U.S. Department of Agriculture 

Rural Utilities Service 

HOLLAND CLIFF – HEWITT ROAD 

230 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 

SCOPING MEETING REPORT 

Prepared by: 

BLACK & VEATCH CORPORATION 

for: 

SOUTHERN MARYLAND ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. 

HUGHESVILLE, MD 

B&V Project 146026(G) 

B&V File 32.0201 

March 11, 2010 
March 11, 2010 i 

Table of Contents

1.0 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 1

2.0 Previous Public Meetings .................................................................................................... 2

3.0 Scoping Meeting Preparation Activities ............................................................................... 4

4.0 Summary of RUS Scoping Meeting ..................................................................................... 5

5.0 Follow‐up Activities............................................................................................................. 7

 Appendix A: Open House Survey Results from April and May Public Meeting 

 Information 

 Appendix B: Scoping Meeting Notices 

 Appendix C: Agency Invitations to Scoping Meetings 

 Appendix D: Scoping Meeting Layout and Displays 

 Appendix E: RUS Scoping Meeting Sign-in Sheet 

 Appendix F: February 2009 Letter from U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 
March 11, 2010 ii 

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ADC Alexandria Drafting Company 

BER Borrowers Environmental Report 

CFR Code of Federal Regulation 

EA Environmental Assessment 

EMF Electric and Magnetic Fields 

kV kilovolts 

MW megawatts 

MWH megawatt-hour 

Project Holland Cliff to Hewitt Road 230 kV 

Transmission Line Project 

PSC Public Services Commission 

RD Rural Development 

RUS Rural Utilities Service 

SMECO Southern Maryland Electric Cooperative 

USDA United States Department of Agriculture 
March 11, 2010 1 

1.0 Introduction 

Southern Maryland Electric Cooperative, Inc. (SMECO) is proposing to construct 

a new 230 kV double circuit transmission line from SMECO’s Holland Cliff switching 

station in northern Calvert County, Maryland, to the SMECO Hewitt Road switching 

station in St. Mary’s County, Maryland. Also proposed as part of this project is the 

southern Calvert County 230/69 kV switching station that would be connected to this line 

and would be located between the Holland Cliff and Hewitt Road switching stations in 

the vicinity of the existing SMECO Calvert Cliffs 69 kV transmission line tap near the 

intersection of Pardoe Road and Maryland State Route 4. The new 230 kV Holland Cliff 

to Hewitt Road transmission line and associated southern Calvert County 230/69 kV 

switching station, hereafter referred to as “the Project”, is being proposed to meet growth 

in electrical energy demand and improve system reliability within SMECO’s service 

area. 

Funding for the Project can come from any number of sources, including the 

Rural Utilities Service (RUS). If the funding comes from RUS, certain requirements 

apply. These are stated in Title 7 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 1794 – 

Environmental Policies and Procedures, as amended. 

For undertakings like the SMECO Project, where more than 25 miles of 230 kV 

transmission line would be constructed, one of these requirements is the need to hold a 

public scoping meeting for which members of the public can learn about the project, ask 

questions, and voice their concerns. The public’s concerns must then be addressed in the 

Environmental Assessment, which is also a requirement of 7 CFR Part 1794, as amended. 

The purpose of this report is to provide a summary of the scoping meeting that 

was held for the Project in fulfillment of the requirements in 7 CFR 1794.52. In 

developing this summary, the RUS Bulletin 1794A-603, Scoping Guide for RUS Funded 

Projects Requiring Environmental Assessments with Scoping and Environmental Impact 

Statements, was used for reference and guidance. 
March 11, 2010 2 

2.0 Previous Public Meetings 

 SMECO conducted a carefully planned “roll-out” of information on the Project 

starting in March 2008. Employees, key stakeholders, and public officials were provided 

information on the Project. As one of several means of informing the general public, 

three public meetings were held in the spring of 2008: 

• April 24 at the Springhill Suites in Prince Frederick 

• April 29 at the Daugherty Center in Lexington Park 

• May 1 at the Hilton Garden Inn in Dowell 

All three meetings were held from 5:00PM to 8:00PM and all were conducted in the open 

house format. SMECO had requested that the last of these meetings, on May 1, be 

designated as the scoping meeting required in 7 CFR 1794.52. However, the inability to 

finalize the Alternatives Evaluation Study Report and Macro-Corridor Study Report in 

time for the required Federal Register newspaper notices precluded the use of May 1 

meeting as a scoping meeting. The official RUS scoping meeting was held on September 

11, 2008. 

 All three of these public meetings were set up to include six information stations 

(see Section 4.0 for details), each staffed with experienced SMECO personnel or those of 

SMECO’s designer engineer and environmental consultant Black & Veatch and EMF 

consultant Exponent. SMECO received written comments from the public along with 

survey responses, the results of which can be reviewed in the appendices to this 

document. The names and addresses of the commenters have been deleted to protect 

their privacy. 

 Based on sign in sheets provided at the entrance to each meeting, the following 

numbers were in attendance: 

• 47 on April 24 at the Springhill Suites in Prince Frederick 

• 27 on April 29 at the Daugherty Center in Lexington Park 

• 20 on May 1 at the Hilton Garden Inn in Dowell 

Business roundtable breakfasts held on the same dates and at the same locations 

were attended by six, nine, and two persons, respectively. Attendees were local 

stakeholders who were sent invitations in advance. 

Other efforts to inform the public, conducted prior to the scoping meeting in 

September 2008, included: briefings with local business owners, special interest groups, 

and public officials; establishment of a web site devoted entirely to the Project; and 

availability of Project information through the SMECO customer service phone lines. 

Appendix A contains a complete list of comments received at the April and May 

public meetings. In general, attendees felt that SMECO provided the information they 
March 11, 2010 3 

needed and they liked the meeting format and layout. From the multiple choice survey 

questions, respondents strongly agreed that the project area has grown significantly and 

electric transmission must expand to meet demand (30 of 42), an overhead line using 

existing right-of-way is the best option for a new line 27 of 42), and the use of 

weathering steel poles is the preferred alternative (28 of 42). There was less consensus 

on the method for crossing the Patuxent River, with respondents split evenly between an 

underwater line sunk into the river bottom, an under-river line bored beneath the 

riverbed, and an overhead line attached to a new Thomas Johnson Memorial Bridge. 

When asked what additional information would the attendees liked to have seen 

presented, there was no consensus. Topics of concern and interest included: pole 

locations, property values, project cost and impact on customer rates, underground 

construction instead of overhead lines, and the type of fuel used to generate the electricity 

that SMECO provides to its customers. 
March 11, 2010 4 

3.0 Scoping Meeting Preparation Activities 

On September 11, 2008, SMECO held a Project scoping meeting in accordance 

with 7 CFR 1794.52. The scoping meeting was held at a SMECO office located at 901 

Dares Beach Road in Prince Frederick, Maryland. The meeting hours were from 5:00PM 

to 8:00PM and the meeting was conducted in an open house format. 

In preparation for the meeting, SMECO developed and submitted to RUS several 

documents and notices for approval. Two documents, an Alternatives Evaluation Study 

Report and a Macro-Corridor Study Report, were submitted to RUS for comments earlier 

in the year. RUS provided its comments and the reports were finalized in August. 

SMECO received formal acceptance of the reports from RUS on August 25, 2008. 

SMECO also provided text for the public notices required by RUS. These are 

found in the appendices to this report and include: 

• The RUS Federal Register notice published on August 27 

• A Notice of Intent to Hold a Scoping Meeting published on August 29 in 

the St. Mary's Enterprise and the Calvert Recorder 

• A detailed notice in the Legal Section of the same newspapers 

Earlier in the day of the scoping meeting, two RUS representatives, Stephanie 

Strength and Lauren McGee, participated with SMECO and Black & Veatch Project staff 

in an inspection of portions of the Project corridor. Ms. Strength is an Environmental 

Protection Specialist and Ms. McGee an Environmental Scientist with RUS. The 

corridor inspection was conducted from 8:00AM to approximately 3:00PM. Such an 

inspection is recommended in the aforementioned RUS Bulletin 1794A-603. 

 A variety of federal, state, and local agencies were invited to the scoping meeting 

and offered the opportunity of a pre-meeting gathering at 3:00PM. However, only one 

agency representative expressed interest in a pre-meeting and later agreed, at SMECO’s 

request, to meet with SMECO during the public meeting instead. 

 The appendices provide a list of the agencies and representatives that were sent 

written invitation letters. Enclosed with each letter, a sample of which appears in the 

appendices, were Project location and route maps. The invitees were also sent a compact 

disk containing the approved Alternatives Evaluation Study and Macro-Corridor Study 

reports. 
March 11, 2010 5 

4.0 Summary of RUS Scoping Meeting

As previously stated, SMECO held a scoping meeting on September 11, 2008 at 

the SMECO office located at 901 Dares Beach Road in Prince Frederick, Maryland. The 

location of the meeting was less than 25 driving miles from any point along the proposed 

route and so complied with the guidance provided in RUS Bulletin 1794A-603. The 

meeting hours were from 5:00PM to 8:00PM and the meeting was conducted in an open 

house format. 

There were six information stations at the meeting, titled as follows: 

• Station One – Energy Use Is Growing 

• Station Two – To Meet Your Needs, We Need to Upgrade Our System 

• Station Three – Upgrading This Line Means You Will Have More 

Reliable Power 

• Station Four – This Project Has Limited Impact 

• Station Five – We Will Use Existing Rights-of-Way 

• Station Six – We Will Do This Project the Right Way 

Photocopies of the displays at each information station are provided in the appendices to 

this report. 

Each of the stations was staffed by one or more professionals from SMECO, 

Black & Veatch, and Exponent. For SMECO, representatives of executive management, 

project management, engineering, right-of-way maintenance, environmental 

management, and public relations were present. 

In addition to the information stations, a table for RUS representatives Stephanie 

Strength and Lauren McGee was set up near the entrance door. Four free-standing 

display banners providing information about SMECO were located in the middle of the 

room. A room layout with dimensions is provided in the appendices. 

In addition to the displays described above, SMECO provided additional visual 

aids: 

• Small sections of galvanized steel and weathering steel poles to show the 

difference in appearance (survey results from this meeting and the 

previous meetings indicate the weathering steel is overwhelmingly 

preferred by the public and will be used for the project) 

• Large easel-mounted ADC maps showing the Project route 

• Books of aerial photographs of the route for members of the public to use 

to determine the Projects location with respect to their properties 
March 11, 2010 6 

• Numerous brochures providing information on the project, electrical 

power reliability, increased demand for electricity, environmental impacts, 

right-of-way maintenance, tree planting, and EMF. 

From the public, five people attended (see Appendix E for a copy of the sign-in 

sheet). SMECO and RUS received no written comments from those attending the 

meeting. Conversations with those attending the meeting indicate that the greatest 

concern is how private property and property values will be affected by the Project. 

Following the meeting, RUS received a comment letter, dated February 13, 2009, 

from the Baltimore District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (see Appendix F). The 

letter requested that following topics be evaluated in the proposed EA for the Project: 

• Purpose and need for the Project 

• Alternatives analysis 

• Methods to minimize adverse effects to waters of the U.S. 

• Corps pubic interest review factors 

• Cumulative and indirect impacts resulting from the Project 

• Environmental justice 

• Compliance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and Section 

106 of the National Historic Preservation Act 

• Air Quality 

• Compliance with the Executive Order on floodplains 

• Potential conflicts with shipping traffic and recreational/commercial 

boating and fishing activities 
March 11, 2010 7 

5.0 Follow-up Activities 

Using the information obtained from the public meetings in the spring of 2008 

and the formal RUS scoping meeting held on September 11, 2008, and in response to 

specific questions asked by attendees, SMECO and Black & Veatch revised portions of 

the Borrower’s Environmental Report (BER), which was submitted to RUS in November 

2008. Examples of how that information was used includes the following: 

• SMECO used survey data regarding pole-type preference in the 

Engineering and Construction Features section of the BER in selecting the 

weathering steel option. 

• SMECO used landowner feedback in its consideration of new structures 

placement wherever there is flexibility in locating them. 

• Inquiries from landowners regarding the possibility of locating the new 

transmission lines underground and out of site led SMECO to authorize a 

study on the costs and benefits of doing so. This report of this study was 

submitted as part of the BER. 

• SMECO also agreed to meet individually with those landowners who have 

concerns with EMF and has offered to provide free EMF readings taken 

by qualified SMECO personnel. 

Scoping meeting invitations sent to agency personnel led to further 

communications with them at which more information was obtained. For example, 

SMECO learned that it cannot use state highway right-of-way for routing of any portion 

of the proposed transmission line. SMECO has also met with and continues to work with 

U.S. Naval Recreation Center personnel to determine specific placement of the proposed 

transmission line through the Center and the location for the horizontal directional bore 

which will take the line under the Patuxent River. 

Given its efforts to inform the public, and its use of information received from the 

public in its development of the BER, SMECO believes that it has fulfilled the 

obligations for scoping described in 7 CFR Part 1794. 
March 11, 2010 

APPENDIX A 
Open House Survey Results from April and May Public Meetings 

1. Please check the one statement you most agree with. 

30 A Southern Maryland and Calvert County have grown significantly in the past 30 years, 

and electric transmission must expand to meet demand.

3 B Southern Maryland and Calvert County have grown significantly in the past 30 years, 

but electric transmission does not need to expand to meet demand.

2 C Southern Maryland and Calvert County have not grown significantly in the past 30 

years, but electric transmission should expand ahead of development.

1 D Southern Maryland and Calvert County have not grown significantly in the past 30 

years, but electric transmission must expand ahead of development. 

6 no response 

2. Of the following potential types of routes for transmission line, which one option do you 

support the most? 

27 A An overhead line which runs along existing SMECO rights-of-way and does not require 

land acquisition. 

6 B An overhead line which requires land acquisition and construction through currently 

undeveloped fields and forests. 

5 C None of these options, but I do support a new transmission line. 

1 D I do not support any new transmission line. 

3 no response 

3. To cross the lower Patuxent River, which one route for the expanded transmission line 

do you support the most? 

11 A An underwater line achieved by sinking an insulated cable into the river bottom. 

11 B An underground line achieved by horizontal directional drilling under the river to 

install the cable beneath the riverbed. 

11 C An overhead line crossing achieved by installing cables on a new Thomas Johnson 

Memorial Bridge if it is constructed by 2013. 

9 no response 

4. Of the following, which one type of material for the transmission poles do you prefer 

the most? 

11 A Galvanized steel, which will remain metallic colored for the life of the pole. 

28 B Weathering steel, which will develop a brown coating over time to blend with existing 

wooded areas along the right-of-way. 

3 no response 
5. Were you satisfied with the amount of information available to you at SMECO’s open 

house? 

33 A Yes, SMECO provided the information I wanted. 

0 B No, SMECO did not provide the information I wanted. 

2 C Neither, SMECO only provided some of the information I wanted. 

7 no response 

6. If you did not answer yes, what additional information would you like to have seen 

presented? 

Bring in overhead lines. 

Where do poles go and what will it do to property value? 

Weathering steel poles much better than galvanized 

Which is cheaper? Galvanized or weathering steel? 

Place all lines underground through the town centers in Calvert. I got the impression that additional 

clearing would not be necessary. I would be interested in the total clearing that might be necessary. 

I don't think SMECO can answer the question I would like answered as that would be what fuel are we 

going to use in the near future and distant future to generate power? 

Please contact me regarding lines going north. 

 

Please send map book page 63 to ____________@hotmail.com 

I wish that you had used this format when you constructed the 69kV poles in N. Town Creek. 

Survey is not unbiased--don’t feel it's an accurate representation of current situation/concerns. 

A laptop that could zoom in on areas of change would have made answering my questions easier for the 

gentleman who did. Thank you for your presentation. 

For Q. #2 - New overhead line along highway 

Re: Q 1 - Growth appears to be slowing. 

Re: Q 2 - Underground 

Cost to customers per alternative and estimated tower height at specific locations. 

All my questions were answered. The three people I spoke with were well informed and very informative. 

Re: Q 3 - Passing through Patuxent River tunnel upstream from Solomons 

Re: Q 2 - With underground segments in populated areas 
Re: Q 3 - none of the above 

Re: Q 4 - No new poles. No new transmission line. 

Re: Q 5 - No comment. 

7. What would you like to tell us about our proposal to improve our transmission system 

and ensure continued reliability? 

Save on electric bill. 

Keep us informed. Interest in new Huntingtown substation. 

230-kV line is the most economical and logical. 

Moved. 

Service. 

Good (seems to indicate they provide good service) 

Follow up restoration. 

Great open house. I spoke at length with Chip Kingsley, Herb Reigel, Chris Martens, John Rutt, and 

Roger Schneider. All provided outstanding information on use of current right-of-way, types of poles (no 

"Martian spiders"), and outside the scope of the open house, connection of private power like solar. 

Thanks. P.S. Also very good to have the president here. 

What you provided was thorough, but hope you continue to provide info throughout the entire process. 

My bills have gone up 75% already; how much higher will they go to implement this project? 

Hope that every effort will be made to accommodate pole placement and restoration of property damaged 

during construction. 

Run as much underground as possible to prevent weather related outages. 

If possible, bury cables where next to neighborhoods in residential areas. 

Just keep us informed. GREAT JOB! 

I would prefer one set of poles rather than 69kV & 230 kV poles marching through woodland and streams. 

(Town Creek) 

With growth, improvement of transmission systems in mandatory. Electric is the "mainstay" of all house 

folks. You can't stop progress. Underground line for cable should always be used if at all possible. 

Currently have a pole on our property 

Well thought out. Good for everyone in Southern Maryland. 

Nicely done. "Workstations" very effective. 
Keep far away from existing homes so if a pole falls it does not hit a house. Raise line to 65' above St. 

Leonard Creek in Planters Wharf area. 

The new line should either follow Dominion's new route around White Sands and St. Leonard Shores or 

follow Rt.4. 

SMECO should look more into burying the line, as is done elsewhere. 

You could bury the lines in selective locations to be safer. 

The portion through White Sands and St. Leonard Shores should be routed down MD Rt. 4 along the 

existing power line right of way. 

Underground or alternative route through less populated areas such as Solomons Island and Lexington 

Park area. I am surprised Navy will not have issues with proposed high transmission lines. 

The area needs it 

Keep communicating openly. 

Consider limited underground segments in densely populated areas. 

Be as good of environmental stewards as possible. 

Keep the impact on property owners as minimal as possible with berms, foliage, underground, etc. 

Thank You!! 

I do not support the expansion because 

1) increased EMF danger to those living close to line 69kV - 230kV. 

2) Increased marring of visual environment and property value decrease. 

3) Added cost to customer to pay for expansion 

4) Increasing electric power available = people using increasing amounts with no thought to possibly 

staying "off the grid" and reducing electricity use. If you provide it, they will use it. Reduce and GO 

GREEN! 
March 11, 2010 

APPENDIX B 
SMECO SCOPING MEETING REPORT 

January 12, 2009 
January 12, 2009 18 
January 12, 2009 19 
January 12, 2009 20 
January 12, 2009 21 
January 12, 2009 22 
January 12, 2009 23 
March 11, 2010 

APPENDIX C 
SMECO SCOPING MEETING REPORT 

January 12, 2009 

August 28, 2008 

Agency Name 

Attn: Agency Contact 

Agency Department 

Department Street Address 

City, State, Zip Code 

Subject: Scoping and Agency Meeting for Southern 

Maryland Electric Cooperative’s 230 kV 

Project 

Dear Agency Contact: 

The Rural Utilities Service (RUS), an agency that administers the programs of USDA’s Rural 

Development, is preparing an Environmental Assessment (EA) with scoping in connection with a 

proposal by Southern Maryland Electric Cooperative (SMECO) of Hughesville, Maryland. 

SMECO proposes to construct approximately 30 miles of 230 kilovolt transmission line, a new 

230/69 kilovolt switching station, a 230/69 kilovolt switching station expansion, and a river 

crossing. Initial alternative evaluation and site selection studies have located the proposed project 

in Calvert and St. Mary’s Counties in Maryland, primarily on existing right-of-way. The new 

switching station would be located in southern Calvert County, the switching station expansion 

would be located in St. Mary’s County, and the river crossing location would be near the Thomas 

Johnson Bridge joining the two counties. A location and route map are attached. SMECO is 

requesting RUS provide financial assistance for the construction of this proposal. 

In accordance with RUS’ environmental regulations, 7 CFR 1794, Environmental Policies and 

Procedures, RUS will be the lead agency for preparation of the EA with scoping. As part of the 

scoping process and prior to any public scoping meetings, RUS is distributing and making 

available specific planning documents prepared by SMECO for review and comment by Federal, 

State and local agencies and the public. Enclosed is a compact disk that contains the Alternatives 

Evaluation Study and Macro-Corridor Report. Copies of the documents are also available on 

RUS’ website at: http://www.usda.gov/rus/water/ees/ea.htm. 

A scoping meeting will be held by RUS, in an open house format, seeking the input of the public 

and other interested parties. The meeting will be held from 5 PM until 8 PM, on September 11, 

2008. The location of the meeting will be the SMECO Office located at 901 Dares Beach Road 

in Prince Frederick, Maryland. Additionally, an agency meeting may be held at 3 PM on 

September 11, 2008 at the same location. 

Please indicate your intention to attend the agency meeting by responding to Stephanie Strength 

by email at stephanie.strength@wdc.usda.gov, before September 8, 2008. 
January 12, 2009 26 

Please provide written comments by October 11, 2008 to Ms. Stephanie A. Strength, Rural 

Utilities Service, Engineering and Environmental Staff, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Stop 

1571, Washington, D.C. 20250-1571 or E-mail: stephanie.strength@usda.gov. 

 Very truly yours, 

 BLACK & VEATCH 

 Salvatore Falcone 

 Environmental Services Project 

Manager 

SF/sl 

Enclosure[s] 

cc: Stephanie Strength, USDA Rural Utilities Service 

 John Bredenkamp, SMECO 

 Thomas Russell, SMECO 

 Terry Ressler, SMECO 

 Rich Jacober, Black & Veatch 
SMECO SCOPING MEET

January 12, 2009 

MARYLAND 

SMECO 

Holland Cliff to Hewitt Road 

230 kV Transmission Line 

Project Location Map 

Calvert and St. Mar

y’s Count

y
SMECO SCOPING MEETING REPORT 

January 12, 2009 28 

Existing SMECO 69 kV Line 

Existing SMECO 69 kV River Crossing 

Proposed SMECO 230 kV Line 

Proposed SMECO 230 kV River Crossing 

Existing Dominion Pipeline TL-532 

Existing PEPCO 500 kV Line 

SMECO 

Holland Cliff 

To Hewitt Road 

230 kV 

Transmission Line 

Project 

Route Map 
SMECO SCOPING MEETING REPORT 

January 12, 2009 29 

List of Agencies and Contacts Invited to the Scoping Meeting 

Southern Maryland Electric Cooperative Office, Prince Frederick, Maryland 

September 11, 2008 at 5:00 pm to 8:00 pm 

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 

Chesapeake Bay Field Office 

Attn.: Leopoldo Miranda 

Field Supervisor 

177 Admiral Cochrane Drive 

Annapolis, MD 21401 

National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA 

Office of Protected Resources 

Permits, Conservation, and Education 

Division 

Attn.: Mr. Jim Lecky 

1315 East-West Highway, SSMC3 

Silver Springs, MD 20910 

Maryland Department of Natural Resources 

Attn: Mr. Howard King 

Fisheries Service 

580 Taylor Avenue, Suite B-2 

Annapolis, MD 21401 

Maryland Department of Natural Resources 

Attn: Ms. Sandra Patty 

Manager-Transmission Programs 

Power Plant Research Program 

580 Taylor Avenue, Suite B-3 

Annapolis, MD 21401 

Maryland Department of Natural Resources 

Wildlife & Heritage Service 

Attn.: Ms. Lori Byrne 

Environmental Review Specialist 

580 Taylor Avenue, Suite E-1 

Annapolis, MD 21401 

Maryland Department of the Environment 

Nontidal Wetlands and Waterways Division 

Attn: Ms. Cynthia Nethen 

1800 Washington Boulevard 

Baltimore, MD 21230 

Maryland Department of the Environment 

Tidal Wetlands Division 

Attn: Mr. Robert Tabisz 

1800 Washington Boulevard 

Baltimore, MD 21230 

USDA-Natural Resources Conservation 

Service 

John Hanson Business Center 

Attn.: Tansel Hudson, Assistant State 

Conservationist (Operations) 

339 Busch's Frontage Road, Suite 301 

Annapolis, MD 21409-5543 

Maryland Department of Agriculture 

Attn.: Secretary Roger Richardson 

50 Harry S. Truman Parkway 

Suite 301 

Annapolis, MD 21401 

410-841-5700 

US Army Engineer District, Baltimore 

Attn.: Mr. William Seib, Chief of Maryland 

Southern Section 

City Crescent Building 

101 South Howard Street 

Baltimore, MD 21201 

Please insure that Ms. Amy Guise of the 

COE of the Planning Division. 

St. Mary’s River State Park and 

Greenwell State Park 

c/o Point Lookout State Park 

Attn.: Chirty Bright 

11175 Point Lookout Road 

Scotland, MD 20687 

Calvert Cliffs State Park 

c/o Smallwood State Park 

Attn.: Ranger Patrick Bright 

2750 Sweden Point Road 

Marbury, MD 20658 

Jefferson Patterson Park 
January 12, 2009 30 

Maryland State Clearinghouse for 

Intergovernmental Assistance 

Attn: Richard Hall, Secretary 

Maryland Department of Planning 

301 W. Preston Street 

Suite 1101 

Baltimore, MD 21201-2305 

US EPA Region 3 

Attn.: William Arguto (EIA 30) 

1650 Arch Street 

Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Attn: Lee Kyker, Air Traffic Operations 

Support 

1701 Columbia Ave. 

College Park, Georgia 30337 

Maryland Historical Preservation Office 

Division of Historical and Cultural 

Programs 

Attn: J. Rodney Little 

100 Community Place 

Crownsville, Maryland 21032-2023 

St. Mary's County Department of Planning 

and Zoning 

Attn.: Mr. Jon Robert Grimm, Director 

22740 Washington Street 

P.O. Box 653 

Leonardtown MD 20650 

Phone: (301) 475-4662 

Calvert County Department of Planning and 

Zoning 

Attn.:Mr. Greg Bowen 

150 Main Street 

Prince Frederick MD 20678 

NAVFAC 

Public Works Department 

Attn.: Mr. Michael Lewis 

22445 Peary Road, Building 504 

Patuxent River, MD 20670 

NAVFAC 

Public Works Department 

Attn.: Mr. Michael Oliver 

22445 Peary Road, Building 504 

Patuxent River, MD 20670 

Patuxent River Naval Air Station 

Attn.: Mr. David Rockinson 

47402 Buse Road, Building 467 

Patuxent River, MD 20670 

Maryland Department of Transportation 

Attn: Michael Huber 

138 Defense Highway 

Annapolis, MD 21401 

Maryland Public Service Commission 

Ms. Terry Romine, Esq. 

Executive Secretary 

William Donald Schaefer Tower 

6 St. Paul St., 16th Floor 

Baltimore, MD 21202 

Maryland Department of Business and 

Economic Development 

217 East Redwood St. 

Baltimore, MD 21202 – 3316 
March 11, 2010 

APPENDIX D 
SMECO SCOPING MEETING REPORT 

January 12, 2009 32 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32

2

3 Refreshments

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

Station One - Energy Use Is Growing

Station Two - To Meet Your Needs, We Need To Upgrade Our System

Station Three - Upgrading This Line Means You Will Have More Reliable Power

Station Four - This Project Has Limited Impact

Station Five - We Will Use Existing Rights-of-Way

Station Six - We Will Do This Project the Right Way

Banner

Station

Five

Banner

40' Display

Banner

Station

Six

Station

One

Station

Two

32'

Station

Four

Entrance

RUS Table Sign in Table

Station

Three

Display

Banner

Display

Display
January 12, 2009 33 
January 12, 2009 34 
January 12, 2009 35 
January 12, 2009 36 
January 12, 2009 37 
March 11, 2010 

APPENDIX E 

March 11, 2010 

APPENDIX F