**Resource Report 2 -- Water Use and Quality**

**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.  Identify all perennial surface       | §         | Section 2.4   |
|     waterbodies crossed by the proposed  | 380       |               |
|     project and their water quality      | .12(d)(1) | Table 2.4-1   |
|     classification.                      |           |               |
|                                          |           | Table 2.4-3   |
|     -   Identify by milepost             |           |               |
|                                          |           |               |
|     -   Indicate if potable water        |           |               |
|         intakes are within 3 miles       |           |               |
|         downstream of the crossing.      |           |               |
+------------------------------------------+-----------+---------------+
| 2.  Identify all waterbody crossings     | §         | Section       |
|     that may have contaminated waters or | 380       | 2.4.1, 2.4.7  |
|     sediments.                           | .12(d)(1) | Table 2.4-1   |
|                                          |           |               |
| -   Identify by milepost                 |           |               |
|                                          |           |               |
| -   Include offshore sediments.          |           |               |
+------------------------------------------+-----------+---------------+
| 3.  Identify watershed areas, designated | §         | Section       |
|     surface water protection areas,      | 380       | 2.4.4, 2.4.7  |
|     sensitive waterbodies crossed by the | .12(d)(1) |               |
|     proposed project.                    |           | Figure 2.4-4  |
|                                          |           |               |
| -   Identify by milepost.                |           | Table 2.4-3   |
+------------------------------------------+-----------+---------------+
| 4.  Provide a table (based on NWI maps   | §         | Section 2.5   |
|     if delineations have not been done)  | 380.1     | and Appendix  |
|     identifying all wetlands, by         | 2(d)(1&4) | 2D            |
|     milepost and length, crossed by the  |           |               |
|     proposed project (including          |           | Tables 2.5-1, |
|     abandoned pipeline), and the total   |           | 2.5.2-1       |
|     acreage of each wetland type that    |           |               |
|     would be affected by construction.   |           |               |
+------------------------------------------+-----------+---------------+
| 5.  Discuss construction and restoration | §         | Section 2.5.2 |
|     methods proposed for crossing        | 380       |               |
|     wetlands, and compare them to        | .12(d)(2) |               |
|     staff's Wetland and Waterbody        |           |               |
|     Construction and Mitigation          |           |               |
|     Procedures.                          |           |               |
+------------------------------------------+-----------+---------------+
| 6.  Describe the proposed waterbody      | §         | Section 2.4.8 |
|     construction, impact mitigation, and | 380       |               |
|     restoration methods to be used to    | .12(d)(2) |               |
|     cross surface waters and compare to  |           |               |
|     the staff's Wetland and Waterbody    |           |               |
|     Construction and Mitigation          |           |               |
|     Procedures.                          |           |               |
|                                          |           |               |
| -   Although the Procedures do not apply |           |               |
|     offshore, the first part of this     |           |               |
|     requirement does apply. Be sure to   |           |               |
|     include effects of sedimentation,    |           |               |
|     etc. This information is needed on a |           |               |
|     mile by mile basis and will require  |           |               |
|     completion of geophysical and other  |           |               |
|     surveys before filing. (See also     |           |               |
|     Resource Report 3)                   |           |               |
+------------------------------------------+-----------+---------------+
| 7.  Provide original National Wetlands   | §         | Appendix 2D   |
|     Inventory (NWI) maps or appropriate  | 380       |               |
|     state wetland maps, if NWI maps are  | .12(d)(4) |               |
|     not available, that show all         |           |               |
|     proposed facilities and include      |           |               |
|     milepost locations for proposed      |           |               |
|     pipeline routes.                     |           |               |
+------------------------------------------+-----------+---------------+
| 8.  Identify all U.S. Environmental      | §         | Section       |
|     Protection Agency (EPA) -- or state  | 380       | 2.3.4, 2.3.5, |
|     --designated aquifers crossed.       | .12(d)(9) | 2.4.4         |
|                                          |           |               |
| -   Identify the location of known       |           | Table 2.3-1   |
|     public and private groundwater       |           |               |
|     supply wells or springs within 150   |           |               |
|     feet of construction.                |           |               |
+------------------------------------------+-----------+---------------+

Additional Information

+---------------------------------------------------------+------------+
| Identify proposed mitigation for impacts on groundwater | N/A        |
| resources                                               |            |
+---------------------------------------------------------+------------+
| Discuss the potential for blasting to affect water      | Sections   |
| wells, springs, and wetlands, and associated            | 2.3.6,     |
| mitigation.                                             | 2.5.2.1,   |
|                                                         |            |
|                                                         | 2.5.3      |
+---------------------------------------------------------+------------+
| Identify all sources of hydrostatic test water, the     | Section    |
| quantity of water required, methods for withdrawal, and | 2.4.5      |
| treatment of discharge, and any waste products          |            |
| generated.                                              |            |
+---------------------------------------------------------+------------+
| If underground storage of natural gas is proposed,      | N/A        |
| identify how water produced from the storage field will |            |
| be disposed.                                            |            |
+---------------------------------------------------------+------------+
| If salt caverns are proposed for storage of natural     | N/A        |
| gas, identify the source locations, the quantity        |            |
| required, the method and rate of water withdrawal, and  |            |
| disposal methods.                                       |            |
+---------------------------------------------------------+------------+
| For each waterbody greater than 100-feet wide, provide  | TDB        |
| site-specific construction mitigation and restoration   |            |
| plans.                                                  |            |
+---------------------------------------------------------+------------+
| Indicate mitigation measures to be undertaken to ensure | Section    |
| that public or private water supplies are returned to   | 2.4.8      |
| their former capacity in the event of damage resulting  |            |
| from construction.                                      |            |
+---------------------------------------------------------+------------+
| Describe typical staging area requirements at waterbody | Section    |
| and wetland crossings.                                  | 2.4.1      |
+---------------------------------------------------------+------------+
| If wetlands would be filled or permanently lost,        | Section    |
| describe proposed measures to compensate for permanent  | 2.5.3      |
| wetland losses.                                         |            |
+---------------------------------------------------------+------------+
| If forested wetlands would be affected, describe        | Section    |
| proposed measures to restore forested wetlands          | 2.5.3      |
| following construction.                                 |            |
+---------------------------------------------------------+------------+
| Describe techniques to be used to minimize turbidity    | Section    |
| and sedimentation impacts associated with offshore      | 2.4.3      |
| trenching, if any                                       |            |
+---------------------------------------------------------+------------+

**TABLE OF CONTENTS**

Page

LIST OF TABLES [iv](#__RefHeading___Toc155677114)

LIST OF FIGURES [iv](#__RefHeading___Toc155677115)

2\. Water Use and Quality [1](#water-use-and-quality)

2.1 Introduction [1](#introduction)

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

2.3 Groundwater Resources [2](#groundwater-resources)

2.3.1 Hydrogeology Overview [2](#hydrogeology-overview)

2.3.2 Aquifers Within the Project Area
[3](#aquifers-within-the-project-area)

2.3.3 Potential Contamination Sources
[4](#potential-contamination-sources)

2.3.4 Wellhead Protection Areas [6](#wellhead-protection-areas)

2.3.5 Public and Private Water Supply Wells
[7](#public-and-private-water-supply-wells)

2.3.6 Groundwater Impact Mitigation [7](#groundwater-impact-mitigation)

2.4 Surface Water Resources [10](#surface-water-resources)

2.4.1 Waterbody Crossings [10](#waterbody-crossings)

2.4.2 Offshore Water Resources [14](#offshore-water-resources)

2.4.3 Contaminated Sediments [15](#contaminated-sediments)

2.4.4 Public Watershed Areas [20](#public-watershed-areas)

2.4.5 Hydrostatic Test Water [26](#hydrostatic-test-water)

2.4.6 Construction & Operation Permits
[28](#construction-operation-permits)

2.4.7 Sensitive Surface Waters [30](#sensitive-surface-waters)

2.4.8 Waterbody Construction and Mitigation Procedures
[32](#waterbody-construction-and-mitigation-procedures)

2.4.9 Operational Impacts [41](#operational-impacts)

2.5 Wetlands [44](#wetlands)

2.5.1 Existing Resources [45](#existing-resources)

2.5.2 Wetland Construction and Mitigation Procedures
[47](#wetland-construction-and-mitigation-procedures)

2.5.3 Mitigation Procedures [49](#mitigation-procedures)

2.5.4 Cumulative Impacts [51](#cumulative-impacts)

2.6 References [52](#references)

**TABLES**

**FIGURES**

APPENDIX 2A Environmental Construction Plan

**APPENDIX 2B** 1. Best Management Practices\
2. Preliminary Site Specific Crossing Drawings

**APPENDIX 2C** Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures

**APPENDIX 2D** Wetland Delineation Report

**APPENDIX 2E** HDD Contingency Plan

**APPENDIX 2F** MAE Pipeline Hydrotesting and Pre-Commissioning Plan

**APPENDIX 2G** Sparrow's Point LNG Terminal -- Propeller Wash Sediment
Impact Study

**APPENDIX 2H** FERC Data Request Response Matrix

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc155677114 .anchor}LIST OF TABLES

[Table No]{.underline}. [Title]{.underline}

Table 2.3-1 Wells and Springs within 150 feet of the Construction
Right-of-Way

Table 2.4-1 Waterbodies Crossed by the Project

Table 2.4-2a 2006 Vibracore Sediment Sample Results

Table 2.4-2b 2006 Vibracore Sediment Sample Results - Dioxin Relative to
2005 Updated TEFs

Table 2.4-2c 2006 Vibracore Sediment Sample Results - Comparison of AES
Sediment Data to Historical Background Data

Table 2.4-2d 2006 Vibracore Sediment Sample Results - Elutriate Results

Table 2.4-3 Reservoirs in the Vicinity of the Project Area

Table 2.4-4 Summary of Dredging Permits Issues by or Currently Pending
before the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Table 2.4-5 Summary of Dredging Impacts in the Patapsco River/Bear Creek

Table 2.5-1 Wetlands Crossed by Project

Table 2.5.1-1 Pipeyards and Staging Areas

Table 2.5.1-2 Meter Station Locations

Table 2.5.2-1 Impacts to Wetlands

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc155677115 .anchor}LIST OF FIGURES

[Figure No.]{.underline} [Title]{.underline}

Figure 2.4-1 Baltimore Harbor

Figure 2.4-2 June 2006 Vibracore and Sediment Sampling Locations

Figure 2.4-2a June 2006 Shallow Vibracore and Sediment Samples NOAA
Screening Concentrations

Figure 2.4-2b June 2006 Intermediate Vibracore and Sediment Samples NOAA
Screening Concentrations

Figure 2.4-2c June 2006 Deep Vibracore and Sediment Samples

> NOAA Screening Concentrations

Figure 2.4-3 Historic Background Sediment Sampling Locations

Figure 2.4-4 Watersheds Crossed by the 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
  -------------------------------------------------------------------------

# Water Use and Quality

## Introduction

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

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

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

## Objective and Applicability

Resource Report 2, *Water Use and Quality*, describes the existing
groundwater and surface water quality within the Project Area,
characterizes the potential impacts to groundwater and surface water
quality associated with construction and operation of the Project and
identifies proposed measures to avoid, minimize and/or mitigate those
potential impacts. The following sections provide data collected during
field reconnaissance, review of available technical resources, and
agency consultation with various federal, state, and local authorities
concerning water resources potentially affected by the Project. Wetland
delineation studies for most accessible properties along the Pipeline
Route have been completed, the results of which are appended to this
Resource Report. Areas requiring additional wetland delineation and/or
stream data for construction design (e.g., special crossing or
protection method requiring additional implementation space) will be
determined in consultation with the appropriate agencies. Additional
studies that may be required by those agencies as a result of the
consultations will be completed by AES during the design stage of this
Project (see Project Schedule in Resource Report 1, *General Project
Description*).

Potential impacts to water use and quality may result from construction
and/or operation of the LNG Terminal \-- specifically, the marine
facilities associated with the LNG Terminal \-- and the Pipeline. The
marine facilities associated with the LNG Terminal will consist of an
existing marine pier that extends horizontally approximately 500 feet
from land. The marine terminal will have two berths, namely the North
and South Berths, located on either side of the existing pier. Each
berth will be designed to accommodate an LNG carrier with capacities
from 125,000 cubic meters (m^3^) up to 217,500 m^3^. Although the marine
terminal will be able to accommodate two vessels at one time, unloading
will only be permitted from one vessel at any given time. To support the
proposed marine terminal operations, an approach channel and turning
basin will be constructed by dredging to deepen and expand existing
channels.

## Groundwater Resources

### Hydrogeology Overview

In both Pennsylvania and Maryland, the major uses of groundwater include
public supply, residential, agricultural and industrial use. The United
States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has designated six sole
source aquifers in the Mid-Atlantic Region. A sole source aquifer (SSA)
is generally defined by the EPA (under Section 1424(e) of the Safe
Drinking Water Act) as an aquifer that is a \"sole or principal drinking
water source\" for an area where contamination of the aquifer could
create a significant hazard to public health. The sole source aquifers
located within the Mid-Atlantic Region include (EPA 2006):

-   New Jersey Coastal Plain Aquifer -- Located in Delaware,
    Pennsylvania and New Jersey;

-   Maryland Piedmont Aquifer -- Montgomery, Howard and Carroll Counties
    of Maryland;

-   Poolesville Area Aquifer Extension of the Maryland Piedmont Aquifer;

-   Seven Valleys Aquifer in York County, Pennsylvania;

-   Prospect Hill Aquifer in Clark County, Virginia; and

-   Columbia and Yorktown, Eastover Multi-aquifer System Accomack and
    North Hampton Counties of Virginia

None of these designated sole source aquifers occurs within the areas
affected by the Project in either Pennsylvania or Maryland.

Based on an initial review of available data from the Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental Protection (PDEP) -- Groundwater Information
System, Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) and Maryland
Department of the Environment (MDE), the Project Area is divided into
several physiographic provinces that control groundwater movement
through geologic processes related to geomorphology, litho logy, and
structure. Five physiographic provinces in the Pennsylvania and Maryland
region are the Appalachian Plateau, the Valley and Ridge, the Blue
Ridge, the Piedmont Plateau, and the Coastal Plain. The Project Area is
located within the Piedmont Plateau and Coastal Plain provinces. More
specific descriptions of the geologic conditions for the Project are
presented in Resource Report 6, *Geological Resources.*

The sediments of the Coastal Plain dip eastward at a low angle,
generally less than one degree, and range in age from Triassic to
Quaternary.  The younger formations outcrop successively to the
southeast across Southern Maryland and the Eastern Shore of Maryland. A
thin layer of Quaternary gravel and sand covers the older formations
throughout much of the area. Plentiful supplies of ground water are
available from a number of aquifers throughout much of this region.

The Piedmont Plateau province is composed of hard, crystalline igneous
and metamorphic rocks, and extends from the inner edge of the Coastal
Plain westward to the eastern boundary of the Blue Ridge Province.
 Bedrock in the eastern part of the Piedmont Plateau consists of schist,
gneiss, gabbro, and other highly metamorphosed sedimentary and igneous
rocks of probable volcanic origin.  In several places these rocks have
been intruded by granitic plutons and pegmatites. Deep drilling has
revealed that similar metamorphic and igneous rocks underlie the
sedimentary rocks of the Coastal Plain. Several domal uplifts of
Precambrian gneiss mantled with quartzite, marble, and schist are
present in Baltimore County and in parts of adjacent counties.
 Differential erosion of these contrasting rock types has produced a
distinctive topography in this part of the Piedmont Plateau. The
boundary between the Piedmont Plateau and the Coastal Plain is referred
to as the "Fall Line."

Small to moderate supplies of groundwater are available throughout the
Project Area; favorable geological conditions in some regions may yield
larger amounts of groundwater.

### Aquifers Within the Project Area

#### Sparrows Point LNG Terminal Site

The Terminal Site and approximately the first 21 miles of the Pipeline
Route lie within the limits of the Coastal Plain province and the
Northern Atlantic Coastal Plain Aquifer. This regional aquifer system
extends along the coast from New Jersey southward through North
Carolina, and consists of a complex series of individual aquifers in
generally unconsolidated sediments that are separated by confining units
of silt and clay. Six major subdivisions of this regional aquifer system
have been identified as follows, in descending order:

-   Surficial Aquifer

-   Chesapeake Aquifer

-   Castle Hayne-Aquia Aquifer

-   Severn-Magothy Aquifer

-   Peedee Upper Cape Fear Aquifer

-   Potomac Aquifer

Not all units are present throughout the limits of the Northern Atlantic
Coastal Plain Aquifer. In the vicinity of the Terminal Site the only
subunit present is the Potomac Aquifer. This is the lowest and largest
of the aquifer subunits, and extends throughout most of the Northern
Atlantic Coastal Plain Aquifer. The Terminal Site lies near the western
extreme of the aquifer system where the sediments thin against the
bedrock highlands of the adjacent Piedmont Plateau physiographic
province. The confined aquifers of the Northern Atlantic Coastal Plain
Aquifer system receive most of their groundwater recharge from this
bedrock outcrop/subcrop belt, and not from surface infiltration,
although some contribution from vertical leakage through overlying
confining units does occur. Water loss through evapotranspiration is
very minor.

The Potomac Aquifer is characterized primarily by sands of the Potomac
Group, and is primarily below sea level, except in its westernmost
extreme. In Maryland, the Potomac Aquifer comprises the Patapsco and
Patuxent aquifers, which are characterized by lenticular deposits of
fine to coarse sand that are primarily of fluvial and deltaic origin.

Water in the Potomac Aquifer is a mixture of fresh and saline water. The
aquifer shows a west-to-east progression typical of the coastal
aquifers: variable composition on the western extreme transitioning
eastward to calcium/magnesium bicarbonate composition, to sodium
bicarbonate to sodium chloride on the easternmost, seaward extreme.
Groundwater pumping from this unit has resulted in development of large
composite cones of depression and has exacerbated saltwater encroachment
into the aquifer beneath land. This has been observed in several
locations throughout the Potomac Aquifer, including Baltimore Harbor.

United States Geological Survey (USGS) data (1997, 1998) indicate 54
percent of the freshwater withdrawal from the Potomac Aquifer was for
public water supply systems, with lesser amounts for industry, mining,
thermoelectric power, and domestic/commercial/agricultural uses.
Withdrawal rates reported in the USGS report for the greater Baltimore
vicinity were in the 50,000 to five million gallons-per-day (gpd) range.

#### Mid-Atlantic Express Pipeline

The Pipeline Route from approximately milepost (MP) 21 in Maryland to
the endpoint at MP 88 in Pennsylvania lies within the Piedmont Plateau
physiographic province. The Piedmont Plateau province includes
northern-central Maryland and much of southeastern Pennsylvania, and is
characterized by crystalline (metamorphic and igneous) rock formations.
In addition, the Pipeline Route between approximately MP 79.5 and MP
81.0 crosses a relatively narrow east-west oriented band of subcropping
carbonate (limestone and dolostone) rock units referred to as the
Piedmont Carbonate Aquifer. The Paleozoic and Precambrian-aged
carbonate-rock aquifers comprise only about three percent of the
Piedmont Plateau and the Blue Ridge provinces. Although these carbonate
rocks are of small extent, they can be significant local sources of
water.

The groundwater in the crystalline bedrock units of the Piedmont Plateau
is contained in fractures (primary porosity is essentially nil) and
storage capacity and yield are generally low due to low secondary
porosity of these rock types. Specific average yields for the Piedmont
Plateau province as a whole were not available; general references
indicate yields are typically less than ten gallons per minute (gpm)
(14,400 gpd). Water is generally soft in these areas.

The groundwater in the Piedmont Carbonate Aquifer can be very hard and
contain relatively large amounts of dissolved solids resulting from
dissolution of bedrock by slightly acidic groundwater. Groundwater
yields in the carbonate areas can be significantly higher than the areas
underlain by crystalline rock units, due to relatively high secondary
porosity resulting from the potential presence of open joints or even
solution cavities of varying size. Faulted zones in the rock can also
result in greater groundwater yields. Yields ranging from 17 to 650 gpm
(24,500 to nearly one million gpd) are reported for the Ledger dolomite,
Kinzer Limestone and Vintage Dolomite formations of this aquifer. These
yield data may be related to groundwater extraction in areas away from
the proposed Pipeline Route.

### Potential Contamination Sources

AES contracted with FirstSearch^TM^ Technology Corporation to prepare an
Environmental FirstSearch^TM^ Report that summarizes sites/areas listed
on various environmental databases maintained by federal and state
agencies within 0.25 miles of the Terminal Site and the Pipeline Route
(FirstSearch^TM^ 2006). The databases searched include locations of
environmental investigation and cleanup such as spill sites, or
"Superfund" (Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and
Liability Act -- or CERCLA) sites, operating facilities that generate or
manage hazardous waste (Resource Conservation and Recovery Act -- RCRA),
or facilities listed for evaluation of air emissions, polychlorinated
biphenyl (PCB) generation, or similar factors. The properties that
affect land resources, that come within 0.25 mile of the Project Area,
and that are listed in the regulatory databases searched are described
in Section 8.5.5 of Resource Report 8, *Land Use, Recreation and
Aesthetics*. They are also are identified in Table 8.5.5--1 of Resource
Report 8, "Contaminated Site and Landfills Located within 0.25 Mile of
the Project."

There are several properties located within 0.25 mile of the Pipeline
Route that are listed as Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) spill
sites or solid waste (SW) landfill sites.[^1] Two National Priority List
(NPL) sites, the Strasburg Landfill in Pennsylvania and the 68^th^
Street Dump in Maryland, are located along but not within the Pipeline
Route. There are no NPL sites within or adjacent to the Terminal Site.

The Strasburg Landfill covers 22 acres near Coatesville in western
Newlin Township, Chester County, Pennsylvania. In 1983, PDEP found
benzene, vinyl chloride, 1,2- dichloroethane, copper, and lead in
on-site monitoring wells and various chlorinated organic compounds in an
off-site private well downgradient of the landfill. PDEP analyses
identified the same contaminants in leachate from the landfill. The
landfill was closed in 1983 by PDEP. After it was closed, the landfill
was capped with a layer of compacted soil, a polyvinyl chloride (PVC)
liner, and another layer of soil and weathered rock. In addition,
leachate collection and treatment systems were installed. Monitoring
wells were also installed around the site. In response to community
concerns in 1989, EPA launched an investigation of the landfill and
discovered that numerous volatile organic compounds (VOCs), including
vinyl chloride, benzene, trichloroethene, and tetrachloroethene, had
been detected in groundwater from on-site and off-site monitoring wells.
This site was added to the NPL on March 31, 1989.

Additional studies have been performed by EPA, and remediation that
began in September 1999 was completed in September 2000. Construction
has been completed at the site and EPA has determined that under current
conditions at this site, potential or actual human exposures are being
controlled adequately. The site has not yet been de-listed from the NPL.

The Pipeline Route parallels the existing Columbia Gas Transmission
Corporation ("Columbia") right-of-way (ROW) past the north side of the
landfill property outside a barrier fence that surrounds the landfill
property. The Pipeline will not go through the landfill. The Pipeline
Route relative to the landfill property can be viewed on the alignment
sheet set included as Appendix 1A to Resource Report 1, sheet number
AES-PP-065 (the landfill is located on property numbers 946 and 947,
both situated entirely or mostly south of the Pipeline Route). The
Pipeline is routed past and outside of the landfill footprint.
Construction and operation of the Pipeline is not expected to have any
significant impact on the landfill, nor is the landfill expected to have
any significant impact on construction and operation of the Project. The
Pipeline Route is located beyond (north of) the physical footprint of
the landfill and outside its surrounding fenceline: The Pipeline Route
is located generally at elevation 420 to 430 feet above mean sea level
to the north of the landfill, whereas the landfill occupies ground at
elevations of 320 to 420 feet (i.e., the Pipeline is hydrologically
upgradient of the landfill): Because the control measures of the
landfill were developed with a pipeline already in place, the relatively
shallow and temporary disturbance for construction of the Pipeline is
not expected to modify site ground or water flow conditions in any way
that would materially affect control measures, landfill stability, or
maintenance of the closure systems of the landfill, such as landfill
cap, water control, or monitoring wells.

The 68th Street Dump/Industrial Enterprises is located near the town of
Rosedale in Baltimore County, Maryland. The 68^th^ Street Dump site
covers about 235 acres in Rosedale and another 18 acres in the City of
Baltimore. The site consists of several adjacent landfills which
received municipal, commercial, and industrial wastes, from the 1950s
through the early 1970s. There are six surface waterbodies that flow
through the site. Herring Run flows eastward through the site and
empties into the headwaters of the Back River, a tributary to the
Chesapeake Bay. The portion of the 68th Street Dump that is nearest, but
not within, the proposed Pipeline Route is referred to as "Source Area
#2" along the south side of Herring Run (further information is provided
below). Moore's Run and an unnamed stream flow eastward, Redhouse Run
flows southward, and two unnamed streams flow northward through the
former dump site and empty into the dump's on-site portions of the
Herring Run. One of the unnamed streams originates from an on-site pond
located in the northern portion of the 68th Street site. Hazardous
substances detected at the 68th Street site include: VOCs, semi-volatile
organic compounds, PCBs, and metals. A release of hazardous substances
to a local fishing area and wetlands has been documented.

The portion of the 68th Street Dump nearest to the proposed Pipeline
Route is located approximately 1,400 feet west of the location where the
Pipeline Route crosses railroad tracks on the north side of the Back
River (the intersection of the railroad track and Pipeline Route is at
property number 126 on Alignment Sheet AES-PP-008 in Appendix 1A of
Resource Report 1; however, because of the distance of the dump site
from the Pipeline Route, the dump site does not appear on the alignment
sheet). At the Back River, AES anticipates that the Pipeline will be
installed by horizontal directional drill (HDD), with the drill path
paralleling the existing powerline and pipeline corridor, that also
cross the river at this location. Because the Pipeline Route will not
cross the 68^th^ Street Dump itself, and with the use of the HDD method
of crossing (where drill mud is used to provide hydraulic separation for
and support the pipeline drill hole). Construction and operation of the
Pipeline is not anticipated to have any significant impact on existing
conditions at the 68th Street Dump site.

### Wellhead Protection Areas

Groundwater is the most commonly used source of water supply in the
Project Area, and some regions of the Project Area rely exclusively on
groundwater for their water needs.  In Maryland, groundwater is obtained
from both unconfined and confined aquifers.  Almost all of the public
water systems using groundwater in Southern Maryland rely on confined
aquifers, as do a large portion of those on the Eastern Shore.  In
Central and Western Maryland, the aquifers are unconfined. 

In Maryland, about 10 percent of the community water systems (around 50
systems) rely on surface water, yet these surface water systems serve
about 80 percent of the population using public water systems. 
 Protecting a surface water source involves protecting the entire
watershed, which can be relatively small (less than one square mile) to
very large.  The Potomac River watershed is about 10,000 square miles
and the Susquehanna River watershed is about 27,500 square miles.  Some
water supply watersheds (such as the Savage River reservoir watershed)
are close to 90 percent forested, while others (such as Baltimore City's
reservoir watershed) are predominately agricultural.  

Agricultural activities and urban development are the most prevalent
sources of contaminants for surface water systems.   Contaminants from
agricultural land include nutrients and microbial pathogens.  Excessive
erosion (sediment) and de-icing compounds typically are present in
runoff in developed areas.  The discharge of treated wastewater and
risks from overflowing sewage collection systems upstream of intakes
were noted as significant sources of contaminants in some watersheds. 
Sources relying on river intakes are more susceptible to elevated levels
of fecal contamination and turbidity following rain events, while
sources using reservoirs were more susceptible to eutrophication from
phosphorus.  Major roads, rail lines and pipeline crossings presented
the potential for spills above some intakes.

As required by the federal Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1986,
the State of Maryland established a wellhead protection program which
was reviewed and approved by the EPA in June of 1991. The Maryland
Wellhead Protection Program is administered by the MDE, Water Management
Administration, Water Supply Program. AES reviewed Metadata files
provided by the MDE for Baltimore, Harford and Cecil Counties. The data
included community water systems, non-transient-non-community wells, and
transient non-community wells. Based on a review of this information,
the Pipeline Route crosses nine wellhead protection areas.

As required under the federal Safe Drinking Water Act, the Commonwealth
of Pennsylvania, through the Bureau of Water Supply Management of the
PDEP, has developed a Wellhead Protection Program to protect groundwater
sources used by public water systems from contamination that may have an
adverse effect on public health. Participation in the program is
voluntary and builds upon the basic requirement for water purveyors to
obtain the best available source and to take appropriate actions to
protect the source, thereby ensuring a continual and safe water supply
(PDEP, Pennsylvania Wellhead Protection Program, 2000). The Pennsylvania
Safe Drinking Water regulations define a three-tiered wellhead
protection zone. Zone 1, the innermost, ranges from 100 to 400 feet
radius, depending on source and aquifer characteristics. Zone 2 has been
defined as the capture zone that is by default a 0.5-mile radius around
the source, unless a rigorous hydrogeologic delineation is performed.
Zone 3 is the area beyond Zone 2 that contributes to the recharge of the
aquifer within the capture zone.

According to EmapPA, a web-based GIS application developed by the PDEP,
there are no public water systems located within 150 feet of the
Pipeline Route involved in local Wellhead Protection Programs.

### Public and Private Water Supply Wells

Maryland obtains drinking water from both surface and groundwater
sources. There are approximately 3,700 public drinking water systems in
the state, of which 72 percent are transient non-community, such as
restaurants and campgrounds. Only about 50 systems rely on surface-water
sources, the remaining systems use groundwater sources.

Pennsylvania obtains drinking water from both surface water and
groundwater sources. There are approximately 10,000 public drinking
water systems in the state that have their own source of water. Some
public water systems have more than one source. The total number of
sources for the state is approximately 15,000. Approximately 540 of
these water systems rely on surface-water sources, which serve close to
84 percent of the population of Pennsylvania.

Based on an environmental database search performed by FirstSearch™,
there are 50 public and private water supply wells located with 150 feet
of the proposed construction right-of-way (CROW). The well owners,
locations and distance from the Pipeline centerline are shown in Table
2.3-1. Additionally, based on a review of the USGS National Hydrography
Dataset and a field survey, there are no springs that occur within 150
feet of the proposed CROW.

### Groundwater Impact Mitigation

Based on the nature of the local aquifer conditions, the construction,
operation and maintenance of the Project is not expected to have any
long-term impacts on groundwater resources. Ground disturbances
associated with construction of the Pipeline will be primarily limited
to less than six feet below the existing ground surface, with the
exception of HDD segments. Construction activities such as trenching,
de-watering and backfilling may have the potential to cause minor
fluctuations in localized shallow aquifer groundwater levels and/or
increase turbidity adjacent to the Project Area. If the shallow aquifer
is intercepted, potential adverse effects on the aquifer from
construction activities (e.g., trenching, de-watering, backfilling) are
anticipated to be temporary and minor. An evaluation of the potential
need for de-watering activities during construction of the Pipeline will
be included as part of the Project-specific construction plan that will
be prepared to support design and construction efforts. AES will acquire
the necessary permits for any de-watering activities that may be
required.

As described in Section 2.3.3, contaminated groundwater may be present
in the Project Area and the immediate vicinity based on the identified
locations of known or potentially contaminated groundwater sites.
Supplemental, limited soil and groundwater data will be collected as
part of a planned geotechnical design investigation program that AES
will complete for final design of the Project. AES anticipates that the
preliminary subsurface exploration program associated with the Pipeline
will include investigations for the Pipeline at selected waterbody
crossings along the proposed alignment to assess the soil, rock and
groundwater conditions. A minimum of two on shore test borings would be
performed per crossing; one on each side of the proposed crossing. At
larger crossings, it is anticipated that six test borings may be
performed: two off shore borings and up to four on shore borings, two on
each side of the crossing. The additional subsurface exploration program
at the Terminal Site, subject to needs for final design, could include
additional test borings across the Terminal Site to assess the soil and
groundwater conditions. Additional borings for the marine structures and
Pipeline at the Terminal Site may be performed approximately every 100
feet, with consideration given to the location of the preliminary test
borings. Nominally, two additional test borings for each LNG tank may be
performed. Test borings may also be performed for the ancillary
structures, as necessary to support final engineering design. AES
anticipates that all borings would be advanced using hollow stem auger
or standard wash boring techniques with steel casing, and extend from 70
to 150 feet below ground surface. AES would perform design-stage
geotechnical investigation at or following the time of Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) approval of the Project.

No unstable areas are known to exist along the Pipeline Route, and the
various crossings identified above are all crossed by other utilities
and infrastructure at or near the proposed Pipeline alignment.
Accordingly, no rerouting on the basis of subsurface conditions in these
areas is anticipated. As described in Resource Report 6, *Geological
Resources*, the Pipeline Route is characterized as having low potential
for seismic activity, no documented incidence of liquefaction, and low
to moderate potential for landslide. Three locations where steep slope
creates limited potential for instability are located north of Little
Gunpowder Falls (MP 22.2); immediately south of Deer Creek (MP 35.5);
and immediately south of the Susquehanna River (MP 44.2). The crossing
of the Susquehanna River is expected to be by HDD and will pass well
beneath the ground surface at the subject crossings: These factors will
effectively eliminate any consideration of landslides as a potential
impact. The HDD crossing method will drill beneath these areas of steep
slopes, therefore avoiding slopes and issues associated with surficial
soil slumping or landslides. The other two areas are stream crossings,
and localized factors such as apparent bedrock competency and heavy
vegetative cover should minimize the potential for slope failures.

As indicated in Resource Report 6, *Geological Resources*, geotechnical
investigations are planned to support HDD crossing analysis at the
Susquehanna River crossing, but no additional geotechnical
investigations are planned for the Deer Creek or Little Gunpowder Falls
crossings. At the proposed point of crossing, the Susquehanna River is
underlain by bedrock of the Baltimore Gabbro, a massive igneous and
metamorphic complex. The subject section contains slightly more relief
(ranging upward to more than 1,000 feet of elevation), while the
Lowlands Section contains less relief (elevations of less than
approximately 500 feet). The Uplands Section is characterized by folded
and faulted crystalline igneous and metamorphic bedrock, including
schist, gneiss, gabbro and quartzite.

Therefore, the geotechnical investigation described above would be used
in design for such factors such as final rock strength and fracture
properties (for areas where blasting for Pipeline construction may be
needed), anticipated drill penetration rate and drilling mud program
design (for HDD crossings), and confirmation of general depths to
bedrock.

As appropriate, AES will develop a limited environmental monitoring,
sampling and analytical component to the geotechnical investigation
program to assist in evaluating the potential for encountering
contaminated groundwater during construction in the Project Area.

If unanticipated contaminated groundwater or soils are encountered
during investigation or construction activities, AES will notify the
affected landowner and cooperate with appropriate local, state and
federal agencies with respect to the management and/or disposal of
contaminated media. For areas of known or suspected contamination, AES
will coordinate with the appropriate agencies prior to soil or sediment
removal. Additional details regarding soil contamination are discussed
in Resource Report 8, *Land Use, Recreation and Aesthetics*, and a more
detailed discussion of sediment quality in the Project Area is presented
below in Section 2.4.3.

AES will develop a Project-specific Spill Prevention, Countermeasures
and Control (SPCC) Plan that will describe the measures to be
implemented to avoid or minimize the potential for significant leaks or
spills of petroleum products or other hazardous materials that may occur
in the Project Area. The SPCC Plan, which will be based on the
requirements outlined in Appendix 2C of this Resource Report, is
intended to prevent adverse impacts to groundwater and surface water
resources in the Project Area. Specific measures for minimizing and
mitigating potential impacts to groundwater will include the following:

-   [Trench breakers]{.underline}. These devices are intended to slow
    the flow of groundwater along the Pipeline trench to prevent soil
    piping and erosion of the trench alignment. Trench breakers will be
    constructed (at intervals specified on route alignment sheets and in
    Resource Report 1, *General Project Description*) of materials such
    as sand bags or polyurethane foam.

-   [Trench de-watering]{.underline}. Sediment filtering bags will be
    used to prevent downstream sedimentation effects on surface water or
    groundwater supplies whenever water is pumped from the Pipeline
    trench to dewater temporarily for construction purposes. Sediment
    filter bags, when implemented and maintained properly, prevent the
    discharge of heavily silt-laden water by trapping particles larger
    than 150 microns. Filter bags will be positioned in well-vegetated
    upland areas, which will provide additional filtration upon
    discharge. The filter bags will be changed when they become half
    full. The pumping rate through the filter bags shall be no greater
    than 750 gpm or one-half the maximum specified by the manufacturer,
    whichever is less. It has been the experience of consultants and
    contractors employed by AES that filter bags have been a successful
    means of controlling the discharge of silt-laden waters. If the
    water being discharged from the filter bag appears "milky" or
    excessively cloudy, then corrals will be positioned at least 25 feet
    from any waterbody and closely monitored to ensure proper function
    to prevent excessively turbid water from entering a waterbody.

-   [Restricted storage and use of hazardous materials]{.underline}.
    Refueling and storage of hazardous substances will be prohibited
    within 200 feet of private wells and 400 feet of municipal wells.
    Stream buffer areas will be maintained at all times. The buffer area
    is that area 50 feet from the edge of water on both sides of the
    stream. Activities such as stacking cut logs, burning cleared brush,
    discharging water from trenches, welding pipe sections (to the
    extent feasible), refueling and maintaining equipment will be done
    outside of buffer areas. These areas will also be seeded and mulched
    after pipeline installation in accordance with the Environmental
    Construction Plan (ECP) included as Appendix 2A. Construction
    equipment will not be parked or stored in the buffer area. No fuel
    storage, fuel transfer, oil change or hydraulic fluid additions will
    occur within 100 feet of any waterway or wetland.

-   [Storm Water Management]{.underline}. AES's contractors will prepare
    and adhere to a Project Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan in
    compliance with the EPA's Storm Water Program General Permit
    requirements.

-   [Environmental Inspection]{.underline}. Environmental inspections
    will be performed by an Environmental Inspector retained by AES (one
    per spread). Additionally, AES will participate in a Third-Party
    Environmental Compliance Monitoring Program managed by the
    Commission and cooperating agencies. If needed, one Third-Party
    Environmental Monitor per spread as a joint agency representative
    will also be involved in the environmental inspections. It will be
    the responsibility of these inspectors to ensure protective measures
    are in place to protect groundwater resources.

The measures indicated above are discussed further in the AES Sparrows
Point Project Environmental Construction Plans (ECP) included in
Appendix 2A.

Areas of potential shallow (or outcropping) bedrock have been identified
along the Project Area (as discussed in Resource Report 6, *Geological
Resources*) and may require the use of controlled blasting or other rock
removal techniques. Prior to initiation of construction in these areas,
an evaluation of alternative rock excavation techniques (such as
non-explosive demolition agents, ripping and cutting, and/or hydraulic
hoe ramming) will be undertaken to determine if these methods are
practicable (in order to avoid blasting, if feasible). Potential impacts
to wells or water supplies will be avoided or minimized by routing away
from identified resources. Development of a Blasting Plan for the
Project is presented in Resource Report 6, *Geological Resources*.

All drinking water wells within 150 feet of the CROW, as shown in Table
2.3-1, will be monitored. Monitoring of drinking water well yields and
water quality will be conducted on a pre-construction basis to establish
pre-construction conditions. Un-filtered water samples will be collected
and analyzed at a laboratory for water quality parameters including:
coliform bacteria, nitrate, pH, total dissolved solids (TDS), sulfate,
iron, manganese, lead, hardness, barium, and strontium. Well yield shall
be established by interview with the homeowner and confirmation that
water will run for at least 20 minutes. Following construction, the
tests will be repeated to determine if any impacts to the well have
occurred. Impacts will be defined as greater than a 10 percent deviation
from the pre-construction well yield and quality tests, or any changes
to water quality that result in non-conformance with local drinking
water criteria established by the Board of Health. If it is
appropriately determined that any private water supply is damaged as a
result of the Project, AES will arrange for a temporary source of
potable water until the water quality and/or well yield is restored. AES
will ensure the restoration of water quality, which may include measures
such as redevelopment of the well up to and including re-drilling of the
affected well.

## Surface Water Resources

An assessment of surface water resources was conducted for the Project
Area through field reconnaissance and review of available maps and
reference materials. Referenced materials include USGS Topographic Maps,
the MDE surface waters database, and the PDEP eMapPA v.4.0 web-based
mapping application. This technical information was used in conjunction
with field data to identify and characterize the surface waterbodies
summarized on Table 2.4-1. Each named [waterbody]{.underline} that is
crossed by the Project is labeled and identified on the Alignment
Sheets, Appendix 1A to Resource Report 1, *General Project Description.*

### Waterbody Crossings

The 177 waterbodies identified during field reconnaissance, including
perennial, intermittent and ephemeral streams, will be crossed during
construction using one of the crossing methods described below. The
selected method will provide the least disturbance and most expedient
crossing to minimize overall impact. The crossing methods below are
further described in Appendix 2B-1 and Best Management Practice (BMP)
Drawings. The ECP and BMPs were developed by AES based on the FERC's
requirements in the Wetland and Waterbody Construction and Mitigation
Procedures (January 17, 2003). Crossing methods for each of the
waterbodies are indicated on Table 2.4-1 and crossing plans for select
crossing locations are included in Appendix 2B-2. The Pipeline Route
will include two major waterbody crossings \-- the Susquehanna River and
the Back River \-- each of which is described in more detail below.

-   [Horizontal Directional Drilling]{.underline}. For this type of
    crossing, a specialized drill rig is used to advance a
    shallow-angled borehole below the stream to be crossed and, using a
    telemetry guidance system, the borehole is "steered" beneath the
    stream and then back to the ground surface. The hole is then reamed
    to a size adequate for the pipe to pass through, and the pipeline is
    then pulled back through the borehole. This method provides the
    maximum protection to surface waterbodies. AES is currently
    evaluating the use of the HDD method at five locations, as described
    in Section 2.4.4.1

    -   In areas requiring additional geologic data for construction
        design, including HDD crossings, geotechnical studies will be
        completed prior to construction. The results of these
        investigations will be filed with FERC when available. Following
        these investigations, AES will develop specific details
        regarding HDD crossings, including entry and exit pit locations
        and size, site-specific plans (to scale) with areas of
        disturbance, and contingency mitigation measures to contain and
        clean up inadvertent release of drilling mud (in the unlikely
        event that an inadvertent release of drilling mud occurs).

-   [Conventional Bore]{.underline}. A conventional bored crossing
    requires the excavation of bore pits on each side of the stream
    being crossed. Drilling equipment is used to install a horizontal
    borehole from one bore pit to the other. The pipe is then pulled
    through the borehole. For a general description of the conventional
    bore crossing method see BMP Drawing Number 14. This method is
    commonly used where open cut trenching is impractical or
    undesirable. Use of a bored crossing should not be time-restricted
    because it involves no work within or impact to the streambed or
    stream banks. In the event that a bored crossing along the primary
    route described in this filing is determined to be infeasible, AES
    may select an alternative crossing technique. AES will make this
    determination following completion of the geotechnical
    investigations.

-   [Dam & Pump Crossing Method]{.underline}. This method may be used in
    situations where pumps are able to adequately transfer water around
    the work area and there are no concerns about sensitive species
    passage. The dam and pump crossing method ensures stream flow is
    maintained. Potential water quality impacts are minimized or avoided
    by screening pump intakes and preventing streambed scour at the pump
    discharge by utilizing an energy dissipater (see BMP Drawing Number
    17, Appendix 2B).

-   [Flume Stream Crossing Method]{.underline}. This method requires
    installation of a flume pipe to convey water across the trench and a
    diversion structure to funnel water into the flume pipe(s). The
    flume crossing method ensures stream flow is maintained. This method
    may be used in situations where there are concerns about sensitive
    species passage. Water quality impacts are minimized because trench
    spoil does not come into contact with stream water and therefore
    stream sediment is not mobilized (see BMP Drawing Number 16,
    Appendix 2B).

-   [Dry Non-Specified Crossing]{.underline}. This crossing method
    designation means that either dam and pump crossing method or the
    flume crossing method will be utilized, and the selection will be
    determined in the field at the time of crossing by the contractor
    and AES's environmental inspector.

-   [Multi-Flume Method]{.underline}. This crossing method may be
    implemented where stream flow is too high to be accommodated by a
    single flume. Similar to the flume crossing method, in which a
    single flume pipe is installed to convey water across the trench,
    the multi-flume crossing method utilizes several flumes in areas of
    high flow. Water quality impacts are minimized by limiting trench
    spoil contact with stream water. All in-stream pipe fabrication is
    completed prior to stream ditching to minimize duration of stream
    diversion. In-stream pipe is installed at least five feet below the
    designed drain bottom.

> AES intends, to the extent reasonably practicable, to perform stream
> crossings during the dry season to minimize or avoid impacts to the
> stream. Weather forecasts will be factored into scheduling work for
> individual crossings. Based on the characteristics of the waterbodies,
> it is anticipated that the majority of the minor (10 feet or less from
> waters edge to waters edge) and intermittent streams identified in
> Table 2.4.1 may be dry (no flow) at the time of crossing. Crossing of
> intermittent streams during no flow situations will be conducted using
> an open cut method. Provisions will be made to use a dry crossing if
> conditions change during construction.
>
> Under conditions of stream flow, dry non-specified methods would be
> implemented at the contractor's discretion, and with the approval of
> AES's environmental inspector (unless otherwise specified in Table
> 2.4-1), and would be scaled accordingly to prevent interruption of
> stream flow and maintain water quality. In the event that water is
> encountered below the dry stream bed, trench dewatering will be
> performed in accordance with the ECP, which requires the use of
> sediment filtering bags (see BMP Drawing Number 20) whenever water is
> pumped from the pipeline trench.
>
> Restoration activities associated with all stream crossings will be
> performed after completion of Pipeline installation in accordance with
> the ECP, Appendix 2A. Channel stability is not perceived as a
> construction or restoration problem at any of the surface crossing
> locations observed to date. During clearing operations, vegetative
> strips will be maintained along the bank of the waterbody as shown in
> BMPs 21 and 22. Trees will be cut flush with the surface, but no
> stumps or roots will be removed. The length of actual, temporary bank
> disturbance will be limited to the width of excavation necessary to
> place fabricated pipe in the crossing (typically less than 10 feet).
> Native stone will be used to the extent possible during stream
> crossing restoration and stabilization. During the operational phase,
> native plant species, with the exception of deep rooting trees, will
> be allowed to reestablish along the banks of the waterbody. The bank
> conditions will be inspected twice annually during the operational
> phase of the Project. AES will address any evidence of bank
> instability caused by Pipeline construction or that poses a threat to
> the Pipeline in accordance with the ECP, Appendix 2A.

#### Horizontal Directional Drills

AES has evaluated selected critical waterbodies for crossing using the
HDD method, consistent with the request by National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), including:

-   Back River

-   Gunpowder Falls

-   Deer Creek

-   Susquehanna River

-   Octorara River

Currently, AES has determined that the use of HDD to cross the Back
River and Susquehanna River will avoid or minimize potential adverse
impacts to those waterbodies. Detailed crossing plans and contingent
measures for each of the proposed HDD waterbody crossings are included
in Appendix 2E. The Gunpowder Falls, Deer Creek and Octoraro River
crossings can be performed utilizing other techniques, as described
above in Section 2.4.1., while still ensuring that protective
environmental impacts have been avoided or minimized. In case of the
Back River and Susquehanna River, use of the HDD method provides
potential advantages to crossing the waterbodies for the following
reasons:

-   It is the method most likely to have no impact on water quality or
    flow during construction.

-   It offers the maximum depth of cover under obstacles thereby
    offering greater protection over the Pipeline than other typical
    crossing methods.

-   It does not disturb surface features (vegetation, stream banks,
    etc.) during or after construction.

The method can have other off-setting impacts at the construction area
around the feature being crossed. However, these off-setting impacts are
typically temporary. Greater area required for set-up and operations at
both ends of the drill hole, round-the-clock operation of the drill rig
during construction of the crossing and associated noise, and the
potential for frac-out of the drilling fluid. During HDD operations,
fluid pressures can build up within the borehole, potentially resulting
in hydraulic fracturing and subsequent migration of drilling fluids to
the surface defined as "frac-out." The two primary factors that affect
hydraulic fracturing in soil are borehole pressure and depth of cover.
When the pressure in the borehole exceeds the strength of the
surrounding strata, a potential frac-out condition occurs. AES will
consider these factors as part of its ongoing evaluation of the use of
HDD to complete certain waterbody crossings, as compared to the use of
other conventional crossing methods.

Where the pipeline will be installed by HDD, prior to design of the plan
and profile drawings and the start of construction, soil core samples
will be taken on both sides of the crossing to evaluate rock, sand, or
soil conditions. Following the analysis of the subsurface conditions,
the drill site will be surveyed to determine and stake the drilling
entrance and exit points. A drill plan and profile drawing will then be
generated to accurately define the operation. The profile drawing will
establish the entrance and exit angles, the maximum depth of the pipe,
the minimum radius of curvature to avoid overstressing the pipe, and the
length of the pull.

Typically, the drilling rig spread will be located on one bank and the
pipe fabrication and pullback spread will be located on the other bank.
The contractor will provide Bentonite clay mixed with water for the
drilling fluid, and will mobilize the drilling equipment, erect the
drilling rig, drill the hole, ream the hole as necessary, and pullback
the pre-fabricated pipe section in the proposed horizontal drilled
crossing. As the drilling operation progresses, the contractor will
continuously plot the actual profile of the Pipeline against the
proposed Pipeline profile to ensure cover requirements and target exit
points will be achieved.

During the drilling, reaming, and pullback process, the contractor will
maintain control of the drilling mud to make sure that no drilling mud
enters the waterbody, any tributaries, or stream beds. The contractor
will provide all on-site materials and equipment required to contain and
clean up drilling mud releases, and will have full time qualified
personnel on-site to clean up any accidental releases of drilling mud.
In the unlikely event of an accidental release of drilling mud, the
following steps will be taken to ensure that environmental impact due to
result from the cleanup process:

-   All work will stop and the drilling mud will be contained at its
    source if possible.

-   Migration into any waterway will be prevented.

-   The proper authorities will be notified.

-   Drilling mud reaching the surface will be cleaned up immediately to
    ensure it will not runoff into the river, waterway, or ditches. Silt
    fencing will be used to prevent silt from escaping into low drainage
    areas.

-   Drilling mud will be disposed of in a manner preventing reentry into
    the cleanup area.

The drill rig side will typically require a workspace of approximately
150 feet by 150 feet and will contain the following equipment:

-   Drilling rig unit;

-   Power generation unit;

-   Drilling pipe storage;

-   Water pump and water piping;

-   Bentonite storage;

-   Slurry mixing tank;

-   Slurry pump;

-   Drill cuttings separation equipment;

-   Entry point slurry containment pit;

-   Cuttings settlement pit; and

-   Offices and storage.

Typically, a workspace of approximately 150 feet by 150 feet is
necessary at the exit point for the equipment listed below:

-   Cuttings settlement pit;

-   Exit point slurry containment pit;

-   Drill pipe storage; and

-   Miscellaneous equipment and storage.

An additional workspace of 50 feet wide by the length of the HDD pipe
section is required for the pipe sections and pipe rollers.

AES has developed a site specific HDD Contingency Plan that includes the
design of each HDD, including size and location of staging areas for the
entry and exit pits, procedures to control the inadvertent release of
drilling mud, procedures for the clean-up of any inadvertent releases,
notification requirements, a description of how abandoned holes would be
sealed, and contingency crossing techniques, if necessary. The HDD
Contingency Plan is included as Appendix 2E.

### Offshore Water Resources 

The Baltimore Harbor watershed is located to the east of Baltimore City,
and includes numerous small tributaries to the north side of the
Patapsco River. The tributaries drain to tidal estuaries. The watershed
is entirely within the Coastal Plain, and streams tend to be short and
tidally influenced. Many streams in the industrial areas of the
Baltimore Harbor have been channelized, and the natural drainage pattern
has been altered (e.g., cooling water for Bethlehem Steel is withdrawn
from Jones Creek and discharged to Bear Creek). It is estimated that 60
percent of the freshwater in the Harbor originates from Patapsco River
(MDE, 2000a) inputs. Smaller tributaries feeding the Harbor are the
Gwynns Falls, Jones Creek, Bear Creek, and Curtis Creek.

The Baltimore Harbor estuary is highly developed, being mainly urban
residential, commercial, and industrial. Land use in the large
tributaries shifts from industrial/commercial to residential and
eventually rural/agricultural in the headwaters. The largest wastewater
treatment plant (WWTP) within the vicinity of the Project is Baltimore
City-owned Patapsco WWTP, which discharges into the middle tidal region
(MDE, 2000a).

All Maryland stream segments are categorized by sub-basin and are given
a "designated use" in the Code of Maryland Regulations (COMAR)
26.08.02.08. Waters in the Baltimore County portion of Baltimore Harbor
are designated as Use I: water contact recreation and aquatic life. The
1998 Clean Water Action Plan classified this watershed as "Priority"
Category 1, a watershed not meeting clean water and other natural
resource goals and therefore needing restoration. It is also classified
as a Category 3, a pristine or sensitive watershed in need of
protection. Failing indicators include high phosphorus and nitrogen
loadings, poor submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) abundance and habitat
index, poor tidal benthic index of biotic integrity, poor non-tidal
benthic index of biotic integrity (BIBI), poor non-tidal instream
habitat index, high percent impervious surface (35 percent), high
population density, and high percent unforested stream buffer (61
percent). Wetland loss was estimated to be 7,681 acres. Indicators for
Category 3 include migratory fish spawning areas and designated
Wildlands acres (within North Point State Park).

The Maryland 2004 Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 303(d) List contains
basins and sub-basins that have measured water quality impairment. The
general location of the impacted areas of Baltimore Harbor described
below are shown on Figure 2.4-1. The basin/sub-basin name and type of
impairment are as follows:

-   Baltimore Harbor (tidal): poor biological community, nutrients,
    sediments, PCBs (in sediments).

-   Furnace Creek (tidal in Anne Arundel County): fecal coliform.

-   Bear Creek (tidal): chromium (in sediments), zinc (in sediments),
    PCBs (in sediments).

-   Northwest Branch Inner Harbor (tidal): lead (in sediments), chromium
    (in sediments), zinc (in sediments), PCBs (in fish tissue).

-   Curtis Creek (tidal): zinc (in sediments), PCBs (in sediments and
    fish tissue).

-   Furnace Branch (tidal): PCBs (in fish tissue).

-   Middle Harbor (tidal): zinc (in sediments), PCBs (in fish tissue).

The Baltimore Harbor is impaired by several constituents, including
PCBs, chromium, zinc, lead, mercury, nickel, copper, cyanide and
chlordane. According to the state report for the CWA Section 305(b)
(2002), chlordane, PCBs, metal, low oxygen, and bacteria in the tidal
waters were attributed to industrial and municipal discharges, non-point
sources, poor tidal flushing, and unknown sources. In non-tidal waters,
siltation resulted in some areas failing to meet all designated uses due
to urban runoff, habitat alteration, and channelization. Fish
consumption advisories were issued in 1986, and expanded in 2001, for
chlordane, PCBs, and dieldrin.

A total maximum daily load (TMDL) was developed by MDE and approved by
EPA on May 20, 2001 for chlordane in the Baltimore Harbor. Chlordane is
a broad-spectrum pesticide that was used to control termites and other
pests from the 1940s until 1988, at which point it was banned. Because
chlordane is found in fish tissue of certain species (specifically,
catfish and eel caught in the Harbor), MDE issued a fish consumption
advisory for this waterway. Chlordane historically accumulated in the
sediment of the tidal reaches. Because there are no current sources of
chlordane, other than trace occasional amounts from urban runoff, there
should be a slow decline in the concentration found in the fish tissue.

A water quality analysis for lead was completed by the MDE in September
2004 for the Inner Harbor/Northwest Branch and for zinc in the Inner
Harbor/Northeast Branch and Bear Creek. While sediment toxicity was
found in these waters, no water quality impairment due to zinc or lead
was found. Additionally, a water quality analysis for chromium was
completed for the Inner Harbor/Northwest Branch and Bear Creek. No water
quality impairment due to chromium was found.

### Contaminated Sediments

#### Summary of Regional Sediment and Water Quality Setting 

AES reviewed information from the various federal, state and local
environmental databases using the electronic database service First
Search. Maryland has listed Baltimore Harbor and the Patapsco River as
\"impaired,\" because of excess contaminants, sediments or nutrients, or
all three. In spring of 2002, researchers from the University of
Maryland Center for Environmental Science (UMCES) analyzed sediment
samples from locations throughout Baltimore Harbor, and used the data to
create a map of contaminant locations and concentrations. Below is a
summary of identified chemical hotspots, including concentrations of
various organic compounds and heavy metals. This study also found
throughout the Harbor persistent levels of chlordane. The organic and
heavy metal compounds detected in the UMCES analysis include:

-   PCBs and poly aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) appeared in high
    concentrations in the Inner Harbor, which is reported to reflect the
    influence of stormwater runoff carried to the Harbor from Jones
    Falls. PAHs were reported in the references as elevated in sediment
    on the southern shore of Sparrows Point, and in Bear Creek
    sediments, probably due to heavy industry in these areas. PCB
    concentrations were reported as elevated in Bear Creek and Curtis
    Creek, relative to other sites along the Patapsco River.

-   Zinc and chromium were reported as elevated in Bear Creek and at
    several sites in Northwest Branch.

-   Nickel exhibited high values at 70 percent of the sites sampled
    across the area.

-   Mercury was reported as highest at the entrance to the Inner Harbor,
    likely due to stormwater runoff; high concentrations also occurred
    in Curtis Creek, Bear Creek, and Back River.

-   Copper was highest in Northwest Branch and Curtis Creek.

Water flow in the Sparrows Point area is primarily influenced by
Patapsco River input from the west and Bear Creek input from the north.
The confluence of the two waterbodies is located north and west of the
Terminal Site, and the combined surface water flow generally carries
surface water and entrained sediment into and past the western shores of
Sparrows Point. In addition, a low tidal range (approximately ± two
feet) introduces some flux contrary to the river/creek flows (i.e.,
incoming tide will somewhat offset outgoing river and/or creek flow).
Thus, inputs of compounds of concern from urban sources will, in
general, flow toward the main portions of the Chesapeake Bay. The
chemical nature of different compounds of concern, and geochemical
interactions as they affect environmental migration within the system,
are further described below.

The Baltimore Harbor system, including the Patapsco River estuary, is
surrounded by the Baltimore metropolitan region. During the past several
years, extensive studies have been conducted of the levels of metals,
mercury and organic contaminants in Baltimore Harbor sediments (Ashley
and Baker, 1999; McGee et al.; 1999; Mason and Lawrence; 1999) and
surface waters (Bamford et al.; 1999).[^2] These studies showed large
spatial gradients in contaminant levels in the sediments due to
relatively poor mixing that resulted in \"hot spots\" near storm water
outfalls and industrial areas. For example, elevated levels of PAHs and
metals were indicated to be found around Sparrow\'s Point, which
historically has been the site of intensive coal coking and steel
production. (CERP, 2002)

Organochlorine compounds, including PCBs, were shown to be at elevated
levels adjacent to Harbor storm water outfalls. Forty percent of the
sites characterized within the Baltimore Harbor have PCB levels that
exceed the \"effects range-medium\" value of Long, et al. (1995).
Survival of the estuarine amphipod *Leptocheirus plumulosus* was reduced
in seven of twenty-five Baltimore Harbor sediment sites studied by McGee
et al. (1999). Further, the reported toxicity of sediment at monitoring
stations in Bear and Colgate Creeks was determined to potentially have
been due to sediment-associated metals, while sediment toxicity in the
Inner Harbor was likely due to both metals and organic contaminants
(PAHs).

A number of trace element contaminants were reported as present in
Chesapeake Bay sediments at concentrations that can potentially have
harmful effects (Eskin et al. 1996). Trace element contaminants can be
categorized into different groups depending on their chemical and
toxicological behavior.

In the September 1993 Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Directive,
the Chesapeake Executive Council designated Baltimore Harbor, the
Anacostia River, and the Elizabeth River as Chesapeake Bay Regions of
Concern (areas with known chemical contaminant-related impacts). These
Regions of Concern are focal points for multi-agency cooperative efforts
in specific toxic assessments, reduction and prevention within the tidal
waters of the Chesapeake Bay. In the Chesapeake Bay Regions of Concern,
hydrocarbons, including PAHs, are the most likely organic chemicals
causing ambient toxicity, while the persistent organochlorines (e.g.,
PCBs) are most likely of concern in bio-magnification. The report
summarized that, although a myriad of organic chemicals are produced and
released to the Chesapeake Bay region, including Baltimore Harbor, only
those with sufficient persistence and particle-reactivity will
accumulate in sediments. These organic chemicals may be classified by
source or by their potential effects. Many organic chemicals found in
Chesapeake Bay sediments are inadvertently produced through the
combustion of carbon-containing fuels such as wood, coal and diesel
(PAHs) and the incineration of industrial, medical, and municipal wastes
(chlorinated dioxins and furans). Others are industrial and agricultural
chemicals that enter the environment during manufacturing and shipping,
through improper disposal practices, or through agricultural runoff
(e.g., chlordane in Baltimore Harbor).

#### Sparrows Point Project Sediment Sampling and Results 

In June 2006, AES collected sediment samples from a floating barge[^3]
using a vibracore sampler to extract sediment samples from three depths
identified as "shallow" (0 to two feet below the sediment surface),
"intermediate" (depths greater than two feet below the sediment surface
but less than 10 feet), and "deep" (depths greater than 10 feet below
the sediment surface and targeted at the projected 45-feet below sea
level, the depth to which dredging would be conducted for the shipping
channel and turning basin). Shallow and intermediate samples are
representative of the sediment that would be removed during the course
of the proposed channel dredging, and deep samples are representative of
the channel and sediment surface that would be exposed to the benthic
environment after the completion of dredging operations.

Locations of the vibracore drilling and sampling are shown on Figure
2.4-2. During the sampling event, 15 locations were cored, and 16
sediment samples were collected for off-site laboratory analysis, nine
shallow, three intermediate, and four deep. Locations and depths of
sample collections were selected to provide overall sediment quality
information for the area potentially subject to dredging due to the fact
that the proposed area of the shipping channel and turning basin was
still under evaluation and subject to change at the time of vibracore
sampling. This potential for change is indicated by the former shipping
channel and turning basin alignment submitted to the FERC in filings in
March and May 2006, relative to an updated channel and turning basin
submitted in a Draft Resource Report 1, *General Project Description*,
on August 18, 2006. Both the current and former channel and turning
basin configuration are shown on Figure 2.4-2.

AES will file its application to the United State Army Corps of
Engineers (COE) for approval of dredge operations concurrently with this
formal application to the FERC in January 2007. The application will be
based on the existing data collected by others in the proposed dredge
area and data collected specifically for the Project by contractors
retained by AES. Based on the COE review of the permit application, if
it is determined that additional sampling of dredge material is required
for specific disposal alternatives, then the COE will be consulted at
that time regarding the additional requirements for disposal of the
dredge spoil.

Each sample was submitted under an intact chain of custody to an on
shore laboratory, Caliber Analytical Services located in Towson,
Maryland, for the analysis of organic and inorganic parameters in
accordance with EPA promulgated methods. VOCs were determined using EPA
Method 8260B, semi-VOC concentrations were determined using EPA Method
8270C, and chlorinated pesticides and PCBs were determined using EPA
Method 8081A. Inorganic parameters including the priority pollutant
metals and total cyanide which were analyzed in accordance with EPA
Methods 6020A and 9012 respectively. Additional parameters of analysis
included tributyl tin by VIMS Method 338, Total Organic Carbon (TOC) by
ASTM Method D5373, and hexavalent chromium (Cr^6+^) by EPA Method 7196A.
Tributyl tin and hexavalent chromium, while not required analytes by COE
Guidance for dredge material characterization, were analyzed based on
community input received relative to sediment quality and industrial
practices in the area.

Table 2.4-2a presents a summary of the laboratory results for the
shallow, intermediate, and deep samples. Results are also shown in a
series of three figures attached, Figure 2.4-2a, Figure 2.4-2b, and
Figure 2.4-2c for the shallow, intermediate, and deep samples
respectively. In summary:

-   Neither pesticides nor PCBs were detected in any of the sediment
    samples collected.

-   PAHs (included with the semi-volatile analyses) were detected in
    each of the sediment samples collected from the shallow and
    intermediate sampling depths; however, PAHs were generally not
    detected in the deep samples. The concentrations detected tended to
    be in the part-per-billion (PPB) to part-per-million (PPM) range,
    consistent with data from this same area associated with past dredge
    sampling, and consistent with other areas in the Port of Baltimore
    area (see further discussion on this below).

-   Elevated levels of several metals were detected in the shallow and
    intermediate samples collected (see Table 2.4-2a). Generally,
    consistent with the PAH trend above, the concentrations of detected
    metals dropped with depth of sample (i.e., shallow and intermediate
    results were higher than deep results). The concentrations of metals
    detected tended to be in the PPM range, again consistent with area
    data associated with past dredge sampling and agency investigations
    of the Port of Baltimore (see further discussion on this below).

-   Analyses conducted for dioxins are contained in Table 2.4-2b.
    Concentrations detected were all low, in the part-per-trillion (PPT)
    range, and are consistent with values reported in literature for the
    Baltimore and Chesapeake Bay area, and believed to be a result of
    atmospheric deposition (Derrick, et. al., 2001; Van den Burg, et al,
    2005). The data have been listed by individual compound; however,
    aggregate toxicity is represented by calculating a single value for
    all dioxins combined in terms of the most toxic dioxin congener
    2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (2,3,7,8-TCDD). Based on this
    comparison, no samples exceed the apparent effects threshold (AET)
    included in the NOAA Screening Quick Reference Table (SQUIRT -- see
    Buchman, 1999), the threshold where effects on marine biological
    organisms may be expected, with the exception of one sample in
    vibracore boring HA-114 (see Figure 2.4-2 for location). As shown on
    Figure 2.4-2, this sample was taken from an area no longer subject
    to potential dredging due to relocation of the planned approach
    channel and turning basin.

Overall, these data indicate that the removal of the shallow and some of
the intermediate sediment during dredging operations should improve the
conditions in the areas tested and to be dredged.

The sampling results obtained by AES were compared with NOAA screening
values for chemical compounds in sediment that may result in an
observable toxicity effect on marine biota. On Figures 2.4-2a, 2.4-2b
and 2.4-2c, the samples with detectable compounds are presented relative
to Marine Sediment Guidelines from the NOAA Quick Reference Tables
("SQUIRT") values, see reference for Buchman 1999).  If a compound was
both detected and exceeded a SQUIRT guideline, it is shown relative to
its associated vibracore boring location.  Note that PCBs were analyzed
using EPA Method 8081A, appropriate for evaluation of PCB content for
innovative recycling treatment and disposal methods.  Because the
material will be dredged and removed from the marine setting, ultra-low
PCB detection limits that may otherwise be used for comparison to SQUIRT
criteria were not used.  MDNR was consulted regarding the test methods
performed.  MDNR concurred that test method 8081A was an appropriate
method for the evaluation of recycling the dredged material.  MDNR
indicated that a low-detection limit, congener-specific method would be
needed for PCB toxicity evaluation.  If deemed necessary by COE guidance
documents or regulations for the final dredged depth, AES will perform
additional sampling and lower detection limit analysis of the newly
dredged bottom elevation for PCB toxicity evaluation.

As shown in Table 2.4-2a the primary detected compounds are PAHs and
metals -- these results are shown by location and comparison to the NOAA
Screening values on Figures 2.4-2a, 2.4-2b and 2.4-2c. By comparing the
detected compounds for those that exceed the SQUIRT values, it is
evident that both the concentration and number of PAH and metals
detections diminish to a point of no SQUIRT exceedances in the deep
sediments for PAH compounds, and only slight exceedances for nickel (at
two locations) and arsenic (at one location) -- see Figure 2.4-2c.

An analysis was performed of the sampling results obtained from the June
2006 sampling event that compared those results with results from three
other studies conducted in the general vicinity offshore of the Terminal
Site and Baltimore Harbor area. The other studies included:

-   Baltimore Harbor Anchorages and Channels, Maryland and Virginia.
    Integrated Feasibility Report and Environmental Impact Statement.
    U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Baltimore District. March 1997 (COE
    1997).

-   Registered Toxic Study. Chemical and Physical Analysis of Sediments
    from the Marine Channel and Associated Berths and Turning Basin. EA
    Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc. February 1985.

-   Registered Toxic Study. Spatial Mapping of Sedimentary Contaminants
    in the Baltimore Harbor/Patapsco River/Back River System. Maryland
    Department of the Environment. August 1997.

A summary of the June 2006 vibracore results (average concentrations for
shallow, intermediate and deep samples) is provided, along with a
similar summary of averaged analytical data from these three listed
studies, on Table 2.4-2c. Based on upon this comparative analysis, the
following was observed:

-   PAH concentrations detected in the June 2006 vibracore samples
    tended to be higher than those reported for Baltimore Harbor
    Anchorages and Channels (COE, 1997), but consistent with or lower
    for several PAH compound concentrations documented in the MDE
    Baltimore Harbor/Patapsco River/Back River study (COE 1997), and the
    sampling performed for the Sparrows Point Marine Channel (EA
    Engineering Science, 1985). The individual PAH compounds that were
    higher in the June 2006 vibracore samples than the comparison
    studies included the compounds Benzo(a)anthracene, Benzo(a)pyrene,
    Benzo(b)fluoranthene, Benzo(k)fluoranthene,
    Bis(2-ethylhexl)phthal-ate and Pyrene. In addition, these comparison
    values are skewed by the highest sample values from the shallow and
    intermediate sample locations associated with the former turning
    basin and pier arrangement (samples HA-111, HA-114 - see Figure
    2.4-2), which will not be subject to dredging under the updated
    channel and turning basin configuration. With sample HA-111 removed
    from the shallow average calculation, four PAH constituents increase
    by 5 to 10 percent, while the remaining twelve PAH constituent
    concentrations decrease from two to 39 percent. The removal of
    sample HA-114 from the intermediate sample average results in
    decreases in all PAH concentrations ranging from 82 to 100 percent.

-   Metals detected in the June 2006 vibracore samples show values
    consistent with the reference studies (see Table 2.4-2c).

In summary, the data show that the highest concentrations of chemical
constituents, primarily semi-volatile PAHs and heavy metals, are found
in the shallow, fine-grained sediments with high organic carbon content
that accumulate in low-energy depositional areas that tend to be close
to the shore. These are the areas of samples HA-111 and HA-114, which
are outside of the current shipping channel/turning basin area to be
dredged. Constituent concentrations generally decrease with depth at all
locations, and decrease with distance from shore. The depth range of
sediments with elevated constituent concentrations also appears to thin
further away from the shore, consistent with net import and deposition
of fine-grained sediments close to the shore, rather than net scour and
export of these sediments.

Comparison of the June 2006 vibracore constituent concentrations and
ranges of positive detections (Table 2.4-2a) with concentration averages
in the historical data (Table 2.4-2c) show concentrations of detected
chemical constituents in shallow sediments within the proposed Project
Area are generally similar to concentrations in sediments within other
portions of the Baltimore Harbor/Patapsco River/Back River system. The
locations of the historic vibracore and sediment samples are shown on
Figure 2.4-3. Deeper sediments within the area proposed to be dredged,
which would account for the majority of the total volume proposed to be
dredged, contain much lower concentrations of these constituents
compared to the historical data, ranging to undetectable levels.

Careful consideration of practicable and permittable disposal options
for the dredged material is warranted based on anticipated volumes and
sampling results. The chemical characterization data include the range
of constituents and types of methods prescribed by the COE and the EPA
for evaluating dredged material for disposal at permitted areas (e.g.,
Authorized Ocean Dredge Material Disposal Site).

Evaluation for ocean disposal involves a tiered sequence of chemical
characterization of bulk sediment, sediment elutriate, and potentially
toxicity and bioaccumulation testing, performed in accordance with
regional implementation requirements that are generally consistent with
the Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for Ocean Disposal Testing
Manual (EPA and COE, 1991). Under procedures described therein,
sediments are characterized chemically from which bulk chemical data may
be used to predict water quality under conservative assumptions, that
is, assuming that chemical constituents in sediments are released to the
water column during disposal. The next tier in sediment evaluation
involves generating elutriate from bulk sediments, and directly
measuring constituent concentrations in the elutriate water, more
realistically reflecting conditions in the water column following
disposal.

Elutriate data collected were generated for four sets of sediment
composites (results reported in Table 2.4-2d). When compared against
both acute and chronic marine water quality criteria, the elutriate data
indicate that the majority of sediments to be dredged from the channel
and proposed turning basin are likely suitable for ocean disposal. In
Table 2.4-2d, no compounds exceeded comparison criteria with the
exception of concentrations for lead (8.6 µg/L) and nickel (8.9 µg/L),
which slightly exceeded their respective chronic criteria (5.6 µg/L for
lead and 8.3 µg/L for nickel) in the elutriate generated from one
composite of shallow sediments from the three stations closest to the
existing shipyard (HA-101, HA-105, HA-114). This result suggests that
the sediments with the most elevated constituent concentrations from the
sediments evaluated thus far would warrant further testing before
suitability for ocean disposal could be determined. However, it should
be noted that the location of stations HA-101, HA-105, and HA-114 is
outside the current alignment of sediments that need to be removed for
the shipping channel and turning basin. Notwithstanding, as has been
proposed in its filings, AES will manage those sediments with relatively
elevated concentrations of detected compounds, i.e., the relatively
small proportion of shallow and potentially some or all of the
intermediate sediments, to minimize potential risk to human health and
the environment, and in a manner consistent with the beneficial
recycling/innovative re-use goals of the Port of Baltimore.

Further evaluation and exploration of sediment management/disposal
options may be warranted for what appears to be two distinct categories
of sediments to be dredged as part of the LNG Terminal construction:
shallow sediments containing PAHs and metals, and the generally
uncontaminated underlying sediments. As indicated above, when the COE
reviews the permit application, if it is determined that additional
sampling of dredge material is required for specific disposal
alternatives, then the COE will be consulted at that time regarding the
additional requirements for disposal of the dredge spoil.

### Public Watershed Areas

Watershed areas were determined from data provided by EPA, MDNR and
Pennsylvania Watersheds Data System. Based on this data, the Project is
located within the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. A large watershed like the
Chesapeake Bay Watershed is composed of numerous sub-watersheds that are
drained by tributary streams and rivers. The Project is located within
the following sub-watersheds, as shown on Figure 2.4-4:

-   Pennsylvania

    -   Susquehanna River Basin Watershed

        -   Lower Susquehanna Basin (HUC 02030506)

    -   Delaware River Watershed

        -   Schuylkill Basin (HUC 02040203)

        -   Brandywine-Christina Basin (HUC 02040205)

        -   Chester-Sassafras Basin (HUC 02060002)

-   Maryland

    -   Chesapeake Bay Watershed

        -   Lower Susquehanna Basin (HUC 02030506)

        -   Gunpowder-Patapsco Basin (HUC 02060003)

[]{.mark}

Each of these watersheds is further described below.

#### Susquehanna Watershed

The Susquehanna River drains about 27,000 square miles of New York,
Pennsylvania, and Maryland. The study unit, however, consists of 9,200
square miles in the lower Susquehanna River basin from Sunbury,
Pennsylvania, downstream to the Chesapeake Bay at Havre de Grace,
Maryland.

Three physiographic provinces are included in the lower basin: the
Valley and Ridge, Piedmont Plateau, and Blue Ridge. The Valley and Ridge
physiographic province is underlain by folded and faulted rocks, which
are a sequence of alternating shale, sandstone, and limestone of
Paleozoic age that forms steep mountains and ridges separated by
valleys. The Piedmont Plateau physiographic province consists of uplands
and lowlands; the uplands are underlain by crystalline rocks and the
lowlands by limestone, sandstone, and shale. The Piedmont Plateau
physiographic province generally has terrain that is gently rolling to
hilly. Only a small part of the Blue Ridge physiographic province, which
is underlain by crystalline rocks, lies within the lower basin.

Major industries in the area include agriculture, steel and paper
manufacturing, and food processing. Agriculture is the dominant land use
in the Project Area. About 35 percent of the lower basin is used for
that purpose. More than 50 percent of the basin is forested and about 15
percent is urban, residential, or other land uses.

The Susquehanna River flows through three consecutive reservoirs and
dams in the lower basin\--Safe Harbor, Holtwood, and Conowingo\--before
reaching the Chesapeake Bay.

Water use in the lower basin for public supply totaled about 200 million
gpd in 1985. About 80 percent of this withdrawal is from surface water.
The lower Susquehanna River supplies water for eight municipalities that
withdraw a total of nearly 20 million gpd; 140 million gpd is withdrawn
from various tributaries and reservoirs.

Aquifers in the lower Susquehanna River basin are in either carbonate
rocks, crystalline rocks, or sequences of sandstone and shale.
Groundwater from these aquifers supplied more than 180 million gpd[^4]
for public supply and for rural domestic, industrial, and agricultural
uses. Major carbonate rock aquifers lie beneath some valleys of the
Valley and Ridge physiographic province and the northernmost Piedmont
Plateau province. Crystalline-rock aquifers are restricted to the
southernmost parts of the lower basin within the Piedmont Plateau
physiographic province of Pennsylvania and Maryland. Sandstone and shale
aquifers predominate along valley margins and associated ridges in the
northern and western parts of the Valley and Ridge physiographic
province.

Major water-quality issues in the Susquehanna Watershed are related to:

-   Nutrient and sediment loads from point and non-point sources and
    their effects on surface- and groundwater quality in the lower
    Susquehanna River basin and the Chesapeake Bay.

-   Contamination of surface and groundwater by pesticides, which are
    used in agricultural and urban areas, and by other organic
    chemicals.

-   Sedimentation and contamination of surface water by urban runoff and
    combined stormwater-sewer overflows.

-   Acidic precipitation and its contribution to nitrogen and sulfur
    compounds and trace metals in the lower Susquehanna River basin.

-   Effects of agricultural best-management practices on surface water
    and groundwater quality.

-   Contamination of surface water and groundwater by acid mine drainage
    and industrial waste.

-   Contamination of surface water and groundwater resources by
    radiochemicals from natural and manmade sources.

-   The extent of and processes involved in groundwater contamination in
    limestone karst and in highly fractured rock aquifers.

#### Delaware River Watershed

The Delaware River drainage basin encompasses more than 12,700 square
miles and includes parts of Pennsylvania (6,465 square miles), New
Jersey (2,969 square miles), New York (2,363 square miles), and Delaware
(968 square miles). The watershed area includes the entire drainage
basin, except for 770 square miles of the Coastal Plain in the State of
Delaware and the tidal portions of the Delaware Estuary. About 7.2
million people live within the watershed. An additional 7 million people
in New York City and northern New Jersey rely on surface water diverted
from the basin for their water supply.

The headwaters of the Delaware River are in the Catskill Mountains in
the northern part of the basin. Upstream from Trenton, the river drains
an area of 6,780 square miles and has an average yearly flow of 11,700
cubic feet per second (ft^3^/s) (Durlin and Schaffstall, 1997).
Downstream from Trenton, the river is tidally influenced, but is not
saline until south of Philadelphia. The two major tributaries to the
Delaware River are the Lehigh and Schuylkill Rivers. The Schuylkill
River drains an area of 1,893 square miles, has an average yearly flow
of about 2,720 ft^3^/s, and discharges into the Delaware Estuary at
Philadelphia. The Lehigh River drains an area of 1,359 square miles, has
an average yearly flow of about 2,890 ft^3^/s, and discharges into the
Delaware River at Easton, Pennsylvania.

Several large reservoirs on the headwaters of the Delaware and Lehigh
Rivers are used for water supply, power generation, flood control, flow
augmentation, and recreation. Three reservoirs in the upper Delaware
River Basin operated by the City of New York divert up to 800 million
gpd out of the basin (Parker and others, 1964). Reservoirs are also used
to augment flow in order to maintain an average daily flow of 1,750
ft^3^/s at Montague, New Jersey, and to maintain sufficient flow at
Trenton, New Jersey, to control salinity in the estuary. In the summer,
reservoir releases can constitute more than 70 percent of the total flow
in the upper Delaware River and 40 percent or more of the total flow at
Trenton.

Parts of five physiographic provinces lie within the Delaware River
Basin. These are the Coastal Plain, Piedmont Plateau, New England,
Valley and Ridge, and Appalachian Plateaus. Topography varies from the
relatively flat Coastal Plain, which consists of unconsolidated
sediments, to rolling lowlands and a series of broad uplands in the
Piedmont Plateau. North of the Piedmont Plateau province, the New
England and the Valley and Ridge Provinces consist of rock layers that
have been deformed into a series of steep ridges and parallel folds that
trend northeast-southwest. The Appalachian Plateaus occupy the upper
one-third of the basin and are characterized by rugged hills with
intricately dissected plateaus and broad ridges. Altitude in the basin
increases from sea level in the south to more than 4,000 feet in the
north. During the last major glacial advance, the Appalachian Plateaus
and parts of the Valley and Ridge and the New England Provinces were
glaciated. North of the line of glaciation, valleys typically are
underlain by thick layers of stratified drift and till.

On the basis of 1992 satellite-derived thematic mapper land-use data, it
is estimated that about 60 percent of the Delaware River Basin is
forested, 24 percent is agricultural, nine percent is urban and
residential, and seven percent is surface-waterbodies and miscellaneous
land uses. Eighty percent of the population within the Delaware River
Basin lives in the Piedmont Plateau and Coastal Plain provinces, which
cover only about 40 percent of the total area. Agricultural land covers
almost 30 percent of the Coastal Plain and 35 percent of the Piedmont
Plateau. Both areas have almost 20 percent urban land use. Most of the
population and urban land use is found along the estuary, which
separates the two provinces.

The Delaware River Basin Commission estimated that basinwide use of
water for all purposes was about 7,337 million gpd in 1991. This is
equivalent to the mean annual stream flow of the Delaware River at
Trenton, New Jersey. Power generation accounts for the bulk of the water
use (69 percent), followed by public-supply use and
self-supplied-industrial use (15 percent each). Most of the water is
returned to streams and aquifers within the basin, except for about 311
million gpd in consumptive uses within the basin and about 900 million
gpd in diversions out of the basin to New York City and northeastern New
Jersey. About 60 percent of consumptive water use within the basin is
from surface-water sources and 40 percent is from groundwater sources.

Some of the major water-quality issues that are currently being
addressed by water-resource managers in the Delaware River Basin
include:

-   Relation of land use to non-point sources of contaminants.

-   Effects of natural settings on the distribution, fate, and effects
    of contaminants in water, sediment, and biota.

-   Relations between stream flow and loadings of nutrients,
    contaminants, and pathogens.

-   Effects of nutrients and habitat on algae and macrophytes in
    streams, lakes, and estuaries.

-   Distribution of toxic substances, particularly PCBs, and trace
    elements in surface water, groundwater, and biota.

-   Presence of human pathogens and pesticides in drinking-water
    supplies and recreational waters.

-   Effect of dams, impoundments, and diversions on water quality, and
    on the health of fish and benthic invertebrate communities.

-   Development of management strategies for protecting areas of
    existing high water quality.

-   Effects of on-lot septic systems and reduced stream flow caused by
    groundwater withdrawals on water quality and ecological communities.

-   Distribution of natural radioactivity in domestic groundwater
    supplies.

-   Effects of groundwater/surface-water interactions on water quality.

-   Effects of coal-mine discharges on water quality and ecological
    communities.

#### Chesapeake Bay Watershed

The Chesapeake Bay Basin encompasses 64,000 square miles of land and is
the largest watershed on the eastern seaboard of North America. The Bay
basin includes parts of six states (Maryland, Virginia, New York,
Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Delaware) and the District of Columbia.
An estimated 94 percent of the land in Maryland drains to the Chesapeake
Bay.

The Chesapeake Bay is one of the largest and most productive estuarine
systems in the world. The Chesapeake Bay "main stem," defined by tidal
zones, is approximately 195 miles long and 3.5 to 35 miles wide, and has
a surface area of nearly 4,400 square miles. The main stem is entirely
within Maryland and Virginia. Nearly 50 rivers, with thousands of
tributary streams and creeks, drain the approximately 64,000 square
miles forming the Chesapeake Bay Basin. The basin contains more than
150,000 stream miles in the District of Columbia and parts of six
states: New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, and
Delaware. Nine rivers, including the Susquehanna, Patuxent, Potomac,
Rappahannock, York (consists of the Mattaponi and Pamunkey), James,
Appomattox, and Choptank, contribute approximately 90 percent of the
Bay's mean annual freshwater inflow of 69,800 ft^3^/s (COE, 1977). The
Susquehanna River, the largest river entering the Chesapeake Bay, drains
nearly 43 percent of the 64,000-square mile basin and normally
contributes about 50 percent of the freshwater reaching the Bay.

Maryland derives a significant economic benefit from the Chesapeake Bay,
including income from the harvesting of fish and shellfish, commercial
shipping and recreational boating.

The Chesapeake Bay has been degraded because of water-quality problems,
loss of habitat, and over-harvesting of living resources. The Chesapeake
Bay was listed by EPA as an impaired waterbody in 2000 under the CWA
(Section 303(d) list) because of excess nutrients and sediment, and it
must meet Federal regulatory water-quality standards by 2010. The
Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP), a multi-agency partnership, completed
Chesapeake 2000 (full reference in list at end of this Resource Report),
a new agreement that revises and establishes restoration goals for the
next 10 years in the Bay and its watershed. In the agreement, improving
water quality is identified as the most critical element in the overall
protection and restoration of the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries.
Part of the degradation in water quality is caused by excess sediment in
the water column and its adverse effects on the living resources and
associated habitat.

During the last 30 years, excess sediment has caused significant
reductions in SAV; covered filter-feeding benthic organisms, thereby
affecting their vitality; and delivered chemical constituents and
pathogens associated with sediment to the Bay, affecting fisheries and
other living resources. Water clarity and sediment problems are not
unique to the estuary and its tidal tributaries; many stream habitats in
the watershed also are affected by these problems.

#### Reservoirs 

AES identified five reservoirs within three miles of the Project Area,
as shown in Table 2.4-3. Two of the reservoirs, the Loch Raven Reservoir
and Octoraro Lake supply municipal water supply systems for Baltimore
City and Chester County, respectively. The Fullerton Reservoir is
planned to be the supply source for a proposed water filtration plant
that is currently in its initial design phase. The Fullerton Filtration
Facility is expected to be operational in 2008. The Conowingo Reservoir
serves as the supply source for the Conowingo hydroelectric power plant
and the Atkisson Reservoir is designated for Fish, Shellfish, and
Wildlife Protection and Propagation.

The Conowingo Reservoir serves as a public water supply for the City of
Baltimore (250 million gpd maximum withdrawal) and for the Chester Water
Authority (30 million gpd maximum withdrawal). HDD will be used during
the construction of the Conowingo Reservoir Crossing. A specialized
drill rig will be used to advance a shallow-angled borehole below the
Susquehanna River. Using a telemetry guidance system the borehole will
be "steered" beneath the river and then back to ground surface at an
upland location on the opposite (north) side of the river. As described
in Section 2.4.1, this method provides the maximum protection to surface
waterbodies. The Conowingo Reservoir HDD entry point will be located at
MP 43.6 on the south side of the river. The HDD exit point will be
located at MP 44.6 on the north side of the river. The length of the
Conowingo Pond HDD crossing is approximately one mile in length from
entry to exit point, of which approximately 3,200 feet is under the
Conowingo Reservoir.

There are three public water supply intakes located in the Conowingo
Reservoir. The Baltimore City intake is located approximately 2 miles
downstream of the proposed crossing location at the Conowingo Dam on the
south side of the reservoir. The Chester Water Authority intake also
located approximately 2 miles downstream of the proposed crossing
location near the dam on the north side of the reservoir. The Peach
Bottom intake is located approximately 2 miles upstream of the proposed
crossing location. Potential impacts to Conowingo Pond could include
potential water quality impacts from an inadvertent release of fuels or
oils from drilling equipment, potential bottom sediment disturbance or
surface water turbidity in the event of a frac-out at a point during the
HDD installation, or potential disturbance or water quality impacts from
hydrotesting water withdrawal or discharge.

Riverbed sediments disturbance and surface water turbidity impacts could
occur in the event of a frac-out. The HDD Contingency Plan included as
Appendix 2E, identifies measures that will be taken to avoid or minimize
the potential for release of drilling fluids and measures to mitigate
and cleanup any released drilling fluids in the event of a frac out.

HDD operations will be suspended if continued operation would pose a
risk of releasing drilling fluid at levels that exceed the applicable
permit conditions. If corrective actions do not prevent or control
unacceptable releases of drilling fluid abandonment of the HDD borehole
may be required and an assessment made to determine if modifications
could be made to the alignment to achieve a successful HDD.

Once the Mid-Atlantic Express Project detailed design is complete site
specific details will augment the HDD Contingency Plan and include the
engineering design of the HDD, with specific size and location of
staging areas for the entry and exit pits, procedures to control the
inadvertent release of drilling mud, procedures for the clean-up of any
inadvertent releases, notification requirements, a description of how
abandoned holes would be sealed ,and contingency crossing techniques, if
necessary.

Additionally, the Pipeline crosses three sub-basins (within the
Susquehanna River Basin) that feed into the Conowingo Reservoir from MP
39.4 to MP 47.6 (8.2 miles). The boundaries of the watersheds are shown
on Figure 2.4-4. The Pipeline also traverses four sub-basins that feed
the Octoraro Reservoir, which serves as a public water supply for the
Chester Water Authority (30 million gpd maximum withdrawal) from MP 56.7
to MP 63.4 (6.7 miles). AES has developed the ECP, included as Appendix
2A, after consultation with the MDE, PDEP, MDNR, the Susquehanna River
Basin Commission, as well as county conservationists in both
Pennsylvania and Maryland, in order to address local concerns and
practices regarding erosion and sediment control in the plan. The ECP
will be utilized during construction to avoid or minimize impacts to
wetlands, waterbodies and watershed areas during construction of the
Pipeline. []{.mark}

### Hydrostatic Test Water

#### Pipeline Hydrotesting

Before any segment of proposed Pipeline is placed in-service, it will be
hydrostatically tested to ensure it conforms to AES's Pressure Testing
of Pipelines and Fabrication procedure and U.S. Department of
Transportation (Part 192) specifications. In developing a
Project-specific hydrostatic test plan, AES considered the Pipeline
design features such as elevation and valve locations, classification of
the pipeline, and input from Pipeline contractors for an evaluation of
hydrostatic test water intakes and discharge points. Potential impact to
sensitive waterbodies (fisheries) were considered in the preparation of
the hydrostatic test plan. The plan addresses means to avoid juvenile
and adult fish entrainment and the disturbance of bottom sediments by
placing restrictions on bottom draw and requiring a screen at the intake
as well as velocity controls consistent with EPA guidance and permits
from local agencies. The MAE Pipeline Hydrotesting and Pre-Commissioning
Plan is included as Appendix 2F. The methods summarized in the plan are
based upon and will be performed consistent with Maryland General Permit
for Discharge of Hydrostatic Test Waters (COMAR 26.08.04.09.K) and
Pennsylvania General Permit for Discharges from Hydrostatic Testing of
Tanks and Pipelines (NPDES General Permit PAG-10). These agencies will
be contacted for specific requirements and conditions that may affect
the sources of water and discharge locations, and conduct of the
testing, to the extent that the plan may deviate from requirements of
the general permits.

The hydrostatic testing will be conducted to at least 150 percent of the
maximum allowable operating pressures (MAOP) and 90 percent of the
Specified Minimum Yield Strength (SMYS) requirements. The test pressure
will be maintained for a minimum of eight hours.

Testing will be performed using water withdrawn from nearby streams or
municipal supplies, primarily the Susquehanna River, and pumped into the
Pipeline behind a fill pig. Both water intake and discharge are
anticipated to be from location(s) within the new pipeline ROW corridor
where the corridor crosses the Susquehanna River. The intake structure
will extend from the west bank of the River. A high-pressure pump will
be used to pressurize the Pipeline to the appropriate designated test
pressure based on classification of the Pipeline in the test section.
Selected locations may require filling from a chlorinated municipal
supply for hydrostatic testing.  After testing, the pipe section will be
depressurized and test water will be discharged to an approved location
where it will be sampled, treated (if necessary) and released back into
the environment. Hydrostatic test water will not be discharged directly
to any watercourse. The proposed sources, volumes and discharge
locations for each pipeline segment hydrostatic test are described in
detail in the MAE Hydrotesting and Pre-Commissioning Plan included as
Appendix 2F.

Before discharge, the test water will be sampled and treated (if
necessary) to meet applicable discharge requirements or permit
conditions. Discharge will be performed utilizing an energy dissipater
(see BMP Drawing Number 25) with discharge to an upland area near a
stream (i.e., not directly to the stream). These methods are further
described in the MAE Hydrotesting and Pre-Commissioning Plan included as
Appendix 2F. The MAE Hydrotesting and Pre-Commissioning Plan is based
upon and will be performed consistent with Maryland General Permit for
Discharge of Hydrostatic Test Waters (COMAR 26.08.04.09.K) and
Pennsylvania General Permit for Discharges from Hydrostatic Testing of
Tanks and Pipelines (NPDES General Permit PAG-10).

#### LNG Tank Hydrotesting

The LNG tanks and piping will be hydrostatically and pneumatically
tested in compliance with the applicable codes that govern the pipe
and/or tank design. Hydrotesting will be performed on the inner
container of each LNG storage tank. The inner containers will be made of
nine percent nickel. Hydrotest water will be taken from the Patapsco
River and will be filtered to prevent the ingress of coarse materials.
The test water will be sampled and tested for compliance with API 620,
Section Q.8.3 requirements for test water quality prior to use. If
necessary to meet API requirements, the water will be treated with
corrosion inhibitors prior to admission to the tanks.

Water will be pumped from the Patapsco River into the inner LNG tank
through the manhole in the outer containment tank roof. In accordance
with API 620, the water flow rate will not exceed three feet of depth
per hour (equivalent to 17,800 gpm for each 246-foot inner diameter
inner tank), to a depth of about 76\'-1\" above the inner tank floor.
Accordingly, the time to fill the tank will be at least 25 hours of
pumping at the maximum allowed rate. Approximately 28 million gallons of
water will be required to test each tank. The water residence time in
the tank will be sufficient to meet the testing time required per API
620 (including a one-hour hold time) and will otherwise be limited to
prevent any possible corrosion.

Prior to withdrawing water from State of Maryland waters for use during
pre-commissioning, AES will obtain a Water Appropriation and Use Permit
from the MDE Water Management Administration (WMA) in accordance with
COMAR 26.17.06. Potential impact to sensitive waterbodies (fisheries)
have been considered in the preparation of this hydrostatic test plan.
The hydrostatic test water intake structures will be designed to avoid
juvenile and adult fish entrainment and the disturbance of bottom
sediments by placing restrictions on bottom draw and requiring a screen
at the intake as well as velocity controls consistent with EPA guidance
and permits from local agencies.

Maryland's cooling water intake and discharge regulations (COMAR
26.08.03) stem from Sections 316(a) and (b) of the CWA. COMAR
26.08.03.05, and litigative and administrative rulings stipulate that
the location, design, construction and capability of cooling water
intake structures must reflect the best technology available (BTA) for
minimizing adverse environmental impacts, providing that the costs of
implementing the BTA are not wholly disproportionate to the expected
environmental benefits. Maryland law exempts facilities with withdrawal
rates less than 10 million god and less than 20 percent of stream or net
flow by the intake. Maryland's regulations do not specify a design
intake velocity, and typical Maryland facilities generally have one to
two feet per second (fps) screen face velocity.

While AES does not propose to construct a cooling water intake system,
these regulations were utilized as the guidance for the conceptual
design of the proposed hydrostatic test water intake structure that
would be used to provide hydrostatic test water for each pipeline
segment. The seawater pumps will be located along the water\'s edge on
the western shoreline of the LNG Terminal. The pumps will be vertically
mounted centrifugal pumps and will take suction from the Patapsco River.
The intake structure will be configured with in-take screens designed to
prevent ingress of debris, and to maintain inlet velocities below two
fps with a velocity cap to minimize the effect of flow on the local
marine life as further described below.

The intake velocity and aperture size of the intake screens will be
designed to minimize the rates of impingement and entrainment, based on
consultations with NMFS the screen size will be less than two
millimeters (mm). It is possible that organisms smaller than the
aperture size of the screens and that swim at a slower rate than the
intake velocity could be drawn in with the test water, while larger,
slow moving biota could be trapped on the screens for the length of time
it takes to fill each tank.

To address potential impact to marine organisms and biota, the intake
velocity of the system will be restricted to less than two fps, with a
flow rate of approximately 1,200 to 3,600 gpm so that the potential for
entrainment of marine biota is minimized. The screen through which the
water is drawn will be sized to minimize the rate of impingement on the
screens while the pipeline is filling.

Due to the timing of the construction, it is unlikely that the same
water can be reused for testing of two or more of the three tanks.
Therefore, after each tank hydrotest, the test water will be pumped out
of the tank, tested, treated (if necessary) and discharged to the
Patapsco River in a location and manner in accordance with applicable
permits and regulations.

After completion of the hydrotest, the tanks will contain test water
that must be removed. Because the base case for pre-commissioning is not
to use water inhibition or chemical additives, water discharge is
simplified. If chemical additives are required, the water will be
treated to the level required such that it complies with any and all
licenses and permits required for discharge and does not detrimentally
affect the quality of the receiving waters.

There is not expected to be a thermal impact to the discharge waterbody
due to the discharge of water used in the hydrotest procedures. The only
potential environmental concern will be sediment and suspended debris.
These will be removed by filtration and the use of sedimentation pools
or temporary holding tanks, before discharge into the environment. Water
sampling and testing will be performed to ensure compliance with current
environmental regulations and permits obtained for the Project. AES will
obtain coverage under the Maryland General Permit for Discharge of
Hydrostatic Test Waters (COMAR 26.08.04.09.K), General Permit No 06HT.
In accordance with the permit conditions AES will file a Notice of
Intent with MDE WMA at least 60 calendar days prior to commencement of
activities covered under the general permit. AES will notify the MDE at
least 48 hours prior to discharge and will perform sampling and analysis
of the discharge in accordance with the Section IV.D of the General
Permit, Discharge Limits for Hydrostatic Testing of Pipes, Pipelines and
Tanks including the following flow rate, oil & grease, total iron, total
residual chlorine, total suspended solids, dissolved oxygen, temperature
difference, temperature and pH. The sampling and analytical methods used
will conform to the procedures for the analysis of pollutants as
identified in 40 CFR Part 136.

If the water from the tanks, after water analysis has been completed,
can be discharged without pretreatment, the test water will be released
in an upland location through an energy dissipater which will flow into
the Patapsco River, in compliance with applicable permit limits. Any
solid residue recovered during cleaning will be collected and disposed
off at a licensed disposal site.

Following hydrotesting, the inner tank inside wall, floor and internal
structures will be rinsed with fresh water. The rinse water will be
pumped out of the tank and discharged to the Patapsco River in a
location and manner in accordance with applicable permits and
regulations as described above.

Each tank will be equipped with a settlement monitoring system to
measure and record inner and outer tank movements during hydrotest. The
settlement monitoring system consists of survey/reference points equally
spaced around the tank and will be capable of measuring differential
settlement between inner and outer tanks. During hydrotest, settlements,
rotation and base slab tilting will be monitored at approximately each
16-foot increment of water fill height. Measurements will also be
recorded when the tank is emptied.

### Construction & Operation Permits

Table 1.8-1 to Resource Report 1, *General Project* Description,
summarizes the permits and authorizations required for construction and
authorization of the Project. AES developed the information in that
table based on a review of the applicable regulatory requirements and
consultation with agency representatives. AES has consulted with
numerous local, state and federal agencies regarding the potential
impacts to surface waters and wetlands, including, but not limited to,
the COE, NOAA, NMFS, MDE, MDNR, and the PDEP. Specific to surface waters
and wetlands, these approvals, permits or consultations may include the
following:

-   Section 404 of the CWA (33 U.S.C. § 1344): permits for the discharge
    of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States,
    including jurisdictional wetlands, as administered by the COE;

-   Section 10 Rivers and Harbors Act (33 U.S.C. § 403): authorization
    for dredging, and construction of the pier and berthing facilities,
    as administered by the COE;

-   Section 401 of the CWA (33 U.S.C. § 1341): Water Quality
    Certification; MDE has the authority under its Wetlands & Waterways
    Program to review any federal permit or license that may result in a
    discharge to wetlands and other waters under state jurisdiction, in
    order to ensure that the actions would be consistent with the
    State's water quality requirements;

-   Section 401 Water Quality Certification administered by the PDEP;

-   MDE Non-Tidal Wetlands and Waterways Permit for Pipeline Facilities;

-   MDE Tidal Wetlands Permit for Terminal Facilities;

-   Coastal Zone Consistency Determination for activities in the Coastal
    Zone as managed by MDNR;

-   Industrial wastewater discharge permit pursuant to Title 26 COMAR is
    administered by MDE;

-   General NPDES Permit Number MDR10/State Discharge Permit Number 03
    GP for stormwater discharges associated with construction activities
    as administered by MDE;

-   Water appropriation and use permit under COMAR 26.17.06 as
    administered by the MDE Water Management Administration;

-   Chesapeake and Atlantic Coastal Bays Area Approval administered by
    the Critical Area Commission for the Chesapeake and Atlantic Coastal
    Bays; and

-   Susquehanna River Basin Commission surface water consumptive use or
    withdrawal permit.

A listing of each permit application and the date when it will be filed
is presented in Table 1.8-1 of Resource Report 1, *General Project
Description*.

Additionally, the LNG Terminal will operate under SIC Code 4922, and
will apply for coverage under the Maryland General Permit for Stormwater
Discharge associated with Industrial activity. As such, AES will design
the LNG Terminal with appropriate stormwater controls and ensure that
stormwater that comes in contact with industrial process areas is
treated prior to discharge. Additionally, all process wastewater will be
routed to the Baltimore County publicly-owned treatment works (POTW). A
permit for discharge to the POTW will be obtained prior to initiation of
operations at the LNG Terminal. The discharges to the POTW will be
monitored and treated to meet the pre-treatment standards required by
the Baltimore County POTW.

The Power Plant will operate under SIC Code 4911. There will be
synergies with the LNG Terminal, such as fuel supply to the combined
cycle plant, transfer of cold from the LNG Terminal heat transfer system
to the combined cycle process for cooling, and transfer of waste heat
from the Power Plant into the LNG heat transfer system for vaporization
of the LNG. The Power Plant would use natural gas supplied from the LNG
Terminal and transmission lines leaving the Terminal Site to tie into
the local utility system. The Power Plant will provide the primary power
source to the LNG Terminal, with the back up supply coming from the
existing 110 kV utility system. Electric energy in excess of the needs
of the LNG Terminal will be transmitted to the existing electrical grid
via overhead power lines. The Power Plant will make its additional power
supplies available for purchase at competitive market prices, will
create additional union construction and permanent jobs, will provide
additional tax revenues for the local area, and will be a "cogeneration"
plant whose "excess" heat will be used to re-vaporize the LNG at the LNG
Terminal.

The Power Plant will not require an outside source of cooling water
while operating in conjunction with the proposed LNG Terminal. All
cooling needs will be supplied by a heat/cold exchange system with the
LNG Terminal. When the LNG Terminal is not operating, or there is
insufficient cold from the LNG being vaporized and power is needed in
the local area, it will be possible to operate the Power Plant using
water obtained from the municipal water system.

AES will apply for coverage under the Maryland General Permit for
Stormwater Discharge associated with Industrial activity for the LNG
Terminal. Although power plants are excluded from coverage under the
General Permit, AES nevertheless will 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 be routed to the Baltimore County POTW, or through
appropriately permitted discharge.

### Sensitive Surface Waters

Sensitive surface waters may include waters that do not meet water
quality standards associated with their designated beneficial use,
waters that have been designated for intensified water quality
management, waterbodies that contain threatened or endangered species or
critical habitat, waters less than three miles upstream of potable water
intake structures, outstanding quality waterbodies, waters of particular
ecological and recreational importance, waterbodies located in sensitive
and protected watershed areas, or physically unstable waterbodies.

The Project is located within the USGS Mid-Atlantic Region. The CWA
requires state governments to assess surface and groundwater resource
conditions. Section 305(b) of the CWA provides a consistent method of
water quality classifications based on the degree to which an aquatic
resource supports aquatic biota, and includes:

-   Full support,

-   Full threatened,

-   Partial support/minor impairment,

-   Partial support/moderate impairment, and

-   Non-support.

The CWA provides the statutory basis for the Maryland and Pennsylvania
state water quality standards program.

MDE and PDEP were consulted to determine whether the Project Area
crosses any sensitive surface waters. The following criteria were
discussed and conclusions reached:

-   Fourteen of the surface waters crossed by the Pipeline are listed on
    the MDE and PDEP's 2004 Section 303d List of Impaired Waters
    Requiring a TMDL, all of which have been designated for intensified
    water quality management and improvement;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   One waterbody was found to contain threatened or endangered species
    and AES continues to perform Bog Turtle surveys, as discussed in
    Resource Report 3, *Vegetation and Wildlife*;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   One waterbody, the Susquehanna River, is crossed within less than
    three miles upstream of two potable water intake structures;

-   AES continues to evaluate whether waters of particular ecological
    importance would be crossed;

-   All the waterbodies crossed by the Pipeline are located within the
    protected Chesapeake Bay Watershed;

-   AES continues to evaluate surface waters that were found to have
    important riparian areas;

-   No rivers on or designated to be added to the Nationwide Rivers
    Inventory;

-   The Pipeline Route will cross Deer Creek which is listed by Maryland
    as a Scenic and Wild River; and,

-   The Pipeline Route crosses 14 high quality waterbodies and six
    waterbodies of exceptional value in Pennsylvania, as shown in Table
    3.3.1-1 of Resource Report 3.

This review identified 14 sensitive surface waters on the following
basis:

-   [Baltimore Harbor]{.underline}. This waterbody, which includes the
    Patapsco River and Bear Creek, is a sensitive surface water. The
    Baltimore Harbor is impaired by several constituents including PCBs,
    chromium, zinc, lead, mercury, nickel, copper, cyanide and
    chlordane. According to the CWA 2002 305(b) report that provides
    EPA's summary of impaired waters requiring TMDLs, chlordane, PCBs,
    metal, low oxygen, and bacteria in the tidal waters were attributed
    to industrial and municipal discharges, non-point sources, poor
    tidal flushing, and unknown sources. In non-tidal waters, siltation
    resulted in some areas failing to meet all designated uses due to
    urban runoff, habitat alteration, and channelization. Fish
    consumption advisories were issued in 1986, and expanded in 2001,
    for chlordane, PCBs, and dieldrin.

-   [Bread and Cheese Creek.]{.underline} This is a sensitive waterbody
    that is included on Maryland's 303d list due to biological
    impairments.

-   [Back River]{.underline}. This is a sensitive waterbody that is
    included on Maryland's 303d list due to fecal coliform, biological,
    nutrient, sediment, zinc and PCB impairments.

-   [Stemmers Run]{.underline}. This is a sensitive waterbody that is
    included on Maryland's 303d list due to biological impairments.

-   [Tributary of Little Gunpowder Falls]{.underline}. This is a
    sensitive waterbody that is included on Maryland's 303d list due to
    nutrient impairments.

-   [Little Gunpowder Falls]{.underline}. This is a sensitive waterbody
    that is included on Maryland's 303d list due to nutrient
    impairments.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   [Winters Run]{.underline}. This is a sensitive waterbody that is
    included on Maryland's 303d list due to biological and nutrient
    impairments.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   [Susquehanna River]{.underline}. This is a sensitive waterbody that
    is included on Maryland's 303d list due to nutrient, biological,
    sediment, cadmium and PCB impairments. Metals, low pH, and nutrients
    are the primary causes of stream impacts in the Susquehanna River
    Basin. Coal mine drainage is the source of most of the metals and pH
    problems degrading streams. Sources of nutrients include municipal
    and domestic wastewater discharges, agricultural runoff, and
    groundwater inflow from agricultural areas.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   [Conowingo Creek]{.underline}. This is a sensitive waterbody that is
    included on Maryland's 303d list due to biological, nutrient and
    sediment impairments.

-   [Doe Run]{.underline}. This is a sensitive waterbody that is
    included on Pennsylvania's 303d list due to nutrient impairment.

-   [West Branch Brandywine Creek]{.underline}. This is a sensitive
    waterbody that is included on Pennsylvania's 303d list due to
    nutrient and sediment impairments.

-   [Broad Run]{.underline}. This is a sensitive waterbody that is
    included on Pennsylvania's 303d list due to biological, nutrient,
    dissolved oxygen, sediment and flow alteration impairments.

-   [Beaver Creek]{.underline}. This is a sensitive waterbody that is
    included on Pennsylvania's 303d list due to sediment impairments.

-   [East Branch Brandywine Creek]{.underline}. This is a sensitive
    waterbody that is included on Pennsylvania's 303d list due to
    sediment and flow alteration impairments.

### Waterbody Construction and Mitigation Procedures

#### Pipeline

As described in Section 2.4.1, the construction of the Pipeline across
waterbodies would result in minor, short-term impacts. These impacts
would occur as a result of in-stream construction activities or
construction on slopes adjacent to stream channels. These activities
would result in a temporary localized increase in turbidity levels and
downstream sediment deposition. Sedimentation and turbidity may occur as
a result of in-stream construction, trench dewatering, and soil erosion
along the CROW. In slack or slowly moving waters, increases in suspended
sediment may increase the biochemical oxygen demand and reduce levels of
dissolved oxygen in localized areas during construction. Motile
organisms may avoid these areas, but sessile and some planktonic
organisms may be adversely affected. Suspended sediments would also
alter the chemical and physical characteristics of the water column
(e.g., color and clarity) on a short-term basis. However, no foreign
sediments would be introduced as all dredged or fill material would
consist of onsite sediments. []{.mark}

[]{.mark}

The proposed construction procedures, described in Section 2.4.1, are
designed to ensure that potential impacts at all stream crossings are
minimized to the maximum extent practicable. AES would implement
procedures and waterbody protection measures outlined in AES's
Construction BMPs, which include the FERC's Plan and Procedures (see
Resource Report 1, *General Project Description*, Appendix 1A), to
further minimize impacts to waterbodies crossed by the Pipeline.

To limit the time required for construction of a stream crossing, the
ROW will be prepared on either side of the stream prior to the
construction of the actual crossing. Where construction will be through
wooded stream banks, care will be taken to preserve as many existing
trees as possible. Stream crossings will be perpendicular to the flow,
to the extent practical.

If necessary, the piping used for stream crossings and in floodplains
will be weighted to prevent flotation. The piping will be welded
together in the staging areas and then carried or floated along the ROW
into place. If the streambed is composed of unconsolidated material, the
piping will be pulled into place. In rock‑bottomed streams, the pipe
will be floated or lifted across and then lowered into place. After the
piping is lowered into the trench, previously excavated material will be
returned to the trench line for backfill. Stream flow will be maintained
at all waterbody crossings (except at open-cut crossings), and no
alteration of the stream\'s capacity is anticipated as a result of
Pipeline construction.

At small streams encountered along the ROW, a backhoe, clam dredge,
dragline, or similar equipment will be used for trench excavation. As a
rule, the completion of all construction activities should not exceed 24
hours at minor stream crossings and 48 hours at intermediate stream
crossings.

After the completion of construction, streambeds will be restored to
their closely approximate former elevations and grades. Spoil, debris,
pilings, cofferdams, construction materials, and any other obstructions
resulting from or used during construction of the pipeline will be
removed to prevent interference with normal water flow and use. Any
excavated material not used as backfill will be disposed of in a manner
and at locations satisfactory to the agencies having jurisdiction.
Following grading, all stream banks will be restored to prevent
subsequent erosion, in accordance with permit requirements.

#### LNG Terminal

A king pile steel sheet pile bulkhead will be installed along the
western limits of the upland facility. The steel sheets will be driven
with either a vibratory or impact pile driving hammer. Where accessible,
the piles will be driven from a land based rig. In locations where
access is from the waterside only, the piles will be driven by a rig
based on a floating construction barge. The barge can be anchored into
location with spud piles to provide a stable working area. Templates
will be used to ensure that the sheet piles are driven in the proper
location and that plumbness is maintained within acceptable limits.

##### This construction phase will result in temporarily increased turbidity levels, as sheet piles and associated structures are placed in or attached to the seabed. The construction plan will incorporate available methods for minimizing and/or monitoring the scale of these disturbances. These will include use of best management practices for minimizing/localizing turbidity (e.g., limiting need for construction vessels that may suspend shallow sediments with propeller wash), and by limiting bottom-disturbing activities to seasonal windows when these activities would cause the least impact to natural communities. Potential impacts to and mitigation measures for marine biota resulting from construction and operation of the LNG Terminal are discussed in Section 3.3.3.1 of Resource Report 3, Fish, Wildlife and Vegetation. {#this-construction-phase-will-result-in-temporarily-increased-turbidity-levels-as-sheet-piles-and-associated-structures-are-placed-in-or-attached-to-the-seabed.-the-construction-plan-will-incorporate-available-methods-for-minimizing-andor-monitoring-the-scale-of-these-disturbances.-these-will-include-use-of-best-management-practices-for-minimizinglocalizing-turbidity-e.g.-limiting-need-for-construction-vessels-that-may-suspend-shallow-sediments-with-propeller-wash-and-by-limiting-bottom-disturbing-activities-to-seasonal-windows-when-these-activities-would-cause-the-least-impact-to-natural-communities.-potential-impacts-to-and-mitigation-measures-for-marine-biota-resulting-from-construction-and-operation-of-the-lng-terminal-are-discussed-in-section-3.3.3.1-of-resource-report-3-fish-wildlife-and-vegetation. .unnumbered}

##### Demolition of selected structures at the existing Sparrows Point site will be needed to prepare the site for construction. The shipyard formerly consisted of 10 slips used for ship construction and/repair. Slips No. 1 through No. 5 are demolished and the area they occupied is at a common grade. Portions of the remaining slips (No. 6 through 10) are used for hauling out and dismantling barges.  {#demolition-of-selected-structures-at-the-existing-sparrows-point-site-will-be-needed-to-prepare-the-site-for-construction.-the-shipyard-formerly-consisted-of-10-slips-used-for-ship-construction-andrepair.-slips-no.-1-through-no.-5-are-demolished-and-the-area-they-occupied-is-at-a-common-grade.-portions-of-the-remaining-slips-no.-6-through-10-are-used-for-hauling-out-and-dismantling-barges. .unnumbered}

As described in Section 1.3.3.1 of Resource Report 1, *General Project
Description*, for development of the LNG Terminal, the remaining slip
structures on shore will be demolished and the associated area leveled
to the site's common grade. Portions of existing finger piers and
low-level relieving platforms that lie along the waterline of the new
bulkhead alignment will be removed as may be required for facility
construction. To the extent removal may be needed, biologic evaluation
of existing finger pier and relieving platform elements has been
performed and does not indicate the elements provide significant
substrate for benthic, encrusting or pelagic communities (see below
within this Section 2.4.8.2). The LNG Terminal will make use of an
existing pier located at the northern end of the Terminal Site. The
existing pier will be modified to accommodate mooring of LNG ships. The
modifications will consist of repairing existing piles, resurfacing the
deck, and building an unloading platform and pipe trestle on top of the
pier.

The pier will have two berths, one on the north side of the pier and the
other on the south side. The main components of the marine facilities at
the Terminal Site will include the following:

-   An existing finger pier that will support an elevated pipeway and
    spill containment system, an elevated unloading platform and
    gangways; the pier will also support the mooring of the LNG ships
    and provide a roadway to the loading platform area;

-   Dredged areas for ship access;

-   Aids to navigation;

-   A retractable security barrier; and

-   Mechanical systems.

##### The features of the marine facility at the Terminal Site are shown on Figure 1.3-2. This demolition will impact previously disturbed marine bottom. Specifically, during construction of the LNG pier, AES will install a sheet pile bulk head wall to establish a new vertical edge of the shoreline. During this process approximately 44,733 square feet of materials will be dredged to create new bottom area on the water ward side of the bulkhead. The bulkhead wall will continue south of the pier structure, which will result in removal of additional land features on the water ward side of the bulkhead, and the creation of approximately 22,202 square feet of new marine bottom area. To the south of the berthing area a sheet pile wall will be driven to a depth of approximately 45 feet to create a vertical structure, so that the landward side can be filled to the proposed final grade of the site. The alignment of the proposed bulkhead will be coincident with the existing waters edge and, therefore, there will be no additional impacts to the marine bottom.  {#the-features-of-the-marine-facility-at-the-terminal-site-are-shown-on-figure-1.3-2.-this-demolition-will-impact-previously-disturbed-marine-bottom.-specifically-during-construction-of-the-lng-pier-aes-will-install-a-sheet-pile-bulk-head-wall-to-establish-a-new-vertical-edge-of-the-shoreline.-during-this-process-approximately-44733-square-feet-of-materials-will-be-dredged-to-create-new-bottom-area-on-the-water-ward-side-of-the-bulkhead.-the-bulkhead-wall-will-continue-south-of-the-pier-structure-which-will-result-in-removal-of-additional-land-features-on-the-water-ward-side-of-the-bulkhead-and-the-creation-of-approximately-22202-square-feet-of-new-marine-bottom-area.-to-the-south-of-the-berthing-area-a-sheet-pile-wall-will-be-driven-to-a-depth-of-approximately-45-feet-to-create-a-vertical-structure-so-that-the-landward-side-can-be-filled-to-the-proposed-final-grade-of-the-site.-the-alignment-of-the-proposed-bulkhead-will-be-coincident-with-the-existing-waters-edge-and-therefore-there-will-be-no-additional-impacts-to-the-marine-bottom. .unnumbered}

During installation of the sheet pile bulkhead, AES will install, as
required, silt curtains in the shallow water area, to prevent
sedimentation impacts in the area of construction. AES anticipates this
construction will take approximately six months to complete, and will be
conducted from March to September. Based on the biological surveys
performed, as described in Resource Report 3, *Vegetation and Wildlife*,
there is no submerged aquatic vegetation and benthic biota are not
located in the immediate vicinity of the construction area.
Additionally, all filling activities will be conducted on the landward
side of the sheet pile wall, resulting in no filling of marine areas.
The new bulkhead alignment will consist of approximately 2,175 linear
feet of sheetpile wall, as shown on Figure 1.3-2 (Sheet 2) of Resource
Report 1, *General Project Description*. The area of waters that will be
impacted as part of the Project is presented in Table 2.4-5 along with a
summary of anticipated water use and quality impacts related to
waterfront construction (sheet pile driving and land removal).

Data for the three largest Maryland commercial fisheries (Blue Claw,
Oyster, and Striped Bass) were available through the Maryland Commercial
Fisheries Annual Landings Data Set (MDNR 2005a) that were pertinent to
the proposed Project Area (Patapsco River and the north-central
Chesapeake Bay) and are summarized below by fishery and total annual
landings in pounds.

-   Blue crab (*Callinectes sapidus*): 2004 total landings of 31,987,749
    pounds with 0.002 percent (48,417 pounds) of total catch harvested
    in Patapsco River.

-   Atlantic Oyster (*Crassotrea virginica*): 2004 total landings of
    63,057 pounds with 0.03 percent (1,956 pounds) of total catch
    harvested in north-central Chesapeake Bay region (not part of
    proposed project area).

-   Striped bass (*Morone saxatilis)*: 2004 total landings of 1,924,470
    pounds with 0.003 percent (5,659 pounds) of total catch harvested in
    Patapsco River.

Currently, the Patapsco River, including Baltimore Harbor, has been
closed indefinitely to shellfish harvest; therefore, the proposed pier
demolition will pose no immediate impact on the harvesting of any
shell-fisheries within or adjacent to the Project Area. 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.
Because any resulting impact from the proposed demolition will be
temporary, and time of year constraints may be imposed (if deemed
necessary), it is unlikely that any harvesting of these fisheries
occurring within or adjacent to the proposed Project Area 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, these species are highly mobile and migratory and will
most likely not suffer any negative impact as a result of the proposed
pier demolition, especially because species migration schedules will be
factored into the proposed demolition timeline.

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 explosions (i.e.,
removal of bedrock) could have negative impacts on finfish species with
gas-filled swim bladders that are in near-proximity to the proposed
Project Area 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 disturb these sensory
systems; however, this is unlikely in the case of 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) (COE 2004; Popper and Clark 1976). Field
tests have shown the weight of the charge and distance from the
detonation or distance from 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). However, during previous sampling efforts
of the proposed Project Area, minimal numbers of finfish were collected
within 50 meters of the finger piers. Additionally, a pier inspection
involving divers equipped with self-contained underway breathing
apparatus (SCUBA) and underwater video 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 species utilize the concrete slabs, steel piles, and wood
piles, as habitat. From field identifications provided by the SCUBA
team, included as Appendix 3A, Marine Field Survey Report to Resource
Report 3, *Vegetation and Wildlife,* it seems that barnacles (subclass
Cirripedia), fan worms (*Sabella spp.*), and zebra mussels (*Dreissena
polymorpha*) were the most abundant and would suffer no negative impacts
as recolonization rates for these species 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 proposed Project Area. 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 because the majority of species found in the
area of the Terminal Site are opportunistic (substantiated by MDE
(2005)[^5]).

It is unlikely that a significant decrease in water quality will result
from the proposed pier demolition, based on data collected in
conjunction with the Chesapeake Bay Program. 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). Total Nitrogen Concentrations, Total Phosphorous
Concentrations, Abundance of Algae, Total Suspended Sediments, Water
Clarity by Secchi Depth, and Summer Bottom Dissolved Oxygen data have
been collected by The Chesapeake Bay Water and Habitat Monitoring
Program since 1985, the Maryland Biological Stream Survey (MBSS) since
1995, and the Stream Waders Volunteer Program since 2000. The Patapsco
River has continuously received the lowest rank of poor with the
exception of Total Suspended Sediments that was rated fair. More
specifically, Dissolved Oxygen averaged 1.2 microgram per liter (mg/l)
and 0.67 mg/l during a seven month collection period during the 2004 and
2005 sampling seasons, making it unlikely that the Baltimore Harbor
region and the proposed Project Area within the Patapsco River can
adequately support most biological life for any long term duration.
Because any potential impacts resulting from the proposed pier
demolition will be temporary, and given the degraded nature of the
existing water parameters, it is unlikely that any additional decreases
in water quality would affect existing biological communities, as biota
currently found within the Project Area are seemingly well adapted to
poor conditions.

With respect to diminished summer dissolved oxygen levels, the types of
conditions that may lead to low oxygen levels at depth may include:

-   Seasonal influx of fresh water (such as from Spring runoff) creating
    an elevated gradient in dissolved chloride content that stratifies
    the water column and prevents turnover of relatively oxygenated
    shallow water with deeper low oxygen-content water.

-   Bathymetric sediment surface pockets or closed-sided areas of bottom
    topography that prevent water circulation from top to bottom of the
    water column, or exchange of water between laterally-located areas
    that otherwise receive good tidal or current exchange.

-   High chemical oxygen demand (COD) that consumes dissolved oxygen.
    High COD in a setting such as the Port of Baltimore often results
    from highly contaminated bottom sediment.

The area proposed to be dredged by AES has two of these factors in
place: presence of contaminated sediment at the water-sediment
interface; and a deeper section of bathymetry in the area of the current
floating drydock where circulation with deeper water of the Patapsco may
be cut off (water depth in the drydock area is approximately 40 to 45
feet deep, but is cut off from deeper areas of the Patapsco River and
Chesapeake by the shallower shipping channel, at approximately 25- to
30-foot depth). Performance of the dredging necessary for the project
will remove a large volume of the contaminated sediment leaving
relatively clean sediment in place at the new sediment-water interface.
The newly established depths for LNG ship entry to the LNG Terminal area
will also establish a relatively consistent 45-foot depth from the
Brewerton Channel up to the new LNG ship berth thereby eliminating the
current closed-ended basin around the floating drydock, which should
improve the ability for water to circulate with tidal and normal stream
flow throughout the water column. Therefore, local conditions relative
to the two factors that may be contributing to existing low oxygen
levels should improve with dredging.

#### Pier Construction

The marine facilities will consist of two berths for LNG ships. The tug
support will be provided by existing tug operators in the Baltimore port
area, and no tug berthing is planned at the facility. In order to reduce
the potential for seabed impacts, AES has proposed the rehabilitation of
the existing pier, installation of an elevated unloading platform, and
the installation of an elevated pipeway and associated spillway.

Pier rehabilitation will include the concrete encasement and/or splicing
of the existing piles, repairs to the concrete cap, and
repairs/resurfacing of the existing concrete deck. The repairs to the
piles and caps will take place from floating construction barges. The
floating construction barges provide the ability to be repositioned as
required in the working area in order to provide uninhibited access to
the items being repaired, ensuring proper construction techniques can be
utilized.

Pre-cast concrete elements for the unloading platform, pipeway and
associated spillway will be set into place via crane, which will be
located either on floating construction barges or the existing pier,
pending space availability. The floating construction barges will be
anchored into place with spud piles. These construction barges provide
the ability to be repositioned as required in the working area in order
to provide uninhibited access to the item under construction, ensuring
proper construction techniques can be utilized.

The cast-in-place concrete elements to support the deck rehabilitation,
unloading platform, pipeway and associated spillway will be constructed
from floating construction barges or landside, as space allows. As noted
for the pre-cast elements and pier repairs, floating construction barges
provide the ability to be repositioned as required in the working area
in order to provide uninhibited access to the item under construction,
ensuring proper construction techniques can be utilized.

Once the rehabilitation of the pier deck has been completed, the
elevated steel structure will be built to support the unloading
platform, pipeway and spillway. This construction will take place from
the land side; however, the final setting of the unloading arms will
take place from a construction work barge.

#### Marine Dredging

Construction of the LNG Terminal will include widening and deepening the
existing approach channel leading off of the Brewerton Channel and
creating a turning basin immediately offshore of the Terminal Site to
accommodate the ships expected at the LNG Terminal.

The Brewerton Channel, the existing approach channel, and certain areas
offshore of the proposed Terminal Site, have been dredged in the past.
COE permits and a Water Quality Certification from the State of Maryland
authorize dredging in these areas using hydraulic or mechanical
techniques. Dredging of the approach channel and areas offshore of the
proposed Terminal Site is allowed under existing permits for maintenance
and waterfront operations to a depth of -39 feet. In addition, on May 6,
2005, the COE issued a permit to BWI-Sparrows Point LLC (CENAB-OP-RMN
\[BWI-Sparrows Point LLC/Dredging\] 04-64865-1) approving mechanical or
hydraulic dredging of a channel, turning basin, and berthing areas to 39
feet below MLLW, and to place approximately 600,000 cubic yards of
dredge material at the Hart-Miller Island disposal site. The permit also
approved a subsequent phase consisting of the deposit of approximately
2.6 million cubic yards of dredge material at disposal sites yet to be
determined. Finally, the permit approved certain construction of sheet
piling and fendering systems.

Some of the same dredge areas required for the LNG Terminal have been
approved under the BWI Permit, however, the dredging currently approved
is for the ship repair/maintenance facility, and not for dredging for
the Terminal Site. AES has been informed by the COE that the BWI Permit
is non-transferable. The description of the marine dredging contained
herein has been developed to anticipate dredge operations consistent
with this location's currently existing conditions, i.e., without taking
into account any of the dredging contemplated in the validly-issued BWI
Permit. Several dredging projects in the Project Area have been approved
in recent years that included the disposal of dredged materials at the
Hart-Miller Island Disposal site, as summarized in Table 2.4-4.
Depending on the bathymetric conditions of the dredge areas at the time
of Project construction, the actual volumes of dredged and material
handling requirements may be less than envisioned.

The approach channel expansions will be performed primarily by use of
conventional mechanical clamshell dredge, with some limited areas near
shore excavated by backhoe dredge. The analyses performed by AES
indicate that the sediment quality in the Project Area is consistent
with previously permitted projects. Based on the COE review of the
permit application, if it is determined that additional sampling of
dredge material is required for specific disposal alternatives, then the
COE will be consulted at that time regarding the additional requirements
for disposal of the dredge spoil. If those additional chemical analyses
indicate sediment quality is more significantly degraded than is allowed
by current dredge permits, environmental dredge bucket removal or
equivalent would be used. The limits of the existing approach channel
and area bathymetry, and the dredge area proposed by AES, is shown on
Resource Report 1, *General Project Description*, Appendix Figures 1C-1.
A portion of the material dredged will be managed at an on shore dredge
material recycling facility to be developed for the LNG Terminal.

Dredging is anticipated to begin in the berthing area immediately
adjacent to the Terminal Site, and progress in reaches towards the
Brewerton Channel to allow for earlier commencement of pier/dock
construction operations. Assuming a dredged channel and turning basin
depth of 45 feet, it is estimated that approximately 3.7 million cubic
yards of dredged material may be generated, a portion of which will be
used for recycling. Maintenance dredging under current permits may
decrease this amount somewhat, depending on the amount performed prior
to LNG Terminal construction.

Dredging will be conducted utilizing a mechanical (clamshell) dredge, or
if conditions warrant, with an environmental bucket or suitable
alternative as required by permit. A directional Global Positioning
System (GPS) will be used to locate the channel limits and to identify
shoaled areas. Sediment will be removed to the design depth of 45 feet
below MLLW. Computer-controlled recording software will track the
progress of the dredging and will ensure complete coverage of the area
to be dredged.

Project-specific factors such as bathymetry, wave energy, equipment
availability, and physical and chemical analysis of the sediments to be
dredged all influence the selection of dredging methodology. The
physical and chemical characteristics of materials to be dredged also
influence the determination of disposal methods. In general,
environmental dredging techniques are employed where the level of
chemical constituents present in the dredged material to be removed
indicate a potential for unacceptable risk for adverse environmental or
human health effects from the dredging process. For the Project, initial
characterization and background data indicate that the dredging will
encounter both recently deposited (Holocene) sediments as well as
underlying "native" sand materials. Environmental dredging methods may
be used only for the overlying sediment layer in areas where results of
physical and/or chemical characterization of the sediments indicates the
need for use of such methods.

The use of closed, or environmental, clamshell buckets is not a new
practice. The COE Dredging Manual (EM-1110-2-5025, March 1983) states
that closed clamshell buckets "are best adapted for maintenance dredging
of fine-grained material." The Manual further states that a direct
comparison of typical clamshell buckets to watertight clamshell buckets
indicated that the closed bucket generates 30 to 70 percent less
turbidity in the water column than the conventional bucket, and that
leakage of material from a watertight bucket is reduced by approximately
35 percent. This assertion was demonstrated in a study conducted by the
COE in August of 1999. The study directly compared sediment
re-suspension characteristics of an environmental enclosed clamshell
bucket versus a conventional clamshell bucket, and the results were
published in a COE paper, "Dredge Bucket Comparison Demonstration at
Boston Harbor" (March 2001). The results of this study indicated that
average turbidity for the conventional bucket measured 57.2 Formazin
Turbidity Unit (FTU) compared to an average of 12 FTU for the
environmental enclosed bucket. Total suspended solids concentrations for
the conventional clamshell bucket averaged 210 mg/l, compared to an
average of 50 mg/l for the environmental enclosed clamshell bucket. The
conclusions of the study indicated that the "depth averaged turbidity
for the Enclosed bucket was 79 percent less than observed for the
Conventional bucket" and "depth-averaged TSS concentrations for the
Enclosed bucket \[were\] 76 percent less than for the Conventional
bucket." AES is performing additional analysis of expected turbidity as
result application in January 2007.

An enclosed environmental clamshell bucket has several advantages over a
conventional clamshell bucket. These advantages include greater control
over contaminant release, increased ability to minimize residual
sediment after dredging, and greater ability to limit sediment
resuspension (source: Palermo, et. al. "Operational Characteristics and
Equipment Selection Factors for Environmental Dredging," *Journal of
Dredging Engineering*, 2004). According to the EPA publication
"Selecting Remediation Techniques for Contaminated Sediment (June
1993)," closed clamshell buckets are routinely used by the COE in the
Great Lakes to reduce the amount of resuspended sediment.

According to the EPA guidance document "Contaminated Sediment
Remediation Guidance for Hazardous Waste Sites" (December 2005),
dredging or excavation has been selected as a cleanup method for
contaminated sediment at more than 100 sites. Examples of projects that
have successfully used environmental clamshell dredging for removal of
contaminated sediments include:

-   Rochester River sediments at Port Charlotte, near Rochester, New
    York (cleanup of chemical spill).

-   Claremont Channel Deepening Project in Jersey City, New Jersey
    (navigational dredging of 800,000 cubic yards of low-impacted
    sediment).

-   Port of Jacksonville, Florida (PCB contaminated sediment removal).

-   Tarrytown, New York (removal of coal tar contaminated sediments).

-   Saginaw Bay, Michigan (dredging of 300,000 cubic yards of
    contaminated sediment).

-   Todd Shipyard and Lockheed Shipyard in Seattle, Washington (230,000
    cubic yards of sediment contaminated with marine paint additives).

Environmental (closed) clamshell dredging methods have also been the
method of choice for New York/New Jersey Harbor navigational maintenance
dredging and deepening projects since 1995, being used to effectively
remove over 3 million cubic yards of contaminated sediment for
subsequent treatment and upland beneficial use (source: NJDOT Office of
Maritime Resources, 2005).

The following dredging projects in the New York/New Jersey Harbor where
environmental enclosed clamshell buckets were employed exhibited
sediment contaminants similar to those in the Sparrow's Point sediment:

-   Raritan Bay Cable Crossing Dredging (Red Root Reach) - Average
    Arsenic concentration of 68.5 PPM versus 30.3 PPM for Sparrows Point

-   Claremont Channel Deepening Project -- 2000-2001 -- Average PCB
    concentration of 0.966 PPM versus non-detect for Sparrow's Point;
    Average Lead concentration of 224 PPM versus 372 PPM for Sparrow's
    Point

-   Arthur Kill Contract 2-3 -- 2005 -- Average Benzo(a)pyrene
    concentration of 2.22 PPM versus 1.68 PPM for Sparrow's Point

    Dredging production is expected to be up to 12,000 cubic yards per
    day and last approximately 24 months, with accommodation being made
    for required work stoppage periods. It is anticipated that 10 to 14
    1,500 to 3,500 cubic yard work scows will be assigned to the Project
    for dredged material transport. All scows and containers will be of
    solid hull construction, and will be completely sealed and
    watertight in order to avoid any release of dredge material.

The initial step in processing is the reduction of the water content of
the dredged sediments. The proposed dewatering process would involve
dewatering of loaded barges at the dredging site or the dredge material
recycling facility (DMRF). The proposed 10,000 cubic yards per day DMRF
will occupy approximately five acres of the 15 acres of upland property
located immediately to the south of the Terminal Site (see Figure 1C-3
in Appendix C of Resource Report 1, *General Project Description*).
Loaded scows would be allowed to settle so that the free-liquid portion
would be visibly free of suspended sediments prior to pumping the decant
water to the cargo area of a dedicated dewatering barge. After settling,
the decant water from dewatered dredged material at the processing
facility will pass through a settling tank system and be filtered prior
to discharge back to the harbor. Chemical and physical analysis will be
conducted on the decant water in accordance with a MDE Water Management
Program Individual Permit for Industrial Water Discharge that will be
issued for the DMRF. Threshold values for discharge will be set forth in
that permit. Alternately, after the initial barge settling period,
portable pumps will be utilized to pump the water to land based tanks
(i.e. frac tanks) for additional settling. Following this secondary
settling, the water will be filtered and discharged under applicable
permit conditions.

After raking, the raw dredged material will be stevedored from the work
barges directly into a pugmill processing system utilizing hydraulic
excavator(s) equipped with hydraulic closed clamshell bucket(s). The
screened raw dredged material will be fed to a twin-shaft pugmill
blending system and mixed with reagent admixtures. Once mixed, the raw
dredged material will be transformed into processed dredge material
(PDM), which will be emptied from the pugmill onto a radial stacking
conveyor. The "radial stacker" can be positioned to load directly into
trucks, or to stockpile the material for rehandling to trucks, railcars,
or back to hopper scows. Based on the current plan, there will be no raw
dredged material stored in any upland location at any time during this
process.

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 approximately 10-acre area
(within the 15-acre upland area) covered by bituminous paving, or lined
with a 10-mil high density polyethylene (HDPE) liner covered by 6- to
12-inches of existing site soil or imported soil. A scale house and
truck scale will be located adjacent to the temporary PDM storage area
for weighing of the outbound shipments of the PDM product upon sale.
Existing site roadways will be used for outbound shipments of the PDM
product.

The DMRF and temporary PDM stockpile area will be graded as necessary
and paved with bituminous concrete, and equipped with stormwater
management controls tied to existing facilities.

Further details and specifications regarding dredging, equipment,
schedule, spoils handling and processing is provided in Resource Report
1, *General Project Description*, Appendix 1C - Dredging Management
Plan. AES anticipates that operations at the DMRF will be completed one
year following completion of the dredging activities.

In addition, the treatment methods used for dredge material recycling
utilize admixtures to both chemically and physically stabilize the
dredged sediment. Specific agents that are admixed (such as Portland
cement, pozzolanic materials, etc.) will be tailored to match sediment
makeup (grain size, moisture, etc.) and chemical quality, so that the
recycled material produced meets physical properties for intended
application (like flowable fill or sub-base aggregate-type material),
and will not leach contaminants once it has been processed. AES will
perform additional sampling and characterization of the sediment in the
proposed dredge area, as required, in accordance with COE dredge permit
application requirements, to further characterize the levels of
contamination, if any, and will conduct the appropriate treatment of the
sediment at the DMRF as discussed in Section 1.5.1.2.A of Resource
Report 1, *General Project Description*. AES intends that the PDM will
be used as fill at alternate sites, or disposed of in accordance with
applicable federal, state and local regulations, so that disposal of
unused PDM will not result in impacts to wetlands or waterbodies. AES
will ensure that the PDM meets applicable environmental standards prior
to use and placement as fill material. Any potential users of the PDM
will be required by local regulations to obtain the appropriate permits
prior to fill placement, to ensure impacts to wetlands and waterbodies
will not occur.

Other potential options for management of dredged material include
off-site disposal, open ocean disposal at approved off shore locations,
and upland fill sites. All of these also depend on the chemical makeup
of the dredged material, approvals from applicable agencies and, in some
cases, approval by the receiving facility(s). If ocean disposal is
identified as a feasible alternative for dredge material disposal, AES
will perform any additional sampling required, and obtain the necessary
permits to dispose of the dredged material in an approved location as
further described below.

AES has evaluated the feasibility of offshore disposal from the
standpoint of sediment quality relative to other dredge management
projects performed in the Port of Baltimore and Sparrows Point area for
purposes of determining if offshore disposal may be viable for all or a
portion of the dredge material management.

Sediment sampling has been performed in the area where the shipping
channel and turning basin would be widened from the existing Sparrows
Point access routes to allow adequate LNG ship draft and maneuvering for
berthing at the LNG Terminal. The sampling was performed during the
period of May-June 2006, and results are summarized in Section 2.4.3.
The results show that sediment quality in the areas subject to dredging
is comparable in chemical quality to other sediments that have been
dredged from the Port of Baltimore for disposal in the area Contained
Disposal Facilities (CDFs - Hart-Miller Island, Cox Creek) and ocean
disposal sites. Environmental contaminants are present in the upper
portion of the sediment profile comprising primarily PAHs and heavy
metals. The sample results show that these compounds tend to decrease in
concentration with depth, and were generally not detected in sediments
below approximately 10 to 15± feet or at the planned dredge depth of 45
feet below mean sea level (the new mudline surface that would remain
once dredging has been completed).

Ocean placement at an authorized ocean dredge material disposal site
could be a viable placement location for the relatively clean dredge
material located below the shallow sediments containing typical Port of
Baltimore contaminant compounds. Use of such a location would be subject
to EPA and COE approval, and would require evaluation consistent with
the COE *Dredging and Dredge Material Placement* manual (Welp, et. al,
2003).

AES has determined as part of its dredge material evaluation that the
use of an approved offshore disposal site alone -- assuming that the
sediment quality would be acceptable for placement at an EPA-approved
offshore site - would be less preferable than the use of an innovative
re-use processing facility. As compared to a re-use processing facility,
the use of an approved offshore site would require vessel transit to and
from the offshore site, thereby extending the timeframe required to
handle the dredge material. Such transit may involve weather, as well as
other, delays. The use of an approved offshore disposal site also may
involve a more lengthy timeframe for obtaining approval. However,
offshore disposal could be used in conjunction with an innovative re-use
processing facility as a viable alternative for dealing with the
relatively large volumes of cleaner material.

### Operational Impacts

#### Pipeline

#### After the completion of Pipeline construction, streambeds will be restored to their former elevations and grades. Spoil, debris, pilings, cofferdams, construction materials, and any other obstructions resulting from or used during construction of the Pipeline will be removed to prevent interference with normal water flow and use. Following grading, all stream banks will be restored to prevent subsequent erosion, in accordance with permit requirements. AES will monitor the revegetation of those disturbed areas in accordance with FERC's Plan and Procedures.  {#after-the-completion-of-pipeline-construction-streambeds-will-be-restored-to-their-former-elevations-and-grades.-spoil-debris-pilings-cofferdams-construction-materials-and-any-other-obstructions-resulting-from-or-used-during-construction-of-the-pipeline-will-be-removed-to-prevent-interference-with-normal-water-flow-and-use.-following-grading-all-stream-banks-will-be-restored-to-prevent-subsequent-erosion-in-accordance-with-permit-requirements.-aes-will-monitor-the-revegetation-of-those-disturbed-areas-in-accordance-with-fercs-plan-and-procedures. .unnumbered}

#### Typically, final restoration occurs within 10 to 20 days of rough backfilling. Permanent erosion and sediment controls are installed (e.g., waterbars on sloping terrain) and the CROW is re-seeded and/or mulched per permit requirements and landowner agreements. Pipeline markers are then installed. Soil adjuncts and fertilizers may be added where necessary. Temporary erosion controls are removed when the area has been stabilized in accordance with project requirements. The revegetation will be monitored for at least two growing seasons following final restoration. The Pipeline facilities will be located underground; therefore, AES does not anticipate any additional impacts to water resources from the operation of the Pipeline. {#typically-final-restoration-occurs-within-10-to-20-days-of-rough-backfilling.-permanent-erosion-and-sediment-controls-are-installed-e.g.-waterbars-on-sloping-terrain-and-the-crow-is-re-seeded-andor-mulched-per-permit-requirements-and-landowner-agreements.-pipeline-markers-are-then-installed.-soil-adjuncts-and-fertilizers-may-be-added-where-necessary.-temporary-erosion-controls-are-removed-when-the-area-has-been-stabilized-in-accordance-with-project-requirements.-the-revegetation-will-be-monitored-for-at-least-two-growing-seasons-following-final-restoration.-the-pipeline-facilities-will-be-located-underground-therefore-aes-does-not-anticipate-any-additional-impacts-to-water-resources-from-the-operation-of-the-pipeline. .unnumbered}

#### LNG Terminal 

Minimization and avoidance of significant changes to oceanographic
attributes will be a primary objective in the development of the final
design of marine-based structures. Potential impacts as they relate to
the water resources components discussed in this section are described
below.

Water quality in the vicinity of the LNG Terminal is likely to be
influenced slightly during construction of the pier as described above
in Section 2.4.8. During operations, however, AES does not anticipate
significant impact to water resources resulting from the operations
adjacent to the pier. The potential impacts that could arise from the
operations adjacent to the pier would result from ship movements (on and
off berth), taking on ballast, tug and vessel movements (propeller wash
sediment re-suspension), stormwater management, storm water discharges,
and possibly ships boiler cooling and fire water intake, and boiler
cooling water discharge. Each of these potential impacts is further
described below.

No seawater or sewage discharges will be made by LNG ships while in
port[^6], with the possible exception of ships boiler cooling water.
Operations adjacent to the pier while a vessel is in port will, however,
involve the use of seawater for vessel ballasting. Among other factors,
vessel displacement will determine ballasting water usage. LNG carriers
in the 217,500 m^3^ range can typically carry up to 80,000 m^3^ of
ballast water (i.e., maximum ballast tank capacity). These carriers
typically have two to three onboard pumps each with a 2,500 cubic meter
per hour (m^3^/hr) rated capacity.  Typically, the intakes will be
screened to prevent foreign objects or fish to be pumped into the
ballast tanks.

The LNG carriers will be loaded when they arrive at the LNG Terminal. 
Typically, loaded LNG ships do not carry a significant amount of ballast
water.  Because the LNG Terminal is a receiving terminal (or import
terminal), no ballast water is expected to be discharged at or near the
LNG Terminal. In compliance with International Convention for the
Control and Management of Ships\' Ballast Water and Sediments enacted by
the International Maritime Organization (IMO), all LNG carriers calling
at the LNG Terminal will be required to have on board, and implement a
duly approved Ballast Water Management Plan. The Ballast Water
Management Plan is specific to each ship and includes a detailed
description of the actions to be taken to implement the ballast water
management requirements.

In addition to water withdrawal for ballast, LNG ships servicing the
Project may also withdraw and discharge water for cooling the ships'
boilers. 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.

The operation of the Project's emergency fire suppression system may
require seawater, which would be taken on an emergency basis only.

During operations at the pier, it is anticipated that up to three
high-powered tugs will be used for berthing and de-berthing of the LNG
ships. The propeller-induced flows from these tug operations could
re-suspend bottom sediments within the dredged areas of the LNG Terminal
and in the surrounding shallow water areas. AES performed a Propeller
Wash Sediment Impact Study (included as Appendix 2G) for the LNG
Terminal to evaluate the potential fate of these re-suspended sediments,
particularly if they are considered contaminated, and whether the
material is likely to be transported away from the area adjacent to the
Terminal Site and deposited in environmentally sensitive areas, in Bear
Creek, or in other surrounding areas. The study demonstrated that the
transport of re-suspended sediments due to tug operations will not cause
significant transport into Bear Creek. Likewise, if there are
contaminated sediments at the source, significant and measurable
quantities of contaminants will not be transported into Bear Creek or
other adjacent areas. The simulations were based on tidal circulation
(only) and did not account for residual currents caused by upland fresh
water or storm water flows into Bear Creek. Sensitivity analysis
simulations indicated that a small downstream current significantly
modifies the sediment deposition patterns and further reduces the
potential for transport of re-suspended sediments into Bear Creek.

As described in Section 2.4.6, AES will apply for coverage for the LNG
Terminal under the Maryland General Permit for Stormwater Discharge
associated with Industrial activity. AES will design the LNG Terminal
with appropriate stormwater controls, and ensure that stormwater that
comes in contact with industrial process areas is treated prior to
discharge, as described in Resource Report 13, *Engineering and Design
Material*. Additionally all process wastewater will be routed to the
Baltimore County POTW. Discharges to the POTW will be permitted as
described in Section 2.4.6, and monitored and treated to meet the
pre-treatment standards required by the Baltimore County POTW.

A fire fighting system composed of fixed and portable firewater systems,
fixed and portable dry chemical extinguishing systems, and a high
expansion foam system, will be installed at the Terminal Site. This 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 are exposed to the heat from a fire involving an
adjacent tank or sump. The deluge system will be fed from dedicated
pumps taking suction from the Patapsco River. The main fire water pumps
consist of a jockey pump and two 100 percent fire pumps, one motor
driven and the other diesel driven.

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 gpm (and a maximum capacity of 6,750 gpm) per pump.
The 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 fps to minimize the effect of flow on local marine
life.

Maryland has regulations governing cooling water intake and discharge
(COMAR 26.08.03) that implement the requirements of Sections 316(a) and
(b) of the CWA, and COMAR 26.08.03.05. These regulations require the
location, design, construction and capability of cooling water intake
structures to reflect the best technology available (BTA) for minimizing
adverse environmental impacts, provided that the costs of implementing
the BTA are not wholly disproportionate to the expected environmental
benefits. Maryland law exempts facilities with withdrawal rates less
than 10 million gpd and less than 20 percent of stream or net flow by
the intake. Maryland's regulations do not specify a design intake
velocity, and typical Maryland facilities generally have a one to two
fps screen face velocity.

While AES does not plan to construct a cooling water intake system,
these regulations 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
seawater intake system will be designed to provide a steady supply of
seawater under operating conditions of the fire suppression systems.

The seawater intake structure will be designed to minimize entrainment
of marine organisms through effective use of a low velocity suction
intake system, designed for less than two fps with a velocity-cap. The
seawater will be drawn from the area of the marine pier through the
velocity cap fitted to a pipeline located within the sheet pile wall
that will be used to construct the bulkhead at a depth of approximately
15 feet below mean low low water (MLLW). The design will ensure a low
pressure drop around the intake to prevent entrainment of suspended
solids and marine life. Due to the dredging that is proposed for this
area and the height of the structure, turbulence and intrusion of sand
and debris are expected to be minimal.

The support chamber for the velocity-cap will extend horizontally from a
buried pipeline protruding through the sheet pile bulk head. The
velocity cap will be supported by king piles. The support chamber will
be firmly anchored to the king piles and will be designed to withstand
the prevailing waves and currents. The intake structure is in the
preliminary conceptual design phase, and the actual intake structure may
vary from the typical design described above. When the detail design is
complete, AES will submit the appropriate description and typical design
drawings to the FERC.

#### Power Plant

The Power Plant, if constructed, would operate under SIC Code 4911. The
Power Plant would not require an outside source of cooling water while
operating in conjunction with the proposed LNG Terminal. All cooling
needs would be supplied by a heat/cold exchange system with the LNG
Terminal. When the LNG Terminal is not operating or there is
insufficient cold from the LNG being vaporized and power is needed in
the local area, it would be possible to operate the Power Plant using
water obtained from the municipal water system.

If AES elects to move forward with construction of the Power Plant, it
would apply for coverage under the Maryland General Permit for
Stormwater Discharge associated with Industrial activity. AES would
design the Power Plant with appropriate stormwater controls and ensure
that stormwater that comes in contact with industrial process areas is
treated prior to discharge. Additionally all process wastewater will be
routed to the Baltimore County POTW. A permit for discharge to the POTW
would be obtained prior to initiation of operations at the Power Plant.
The discharges to the POTW would be monitored and treated to meet the
pre-treatment standards required by the Baltimore County POTW.

## Wetlands

Most wetlands are classified as "Waters of the United States" and are
protected under Section 404 of the CWA. The term "Waters of the United
States" covers both deepwater aquatic habitats and six categories of
special aquatic sites (of which wetlands is one category) designated by
the EPA in its Section 404(b)(1) guidelines (40 CFR Part 230).

The COE and EPA jointly define wetlands as "those areas that are
inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and
duration sufficient to support, and that in normal circumstances do
support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in
saturated soil conditions." Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes,
bogs, and similar areas.

For an area to be defined as a jurisdictional wetland, it must, under
normal circumstances, possess positive indicators of each of three
parameters: hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology
as described below.

-   [Hydrophytic Vegetation]{.underline} -- The prevalent vegetation
    must consist of plants adapted to life in hydric soils. These
    species, due to morphological, physiological, and/or reproductive
    adaptations, can and do persist in anaerobic soil conditions.

-   [Hydric Soils]{.underline} -- Soils in wetlands must be classified
    as hydric, or they must possess characteristics that are associated
    with reducing soil conditions. Hydric soils are soils that are
    saturated, flooded, or ponded long enough during the growing season
    to develop anaerobic conditions that favor the growth and
    regeneration of hydrophytic vegetation (Environmental Laboratory
    1987).

-   [Wetland Hydrology]{.underline} -- The area must be permanently or
    periodically inundated or have soils that are saturated to the
    surface for some time during the growing season.

### Existing Resources

Environmental field surveys were conducted between May 18 and October
10, 2006 along the proposed Pipeline Route. Approximately 71 miles of
the total 87.57 miles of the proposed Pipeline Route were accessible and
field surveyed for wetlands and water resources. Approximately 16.57
miles have not yet been field surveyed for the presence of waterbodies
and wetlands, including potential additional workspace areas that may be
required for staging of equipment and construction of appurtenant
facilities. In addition, not all temporary access roads have yet been
identified and, thus, workspace areas required for these temporary
access roads have not yet been surveyed. Additional surveys will be
performed on new accessible property in 2007, as additional property
access is available.

Wetlands were identified using a hierarchy of sources to produce the
most accurate and comprehensive wetlands inventory possible. Prior to
performance of environmental field surveys, the Project Area was
evaluated in relation to USFWS, National Wetlands Inventory, NWI maps.
Wetland types and locations were noted and compared with recent aerial
photography. AES also obtained soils surveys for the Project Area from
the United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources
Conservation Service in Harford and Cecil Counties, Maryland, and
Lancaster and Chester Counties, Pennsylvania. Table 2.5-1 lists the
wetlands crossed by or adjacent to the proposed Project in the
accessible areas surveyed. In the area surveyed, the Project crosses 74
wetlands, and 20 additional wetlands were identified adjacent to the
Project Area. In areas that have not yet been surveyed, five NWI-mapped
wetlands have been incorporated in Table 2.5-1 for this Resource Report.

Following a review of background information, wetland scientists from
NEA performed systematic field surveys in all accessible areas along the
proposed Pipeline, aboveground facilities, and pipe yard/staging areas
between June and August 2006. Field wetland delineation methodology was
based on the COE 1987 Wetland Delineation Manual (Environmental
Laboratory 1987) and classified according to the USFWS classification
system (Cowardin et al. 1979). Specifically, the survey included an area
150 feet wide generally centered on the proposed Pipeline centerline,
and within 100 feet of the boundary of aboveground facility and pipe
yard/staging areas. Full details of NEA's wetland delineation survey,
including vegetation community profiles and qualitative assessments, are
provided in the Project's wetland delineation and waterbody
identification reports in Appendix 2D.

Topography along the Project Area ranges from flat in the developed
southern end of the Project Area to rolling hills with moderate slopes
proceeding northward through Maryland and Pennsylvania. Beyond the
Baltimore metropolitan area, most of land traversed by the Pipeline is
currently used for agricultural and mixed rural residential purposes.
The majority of soils crossed by this loop are gently sloped to
moderately steep (three to 25 percent slopes), well drained, silt loams.
Accordingly, wetlands along the Project Area are primarily restricted to
hillside seeps, low-lying areas, and along streams and their associated
floodplains.

In general, the Pipeline crosses the majority of the major palustrine
wetland types, along with a small amount of estuarine wetland at the
southern terminus. Palustrine wetland areas were the dominant type
encountered across the Pipeline Route and included several types of
emergent, scrub-shrub, and forested wetlands, including open water
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 and floodplain forests 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*).

Estuarine wetlands encountered across the route included intertidal
emergent wetlands and scrub-shrub wetlands. Intertidal emergent wetland
habitats are dominated by common reed (*Phragmites australis*).
Scrub-shrub wetlands are typically dominated by common reed, groundsel
tree (*Baccharis halimifolia*) and marsh elder (*Iva frutescens*).

NWI wetlands are crossed by the Project and are consistent with the size
and location of the field delineated wetlands. NWI wetlands encountered
along the Pipeline Route are characterized as predominantly palustrine
types including forested wetlands, scrub-shrub wetlands and emergent
wetlands. In addition, a smaller number of estuarine wetlands were
encountered including intertidal emergent wetlands and scrub-shrub
wetlands.

#### Pipe Yard/Staging Areas

AES has sited the locations for pipe yards and staging areas, the size
and configuration of these areas is dependent upon its purpose as well
as the existing site conditions (e.g., available and/or accessible
space, nearby resources) at each proposed work location. The locations
of the pipe yards/staging areas are shown in Table 2.5.1-1. To the
maximum extent practicable, AES plans to utilize previously disturbed
uplands areas for pipe yard/staging areas. Additional wetland
delineation surveys of the proposed pipe yards/staging areas will be
performed in the spring of 2007 as additional property access is
available. A description of the completed locations and configurations
of each pipe yard/staging area are included in Resource Report 8, *Land
Use, Recreation and Aesthetics*.

#### Meter Stations

Construction of the Pipeline will require installation of nine mainline
valves and three interconnect metering facilities as shown in Table
2.5.1-2. A typical layout of meter-regulator and interconnect facilities
is provided in Resource Report 1, *General Project Description*, Figure
1.3-7. 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, as described in Resource Report
8, *Land Use, Recreation and Aesthetics*. Table 8.3.3-1 of Resource
Report 8 provides the location of each of these aboveground facilities,
summarizes the land use types, and provides the acreages associated with
both temporary and permanent impacts to these land use types. 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. These areas were
included in the wetland delineation. Wetlands were not present at the
proposed meter station locations.

#### Sensitive Wetlands

The MDNR Wildlife Heritage Service (WHS) determined 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 22.22 to 22.23 on
Wild Cat Branch, a stream located within Gunpowder Falls State Park. The
second NTWSSC roughly parallels the proposed Pipeline Route from mile
post 46.45 to 46.63, with the closest boundary of the NTWSSC being
approximately 130 feet northwest of the proposed Pipeline Route. AES
will consult with MDE regarding the delineation of the NTWSSC boundaries
according to MDE policies, procedures and regulations and provide the
MDE an opportunity to review the wetland information.

### Wetland Construction and Mitigation Procedures

The Pipeline will traverse a number of wetlands, the majority of which
are palustrine wetland types, along with a small amount of estuarine
wetland at the southern-most pipeline areas. Palustrine wetland areas
were the dominant type encountered across the Pipeline Route; in general
the wetlands observed included several types of emergent, scrub-shrub,
and forested wetlands, including open water marshes, semi-open emergent
marshes, emergent marshes, herbaceous wet meadows, shrub-emergent
meadows, wooded swamps, and floodplain forests. Total impacts to
wetlands by type of wetland and type of impact are shown in Table
2.5.2-1.

In general, impacts to wetland vegetation resulting from the proposed
Pipeline will be minimal and temporary in nature. The majority of the
impacts will occur in forested wetlands because Pipeline installation
will require the removal of trees and shrubs. Permanent impacts will
occur within the permanent ROW, where the wetlands will be maintained
for the life of the Pipeline as emergent/scrub-shrub communities. The
following construction and mitigation procedures will minimize impacts
to wetlands during Pipeline construction and restoration.

#### Construction Procedures

AES will ensure that construction‑related impacts to wetlands are kept
to a minimum and will adhere to the following wetland crossing
procedures which are based on the Commission's Wetland and Waterbody
Construction Procedures:

-   Vegetation will be cut off at ground level, leaving existing root
    systems intact, and the cut vegetation will be removed from the
    wetlands for disposal.

-   Pulling of tree stumps and grading activities will be limited to
    that area directly over the trench, and to a lesser extent, to the
    work or travel area. Where, in the judgment of the Chief Inspector
    or Environmental Inspector, construction safety would be
    compromised, stumps will be pulled in the workspace outside of the
    trench line.

-   AES will attempt to use no more than two layers of timber rip-rap or
    prefabricated timber mats within the work area to stabilize the ROW.

-   All corduroy pads, prefabricated equipment pads, and geotextile
    fabric overlain with gravel will be removed upon completion of
    construction.

-   The top 12 inches of topsoil from the trench will be segregated and
    then returned to its original position on top of the trench, except
    in areas where tree roots and stumps, standing water, or saturated
    soils prevent this.

-   Sediment barriers will be installed and maintained at the edge of
    all wetlands until upslope ROW revegetation is completed. Permanent
    slope breakers will be installed at the base of all slopes adjacent
    to wetlands.

-   Permanent trench breakers will be installed at the point where the
    trench enters and exits the wetland to help preserve the wetland\'s
    hydrologic characteristics and to control sediment discharges into
    the wetlands.

-   Backfilling of the trench within the wetlands will be performed in
    such a manner that excess backfill will not be mounded, and that the
    wetlands will be returned, to the extent possible, to original
    contours and flow patterns.

-   Excess fill material resulting from trench excavation and
    backfilling must not be discharged or otherwise disposed of in
    waters of the United States and jurisdictional wetlands.

-   Due to relatively deep soils traversed along much of the Project
    Area, shallow bedrock conditions are not expected to be common. This
    is particularly the case with wetlands that typically occur in low
    lying areas and floodplains with deep soils. In the event that
    bedrock occurs near to the surface in wetlands, AES will minimize
    impacts by using construction BMPs for shallow bedrock areas,
    including use of rippers, back-hoe mounted hammers, and blasting
    where necessary.

Procedures will also adhere to the BMP drawings shown in Appendix 2B.

#### Wetlands with Unsaturated Soils 

The construction technique used to cross wetlands with stable,
unsaturated soils at the time of construction will be similar to those
used in dry upland areas. Soils may be dry and stable enough to support
equipment without additional timber mat/riprap equipment support, and
pipe may be strung along the ROW on skids through the wetland.
Vegetation will be cut just above ground level leaving root systems in
place. Grading and pulling of tree stumps will be limited to only the
trench line area and, where required, to ensure safe operation of
construction equipment to facilitate regrowth of existing root systems
after construction. Wetland topsoil will be segregated from subsoil in
the trench line area and stored in separate piles while the trench is
open. The segregated soils will be backfilled in the proper order, with
topsoil on top, and the preconstruction surface contours will be
restored. Trench breakers will be placed in the trench at the base of
slopes near the wetland boundaries prior to backfilling to prevent
draining of the wetland along the trench line. No upland soil or fill
material will be backfilled or imported into the wetland. The wetland
will be seeded with annual ryegrass to quickly establish a short-lived
vegetative cover, allowing the wetland's native seed and rhizomes
(contained in the topsoil) to reestablish dominance over time. No lime,
fertilizer, or mulch will be applied in wetlands. If revegetation is not
successful at the end of a three year monitoring period, AES will
develop and implement (in consultation with a professional wetland
ecologist) a remedial revegetation plan, including, but not limited to
the use of a native wetland seed mix.

#### Wetlands with Saturated Soils 

In wetlands with wet, saturated soils, topsoil will be segregated over
the trench line if possible (i.e., where standing water, saturated
soils, frozen conditions, or tree roots and tree stumps do not preclude
soil separation). Construction in saturated wetland areas may involve
either the "drag section" or the "push/pull" technique.

The drag section technique involves equipment carrying a prefabricated
section of pipe into the wetland for placement into the excavated
trench, if soil conditions permit. This technique requires the
installation of equipment support (such as timber rip-rap or
prefabricated equipment mats) along the working side of the trench to
provide a stable work surface and minimize soil disturbance and rutting.
Clean-up and restoration procedures will be similar to those previously
described for wetlands with unsaturated soils with the additional step
of removing the equipment support from the wetland.

A site-specific crossing plan will be developed for specific large
wetland complexes that cannot be crossed using conventional methods.
These site-specific crossing will typically involve the use of the
push/pull technique, a technique that is generally used only in wetlands
with standing water or soils that are saturated to the surface. The
trench may be excavated using either a backhoe (working on equipment
support in the wetland) or a dragline or clamshell dredge (working
either in the wetland or from the edge of the wetland, depending on
wetland size and extent of soil saturation). The push/pull technique
involves equipment pushing the prefabricated pipe from the edge of the
wetland and/or pulling (e.g., with a winch) the pipe from the opposite
bank of the wetland into the excavated trench. Floats may be attached to
the pipe to give it positive buoyancy, allowing it to be "floated" into
place over the excavated trench. Once the pipe is positioned, these
floats will be removed and the pipe will settle to the bottom of the
trench and the trench will then be backfilled. The push/pull technique
enables the pipeline to be installed with minimal equipment operating in
the wetland. AES will request a variance to the Commission's Procedure
VI.A.3 at these locations to allow a 100-foot-wide construction ROW in
the wetland, to account for potential unstable soils along the trench
line.

### Mitigation Procedures

The proposed construction procedures are designed to ensure that
potential impacts to wetlands are minimized to the fullest extent
practicable. AES will implement wetland crossing procedures and wetland
protection measures outlined in FERC's *Plan* and *Procedures*, which
are contained within the Sparrows Point Erosion and Sediment Control
Plan (see Resource Report 1, *General Project Description*, Appendix 1A)
and Appendix 2B herein to further minimize impacts to wetlands crossed
by the proposed Project.

Temporary construction impacts in wetlands may include loss of
herbaceous and scrub-shrub vegetation, wildlife habitat disruption, soil
disturbance associated with grading, trenching, and stump removal,
sedimentation and turbidity increases, and hydrological profile changes.
To minimize vegetation disturbance, AES will limit the ROW width to 75
feet in wetlands. Disturbance will be further minimized by restricting
equipment access in sensitive wetlands to machinery needed for actual
Pipeline installation and by limiting the number of crossing events. To
minimize impacts to wetlands, AES will implement erosion and sediment
control measures to prevent soils disturbed by construction activities
from leaving the construction area and entering the wetland. This will
include the spill prevention and response procedures to avoid impacts
from refueling of equipment and fuel storage within the vicinity of the
wetlands.

Confining stump removal to the trench line will minimize soil
disturbance unless safety or access considerations require stump removal
elsewhere. Erosion control techniques, including revegetation and
deployment of silt fences, slope breakers, trench plugs, rip-rapping,
terracing, and netting, will be used in upland areas to restrict
sediment runoff into adjacent wetlands.

Preconstruction wetland conditions in the temporary ROW will be restored
to the extent possible to promote revegetation by natural succession.
Topsoil segregation in farmed and unsaturated wetlands will preserve the
native seed source, which will facilitate regrowth of herbaceous
vegetation once Pipeline installation is complete. In addition, wetlands
will be reseeded with approved grasses to encourage recolonization and
control erosion.

To assist safety surveillance, only herbaceous plants will be allowed to
grow within a 10-foot-wide strip centered over the Pipeline and trees
greater than 15 feet in height will be removed from a 30-foot strip
centered over the Pipeline in wetlands. This will result in the
conversion of some forested wetlands to other wetlands types, including
emergent or scrub-shrub type wetlands. The remaining portion of the
75-feet CROW will be re-established with herbaceous and/or woody species
(e.g., wetland trees and shrubs). A more detailed description of
proposed mitigation measures for impacts to forested wetlands is
described within FERC's Wetland and Waterbody Construction and
Mitigation Procedures (January 17, 2003 Version), which is included
within Appendix 2A, Environmental Construction Plan.

Impacts to wetlands from blasting will be minimized by implementing
wetland construction measures outlined in the ECP. These measures
include minimizing workspace requirements, using equipment support,
minimizing clearing, and segregating topsoil over the trenchline. With
the use of seismically controlled blasting in areas of consolidated
rock, AES will ensure that blasting will have little, if any, effect on
wetland hydrology. Use of the delayed blasting techniques will mitigate
impacts of blasting and limit rock fracture to the immediate vicinity of
detonation. All blasts will be matted to minimize fly rock distribution
throughout the wetland. AES will also utilize hydraulic rock hammers to
gain adequate depth where necessary. Following installation of the
Pipeline, the trench will be backfilled with the excavated rock and
spoil material up to the level of the original rock grade. No rock
larger than two feet in diameter will be placed over the Pipeline.
Excavated rock that is unable to be placed back into the trench will be
removed from the site, or carefully windrowed as per landowner
permission, with breaks left to prevent interruption of natural surface
drainage.

Following backfilling, segregated topsoil will be redistributed across
the trenchline and the wetland restored to approximate original grade
and contours. Reseeding will be performed using annual ryegrass or
appropriate seed mix as recommended by the COE and appropriate state
regulatory agencies.

AES understands that seeding restored wetlands with annual ryegrass at a
rate of 40 pounds per acre has been a successful industry standard
practice for many years on thousands of miles of pipelines throughout
the U.S. The FERC recently commissioned a study of the long-term success
of wetlands that were restored per the FERC\'s Procedures and concluded
that the Procedures were largely effective in ensuring revegetation
success (FERC 2004). Seeding with wetland seed mixes is an extremely
costly measure that has questionable efficacy in enhancing wetland
restoration success or preventing invasion by nuisance plant species.
However, in response to the COE comments, AES has consulted with the MDE
Wetlands and Waterways Program, and the PDEP Waterways, Wetlands &
Erosion Control office to determine if either agency had a preferred
wetland seed mix for use in wetland restoration projects.
Representatives in both agencies stated that there was no established
recommended seed mix for wetland restoration in either state (MDE 2006x;
PADEP 2006x). However, the agencies agreed that they would review an
applicant\'s proposal for wetland restoration along with its permit
application to determine if it would be considered successful. A
proposal that involved a seeding with annual ryegrass only would not
necessarily be deemed inadequate if it was determined by the reviewer to
satisfactorily facilitate wetland revegetation.

There are numerous wetland seed mixes available from commercial plant
nurseries for reseeding of restored wetlands and mitigation projects.
These mixes range from quite simple to complex, with increasing
complexity not necessarily correlating to increased success rate or
increased wetland functions and values. The primary objectives are to
stabilize the site, prevent the invasion of opportunistic nuisance
species, and allow the plant propagules in the native wetland topsoil
and adjacent areas to populate the site. Consequently, if a wetland
plant mixture is to be used to supplement an annual ryegrass seeding, it
should be comprised of a relatively simple mix that will achieve the
stated goals without changing the native community composition as it
reestablishes. As such, the following commercially available wetland
seed mix is recommended:

Herbaceous Wetland Seed Mix

  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------
  Percent Weight          Scientific Name         Common Name

  19.0                    Carex vulpinoidea       Fox Sedge

  19.0                    Elymus virginicus       Virginia Wild Rye

  15.0                    Echinochloa crusgalli   Japanese Millet
                          var. frumentacea        

  15.0                    Panicum clandestinum    Tioga Deer Tongue

  15.0                    Polygonum pensylvanicum Pennsylvania Smartweed

  5.0                     Agrostis perennans      Autumn Bentgrass

  5.0                     Panicum virgatum, VNS   Switch Grass, Variety
                                                  Not Stated

  3.0                     Carex scoparia          Blunt Broom Sedge

  3.0                     Carex stipata           Awl Sedge

  1.0                     Juncus tenuis           Path Rush
  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------

This wetland grass seed mix was developed for use in the Northeast and
Mid-Atlantic Region. The species composition allows for variations in
moisture and light conditions and the addition of annual ryegrass,
Lolium multiflorum, provides erosion control and early organic input. A
seeding rate of 15 pounds per acre plus 15 pounds per acre of annual
ryegrass is recommended.

Following filing of applications to the COE and Maryland/Pennsylvania
state agencies for permits associated with wetlands and waterbody
crossings in accordance with the schedule included in Table 1.8-1 of
Resource Report 1, *General Project Description*, and final
determination of crossing methods and work within regulated wetlands and
waterbodies, some loss of wetlands may be determined. Mitigation to
address such losses will be addressed through the development of a
Wetland Mitigation Plan, consistent with the Baltimore District Corps of
Engineers *Mitigation and Monitoring Guideline* (2004), and *Federal
Guidance on the Use of Off-Site and Out-of-Kind Compensatory Mitigation*
under Section 404 of the CWA.

### Cumulative Impacts

Cumulative impacts are those impacts associated with a proposed project
together with those associated with present or reasonably foreseeable
projects within the area affected by the proposed project. The potential
impacts associated with the Project, together with those associated with
two other infrastructure projects to be undertaken in the vicinity of
the Project, may result in limited, temporary cumulative impacts. These
two projects are the expansion of Interstate Highway 95 (I-95) and the
construction of a new natural gas pipeline by Eastern Shore Natural Gas
Company (Eastern Shore).

With regard to the I-95 expansion project, AES has reviewed the proposed
Pipeline Route relative to the I-95 expansion. The I-95 project is
underway in the vicinity of the intersection with Interstate Highway 695
(I-695) in Maryland. The I-95 expansion project in the vicinity of the
Pipeline Route will be conducted following completion of construction of
the Pipeline. Each project will be required to comply with stormwater
and sediment and erosion control procedures during construction which
will minimize potential impacts to any wetland areas that may be nearby.

Eastern Shore filed an application with the Commission requesting an
amendment to its certificate of public convenience and necessity.
Eastern Shore proposes to construct and operate four new pipeline
segments totaling 20.98 miles of pipeline of varying diameter pipeline
in Chester County, Pennsylvania and New Castle County, Delaware. Eastern
Shore also proposes to construct and operate 1.4 miles of 16-inch
mainline looping on Eastern Shore's right-of-way in Chester County,
Pennsylvania, paralleling the existing 8-inch mainline; 3.25 miles of
16-inch new mainline and a regulator station in New Castle County,
Delaware; 10.33 miles of 6-inch mainline extension from a point near
Milford, Delaware to a point near Milton, Delaware; and 6.0 miles of
6-inch mainline looping, paralleling the existing 6-inch mainline from
Laurel, Delaware to Delmar, Delaware. Some of the project components may
be located in similar areas; however, both the Eastern Shore Project and
the Pipeline proposed by AES will be required to comply with federal,
state and local permit conditions during the construction and operation
of each project as well as mitigate any impacts to wetlands in
accordance with agreements established with state authorities prior to
construction of the projects.

AES will minimize the potential for these impacts by complying with
applicable permit requirements, the mitigation measures contained in the
ECP, and the SPCC Plan. However, these impacts primarily would be short
term and/or minor and would be effectively minimized through
implementation of appropriate mitigation measures, including adherence
to permit conditions.

When projects are constructed at or near the same time, the combined
construction activities may have a cumulative impact on vegetation and
wildlife living in the immediate area. Right-of-way clearing and grading
and other construction activities associated with the Project along with
other construction projects would result in the removal of vegetation,
alteration of wildlife habitat, displacement of wildlife, and could have
other secondary effects in the Project Area such as increased population
stress, predation, and establishment of invasive plant species. These
impacts would be greatest where other projects are constructed within
the same time frame and areas as the proposed facilities.

Construction of the proposed LNG Terminal and Pipeline facilities would
result in the temporary removal of vegetation and wildlife habitat,
which would contribute to the cumulative impact on these resources.
However, the net cumulative effect of construction of the Project on
these resources would be small. AES has attempted to avoid or minimize
its impacts on vegetation and wildlife by locating the LNG Terminal
facilities in a previously disturbed industrial area and the Pipeline
generally parallels existing ROW for highways, overhead electric
transmission lines and pipelines, which reduces tree clearing and the
long-term alteration of habitats. AES will consult with MDNR and PDEP to
develop appropriate mitigation for the permanent wetland impacts of the
Project.

## References

1.  Ashley, J.T.F. and JE Baker (1999) Hydrophobic organic contaminants
    in surficial sediments of Baltimore Harbor: inventories and sources.
    Environ. Toxicol. Chem., 18:838-849.

2.  Baltimore Harbor Anchorages and Channels -- Environmental Assessment
    http//www.nab.usace.army.mil/projects/Maryland/Anchorages/EA/FinalEA1101.pdf

3.  Baltimore Harbor Sediment Impairments
    http://www.mde.state.md.us/assets/document/TMDL/bhsag/meet3/Sediment%20Endpoints.ppt

4.  Bamford, H.A., J.H. Offenberg, R. Larsen, F.C. Ko, and JE
    Baker (1999) Diffusive exchange of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
    across the air-water interface of the Patapsco River, an urbanized
    sub-estuary of the Chesapeake Bay. Environ. Sci. Technol., In Press.

5.  Bonnevie NL, Wenning RJ, Huntley SL, Bedbury H., Distribution of
    inorganic compounds in sediments from three waterways in northern
    New Jersey. [Bull Environ Contam Toxicol.]{.underline} 1993
    Nov;51(5):672-80

6.  Bowles, Claire. "Even Safe Mercury Levels Harm Brain." New Scientist
    (2003).

7.  Brown, Warren. \"U.S. Said Losing Coal Trade.\" Washington Post
    (1981).

8.  Buchman, M.F., 1999, NOAA Screening Quick Reference Tables, noaa
    hazmat Report 99-1, Seattle, WA, Coastal Protection and Restoration
    Division, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 12 pages.

9.  Chemical Contamination in the Chesapeake Bay\
    http://www.mdsg.umd.edu/CBEEC/toxicsrpt/index.html

10. Chesapeake Bay Program. 1994. Chesapeake Bay basin-wide toxics
    reduction and prevention strategy. U.S. Environmental Protection
    Agency, Chesapeake Bay Program, Annapolis, MD.

11. Chesapeake Bay Program. 2000. "*Chesapeake 2000*" - Chesapeake Bay
    basin-wide toxics reduction and prevention strategy. U.S.
    Environmental Protection Agency, Chesapeake Bay Program, Annapolis,
    MD.

12. Chesapeake Ecotox Research Program\
    http://www.mdsg.umd.edu/CERP

13. Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe.  1979. 
    Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United
    States.  FWS/OBS-79/31, Washington, D.C.  131 pp.

14. deFur PL, Foersom L. "Toxic chemicals: can what we don't know harm
    us?" Environ Res. 18(2000): 113-33.

15. "Does being in a Region of Concern cause tumors in brown bullhead
    catfish?" Brown Bullhead Studies in the Chesapeake Bay Regions of
    Concern (2002).

16. DEP, Pennsylvania Wellhead Protection Program, 2000:
    http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/watermgt/wc/Subjects/SrceProt/source/Final_WHPP.htm

17. Derrick, P., K. Olsen and J. McKee. "Dioxin in sediments from the
    Upper Chesapeake Bay." Society of Environmental Toxicology and
    Chemistry (SETAC), 22^nd^ Annual Meeting, Baltimore, MD, November
    2001.

18. "Dredging Needs and the Port of Baltimore." Greater Baltimore
    Committee (1979).

19. Durlin, R.R., and Schaffstall, W.P., 1997, Water resources data for
    Pennsylvania, water year 1997, Volume 1, Delaware River Basin: U.S.
    Geological Survey Water-Data Report PA-97-1, 372 p.

20. EA Engineering, Science and Technology. \"Chemical and Physical
    Analysis of Sediments From the Marine Channel and Associated Berths
    and Turning Basin a Data Report.\" (1985).

21. EA Engineering, Science and Technology. \"Plan of Study: Toxicity
    Testing and Dye Studies for a 301(G) Demonstration.\" (1985).

22. Environmental Effects of Dredging\
    http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/dots/pdfs/eedp02-13.pdf

23. \"Environmental Impact Assessment Guidelines for Tributary
    Monitoring: Patapsco\...Back River Tributary Team Annual Report
    1995-1996.\" MD. Department of Environment (1996).

24. Environmental Working Group. "Registered Toxic Study: Dishonorable
    Discharge Toxic Pollution of Maryland Waters." (1994).

25. "Environmental Assessment of Dredging for Fossil Oyster Shell in the
    Upper Chesapeake Bay." Tidewater Administration. Maryland Department
    of Natural Resources (1987).

26. EPA Citizens Fund. \"Registered Toxic Study: Poisons in Our
    Neighborhoods.\" (1990).

27. EPA. "Registered Toxic Study: Documentation of Environmental
    Indicator Determination RCRA Corrective Action." (2005).

28. USEPA, September 2001, Designated Sole Source Aquifiers in EPA
    Region III, District of Columbia, Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania,
    Virginia, West Virginia,
    (http://www.epa.gov/safewater/swp/ssa/reg3.html)

29. Environmental Protection Agency and US Army Corps of Engineers,
    1991, Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for Ocean Disposal
    Testing Manual, EPA 503/8-91/001

30. Environmental Protection Agency, Selecting Remediation Techniques
    for Contaminated Sediment, EPA-823-B93-001. June 1993.

31. Environmental Protection Agency, Contaminated Sediment Remediation
    Guidance for Hazardous Waste Sites EPA-540-R-05-012. December 2005.

32. "Evaluation of the Problem Posed by In Place Pollutants in Baltimore
    Harbor and Recommendation of Corrective Action." U.S. EPA (1977)

33. Environmental Laboratory.  1987.  United States Army Corps of
    Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual, Technical Report Y-87-1, U.S.
    Army Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.  100 pp.

34. Eskin, R.A., K. H. Rowland, and D.Y. Alegre. 1996. Contaminants in
    Chesapeake Bay 1984-1991. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA
    903-R-96-003, Chesapeake Bay Program, CPB/TRS 145/96, Annapolis MD

35. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). 2004. Research of
    Wetland Construction & Mitigation Activities for Certificated
    Section 7(c) Pipeline Projects. 46pp

36. Fisher, Daniel J. "Registered Toxic Study: Review of Whole Sediment
    Toxicity from Baltimore Harbor." (2003).

37. Gardner GR, Yevich PP, Harshbarger JC, Malcolm AR. "Carcinogenicity
    of Black Rock Harbor sediment to the eastern oyster and trophic
    transfer of Black Rock Harbor carcinogens from the blue mussel to
    the winter flounder." Environ Health Perspect 90(1991): 53-66.

38. Hall, Chester G., Emmett L. Wright. "A City and A Bay: The Impact of
    Hazardous Wastes Data Bank." (1981).

39. Hall LW, Anderson RD, Alden RW. "A 10 year summary of concurrent
    ambient water column and sediment toxicity tests in the Chesapeake
    Bay watershed: 1990-1999." Environ Monit Assess. 76(2002): 311-52.

40. Heasly, Patricia, Susan Pultz, and Richard Batiuk. \"Chesapeake Bay
    Basin Monitoring Program Atlas, Volume 1: Water Quality and Other
    Physiochemical Monitoring Programs.\" U.S. EPA (1989).

41. Horton, Tim. "U.S. May Turn to Oceans for Waste Dumping Sites." The
    Sun (1981).

42. Hughes Harry. "Presentation to MD. Congressional Delegation
    Regarding Baltimore Harbor Dredging Program." (1979).

43. Kafer, Kathy and Larry Lewis. "Work on Hart-Miller Dike Could Begin
    this Summer." News-American (1981).

44. Kosnett, Jeff. "Accord Keeps Port on Dredging List." The Sun (1981).

45. Litt JS, Burke TA. "Uncovering the historic environmental hazards of
    urban brownfields." J. Urban Health 79(2002): 464-81.

46. Long, Clarence D. "Wringing Out the Water." The Sun (1980).

47. Long, E.R., D.D. McDonald, S.L. Smith and F.D. Calder. 1995.
    Incidence of adverse biological effects within ranges of chemical
    concentrations in marine and estuarine sediments. Environ.
    Management, 19, 81-97.

48. Louis, Elan D., Pam Factor-Litvak, Michael Parides, Leslie Andrews,
    Regina M. Santella, and Mary S. Wolff. " Organochlorine pesticide
    exposure in essential tremor: A case-control study using biological
    and occupational exposure assessments." Neuro Toxicology (2006).

49. Lyman, Francesca. "Dredging for Dollars." Environmental Action
    (1981).

50. May, Leopold, George Eng, and Menna Berhane. \"Final Report:
    Chemical Composition and Speciation of Tributyltin Compounds in
    Estuarine Sediments.\" The Catholic University of America (1994).

51. Maryland\'s 2002 Section 303(d) List,
    http://www.mde.state.md.us/Programs/WaterPrograms/TMDL/Maryland%20303%20dlist/2002_303d_list.asp

52. Maryland Marine Notes -- Dredging the Chesapeake\
    http://www.mdsg.umd.edu/MarineNotes/Mar-Apr00/index.html

53. Maryland Marine Notes -- Taking on Toxics in Baltimore Harbor\
    http://www.mdsg.umd.edu/MarineNotes/Mar-Apr01/index.html

54. Maryland Sea Grant Research\
    http://www.research.mdsg.umd.edu/

55. Mason, R.P.M. and AL. Lawrence. 1999. The concentration,
    distribution, and bioavailability of mercury and methylmercury in
    sediments of Baltimore Harbor and the Chesapeake Bay. Environ.
    Toxicol. Chem., In Press.

56. McGee, Beth L., Daniel J. Fisher, Lance T. Yonkos, Gregory Ziegler,
    and Steve Turley. "Assessment of Sediment Contamination, Acute
    Toxicity, and Population Viability of the Estuarine Amphipod
    *Leptocheirus Plumulosus* in Baltimore Harbor, Maryland, USA."
    Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 18: 2151-2160.

57. Maryland Department of Environment. 2002 Maryland Section 305(b)
    Water Quality Report. October 2002.

58. MD\. Department of Environment. "Registered Toxic Study: Spatial
    Mapping of Sedimentary Contaminants in the Baltimore
    Harbor...Patapsco River...Back River System." (1997).

59. MD\. Department of Environment. "Registered Toxic Study: Water
    Quality Analyses of Chromium in the Inner Harbor Northwest Branch
    and Bear Creek Portions of Baltimore Harbor in Baltimore City &
    Baltimore County, Maryland." (2005).

60. MD Department of the Environment. 2000a. Total Maximum Daily Load
    (TMDL) Documentation for Chlordane in Baltimore Harbor. Baltimore,
    MD.

61. MD Department of Environment, Wetlands and Waterways Program.
    December 6, 2006x. Telephone contact with George Beston, MDE Wetland
    Permit Chief, by Harlan Locking, Northern Ecological Associates,
    Inc.

62. Morton, James W. "Ecological Effects of Dredging and Dredge Spoil
    Disposal: A Literature Review." U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
    (1977).

63. Needham, Larry L., Dana B. Barr, Samuel P. Caudill, James L. Pirdle,
    Wayman E. Turner, John Osterioh, Robert L. Jones, and Eric J.
    Sampson. "Concentrations of Environmental Chemicals Associated with
    Neurodevelopmental Effects in U.S. Population." Neuro Toxicology
    26(2005): 531-545.

64. NJDOT Office of Maritime Resources, 2005

65. Palermo, et. al. "Operational Characteristics and Equipment
    Selection Factors for Environmental Dredging," *Journal of Dredging
    Engineering*, 2004

66. Parker, G.G., Hely, A.G., Keighton, F.H., Olmsted, F.H., and others,
    1964, Water resources of the Delaware River Basin: U.S. Geological
    Survey Professional Paper 381, 200 p.

67. Patapsco/Black River SWMM Model\
    http://www.mde.state.md.us/assets/document/TMDL/bhsag/meet2a/1

68. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Waterways,
    Wetlands & Erosion Control. December 6, 2006x. Telephone contact
    with Greg Kaufman, PADEP Wetland Biologist, by Harlan Locking,
    Northern Ecological Associates, Inc.

69. "Registered Impact Study: Chesapeake Bay Water Quality Monitoring
    Program." MD. Office of Environmental Programs (1987).

70. Scorecard-The Pollution Information Site. "Registered Toxic Report:
    Releases to Water TRI Chemicals Lacking Exposure Data From Bethlehem
    Steel." (2005).

71. Sediment Quality Assessment -- powerpoint presentation\
    http://www.mpasafepassage.org/Reports/121903/reportandappendices/appendix%20F/appendix%20V/MDE%20PP%20for%20May%2008%202003.pdf

72. SETAC publication -- sediment toxicity testing\
    http://entc.allenpress.com/entconline/?request+get-document&doi=10.1897%2F1551-5028(1997)016%3C1606:AROCAW%3E2.3CO%3B2

73. Stewart, Paul, Jacqueline Reihman, Brooks Gump, Edward Lonky, Thomas
    Darvill, and James Pagano. "Response Inhibition at 8 and 9 ½ Years
    of Age in Children Prenatally Exposed to PCBs." Neurotoxicology and
    Teratology 27(2005): 771-780.

74. Toxics Modeling in Baltimore Harbor\
    http://www.mde.state.md.us/assets/document/TMDL/bhsag/meet2/ChangUpdates0507.pdf

75. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Baltimore District. March 1997,
    Baltimore Harbor Anchorages and Channels, Maryland and Virginia.
    Integrated Feasibility Report and Environmental Impact Statement.

76. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1977, Chesapeake Bay future conditions
    report, Volume 1, Summary: Baltimore, Maryland, 125 p

77. US Army Corps of Engineers, Engineering and Design - Dredging and
    Dredged Material Disposal, EM 1110-2-5025, March 1983

78. U.S. Geological Survey, 1998, *Principal Aquifers,* National Atlas
    of the United States Of America, compiled by James Miller.

79. U.S. Geological Survey, 1997, Ground Water Atlas of the United
    States: Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, North Carolina,
    Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia, HA 730-L, by Henry Trapp, Jr.
    and Marilee A. Horn.

80. van den Hoop, M.A.G.T., H.A. den Hollander and H. N Kerdijk. 1997.
    Spatial and seasonal variations of acid volatile sulphide (AVS) and
    simultaneously extracted metal (SEM) in Dutch marine and freshwater
    sediments. Chemosphere 35:2307-2316.

81. Van den Berg et al. The 2005 World Health Organization Re-evaluation
    of Human and Mammalian Toxic Equivalency Factors for Dioxins and
    Dioxin-like Compounds. ToxSci Advance Access, 7 July 2006.

82. Waliszewski, S.M., M.T. Bermudez, R.M. Infanzon, C. S. Silva, O.
    Carvaial, P. Trujillo, S. Gomex Arroyo, R. Vilalobos Pietrini, V. A.
    Saldafia, G. Melo, S. Esquivel, F. Castro, H. Ocampo, J. Torres,
    and P. M. Hayward-Jones. "Persistent Organochlorine Pesticide Levels
    in Breast Adipose Tissue in Women with Malignant and Benign Breast
    Tumors." Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 75(2005): 752-759.

83. Wakeman TH, Themelis NJ. "A basin-wide approach to dredged material
    management in New York/New Jersey Harbor." J. Hazard Mater
    85(2001):1-13.

84. Water Quality Analyses of Chromium\
    http://www.mde.state.md.us/assets/document/Harbor_Cr_WQA_FA.pdf

85. Welp, Timothy; Palermo, Michael; Landin, Mary; Davis, Jack;
    Prickett, Terri, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers New Dredging Engineer
    Manual "Dredging and Dredged Material Placement", DOI 2003.

86. Welp, Tim; Hayes, Don; Tubman, Mike; McDowell, Scott; Fredetfe, Tom;
    Clausner, James; and Albro, Carl. March 2001. US Army Corps of
    Engineers, Dredge Bucket Comparison at Boston Harbor. ERDC/CHL
    CHETN-VI-35.

87. Wenning R. J., Harris M. A., Finley B., Paustenbach D. J. and
    Bedbury H., Application of Pattern Recognition Techniques to
    Evaluate Polychlorinated Dibenzo-p-dioxin and Dibenzofuran
    Distributions in Surficial Sediments from the Lower Passaic River
    and Newark Bay**,** [Ecotoxicology and Environmental
    Safety.]{.underline} Volume 25, Issue 1, February 1993, Pages
    103-125

88. Wenning RJ, Mathur DB, Paustenbach DJ, Stephenson MJ, Folwarkow S,
    Luksemburg WJ., Polychlorinated Dibenzo-p-Dioxins and Dibenzofurans
    in Storm Water Outfalls Adjacent to Urban Areas and Petroleum
    Refineries in San Francisco Bay, California., [Arch Environ Contam
    Toxicol]{.underline}. 1999 Oct; 37(3):290-302.

89. Wenning RJ, Harris MA, Paustenbach DJ, Bedbury H, Potential sources
    of 1,2,8,9-tetrachlorodibenzo-P-dioxin in the aquatic environment,
    [Ecotoxicol Environ Saf]{.underline}. 1992 Apr; 23(2):133-46

90. Wenning R, Von Burg A, Martello L, Pekala J, Maier, M, Luksemburg W.
    LEVELS OF Polychlorinated Dibenzo-P-Dioxins (PCDDS), Dibenzofurans
    (PCDFS), and Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBS) in the Hackensack
    River and Newark Bay, New Jersery USA. ORGANOHALOGEN COMPOUNDS --
    Volume 66 (2004)

91. Wolfskill LA, McNutt RP, An Environmental Study of the Passaic River
    and its Estuary. Seton Hall Law Review, Vol 29:37. 1998.

92. Zoeller R. Thomas. "At the Cutting Edge: Environmental chemicals as
    thyroid hormone analogues: New studies indicate that thyroid hormone
    receptors are targets of industrial chemicals?" Molecular and
    Cellular Endocrinology 242(2005): 10-15.

APPENDIX 2A

Environmental Construction Plan

APPENDIX 2B

2B-1 Best Management Practices

2B-2 Preliminary Site Specific Crossing Drawings

APPENDIX 2C

Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures

APPENDIX 2D

Wetland Delineation Report

APPENDIX 2E

HDD Contingency Plan

APPENDIX 2F

MAE Pipeline Hydrotesting and Pre-Commissioning Plan

APPENDIX 2G

**Sparrow's Point LNG Terminal -- Propeller Wash Sediment Impact Study**

**APPENDIX 2H**

**FERC Data Request Response Matrix**

[^1]: The limited number of properties that the Pipeline crosses that
    are listed as SW landfill sites received special attention to
    coordinate the centerline routing so as to avoid or minimize the
    potential to cross the footprint or affected area of waste on the
    properties.

[^2]: Other historical studies have been performed for the general areas
    surrounding the Terminal Site. Focus is given to the referenced
    studies due to the closer proximity in time and applicability of
    location as compared to those other studies. Site-specific testing,
    described in Section 2.4.3.2, was conducted by AES to confirm the
    results of the referenced studies.

[^3]: Samples were collected via Vibracore sampling methods to recover
    representative, undisturbed sub-bottom sediment samples. Samples
    were collected within new, clean lexan liners within the Vibracore
    sample tubes; upon recovery, the cores were examined by an
    experienced environmental geologist, sample logs generated (see
    Appendix J to Resource Report 13 for the logs), and samples were
    selected from the appropriate sample intervals and contained in new,
    clean, laboratory-supplied sample jars. Samples were transported
    under chain-of-custody procedures to the Maryland-certified
    environmental laboratory for analysis using EPA analytical
    procedures appropriate to the analytes of interest.

[^4]: Data value of 1985, the most recent reported with the state
    geologic survey information relative to these aquifers.

[^5]: The MDE Federal Navigation Channel Use Attainability Analysis
    stated: "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."

[^6]: LNG ships will comply with IMO requirements for sewage water and
    ballast discharge.  No sewer water discharge is allowed within 12
    nautical miles from nearest land limit in accordance with Annex IV
    of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from
    Ships (MARPOL), 1973.  Ballast water discharge for international
    travel is to take place at the 200 nautical mile EEZ limit; ballast
    water discharge for travel within US waters is required to take
    place following the IMO criteria, Annex I of MARPOL, as well as the
    USCG Voluntary Ballast Management Guidelines