (vegetation cover
types) is presented in Table 3.4-1. In general, construction of the
Project will have minor, short-term and long-term impacts on habitat,
resulting in localized impacts to wildlife populations. During
construction, the clearing and grading of the ROW and aboveground
facility sites will result in a loss of vegetative cover and could
result in limited mortality to less mobile forms of wildlife which are
unable to avoid construction equipment/machinery (e.g., small rodents,
reptiles and amphibians).

Construction activities will cause the temporary displacement of more
mobile wildlife species from the construction workspace and adjacent
areas due to increased human activity and noise levels. Following
construction, wildlife species are expected to resume their normal
habits consistent with the availability of post-construction habitats.

AES will adhere to the construction and mitigation methods identified in
the Project ECP (in Appendix 2A, based on FERC's Plan and Procedures).
AES will restore vegetative cover, stabilize wetland and stream
crossings and utilize site-specific procedures for constructing through
sensitive habitats. Woodland vegetation removed from temporary
workspaces will be replaced initially by non‑woody vegetation that may
provide food and shelter for wildlife adapted to open habitats. Trees
will be allowed to grow back on cleared workspace beyond the permanent
ROW. After construction, wildlife is expected to return and colonize
post‑construction habitats.

The Pipeline will parallel and partly or wholly overlap the permanent
ROWs of the Baltimore Gas & Electric Company (BG&E) overhead
transmission and Columbia pipeline corridors for 90 percent of its
length. When combined with other existing ROW corridors (roadway, rail
line), the amount increases to almost 100 percent of the Pipeline
length. Areas of deviation from these established ROWs were devised
primarily to avoid residential or other encroachments upon those ROWs.
Because the majority of the impacts to forest lands occurs in the areas
where the Pipeline parallels the BG&E or Columbia corridors, impacts to
forest habitat will be limited to the areas where widening of the
existing open corridor is needed. Because there will be no net loss of
edge habitat, however, it is unlikely that the species profiles of the
wildlife communities associated with the existing ROW and adjacent
woodlands will be altered. AES anticipates that species diversity will
remain at or near pre-construction conditions following restoration of
the Pipeline ROW.

Stream crossings will be completed as quickly as possible and stream
habitats restored upon completion of construction. AES will use
construction procedures consistent with the Project ECP (Appendix 2A,
based on FERC's Plan and Procedures) to minimize sedimentation,
turbidity and other impacts that may temporarily affect stream habitats
and wildlife.

Construction and operation procedures will accommodate general and
site‑specific protective measures for any significant and/or sensitive
wildlife habitat identified during the course of constructing and
operating the Project. Seasonal timing to account for reproductive and
migratory patterns will be coordinated with state and federal agencies,
as necessary.

## Endangered and Threatened Species

AES consulted with federal and state agencies regarding the potential
occurrence of endangered and threatened species that may be affected by
the Project. Copies of all agency correspondence are provided in
Appendix 3C. In addition, AES performed concurrent wetland delineation
and habitat evaluation surveys of the Project workspaces between May and
August 2006. AES's wetland delineation and waterbody identification
reports are contained in Resource Report 2, *Water Use and Quality*.
Federal and state-listed species that may potentially be affected by the
Project are listed in Table 3.6-1 and are discussed in sections 3.6.1
and 3.6.2, respectively.

### Existing Resources

#### Federally Listed Species

AES submitted letters to the NMFS and the Maryland and Pennsylvania
field offices of the USFWS on April 7, 2006, requesting assistance in
identifying any federally-listed endangered, threatened or other species
of concern, national wildlife refuges, significant habitats, or other
natural landscape features that may be directly or indirectly affected
by construction and operation of the Project. AES also consulted with
the NMFS and Maryland field office of the USFWS concerning the LNG
marine traffic transit route. Both the NMFS and Maryland field office of
the USFWS stated they had no further comments regarding the LNG marine
traffic transit route, and additional consultation beyond their original
correspondence is not required (Koyama 2006, Nichols 2006a, Ray 2006).
The following are summaries of the responses received from the NMFS and
USFWS.

The NMFS replied to AES's information request in a letter dated May 3,
2006 (NMFS 2006). The letter identified nine federally listed species
and one federal species of concern that may potentially occur within the
waters of the Chesapeake Bay, including four species of sea turtles, two
species of fish and four species of whales (Table 3.6-1). The letter
also identified one federally listed species of turtle that may occur in
wetland habitats along the Pipeline Route.

Hundreds of juvenile Kemp's ridley turtles have been reported to inhabit
the Chesapeake Bay during the summer months (Musick 1988); NMFS reports
they are present from April 1 -- November 30 each year (NMFS 2006).
Kemp's ridley turtles appear to prefer sheltered areas along the coast
and frequent bays, estuaries and lagoons for foraging (USFWS 1992). The
primary habitat of juvenile Kemp's ridley is submerged aquatic
vegetation where abundant food sources are available.

The juvenile loggerhead is the most common sea turtle in the Chesapeake
Bay, with up to 10,000 loggerheads inhabiting the Bay in the summer
(Musick 1988); NMFS reports they are present from April 1 -- November 30
each year (NMFS 2006). Approximately 95 percent of loggerhead sea
turtles found in the Bay are juveniles. They are commonly found from the
mouth of the Bay to the Potomac River while foraging along channel
edges. Loggerheads can be found in a variety of habitats such as coral
reefs, rocky bottoms, shellfish beds, and boat wrecks, and are common in
waters less than 50 meters deep (Shoop and Kenney 1992). Crustaceans are
the primary components of the loggerhead's diet in the Chesapeake (Burke
et al. 1990).

Typically, green turtles are found in areas with shallow depths and low
wave energies (Mendonca and Erhart 1982). Green turtles have
occasionally been seen in nearshore waters from Massachusetts to
Virginia from July to November (NMFS 2001), and move southward in late
fall as water temperatures decline. Estuarine and coastal waters of the
Chesapeake Bay provide summer developmental habitat (NMFS 2006). The
green turtle is an herbivore that feeds on sea grasses or algae (Burke
et al. 1992).

Leatherback turtles undertake extensive migrations, mostly within the
temperate zone. They occupy large, open bays in the northeastern U.S.
from June to November; the southern migration to Maryland and Virginia
occurs in nearshore waters from August to November (NMFS 2001). Although
considered an oceanic species, leatherback turtles are sometimes found
in shallow waters (NMFS 1992). Leatherback turtles have been sighted in
the Chesapeake Bay, with one instance of nesting reported on the eastern
shore of Maryland on Assateague Island (Rabon et al. 2003). The NMFS
reports that they are seasonally present in the Bay (NMFS 2006), and are
likely present when in pursuit of prey (Musick 1988).

The NMFS commented that data from the MDNR sea turtle tagging program
and the Sea Turtle Standing and Salvage Network indicate that sea
turtles occur near the mouth of the Patapsco River (i.e., the vicinity
of the proposed LNG Terminal). However no sea turtles were seen during
the June 2006 and October 2006 marine surveys by AES in the Patapsco
River. Further, habitat that would support these species is not likely
to occur within the Project Area, thereby limiting their possible
occurrence. While they may be affected by the proposed LNG marine
traffic along the main stem of Chesapeake Bay, any such potential impact
is unlikely since the proposed traffic will be minimal.

The shortnose sturgeon is anadromous and spends much of its life in
slow-moving tidal rivers of the Chesapeake Bay or in nearshore marine
waters. It returns upstream to fresh waters to spawn. The shortnose
sturgeon matures slowly and spawns selectively, in freshwater, from the
end of April to early May (Chesapeake Bay Program 2006). Shortnose
sturgeon, though rare, are known to be present in the Chesapeake Bay and
its tributaries, including the Patapsco River (NMFS 2006). Since 1996,
there have been 74 incidental captures of shortnose sturgeon in the
Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries; this includes four captured
incidentally in fishing gear in the Patapsco River. Spawning has been
reported in the James and York Rivers, but the species has not been
reported to spawn near the Patapsco River (MDNR 2006b). No shortnose
sturgeon were reported during the June 2006 and October 2006 marine
surveys in the Patapsco River.

Atlantic sturgeon are listed as a species of federal concern. Many
populations have undergone drastic declines, including those in the
Chesapeake Bay. NMFS has initiated a status review for Atlantic sturgeon
to determine if listing as threatened or endangered is warranted. There
are anadromous fish that may be found in the Chesapeake Bay in April and
May on their way to tributaries, which they use as spawning and nursery
grounds (Chesapeake Bay Program 2006). Females move downstream within
four to six weeks of spawning, while males may remain in the river or
lower estuary until autumn when the temperature drops. Most juveniles
remain in their natal river for one to six years before migrating into
coastal waters. Atlantic sturgeon are rare in the Chesapeake Bay today,
but recent evidence suggests limited spawning in the James and York
rivers. The Atlantic sturgeon has been documented near the mouth of the
Patapsco River (MDNR 2006b) and the mainstem of the Chesapeake (NMFS
2006). Potential habitat exists in the vicinity of the LNG Terminal and
the marine traffic transit route. No Atlantic sturgeon were reported
during the June 2006 and October 2006 marine surveys in the Patapsco
River.

Four species of whales are rare visitors to the Chesapeake Bay, but may
occur outside the Bay during seasonal migration within the transit path
of marine traffic traveling to and from the LNG Terminal (NMFS 2006).
North Atlantic right whales prefer coastlines and sometimes large bays,
but are also known at times to be pelagic; they prefer waters within 30
nautical miles (nm) of land (Knowlton et al. 2002). Right whales migrate
between winter calving grounds off the coasts of Florida and Georgia,
and Canadian feeding areas, during the summer and early fall. They are
sighted in the Chesapeake Bay area from February to May and in the fall
from October to December (Knowlton et al. 2002). Humpback whales migrate
annually between tropical winter calving grounds and polar feeding
areas. Like humpback whales, fin whales are found in all oceans of the
world and they migrate to subtropical waters for mating and calving
during the winter months, and to the colder areas of the Arctic and
Antarctic for feeding during the summer months. Recent evidence suggests
that during winter, fin whales may be dispersed in deep ocean waters
(American Cetacean Society 2006). Sperm whale females and young travel
in permanent units, whereas the males travel between breeding and
feeding grounds. Females, calves and juveniles remain in the warmer
tropical and sub-tropical waters of the Atlantic year-round (American
Cetacean Society 2006).

The Chesapeake Bay Field Office (CBFO) of the USFWS responded to AES's
information request on August 15, 2006 (USFWS -- CBFO 2006). The letter
(see Appendix 3C) stated that, except for occasional transient
individuals, no federally proposed or listed endangered or threatened
species are known to exist within the Project Area. Therefore, no
Biological Assessment or further Section 7 Consultation with the USFWS
is required. The letter noted that, should Project plans change or if
additional information on the distribution of listed or proposed species
becomes available, the determination may be reconsidered.

The Pennsylvania Field Office of the USFWS responded on May 31, 2006 and
noted that portions of the Pipeline and associated aboveground
facilities are within the known range of the bog turtle (*Clemmys
muhlenbergii*), a federally listed threatened species (Densmore 2006 -
see Appendix 3C). The bog turtle is a semi-aquatic, omnivorous turtle
found in open, marshy wetlands associated with specific vegetative
communities and mucky soils (PFBC 2006). Bog turtles are also known to
use forested habitats associated with springs and streams as dispersal
corridors (PFBC 2006). Bog turtles migrate short distances between
summer breeding and feeding areas, and winter hibernation sites. The
turtles emerge from hibernation in late March to April, breed in late
April to early June, and lay eggs from June to July. Bog turtle home
ranges are less that 0.2 hectare (ha) (Lee and Norden 1998). The USFWS
recommended that all wetlands within the portion of the Project Area
located in Pennsylvania be evaluated, following USFWS guidelines,
regarding potential suitability as bog turtle habitat. AES assessed
habitat suitability and filled out official bog turtle survey forms for
all wetlands in the said portion of the Project Area; the data are being
compiled and review by a certified bog turtle surveyor is anticipated to
be completed by mid-March 2007; the results will be submitted in a
subsequent filing. Based on preliminary habitat field surveys, several
wetlands were identified that present suitable habitat for bog turtles,
and such areas will require formal bog turtle surveys during the 2007
survey season, which will be approximately April 15^th^ to June 15^th^
2007.

Although none of the correspondence from federal and state agencies
noted the presence of bald eagle (*Haliaeetus leucocephalus*) nesting or
concentration areas in the vicinity of the Project Area, AES's field
surveys documented the presence of a bald eagle nest near MP 44.8. The
nest was located approximately 500 feet from the centerline of the
Pipeline, and was observed to be active during the 2006-breeding season.

#### State Listed Species

AES contacted the Virginia Marine Resources Commission (VAMRC), MDNR
WHS, PDCNR, PFBC, and PGC on April 7, 2006, requesting assistance in
identifying any state-listed endangered, threatened or other species of
concern, state wildlife refuges/management areas, significant habitats
and other natural landscape features that may be directly or indirectly
impacted by the proposed activity. As part of this consultation, AES
completed and submitted a Pennsylvania Natural Diversity Inventory
(PNDI) form to the PDCNR. The responses received from each agency are
included in Appendix 3C, and are summarized below.

[Virginia]{.underline}

On June 14, 2006, AES contacted the VAMRC, Habitat Management Division,
which handles a permitting program that encompasses subaqueous habitat
preservation, and the protection and preservation of tidal wetlands and
coastal primary sand dunes (McGinnis 2006). The VAMRC informed AES that
the state is not concerned nor has regulations on vessel traffic, and is
not aware of other Virginia state departments with concerns or
regulations on vessel traffic. On October 4, 2006, AES submitted written
requests to the VAMRC, Virginia Department of Environmental Quality -
Office of Environmental Impact Review, and the Virginia Department of
Game and Inland Fisheries for formal input on LNG marine traffic transit
concerns crossing Virginia state waters for the Project. Comments
regarding impacts associated with increased vessel traffic have not been
received from the Virginia agencies.

[Maryland]{.underline}

The Nongame and Endangered Species Conservation Act is the primary law
that governs the listing of endangered species in Maryland, and contains
the official State Threatened and Endangered Species list.  The MDNR WHS
responded to AES's information request on June 23, 2006 (MDNR WHS 2006).
The MDNR WHS letter identified 13 plant, one butterfly, one fish, one
turtle and one bird species listed as endangered or threatened in
Maryland that may potentially occur within the Project Area (Table
3.6-1). In addition, the MDNR WHS identified eight plant species that
are classified as rare in Maryland. Two additional bird species with "In
Need of Conservation" status were identified by MDNR WHS to occur in the
Project Area. Peregrine Falcon (*Falco peregrinus anatum*) nesting is
known to occur in the vicinity of the Terminal Site and breeding Least
Bitterns (*Ixobrychus exilis*) occur along the Pipeline Route in the
Middle River area of Baltimore County. Field surveys will be completed
to determine whether any of the state-listed endangered or threatened
species occur within the Project Area. AES will coordinate with MDNR WHS
to establish appropriate survey methods and windows to survey during the
2007 survey season. Results of the surveys will be submitted to MDNR WHS
and the FERC upon completion.

[Pennsylvania]{.underline}

A response was received from the PDCNR on August 7, 2006 (PDCNR 2006).
The PDCNR letter identified six plant species that are currently listed
or proposed to be listed as endangered or threatened in Pennsylvania
that may potentially occur within the Project Area (Table 3.6-1). The
PDCNR identified an additional three plant species that are currently
classified and are proposed to remain classified as rare or tentatively
undetermined (TU) in Pennsylvania. Field surveys will be completed to
determine whether any of the state-listed endangered or threatened
species occur within the Project Area. AES will coordinate with PDCNR to
establish appropriate survey methods and windows to survey during the
2007 survey season. Results of the surveys will be submitted to PDCNR
and the FERC upon completion.

The PFBC responded on May 26, 2006 (PFBC 2006). The PFBC stated that the
bog turtle, a state-listed endangered species, is known to occur within
the vicinity of the Pipeline. However, the letter included no detail
regarding known bog turtle locations. The PFBC recommended that all
wetlands crossed by the Pipeline be investigated to determine potential
suitability as bog turtle habitat. The PFBC also requested that AES
submit detailed information (e.g., site plans, habitat descriptions,
site photographs, wetland delineation report) for the agency to conduct
a thorough assessment of the potential for the Pipeline to adversely
impact the bog turtle. As stated previously, bog turtle habitat
suitability data have been gathered and will be submitted in a
subsequent filing after a specific survey for bog turtles has been
performed during the 2007 survey season, which is approximately 15 April
to 15 June.

A response was received from the PGC on April 28, 2006 (PGC 2006). The
PGC indicated, "the Project will not adversely impact any special
concern species of birds or mammals, or state game lands."

### Construction and Operation Impacts and Mitigation

The general construction and operational impacts of the Project, as
discussed previously in this Resource Report, are applicable to
endangered and threatened species. Due to the limited distribution and
abundance of endangered and threatened species, any impact may have the
potential to impact individual organisms. The primary limiting factor of
some endangered or threatened species is believed to be habitat
availability. Therefore, the loss or alteration of significant suitable
habitat could contribute to the decline of some species' populations.

Dredging, in-water construction, ballast water intakes and discharges,
and marine traffic were identified as potential risks to listed species
by NMFS (NMFS 2006). Four species of sea turtles (Loggerhead, Kemp's
ridley, green, leatherback), Atlantic sturgeon, shortnose sturgeon, and
four species of whales (North Atlantic right, humpback, fin, sperm) are
potentially at risk. Potential impacts associated with ballast water
discharges and in-water pile driving will not be discussed further as
AES operations will not entail these activities; ballast water
discharges will not occur in the Chesapeake Bay area and piles will be
driven along the shoreline only above the water level for support of the
sheet pile wall. The potential impacts associated with pile driving and
construction of the new sheet pile wall bulkhead are addressed in
Section 2.4.8.2 of Resource Report 2, *Water Use and Quality*.

Loggerhead, Kemp's ridley, green, and leatherback sea turtles are at
risk of injury and death due to dredging and in-water construction
activities, particularly if there are sound waves and sediment plumes.
Loggerhead, Kemp's ridley and green sea turtles are present in the
Chesapeake Bay and its tidal tributaries from April 1 -- November 30
each year (NMFS 2006). Leatherback sea turtles, though primarily
pelagic, are present seasonally in the area. Sea turtles are vulnerable
to entrainment in hopper dredges. Construction impacts to sea turtles
related to dredging are not anticipated to be significant, as the
turtles would likely not be present in the area to be dredged or would
avoid the area where dredging would occur. Any sea turtles present in
the area adjacent to the Terminal Site or along the LNG marine traffic
transit route would likely be transient. To assess the impacts of
dredging on sea turtles, NMFS requires that an approved endangered
species observer be present on the dredge to monitor for interactions
with sea turtles.

The Project Area does not currently contain preferred habitat for sea
turtles. To minimize impacts on sea turtles that may be within the
Project Area during construction, AES is proposing the use of turbidity
curtains during pile driving for the near shore construction of the
bulkhead wall, and the use of an environmental (clam shell) dredge
bucket during dredging operations, to limit the possibility of
entrainment. Also, AES will comply with the following construction
guidelines for sea turtles as outlined in NMFS Southeast Regional Office
"Sea Turtle and Smalltooth Sawfish Construction Conditions" document
(March 2006):

The permittee shall comply with the following protected species
construction conditions:

a.  The permittee shall instruct all personnel associated with the
    project of the potential presence of these species and the need to
    avid collisions with sea turtles and smalltooth sawfish. All
    construction personnel are responsible for observing water-related
    activities for the presence of these species.

b.  The permittee shall advise all construction personnel that there are
    civil and criminal penalties for harming, harassing, or killing sea
    turtles or smalltooth sawfish, which are protected under the
    Endangered Species Act of 1973.

c.  Siltation barriers shall be made of material in which a sea turtle
    or smalltooth sawfish cannot become entangled, be properly secured,
    and be regularly monitored to avoid protected species entrapment.
    Barriers may not block sea turtle or smalltooth sawfish entry to or
    exit from designated critical habitat without prior agreement from
    the National Marine Fisheries Service's Protected Resources
    Division, St. Petersburg, Florida.

d.  All vessels associated with the construction project shall operate
    at "no wake/idle" speeds at all times while in the construction area
    and while in water depths where the draft of the vessel provides
    less than a four-foot clearance from the bottom. All vessels will
    preferentially follow deep-water routes (e.g., marked channels)
    whenever possible.

e.  If a seaturtle or smalltooth sawfish is seen within 100 yards of the
    active daily construction/dredging operation or vessel movement, all
    appropriate precautions shall be implemented to ensure its
    protection. These precautions shall include cessation of operation
    of any moving equipment closer than 50 feet of a sea turtle or
    smalltooth sawfish. Operation of any mechanical construction
    equipment shall cease immediately if a sea turtle or smalltooth
    sawfish is seen within a 50-ft radius of the equipment. Activities
    may not resume until the protected species has departed the project
    area on its own volition.

f.  Any collision with and/or injury to a sea turtle or smalltooth
    sawfish shall be reported immediately to the National Marine
    Fisheries Service's Protected Resources Division (727-824-5312) and
    the local authorized sea turtle stranding/rescue organization.

g.  Any special construction conditions, required of your specific
    project, outside these general conditions, of applicable, will be
    addressed in the primary consultation.

Impacts to sea turtles also include the potential for vessel strikes
during LNG marine traffic passage along the LNG marine traffic transit
route and through the Chesapeake Bay and into the Patapsco River. Such
potential is not anticipated to be significant relative to the existing
conditions due to the infrequency of ship passage. Also, AES will adhere
to the NMFS "Vessel Strike Avoidance Measures and Injured or Dead
Protected Species Reporting" guidelines discussed below.

North Atlantic right, humpback and fin whales are rare visitors to the
Chesapeake Bay but outside the Bay is a high use area during migration.
Sperm whales may be present further offshore. North Atlantic right,
humpback, fin and sperm whales are at risk of injury or death due to
ship strikes, particularly the endangered North Atlantic right whale
that uses the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay area as a seasonal migration
corridor (NMFS 2006). North Atlantic right whale stocks are extremely
depleted as a result of former fishing pressures and lethal ship strikes
(NOAA 2006). Right whales are particularly susceptible to marine traffic
collisions since they swim slowly, spend considerable time at the
surface, and apparently take little or no evasive action when ships
approach (NOAA 2006). Often, entrance channels to commercial ports are
the same areas frequented by right whales. However, ships and right
whales also co-occur throughout the range of right whales. Right whale
deaths attributed to ship strikes have been documented in and near
shipping channels as well as in coastal areas that link major
aggregation areas such as the waters off the U.S. mid-Atlantic (Knowlton
et al.2002). Special consideration has been given to the locations of
feeding and calving grounds for Northern right whales. In a port access
route study conducted by NMFS and the United States Coast Guard (USCG
2005), it was determined that Northern right whales are not known to
aggregate within the Mid-Atlantic region. LNG marine traffic should
avoid right whale designated critical habitat areas. []{.mark}

NMFS recommends that AES assess the impacts to whales from increased
marine traffic and provide data to them on the expected number of vessel
transits, transit speed and approximate transit routes. AES will
incorporate NOAA's "Proposed Rule to Implement Speed Restrictions to
Reduce the Threat of Ship Collisions with North Atlantic Right Whales
and Steps Mariners Can Take To Avoid Collisions with Critically
Endangered Right Whales" into the LNG Fuel Supply Agreement as part of
AES's efforts to protect marine mammals from marine traffic strikes.
These guidelines are appropriate for the protection of all whale
species. These guidelines will include reducing marine traffic speed to
10 knots or less and educating marine traffic operators about whale
avoidance measures in order to mitigate risks of marine traffic strikes
(NMFS 2006). Additional measures to protect whales from marine traffic
strikes include obtaining the latest sighting information and avoiding
known seasonal aggregation areas (Koyama 2006). Whales are also
vulnerable to impacts from in-water construction activities,
particularly if there are sound waves or sediment plumes. Significant
impacts to whales are not anticipated as a result of Project
construction or operation. Similar to sea turtles, impacts are likely to
be limited to the potential for marine traffic strikes and are not
anticipated to be significant.

The NMFS has determined that collisions with vessels can injure or kill
protected species (e.g., endangered and threatened species, and marine
mammals). The NMFS Southeast Region vessel strike avoidance guidance
outlines standard measures that must be implemented to reduce the risk
associated with vessel strikes or disturbance of these protected species
to discountable levels. NMFS should be contacted to identify any
additional conservation and recovery issues of concern. The "Vessel
Strike Avoidance Measures and Injured or Dead Protected Species
Reporting" guidelines for whales and sea turtles (May 5, 2006) are
listed below:

-   Protected Species Identification Training: Vessel crews should use
    an Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico reference guide that helps identify
    the species of marine mammals and sea turtles that might be
    encountered in U.S. waters of the Atlantic Ocean, including the
    Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico. Additional training should be provided
    regarding information and resources available regarding federal laws
    and regulations for protected species, ship strike information,
    critical habitat, migratory routes and seasonal abundance, and
    recent sightings of protected species.

-   Vessel Strike Avoidance: The following measures must be taken in
    order to avoid causing injury or death to marine mammals and sea
    turtles:

1.  Vessel operators and crews must maintain a vigilant watch for marine
    mammals and sea turtles to avoid striking sighted protected species.

2.  When whales are sighted, maintain a distance of 100 yards or greater
    between the whale and the vessel.

3.  When sea turtles or small cetaceans are sighted, attempt to maintain
    a distance of 50 yards or greater between the animal and the vessel
    whenever possible.

4.  When small cetaceans are sighted while a vessel is underway (e.g.,
    bow-riding), attempt to remain parallel to the animal's course.
    Avoid excessive speed or abrupt changes in direction until the
    cetacean has left the area.

5.  Reduce vessel speed to 10 knots or less when mother/calf pairs,
    groups, or large assemblages of cetaceans are observed near an
    underway vessel, when safety permits. A single cetacean at the
    surface may indicate the presence of submerged animals in the
    vicinity; therefore, prudent precautionary measures should always be
    exercised. The vessel should attempt to route around the animals,
    maintaining a minimum distance of 100 yards whenever possible.

6.  Whales may surface in unpredictable locations or approach slowly
    moving vessels. When an animal is sighted in the vessel's path or in
    close proximity to a moving vessel, reduce speed and shift the
    engine to neutral. Do not engage the engines until the animals are
    clear of the area.

-   Additional Requirements for the North Atlantic Right Whale

1.  If a sighted whale is believed to be a North Atlantic right whale,
    federal regulation requires a minimum distance of 500 yards be
    maintained from the animal (50 CFR 224.103 (c)).

2.  Vessels entering North Atlantic right whale critical habitat are
    required to report into the Mandatory Ship Reporting System.

3.  Mariners should check with various communication media for general
    information regarding avoiding ship strikes and specific information
    regarding North Atlantic right whale sighting locations. These
    include NOAA weather radio, U.S. Coast Guard NAVTEX broadcasts, and
    Notices to Mariners.

-   Injured or Dead Protected Species Reporting: Vessel crews must
    report sightings of any injured or dead protected species
    immediately, regardless of whether the injury or death is caused by
    your vessel. Report marine mammals to the Southeast U.S. Stranding
    Hotline: 305-862-2850. Report sea turtles to the NMFS Southeast
    Regional Office: 727-824-5312. In addition, if the injury or death
    was caused by a collision with your vessel, you must notify the
    Action Agency immediately of the strike by email (email and/or phone
    number contact information provided by the Action Agency). The
    report should include the following information:

1.  time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the incident;

2.  name and type of the vessel involved;

3.  vessel's speed during the incident;

4.  a description of the incident;

5.  water depth;

6.  environmental conditions (e.g., wind speed and direction, sea state,
    cloud cover, and visibility);

7.  species identification or description of the animal, if possible;
    and

8.  fate of the animal.

If an Action Agency-related industry activity is responsible for the
injury or death, the responsible parties should remain available to
assist the respective salvage and stranding network as needed.

A small and vulnerable population of shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon
exists in the Chesapeake Bay area. Sturgeon are at risk of injury and
death due to dredging and in-water construction activities, particularly
if there are sound waves and sediment plumes. NMFS notes that sturgeon
are vulnerable to entrainment in hopper suction dredges, and impacts may
also occur from hydraulic pipeline and mechanical dredge operations
(NMFS 2006). To assess the impacts of dredging on sturgeon, NMFS
requires that an approved endangered species observer be present on the
dredge to monitor for interactions with sturgeon. AES proposes to dredge
the entrance channel, turning basin and berthing area primarily by
mechanical clamshell dredge or an environmental bucket technology if
required, with some limited areas near shore excavated by backhoe
dredge, as described in Resource Report 1, *General Project
Description*, and Resource Report 2, *Water Use and Quality.* A schedule
of the proposed dredging operations is included as Table 1.5-1 of
Resource Report 1.

Young life stages of sturgeon are vulnerable to entrainment at intakes
for ballast water or tank test water. The intake aperture on the ships
would be about 25 to 30 feet below the water surface and would be
outfitted with mesh screens to minimize potential impact to nearby
organisms.

Shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon are rare species in the Chesapeake Bay,
and are not likely to be present in significant numbers in the Patapsco
River. Additionally, this species is highly mobile and would avoid
direct impact by vacating the proposed dredging area. Therefore, marine
traffic transit and dredging-related impacts to both species of sturgeon
are not anticipated to be significant.

Potential adverse Project impacts to the bald eagles in connection with
the bald eagle nest identified at MP 44.8 along the Pipeline include
water quality degredation, which could impact their food source, and
disturbance, which could result in nest abandonment. The following
discusses potential mitigation measures, which may include seasonal
restrictions on Pipeline activity and the establishment of buffer areas
around the nest. These are the primary methods discussed in the Bald
Eagle Recovery Plan to reduce disturbance (USFWS 1983). The disturbance
buffer zones are typical guidelines used in further consultation with
USFWS and MDNR in the course of project planning to provide for safe
construction while eliminating or minimizing disturbance to protected
species. The guidance is as follows:

-   Primary Zone: 330 feet from nest; entry may be restricted;

-   Secondary Zone: 660 feet from nest; construction and land clearing
    measures may be restricted; and

-   Tertiary Zone: ¼-1/2 mile from nest (dependent on topography and
    vegetation that acts as a visual barrier); some activities permitted
    except during most critical breeding period. Specific restrictions
    are decided upon in consultation with the responsible Agency(s).

AES has initiated consultations with the USFWS Chesapeake Bay field
office and the Maryland Wildlife Heritage Program to determine the local
requirements for protection of bald eagle nesting grounds and the
appropriate buffers required for construction activities. Essential
habitat typically includes 640 acres (minimum) around each nest site,
roost sites, aquatic and terrestrial foraging areas and prey habitat.
Courtship and nest building is the most sensitive period during the
breeding season (approximately October to February); construction
activities should not occur during this time period. Construction and
related activities should be confined to the low critical (chicks one
month old to six weeks after fledging; approx. April to August) or
non-critical (non-breeding period; approx. August to October) periods of
the year. Visibility of the nest is an important factor because
topography and trees may provide screening that reduces disturbance. AES
is reviewing the Draft National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines dated
February 2006, and coordinating with the USFWS and MDNR to develop a
mitigation plan to minimize potential impacts to the bald eagle nest,
with specific focus on minimizing disturbance to the nest during the
breeding season.

The Regal Fritillary is a butterfly species with Endangered Extirpated
Maryland state status. Though considered extirpated, it is possible it
may exist in appropriate habitat (MDNR WHS 2006). It inhabits tall-grass
prairie and other open sites including damp meadows, marshes and wet
fields. This species is rapidly vanishing or declining in much of its
range; populations should be monitored and conserved (Butterflies and
Moths of North America 2006). Potential Project impacts include loss or
disturbance of vegetative habitat that supports larval and adult
butterflies. Possible mitigation measures that have been useful for
other listed butterfly species include restoration and enhancement of
habitat. Restoration may include reseeding with native plants that are
food sources for adults (e.g., butterflyweed, thistles, ironweed) and
larval stages (e.g., violets) (Lowell and Lounsbury 2002). The MDNR WHS
encourages further coordination so that adverse impacts may be avoided
if the Regal Fritillary is found to occur in suitable habitats
identified in the Project Area.

The logperch is a Maryland state-listed threatened species that may be
adversely impacted by sedimentation and erosion. The MDNR WHS recommends
that all appropriate best management practices be adhered to during any
site disturbance in the area of Glen Cove along the Susquehanna River
where logperch have been recorded. Implementation of Construction BMPs
(Appendix 2B and the Project ECP (Appendix 2A) will minimize long- and
short-term impacts to logperch in this area. Further coordination and
consultation with MDNR WHS will also be undertaken to prevent or
mitigate potential adverse impacts.

Some potential direct and indirect impacts to listed and rare plants
within the Project Area include loss of individuals or communities due
to vegetation clearing, and compaction of soils associated with grading
and other construction activities. Possible mitigation measures that can
protect rare plants include avoidance or re-routing of the Pipeline
impact area, narrowing the right-of-way to avoid all or part of the
plant community, or salvaging rare plants by transplanting individual
plants (e.g., temporary nursery storage during construction with
subsequent replanting in their original location following construction;
Trettel et al. 2002), seed collection, topsoil segregation/replacement
for re-establishment after construction, and use of timber mats to cover
and protect populations from heavy equipment traffic (Fryer et al. 2002,
Trettel et al. 2002). Salvage methods have been found to be successful
but monitoring should be done following site restoration (Fryer et al.
2002, Trettel et al. 2002). Implementation of Construction BMPs
(Appendix 2B) and the Project ECP (Appendix 2A will minimize long- and
short-term impacts to vegetation cover types. Further coordination and
consultation with MDNR WHS and PDCNR will also be undertaken to prevent
or mitigate any potential adverse impacts.

Projects in and adjacent to bog turtle habitat can cause habitat
destruction, degradation, and fragmentation. Even if the wetland impacts
from an activity are avoided (i.e., the activity does not result in
encroachment into the wetland), activities in adjacent upland areas can
compromise wetland habitat quality, fragment travel corridors, and alter
wetland hydrology, thereby adversely affecting bog turtles. For example,
invasive plant encroachment creates a monoculture of unsuitable bog
turtle habitat; soil disturbance and degraded water quality associated
with development can encourage the spread of invasive plants. Inadequate
upland buffers do not protect wetlands. Measures must be taken to avoid
impacts to the bog turtles when wetlands in or near the Project Area are
known to support bog turtles.

Prior to conducting activities that may directly or indirectly affect
wetlands, bog turtle habitat surveys (Phase 1) or bog turtle surveys
(Phase 2) should be conducted in accordance with accepted survey
guidelines. Bog turtle habitat surveys are conducted if wetlands in or
adjacent to the Project Area are not known bog turtle habitat; habitat
surveys were conducted during 2006 and the results will be submitted
following review by a certified bog turtle surveyor. Based on
preliminary survey results, several wetlands provide potential habitat.
If a wetland is determined to be potential habitat and the Project will
directly or indirectly impact any portion of the wetland, then AES will
either:

-   Completely avoid all direct and indirect effects to the wetland, in
    consultation with the USFWS and State wildlife agency, or

-   Conduct a bog turtle survey (Phase 2 survey) to determine the
    presence of bog turtles as specified in the Recovery Plan (USFWS
    2001).

Three bog turtle conservation zones have been designated with the intent
of protecting and recovering known bog turtle populations, and are meant
to guide the evaluation of activities that may affect high-potential bog
turtle habitat, potential travel corridors, and adjacent upland habitat
that may serve to buffer bog turtles from indirect effects (USFWS 2001).
Zone I includes the wetland and visible spring seeps occupied by bog
turtles. Zone 2 extends at least 300 feet from the edge of Zone 1 and
includes upland areas adjacent to Zone 1. Zone 3 includes upland,
wetland, and riparian areas extending either to the geomorphic edge of
the drainage basin or at least one-half mile beyond the boundary of Zone
2.

Consultations and project reviews are conducted on a case-by-case basis.
The MDNR WHS recommends that to reduce the likelihood of adverse
impacts, appropriate sediment and erosion control measures be taken to
minimize impacts to wetlands near the known bog turtle populations (MDNR
WHS 2006). Sediment transport, associated with storm events, can
potentially impact wetlands in the Project Area by changing hydrology
and/or the vegetative character of the wetland, specifically by
establishment of exotic invasive vegetation on deposited sediment. The
USFWS (Pennsylvania office) recommends that a Phase 1 habitat survey be
conducted in all areas where wetlands will be directly or indirectly
affected by Project activities, including impacts associated with roads,
water and sewer lines, utility lines, stormwater and sediment basins,
buildings, driveways, parking lots, yards/lawns and wells. If potential
habitat is found in the Project Area, efforts should be made to avoid
any direct or indirect impacts to those wetlands with no disturbance to
or encroachment into wetlands. Adverse effects may occur when lot lines
include portions of wetlands, when an adequate upland buffer is not
designated, or when roads, stormwater/sediment basins, impervious
surfaces or wells affect the hydrology of the wetland. If potential
habitat is found, an experienced, qualified biologist should conduct a
Phase 2 bog turtle survey. Further consultation with the USFWS and MDNR
WHS would be necessary if adverse effects cannot be avoided.

A proposed alternate route is within the vicinity of a Least Tern colony
that is known to occur on two buildings known as the Hitech Project,
near the southwest quadrant of the I-95 and MD Route 43 intersection
(MDNR WHS 2006). Significant mortality of chicks or eggs resulting from
disturbance of the colony during the breeding season is a violation of
the U.S. Migratory Bird Treaty. To protect Least Tern colonies the MDNR
WHS recommends the following guidelines:

-   Establish a protection area of 660 feet from the colony\'s outer
    boundary. Within this area, establish two zones of protection: Zone
    1 extends from the outer boundary of the colony to a radius of 330
    feet, and Zone 2 extends from 330 feet to 660 feet in radius.

-   During the breeding season, 15 April through 31 July, all human
    entry into Zone 1 should be restricted to only that essential for
    protection of the Least Tern colony. Human disturbance of colony
    sites that results in significant mortality of eggs and/or chicks is
    considered a prohibited taking under various state and federal
    regulations.

-   No land use changes, including development and intensive
    recreational use, should occur in Zone 1.

-   Construction activities, including clearing, grading, building, etc.
    should not occur within Zone 1.

-   No construction, or other disturbing activities, should occur within
    Zones 1 and 2 during the Least Tern breeding season.

Because AES is not proceeding with construction along the alternate
route, no impacts to nesting Least Terns are anticipated; further
coordination and consultation with MDNR WHS will be undertaken to
prevent or mitigate potential adverse impacts to nesting Least Terns if
necessary.

As previously stated, field surveys will be completed to determine
whether any federally or state-listed endangered or threatened species
occur within the Project Area (Table 3.6-1). Appropriate survey times
for all listed species will be coordinated with the USFWS and
appropriate state agencies. If the surveys establish the presence of
listed species in areas affected by the Project, avoidance and
mitigation measures will be developed. If listed species are encountered
during the construction of the Project, AES will halt all work in the
immediate vicinity and contact the appropriate state and federal
agencies.

## References

1.  American Cetacean Society. 2006. Cetacean Fact Packs.
    http://www.acsonline.org/factpack/index.html (Retrieved October 25,
    2006).

2.  Burke, V.J., S.J. Morreale, and E.A. Standora. 1990. Comparisons of
    diet and growth of Kemp's Ridley and loggerhead turtles from the
    northeastern U.S. In: Richardson, T.H., J.I. Richardson, and M.
    Donnelly (Compilers). Proceedings of the 10^th^ annual workshop on
    sea turtle conservation and biology. NOAA Technical Memorandum
    NMFS-SEFC-278:135.

3.  Butterflies and Moths of North America. 2006. Regal Fritillary
    *Speyeria idalia*. http://www.butterfliesandmoths.org/ (Retrieved
    November 29, 2006).

4.  Carlson, T.J., D.A. Woodruff, G.E. Johnson, N.P. Kohn, G.R. Plosky,
    M.A. Weiland, J.A. Southard and S.L. Southard. 2005. Hydroacoustic
    Measurements during Pile Driving at the Hood Canal Bridge, September
    through November, 2004. Battelle Marine Sciences Laboratory, Sequim,
    Washington.

5.  Chesapeake Bay Program. 2006. Atlantic sturgeon.
    http://www.chesapeakebay.net/atlantic_sturgeon.htm (Retrieved
    October 25, 2006).

6.  Colligan, M.A. 2006. Letter communication on May 3, 2006, from M./A.
    Colligan, National Marine Fisheries Service, Gloucester,
    Massachusetts to M. Stetter, Northern Ecological Associates, Inc.,
    Fredonia, New York.

7.  Cronin, E. 1971. A Biological Study of Baltimore Harbor. Chesapeake
    Biological Laboratory, University of Maryland, Solomons, Maryland.

8.  Densmore, D. 2006. Letter communication on May 31, 2006, from D.
    Densmore, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, State College,
    Pennsylvania to M. Stetter, Northern Ecological Associates, Inc.,
    Fredonia, New York.

9.  Fryer, G., G. Dunn, and P. Anderson. 2002. Rare plant impact
    mitigation for the Alliance pipeline project. Pages 171-177 in J.
    Goodrich-Mahoney, D. Mutrie, and C. Guild, eds. The Seventh
    International Symposium on Environmental Concerns in Rights-of-Way
    Management. Elsevier Science Ltd., New York.

10. Galvin, M.F., B. Wilson, and M. Honeczy. 2000. Maryland's Forest
    Conservation Act: a process for urban greenspace protection during
    the development process. Journal of Arboriculture 26(5): September.

11. Gray J. S., M. Waldichuk, A. J. Newton, R. J. Berry, A. V. Holden
    and T. H. Pearson. 1979. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal
    Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, Vol. 286, No.
    1015, The Assessment of Sublethal Effects of Pollutants in the Sea
    (Aug. 8, 1979):545-561

12. Hartwell, S. I., C.E. Dawson, E.Q. Durell, R.W. Alden,
    P.C. Adolphson, D.A. Wright, G.M. Coelho and J.A. Magee. 2004.
    Integrated measures of ambient toxicity and fish community diversity
    in Chesapeake Bay tributaries. Ecotoxicity. Vol. 7 no. 1: 19-35.

13. Holland, LE. 1986. Effects of Barge Traffic on Distribution and
    Survival of Ichthyoplankton and Small Fishes in the Upper
    Mississippi River. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society
    (TAFSAI) 115(1):162-165.

14. Jones, C., J. McCann, and S. McConville. 2000. A Guide to the
    Conservation of Forest Interior Dwelling Birds in the Chesapeake Bay
    Critical Area. Critical Area Commission for the Chesapeake and
    Atlantic Coastal Bays. Maryland Department of Natural Resources.

15. Keevin, T.M. and G.L. Hempen. 1997. The Environmental Effects of
    Underwater Explosions with Methods to Mitigate Impacts. U.S. Army
    Corps of Engineers, St. Louis District.
    https://www.denix.osd.mil/denix/Public/ES-Programs/Conservation/WaterX/water1.html
    (Retrieved December 18, 2006).

16. Knowlton, A.R., J.B. Ring, and B. Russell. 2002. Right Whale
    Sightings and Survey Effort in the Mid Atlantic Region: Migratory
    Corridor, Time Frame, and Proximity To Port Entrances: A report
    submitted to the NMFS ship strike working group. National marine
    Fisheries Service.

17. Koyama, Kristina. 2006. Telephone communication on October 5, 2006,
    from K. Koyama, National Marine Fisheries Service, Gloucester,
    Massachusetts to M. Stetter, Northern Ecological Associates, Inc.,
    Buffalo, New York.

18. Leatherwood, S. and R.R. Reeves. 1983. The Sierra Club Handbook of
    Whales and Dolphins. Sierra Club Books, San Francisco, California.

19. Lee, D.S. and A.W. Norden. 1998. The Distribution, Ecology and
    Conservation Needs of Bog Turtles, with Special Emphasis on
    Maryland. The Maryland Naturalists 40(1-4): 7-46.

20. Lippson, A.J. 1973. The Chesapeake Bay in Maryland: An Atlas of
    Natural Resources. The John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore,
    Maryland.

21. Lowell, F. and S. Lounsbury. 2002. Karner Blue butterfly habitat
    restoration on pipeline right-of-way in Wisconsin. Pages 345-354
    in J. Goodrich-Mahoney, D. Mutrie, and C. Guild, eds. The Seventh
    International Symposium on Environmental Concerns in Rights-of-Way
    Management. Elsevier Science Ltd., New York.

22. Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE). 2003. Preliminary
    Draft Plan for Development of Nutrient Criteria in Maryland.
    Maryland Department of the Environment, Baltimore, MD.
    http://www.cacaponinstitute.org/PDF/MD%20Draft%20Nutrient%20Plan.pdf
    (Retrieved October 31, 2006).

23. Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE). 2005. Use
    Attainability Analysis for federal navigation channels located in
    tidal portions of the Patapsco River. Maryland Department of the
    Environment Web site.
    http://www.mde.state.md.us/assets/document/wqstandards/UAA_patapsco.pdf
    (Retrieved October 25, 2006).

24. Maryland Department of Natural Resources - Wildlife and Heritage
    Service. 2006. Letter communication on June 23, 2006, from Lori A.
    Byrne, Annapolis, Maryland to M. Stetter, Northern Ecological
    Associates, Inc., Fredonia, New York.

25. Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MDNR). 2006a. Wild Acres
    Program. Wildlife and Heritage Service.
    http://www.dnr.state.md.us/wildlife/wildacres.asp (Retrieved October
    25, 2006).

26. Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MDNR). 2006b. Atlantic
    Sturgeon in Chesapeake Bay.
    http://www.dnr.state.md.us/fisheries/recreational/atlanticsturgeon.html
    (Retrieved August 23, 2006).

27. Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MDNR). 2006c. Maryland's
    Strategic Forest Lands Assessment.
    http://www.dnr.state.md.us/forests/planning/sfla/index.htm
    (Retrieved November 28, 2006).

28. Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MDNR). 2006d. Critical
    Area Commission. http://www.dnr.state.md.us/criticalarea/index.html
    (Retrieved November 28, 2006).

29. Maryland Department of Natural Resources Forest Service
    (MDNRFS). 2006. Tree Laws in Maryland. Protecting Trees.
    http://www.dnr.state.md.us/forests/treelaws.asp (Retrieved November
    28, 2006).

30. Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MDNR), Environmental
    Review Unit (ERU). 2006. Letter of communication on October 27, 2006
    from Ray Dintaman, Jr., Annapolis, Maryland to M. Stetter, Northern
    Ecological Associates, Inc., Buffalo, New York.

31. Maryland Department of Natural Resources Forest Service
    (MDNRFS). 2000. The Maryland Forest Conservation Act: A Five Year
    Review Summary. Maryland Department of Natural Resources Forest
    Service.

32. Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MDNR). 2005a. Maryland
    Department of Natural Resources Commercial Fisheries Annual Landings
    Data Set. http://mddnr.chesapeakebay.net/mdcomfish/mdcomfishery.html
    (Retrieved October 24, 2006).

33. Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MDNR). 2005b. Maryland
    Department of Natural Resources Water Quality Status and Trends
    Database.
    http://www.dnr.state.md.us/bay/tribstrat/patapsco/pb_status_trends.html
    (Retrieved October 24, 2006).

34. McGinnis, Ben. 2006. Telephone communication on June 14, 2006, from
    Ben McGinnis Virginia Marine Resource Commission, Habitat Management
    Division to J. Wu, Northern Ecological Associates, Inc., Portland,
    Maine.

35. Mendonca, C.T. and L.M. Erhart. 1982. Activity, population size, and
    structure of immature *Chelonia mydas* and *Caretta caretta* in
    Mosquito Lagoon, Florida. Copeia 1982(1):161-167.

36. Miller, D., S. Poucher, and L. Coiro. 2002. Determination of lethal
    dissolved oxygen levels for selected marine and estuarine fishes,
    crustaceans, and a bivalve. Marine Biology 140(2): 287-296.

37. Murdy, E.O., R.S. Birdsong, and L.A. Musick. 1997. Fishes of
    Chesapeake Bay. Smithsonian Institute Press, Washington, DC.

38. Musick, J.A. 1988. The sea turtles of Virginia, second revised
    edition. Virginia Sea Grant Program, Virginia Inst. Mar. Sci.,
    Gloucester Point, VA. 20 pp.

39. National Marine Fisheries Service. 2006. Essential Fish Habitat
    Source Documents: Life History and Habitat Characteristics.
    http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/nefsc/habitat/efh/#list (Retrieved June 8,
    2006).

40. National Marine Fisheries Service. 2006. Habitat Areas of Particular
    Concern.
    http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/habitat/habitatprotection/efh/index_b.htm
    Retrieved (December 13, 2006).

41. National Marine Fisheries Service. 2001. Information provided by
    Karen Greene, U.S. National Marine Fishery Service, Conservation
    Division, James J. Howard Marine Sciences Laboratory, Highlands, NJ.

42. National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish Wildlife
    Service. 1992. Recovery Plan for Leatherback Turtles in the U.S.
    Carribean, Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico. National Marine Fisheries
    Service, Washington, D.C.

43. National Marine Fisheries Service -- Habitat Conservation
    Division. 2006. Letter communication on May 23, 2006, from J.S.
    Nichols, Annapolis, Maryland to M. Stetter, Northern Ecological
    Associates, Inc., Fredonia, New York.

44. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) -- Fisheries
    Office of Protected Resources. 2006. Species Information.
    http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/ (Retrieved December 14, 2006).

45. Nichols, J.S. 2006a. Telephone communication on October 3, 2006,
    from J.S. Nichols, National Marine Fisheries Service, Annapolis,
    Maryland to M. Stetter, Northern Ecological Associates, Inc.,
    Buffalo, New York.

46. Nichols, M.M., R.J.Diaz, and L.C. Schaffner. 1990. \"Effects of
    Hopper Dredging and Sediment Dispersion, Chesapeake Bay.\"
    Environmental Geology and Water Science 15:31- 43.

47. Nielsen, L.A., R.J. Sheehan, and D.J. Orth. 1986. Impacts of
    navigation on riverine fish production in the United States. Polskie
    Archiwum Hydrobiologii/Polish Archives of Hydrobiology
    33(3/4):277-294.

48. North American Birds: Peterson Multimedia Guides. 2000. Simon and
    Schuster Interactive, New York, New York.

49. O'Dell, J., J. Gabor, and R. Dintaman. 1975. Survey of anadromous
    fish spawning areas. Completion Report, Project AFC-8 for: Upper
    Chesapeake Bay Drainage. Maryland Department of Natural Resources,
    Fisheries Administration, Annapolis, Maryland.

50. Orth, R. J., D. J. Wilcox, L. S. Nagey, A. L. Owens, J. R. Whiting,
    and A. K. Kenne. 2005. *2004 Distribution of Submerged Aquatic
    Vegetation in the Chesapeake Bay and Coastal Bays*.  VIMS Special
    Scientific Report Number 146. Final report to U.S. EPA, Chesapeake
    Bay Program, Annapolis, MD. Grant No.CB973013-01-0, 
    http://www.vims.edu/bio/sav/sav04

51. Pearson, W.D., K.J. Killgore, B.S. Payne, and A.C. Miller. 1989.
    Environmental Impact Research Program: Environmental Effects of
    Navigation Traffic: Studies on Fish Eggs and Larvae. Army Engineer
    Waterways Experiment Station Vicksburg Ms Environmental Lab.

52. Pagliai M.B., A.M.C. Varriale, R. Crema, M.C. Galletti and R.V.
    Zunarelli. 1985. Environmental impact of extensive dredging in a
    coastal marine area. Marine Pollution Bulletin. Vol. 16, No.12:
    483-488.

53. Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission. 2006. Letter communication on
    May 26, 2006, from C. Urban, , Bellafonte, Pennsylvania to M.
    Stetter, Northern Ecological Associates, Inc., Fredonia, New York.

54. Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. 2006.
    Wildlife Habitat in Pennsylvania, Past, Present, and Future.
    http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/wlhabitat/toc.htm (Retrieved June 7,
    2006).

55. Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. 2006.
    Letter communication on August 7, 2006, from E. Schultzabarger,
    Harrisburg, Pennsylvania to M. Stetter, Northern Ecological
    Associates, Inc., Fredonia, New York.

56. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. 2006.
    Pennsylvania Statewide Existing Use Classifications.
    http://www.depweb.state.pa.us/watersupply/cwp/view.asp?a=1261&q=449172
    (Retrieved June 8, 2006).

57. Pennsylvania Game Commission. 2006. Letter communication on April
    28, 2006, from J. Leigy, , Harrisburg, Pennsylvania to M. Stetter,
    Northern Ecological Associates, Inc., Fredonia, New York.

58. Pennsylvania Game Commission. 2006. Hunting in Pennsylvania.
    http://www.pgc.state.pa.us/ (Retrieved October 25, 2006).

59. Popper, A. N. and N. L. Clarke. 1976. The auditory system of the
    goldfish (Carassius auratus): effects of intense acoustic
    stimulation. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. A 53: 11-18.

60. Rabon Jr., D.R., S.A. Johnson, R. Boettcher, M. Dodd, M. Lyons, S.
    Murphy, S. Ramsey, S. Roff, and K. 2003. Stewart. Confirmed
    Leatherback Turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) Nests from North Carolina,
    with a Summary of Leatherback Nesting Activities North of Florida.
    Marine Turtle Newsletter No. 101:4-8.

61. Ray, Devin 2006. Telephone communication on November 2, 2006,
    from D. Ray, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Annapolis,
    Maryland to M. Stetter, Northern Ecological Associates, Inc.,
    Buffalo, New York.

62. Reish, D.J. 1979. In: C.W. Hart and S.L.H. Fuller, Jr., eds.
    Pollution Ecology of Estuarine Invertebrates. Bristle Worms.
    Academic Press. New York: 77-125.

63. Shoop, C.R. and R.D. Kenney. 1992. Seasonal distributions and
    abundance of loggerhead and leatherback sea turtles in waters of the
    northeastern United States. Herptological Monographs, 6. 1992.
    43-67.

64. Southall, B.L. 2005. Final Report of the National Oceanic and
    Atmospheric Administration

65. (NOAA) International Symposium: Shipping Noise and Marine Mammals: A
    Forum for Science, Management, and Technology. NOAA Fisheries
    Acoustics Program, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine
    Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

66. Tagatz, M.E. 1961. Reduced Oxygen Tolerance and Toxicity of
    Petroleum Products to Juvenile American Shad. Chesapeake Science,
    2(1): 65-71.

67. Teleki, G.C. and A.J. Chamberlain. 1978. Acute effects of underwater
    construction blasting on fishes in Long Point Bay, Lake Erie. J.
    Fish. Res. Bd. Canada 35: 1191-1198.

68. Trettel, J.R., S.J. Lare, and B.M. Battaglia. 2002. Pages 127-133
    in J. Goodrich-Mahoney, D. Mutrie, and C. Guild, eds. Species of
    concern mitigation program for the Portland Natural Gas Transmission
    System. The Seventh International Symposium on Environmental
    Concerns in Rights-of-Way Management. Elsevier Science Ltd., New
    York.

69. United States Army Corps of Engineers (COE). 2006. Appendix
    D---Essential Fish Habitat Assessment---of the Draft Environmental
    Impact Statement for the Masonville Dredged Material Containment
    Facility, Baltimore Harbor Maryland:D1-D22.

70. United States Army Corps of Engineers (COE). 2004. Blast Monitoring
    Program for the Kill Van Kull Deepening Project. Planning Division,
    New York District, New York City, New York.
    http://www.nan.usace.army.mil/harbor/kvk/index.htm

71. United States Coast Guard. 2005. Port Access Route Study to Analyze
    Potential Routing Measures for Reducing Marine traffic (Ship)
    Strikes of North Atlantic Right Whales. Office of Navigation
    Systems, Waterways Management Directorate, 28 pp.

72. United States Commission on Ocean Policy. 2004. An Ocean Blueprint
    for the 21^st^ Century Final Report of the U.S. Ocean Commission.
    http://www.oceancommission.gov/ (Retrieved December 14, 2006).

73. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1995. Descriptions
    of the Ecoregions the United States. Compiled by R. G. Bailey.
    http://www.fs.fed.us/land/ecosysmgmt/ ecoreg1_home.html (Retrieved
    June 6, 2006).

74. United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2003. Ambient
    Water Quality Criteria for Dissolved Oxygen, Water Clarity, and
    Chlorophyll *a* for the Chesapeake Bay and Its Tidal Tributaries.
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, Chesapeake Bay
    Program Office, Annapolis, MD.

75. United States Fish Wildlife Service -- Chesapeake Bay Field
    Office 2006. Letter communication on August 15, 2006, from M.J.
    Ratnaswamy, Annapolis, Maryland to M. Stetter, Northern Ecological
    Associates, Inc., Fredonia, New York.

76. United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2006. America's
    National Wildlife Refuge System. http://www.fws.gov/refuges/
    (Retrieved October 31, 2006).

77. United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2001. Bog Turtle
    (*Clemmys* *muhlenbergii*), Northern Population recovery Plam,
    Hadley, MA. 103 pp.

78. United States Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine
    Fisheries Service. 1992. Recovery Plan for the Kemp's Ridley Sea
    Turtle (Lepidochelys kempii ). National Marine Fisheries Service,
    St.Petersburg, Florida.

79. United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1983. Northern
    States Bald Eagle Recovery Plan.
    http://www.fws.gov/midwest/eagle/recovery/recovery.htm (Retrieved
    November 29, 2006).

80. United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1982. Mitigation
    and Enhancement Techniques for the Upper Mississippi River System
    and Other Large River Systems. Resource Publication 149.

81. Virginia Institute of Marine Sciences. 2006. Preliminary 2005
    Distribution of Submerged Aquatic Vegetation in the Chesapeake Bay
    and Tributaries and the Coastal Bays.
    http://www.vims.edu/bio/sav/sav05/index.html (Retrieved June 9,
    2006).

82. Whitaker, Jr., J.O., R. Elman, and C. Nehring. 1992. The Audubon
    Society Field Guide to North American Mammals. Alfred A. Knopf,
    Inc., New York.

83. Wiley, M.L., J.B. Gaspin, and J.F. Goertner. 1981. Effects of
    underwater explosions on fish with a dynamic model to predict
    fishkill. Ocean Science and Engineering, 6(2): 223-284.

APPENDIX 3A

Finfish/Epibenthic/Invertebrate Data Report

APPENDIX 3B

Essential Fish Habitat Assessment

APPENDIX 3C

Agency Correspondence

**Index of Agency Correspondence**

1)  Stetter, M., 2006. Letter communication on April 7, 2006, from
    Matthew Stetter, Northern Ecological Associates, Inc., Fredonia, New
    York, to Ms. Lori Byrne, Maryland Department of Natural Resources,
    Annapolis, Maryland. Attachments: Marine Terminal Study Area Map for
    the Sparrows Point Project; Proposed Route, Figures 1-9.

2)  Byrne, L. 2006. Letter communication on June 23, 2006, from Lori
    Byrne, Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Annapolis, Maryland
    to Matthew Stetter, Northern Ecological Associates, Inc., Fredonia,
    New York. Attachments: Map showing approximate location of least
    tern within vicinity of pipeline route for MidAtlantic Express
    Project; Map showing both approximate location of next sites for
    American Peregrine Falcon new study area for Sparrows Point LNG
    Terminal Project and approximate location of water bird colonies
    in/near study area for Sparrows Point LNG Terminal project.

3)  Stetter, M. 2006. Letter communication on April 7, 2006, from
    Matthew Stetter, Northern Ecological Associates, Inc, to Ms. Julie
    Crocker, NOAA Marine Fisheries Office of Protected Resources,
    Gloucester, Massachusetts. Attachments: Attachments: Marine Terminal
    Study Area Map for the Sparrows Point Project; Proposed Route,
    Figures 1-9.

4)  Colligan, M. 2005. Letter communication on May 3, 2006 from Mary
    Colligan, NOAA National Marine Fisheries Office, Northeast Region,
    Gloucester, Massachusetts to Matthew Stetter, Northern Ecological
    Associates, Inc., Fredonia, New York.

5)  Stetter, M. 2006. Letter communication on April 7, 2006 from Matthew
    Stetter, Northern Ecological Associates, Inc., Fredonia, New York to
    Michael Schmaus, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, State College,
    Pennsylvania. Attachments: Pennsylvania Natural Diversity Inventory
    Project Planning and Environmental Review Form; Marine Terminal
    Study Area Map for the Sparrows Point Project; Proposed Route,
    Figures 1-9.

6)  Tibbott, C., 2006. Letter communication on May 31, 2006 from
    Cindy L. Tibbott, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, State College,
    Pennsylvania to Matthew Stetter, Northern Ecological Associates,
    Inc., Fredonia, New York. Attachments: Bog Turtle Conservation
    Zones; USFWS/PFBC Bog Turtle Habitat Evaluation -- Field Form; Bog
    Turtle Habitat Criteria; Bog Turtle Habitat (Phase 1) Survey Report;
    Guidelines for Bog Turtle Surveys; Qualified Bog Turtle Surveyors;
    Federally Listed, Proposed and Candidate Species on Pennsylvania.

7)  Stetter, M. 2006. Letter of transmittal on April 7, 2006 from
    Matthew Stetter, Northern Ecological Associates, Inc., Fredonia, New
    York to Pennsylvania Game Commission, Bureau of Land Management,
    Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.

8)  Leigey, J. 2006. Letter of communication on April 28, 2006 from
    James R. Leigey, Pennsylvania Game Commission, Harrisburg,
    Pennsylvania to Matthew Stetter, Northern Ecological Associates,
    Inc., Fredonia, New York.

9)  Wu, J. 2006. Contact Report on June 14, 2006 from Jack Wu, Northern
    Ecological Associates, Inc. to Matthew Stetter, Northern Ecological
    Associates, Inc.

10) Stetter, M. 2006. Letter of communication on April 7, 2006 from
    Matthew Stetter, Northern Ecological Associates, Inc., Fredonia, New
    York to John Nichols, Chesapeake Bay Office, NOAA Fisheries Service,
    Habitat Conservation Division, Annapolis, Maryland. Attachments:
    Marine Terminal Study Area Map for the Sparrows Point Project;
    Proposed Route, Figures 1-9.

11) Nichols, J. 2006. Fax transmittal on May 23, 2006 from Jack Nichols,
    Chesapeake Bay Office, NOAA Fisheries Service, Habitat Conservation
    Division, Annapolis, Maryland to Matthew Stetter, Northern
    Ecological Associates, Inc., Fredonia, New York. Attachments: NOAA
    Fisheries Northeast Regional Office EFH Assessment Worksheet for
    Federal Agencies; Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the
    Masonville Dredged Material Containment Facility, Baltimore Harbor,
    Maryland (May 2006); Summary of Essential Fish Habitat (EFH)
    Designations, Chester River, Maryland.

12) Nichols, J. 2006. Fax transmittal of letter on May 23, 2006 from
    Jack Nichols, Chesapeake Bay Office, NOAA Fisheries Service, Habitat
    Conservation Division, Annapolis, Maryland to Matthew Stetter,
    Northern Ecological Associates, Inc., Fredonia, New York.
    Attachment: Literature Cited.

13) Stetter, M. 2006. Letter of communication on April 7, 2006 from
    Matthew Stetter, Northern Ecological Associates, Inc., Fredonia, New
    York to Mary Ratnaswamy, Chesapeake Bay Field Office, U.S. Fish &
    Wildlife Service, Annapolis, Maryland. Attachments: Marine Terminal
    Study Area Map for the Sparrows Point Project; Proposed Route,
    Figures 1-9.

14) Ratnaswamy, M. 2006. Fax transmission of letter communication from
    Mary Ratnaswamy, Chesapeake Bay Field Office, U.S. Fish & Wildlife
    Service, Annapolis, Maryland to Matthew Stetter, Northern Ecological
    Associates, Inc.

15) Stetter, M. 2006. Fax transmission of transmittal letter on April 7,
    2006 (resubmitted by Bonnie Locking on April 26, 2006) from Matthew
    Stetter, Northern Ecological Associates, Inc., Fredonia, New York to
    Deborah Fisler, Dept. of Conservation and Natural Resources, Bureau
    of Forestry, Ecological Services Station, Harrisburg. Pennsylvania.
    Attachment: Pennsylvania Natural Diversity Inventory Project
    Planning & Environmental Review Form.

16) Stetter, M. 2006. Fax transmission of transmittal letter on April 7,
    2006 from Matthew Stetter, Northern Ecological Associates, Inc.,
    Fredonia, New York to Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission,
    Bellefonte, Pennsylvania. Attachment: Pennsylvania Natural Diversity
    Inventory Project Planning & Environmental Review Form.

17) Urban, C. 2006. Letter of communication on May 26, 2006 from Chris
    Urban, Natural Diversity Section, Pennsylvania Fish and Boat
    Commission, Bellefonte, Pennsylvania to Matthew Stetter, Northern
    Ecological Associates, Inc., Fredonia, New York.

18) Nichols, J.S. 2006a. Telephone communication on October 3, 2006,
    from J.S. Nichols, National Marine Fisheries Service, Annapolis,
    Maryland to M. Stetter, Northern Ecological Associates, Inc.,
    Buffalo, New York.

19) Koyama, Kristina. 2006. Telephone communication on October 5, 2006,
    from K. Koyama, National Marine Fisheries Service, Gloucester,
    Massachusetts to M. Stetter, Northern Ecological Associates, Inc.,
    Buffalo, New York.

20) Ray, Devin 2006. Telephone communication on November 2, 2006,
    from D. Ray, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Annapolis,
    Maryland to M. Stetter, Northern Ecological Associates, Inc.,
    Buffalo, New York.

21) Stetter, M. 2006. Letter of communication on October 19, 2006 from
    Matthew Stetter, Northern Ecological Associates, Inc., Buffalo, New
    York to Ray Dintaman, Jr., Maryland Department of Natural Resources,
    Environmental Review Unit, Annapolis, Maryland. Attachments: Marine
    Terminal Study Area Map for the Sparrows Point Project; Proposed
    Route, Figures 1-9

22) Dintaman, Jr., Ray. 2006. Letter of communication on October 27,
    2006 from Ray Dintaman, Jr., Maryland Department of Natural
    Resources, Environmental Review Unit, Annapolis, Maryland to M.
    Stetter Northern Ecological Associates, Inc., Buffalo, New York.

23) Stetter, M. 2006. Letter of communication on October 4, 2006 from
    Matthew Stetter, Northern Ecological Associates, Inc., Buffalo, New
    York to Ms. Ellie Irons, Department of Environmental Quality Office
    of Environmental Impact Review, Richmond, Virginia. Attachments:
    Marine Terminal Study Area Map for the Sparrows Point Project;
    Proposed Route, Figures 1-9

APPENDIX 3D

FERC Data Request Response Matrix

[^1]: The LNG ships will enter the Chesapeake Bay fully loaded with
    cargo, and unload that cargo at the LNG Terminal. Because no cargo
    will be loaded, the outbound ships will take on ballast water in
    order to support marine traffic stability. In all normal operating
    conditions, ballast water will not be discharged to the Chesapeake
    Bay. Accordingly, the potential for invasive species introduction
    and other impacts associated with de-ballasting operations is
    eliminated.