5-1 5.0 – Conclusions and Recommendations

5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 SUMMARY OF THE STAFF'S ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

The conclusions and recommendations presented are those of the FERC environmental staff. 

While our conclusions and recommendations were developed with input from the Coast Guard, 

COE, DOT, NOAA Fisheries, EPA, and Maine DEP as cooperating agencies, each of these 

agencies may present its own conclusions and recommendations when it has completed its 

review of the project. 

The primary impacts associated with construction and operation of the Downeast LNG Project 

include the permanent conversion of forest land communities to an herbaceous community along 

the proposed sendout pipeline; increased ship traffic along the ship channels, which could 

potentially affect marine mammals (e.g., vessel collisions, acoustic harassment, physical 

harassment, and exposure to pollutants and marine debris); permanent loss of forested wetlands; 

and alteration of visual character to viewers within close proximity of the terminal. We have 

determined that construction and operation of the Downeast LNG Project would result in some 

adverse environmental impacts. However, most of these impacts would be reduced to less-thansignificant levels with the implementation of Downeast’s proposed mitigation measures and the 

additional measures we recommend in this EIS. Our assessment is the product of an 

interdisciplinary review by the FERC staff and our cooperating federal and state agencies. Our 

assessment is based on the analysis and critical review of information compiled from field 

investigations by the FERC staff; literature research; alternatives analysis; comments from 

federal, state, and local agencies; input from public groups and individual citizens; and 

information provided by Downeast and its technical consultants. 

As part of our analysis, we developed specific mitigation measures that would appropriately and 

reasonably avoid, minimize, and/or mitigate for environmental impacts resulting from 

construction and operation of the proposed project. These measures would further reduce the 

environmental impact that otherwise would result from implementation of the project, and we 

recommend that these measures be attached as conditions to any authorization issued by the 

Commission. We conclude that, if the project is implemented as planned with the identified and 

recommended mitigation measures during design, construction, and operation, it would be an 

environmentally acceptable action.

The conclusions and recommendations presented here pertain to the Downeast LNG Project 

facilities. Downeast would coordinate with EMEC on the use of EMEC’s transmission line 

right-of-way for a portion of Downeast’s pipeline right-of-way; therefore, we are recommending 

that Downeast not begin construction of the pipeline from MP 17.7 to 27.2 until updated 

alignment sheets, developed in coordination with EMEC, are filed with the Secretary. 

5.1.1 Geology 

No significant impacts on surficial geology, bedrock, mineral resources, or paleontological 

resources would occur along the waterway from the increase in LNG marine traffic. There is a 

low but steady rate of seismic activity in Maine where the marine transit route is located. 

However, we do not expect seismicity, soil liquefaction, or subsidence to affect LNG marine 
5.0 – Conclusions and Recommendations 5-2

traffic using the waterway. The shoreline of the waterway for LNG marine traffic is not 

considered susceptible to hazardous landslides.

Construction and operation of the project would have minimal impact on geological resources in 

the area, and the potential for significant geologic hazards or other natural events to significantly 

impact the project is low. The existing topography at the onshore portion of the LNG terminal 

site would be permanently changed to accommodate the storage tanks and terminal facilities; 

however, topographic contours and drainage conditions disturbed during construction of the 

sendout pipeline would be restored as closely as possible to preconstruction conditions. Some 

blasting is anticipated at the terminal site (for the LNG storage tanks and spill containment 

basins) and along the pipeline, but appropriate precautions would be taken to protect dwellings 

and water supplies. No mineral resources were identified at or adjacent to the LNG terminal. 

Three former borrow pits are located more than 0.5 mile away from the pipeline right-of-way; 

however, these would not be impacted by construction or operation of the sendout pipeline. 

Paleontological resources are not anticipated to be encountered in the area of the terminal or 

sendout pipeline. Soil liquefaction, subsidence, and landslides are not expected to occur in the 

project area. Flash flooding is possible at stream crossings along the sendout pipeline; however, 

the pipeline crossings would be designed and protected to mitigate against damage from 

flooding. All of the structures at the LNG terminal site are located at an elevation high enough 

to avoid projected future increases in sea level. 

The potential for seismicity associated with surficial fault displacement does not represent a 

significant risk to the proposed project. Additional geotechnical investigations of the site and 

further details regarding Downeast’s proposed seismic design criteria for foundations and critical 

structures are necessary to adequately design the terminal facilities. We are recommending that 

Downeast file design and construction details stamped and sealed by the professional engineer of 

record.

5.1.2 Soils and Sediments

No significant impacts on soils or sediments would occur along the waterway resulting from 

normal operation of LNG traffic. The waterway is an existing shipping channel with large vessel 

traffic and there are no sensitive soils along the shoreline that are prone to erosion; therefore, 

LNG vessel traffic would not cause an increase in shoreline erosion. 

Of the approximate 80 acres of land at the terminal location, construction and operation of the 

LNG terminal would permanently disturb approximately 26.9 acres of soils classified as 

farmland of statewide importance and susceptible to compaction; and 19.7 acres of “potentially 

highly erodible” soils. Some low level sediment contamination was identified in the general area 

of proposed pier construction activities; however, Downeast would not perform any dredging, 

trenching, or substrate-disturbing activity other than pile installation and the pile driving 

operation using a vibratory hammer is expected to cause limited resuspension of sediments. 

Construction vessels may create minor amounts of sediment suspension due to propeller wash, 

but given the tidal fluctuations and the deep water in this area this disturbance would be minor 

and temporary. In addition, the use of over-top construction methods in shallow waters and jackup barges in deeper waters would minimize construction vessel activity that could result in the 

resuspension of sediments. Because of the use of these construction methods, construction and 
5-3 5.0 – Conclusions and Recommendations

operation of the proposed project would not result in any significant impacts on water quality 

within Mill Cove, the St. Croix River, or Passamaquoddy Bay.

Construction of the sendout pipeline would impact approximately 7.2 acres of land considered 

prime farmland and 38.9 acres of land classified as farmland of statewide importance. These 

areas are not used for active agriculture and would be restored to preconstruction conditions; 

therefore, impacts on farmland and agriculture would not be significant. Construction of the 

sendout pipeline would temporarily impact soils with high or potentially high erosion potential, 

high compaction potential, poor revegetation potential, and hydric conditions. To minimize and 

mitigate for adverse impacts due to soil erosion in the area of the LNG terminal and sendout 

pipeline, Downeast would implement its Plan, Procedures, and Soil Erosion and Sediment 

Control Guidelines. 

5.1.3 Water Resources

5.1.3.1 Groundwater

Construction and operation of the project would have no significant impact on groundwater 

quality and quantity. Minor amounts of groundwater would be used during construction of the 

LNG terminal for miscellaneous construction purposes (e.g., dust suppression) and to initially fill 

the vaporizers prior to SCV system start-up. During operations, Downeast would utilize 

groundwater wells as a potable water source for the LNG terminal. Based upon sampling and 

analysis of monitoring wells, an adequate and acceptable water supply exists in the bedrock 

beneath the LNG terminal for proposed construction and operational water requirements.

Dewatering would likely be necessary during construction/excavation of the tank foundations 

and spill containment basins. Downeast would prepare and file with FERC a detailed site 

grading plan, that addresses control and collection of groundwater prior to construction.

The sendout pipeline route crosses designated significant sand and gravel aquifers from MP 13.8 

to MP 14.1, MP 25.4 to MP 25.5, and MP 28.4 to 29.0. The Baileyville WPA would be 

traversed by the proposed sendout pipeline route between MP 25.4 and 25.6, and between MP 

28.6 and MP 28.7. There are two wells associated with the WPA operated by the BUD; 

however, neither is within 150 feet of the proposed sendout pipeline route. Downeast has 

proposed an HDD in the area of the Baileyville WPA to minimize potential surface impacts. 

State and local officials expressed concerns that the HDD proposed in this area could alter 

groundwater flow patterns and potentially cause contaminated groundwater associated with a 

nearby landfill to migrate towards the Baileyville WPA. Because of the groundwater flow 

direction in this area, and the distance between the abandoned landfill and the proposed pipeline, 

we conclude that the installation and presence of the pipeline in this area would not impact the 

WPA. Downeast has made a commitment to take special care in maintaining good spill 

prevention and control practices during pipeline installation and maintenance in areas overlying 

the significant sand and gravel aquifers. Based on these assurances, the Maine CDC Drinking 

Water Program indicated that the “current pipeline alignment does not appear to pose a 

significant threat to the public water supply.” We concur.

Downeast has not completed surveying the entire proposed pipeline route for private wells. We 

are recommending that Downeast file the location of all private wells and springs within 150 feet 

of construction activities and conduct pre- and post-construction monitoring of well yield and 
5.0 – Conclusions and Recommendations 5-4

water quality for these wells. In the event a water well or system is damaged as a result of 

construction, we are recommending that Downeast arrange for a temporary source of potable 

water, and provide for the repair of the well or replacement of the water supply.

The greatest potential for impact on groundwater would be from spills, leaks, or other releases of 

hazardous substances during construction or operation. Downeast has developed a SPCC Plan to 

address potential spills of fuel, lubricants, and other hazardous materials. We have reviewed the 

SPCC Plan and believe it adequately addresses potential spills and would minimize or eliminate 

the potential for adverse impacts on groundwater resources. 

5.1.3.2 Surface Water

During operations, LNG vessel activity would have limited potential for impacts on surface 

waters. No ballast water would be discharged from LNG vessels along the waterway or at the 

terminal. However, LNG vessels would take on ballast water to maintain vessel trim and 

stability, and keep the vessel’s hull within acceptable stress levels as they offload their cargo. 

The amount of ballast water required by each LNG vessel would vary according to its size and 

weather conditions. The largest vessel that would be accommodated at the LNG terminal 

(165,000 m3

) would require about 17.11 million gallons of water for ballast. This water 

withdrawal would constitute a minor but long-term impact on water resources of Passamaquoddy 

Bay. LNG vessels would comply with the Coast Guard’s mandatory ballast water management 

and exchange standards.

LNG vessels would also require the intake of cooling water during transit along the waterway 

and while docked at the terminal berth. Over a 21-hour period, a 165,000 m3 LNG vessel would 

require a maximum of about 55.5 million gallons of water to support engine cooling while at the 

pier. Discharge of the cooling water would raise the water temperature at the discharge location. 

However, Downeast’s numerical modeling of the mixing zone indicates that the discharge plume 

would be relatively minor and reach near ambient conditions at approximately 15 to 30 meters 

from the point of discharge. Further, due to the comparatively small volume of this water in 

relation to the flow of Passamaquoddy Bay (estimated to be about 0.001 percent of the quantity 

of water that flows in and out of Passamaquoddy Bay during one tidal cycle), and the swift 

currents that would cause rapid mixing, we find that there would be no discernable impact on the 

water quality of Passamaquoddy Bay from cooling water discharge activities.

Accidental spills or releases of hazardous materials could also impact water quality along the 

waterway. Through compliance with MARPOL and VGP permit requirements, water quality 

effects associated with the discharge of graywater, blackwater, or potential accidental releases 

would be effectively minimized. During operations, wakes and propeller wash associated with 

LNG and associated escort vessel activity may cause minor resuspension of bottom sediments 

and temporary increases in turbidity. Impacts would be localized and would not significantly 

increase turbidity along the transit corridor. 

Construction of the LNG terminal could temporarily adversely affect surface water quality in 

Mill Cove. The primary effect on water quality would be minor increases in suspended solids in 

the water column in the vicinity of the pile installation activities and from marine construction 

vessels. Due to the currents and significant tidal volume exchange, any localized water quality 

impacts would quickly return to preconstruction conditions. There is a potential for the 
5-5 5.0 – Conclusions and Recommendations

inadvertent release of fuel to the waters of Mill Cove and Passamaquoddy Bay from vessels 

working to construct the offshore portions of the LNG terminal. To minimize the likelihood of 

spills as well as to minimize environmental impacts in the event that a spill was to occur during 

construction or operation of the terminal, we are recommending that Downeast develop and file a 

Marine SPCC Plan for our review and approval, prior to construction of the LNG terminal.

Operational impacts of the LNG terminal would include generation of freshwater effluent from 

the SCV technology used to process the LNG. The SCVs would produce excess water at a rate 

of 85 gpm when the LNG terminal is operating at normal sendout capacity and up to 109 gpm 

during peak capacity. Downeast proposes to use recovered SCV water to supply its firewater 

system and sell surplus SCV water to an independent party for offsite use, yet to be identified. 

To ensure impacts are minimized in the event that the SCV water cannot be sold, we are 

recommending that Downeast file a final plan for the discharge of excess SCV water for our 

review and approval, prior to construction of the LNG terminal facilities. The plan should 

include discharge locations, rates, mitigation measures, and copies of applicable permit 

applications. 

Hydrostatic testing of each LNG storage tank would involve filling the inner tank with 

approximately 28 million gallons of water, principally obtained from Passamaquoddy Bay. Test 

water would be discharged into Passamaquoddy Bay using an aeration type energy dissipater to 

prevent potential erosion and scouring of the bottom sediments. To minimize potential water 

quality impacts, all test water would be analyzed for chemical composition, treated if necessary, 

and discharged at a rate determined in the Maine PDES permit issued by the Maine DEP. 

Other potential impacts on water resources involve the uptake of water from Passamaquoddy 

Bay for backup emergency firewater pumps. This would only occur in an emergency situation 

and would constitute a minor impact on water resources given the immense tidal flow of 

Passamaquoddy Bay, with an estimated 70 billion cubic feet of water entering and leaving twice 

daily on the turn of the tide. 

The proposed sendout pipeline would cross 22 surface waterbodies. Activities that could affect 

surface waters include clearing, grading, trenching, blasting, backfilling, and right-of-way 

maintenance. Downeast proposes to cross 9 of the 22 waterbodies using the HDD crossing 

method. We have included Downeast’s site-specific HDD plans for each proposed HDD 

crossing in Appendix E of the EIS. The measures detailed in Downeast’s Plan, Procedures and 

Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Guidelines and applicable permits would minimize both 

short- and long-term impacts on water resources. 

One of the largest HDD crossings proposed by Downeast is the 6,621-foot-long crossing of the 

St. Croix River and Magurrewock Stream Outlet between MP 14.1 and MP 15.3. Downeast has 

evaluated the available geotechnical information relative to the subsurface conditions in the St. 

Croix River, and filed a site-specific construction diagram, and a proposed alternate route should 

the HDD fail. Downeast has indicated that it would file a geotechnical analysis of the HDD 

location prior to requesting authorization to commence construction of its terminal or pipeline 

facilities and that the St. Croix HDD would be the first portion of the sendout pipeline 

constructed. Prior to being placed into service, the sendout pipeline would be hydrostatically 

tested to DOT standards, as listed in 49 CFR 192. Approximately 6.1 million gallons of water 

would be obtained from the BUD for hydrostatic testing of the entire sendout pipeline. 
5.0 – Conclusions and Recommendations 5-6

Following testing, the hydrostatic test water would be discharged to an unnamed creek at MP 

17.5 or to the BUD sewer system. Discharges of hydrostatic test water would require permitting 

from the Maine DEP in compliance with the CWA. The appropriate Section 401 Water Quality 

Certification and Section 404 permit must also be obtained prior to discharge of hydrostatic test 

water into surface waterbodies. 

5.1.4 Wetlands and Vegetation

5.1.4.1 Wetlands

There would be no impacts on subtidal, intertidal, or palustrine wetlands as a result of normal 

LNG vessel transit. Construction and operation of the pier pilings would directly disturb 0.1 acre 

of wetland. Indirect impacts on wetlands include shading and potentially altered hydrodynamic 

processes in the vicinity of the pier. In addition, approximately 9 acres of forested and scrubshrub freshwater wetlands would be permanently affected by the onshore LNG terminal 

facilities. To mitigate for the unavoidable wetland alterations associated with the proposed 

terminal, Downeast is proposing a combination of preservation, enhancement, and restoration at 

off-site locations. In order to ensure that adequate wetland compensation is provided to the 

satisfaction of the relevant agencies, we are recommending that Downeast continue consultation 

with the COE, EPA, Maine DIFW, and Maine DEP to finalize its wetland compensation plan, 

and file the final plan prior to construction.

Approximately 21.6 acres of wetlands would be affected during construction of the sendout 

pipeline, of which approximately 11.7 acres would be affected by maintenance within a 30-footwide portion of the permanent right-of-way during operation. To minimize the extent and 

duration of wetland impacts, Downeast would use a 55 to 65-foot-wide construction right-of-way 

and would implement its Plan, Procedures, and Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Guidelines. 

Following restoration, Downeast would monitor the success of wetland revegetation annually for 

until wetland vegetation is successful. Vegetation maintenance would not be conducted over the 

full width of the maintained portion of the permanent right-of-way in wetlands. A 10-foot-wide 

area directly over the pipeline would be mowed on an annual basis and shrubs and trees may be 

selectively removed within 15 feet of the pipeline. Forested wetlands within the permanent 

right-of-way would be converted to herbaceous and scrub shrub wetland types.

Downeast identified 43 vernal pools, of which 10 were determined to meet the criteria necessary 

to be classified as SVP. To minimize impacts on vernal pools, Downeast would use the 

guidelines approved by FERC, the COE, and the Maine DEP for the M&NE Phase II Pipeline 

Project. Additionally, Downeast would follow the Best Management Practices, Conserving 

Pool-Breeding Amphibians in Residential and Commercial Developments in the Northeastern 

United States (Calhoun and Klemens 2002) for development of site-specific construction activity 

and restoration plans. Post-construction restoration of the vernal pool areas would include 

replication of the vernal pool depression using the same soils excavated, as well as replanting as 

much of the upland habitat buffer as possible while maintaining access to the right-of-way. The

construction right-of-way width would be reduced to 55 feet through vernal pool areas. The 

duration of disturbance would be short-term, generally 24 to 48 hours. Sedimentation of the 

vernal pool areas would be minimized through use of erosion control devices. 
5-7 5.0 – Conclusions and Recommendations

A majority of the impacts on wetlands resulting from construction and operation of the proposed 

sendout pipeline would be temporary. Based on communication with the COE and the Maine 

DEP, Downeast does not anticipate providing mitigation for the temporary impacts associated 

with the sendout pipeline installation. 

5.1.4.2 Marine Vegetation

There would be no impact on marine vegetation as a result of normal LNG marine traffic. 

Eelgrass mapping completed by the Maine DMR in 2010 identified eelgrass within Mill Cove 

that was not present during previous mapping efforts in the 1990s. However, the mapped 

eelgrass occurs in shallow water and at the closest point would be approximately 2,500 feet from 

the end of the pier where LNG vessels and support tugs would operate. Because of this distance, 

operation of LNG vessels and support vessels within the waterway would not impact mapped 

eelgrass.

Terminal construction activities that may affect marine vegetation include sediment disturbance 

due to piling installation and the anchoring of barges. Development of the pier and berthing 

facility would result in the permanent loss of a small quantity of algae as a result of pile 

installation and shading; however, the footprint of the pilings is relatively small, and the height 

and orientation of the pier would create a very limited shadow effect. The proposed pier would 

cross about 350 feet of mapped eelgrass. In this area eelgrass could be directly impacted by 

placement of piles, temporary disturbance of bottom sediments during pile installation, and from 

shading during Project operation. The actual area of impact would need to be determined based 

on site-specific survey to verify the presence and extent of eelgrass in the area of the proposed 

pier. We are recommending that Downeast conduct project-specific eelgrass mapping to 

determine the presence and extent of eelgrass that would be affected by the pier, and that results 

of the eelgrass mapping be incorporated into compensatory mitigation planning, as needed. 

The pilings of the pier would provide increased surface areas suitable for supporting shadetolerant algae species. During the construction and operation of the terminal, marine water 

withdrawals for hydrostatic testing, fire suppression systems testing, and ship ballast and 

hoteling may also have short-term and localized impacts on phytoplankton. Specifically, cooling 

water uptake by the LNG vessels would impact phytoplankton located proximal to the vessel’s 

intake. However, any mortality would be replaced through tidal action from the larger 

phytoplankton population within the Passamaquoddy Bay. 

5.1.4.3 Terrestrial Vegetation

Island and shoreline vegetation along the waterway for LNG marine traffic is generally described 

as wooded with ledge rock outcrops. During normal LNG transit operations there would be no 

adverse impacts on these habitats. 

Development of the 80 acre terminal site would result in the permanent clearing of 

approximately 47 acres of land, including 9 acres of wetland and 38 acres of forest. Downeast 

proposed to leave the remaining 33 acres undeveloped as a buffer. However, Downeast did not 

account for the forested areas in its hazard analyses. Therefore, in section 4.12.5, we 

recommended that Downeast certify that all trees would be removed from the area between the 

vapor fences and the shoreline or demonstrate that the spacing of the trees, and any vegetation 

management plan, would prevent congested areas that could produce offsite overpressures above 
5.0 – Conclusions and Recommendations 5-8

1 psi. An additional 8 acres of grassland located offsite would be temporarily disturbed during 

construction of the LNG terminal for use as ATWS.

Construction of the sendout pipeline and associated valve station would affect an estimated 

175.4 acres of forest, of which approximately 112.2 acres would be permanently converted into a 

non-forested vegetation community. The sendout pipeline would also affect an estimated 

31.3 acres of open land (which includes developed land, agricultural land, and grassland), of 

which approximately 18.9 acres would be permanently maintained right-of-way. The widening 

and improvement of access roads would impact approximately 10 acres of land, of which 

0.5 acre is forested and 9.5 acres are developed land. Staging areas would temporarily impact 

approximately 13.5 acres of forest and 5.2 acres of open habitats.

Downeast located the proposed pipeline right-of-way immediately adjacent to existing rights-ofway to the greatest extent practical to minimize forest habitat loss and fragmentation. Upon 

completion of construction, the right-of-way would be revegetated according to seed mixtures 

recommended by the NRCS. A permanent right-of-way would be maintained to permit access 

for routine inspection, maintenance, and emergency repairs. In uplands, the entire 50-foot-wide 

permanent right-of-way may be cleared every three years. A 10-foot-wide area directly over the 

pipeline would be mowed on an annual basis. Construction, revegetation, and maintenance 

procedures would follow Downeast’s Plan, Procedures, and Soil Erosion and Sediment Control 

Guidelines to ensure successful restoration of the right-of-way. 

5.1.4.4 Unique or Invasive Plant Communities

During normal LNG marine transit operations, there would be no adverse impacts on unique 

plant communities. No rare or invasive plant species are located at the site of the proposed LNG 

terminal. Two invasive plant species, purple loosestrife and alder-buckthorn, were identified in 

several places along the pipeline route. During installation, operation, and maintenance of the 

sendout pipeline, Downeast would employ measures in its Soil Erosion and Sediment Control 

Guidelines to prevent introducing new invasive species and avoid encouraging the spread of 

undesirable species already present. 

5.1.5 Wildlife and Aquatic Resources

5.1.5.1 Terrestrial Wildlife

Impacts on coastal and marine avifauna resulting from construction and operation of the project 

would include temporary alteration and permanent loss of habitat. Wildlife habitats crossed by 

the project include waterfowl and wading bird habitat in coastal and inland locations, shorebird 

feeding and roosting areas, vernal pools, mature forested uplands, early successional habitats, 

agricultural and open lands (which include freshwater wetlands), and forested wetlands. 

Significant wildlife habitats occur within and near the waterway for the LNG marine traffic. 

These include IWWH, TWWH, shorebird nesting, feeding and staging areas, and seabird nesting 

islands. The primary impact from LNG marine traffic would be harassment (i.e., physical and 

acoustic) to coastal and marine birds. The long-term effect of bird and vessel collisions would 

not have measurable consequences to bird populations in the project area. Because known sea 

and shorebird nesting occurrence near the waterway for LNG marine traffic is low, it is 

anticipated that normal LNG marine vessel operations would not adversely affect these species. 
5-9 5.0 – Conclusions and Recommendations

Impacts on wildlife from the LNG terminal construction and operation would include temporary 

and permanent loss of habitat in Mill Cove from the pier and onshore from the terminal. To 

mitigate impacts on nocturnal species, Downeast would strategically locate light fixtures to 

minimize light pollution beyond the terminal area. In consultation with the Maine DIFW, 

Downeast has finalized its revised Shorebird Mitigation Plan, in which, among other 

compensation measures, Downeast has agreed to acquire conservation easements or provide 

property acquisition funds to offset any potential impacts on shorebird habitat. Short-term 

impacts, such as disruption and disturbance to wildlife outside of the boundary of the facility 

would be expected only due to noise and activity associated with construction. Operational noise 

is not expected to impact wildlife communities outside of the terminal site. 

The primary impact on wildlife associated with the sendout pipeline would be clearing of 

forested habitats and temporary disturbance during construction. Less mobile species may be 

injured or fatally wounded. Short-term direct effects to terrestrial mammals and breeding or 

migrating waterbirds would occur during construction of the sendout pipeline in the form of 

increased noise and human presence. Some forested habitats would be permanently converted to 

open or shrubland habitats as a result of vegetation maintenance during operation. Due to the 

amount of significant wildlife habitat that would be disturbed by the proposed project, the Maine 

DEP requested compensation from Downeast. Downeast developed, in consultation with the 

Maine DEP, Maine DIFW, FWS, COE and EPA, several mitigation alternatives that specifically 

focus on preserving inland wetlands that contain significant wildlife habitat. Downeast 

continues to consult with these agencies for approval of a final, comprehensive wetland 

mitigation plan that addresses coastal and freshwater wetlands, areas used by tidal and inland 

wading waterfowl, and significant vernal pools. Based on Downeast’s proposed avoidance of 

shorebird wading habitat during sensitive breeding periods, its adherence to protective measures 

in its Plan, Procedures, and Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Guidelines, and its agreement to 

finalize an acceptable wetland mitigation and compensation plan, impacts on wildlife from 

construction and operation of the proposed project would be limited, and not significant.

The sendout pipeline crosses one DWA twice between MP 16.72 and 16.80, and from MP 16.86 

to 17.02, affecting 2.19 acres. During construction of the sendout pipeline, this DWA would not 

be available to overwintering deer, representing a loss of cover and forage. While much of the 

affected right-of-way would be allowed to revegetate over time, a portion of the right-of-way 

would be subject to routine vegetation clearing and represents a permanent loss of DWA habitat. 

To minimize impacts, Downeast would consult with the Maine DIFW to develop DWA 

mitigation measures. We are recommending that Downeast complete its consultations and file 

its final DWA mitigation package prior to pipeline construction.

5.1.5.2 Aquatic Wildlife

Potential impacts on aquatic wildlife that use waters in or near the proposed LNG marine traffic 

route may include exposure to pollutants from accidental spills and marine debris; impingement 

and entrainment during cooling water intake; thermal impacts from engine cooling water 

discharge; and the potential to introduce non-native aquatic species. Through compliance with 

MARPOL and VGP permit requirements for vessel discharges, water quality effects and 

associated impacts on aquatic habitats would be effectively minimized.
5.0 – Conclusions and Recommendations 5-10

Impingement and/or entrainment of aquatic organisms (including fish eggs and larvae) would 

likely occur during transit and while the LNG vessel is at berth as a result of water withdrawals 

to support vessel operational and ballast requirement. Vessels in transit would be drawing water 

as they move across deep open waters, and therefore, the potential impact would be transient and 

not a significant impact on any particular localized aggregation of aquatic organisms. Vessels at 

berth would withdraw water for engine cooling, hoteling, and ballast. However, given the 

significant tidal fluctuations and water exchange that occurs in the project area, the high densities 

of zooplankton and ichthyoplankton, and the comparatively small amount of water withdrawn,

there would not be a significant impact on overall community populations and associated fish 

stocks in the area. NOAA Fisheries has requested that monitoring be considered during 

operation to evaluate Project effects on zooplankton and ichthyoplankton; however, we believe 

that Downeast’s use of best available scientific data for plankton impacts are adequate to 

determine impacts. Based on CORMIX modeling, thermal impacts associated with vessel engine 

cooling water discharges are also expected to be minor and insignificant. Adverse environmental 

effects associated with the introduction of exotic/invasive/non-native species through ballast 

water exchange are not expected; ballast water would not be discharged while transiting or 

unloading cargo at the berth. Through implementation of industry standard and Coast Guard 

mandatory practices, we conclude that the introduction of non-indigenous attached organisms via 

ship hulls is also not likely to significantly alter the local biotic community. 

Entrainment and impingement of fish and other aquatic organisms could occur during water 

withdrawals for hydrostatic testing at the LNG terminal. Downeast would minimize entrainment 

and impingement of fish by regulating the intake rate and by the use of screens on intake hoses. 

Aquaculture also occurs in the vicinity of the transit route. The shorelines along most of the 

transit route in Western Passage and Friar Roads are steep and rocky offering little habitat for 

soft-shell clams or mussels. Commercial lobster fishing and commercial harvesting of marine 

worms occur along the proposed transit route. Downeast, in cooperation with the Maine DMR,

met with representatives of the local lobster fishery to further define and detail the lobstermen’s 

key concerns and to confirm the individual lobstermen fishing in any areas potentially affected. 

This information would be used in Downeast’s effort to update and revise the original Fishermen 

Communication, Coordination and Compensation Plan. We are recommending that Downeast 

file this plan with the Secretary prior to operation of the terminal.

During LNG terminal construction, impacts on aquatic organisms would result from turbidity 

and sedimentation, acoustic harassment, and displacement from habitats within Mill Cove. 

Water from Mill Cove would be withdrawn for hydrostatic testing, LNG marine vessel engine 

cooling, hoteling, and ballasting operations, and fire suppression system testing. Downeast 

would use screens to prevent entrainment of fish during hydrostatic testing; however, screens 

would not prevent the impingement and entrainment of plankton and ichthyoplankton, nor are 

fine screens available for use on LNG marine vessels. Despite estimated losses, we conclude 

that the impacts on zooplankton, ichthyoplankton, and mysid shrimp would not have a 

significant effect on overall community populations and associated fish stocks. This conclusion 

is based on the significant tidal fluctuations and water exchange that occurs in the project area; 

the high densities of zooplankton and ichthyoplankton; quick recovery times of mysid shrimp 

that occur in the surrounding Passamaquoddy Bay; and the comparatively small amount of water 

withdrawn. 
5-11 5.0 – Conclusions and Recommendations

Impacts on commercial fisheries at the LNG terminal would occur as a result of pier installation, 

through the alteration of traditional fishing patterns, specifically lobstering and weir operation. 

In areas that have been identified as commercial lobster harvesting areas or areas of weir 

operations that would be disturbed or removed as the result of construction activities, Downeast 

has agreed to compensate fishermen for any adverse fisheries-related fiscal loss.

Underwater noise during terminal and pier construction activities would be temporary and longterm noise impacts are not expected to be significant. To mitigate for potential impacts of 

construction-related noise at the terminal, Downeast has consulted with the FWS, NOAA 

Fisheries, and other relevant federal and state agencies to discuss appropriate mitigation 

measures. Downeast is proposing to implement a number of mitigation measures during all 

stages of the project that would maximize protection of listed species by either avoiding adverse 

impacts, or minimizing the potential for adverse impacts from noise. 

Downeast proposes to cross streams along the sendout pipeline primarily using dam and pump 

crossing techniques. In the event that dam and pump crossings are not practicable at these 

locations, an open-cut crossing technique may be applied. Impacts on water quality and 

associated aquatic habitats in the sendout pipeline right-of-way would include sedimentation, 

turbidity, altered water temperatures and dissolved oxygen levels, and introduction of 

contaminants, all of which can affect the ability of aquatic life to survive and reproduce. Impacts 

would also include the physical disturbance or destruction of instream cover due to trenching and 

removal of riparian vegetation. Construction activities could also result in blockage of fish 

migrations and interruption of spawning activities. 

Downeast’s stream habitat surveys have confirmed that five stream crossings are riffle and pool 

complexes that meet the COE criteria as special aquatic sites. Approximately 4,640 square feet 

of riffle pool habitat would be affected by pipeline construction. Downeast would use the HDD 

method at two streams with riffle pool habitat and would attempt to avoid installing the pipe in 

riffle habitats, where possible. Where impacts are unavoidable, Downeast would minimize the 

discharge of fill to the streams using construction measures outlined in its Plan, Procedures, and 

Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Guidelines. 

Although there are no suitable habitat conditions for Atlantic salmon in the streams crossed by 

the sendout pipeline, Downeast has initiated consultation with Maine ASC to ensure that any 

potential impact on Atlantic salmon is avoided and/or minimized. Downeast would continue to 

consult with the appropriate agencies to determine any site-specific timing restrictions for 

construction. Downeast’s Procedures and Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Guidelines define 

a time window for construction in designated cold-water fisheries (June 1 through September 30) 

and also require that Downeast file a waterbody crossing schedule that identifies when trenching 

and blasting would occur in each waterbody designated as a coldwater fishery. 

Impacts on EFH would include habitat disturbance and alteration associated with the LNG 

terminal and sendout pipeline. An EFH Assessment was included in Appendix C of the draft

EIS and Appendix G of this final EIS. The EFH Assessment includes a detailed description of 

the life history characteristics and habitat preferences of EFH species and a discussion of the 

potential for these species to occur within the proposed project’s area of potential effect. We 

requested that NOAA Fisheries consider the draft EIS as notification of initiation of EFH 

consultation, and request that consultation continue with issuance of this final EIS.
5.0 – Conclusions and Recommendations 5-12

5.1.5.3 Threatened and Endangered Species and Marine Mammals

Informal consultations with the Maine DIFW, FWS, NOAA Fisheries, and Maine Natural Area 

Program identified special status species and protected marine mammals that potentially occur in 

the project area. Federally listed whale species including the North Atlantic right, fin, 

humpback, sei, blue, and sperm whales have been recorded within the proposed waterway for 

LNG vessels. Another five species of marine mammals under the protection of the MMPA are 

likely to occur in the waterway including minke whale, gray seal, harbor seal, harbor porpoise, 

and white-sided dolphin. There are also state-listed species of reptiles, birds, plants, and 

invertebrates that could be found in the project area. 

The primary impacts on federally-protected species associated with the proposed project could 

include vessel strikes, alteration of prey base, and underwater noise. Currently, about 125 ships 

per year (primarily bulk carriers and a few cruise ships) pass through the Head Harbour Passage 

near Campobello Island. The proposed project would increase vessel traffic by about one vessel 

every five to seven days in the winter and one vessel every eight to ten days in the summer. All 

LNG marine vessels transiting to the Downeast LNG terminal would be required to comply with 

NOAA Fisheries regulated practices to protect the right whale. NOAA Fisheries has established 

regulations to limit vessel speed of ships 65 feet or longer that transit certain management areas 

along the U.S. east coast (50 CFR Part 224). The regulations limit ship speed to 10 knots or less 

during times and in areas where relatively high right whale and ship densities overlap and calls 

for temporary voluntary speed limits in other areas or times when sightings of aggregate whales 

are confirmed. NOAA Fisheries also prohibits approaching right whales within 500 yards and 

all other whales within 100 yards when navigational limits permit (50 CFR Part 224). Vessels 

would also comply with IMO regulations to avoid the Great South Channel ATBA during April 

through July. In addition, Downeast has indicated its commitment to take the necessary 

precautions to reduce the risk of injury to right whales and other marine mammals and sea 

turtles. LNG vessels would follow IMO regulations to report any sightings of right whales and 

would undertake precautionary measures to avoid any contact with the species. LNG vessel 

speeds would be limited to 10 knots or less in the transit route and/or in areas where marine 

mammals are present, under safe navigation rules as recommended by NOAA Fisheries. 

Downeast LNG terminal construction and operation crews would also receive environmental 

training that stresses individual responsibility for marine mammal awareness and reporting. All 

LNG marine vessel on-board crew members would receive training on marine mammal sighting 

and reporting, as required by IMO standards. Additionally, the Captains/Pilots of LNG vessels 

associated with the proposed Downeast LNG Project would be responsible for monitoring 

communications for sighting reports of the North Atlantic right whale, including local Notice to 

Mariners, NAVTEX warnings, NOAA Weather Radio, and any other means. Following a 

received whale sighting warning, LNG vessels would comply with required IMO regulations and 

federal regulations, and all attempts to avoid contact and reduce the risk of ship strikes to whales 

would be made. In the event that a vessel strike occurs, the Coast Guard COTP Sector Northern

New England Command Center would be notified and the crew would follow procedural 

guidance.

Downeast has committed to continue its consultation with the FWS, NOAA Fisheries, and other 

relevant federal and state agencies to discuss appropriate mitigation measures for threatened and 

endangered species. This would include procedures for notification of NOAA Fisheries in the 
5-13 5.0 – Conclusions and Recommendations

event of a whale strike, in addition to the Coast Guard notification described above. Upon 

completion of ESA consultation and federal and state permitting processes, Downeast would 

incorporate the final approved construction and mitigation measures into a comprehensive 

Prevention and Mitigation Manual for use in training of Downeast’s construction and operational 

personnel, which would be filed with FERC. 

To estimate the effects of underwater sound propagation produced during construction and 

operation of the proposed project on marine wildlife, Downeast conducted a comprehensive 

underwater acoustic modeling analysis. Downeast is consulting with the FWS, NOAA Fisheries, 

and other relevant federal and state agencies to discuss appropriate mitigation measures. Noise 

associated with construction of the proposed project could temporarily limit use of the proposed 

project area during active construction, but species would return to the area once construction 

has ceased. Downeast has committed to a number of mitigation measures designed to reduce 

potential noise impacts on federally-listed species and other resources, and has committed to 

continue its consultation with the FWS, NOAA Fisheries, and other relevant federal and state 

agencies to discuss mitigation. We are recommending that Downeast file the manual prior to 

construction of the LNG terminal facilities. Upon completion of ESA consultation and federal 

and state permitting processes, Downeast would incorporate the final approved construction and 

mitigation measures into a comprehensive Prevention and Mitigation Manual for use in training 

of Downeast’s construction and operational personnel.

Increased sediment suspension and turbidity would temporarily increase during construction of 

the pier but would not adversely affect marine mammals. Water withdrawals for hydrostatic 

testing, vessel engine cooling, vessel ballasting, vessel hoteling, and fire suppression pump 

testing would result in the entrainment of phytoplankton and zooplankton. Considering the 

minimal effect to phytoplankton and zooplankton from entrainment, the loss would have a 

minimal impact on this prey base for marine mammals.

Downeast would conduct pre-construction clearance surveys at the terminal site for bald eagles, 

a state-listed species. In the event that confirmed nesting bald eagles are discovered, Downeast 

would consult with Maine DIFW to establish a comprehensive bald eagle mitigation plan, 

including seasonal restrictions on construction activities within 0.25 mile of identified nesting 

areas.

During the aerial surveys of the sendout pipeline route in 2006 and 2008, no active eagle nests 

were observed within the study corridor or within the 0.25-mile zone on either side. A single 

historic nest was identified near MP 9.5. Construction activities that have the potential to disturb 

foraging bald eagles or known roosts would be minimal, localized, and temporary. Downeast 

has indicated it may also modify the timing of periodic inspections and/or repair of the sendout 

pipeline to ensure avoidance and minimization of disturbance during sensitive periods if a 

pipeline section occurs within the protected buffer of any active bald eagle nesting/breeding site. 

We prepared a BA that was included with the draft EIS, and a revised BA that was submitted to 

the FWS and NOAA Fisheries in June 2012. The revised BA is included in Appendix C of this 

EIS. The BA details the environmental baseline for federally listed species and critical habitat; 

direct, indirect, interdependent and interrelated, and cumulative effects; and proposed 

conservation measures. We have determined that the project is not likely to adversely affect the 

Atlantic salmon, Atlantic sturgeon, shortnose sturgeon, leatherback sea turtle, and six species of 
5.0 – Conclusions and Recommendations 5-14

whales (North Atlantic right, sei, blue, fin, humpback, and sperm). To ensure compliance with 

the ESA, we are recommending that Downeast should not begin construction until the staff 

completes consultation with the FWS and NOAA Fisheries, and Downeast has received written 

notification from the Director of OEP that construction or use of mitigation may begin.

5.1.6 Land Use, Recreation, and Visual Resources

5.1.6.1 Land Use and Recreation

Construction of the Downeast LNG Project would affect a total of 313.2 acres of land. The 

terminal site primarily is comprised of forested land in various stages of succession. The closest 

residence is located 125 feet from the proposed LNG terminal boundary. There are no public 

lands or other designated federal, state, or local recreation areas located on or within 0.25 mile of 

the LNG terminal site. Only 0.1 acre of submerged land would be directly affected by the piles 

for the pier. However, the pier would have a surface area of 3.6 acres, mostly over open water, 

which would require a lease or easement from the state of Maine. 

Land use along the sendout pipeline right-of-way is generally comprised of existing right-ofway, forested land, developed land, agricultural land, and grassland. Construction of the sendout 

pipeline and associated aboveground facilities would temporarily disturb a total of 254.6 acres, 

of which 138.2 would be permanently maintained as right-of-way. The construction right-ofway would partially overlap an existing EMEC electric transmission line right-of-way for 

approximately 9.5 miles, and an existing M&NE pipeline right-of-way for approximately 

2.5 miles. Pending negotiations with EMEC, the permanent right-of-way may also partially 

overlap the existing transmission line right-of-way. The sendout pipeline route would avoid the 

Moosehorn NWR and the Gardner Wildlife Sanctuary. Pipeline installation would cross a 

network of ATV trails; however, the use of these trails would not be affected by construction or 

operation.

Downeast originally identified 19 residences within 50 feet of the permanent right-of-way for the 

sendout pipeline and filed site-specific plans, which were included in the draft EIS. After

issuance of the draft EIS, Downeast filed revised site-specific plans which are included in 

Appendix P of this final EIS. Downeast incorporated those revisions into its proposed route, and 

subsequently, only two residences would be approximately 50 feet from the construction rightof-way. In the draft EIS, we specifically requested landowner comments on the residential sitespecific plans. We have not received any landowner comments about these plans.

LNG vessels transiting to the LNG terminal would pass by developed areas in Eastport, Maine 

and St. Andrews, New Brunswick, and scattered seasonal and permanent residences along the 

route. The LNG marine traffic route would pass in close proximity to Gleason Point Park, Frost 

Island, an unnamed island in Perry, Carlow Island/Moose Island Scenic Area, Shackford Head 

State Park, Sumac Island, an unnamed island in Eastport, and Quoddy Head State Park in Lubec. 

No federal parks occur in the transit route. The shoreland and offshore waters of Mill Cove 

receive light recreational use for clamming, lobstering, boating, and fishing. Other recreational 

areas in the vicinity of the terminal include two scenic turnouts along U.S. Route 1. 

As part of its WSR, the Coast Guard has recommended the establishment of comprehensive 

safety and security zones around LNG marine vessels during transit up Head Harbour Passage, 

Western Passage, and Passamaquoddy Bay for the protection of the LNG vessels, other 
5-15 5.0 – Conclusions and Recommendations

waterway users, and area residents. Moving combined safety and security zones around the 

LNG carrier, fixed security zones at the terminal, and one-way traffic could affect other 

commercial and recreational traffic using the waterway. These could cause temporary impacts 

on recreational boating and fishing, HMSC research vessels, and the tidal energy construction 

vessels while the LNG vessel is in transit or moored at the unloading facility. Because the vessel 

in transit security zone would move with the vessel, the impacts would be of short duration at 

any given point along the shipping route. In addition, recreational boating and fishing in the area 

is relatively light. Due to the limited time that nearby marine traffic could be interrupted, 

impacts on commercial marine activity, including fishing boats, whale watching vessels, and 

ferries, would be insignificant.

5.1.6.2 Visual

LNG marine vessels within the waterway could be viewed by motorists on U.S. Route 1 and 

other roads with views to Passamaquoddy Bay, and by tourists, boaters, hikers, and residents 

with sporadic views of the marine traffic route. Although the vessels would be large and highly 

visible, they would be viewed for only short durations in areas already used for shipping by 

tankers and commercial shipping vessels. 

Due to the forested rolling hills in the area of the LNG terminal, much of the onshore facility 

would be screened from areas to the north and south. The 30-foot-high outer vapor fence would 

be installed along the western site property boundary adjacent U.S. Route 1 and would be a 

prominent visual feature to vehicles driving along about a one-half mile length of the roadway. 

The Downeast LNG pier would be primarily visible from Trimble Mountain and along the coast, 

U.S. Route 1, Mill Cove and portions of Passamaquoddy Bay, the St. Croix River, St. Andrews, 

New Brunswick, and visitors to the interpretive center for the St. Croix Island International 

Historic Site in Canada. Portions of the outer vapor fence, storage facilities, and terminal would 

be viewed by four abutting residences, several residences on the north side of Mill Cove, and 

residences in the vicinity of the intersection of U.S. Route 1 and Ridge Road. To reduce the 

potential visual impact of the facility, Downeast has proposed to paint the storage tanks a neutral 

color and use equipment specifically designed to reduce off-site light spillage. In addition, we 

are recommending that Downeast develop a plan to reduce potential visual impacts from the 

outer vapor fence.

No designated visual resource areas would be affected by the pipeline. The impacts associated 

with construction of the pipeline would be short-term; the construction right-of-way would be 

restored to pre-existing conditions and the permanent right-of-way would be maintained in an 

herbaceous state. Approximately 12 miles of the sendout pipeline is adjacent to existing rightsof-way and in an area of sparse development; therefore, the permanent right-of-way would not 

be visible to many motorists or residents.

5.1.6.3 Coastal Zone Management

The proposed waterway for LNG marine traffic from Friar Roads to Mill Cove lies within the 

designated coastal zone management area. Both the LNG terminal and a portion of the sendout 

pipeline within the towns of Robbinston and Calais are within the designated coastal zone 

management area. Federal actions affecting Maine coastal resources require a consistency 

review to determine the project’s consistency with state and local environmental laws, 
5.0 – Conclusions and Recommendations 5-16

regulations, standards, and coastal policies. The Maine SPO coordinates the consistency review 

as necessary and serves as a single point of contact to receive requests for consistency reviews. 

Downeast submitted its request for consistency review in December 2006; it was withdrawn by 

Downeast in November 2007 and Downeast plans to resubmit its request following issuance of 

the final EIS. As part of the CZMA, the Maine Mandatory Shoreland Zoning Act requires that 

municipalities protect shoreland areas by adopting shoreland zoning maps and ordinances. The 

Town of Robbinston Planning Board granted a land use permit for the LNG terminal on 

February 16, 2006, under its Shoreland Zoning Ordinance and a Conditional Land Use Permit. 

The City of Calais determined that the sendout pipeline, as a regulated utility facility, would fall 

under zoning exemptions within its shoreland district. Downeast filed an application for a 

Permit by Rule under the NRPA and an application under the Site Location of Development Law 

with the Maine DEP in December 2006, which were withdrawn by Downeast along with other 

State permit applications on November 11, 2007, and it would resubmit these applications 

following issuance of the final EIS. To ensure consistency with the CZMA, we are 

recommending that Downeast file the Maine Department of Agriculture consistency 

determination prior to construction of the project.

5.1.7 Socioeconomics

The proposed project would result in some benefits to the project area, as it would provide small 

increases in population to an area that has declined in population over past decades, improve

employment and training opportunities for local residents, increase personal income, and provide 

an improved tax base with increases in local revenues. There may be short-term adverse impacts 

on local public safety and other services during the construction phase, but these impacts would 

be localized and insignificant. Long-term adverse impacts would be negligible. Environmental 

justice impacts would be beneficial.

Most impacts would occur in Washington County, although adjacent counties and other areas 

may furnish a portion of the labor for the project construction, and could also benefit from 

purchases of equipment and supplies. Impacts would likely be concentrated in the eastern 

portion of Washington County, in the vicinity of the LNG facilities and pipeline.

Along the Downeast LNG transit route are small towns such as Eastport, Lubec, Perry, and 

Robbinston, Maine, the Pleasant Point Reservation, and Campobello Island, West Isles, 

Pennfield, and St. Andrews, New Brunswick, Canada. These towns would not be significantly 

affected by normal LNG marine vessel operations.

Commercial marine traffic and other economic activity along the waterway could be affected by 

the passage of the LNG vessels. Impacts on commercial vessels could result from the safety and 

security zones around the LNG vessel during transit. In certain locations, vessels could 

experience delays; however, some vessels may be allowed to transit through the LNG vessel 

security zones with the specific permission of the COTP, determined on a case-by-case basis. 

Downeast has developed a comprehensive compensation plan to address any potential loss of 

fishing equipment or income as a result of unavoidable impacts by Downeast LNG vessels. 

Downeast consulted with the Cobscook Bay Fishermen’s Association, the Fundy North 

Fishermen’s Association, and other sources to update this Fishermen Communication, 

Coordination, and Compensation Plan to reduce and/or mitigate any adverse impacts on 
5-17 5.0 – Conclusions and Recommendations

commercial fishing from the project. To ensure that appropriate compensation and mitigation 

planning measures are developed, we are recommending that Downeast continue to consult with 

the Maine DMR and appropriate representatives of the local lobster fishery to finalize its 

Fishermen Communication, Coordination and Compensation Plan and file the plan prior to 

construction of the Downeast LNG terminal. Downeast has negotiated an agreement with the 

Mill Cove herring weir owner for compensation in the event of any loss that may result from the 

operations of the LNG facilities. 

The Town of Robbinston and Downeast finalized a “Host Community Benefits Agreement” that 

specifically outlines a number of commitments by Downeast if the project is developed. These 

commitments, outlined early in the project development phase, serve to ensure that project 

benefits are shared with the people of Robbinston and that certain Downeast obligations and 

services are documented in a legally binding document. 

5.1.8 Transportation

5.1.8.1 Onshore Traffic

A project-specific traffic capacity analysis in the area of Robbinston, Maine was performed by 

Downeast to evaluate future roadway levels of service with the addition of construction and 

facility operation traffic. Traffic impacts associated with construction of the LNG terminal were 

estimated for both material delivery and worker transportation. Limited traffic delays could 

occur at pipeline roadway crossing locations. The traffic analysis concluded that the site 

driveway, U.S. Route 1, and Ridge Road would operate with acceptable levels of service, given 

the predicted traffic increases from project construction and operation. Downeast has agreed to 

implement traffic mitigation measures to minimize impacts, including the use of flaggers, daily 

roadway cleaning, the construction of turning lanes at the facility entrance, roadway striping and 

signage, and the prohibition of employee parking on U.S. Route 1. Finally, Downeast would 

consult with the Maine DOT and the local transportation departments of affected communities 

regarding the need for improvements that might be identified and deemed necessary in the 

future.

5.1.8.2 Marine Traffic

Downeast has indicated that construction materials would be delivered by land, via U.S. Route 1. 

Marine traffic associated with construction of the terminal would be minimal and limited to the 

arrival and departure of construction barges and tugs. With coordination and advance notice 

regarding the construction barges, impacts on fishing vessels, ferries, and other marine traffic 

would be minimal. 

During operations, Downeast estimates one LNG marine vessel every five to seven days in the 

winter and one vessel every eight to ten days in the summer, approximately 60 vessels per year. 

A typical transit, from the time an LNG vessel would enter Head Harbour Passage to the time it 

would reach the proposed Downeast LNG terminal, would take approximately 2.5 to 3.5 hours; 

however, the time it would take for an LNG vessel (traveling at an estimated speed of 10 knots) 

to pass any given point would correspond to about 18 minutes. LNG vessels would follow a 

circuitous route through both U.S. and Canadian waters, virtually the same route as currently 

used by all deep-draft vessels servicing Passamaquoddy Bay port areas, including the ports of 

Bayside, New Brunswick, and Eastport, Maine. These ports receive on average an estimated 
5.0 – Conclusions and Recommendations 5-18

125 deep-draft vessel arrivals per year. The Downeast LNG Project would therefore result in a 

roughly 50 percent increase in anticipated deep-draft vessel traffic. Coordination with the Coast 

Guard and other waterway and port authorities in the area, and advance notice of the arrival and 

departure of LNG tankers, along with the implementation of vessel traffic management practices 

recommended by the Coast Guard’s WSR, would reduce impacts on other marine traffic, both 

commercial and recreational, to an insignificant level.

5.1.9 Cultural Resources

In its January 25, 2007 letter to Downeast’s cultural resources consultant, the SHPO found that 

the LNG vessel transit, in and of itself, is not likely to affect aboveground or archaeological 

resources. We concur. 

Downeast conducted a marine archaeological survey of 57 acres offshore adjacent to its 

proposed LNG terminal, covering the proposed pier and berthing area. This survey found no 

evidence of submerged cultural resources. However, four historic-era fish weirs were recorded 

by onshore historic archaeological surveys. Downeast’s consultant recommended that these 

resources should be considered not eligible for the NRHP, requiring no further work. Onshore 

archaeological and architectural surveys did not identify any other resources within the terminal 

APE. Downeast believes that the LNG terminal would have no adverse visual impacts on the 

Saint Croix Island International Historic Site in Bayside, New Brunswick, about 5.2 miles 

northwest. We and the SHPO agree that no historic properties would be affected within the APE 

for the proposed LNG terminal. 

Downeast documented archaeological surveys of portions of the sendout pipeline route. These 

surveys recorded one prehistoric site and seven historic sites. All of these sites appear to be 

outside of the proposed pipeline construction right-of-way and would not be adversely impacted. 

Downeast also conducted an architectural survey that identified five historic complexes near the 

pipeline route recommended as eligible for the NRHP. However, the SHPO’s June 25, 2007 

review of the architectural survey report disagreed with those recommendations, and requested 

additional information. We defer our opinions until Downeast produces an architectural report 

acceptable to the SHPO.

In January 2008, Downeast advised the SHPO of the amended pipeline route and requested 

continued consultation on the project. The SHPO responded on January 31, 2008, requesting 

additional archaeological and architectural surveys covering the new pipeline route. The results 

of all cultural resources inventories, including the amended pipeline route and associated 

facilities, have not yet been filed with the Commission. We will defer making determinations of 

eligibility and effect until the entire APE for the pipeline is inventoried, and the SHPO has had 

the opportunity to comment on all reports, including a revised architectural survey report that 

addresses its previous concerns. Therefore, we are recommending that Downeast not begin 

construction and use of all proposed facilities until it files the remaining survey and evaluation 

reports, any required treatment plans, comments of the SHPO and appropriate Indian Tribes, and 

the Director of OEP notifies Downeast in writing that it may proceed with treatment or 

construction.

In a February 29, 2008 letter to the Commission, the BIA expressed concern that the project may 

have an impact on the cultural and religious interests of the Passamaquoddy Tribe. The 
5-19 5.0 – Conclusions and Recommendations

Passamaquoddy Tribe has raised a number of issues regarding potential project impacts on 

cultural sites or aboriginal fishing rights. The Tribe objected to the placement of the pipeline 

across islands within the St. Croix River. Downeast proposes to use an HDD to cross the St. 

Croix River and, in response to this comment, has amended the pipeline route to avoid 

encroaching on any designated Indian trust lands. Downeast has not yet resolved other issues 

raised by the Tribe. We are recommending that Downeast file documentation of continued 

consultations with the Passamaquoddy Tribe and other Native Americans interested in the 

project’s potential impacts on cultural resources and seek resolution of identified project-related 

impacts on archaeological sites, burials, existing historic properties, and sites of religious or 

cultural importance within the APE.

5.1.10 Air Quality and Noise 

5.1.10.1 Air Quality

Construction of the marine and land-based portions of the LNG terminal would be performed 

simultaneously. These construction activities would generate tailpipe emissions (due to fossil 

fuel combustion from equipment and vehicles) and fugitive emissions (ground and roadway 

dust). The worst case emissions for any given year of construction are estimated at 21.3 tpy of 

CO, 46.5 tpy of NOx, and 37.4 tpy of PM10. Although residents near the project may see an 

elevated level of fugitive dust, emissions due to construction activities would not have a 

significant impact on the regional air quality.

Estimated worst case annual emissions generated by construction of the sendout pipeline include 

116.7 tons of NOx, 6.1 tons of VOCs, and 16.0 tons of PM10. Anticipated emissions would be 

temporary and would move along with pipeline construction. Thus the emissions would not 

result in significant impacts on regional air quality.

Operation of the Downeast LNG terminal would generate air pollutant emissions from stationary 

combustion equipment, both onshore and offshore, and from LNG tankers and support vessels 

that travel to and from the facility. Operational emissions from the terminal and vessels are 

estimated to be 116.9 tpy of NOx, 66.9 tpy of CO, 18.8 tpy of VOC, 6.75 tpy of SO2, 4.37 tpy of 

PM10, and 4.07 tpy of PM2.5. Air quality impact modeling indicates that the impact of the 

Downeast LNG Project primary emissions would not result in a violation of the Class I or 

Class II NAAQS or the Maine AAQS. 

We also evaluated a visibility impact analysis done by Downeast for the Moosehorn Wilderness 

Area – Baring Unit, Moosehorn Wildernes Area-Edmunds Unit, Roosevelt-Campobello 

International Park Class I areas as well as St. Croix Island. We determined that the impact 

would be below visibility impact limits at all locations with the exception of the Moosehorn 

Wilderness Area – Baring Unit. Although slightly above the visibility limits, we determined that 

the actual operational impact would be less due to the fact that the model is highly conservative 

and only three SCVs would run at any given time instead of the four that were modeled.

Similarly, the sulfur and nitrogen deposition analysis done for the Class I areas and St. Croix 

Island identified that the Downeast LNG terminal would contribute to nitrogen and sulfur 

deposition levels in excess of the Class I limits. Thus the Downeast LNG terminal may 

contribute to a significant adverse affect on the Class I areas and St Croix Island.
5.0 – Conclusions and Recommendations 5-20

Because Downeast LNG has not refiled its PSD, or Title V permit with the state of Maine, we 

are including a recommendation that Downeast file the required state permits along with a 

demonstration that the impacts would not be greater than impacts identified in this EIS.

There would be no emisisons from the pipeline except figutive methane emissions which would 

not be significant.

In summary, the Downeast LNG terminal impact on air quality during operation would not be 

significant with the exception of potential significant deposition impacts to the Class I areas and 

St. Croix Island.

5.1.10.2 Noise

Noise would affect the local environment during both the construction and operation of the 

proposed Downeast LNG terminal. At any location, both the magnitude and frequency of noise 

associated with the project may vary considerably over the course of the day or throughout the 

week. Noise would be associated with a variety of different project-related activities including 

LNG marine traffic, construction, and operation of marine-based and land-based facilities, and 

construction of the sendout pipeline. Potential underwater noise impacts were also assessed for 

project construction and operation. 

Noise generated by LNG vessel traffic along the waterway from the territorial sea to the 

proposed LNG terminal would be similar to noise from other large ships currently using the 

waterway. Downeast prepared a noise assessment for four of the closest points of land along the 

route. The highest day-night sound level (Ldn) of 51 dBA was predicted for a nighttime transit 

past the east shore of Moose Island. Noise associated with the normal operation of the additional 

LNG vessels along the waterway would not cause a significant increase in noise impacts.

Noise produced during construction of the Downeast LNG terminal and associated pipeline 

could create short-term annoyances to some residences, and could have short-term impacts on 

some aquatic species, nesting birds, and other wildlife in the area. While the noise from standard 

onshore pile driving could result in high levels, or noise for an extended period of time that

would be significant, Downeast has commited to using a vibratory pile driver. This would 

reduce noise impacts below the level of interference with human speech intelligibility.

The sound generated by construction vessels is proportionate to ship size, speed, engine load and 

rpm with broadband source levels driven primarily by propeller cavitations, hydrodynamic flow 

over the hull and hull appendages, and operation of machinery onboard. Aside from tug 

operations, the primary sources of underwater noise during construction of the LNG terminal 

would be the installation of the steel pilings. Construction of the sendout pipeline is primarily 

land-based but would also rely on special techniques for crossing waterbodies, roads, railroads, 

and utilities such as the HDD method. Activities during the construction phase have the 

potential to cause noise impacts on the surrounding area. Noise associated with most 

construction equipment would be intermittent, and all major construction activity would be 

limited to daytime or daylight hours. Estimates provided by Downeast show that sound levels at

NSAs near some of the HDD sites would exceed 55 dBA. Where 24-hour drilling is necessary 

and Ldn sound levels at NSAs are expected to exceed 55 dBA, Downeast would reduce noise 

levels at the NSAs by implementing noise control measures. These mitigation measures would 

reduce sound levels from HDD operations up to levels ranging from 10 to 15 dBA. To ensure 
5-21 5.0 – Conclusions and Recommendations

that this mitigation is sufficient, we are recommending that prior to construction, Downeast file 

an HDD noise mitigation plan for our review and approval, monitor noise levels during drilling, 

and make all reasonable efforts to restrict noise to no more than an Ldn of 55 dBA at the NSAs.

Noise from operation of the LNG terminal facility has been estimated to be below the FERC 

limit of 55 dBA Ldn and should not create a significant noise impact at NSAs near the project

site. To determine actual noise from operation of the terminal, we are recommending that 

Downeast file a noise survey no later than 60 days after placing the terminal in service and install 

additional noise controls if necessary. At typical cruising speeds, source sound levels emitted by 

LNG vessels are dominated by propeller cavitation. Underwater noise associated with the pilot 

vessel would be expected to be negligible in comparison to that generated from the LNG marine 

vessel and assist tugs. The use of LNG vessel thrusters would be minimized when docking to the 

pier, due to the reliance on tugboats that would actively assist during docking. The buried 

sendout pipeline would not contribute to aboveground noise levels. Operational noise associated 

with the sendout pipeline would be limited to the immediate vicinity of the three mainline block 

valves, located at each end of the pipeline and at MP 17.2. Some minor noise may be heard 

immediately around the metering station.

To ensure that the noise impacts at NSAs near the meter station, located within the LNG terminal 

site, do not exceed 55 dBA Ldn, we are recommending that Downeast file a noise survey no later 

than 60 days after placing the LNG terminal and meter station in service. If the noise attributable 

to the operation of the LNG terminal and meter station at maximum flow exceeds an Ldn of 

55 dBA at any nearby NSA, Downeast should install additional noise controls to meet that level 

within one year of the in-service date. 

5.1.11 Reliability and Safety

We evaluated the safety of both the proposed LNG import terminal facility and the related LNG 

vessel transit through the Passamaquoddy Bay Waterway. As part of our evaluation, we 

performed a technical review of the preliminary engineering designs and conclude that sufficient 

layers of safeguards would be included in the facility designs to mitigate the potential for an 

incident that could impact the safety of the off-site public. DOT reviewed the data and 

methodology Downeast used to determine the design spills based on the flow from various 

leakage sources, including piping, containers, and equipment containing hazardous liquids. In a 

letter to FERC dated January 30, 2014, DOT stated it has no objection to Dowenast’s 

methodology for determining the candidate design spills used to establish the required siting for 

its proposed LNG import facility. Based on the hazard area calculations performed by 

Downeast, we conclude that potential hazards from the siting of the facility at this location would 

not have a significant impact on public safety

On January 6, 2009, the Coast Guard issued an LOR and made an assessment in its WSR 

(Appendix B) that the Passamaquoddy Bay Waterway is suitable for the type and frequency of 

marine traffic associated with the proposed Downeast LNG Project, provided that all of the risk 

mitigation measures outlined in section 4.6 of the WSR are implemented by the applicant to the 

satisfaction of the COTP. The risk mitigation measures in the WSR also provide that Downeast 

must determine and comply with all applicable Canadian laws and regulations applicable to the 

safe and secure navigation and the regulation of maritime traffic, that comply with customary 

international law. The Coast Guard has the authority to prohibit LNG transfer or LNG vessel 
5.0 – Conclusions and Recommendations 5-22

movements within U.S. waters if such action is necessary to protect the waterway, port or marine 

environment. If this project is approved and if appropriate resources are not in place prior to 

LNG vessel movement along the waterway, then the Coast Guard would consider at that time 

what, if any, vessel traffic and/or facility control measures would be appropriate to adequately 

address navigational safety and maritime security considerations. As a result, we are 

recommending that Downeast should receive written authorization from the Director of OEP 

before commencement of service at the LNG terminal. Such authorization would only be granted 

following a determination by the Coast Guard that appropriate measures to ensure the safety and 

security of the facility and the waterway have been put into place by Downeast or other 

appropriate parties. 

We are recommending that Downeast develop an Emergency Response Plan in consultation with 

the Coast Guard and state and local agencies. Necessary security measures would further be 

incorporated into a Transit Management Plan that would clearly spell out roles, responsibilities, 

and specific procedures for LNG marine traffic transiting to the terminal, as well as for all 

agencies involved in implementing security and safety during operations. We are also 

recommending that Downeast develop a Cost-Sharing Plan that identifies the mechanisms for 

funding all project-specific security/emergency management costs that would be imposed on 

state and local agencies.

The transportation of natural gas by pipeline involves some incremental risk to the public in the 

event of an accident and subsequent release of gas. The greatest hazard is a fire or explosion 

following a major pipeline rupture. The DOT is mandated to provide pipeline safety under Title 

49, U.S.C. Chapter 601. The natural gas pipeline and associated aboveground facilities proposed 

for the Downeast LNG Project must be designed, constructed, operated, and maintained in 

accordance with the DOT Minimum Federal Safety Standards in 49 CFR 192. The regulations 

are intended to ensure adequate protection for the public and to prevent natural gas facility 

accidents and failures. The sendout pipeline would be continuously monitored from a SCADA 

system at an operations control center. Downeast would prepare an Operations and Maintenance 

Procedures manual for the pipeline system that meets the requirements of section 192.605. The 

pipeline would be patrolled and inspected on the ground on a periodic basis per DOT 

requirements. Under section 192.615, Downeast would establish an emergency plan that 

includes procedures to minimize the hazards in a natural gas pipeline emergency.

The available data show that natural gas transmission pipelines continue to be a safe, reliable 

means of energy transportation. From 1993 to 2012, there were an average of 61 significant 

incidents, 6 injuries and 2 fatalities per year. The number of significant incidents over the more 

than 300,000 miles of natural gas transmission lines indicates that the risk is low for an incident 

at any given location. The operation of the project would represent a slight increase in risk to the 

nearby public.

5.1.12 Cumulative Impacts 

We considered a wide variety of projects and activities in the general area that, in concert with 

the proposed Downeast LNG Project, could result in cumulative impacts. We evaluated one 

other LNG project, one offshore gas project, two natural gas pipelines, four tidal energy projects, 

one road construction project, one border crossing facility, one aquaculture facility, one airport, 

one wind power project, and the Port of Eastport warehouse project.
5-23 5.0 – Conclusions and Recommendations

Construction of the Downeast LNG Project and some or all of the other project proposals in the 

area could cause construction related impacts, especially if they are constructed at the same time. 

Marine water quality could be affected from turbidity and potential spills. Marine fisheries and 

aquatic resources would be affected from disturbance of bottom habitats, increased turbidity, and 

noise. These impacts would be localized, short-term, and most likely not occur at the same time. 

Because the construction time periods and physical impact areas for these projects are not 

expected to overlap, cumulative impacts on marine fisheries and aquatic organisms during 

construction of the projects would be insignificant. During operation, the Downeast LNG 

Project, together with the other projects in the area, would contribute to increased ship traffic 

along the ship channel, and cumulative impacts on marine water quality from water withdrawals 

and discharges, installation of structures (ocean current generation modules), and impacts on 

marine fisheries and mammals. Downeast has attempted to minimize the area of permanent 

impact on marine habitat through terminal siting, design, and operational controls. It is expected 

that other projects would follow a similar approach to avoid, minimize, and mitigate for 

permanent impact on marine habitats during their respective regulatory review and approval 

processes.

The permanent conversion of forest land communities to an herbaceous community along the 

Downeast sendout pipeline in combination with other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable 

future projects, could fragment some wildlife habitats and degrade important wetland habitats. 

In most instances, cumulative effects of temporary wetlands impacts would be minimal because 

of the limited temporal and spatial overlap between the projects. Although the Downeast LNG 

Project and other projects would result in the degradation of some wildlife habitats, 

compensatory mitigation programs for each of these projects would likely be designed to provide 

a net benefit to the ecosystem. 

The Downeast LNG Project, together with the other projects in the area, would cumulatively 

benefit the local economy through job creation and wages, increased income in the region, 

purchases of goods and materials, and increased tax revenues. A further effect would be a small 

increase in the area’s population, which is considered a benefit given declining populations in 

recent decades. We recognize that the project could spur entrepreneurial innovation; however, 

we do not believe that the Downeast LNG Project would set a precedent for energy generation or 

industrialization in the area. Any new developments in the project area would require regulatory 

review to determine impacts, mitigation, and compensation. 

Most impacts associated with the proposed Downeast LNG Project would be relatively minor, 

and we have included recommendations in this EIS to further reduce the associated 

environmental impacts. Consequently, only a small cumulative effect is anticipated when the 

impacts of the proposed project are added to past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future 

projects in the area. 

5.1.13 Alternatives 

Alternative analyses were completed as part of FERC’s environmental review. Under the no 

action alternative, Downeast would not be able to provide additional natural gas supplies in order 

to help meet the increasing natural gas demand in New England. We conclude that neither 

conservation measures nor renewable energy sources are expected to replace or significantly 
5.0 – Conclusions and Recommendations 5-24

offset the demand for additional natural gas supplies in New England by the projected in-service 

date of the Downeast LNG Project. 

We evaluated system alternatives that would make use of other existing or previously but no 

longer proposed LNG import terminals or natural gas pipeline systems. Expansion of existing or 

previously proposed but cancelled onshore LNG facilities would require construction of new 

LNG storage and vaporization facilities, additional LNG vessel traffic, and new natural gas 

pipelines. Each of these alternatives would have an equal or greater environmental impact than 

the proposed Downeast LNG Project. The Cacouna and Rabaska Projects would not supply the 

U.S. northeast markets. The Deep Panuke Project would partially meet the objectives of the 

Downeast LNG Project, but would also have its own set of environmental impacts, primarily 

from the development of offshore production facilities, onshore receiving facilities, and 

associated pipelines. It is possible that some combination of two or more of the existing or 

previously proposed but cancelled LNG terminal projects, or future expansions of those projects, 

could serve as an alternative to the proposed Downeast LNG Project; however, such an 

alternative is speculative. Northeast Gateway and Neptune would have less environmental 

impact than the Downeast LNG Project; however, neither would provide LNG storage capacity. 

Furthermore, we recognize that market demand could justify construction of the Downeast LNG 

Project in addition to the existing Northeast Gateway Project and Neptune LNG Project. 

Existing natural gas pipeline systems in New England may not have the capacity to transport the 

additional volumes of natural gas proposed in this project. While an expansion of one or more of 

these systems could potentially provide the capacity for natural gas volumes proposed by 

Downeast, such expansions would not provide a source of imported natural gas and additional 

natural gas storage facilities. In addition, an expansion of one or more of these other pipeline 

systems would include their own set of environmental impacts. 

We evaluated alternative terminal sites, pier designs, and LNG vaporization technologies, none 

of which would provide significant environmental advantages over the proposed site. We also 

analyzed pipeline route alternatives and variations that may avoid or minimize environmental 

impact on specific sensitive areas or areas of concern. The proposed pipeline route no longer 

crosses the Moosehorn NWR and impacts on the Baileyville WPA would be minimized 

primarily through use of spill control practices. We have determined that the proposed sendout 

pipeline route, as modified throughout our review, is environmentally preferable to the identified 

alternatives.

We evaluated alternative LNG vessel designs that could reduce water usage. Vessels for the 

Northeast Gateway and Neptune offshore LNG projects include on-board regasification systems 

that are capable of a unique heat exchange and water use reduction. Because the proposed 

Downeast LNG terminal is designed for accepting and storing LNG in its liquid phase, the LNG 

vessels calling on the terminal would be standard LNG vessels designed for transport and 

offloading of LNG in liquid phase. These vessels would not include on-board regasification 

systems, and would not be capable of the unique heat exchange that is available for the on-board 

regasification ships. Therefore, the opportunities to accomplish similar water use reductions 

through LNG vessel design would not be available to the Downeast LNG Project.

Overall, the proposed project would result in fewer environmental impacts than any alternatives 

considered. This includes consideration of the project’s objectives, and the environmental 
5-25 5.0 – Conclusions and Recommendations

impacts associated with the location, and construction methods of the alternatives. In addition, 

we have included recommendations in this EIS that would modify the Downeast proposal to 

further reduce and avoid impacts. In summary, we have determined that Downeast’s proposed 

project, as modified by our recommended mitigation measures, is the preferred alternative that 

can meet the project objectives.

5.2 FERC STAFF’S RECOMMENDED MITIGATION

If the Commission authorizes the proposed Downeast LNG Project, we recommend that the 

following measures be included as specific conditions in the Commission’s Order. We believe 

these measures would further mitigate environmental impacts associated with construction and 

operation of the proposed project.

1. Downeast shall follow the construction procedures and mitigation measures described in 

its applications, supplemental filings (including responses to staff data requests), and as 

identified in the EIS unless modified by the Commission’s Order. Downeast must:

a. request any modification to these procedures, measures, or conditions in a filing with

the Secretary;

b. justify each modification relative to site-specific conditions;

c. explain how that modification provides an equal or greater level of environmental 

protection than the original measure; and

d. receive approval in writing from the Director of OEP before using that 

modification. 

2. For LNG facilities, the Director of OEP has delegated authority to take all steps 

necessary to ensure the protection of life, health, property, and the environment during 

construction and operation of the project. This authority shall include: 

a. stop-work authority and authority to cease operation; and

b. design and implementation of any additional measures deemed necessary to assure 

continued compliance with the intent of the conditions of the Order. 

3. For pipeline facilities, the Director of OEP has delegation authority to take whatever 

steps are necessary to ensure the protection of all environmental resources during 

construction and operation of the project. This authority shall allow:

a. modification of conditions of the Order; and

b. design and implementation of any additional measures deemed necessary (including 

stop-work authority) to ensure continued compliance with the intent of the 

environmental conditions as well as the avoidance or mitigation of adverse 

environmental impact resulting from project construction and operation. 

4. Prior to any construction, Downeast shall file an affirmative statement with the 

Secretary, certified by a senior company official, that all company personnel, EIs, and 

contractor personnel will be informed of the EI’s authority and have been or will be 

trained on the implementation of the environmental mitigation measures appropriate to 

their jobs before becoming involved with construction and restoration activities. 
5.0 – Conclusions and Recommendations 5-26

5. The authorized facility locations shall be as shown in the EIS, as supplemented by filed 

alignment sheets. As soon as they are available, and before the start of construction, 

Downeast shall file with the Secretary revised detailed survey alignment maps/sheets at a 

scale not smaller than 1:6,000 with station positions for all facilities approved by the 

Order. All requests for modifications of environmental conditions of the Order or sitespecific clearances must be written and must reference locations designated on these 

alignment maps/sheets. 

Downeast’s exercise of eminent domain authority granted under NGA section 7(h) in any 

condemnation proceedings related to the Order must be consistent with these authorized 

facilities and locations. Downeast’s right of eminent domain granted under NGA section 

7(h) does not authorize it to increase the size of its natural gas pipeline to accommodate 

future needs or to acquire a right-of-way for a pipeline to transport a commodity other 

than natural gas.

6. Downeast shall file with the Secretary detailed alignment maps/sheets and aerial 

photographs at a scale not smaller than 1:6,000 identifying all route realignments or 

facility relocations and staging areas, pipe storage and ware yards, new access roads, and 

other areas that would be used or disturbed and have not been previously identified in 

filings. Approval for each of these areas must be explicitly requested in writing. For 

each area, the request must include a description of the existing land use/cover type, and 

documentation of landowner approval, whether any cultural resources or federally-listed 

threatened or endangered species would be affected, and whether any other 

environmentally sensitive areas are within or abutting the area. All areas shall be clearly 

identified on the maps/sheets/aerial photographs. Each area must be approved in writing 

by the Director of OEP before construction in or near that area.

This requirement does not apply to extra workspaces allowed by FERC’s Plan or minor 

field realignments per landowner needs and requirements that do not affect other 

landowners or sensitive environmental areas such as wetlands.

Examples of alterations requiring approval include all route realignments and facility 

location changes resulting from: 

a. implementation of cultural resources mitigation measures; 

b. implementation of endangered, threatened, or special concern species mitigation 

measures; 

c. recommendations by state regulatory authorities; and

d. agreements with individual landowners that affect other landowners or could affect 

sensitive environmental areas.

7. At least 60 days before construction begins, Downeast shall file with the Secretary an 

Implementation Plan for review and written approval by the Director of OEP. Downeast 

must file revisions to the plan as schedules change. The plan shall identify:

a. how Downeast will implement the construction procedures and mitigation measures 

described in its application and supplements (including responses to staff data 

requests), identified in the EIS, and required by the Order;

b. how Downeast will incorporate these requirements into the contract bid documents, 

construction contracts (especially penalty clauses and specifications), and 
5-27 5.0 – Conclusions and Recommendations

construction drawings so that the mitigation required at each site is clear to onsite 

construction and inspection personnel;

c. the number of EIs assigned, and how the company will ensure that sufficient 

personnel are available to implement the environmental mitigation;

d. company personnel, including EIs and contractors, who will receive copies of the 

appropriate material;

e. the location and dates of the environmental compliance training and instructions 

Downeast will give to all personnel involved with construction and restoration (initial 

and refresher training as the project progresses and personnel change), with the 

opportunity for OEP staff to participate in the training session(s);

f. the company personnel (if known) and specific portion of Downeast’s organization 

having responsibility for compliance;

g. the procedures (including use of contract penalties) Downeast will follow if 

noncompliance occurs; and

h. for each discrete facility, a Gantt or PERT chart (or similar project scheduling 

diagram), and dates for:

(1) the completion of all required surveys and reports;

(2) the environmental compliance training of onsite personnel;

(3) the start of construction; and

(4) the start and completion of restoration. 

8. Downeast shall employ one or more EIs for the terminal site and each construction spread 

for the pipeline. The EIs shall be:

a. responsible for monitoring and ensuring compliance with all mitigation measures 

required by the Order and other grants, permits, certificates, or other authorizing 

documents;

b. responsible for evaluating the construction contractor’s implementation of the 

environmental mitigation measures required in the contract (see condition 7 above) 

and any other authorizing document;

c. empowered to order correction of acts that violate the environmental conditions of the 

Order, and any other authorizing document;

d. a full-time position, separate from all other activity inspectors;

e. responsible for documenting compliance with the environmental conditions of the 

Order, as well as any environmental conditions/permit requirements imposed by other 

federal, state, or local agencies; and

f. responsible for maintaining status reports. 

9. Beginning with the filing of its Implementation Plan, Downeast shall file updated status 

reports with the Secretary on a monthly basis for the terminal and a weekly basis for the 

pipeline until all construction and restoration activities are complete. On request, these 

status reports shall also be provided to other federal and state agencies with permitting 

responsibilities. Status reports shall include:

a. an update on Downeast’s efforts to obtain the necessary federal authorizations;

b. the construction status at the terminal site and of each spread of the pipeline, work 

planned for the following reporting period, and any schedule changes for stream 

crossings or work in environmentally sensitive areas;
5.0 – Conclusions and Recommendations 5-28

c. a listing of all problems encountered and each instance of noncompliance observed by 

the EI(s) during the reporting period (both for the conditions imposed by the 

Commission and any environmental conditions/permit requirements imposed by other 

federal, state, or local agencies);

d. a description of corrective actions implemented in response to all instances of 

noncompliance, and their cost;

e. the effectiveness of all corrective actions implemented;

f. a description of any landowner/resident complaints that may relate to compliance 

with the requirements of the Order, and the measures taken to satisfy their concerns; 

and

g. copies of any correspondence received by Downeast from other federal, state, or local 

permitting agencies concerning instances of noncompliance, and Downeast’s 

response. 

10. Prior to receiving written authorization from the Director of OEP to commence 

construction of any project facilities, Downeast shall file documentation that it has

received all applicable authorizations required under federal law (or evidence of waiver 

thereof).

11. Downeast must receive written authorization from the Director of OEP prior to 

introducing hazardous fluids into the terminal facilities. Instrumentation and 

controls, hazard detection, hazard control, and security components/systems necessary for 

the safe introduction of such fluids shall be installed and functional.

12. Downeast must receive written authorization from the Director of OEP before placing 

the terminal facilities into service. Such authorization will only be granted following a 

determination that the facilities have been constructed in accordance with FERC approval 

and applicable standards, can be expected to operate safely as designed, and the 

rehabilitation and restoration of the areas affected by the terminal are proceeding 

satisfactorily.

13. Downeast must receive written authorization from the Director of OEP before placing 

the pipeline into service. Such authorization will only be granted following a 

determination that rehabilitation and restoration of the right-of-way and other areas 

affected by the pipeline are proceeding satisfactorily.

14. Within 30 days of placing the authorized facilities in service, Downeast shall file an 

affirmative statement, certified by a senior company official:

a. that the facilities have been constructed in compliance with all applicable conditions,

and that continuing activities will be consistent with all applicable conditions; or

b. identifying which of the authorization or certificate conditions Downeast has 

complied with or will comply with. This statement shall also identify any areas 

affected by the project where compliance measures were not properly implemented, if 

not previously identified in filed status reports, and the reason for noncompliance. 

15. Downeast shall not begin construction of the pipeline from MP 17.7 to MP 27.2 until 

Downeast files with the Secretary, for review and written approval by the Director of 

OEP, updated alignment sheets, developed in coordination with EMEC, depicting the 

pipeline adjacent to the existing transmission line. EIS Section 2.2.2.1
5-29 5.0 – Conclusions and Recommendations

16. Downeast shall file the following information, stamped and sealed by the professional 

engineer-of-record, with the Secretary for review and written approval by the Director of 

OEP: 

a) structure and foundation design drawings and calculations of the LNG tanks and other 

LNG import terminal facilities; 

b) seismic specifications used in conjunction with the procuring equipment; and

c) quality control procedures that will be used for design and construction. EIS 

Section 4.1.4.1.1

In addition, Downeast shall file, in its Implementation Plan, the schedule for producing 

this information.

17. Prior to construction of the pipeline facilities, Downeast shall file with the Secretary 

the location by milepost of all private wells and springs within 150 feet of construction 

activities. Downeast shall conduct, with the well owner's permission, pre- and postconstruction monitoring of well yield and water quality for these wells. In the event a 

water well or system is damaged as a result of construction, Downeast shall arrange for a 

temporary source of potable water, if required, and provide for the repair of the well or 

replacement of the water supply. EIS Section 4.3.1.3

18. Within 30 days of placing the pipeline facilities in service, Downeast shall file a report 

with the Secretary discussing whether any complaints were received concerning well 

yield or water quality of the private wells and springs within 150 feet of construction 

activities and how each complaint was resolved. EIS Section 4.3.1.3 

19. Prior to the construction of the LNG terminal facilities, Downeast shall develop a 

Marine SPCC Plan to include procedures that would be implemented should spills of oil, 

gas, lubricants, or other hazardous materials occur during construction and operation of 

the marine terminal. In addition to addressing emergency spill response and cleanup 

procedures, this plan shall include a description of general spill prevention measures such 

as material handling practices, personnel training, and inspection. Downeast shall file the 

Marine SPCC Plan with the Secretary for review and written approval by the Director of 

OEP. EIS Section 4.3.2.1

20. Prior to construction of the LNG terminal facilities, Downeast shall file with the 

Secretary a final plan for the discharge of the excess SCV water, for the review and 

written approval of the Director of OEP. The discharge plan shall include discharge

location, rate and frequency of discharge, copies of applicable permit applications, and all 

measures to be used to mitigate environmental impacts at the discharge location. EIS 

Section 4.3.2.1

21. Prior to construction of the pipeline facilities, Downeast shall consult with NOAA 

Fisheries on the proposed St. Croix HDD plan and file with the Secretary copies of 

NOAA Fisheries comments on the St. Croix HDD plan. EIS Section 4.3.2.2

22. Downeast shall continue consultation with the COE, EPA, and the Maine DIFW and DEP 

to finalize its wetland mitigation and compensation plan. Downeast shall file the final 

plan with the Secretary, along with agency comments and applicable approvals, prior to 

construction of the pipeline or LNG terminal facilities. EIS Section 4.4.1.2
5.0 – Conclusions and Recommendations 5-30

23. Prior to construction of the LNG terminal facilities, Downeast shall conduct projectspecific eelgrass mapping within Mill Cove to determine the presence and extent of 

eelgrass within areas that could be affected by the Project within Mill Cove. Results of 

the eelgrass mapping shall be incorporated into compensatory mitigation planning, as 

needed. Downeast shall file the results of the eelgrass mapping, and any resulting 

mitigation plan for potential impacts on eelgrass, including records of consultation with 

Maine DMR and NOAA Fisheries regarding mitigation, with the Secretary for review 

and written approval by the Director of OEP. EIS Section 4.4.2.2

24. Downeast shall continue to consult with the FWS to determine if there are FWSrecommended seasonal or construction timing restrictions that Downeast could 

incorporate into its construction plan to minimize impacts of the sendout pipeline along 

the Moosehorn NWR boundaries. Prior to construction of the pipeline facilities, 

Downeast shall file with the Secretary copies of its correspondence with FWS and a 

description of the construction timing restrictions and/or mitigation measures it has 

agreed to implement along the Moosehorn NWR boundaries. EIS Section 4.5.1.3

25. Downeast shall continue to consult with the Maine DEP, DIFW, and BEP to finalize its 

DWA mitigation package. Prior to construction of the pipeline facilities, Downeast 

shall file with the Secretary the final DWA mitigation package and copies of the 

consulted agencies’ comments on the final package and applicable approvals. EIS 

Section 4.5.1.3

26. Downeast shall continue to consult with NOAA Fisheries, Maine DMR, other appropriate 

agencies, and appropriate representatives of the local lobster fishery to determine impacts 

on the local lobster population and any recommended mitigations to minimize impacts on 

lobster and lobster habitat during all proposed construction and operational activities at 

the LNG terminal. Prior to the start of construction of the LNG terminal facilities, 

Downeast shall file with the Secretary, for review and written approval by the Director of 

OEP, its final Fishermen Communication, Coordination and Compensation Plan, 

including copies of its correspondence with consulted agencies and a description of any 

mitigation measures it has agreed to implement. EIS Section 4.5.2.2

27. Downeast shall continue to consult with NOAA Fisheries, Maine DMR, and other 

appropriate agencies to determine any recommended seasonal or construction timing 

restrictions to minimize impacts on marine species and habitats during all proposed inwater work and pile driving activities at the LNG terminal. Prior to construction of the 

LNG terminal facilities, Downeast shall file with the Secretary copies of its final 

Prevention and Mitigation Manual, to include correspondence with consulted agencies 

and a description of any mitigation measures it has agreed to implement, including 

seasonal or construction timing restrictions. EIS Section 4.5.2.2

28. Downeast shall not begin construction until:

a. the FERC staff completes Endangered Species Act consultation with the FWS/NOAA 

Fisheries; and

b. Downeast has received written notification from the Director of OEP that

construction or use of mitigation may begin. EIS Section 4.6
5-31 5.0 – Conclusions and Recommendations

29. Prior to construction of the LNG terminal facilities, Downeast shall file with the 

Secretary for review and written approval by the Director of OEP a mitigation plan to 

reduce the visual impact of the proposed outer vapor fence. EIS Section 4.7.4.2

30. Prior to construction, Downeast shall file with the Secretary documentation of 

concurrence from the Maine Department of Agriculture that the project is consistent with 

the Maine CZMP. EIS Section 4.7.5.1

31. Prior to construction, Downeast shall file with the Secretary documentation of 

continued consultations with the Passamaquoddy Tribe, BIA, and other appropriate 

Indian tribes and Native Americans interested in the project’s potential impacts on 

cultural resources, including access to sites in Mill Cove, and seek resolution of identified 

project-related impacts on archaeological sites, burials, existing historic properties, and 

sites of religious or cultural importance within the APE. EIS Section 4.10.4

32. Downeast shall not begin construction of facilities and/or use of all staging, storage, or 

temporary work areas and new or to-be-improved access roads until:

a. Downeast files with the Secretary:

(1) remaining cultural resources survey report(s);

(2) site evaluation report(s) and avoidance or treatment plan(s), as required; and

(3) comments on the cultural resources reports and plans from the Maine SHPO, and 

interested Native Americans and Indian tribes.

b. the ACHP is afforded an opportunity to comment if historic properties would be 

adversely affected; and

c. the FERC staff reviews and the Director of OEP approves the cultural resources 

reports and plans, and notifies Downeast in writing that treatment measures 

(including archaeological data recovery) may be implemented and/or construction 

may proceed.

All materials filed with the Commission containing location, character, and ownership 

information about cultural resources must have the cover and any relevant pages therein 

clearly labeled in bold lettering: “CONTAINS PRIVILEGED INFORMATION – DO 

NOT RELEASE.” EIS Section 4.10.4

33. Prior to construction of the LNG terminal facilities, Downeast shall file with the 

Secretary a copy of its final air permit from the Maine DEP. The permitted emissions 

shall be consistent with the emissions of criteria pollutants, GHGs, and HAPs analyzed in 

the final EIS. EIS Section 4.11.1.3

34. Downeast shall file a full load noise survey with the Secretary no later than 60 days

after placing the Downeast LNG terminal and meter station into service. If a full 

load condition noise survey is not possible, Downeast shall file an interim survey at the 

maximum possible load within 60 days of placing the Downeast LNG terminal and 

meter station into service and file the full load survey results with the Secretary within 

6 months of the in-service date. If the noise attributable to the operation of all the 

equipment of the Downeast LNG terminal and meter station at full operation exceeds 

55 dBA Ldn at any nearby NSAs, Downeast shall install additional noise controls to meet 

the level within 1 year of the in-service date. Downeast shall confirm compliance with 
5.0 – Conclusions and Recommendations 5-32

this requirement by filing a second full load noise survey with the Secretary no later 

than 60 days after it installs the additional noise controls. EIS Section 4.11.2.3.3

35. Prior to construction of the pipeline facilities, Downeast shall file with the Secretary, 

for the review and written approval by the Director of OEP, an HDD noise mitigation 

plan for HDDs R-09-15, C-34-224, C-32-135, C-29-147, C-24-03, BP-06-03, and BP-14-

15. The plan shall identify mitigation measures designed to reduce the noise impacts on 

the NSAs from HDD activities. During drilling operations, Downeast shall implement 

the approved plan, monitor noise levels, and make all reasonable efforts to restrict the 

noise attributable to the drilling operations to no more than an Ldn of 55 dBA at the 

NSAs. EIS Section 4.11.2.4.1

36. Downeast shall file in its weekly pipeline construction status reports the following for 

HDD operations that last more than 10 days:

a. the HDD entry point noise measurements from the nearest NSA, obtained at the start 

of drilling operations;

b. the noise mitigation that Downeast implemented prior to the start of drilling 

operations; and

c. any additional mitigation measures that Downeast would implement if the initial 

noise measurements exceeded an Ldn of 55 dBA at the nearest NSA. EIS 

Section 4.11.2.4.1

Recommendations 37 through 112 shall be applied to the Downeast LNG terminal. 

Information pertaining to these specific recommendations shall be filed with the Secretary 

for review and written approval by the Director of OEP either: prior to initial site 

preparation; prior to construction of final design; prior to commissioning; prior to 

introduction of hazardous fluids; or prior to commencement of service, as indicated by 

each specific condition. Specific engineering, vulnerability, or detailed design information 

meeting the criteria specified in Order No. 683 (Docket No. RM06-24-000), including 

security information, shall be submitted as critical energy infrastructure information 

(CEII) pursuant to 18 CFR 388.112. See CEII Order No. 683, 71 Fed. Reg. 58,273 (October 

3, 2006), FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶31,228 (2006). Information pertaining to items such as: 

offsite emergency response; procedures for public notification and evacuation; and 

construction and operating reporting requirements will be subject to public disclosure. All 

information shall be filed a minimum of 30 days before approval to proceed is requested.

37. Prior to initial site preparation, Downeast shall file the quality assurance and quality 

control procedures for construction activities. EIS Section 4.12.3

38. Prior to initial site preparation, Downeast shall include a plot plan of the final design 

showing all major equipment, structures, buildings, and impoundment systems. EIS 

Section 4.12.3

39. Prior to initial site preparation, Downeast shall file an overall project schedule. EIS 

Section 4.12.3

40. Prior to initial site preparation, Downeast shall provide procedures for controlling 

access during construction. EIS Section 4.12.3
5-33 5.0 – Conclusions and Recommendations

41. Prior to initial site preparation, Downeast shall file a complete specification of the 

proposed LNG tank design and installation. EIS Section 4.12.3

42. Prior to initial site preparation, Downeast shall file drawings of the storage tank piping 

support structure and support of horizontal piping at grade including pump columns, 

relief valves, pipe penetrations, instrumentation, and appurtenances. EIS Section 4.12.3

43. Prior to initial site preparation, Downeast shall file complete plan drawings of the 

security fencing and of facility access and egress, including the details of the fence and 

control access and egress from the pipe trestle and dock. EIS Section 4.12.3

44. Prior to initial site preparation, Downeast shall file certification that all trees would be 

removed from the area between the vapor fences and the shoreline. Alternatively, 

Downeast may demonstrate that the spacing of the trees, and any vegetation management 

plan, would prevent congested areas that could produce offsite overpressures above 1 psi. 

EIS Section 4.12.5

45. Downeast shall develop an Emergency Response Plan (including evacuation) and 

coordinate procedures with the Coast Guard; state/provincial, county, and local 

emergency planning groups; fire departments; state and local law enforcement; and 

appropriate federal/tribal agencies. This plan shall include at a minimum:

a. designated contacts with tribal, state and local emergency response agencies; 

b. scalable procedures for the prompt notification of appropriate local officials and 

emergency response agencies based on the level and severity of potential incidents; 

c. procedures for notifying residents and recreational users within areas of potential 

hazard; 

d. evacuation routes/methods for residents and public use areas that are within any 

transient hazard areas along the route of the LNG marine transit; 

e. locations of permanent sirens and other warning devices; and 

f. an “emergency coordinator” on each LNG vessel to activate sirens and other warning 

devices. 

The Emergency Response Plan shall be filed with the Secretary for review and written 

approval by the Director of OEP prior to initial site preparation. Downeast shall notify 

the FERC staff of all planning meetings in advance and shall report progress on the 

development of its Emergency Response Plan at 3-month intervals. EIS Section 4.12.8 

46. The Emergency Response Plan shall include a Cost-Sharing Plan identifying the 

mechanisms for funding all project-specific security/emergency management costs that 

would be imposed on tribal, state and local agencies. In addition to the funding of direct 

transit-related security/emergency management costs, this comprehensive plan shall

include funding mechanisms for the capital costs associated with any necessary 

security/emergency management equipment and personnel base. The Cost-Sharing Plan 

shall be filed with the Secretary for review and written approval by the Director of OEP 

prior to initial site preparation. EIS Section 4.12.8 

47. The final design shall provide information/revisions related to those responses in 

Downeast’s April 10, 2007 filing that state that corrections or modifications would be 
5.0 – Conclusions and Recommendations 5-34

made to the design. The final design shall specifically address response numbers 2, 8, 10, 

13, 15, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, 31, 33, 34, 38, 51, 54, 56, 59, 61, and 70 using management 

of change procedures. EIS Section 4.12.3 

48. The final design shall include certification that the facility has been modified to be 

consistent with the wind speed requirements of 49 CFR § 193.2067 or that DOT has 

approved the use of a lower wind speed as allowed by § 193.2067(b). Downeast shall

consult with DOT on any actions necessary to demonstrate compliance with Part 193. 

EIS Section 4.12.3 

49. The final design shall provide change logs that list and explain any changes made from 

the Front-End Engineering Design provided in Downeast’s application and filings. A list

of all changes with an explanation for the design alteration shall be provided and all 

changes shall be clearly indicated on all diagrams and drawings. EIS Section 4.12.3

50. The final design shall provide an equipment list, process and mechanical data sheets, and 

specifications. EIS Section 4.12.3

51. The final design shall include spill containment system drawings with dimensions and 

slopes of curbing, trenches, and impoundments. EIS Section 4.12.3

52. The final design shall include electrical area classification drawings. EIS Section 4.12.3

53. The final design shall include the sizing basis and capacity for the final design of 

pressure and vacuum relief valves for major process equipment, vessels, storage tanks, 

and vent stacks. EIS Section 4.12.3

54. The final design shall provide the procedures for pressure/leak tests which address the 

requirements of ASME VIII and ASME B31.3, as required by 49 CFR 193. EIS 

Section 4.12.3

55. The final design shall include up-to-date Process Flow Diagrams (PFDs) and Piping and 

Instrumentation Diagrams (P&IDs). The PFDs shall include heat and material balances. 

The P&IDs shall include the following information:

a. equipment tag number, name, size, duty, capacity, and design conditions;

b. equipment insulation type and thickness;

c. storage tank pipe penetration size or nozzle schedule;

d. piping with line number, piping class specification, size, and insulation type and 

thickness;

e. piping specification breaks and insulation limits;

f. all control and manual valves numbered;

g. valve high pressure side and internal and external vent locations;

h. relief valves with set points; and

i. drawing revision number and date. EIS Section 4.12.3

56. The final design shall include an updated fire protection evaluation carried out in 

accordance with the requirements of NFPA 59A 2001, chapter 9.1.2 as required by 49 

CFR 193. A copy of the evaluation, a list of recommendations and supporting 
5-35 5.0 – Conclusions and Recommendations

justifications, and actions taken on the recommendations shall be filed. The fire 

protection evaluation shall address measures on the prevention of caustic water from 

entering the firewater tank. EIS Section 4.12.3

57. The final design shall include complete drawings and a list of the hazard detection 

equipment. Drawings shall clearly show the location and elevation of all detection 

equipment. The list shall include the instrument tag number, type and location, alarm 

indication locations, set points, and shutdown functions of the proposed hazard detection 

equipment. EIS Section 4.12.3

58. The final design shall provide a technical review of its proposed facility design that:

a. identifies all combustion/ventilation air intake equipment and the distances to any 

possible hydrocarbon release (LNG, flammable refrigerants, flammable liquids and 

flammable gases); and

b. demonstrates that these areas are adequately covered by hazard detection devices and 

indicates how these devices would isolate or shut down any combustion equipment 

whose continued operation could add to or sustain an emergency. EIS Section 4.12.3

59. The final design shall provide drawings and a list of the fixed and wheeled dry-chemical, 

hand-held fire extinguishers, and other hazard control equipment. Drawings shall clearly 

show the location by tag number of all fixed, wheeled, and hand-held extinguishers. The 

list shall include the equipment tag number, type, capacity, equipment covered, discharge 

flow rate, and automatic and manual remote signals initiating discharge of the units. EIS 

Section 4.12.3

60. The final design shall provide facility plans and drawings showing the location of the 

firewater and any foam systems. Drawings shall clearly show: firewater and foam piping; 

post indicator valves; and the location, and area covered by, each monitor, hydrant, water 

curtain, deluge system, foam system, sprinkler system, and water mist system. The 

drawings shall also include piping and instrumentation diagrams of the firewater and 

foam systems. EIS Section 4.12.3

61. The final design shall specify that the design pressure of sendout equipment containing 

LNG in low pressure service shall be not less than the design pressure of the piping 

system. EIS Section 4.12.3

62. The final design shall specify that LNG relief valves and LNG drains shall not discharge 

into the vapor system. EIS Section 4.12.3

63. The final design shall specify that LNG from relief valves and drains is to be returned to 

storage. EIS Section 4.12.3

64. The final design shall include provision for vehicle access roads to and from the north 

and south of the LNG pump and vaporizer area. EIS Section 4.12.3

65. The final design of the vapor return system shall include provisions for the addition of 

LNG transfer pumps to the Jetty Drum D-103. The vapor inlet piping to the drum shall be 
5.0 – Conclusions and Recommendations 5-36

designed to ensure that all LNG, from the desuperheater and LNG piping discharging to 

the drum, cannot back flow to the vapor return piping. EIS Section 4.12.3

66. The final design shall include provisions for the future installation of LNG pumps for the 

boil-off gas (BOG) drum. EIS Section 4.12.3

67. The final design shall specify that the vapor inlet piping to the BOG drum shall be 

designed to ensure that all LNG, from the desuperheater and LNG piping discharging to 

the drum, cannot back flow to the vapor return piping. EIS Section 4.12.3

68. The final design shall specify that the Low Point Drain Drum is to be equipped to 

remove residual liquids without personnel accessing the spill containment sump. EIS 

Section 4.12.3

69. The final design of the Low Point Drain Drum shall include a pressure relief system, to 

protect the vessel in the event of isolation. EIS Section 4.12.3

70. The final design of the boil-off condenser system shall include a relief valve between the 

vapor inlet check valve and the fail-closed LNG outlet control valve. EIS Section 4.12.3

71. The final design shall include provisions to recycle the boil-off compressor discharge to 

upstream of the BOG drum desuperheater. EIS Section 4.12.3

72. The final design shall include car-seal or locked closed bypass valves around the intank 

pump ESD2 discharge valves as opposed to minimum stop set points for ESD2 valves, 

for cooldown of the 20-inch diameter header and piping. EIS Section 4.12.3

73. The final design shall include a shutoff valve at the suction and discharge of each high 

pressure pump. EIS Section 4.12.3

74. The final design shall specify that the minimum flow recycle line from the high pressure 

LNG pumps to downstream of the isolation valve to the LNG storage tanks shall be the 

same pressure and temperature rating as the piping at the discharge of the high pressure 

LNG pumps. EIS Section 4.12.3

75. The final design shall include a relief valve or operated vent valve sized for thermal 

relief at the discharge of each vaporizer, upstream of the isolation valves. This relief 

valve is in addition to the relief valve specified in NFPA 59A (2001 ed.) Section 5.4.1 

and should be set at a lower pressure. EIS Section 4.12.3

76. The final design shall include LNG tank fill flow measurement with high flow alarm.

EIS Section 4.12.3

77. The final design shall include a discretionary vent valve for each LNG tank, operable 

through the Distributed Control System (DCS). EIS Section 4.12.3

78. The final design shall include BOG flow and temperature measurement for each tank.

EIS Section 4.12.3
5-37 5.0 – Conclusions and Recommendations

79. The final design shall specify that all emergency shutdown (ESD) valves are to be 

equipped with open and closed position switches connected to the DCS/Safety 

Instrumented System (SIS). EIS Section 4.12.3

80. The final design shall include a clean agent system in the power distribution building.

EIS Section 4.12.3

81. The final design shall include an analysis of the structural integrity of the outer 

containment of the full containment storage tanks when exposed to a roof tank top fire or 

adjacent tank top fire. EIS Section 4.12.3

82. The final design shall specify that all drains from high pressure LNG systems are to be 

equipped with double isolation and bleed valves. EIS Section 4.12.3

83. The final design shall specify that for hazardous fluids, branch piping, and piping nipples 

less than 2 inches are to be no less than Schedule 160. EIS Section 4.12.3

84. The final design shall specify that piping and equipment that may be cooled with liquid 

nitrogen is to be designed for liquid nitrogen temperatures, with regard to allowable 

movement and stresses. EIS Section 4.12.3

85. The final design shall include details of the shut-down logic, including cause and effect 

matrices for the process instrumentation, hazard detection system, and emergency 

shutdown system for alarms and shutdowns, including set points and voting logic. EIS 

Section 4.12.3

86. The final design shall include emergency shutdown of equipment and systems activated 

by hazard detection devices for flammable gas, fire, and cryogenic spills, when 

applicable. EIS Section 4.12.3

87. The final design shall include drawings and details of how process seals or isolations 

installed at the interface between a flammable fluid system and an electrical conduit or 

wiring system meet the requirements of NFPA 59A. EIS Section 4.12.3

88. The final design shall provide an air gap or vent installed downstream of process seals or 

isolations installed at the interface between a flammable fluid system and an electrical 

conduit or wiring system. Each air gap shall vent to a safe location and be equipped with 

a leak detection device that: shall continuously monitor for the presence of a flammable 

fluid; shall alarm the hazardous condition; and shall shut down the appropriate systems.

EIS Section 4.12.3

89. The final design shall include a hazard and operability review of the completed design 

prior to issuing the P&IDs for construction. A copy of the review, a list of 

recommendations, and actions taken on the recommendations shall be filed. EIS Section 

4.12.3

90. The final design shall include provisions to install high pressure boil-off compression or 

BOG liquefaction in the event that sendout operation is curtailed, or ceased for a period 

in excess of thirty days. Details shall include plans and drawings of the BOG recovery 
5.0 – Conclusions and Recommendations 5-38

system and specifications of the equipment and compressors to be installed. EIS Section 

4.12.3

91. The final design shall include provisions to remove LNG from the inlet of the vaporizer 

due to shutdown sequence. EIS Section 4.12.3

92. The final design shall include a plan for clean-out, dry-out, purging, and tightness 

testing. This plan shall address the requirements of the American Gas Association’s 

Purging Principles and Practice required by 49 CFR 193, and shall provide justification if 

not using an inert or non-flammable gas for cleanout, dry-out, purging, and tightness 

testing. EIS Section 4.12.3

93. The final design shall include a vent stack dispersion analysis to determine the proper 

placement of hazard detection devices that ensures venting is done in a safe manner. EIS

Section 4.12.3

94. The final design shall specify that the vent stack be equipped with a discharge piece 

designed for ignited discharge conditions. EIS Section 4.12.3

95. The final designshall include certification that any modifications are consistent with the 

information provided to DOT as described in the design spill determination letter dated 

January 30, 2014 (Accession Number 20140203-4005). In the event that any 

modifications to the design alters the candidate design spills on which the Title 49 CFR 

Part 193 siting analysis was based, Downeast shall consult with DOT on any actions 

necessary to comply with Part 193. EIS Section 4.12.5

96. The final design shall include procedures to maintain and inspect the vapor barriers 

provided to meet the siting provisions of 49 CFR 193.2059. This information shall be 

filed a minimum of 30 days before approval to proceed is requested. EIS Section 4.12.5

97. The final design shall provide the following information: 

a. an evaluation that justifies the location of occupied buildings, including the main 

control building, administration building, and maintenance building, or a final design 

that relocates the occupied buildings or storage tank, so that the radiation from a 

storage tank roof top fire would be less than 10,000 Btu/ft2-hr at occupied buildings.

b. an evaluation that justifies the location of equipment that is critical to the safe 

shutdown and operation of emergency equipment, including the power distribution 

building transformers and emergency generator, or a final design that relocates the 

equipment or storage tank, so that the radiation from a storage tank roof top fire 

would be less than 10,000 Btu/ft2-hr at the these locations.

c. an evaluation that justifies the location of the vaporizers, high pressure pumps, and 

associated equipment, or a final design that relocates the equipment or impoundment, 

so that the radiation from a fire in the vaporizer spill impoundment would be less than 

3,000 Btu/ft2-hr at the vaporizer and high pressure pump equipment. EIS 

Section 4.12.5
5-39 5.0 – Conclusions and Recommendations

98. Prior to commissioning, Downeast shall file plans and detailed procedures for: testing 

the integrity of onsite mechanical installation; functional tests; introduction of hazardous 

fluids; operational tests; and placing the equipment into service. EIS Section 4.12.3

99. Prior to commissioning, Downeast shall provide a detailed schedule for commissioning 

through equipment startup. The schedule shall include milestones for all procedures and 

tests to be completed: prior to introduction of hazardous fluids, and during 

commissioning and startup. Downeast shall file documentation certifying that each of 

these milestones has been completed before authorization to commence the next phase of 

commissioning and startup will be issued. EIS Section 4.12.3

100. Prior to commissioning, Downeast shall file results of the LNG storage tank 

hydrostatic test and foundation settlement results. EIS Section 4.12.3

101. Prior to commissioning, Downeast shall tag all instrumentation and valves in the field, 

including drain valves, vent valves, main valves, and car-sealed or locked valves. EIS 

Section 4.12.3

102. Prior to commissioning, Downeast shall label equipment with equipment tag number 

and piping with fluid service and direction of flow in the field in addition to the pipe 

labeling requirements of NFPA 59A. EIS Section 4.12.3

103. Prior to commissioning, Downeast shall file the design details and procedures to 

record and to prevent the tank fill rate from exceeding the maximum fill rate specified 

by the tank designer. EIS Section 4.12.3

104. Prior to commissioning, Downeast shall file operation and maintenance procedures 

and manuals, as well as safety procedures. EIS Section 4.12.3

105. Prior to commissioning, Downeast shall maintain a detailed training log to 

demonstrate that operating staff has completed required training. EIS Section 4.12.3

106. Prior to introduction of hazardous fluids, Downeast shall file a cooldown plan. 

During cooldown, Downeast shall report progress on the development of cooldown in 

daily reports. EIS Section 4.12.3

107. Prior to introduction of hazardous fluids, Downeast shall complete all pertinent tests 

(Factory Acceptance Tests, Site Acceptance Tests, Site Integration Tests) associated 

with the Distributed Control System (DCS) and Safety Instrumented System (SIS) that 

demonstrates full functionality and operability of the system. EIS Section 4.12.3

108. Prior to introduction of hazardous fluids, Downeast shall complete a firewater pump 

acceptance test and firewater monitor and hydrant coverage test. The actual coverage 

area from each monitor and hydrant shall be shown on facility plot plan(s). EIS Section 

4.12.3

109. Prior to commencement of service, Downeast shall develop procedures for offsite 

contractors’ responsibilities, restrictions, and limitations and for supervision of these 

contractors by Downeast staff. EIS Section 4.12.3
5.0 – Conclusions and Recommendations 5-40

110. Prior to commencement of service, Downeast shall notify FERC staff of any proposed 

revisions to the security plan and physical security of the facility. EIS Section 4.12.3

111. Prior to commencement of service, Downeast shall file progress on construction of 

the LNG terminal in monthly reports. Details shall include a summary of activities, 

problems encountered, contractor non-conformance/deficiency logs, remedial actions 

taken, and current project schedule. Problems of significant magnitude shall be reported 

to the FERC within 24 hours. EIS Section 4.12.3

112. Downeast shall receive written authorization from the Director of OEP prior to 

commencement of service at the LNG terminal. Such authorization will only be 

granted following a determination by the Coast Guard, under its authorities under the 

Ports and Waterways Safety Act, the Magnuson Act, the Maritime Transportation 

Security Act of 2002, and the Safety and Accountability For Every Port Act, that 

appropriate measures to ensure the safety and security of the facility and the waterway 

have been put into place by Downeast or other appropriate parties. EIS Section 4.12.7.6 

Recommendations 113 through 116 shall apply throughout the life of the facility:

113. The facility shall be subject to regular FERC staff technical reviews and site inspections 

on at least an annual basis or more frequently as circumstances indicate. Prior to each 

FERC staff technical review and site inspection, Downeast shall respond to a specific 

data request including information relating to possible design and operating conditions 

that may have been imposed by other agencies or organizations. Up-to-date detailed 

piping and instrumentation diagrams reflecting facility modifications and provision of 

other pertinent information not included in the semi-annual reports described below, 

including facility events that have taken place since the previously submitted annual 

report, shall be submitted. EIS Section 4.12.3

114. Semi-annual operational reports shall be filed with the Secretary to identify changes in 

facility design and operating conditions, abnormal operating experiences, activities 

(including ship arrivals/departures, quantity and composition of imported and exported 

LNG, liquefied and vaporized quantities, boil-off/flash gas, etc.), and plant 

modifications including future plans and progress thereof. Abnormalities shall include, 

but not be limited to: unloading/loading shipping problems, potential hazardous 

conditions caused by off-site transportation, storage tank stratification or rollover, 

geysering, storage tank pressure excursions, cold spots on the storage tanks, storage 

tank vibrations and/or vibrations in associated cryogenic piping, storage tank settlement, 

significant equipment or instrumentation malfunctions or failures, nonscheduled 

maintenance or repair (and reasons therefore), relative movement of storage tank inner 

vessels, vapor or liquid releases, fires involving natural gas and/or from other sources, 

negative pressure (vacuum) within a storage tank and higher than predicted boil-off 

rates. Adverse weather conditions and the effect on the facility shall also be reported. 

Reports shall be submitted within 45 days after each period ending June 30 and 

December 31. In addition to the above items, a section entitled "Significant Plant 

Modifications Proposed for the Next 12 Months (dates)" shall also be included in the 

semiannual operational reports. Such information would provide the FERC staff with 
5-41 5.0 – Conclusions and Recommendations

early notice of anticipated future construction/maintenance projects at the LNG facility.

EIS Section 4.12.3

115. In the event the temperature of any region of any secondary containment, including 

imbedded pipe supports, becomes less than the minimum specified operating 

temperature for the material, the Commission shall be notified within 24 hours and 

procedures for corrective action shall be specified. EIS Section 4.12.3

116. Significant non-scheduled events, including safety-related incidents (e.g., LNG, 

refrigerant or natural gas releases, fires, explosions, mechanical failures, unusual over 

pressurization, and major injuries) and security related incidents (i.e., attempts to enter 

site, suspicious activities) shall be reported to FERC staff. In the event an abnormality is 

of significant magnitude to threaten public or employee safety, cause significant 

property damage, or interrupt service, notification shall be made immediately, without 

unduly interfering with any necessary or appropriate emergency repair, alarm, or other 

emergency procedure. In all instances, notification shall be made to FERC staff within 

24 hours. This notification practice shall be incorporated into the LNG facility's 

emergency plan. Examples of reportable LNG or refrigerant related incidents include:

a. fire; 

b. explosion;

c. estimated property damage of $50,000 or more;

d. death or personal injury necessitating in-patient hospitalization;

e. release of hazardous fluids for five minutes or more;

f. unintended movement or abnormal loading by environmental causes, such as an 

earthquake, landslide, or flood, that impairs the serviceability, structural integrity, or 

reliability of an LNG facility that contains, controls, or processes gas, refrigerants, 

or LNG;

g. any crack or other material defect that impairs the structural integrity or reliability 

of an LNG facility that contains, controls, or processes gas, refrigerants, or LNG;

h. any malfunction or operating error that causes the pressure of a pipeline or LNG 

facility that contains or processes gas, refrigerants, or LNG to rise above its 

maximum allowable operating pressure (or working pressure for LNG facilities) 

plus the build-up allowed for operation of pressure limiting or control devices;

i. a leak in an LNG facility that contains or processes gas, refrigerants, or LNG that 

constitutes an emergency;

j. inner tank leakage, ineffective insulation, or frost heave that impairs the structural 

integrity of an LNG storage tank;

k. any safety-related condition that could lead to an imminent hazard and cause (either 

directly or indirectly by remedial action of the operator), for purposes other than 

abandonment, a 20 percent reduction in operation of a pipeline or an LNG facility 

that contains or processes gas, refrigerants, or LNG;

l. safety-related incidents to LNG or refrigerant transportation occurring at or en route 

to and from the LNG facility; or 
5.0 – Conclusions and Recommendations 5-42

m. an event that is significant in the judgment of the operator and/or management even 

though it did not meet the above criteria or the guidelines set forth in an LNG 

facility’s incident management plan.

In the event of an incident, the Director of OEP has delegated authority to take whatever 

steps are necessary to ensure operational reliability and to protect human life, health, 

property or the environment, including authority to direct the LNG facility to cease 

operations. Following the initial company notification, FERC staff will determine the 

need for a separate follow-up report or follow-up in the upcoming semi-annual 

operational report. All company follow-up reports shall include investigations results and 

recommendations to minimize a reoccurrence of the incident. EIS Section 4.12.3