Appendix G 

Essential Fish Habitat Assessment 
DOWNEAST LNG PROJECT

Essential Fish Habitat Assessment 

April 2014 
i

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................................... i 

LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................................................... i 

LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................................................ ii 

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS .................................................................................................... iii 

1.0 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1

2.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION .............................................................. 3

2.1 LNG TERMINAL FACILITIES ............................................................................ 3

2.1.1 Proposed LNG Terminal Facilities ............................................................. 3

2.1.2 LNG Terminal Facilities Land Requirements............................................. 8

2.1.3 LNG Terminal Facilities Construction Procedures..................................... 9

2.1.4 LNG Terminal Operation and Maintenance Procedures .......................... 12

2.2 LNG VESSELS AND VESSEL TRANSITS ....................................................... 14

2.2.1 LNG Vessels ............................................................................................. 14

2.2.2 Waterway to LNG Terminal ..................................................................... 14

2.3 SENDOUT PIPELINE.......................................................................................... 16

2.3.1 Proposed Facilities .................................................................................... 16

2.3.2 Sendout Pipeline Land Requirements ....................................................... 16

2.3.3 Pipeline Construction Procedures ............................................................. 18

2.3.4 Pipeline Operation and Maintenance Procedures ..................................... 25

2.4 CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE .......................................................................... 26

2.5 ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE INSPECTION AND MITIGATION 

MONITORING ..................................................................................................... 26

2.6 FUTURE PLANS AND ABANDONMENT ....................................................... 27

3.0 IDENTIFICATION OF EFH IN THE ACTION AREA .................................................. 28

3.1 EFH SPECIES PROFILES ................................................................................... 30

4.0 POTENTIAL ADVERSE EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION ........................... 39

4.1 CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS ............................................................................. 39

4.2 OPERATION IMPACTS...................................................................................... 43

5.0 MITIGATION................................................................................................................... 52

6.0 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. 54

LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure 2-1 General Project Location Map ........................................................................... 4 

Figure 2-2 LNG Terminal Location Map ............................................................................ 5 

Figure 2-3 LNG Terminal Plot Plan .................................................................................... 6 

Figure 2-4 Waterway for LNG Marine Traffic .................................................................... 7 

Figure 3-1 Essential Fish Habitat Areas ............................................................................ 29 

Figure 3-2 Maine Eelgrass Beds ........................................................................................ 33 

Figure 3-3 Project Site Eelgrass Beds ................................................................................ 34 
ii

LIST OF TABLES 

Table 2.1.2-1 Summary of Land Requirements for the Proposed LNG Terminal 

Facilities ............................................................................................................ 9

Table 2.3.2.1-1 Summary of Land Requirements for the Proposed Pipeline Facilities ........... 17

Table 2.3.2.1-2 Where the Downeast Sendout Pipeline Would Parallel Existing Rightsof-Way ............................................................................................................ 18

Table 2.3.3.2-1 Waterbodies Crossed by the Proposed Pipeline .............................................. 23

Table 3-1 Essential Fish Habitat Designated by NEFMC for Species Identified as 

Occurring in the Waters of Passamaquoddy Bay, Maine, Eliminated 

from Further Consideration for the Downeast LNG Project .......................... 30

Table 3-2 Essential Fish Habitat Designated by NEFMC for Species Identified as 

Occurring or Having the Potential of Occurring Within the Downeast 

LNG Project Area ........................................................................................... 31

Table 4.2-1 Vessel Seawater Usage Impacts to Fish Eggs, Fish Larvae, and 

Zooplankton per Visit Based on Worst Case Densities .................................. 47

Table 4.2-2 Fire Suppression Seawater Usage Impacts to Fish Eggs, Fish Larvae, 

and Zooplankton per Visit Based on Worst Case Densities ........................... 49

Table 4.2-3 Temperature Ranges for Fish Species with EFH Designation in the 

Passamaquoddy Bay Area............................................................................... 51
iii

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 

API American Petroleum Institute 

BMPs Best Management Practices 

BOF TSS Bay of Fundy Traffic Separation Scheme 

BOG boil-off gas 

CFR Code of the Federal Regulations 

COE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

Commission or FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

CORMIX Cornell Mixing Zone Expert System 

DOT U.S. Department of Transportation 

Downeast Downeast LNG, Inc. and Downeast Pipeline, LLC collectively 

DPS Distinct Population Segment 

EFH essential fish habitat 

EI Environmental Inspector 

EIS Environmental Impact Statement 

EMEC Eastern Maine Electric Cooperative 

ESA Endangered Species Act 

FMC Fisheries Management Council 

FMP fisheries management plans 

gpm gallons per minute 

HAPC Habitat Areas of Particular Concern 

HDD horizontal directional drill 

LNG liquefied natural gas 

LOR Letter of Recommendation 

M&NE Maritimes and Northeast Pipeline L.L.C. 

Maine ASC Maine Atlantic Salmon Commission 

Maine DEP Maine Department of Environmental Protection 

Maine DIFW Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife 

Maine DMR Maine Department of Marine Resources 

Maine PDES Maine Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

MLLW mean lower low water 

MLV mainline valves 

MP milepost 

MRSA Maine Revised Statute Annotated 

MSA Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Management and Conservation Act 

MT Motor Tanker 

MTD Motor Tanker Diesel 

MTS Motor Tanker Steam 

NEFMC New England Fishery Management Council 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

NFPA National Fire Protection Association 

NOAA Fisheries National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine 

Fisheries Service 

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

Procedures FERC’s Wetland and Waterbody Construction and Mitigation 

Procedures

SCV submerged combustion vaporizer 
iv

SPCC Plan Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure Plan 

VTS Vessel Traffic Scheme 

WSR Waterway Suitability Report 
1

1.0 INTRODUCTION 

The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Management and Conservation Act (MSA), as amended by the 

Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-267), was established in order to promote 

conservation of marine fishery resources (shellfish and fish). This included the establishment of 

eight regional Fisheries Management Councils (FMCs) that develop fisheries management plans 

(FMPs) to properly manage fishery resources within their jurisdictional waters. The 1986 and 

1996 amendments to the MSA, renamed the Sustainable Fisheries Act, recognized that many 

fisheries are dependent on nearshore and estuarine habitats for at least part of their life cycles and 

included evaluation of habitat loss and protection of critical habitat. The marine environments 

important to marine fisheries are referred to as essential fish habitat (EFH) and are defined to 

include “those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth 

to maturity” (NOAA Fisheries 1998). Specifically, waters include aquatic areas and their 

associated physical, chemical, and biological properties; substrate includes sediment, hard 

bottom, and structures underlying the waters; necessary means the habitat required to support a 

sustainable fishery and the managed species contribution to a sustainable ecosystem; and 

spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity covers all habitat types utilized by a species 

throughout its life cycle (NOAA Fisheries 1998). The act also mandates National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries) to coordinate 

with other federal agencies (e.g., the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [FERC], U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers [COE], Coast Guard, etc.) to avoid, minimize, or otherwise offset 

effects on EFH that could result from proposed activities. 

To determine EFH, the regional FMCs map coastal littoral and continental shelf waters. 

Academic and government fisheries experts then review these data and the scientific literature to 

determine if these areas constitute EFH for federally managed species. Currently, the Northeast 

and Mid-Atlantic Regions (Maine to Virginia) have designated EFHs for 59 species. The 

Northeast Region also contains Habitat Areas of Particular Concern (HAPC) for Atlantic salmon 

and Atlantic Cod. 

The objectives of this EFH Assessment are to describe how the federal actions associated with 

the Downeast LNG Project may affect EFH designated by the NOAA Fisheries and New 

England Fishery Management Council (NEFMC). The required contents of an EFH Assessment 

are: a description of the proposed action (see section 2.0); an analysis of the potential adverse 

effects of that action on EFH and the managed species including those associated with the 

marine transit route, and the construction and operation of the terminal, pier, and onshore 

facilities1

 (see sections 3 and 4); the federal action agency’s conclusions regarding the effects of 

the action on EFH (see section 4); and proposed mitigation, if applicable (see section 5). 

In 2009, the FERC staff consolidated EFH consultations for the Downeast LNG Project with the 

interagency coordination procedures required under National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA) and the Endangered Species Act (ESA). On May 19 of that year, the FERC contacted 

 

1

 As discussed in the Project Description section, the Project also includes a natural gas pipeline. The only EFH 

species potentially affected by the proposed Pipeline is the Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar), which requires access to 

freshwater streams with specific physical characteristics for spawning and early life stages. Downeast LNG 

conducted detailed stream evaluations during August 2006 based on survey protocols established by the Maine 

Atlantic Salmon Commission. No potential Atlantic salmon spawning areas were identified during this survey that 

will be crossed by the Pipeline. Additionally, the stream reaches crossed by the proposed Pipeline corridor were not 

identified as suitable habitat for Atlantic salmon. 
2

NOAA Fisheries for the purposes of reviewing this project under NEPA. NOAA Fisheries 

provided recommendations to the FERC on June 25, 2009 regarding mitigation and EFH 

conservation for the project. NOAA Fisheries indicated that construction and operation of the 

proposed Downeast LNG Project would result in adverse effects to fishery resources and 

habitats. NOAA Fisheries recommended that seasonal work restrictions be developed in 

consultation with federal and state resource agencies, that measures be taken to reduce intake 

velocity to minimize egg and larval entrainment, and that site-specific HDD plans be developed. 

In addition, NOAA Fisheries recommend that a biological monitoring plan be presented and that 

a compensatory mitigation be provided to offset temporary and permanent impacts on fishery 

resources and habitats. We2

 have responded to each of these conservation recommendations in 

the sections below. 

 

2

 “We,” “us,” and “our” refer to the environmental staff of the Office of Energy Projects. 
3

2.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION 

Downeast would construct the LNG terminal in the Town of Robbinston, at the northeastern 

edge of Washington County, Maine (see figures 2-1 through 2-3). Downeast selected this 

location after an intensive regional site analysis evaluating 27 potential sites in Maine, 

Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut. The Downeast LNG Project site would be south 

of the confluence of Passamaquoddy Bay and the St. Croix River between the larger towns of 

Eastport/Perry and Calais, Maine. The LNG vessels would transit through Head Harbor Passage, 

Western Passage, and Passamaquoddy Bay to arrive at the proposed terminal (figure 2-4). The 

LNG terminal would be on the south side of Mill Cove within an approximate 80-acre parcel of 

private land that Downeast holds an option to purchase. Revaporized LNG would then be 

transported from the terminal through a single 30-inch-diameter natural gas pipeline which 

would stretch 29.8 miles to interconnect with the interstate gas pipeline system of Maritimes and 

Northeast Pipeline L.L.C. (M&NE) near M&NE’s Baileyville, Maine compressor station3

(figure 2-1). A non-jurisdictional electric transmission line and substation also would be 

constructed in association with the Downeast LNG Project. The following subsections describe 

the facilities, land requirements, construction, operations, and maintenance of the proposed LNG 

terminal and sendout pipeline. 

2.1 LNG TERMINAL FACILITIES 

2.1.1 Proposed LNG Terminal Facilities 

The LNG terminal facilities would consist of a vessel unloading facility (one vessel berth and 

unloading platform), two LNG storage tanks, vaporization and vapor handling system, vent 

system, hazard detection and response system, hazard control system, metering, and support 

buildings and piping structures. 

A preliminary site configuration and plot plan with trestle layout for LNG vessel offloading is 

shown in figure 2-3. 

The marine terminal for the unloading of LNG vessels consists of the following: 

 a 3,862-foot-long, 37-foot-wide pier with a single berth that would accommodate LNG 

vessels with cargo capacities ranging from 70,000 to 165,000 m3

; 

 four manifolded, articulated 16-inch-diameter stainless steel unloading arms, three for 

LNG delivery and one for vapor return line to the LNG ship; and 

 one 36-inch-diameter single walled stainless steel insulated transfer pipeline. 

 

3

 The most recent alignment sheets were filed with the FERC on March 11, 2010 and can be found on eLibrary 

(http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp) by referencing FERC Docket Nos. CP07-52-000, CP07-53-000, 

CP07-54-000, and CP07-55-000. 
4
5

Figure 2-2 

Downeast LNG Project 

LNG Terminal Location Map 
6

Figure 2-3 

Downeast LNG Project 

LNG Terminal Plot Plan 
7

 Figure 2-4 

Downeast LNG Project 

Waterway for LNG Marine Traffic 
8

The import terminal site would accommodate the LNG storage facilities, administrative 

buildings, access roads, and parking areas. The storage terminal consists of the following 

facilities: 

 two insulated LNG storage tanks, each with a nominal usable storage capacity of 

160,000 m3

; 

 two fully submerged low pressure transfer pumps to transfer the LNG from the storage 

tanks to the LNG sendout pumps; 

 boil-off gas (BOG) recovery system consisting of three BOG compressors, two vapor 

blowers, and direct contact re-condenser to re-liquefy the BOG; 

 four submerged combustion vaporizers (SCV) to re-vaporize LNG to natural gas; 

 electrical power distribution, including power substations and transformers; 

 ancillary terminal facilities, including control room, maintenance shop, warehouse, 

office, security, and safety systems; 

 measurement controls and natural gas metering facilities; and 

 a comprehensive hazard monitoring system incorporating flammable gas detectors, high 

and low temperature detectors, smoke detectors, and local emergency shutdown controls. 

2.1.2 LNG Terminal Facilities Land Requirements 

Construction and operation of the proposed LNG terminal would require about 47 acres of the 

80-acre parcel. Of the 47 acres required for construction and operation of the LNG terminal, 

approximately 9 acres of forested and scrub-shrub wetlands would be permanently altered by 

clearing, grading, and filling. The remaining 33 acres of the terminal site would remain 

undisturbed to maintain the site’s natural vegetation perimeter as well as a setback from the 

access roads and shoreline. Construction and operation of Downeast’s pier trestle and unloading 

platform would be constructed on 3.6 acres of submerged lands in Passamaquoddy Bay, based on 

the surface area of the pier, which are owned by the State of Maine. However, only 0.1 acre of 

submerged land (subtidal and intertidal wetlands) would be directly disturbed by the pilings. 

Table 2.1.2-1 summarizes the land requirements for the proposed LNG terminal. Access to the 

LNG terminal would be by way of U.S. Route 1. 

Several temporary facilities would also be required to support the construction effort. These 

include offices, sanitary facilities, warehouses, construction laydown areas, construction utilities, 

access roads, security infrastructure, and fencing. Off-site staging areas would be used for some 

fabrication, employee parking, and material/equipment storage. 

The primary laydown area would be within the disturbed area for the LNG terminal. As the 

construction progresses on the site, open areas available for construction laydown may become 

more limited and off-site areas would be used for the overflow if needed. The three off-site areas 

that would be used as overflow sites are previously disturbed by logging, construction laydown, 

acreage clearance, or open burning. Although additional acreage is available, the Downeast 

LNG Project would use only previously disturbed areas as potential construction laydown sites 

to avoid clearing. All affected landowners have agreed to the use of their land by the Downeast 

LNG Project and land lease negotiations have been completed. 
9

Table 2.1.2-1 

 Summary of Land Requirements for the Proposed LNG Terminal Facilities 

Facility/Use Land Affected During Construction 

(acres) 

Land Affected During Operation 

(acres) 

LNG Terminal

 Terminal land based facilities a/ 47.0 47.0 

 Pier trestle and unloading platform b/ 3.6 3.6 

Total 50.6 50.6 

a/ Includes sendout pipeline pig launching facility inside the terminal property. Does not include acreage for three off-site 

temporary pipeline and terminal laydown areas. These are included in section 2.3.2. 

b/ Only 0.1 acre of submerged land would be directly disturbed by the pilings.

2.1.3 LNG Terminal Facilities Construction Procedures 

Downeast would construct its LNG facilities in accordance with the FERC’s Upland Erosion 

Control, Revegetation and Maintenance Plan (Plan), Wetland and Waterbody Construction and 

Mitigation Procedures (Procedures) and M&NE’s Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Guidelines

(excluding appendices) used to construct the Phase II Pipeline Project in northeastern Maine. 

The FERC’s Plan and Procedures are available for viewing on the FERC Internet website at 

www.ferc.gov. The M&NE Guidelines are provided in appendix H of the Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS). Because Downeast has adopted the FERC Plan and Procedures, and the 

M&NE Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Guidelines, these documents will be hereafter 

referred to as Downeast’s Plan, Procedures, and Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Guidelines. 

Prior to construction, Downeast would prepare an Environmental Control Plan that would 

include its Plan and Procedures, and Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Guidelines as well as 

other applicable federal, state, and local requirements. 

To prepare the terminal site for construction, areas of the onshore facilities that would be 

disturbed by construction activities would be stabilized with temporary erosion controls, which 

would be maintained until construction is complete. 

The terminal site has sufficient space to allow all work to be done on-site but would require 

additional clearing which would reduce the buffer area around the site perimeter. In order to 

keep as much of the on-site vegetation as possible for use as a buffer (visual, noise, etc.), off-site 

areas that have been previously disturbed would be used for at least some of the fabrication and 

material/equipment storage for the site construction. 

The near-surface competent bedrock would preclude the need for deep foundations or extensive 

excavations. The cut/fill balance is expected to remain on-site. The only fill that may be 

required to be imported is structural stone for some of the foundations and possibly the on-site 

roads. 

Some of the larger materials needed for the LNG terminal would be delivered to the project site 

and constructed from working marine barges traveling from the Port of Bangor. All other 

required materials would be transported to the site via truck from Eastport, Maine. 
10

Following completion of the onshore construction activities, the site would be permanently 

stabilized and restored through a combination of graveling, covering, seeding and landscaping to 

prevent erosion in accordance with Downeast’s Plan, Procedures, and Soil Erosion and Sediment 

Control Guidelines, as well as any other federal (e.g., COE) or state mandates (e.g., Maine 

Department of Environmental Protection [Maine DEP]).

2.1.3.1 Berthing, Vessel Unloading, and Transfer Facilities 

The LNG pier trestle construction would be accomplished using a combination of “over the top” 

construction using land-based equipment working from the pier as it is constructed, and off-shore 

marine-based equipment. The “over the top” method uses a temporary (movable) construction 

steel frame, supported on the permanent pilings as they are installed, to support the crane in lieu 

of the permanent concrete beams and deck system. The crane would be moved along the pier as 

pilings are installed so that bottom impacts would be limited to the location of each piling. This 

construction method eliminates the use of barge-mounted equipment, which results in a 

substantial reduction of impacts on the seabed from anchoring and propeller wash. As the pier 

construction progresses into deeper water, the construction methodology would switch to 

marine-based equipment using a floating or jackup barge to install the remaining portion of the 

trestle and unloading platform. This construction method would minimize the use of bargemounted equipment, resulting in a substantial reduction of impacts on the seabed from anchoring 

and from propeller wash. 

Large diameter steel pipe piles would support the trestle and loading platform. Downeast would 

vibrate these piles to drive them through any surficial soils on the seabed to the top of the 

underlying rock where they would be seated into competent bedrock. The piles would be 

anchored into the bedrock using drilled rock sockets using rotary auger methods. Although the 

area of the pier itself would be 3.6 acres, the impact of the piles on submerged land would be 0.1 

acre. 

Downeast would construct the LNG mooring and breasting dolphins using floating or jackup 

marine-based equipment. The dolphins would either be multiple steel pipe piles supporting a 

large concrete cap, or a very large single steel-pipe type dolphin (monopile). These piles would 

be similarly driven through any surficial soils, if any, at the seabed until the top of rock is 

encountered, where it would then be seated and affixed to the rock using drilled rock sockets. 

A precast concrete form would be used to contain the cast-in-place concrete used for the 

remainder of the pile cap. Finally, Downeast would mount the fenders, mooring hooks and other 

topside equipment (railing, ladders, lights, etc.). 

Once the loading platform and breasting and mooring dolphins are in-place, Downeast would 

erect the fabricated steel truss walkways by marine equipment to interconnect the structures for 

personnel access and operations. 

Downeast would also incorporate the following into the design of the unloading platform: 

 a pier jetty control room providing control and monitoring capabilities remotely from the 

Main Control Room during vessel unloading operations; 

 a facility firefighting system extended to the unloading berth; 
11

 a gangway to allow access to/from the LNG vessel for customs and immigration officials, 

pilots, operations personnel (including unloading supervisor), and crew members; 

 gangways between the unloading platforms and berthing dolphins for use by line handlers 

during the berthing and unberthing of LNG vessels; and 

 an LNG spill trough beneath the unloading platform and LNG transfer pipe to route any 

LNG spills to the terminal’s LNG spill containment system. This would be designed in 

accordance with the requirements of National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 59A 

Section 5.2. 

The unloading platform and associated infrastructure include provisions to park a trailer at the 

pier head and to maintain a turnaround area for a small crane/truck or emergency vehicles. The 

trailer would be used to transport materials and equipment to/from the pier head for routine and 

corrective maintenance. Downeast would leave sufficient space for turnaround of a crane/truck 

if the trailer is left parked. Marine construction would be expected to take approximately 

16 months. 

2.1.3.2 LNG Storage and Vaporization Facilities 

Downeast would construct the two 160,000 m3

 full containment LNG storage tanks on a ground 

reinforced concrete slab foundation. The ground preparation for the installation of the LNG 

storage tank foundation would take approximately seven months. Once the ground is prepared, 

installation of the foundation would take approximately four months and the LNG storage tank 

would take an additional 20 months to complete. 

Construction of the LNG storage tank and foundation would include the following key activities: 

 prepare and level the area upon which the LNG storage tank and foundation would be 

located; 

 form and pour the concrete foundation. The tank base heating elements would be 

installed within the poured concrete; 

 construct the outer tank carbon steel liner, install the outer tank carbon steel bottom liner 

on the foundation, erect the outer tank carbon steel roof liner on the outer tank bottom 

and erect the inner tank suspended deck and connect to the steel roof; 

 raise the outer tank steel roof and suspended deck using an air lift procedure and weld to 

the top compression bar; 

 install the tank bottom insulation; 

 install the secondary tank and inner tank bottoms; 

 erect the inner tank shell; 

 construct the outer tank concrete walls; 

 install the outer tank concrete roof; 

 install and tension concrete wall pre-stress tendons; 

 install tank internal accessories, such as pump columns, bottom and top fill pipework, 

instrument wells, purge and cool-down pipework; 
12

 install tank external accessories, such as tank instrumentation, electrical equipment, 

pipework, roof platforms and access stairways; 

 hydrotest the inner tank and, once complete, air dry the tank; 

 final installation of the tank internal and annual space instrumentation; 

 install tank insulation (once tank is completely dry); 

 complete visual inspections and conduct final tank clean; 

 install in-tank LNG pumps; and 

 purge tank with nitrogen to a positive pressure and prepare for cool-down. 

Downeast would hydrostatically test the storage tanks in accordance with American Petroleum 

Institute (API) Standard 620, Appendix Q.8. API Standard 620 deals with the design and 

construction of large, welded, field-erected low-pressure carbon steel aboveground storage tanks 

(including flat-bottom tanks) with a single vertical axis of revolution, and Appendix Q.8 deals 

with low-pressure storage tanks for liquefied hydrocarbon gases at temperatures not lower than -

270°F. Downeast would fill the inner tank with approximately 28 million gallons of water. At 

the maximum level calculated, the water would be maintained for at least 48 hours for 

inspection. Downeast states that although a combination of sources may be used (water from the 

on-site deep well, water trucked in from a municipal or industrial supply, or Passamaquoddy Bay 

water), the principle source of test water would likely be from Passamaquoddy Bay. The tank 

would be filled and emptied as quickly as possible. After testing, the tank would be cleaned with 

fresh water and dried. Downeast would sample and analyze the water prior to discharge in 

accordance with Maine DEP requirements. If no chemicals or biocides are used in the 

hydrostatic test water, Maine DEP has indicated that a total suspended solids analysis would be 

the only analysis required. 

2.1.4 LNG Terminal Operation and Maintenance Procedures 

Procedures for the operation and maintenance of the import terminal would be developed to 

comply with the requirements of: 

 49 CFR 193, Subpart F – Operations and NFPA 59A Chapter 14 – Operating, 

Maintenance and Personnel Training; 

 49 CFR 193, Subpart G – Maintenance and NFPA 59A Chapter 14 – Operating, 

Maintenance and Personnel Training; and 

 49 CFR 193, Subpart J – Security and NFPA 59A Annex C – Security. 

Downeast would train all permanent terminal operations and maintenance personnel to be 

qualified to operate the LNG import terminal in accordance with the requirements of 49 CFR 

193, Subpart H – Personnel Qualifications and Training, and also NFPA 59A Chapter 14 – 

Operating, Maintenance and Personnel Training. 

Operation of the Downeast LNG Project would require several utility and auxiliary systems, such 

as electrical power distribution, potable and service water, sanitary sewer and water treatment, 

storm sewer and disposal, and waste/oily water collection and treatment. 
13

Downeast would operate the import terminal on a permanent 24 hour basis. LNG vessels would 

deliver LNG to a single unloading berth on the terminal’s pier (see description of LNG vessels in 

section 2.2). The berthing terminal would be where the water depth is approximately 50 feet 

mean lower low water (MLLW). The arrival/mooring/unloading/departure sequence would be 

completed in less than 24 hours. The frequency of unloading events would vary from an average 

of once every 10 days during summer operation to once every 5 to 7 days during winter 

operation. 

Upon arrival at the terminal, the ship would berth using a site-specific vessel approach system 

and secured with a mooring system equipped with a line monitoring system to continuously 

monitor tension of all mooring lines. The vessels would use onboard pumps to transfer the LNG 

at approximately -260°F through the unloading arms and insulated pipeline to the LNG storage 

tank. The marine terminal facility unloading system is designed to unload at a rate of 14,000 m3

per hour. 

LNG vessels would use water during unloading as ballast and to cool the engines generating 

power for the off-loading pumps and other onboard systems (e.g. hoteling). Although ballast 

water intake by the LNG vessel would occur during offloading of the LNG, no release of ballast 

water would occur within Passamaquoddy Bay. Any limited discharge of ballast water that 

should occur would be conducted in accordance with the Coast Guard’s mandatory ballast water 

management program (33 CFR 151). The water used for hoteling would consist of engine 

cooling water that would be discharged back to Passamaquoddy Bay. A 165,000-m3

 LNG vessel 

would require a maximum of 55.5 million gallons of water over a 21-hour period to support 

engine cooling while at the pier (a maximum average rate of 540 gallons per second). The 

cooling water discharge rate and location would vary by LNG vessel, but typically would be 

perpendicular to the hull (not directed downwards) and closer to the surface than bottom, such 

that bottom scour would not be a concern. Downeast’s Cornell Mixing Zone Expert System 

(CORMIX) modeling indicates that vessel engine cooling discharges would result in a maximum 

26-square meter plume of water that would dissipate to a change of temperature of 

approximately 1°C or less warmer than ambient conditions 15 to 30 meters from the discharge 

source (see EIS appendix O). 

During unloading, the newly added LNG would displace the vapor in the LNG storage tanks. 

This vapor would be returned to the vessel to maintain the pressure in the vessel’s tanks. 

Additional BOG would be generated due to the heat added by the vessel’s transfer pumps and the 

heat leaked into the tank and piping systems. Any BOG not returned to the vessel would be 

compressed by the BOG compressors and condensed in the BOG condenser. The Coast Guard 

does not permit routine venting of BOG to the atmosphere, thus they require LNG cargo systems 

used in U.S. waters be capable of maintaining the cargo for at least 21 days without exterior 

venting, intended to eliminate the need to vent flammable vapors while in U.S. ports. 

The SCVs would be used to re-vaporize the LNG to natural gas. In each SCV, natural gas would 

be fired in a burner, or series of burners, submerged in a water bath. The SCV units produce 

their own water during normal operation. Specifically, the SCV units would produce a total of 

up to 109 gallons per minute (gpm) of water on a continuous volumetric design basis when the 

terminal is operating at peak sendout. This equates to a 24-hour discharge of between 122,400 

and 156,960 gallons. During the vaporization process, this excess water would be acidic, but 

would not be contaminated with any foreign substances. Downeast would be required to 
14

neutralize the excess water by adding sodium hydroxide to the SCV water bath prior to its final 

discharge. This SCV generated water would be used in a number of ways, including firewater 

make-up, service water makeup, and other purposes involving resource recovery use. Downeast 

proposes to sell excess SCV water for offsite use to an independent party yet to be identified. 

Downeast states that it is in discussions with several such parties and is confident that a buyer for 

this water will be contracted. To ensure impacts are minimized in the event that the SCV water 

cannot be sold, we have recommended 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. 

For the very first use of vaporizers (i.e., prior to SCV system start-up), approximately 

20,200 gallons of water would be required to initialize the system. Water from the on-site wells, 

from commercial distributors, or a combination of both would provide the initial water volume 

for start-up of the SCVs. One supply well has been installed on-site and tested with a stable 

yield of 7.5 gpm. Existing supply wells on properties adjacent to the import terminal have yields 

in excess of 20 gpm. For major maintenance work requiring the water from an SCV unit to be 

drained, water from the in-service vaporizers would be used to fill empty vaporizer water baths. 

When not in vessel unloading mode, the in-tank column-mounted LNG pumps would circulate 

LNG through a small diameter circulation line to the pier and back through the unloading line 

and to the sendout area in order to keep these piping systems cold. In sendout/vaporization 

mode, LNG pressure is increased to pipeline send-out pressure by High Pressure LNG pumps, 

before being vaporized into natural gas. 

LNG would be pumped out of the LNG storage tank via in-tank, column mounted low pressure 

LNG sendout pumps. The LNG pressure is increased to pipeline sendout pressure by high 

pressure LNG pumps, before being vaporized into natural gas. Natural gas sendout would be 

routed by a gas pipeline distribution system to the M&NE pipeline system at the Baileyville 

Compressor Station for delivery to end users. Operation of the sendout pipeline is described in 

greater detail in section 2.3.4. 

2.2 LNG VESSELS AND VESSEL TRANSITS 

2.2.1 LNG Vessels 

LNG vessels calling on the terminal would consist of vessels ranging in size from 70,000 to 

165,000 m3

, with the potential for future vessels ranging up to 220,000 m3. Vessels with a 

145,000 m3 storage capacity have a length of approximately 950 feet, breadth of 162 feet, and a 

draft of 41 feet. Typical LNG vessels are double-hulled and have containment systems 

consisting of the cargo tank, the secondary barrier, and insulation. LNG vessel construction is 

highly regulated and consists of a combination of conventional vessel design and equipment, 

with specialized materials and systems designed to safely contain liquids stored at temperatures 

of -260 ̊F. 

2.2.2 Waterway to LNG Terminal 

The proposed terminal would receive LNG from up to 60 LNG vessels per year from 

liquefaction plants throughout the world (e.g., Trinidad, Nigeria, Qatar, Algeria, Oman, Abu 

Dhabi, and Libya). Local pilots would control LNG ships during the LNG marine transit to and 
15

from the terminal. The pilots would decide whether the current and wind conditions allow safe 

entry to the harbor. 

The Coast Guard assesses the suitability of the Head Harbor, Western Passage, and 

Passamaquoddy Bay Channels for LNG vessel traffic and must issue a Letter of 

Recommendation (LOR) for the operation of the proposed facility. In a letter to the FERC dated 

July 5, 2007, the Coast Guard identified additional information needed to complete and submit a 

Waterway Suitability Report (WSR). On January 6, 2009, the Coast Guard issued an LOR and 

made an assessment in its WSR that the Head Harbour Passage, Western Passage, and 

Passamaquoddy Bay Channels are suitable for the type and frequency of LNG vessels proposed 

for the Downeast LNG Project with implementation of the risk mitigation measures listed in 

section 4.6 of the WSR. In accordance with the WSR recommendations, the attending pilots 

would decide, in consultation with, and the concurrence of, the Coast Guard Captain of the Ports, 

whether the weather, current, visibility, and wind conditions allow safe entry to the harbor. 

Based on recommendations in the WSR, three to four assist tugs would escort LNG ships 

(depending on carrier size) to provide assistance in the unlikely event of a mechanical failure to 

the LNG ship or during adverse weather conditions, with one tug tethered at all times during the 

transit to the terminal. The WSR also recommends that authorized Coast Guard vessels escort 

the LNG carriers during transit. In addition, the WSR recommends that a standby tug be moored 

outboard of the berthed LNG vessel during its stay at the terminal. 

Upon entering the Gulf of Maine, the ships could potentially take two routes to the Pilot Station 

at Quoddy Head. One route is east of Grand Manan Island and follows the Vessel Traffic 

Scheme (VTS) as shown on nautical charts. The distance from the entrance of the Gulf of Maine 

to the pilot station along this route is 82 nautical miles. The second route, the Grand Manan 

Channel Route, is west of Grand Manan Island. There is no designated shipping lane along the 

western route; therefore, it is left up to the Captain to choose the route based on visibility, wind, 

tide cycle, and other such constraints. The western route from the Gulf of Maine entrance to the 

pilot station is 42 nautical miles. The waterway for LNG marine traffic is shown on figure 2-4. 

The Coast Guard’s WSR does not specifically authorize or approve one of the proposed routes. 

From the pilot station near Quoddy Head, the LNG vessels would enter the harbor via the Head 

Harbor Passage, Western Passage, and Passamaquoddy Bay. The LNG vessels would enter the 

Head Harbor Passage approximately 1.5 miles from Quoddy Head at the northern end of 

Campobello Island. From the entry point, the LNG vessels would travel approximately 

16.6 nautical miles along 13 different legs to the LNG terminal. The longest leg of the passage is 

in Passamaquoddy Bay and follows the United States and Canadian border. 

The existing depth of the channel from Quoddy Head to the terminal varies from a minimum of 

69 feet near Mill Cove to a maximum depth of 470 feet near Quoddy Head. Channel widths 

range between 2,600 and 13,700 feet. Water depth at the berthing terminal is approximately 

45 to 50 feet MLLW, with average tidal fluctuations of approximately 18 feet. Due to the water 

depth and vessel draft, the use of ship’s bow thrusters would be prohibited during low tide when 

approaching/departing the pier or while docked. The width of the channel near Mill Cove is 

approximately 6,080 feet which exceeds industry guidelines for turning an LNG vessel. 

Therefore, terminal operation would not require the dredging of a turning basin. 
16

LNG vessels typically travel at speeds up to 19.5 knots. However, a vessel transiting to the 

Downeast LNG terminal would not exceed 10 knots, beginning from Grand Manan Island to the 

LNG terminal facility, as is reasonable for the safe operation of the vessel and its crew. The 

speed restriction is consistent with the NOAA Fisheries final rulemaking in 50 CFR 224 that was 

implemented on December 8, 2008. This ruling requires vessels greater than 65 feet in overall 

length to reduce speeds to 10 knots or less when traveling through North Atlantic right whale 

habitats. These restrictions would be in effect in the Great South Channel area of the Atlantic 

Ocean from April 1 to July 31; near Race Point from March 1 to April 30; and Cape Cod Bay 

from January 1 to May 15. 

2.3 SENDOUT PIPELINE 

2.3.1 Proposed Facilities 

The pipeline facilities would consist of a 29.8-mile-long, 30-inch-diameter natural gas sendout 

pipeline, three mainline valves (MLV), a pig launcher and pig receiver4

, and natural gas metering 

facilities. The proposed pipeline route is depicted in figure 2-1 and EIS appendix E. Upon 

leaving the import terminal, the pipeline heads westward and proceeds north-northwest for 

11.6 miles to just south of Calais. This segment follows approximately the right-of-way of the 

old U.S. Route 1, which is now inactive. From south of Calais, the route turns west for 0.75 mile 

and then runs north for 0.5 mile to Magurrewock Mountain. The route then proceeds on the 

south side of Magurrewock Mountain and crosses U.S. Route 1. The sendout pipeline would be 

tunneled longitudinally under the St. Croix River using a staged horizontal directional drill 

(HDD). The alignment would parallel the Maine Central Railroad corridor along the St. Croix 

River for 0.5 mile, at which point the pipeline bears south away from the railroad corridor, turns 

southwest, and parallels U.S. Route 1 to another portion of the existing Eastern Maine Electric 

Cooperative (EMEC) electrical transmission corridor. The pipeline then follows the existing 

EMEC electrical transmission corridor until meeting the existing M&NE right-of-way which it 

parallels until it’s terminus at M&NE’s existing Baileyville Compressor Station. 

2.3.2 Sendout Pipeline Land Requirements 

Downeast’s construction of the proposed pipeline and related facilities would disturb about 267 

acres of land, including the construction right-of-way for the 30-inch-diameter sendout pipeline, 

additional temporary workspaces, pipeline and terminal laydown areas, pigging facilities, access 

roads, and MLVs. 

2.3.2.1 Sendout Pipeline Right-of-Way and Temporary Extra Workspace Requirements 

The sendout pipeline construction right-of-way would generally be 75 feet wide, with 50 feet of 

permanent right-of-way and an additional 25 feet of construction right-of-way/temporary 

workspace. Downeast would require site-specific locations where wider or narrower 

construction right-of-way depending on proposed construction techniques and environmental 

sensitivities. Generally, the construction working side of the right-of-way would be 45 feet wide 

and the side used for spoil storage would be 30 feet wide. Downeast would narrow its 

 

4

 A pipeline “pig” is a device used to clean or inspect the pipeline. A pig launcher/receiver is an aboveground 

facility where pigs are inserted or retrieved from the pipeline. 
17

construction right-of-way to between 55 to 65 feet-wide in limited site-specific locations, such as 

along residential areas, existing roadways, wetlands, and within 100 feet of streambanks. 

Table 2.3.2.1-1 summarizes the land requirements for the proposed pipeline facilities. 

Additional temporary workspace of varying dimensions, adjacent to the construction right-ofway, would be required at 141 locations, primarily at road crossings, waterbodies, and wetlands. 

Approximately 12 miles of the route for the sendout pipeline would be immediately adjacent to 

existing rights-of-way. Downeast is coordinating with EMEC on the use of their transmission 

line right-of-way for a portion of the sendout pipeline right-of-way. If feasible, where the 

Table 2.3.2.1-1 

 Summary of Land Requirements for the Proposed Pipeline Facilities 

Facility Land Affected During 

Construction (acres) 

Land Affected During 

Operation (acres) 

Pipeline 

Pipeline Right-of-Way 206.7 a/ b/ 131.1 b/ 

Additional Temporary Workspaces 11.5 0.0 

HDD Additional Temporary Extra Workspaces 7.2 0.0 

Terminal Construction and Pipeline Off-Site Laydown 

and Storage Areas 

27.5 0.0 

Access Roads 10.1 10.0 

Pipe Storage Area 3.4 0.0 

Subtotal 266.4 141.1 

Aboveground Facilities 

Valve Station 0.3 d/ 0.4 e/ 

Pigging Receiver c/ 0.5 0.3 

Subtotal 0.8 0.7 

Total f/ 267.2 141.8 

 

a/ Includes nominal 75-foot-wide construction right-of-way for the sendout pipeline. 

b/ This table excludes areas where HDD is being proposed because these areas would not be disturbed by construction or 

operation of the pipeline. 

c/ Acreage for the pig launching facility is included in the land requirements for the terminal in table 2.1.2-1. 

d/ The total area disturbed during the valve station construction would be 0.5 acre; however, 0.2 acre overlaps the pipeline rightof-way and is included in the pipeline right-of-way acreage. 

e/ This is the acreage outside the permanent pipeline right-of-way. 

f/ Rounding may result in slight differences in some calculations. 

pipeline would be directly adjacent to the existing right-of-way, the new pipeline would be offset 

about 5 to 10 feet from the outside edge of the existing utility right-of-way. The 50-foot-wide 

permanent pipeline right-of-way, as well as a portion of the construction right-of-way, would 

partially overlap the existing electric transmission line right-of way. 

EMEC would construct a new electric transmission line parallel to the sendout pipeline from 

milepost (MP) 0.2 to MP 11.6. The new transmission line would bring electric power from 

EMEC’s existing switchyard in Milltown to a new electric substation across from the Downeast 

LNG terminal. 
18

Table 2.3.2.1-2 

 Where the Downeast Sendout Pipeline Would Parallel Existing Rights-of-Way 

Mileposts Segment Length 

(miles) Existing Easement Direction from 

Existing Right-of-Way 

17.7-27.2 9.5 Existing EMEC Powerline Adjacent to the south side of the electric transmission line 

27.3-29.8 2.5 Existing M&NE Pipeline Adjacent to the south side of the pipeline 

2.3.2.2 Aboveground Facilities 

The sendout pipeline aboveground facilities that Downeast would construct include three MLVs 

and pigging and gas metering facilities. Table 2.3.2.1-1 lists the land requirements for these 

facilities along the sendout pipeline. The pig launching facility would be within the terminal site 

and require approximately 0.25 acre for both construction and operation. It is included in the 

47 acres of land associated with the terminal construction and operation. The MLV at MP 17.17 

would affect 0.3 acre of land outside the pipeline construction right-of-way during construction 

and 0.4 acre of land outside the pipeline permanent right-of-way during operation. The fenced 

valve station footprint would be 0.5 acre (which includes 0.2 acre of temporary pipeline right-ofway and 0.1 acre of permanent right-of-way). The pig receiving and gas metering facilities 

would be within the Baileyville Compressor Station property boundary at MP 29.8 and would 

require 0.5 acre for construction and 0.3 acre during operation. 

2.3.2.3 Access Roads and Contractor Yard 

Downeast would use its construction right-of-way for construction access for most of the 

pipeline route. Downeast would use four temporary access roads related to its proposed pipeline 

facilities (see table 2.3.2.1-1). Only the access road at MP 15.4 would be newly created and 

require clearing for a new road base. The remaining three construction access roads are existing 

skidder roads that were previously used for timbering activities; however, they would require 

upgrades prior to construction of the sendout pipeline. The width of the skidder roads are 

generally 15 to 25 feet, with numerous road segments exceeding 25 feet in width. The roads are 

compacted earth with a gravel surface and are raised above existing grade for positive drainage 

control. Downeast’s would replace and supplement the gravel surface that has degraded over 

time. Small, localized sections of the skidder roads would need to be widened, but the total area 

for all of the access roads that requires widening would be 1 to 2 acres. Downeast would require 

a total of about 10 acres for constructing and upgrading the access roads. After completion of 

pipeline construction, Downeast would leave the road improvements in place. 

Downeast has proposed three pipeline and terminal laydown areas, which would affect 

approximately 8 acres during the construction of the terminal and sendout pipeline 

(table 2.3.2.1-1). All three areas are previously disturbed by logging, construction laydown, 

clearing, or open burning. Following construction, Downeast would return these areas would to 

their pre-construction conditions. 

2.3.3 Pipeline Construction Procedures 

Downeast would construct its pipeline in compliance with applicable federal regulations and 

guidelines (e.g., U.S. Department of Transportation [DOT]), as well as state and local permit-
19

specific conditions (e.g., Maine State Department of Transportation, Robbinston Town Road 

Commissioner review, etc.). Typical construction drawings for the pipeline right-of-way, road 

crossings, wetland protection areas, waterbody crossings, etc. are included in section 2 of the 

EIS. Downeast would refine its plans during detailed pipeline engineering. Federal 

requirements and guidelines that apply to the pipeline project component include, but are not 

limited to: 

 its Plan; 

 its Procedures; 

 its Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Guidelines (excluding appendices) (see EIS 

appendix H); 

 49 CFR 192 – Transportation of Natural Gas and Other Gas by pipeline: Minimum 

Federal Safety Standards; and 

 18 CFR 380 – Guidelines to be Followed by Natural Gas pipeline Companies in the 

Planning, Clearing and Maintenance of right-of-ways and the Construction of 

Aboveground Facilities and Siting and Maintenance Requirements. 

2.3.3.1 General Pipeline Construction 

Standard pipeline construction proceeds in a manner of an outdoor assembly line composed of 

specific activities that make up the linear construction sequence. These operations collectively 

include survey and staking of the right-of-way, clearing and grading, trenching, pipe stringing 

and bending, welding and coating, lowering-in and backfilling, hydrostatic testing, and cleanup. 

In addition to standard pipeline construction, Downeast would use special construction 

techniques where warranted by site-specific conditions. These special techniques would be used 

when constructing across waterbodies, wetlands, and roads (see section 2.3.3.2 below). 

Staking and Flagging 

Downeast would map and flag all areas to be affected by pipeline construction in advance of 

actual construction activity. Important resource protection areas, such as stream crossings or 

wetlands, would be specifically marked and flagged as well as posted with signage. Prior to 

actual field work by the pipeline crews, the Environmental Inspector(s) (EIs) would guide the 

crew management personnel on a site-by-site review of the mapped and protected areas. The EIs 

would review construction restrictions and management methods designed to protect the 

specified areas with the pipeline crews to ensure understanding. 

Clearing and Grading 

Where necessary and unavoidable, Downeast would clear and rough-grade the right-of-way to 

specified widths Downeast would dispose of vegetative or other waste in accordance with 

applicable permit conditions. Erosion controls would be installed immediately after initial 

clearing and disturbing of an area’s surface soils. 

Trenching 

Downeast would determine the trench excavation widths and depths prior to the start of pipeline 

construction. Typically, excavation would be limited to allow for 3 feet of cover as required by 
20

49 CFR 192. Generally, the trench would be about 6 feet deep (for a minimum of 3 feet of cover 

over the pipe) and between 10 to 25 feet wide. Downeast would excavate the pipeline ditch with 

either a rotary trencher or track-mounted backhoe. 

Downeast would conduct topsoil segregation in accordance with its Plan, agency requirements, 

or landowner specifications to minimize the mixing of topsoil with subsoil. 

Pipestringing, Bending, and Welding 

Pipeline crews would “string” the pipe sections along the right-of-way. Side-booms or other 

suitable equipment would off-load the pipe sections from trucks and place them in the stringing 

area. The pipe sections would then be lined up end to end to allow for welding and bending into 

continuous lengths. Pipe welding would occur in accordance with API Standard No. 1104 (most 

current revision). Downeast would conduct quality assurance/quality control in accordance with 

49 CFR 192. 

Lowering-in/Backfill 

Downeast would lower coated and inspected pipe lengths into prepared trenches and cover with a 

soil material padding that acts as a buffer between the pipeline and the backfill. The remainder 

of the trench would be backfilled with suitable soil material. Ideally, the material that was 

excavated for the trench would be used as backfill. Where the material is not suitable as backfill, 

such as large rock, imported material would be used. The trench may be over-backfilled to allow 

for additional settlement over time. After installation of the pipe, Downeast would internally 

clean it of loose impediments that may have been left over from the installation process by using 

compressed air-driven manifolds. 

Hydrostatic Testing 

After cleaning and prior to service, Downeast would test the pipeline would in accordance with 

49 CFR 192. The test consists of placing the pipeline under hydrostatic pressure to verify its 

structural integrity for its design pressure load. If a leak or break in the pipeline were to occur 

during testing, Downeast would repair and retest that section of pipe until the DOT specifications 

are met. Approximately 6.1 million gallons of water would be required for hydrostatic testing of 

the entire 29.8-mile, 30-inch-diameter sendout pipeline. Downeast has stated it would test the 

sendout pipeline in more than one segment, allowing for reuse of some of the water and lowering 

the quantity needed. The length of the test segments would dictate the water volume needed. 

Downeast has identified the Baileyville Utility District as the source of hydrostatic test water 

through a direct connection to the fire hydrant system. Downeast would discharge the 

hydrostatic test water to an unnamed creek at MP 17.5 or to the Baileyville Utility District sewer 

system at a rate of 1,400 to 2,800 gpm. The Maine DEP must permit the discharge of hydrostatic 

test water used to test the integrity of oil and gas facilities in Maine. In addition, hydrostatic test 

waters that fall under the jurisdiction of the Maine DEP and that would be discharged into waters 

of the state would require a permit under the Maine Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

(Maine PDES), as regulated by the Clean Water Act. Downeast must also obtain the appropriate 

Section 401 and 404 Water Quality Certifications prior to discharge of hydrostatic test water into 

surface waterbodies. 
21

Cleanup and Restoration 

Following backfill, Downeast would final-grade and restore all work areas to pre-construction 

contours, as closely as possible, and collect all construction debris along the right-of-way. 

Downeast would install permanent erosion control structures, such as slope breakers, during final 

grading, in accordance with its Plan, Procedures, and Soil Erosion and Sediment Control 

Guidelines. Downeast would restore the work areas within one week after the trench has been 

backfilled and graded. In addition, restoration of wetlands would be conducted in accordance 

with any COE permit conditions. Downeast would restore or repair any private property damage 

from construction, such as fences, field roads, and driveways, as necessary. 

Downeast would revegetate disturbed areas using native seed mixtures in accordance with 

recommendations of the local office of the Natural Resources Conservation Service or as 

requested by the landowner. Downeast would monitor all construction work areas for the 

success of revegetation and restoration. Downeast would conduct inspections after: (1) initial 

placement of regrading, stabilization, and reseeding; (2) at the beginning and latter parts of the 

first full growing season; and (3) during the second growing season. Restoration and 

revegetation success evaluations would be based on predetermined criteria established with the 

various agencies and expressed as conditions in relevant permits and approvals. 

2.3.3.2 Special Construction Techniques 

Special construction techniques would be used when work is required in and around waterbodies, 

wetlands, roads and utilities, agricultural land and residences, and in areas where rock blasting 

may be required. 

Wetlands and Waterbodies 

Downeast’s surveys indicate that 39.1 acres of wetlands would be affected by construction of the 

proposed project. Permanent or operational impacts would affect 23.3 acres of wetlands5

. This 

acreage may be reduced during final routing design to avoid or minimize the extent of wetland 

crossings. To minimize impacts on wetlands, Downeast would follow its Plan, Procedures, and 

Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Guidelines and minimize the amount of time that 

constructing in wetland areas. Areas with wetland soils that are inundated or saturated to the 

surface would be excavated from wooden swamp mats to minimize the disturbance of wetland 

soils. In wetlands that have firm substrates or are unsaturated, Downeast would segregate the top 

12 inches of wetland soil over the trenchline by piling it in a ridge adjacent to the pipeline trench. 

Leaving gaps in the spoil piles at appropriate intervals would ensure circulation and drainage of 

water. Downeast would assemble the pipeline in upland staging areas that are outside of the 

right-of-way. 

In accordance with Downeast’s Procedures, it would locate wetland construction staging areas 

least 50 feet or more from the wetland edge. If the setbacks are not possible due to construction 

limitations, Downeast would request a variance from its Procedures and Soil Erosion and 

Sediment Control Guidelines. 

 

5

 These acreage impacts include the Downeast LNG terminal, sendout pipeline, access roads, and aboveground 

facilities. 
22

Typically, the additional temporary work area for wetland crossings would be 25 feet wide by 

200 feet long. However, work areas would only rely on the minimal size required for staging 

and accessing stockpiled soils and equipment. Larger workspaces may be required for large 

wetland crossings. Downeast would maintain vegetative buffers between the work areas and the 

wetland during construction. 

Downeast would protect water quality while working in wetlands and other waterbodies by: 

 keeping construction materials, fuels, etc., 100 feet or more from of any stream or 

wetland system, except under limited, highly controlled circumstances; 

 refueling construction equipment in upland areas 100 feet or more from any stream or 

wetland system, except under limited, highly controlled circumstances; and 

 washing construction equipment outside of any wetland or waterbody. 

The proposed LNG terminal would impact one waterbody and the sendout pipeline would cross 

22 waterbodies. Downeast would cross streams and rivers as quickly as possible to minimize 

structural or water quality impacts. Table 2.3.3.2-1 indicates Downeast’s proposed pipeline 

installation method for each of the waterbody crossings. The construction methods and 

associated information listed are subject to change based on specific field conditions, easement 

agreements, and permit conditions. Downeast would cross most streams using conventional 

backhoe-type equipment and dry, open-trench methodology. The dam-and-pump method is a 

dry-crossing technique that uses pumps to isolate water from the construction work area. This 

method is Downeast’s preferred waterbody crossing technique. Downeast would cross 9 of the 

22 waterbodies using the HDD crossing method. Downeast would conduct preconstruction 

geotechnical evaluations to ensure that HDD drilling operations as proposed are feasible. 

Downeast has also stated that it would prepare and submit site-specific HDD crossing and 

contingency plans prior to construction. We believe that such plans are a necessary component 

for completing an HDD with the least environmental impact. The HDD method involves boring 

a pilot hole beneath the waterbody to the opposite bank and then enlarging the hole with one or 

more passes of a reamer until the hole is the necessary diameter. A prefabricated pipe segment is 

then pulled through the hole to complete the crossing. A successful HDD generally results in no 

impact on the waterbody being crossed. For this reason, HDD is a preferred crossing method for 

major waterbodies, especially those that are sensitive or where there are sensitive environmental 

issues. HDD is not technically feasible in some types of geologic environments such as glacial 

till, and it requires larger staging areas than other stream crossing methods. 

In the event that an HDD is unsuccessful and the HDD crossing has to be abandoned, Downeast 

would fill the HDD pilot hole with an environmentally safe fluid (typically a mixture of 

bentonite clay and water) that would match the consistency of the surrounding subsurface. 

Downeast has indicated that as a final contingency, it would install the pipeline at an alternate 

location that would avoid a crossing of the St. Croix River. 

 
23

Table 2.3.3.2-1 

 Waterbodies Crossed by the Proposed Pipeline 

Town MP Waterbody 

State Water 

Quality 

Classification a/

Waterbody 

Width/Crossing 

Length 

(linear ft) b/ 

Crossing 

Method 

Stream 

Type 

Fishery 

Type c/ 

Robbinston 0.8 Eastern Stream B 25 / 25 Dam and Pump Perennial Cold-water 

Robbinston 2.0 Unnamed stream B 4 / 4 Dam and Pump Intermittent Warm-water 

Robbinston 4.3 Unnamed stream 

(outlet of Keene Lake) 

B 9 /1,165 HDD Perennial Cold-water 

Calais 6.7 Flowed Land Ponds B 12 / 141 HDD Perennial Cold-water 

Calais 7.7 Unnamed stream (inlet 

to Flowed Land Ponds) 

A 7 / 7 Dam and Pump Perennial Cold-water 

Calais 8.6 Tributary of Beaver 

Brook (upstream of 

Flowed Land Ponds) 

A 10 / 2,629 HDD Perennial Cold-water 

Calais 12.3 Unnamed stream A 3 / 3 Dam and Pump Intermittent Warm-water 

Calais 14.1-14.2 Magurrewock Stream 

Outlet 

A 528 / 792 HDD Perennial Cold-water 

Calais/ 

Baring 

14.2-15.3 St. Croix River C 3,000 / 5,829 HDD Major river Cold-water 

Baring 15.6 Unnamed stream A 3 / 3 Dam and Pump Intermittent Warm-water 

Baring 15.6 Unnamed stream A 3/3 Dam and Pump Intermittent Warm-water 

Baring 16.9 Conic Stream A 3 / 3 Dam and Pump Perennial Warm-water 

Baring 17.2 Unnamed stream A 3 / 3 Dam and Pump Intermittent Warm-water 

Baring 17.6 Unnamed stream, 

(tributary of St. Croix 

River) 

A 3 / 3 Dam and Pump Perennial Warm-water 

Baring 17.8 Unnamed stream, 

(tributary of St. Croix 

River) 

A 8 / 1,227 HDD Perennial Warm-water 

Baileyville 18.1 Unnamed stream, 

(tributary of St. Croix 

River) 

A 4 / 1,227 HDD Perennial Cold-water 

Baileyville 18.4 Stony Brook A 18 / 18 Dam and Pump Perennial Cold-water 

Baileyville 21.3 Wapsaconhagen 

Brook 

A 37 / 37 Dam and Pump Perennial Cold-water 

Baileyville 22.5 Unnamed stream 

(tributary of 

Wapsaconhagen 

Brook) 

A 4 / 4 Dam and Pump Perennial Warm-water 

Baileyville 25.2 Anderson Brook A 15 / 2,622 HDD Perennial Cold-water 

Baileyville 25.8 

(3 

crossings 

Unnamed stream 

A 4 / 4, 4 / 4, 4 / 4 Dam and Pump Intermittent Cold-water 

Baileyville 28.9 Headwater tributary to 

Anderson Brook 

A 8 / 1,000 HDD Intermittent Cold-water 

 

a/ State Designation - Based on Title 38 MRSA §465 

A - 2nd highest classification. Must be of such quality that they are suitable for the designated uses of drinking water after disinfection; fishing; 

agriculture; recreation in and on the water; industrial process and cooling water supply; hydroelectric power generation, except as prohibited 

under Title 12, section 403; navigation; and as habitat for fish and other aquatic life. The habitat must be characterized as natural. 

B - 3rd highest classification. Must be of such quality that they are suitable for the designated uses of drinking water supply after treatment; 

fishing; agriculture; recreation in and on the water; industrial process and cooling water supply; hydroelectric power generation, except as 

prohibited under Title 12, section 403; navigation; and as habitat for fish and other aquatic life. The habitat must be characterized as 

unimpaired. 
24

Table 2.3.3.2-1 

 Waterbodies Crossed by the Proposed Pipeline 

Town MP Waterbody 

State Water 

Quality 

Classification a/

Waterbody 

Width/Crossing 

Length 

(linear ft) b/ 

Crossing 

Method 

Stream 

Type 

Fishery 

Type c/ 

C – 4th highest classification. Must be of such quality that they are suitable for the designated uses of drinking water supply after treatment; 

fishing; agriculture; recreation in and on the water; industrial process and cooling water supply; hydroelectric power generation, except as 

prohibited under Title 12, section 403; navigation; and as a habitat for fish and other aquatic life. 

b/ Waterbody width determined from Downeast’s field measurements and aerial photograph interpretation. 

c/ Fishery types were assigned based on habitat functionality observed during field assessment of proposed Pipeline crossings. Fishery habitat 

suitability assigned to waterbodies not sampled in the field were based on aerial photograph interpretation and Maine DIFW fish stocking 

records. 

HDD = horizontal directional drill

In the event an inadvertent release of drilling fluid is accessible, Downeast would take the 

following appropriate measures: 

 contain the drilling fluid with straw bales such that it cannot migrate across the ground 

surface; 

 excavate a small sump pit at the location and provide a means for the fluid to be returned 

to either the drilling operations or a disposal site (i.e., pump through a hose or into a 

tanker); and 

 continue drilling operations and maintaining the integrity of the containment measures 

and monitoring the fluid returns to ensure that no surface migration occurs. 

Should the inadvertent release of drilling fluid occur at a location that is inaccessible or along the 

bed of a waterbody and into the water, Downeast would use the following appropriate 

procedures: 

 ensure that all reasonable measures have been taken to re-establish fluid circulation, such 

as reducing fluid pressure during pilot hole drilling or vary drilling fluid properties in 

order to reduce frictional drag and pressure; 

 continue drilling with the minimum amount of drilling fluid as required to penetrate the 

formation and successfully install the pipe; or 

 if the amount of the release exceeds that which can be suitably contained with hand 

placed containment barriers, small collection sumps would be used for fluid removal and 

recycling. 

The EIS appendix E has been updated to include site-specific construction diagrams for each 

proposed HDD crossing showing the location of mud pits, pipe assembly areas, and all areas to 

be disturbed or cleared for construction. 

To cross minor streams of less than 10 feet that contain coldwater or significant warmwater 

fisheries, a temporary dam and flume pipe would be installed prior to trenching to divert stream 

flow over the construction area and allow for dry trenching of the stream crossing. Downeast 

would store trench spoils behind silt and sedimentation control structures. Pipe strings would be 

fabricated on one bank and moved into the trench by pulling pipe sections across the stream 

bottom to the opposite bank, floated across the stream, or carried into place. Downeast’s 
25

Procedures and Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Guidelines would be used to adopt 

procedures for different waterbody crossings that may be encountered. 

Where necessary, Downeast would install temporary construction equipment crossings across 

waterbodies taking into account highest expected flows during construction. Construction 

equipment crossings would be carefully installed after clearing to minimize streambed 

disturbance and downstream siltation. Where culverts are used, Downeast would minimize 

scouring through engineered devices. Construction equipment would be limited to one pass and 

not permitted to drive through the waterbody after establishing crossings. Downeast would 

remove the construction equipment crossings once pipeline installation and construction 

restoration are completed. 

To facilitate pipeline construction across waterbodies, Downeast would need construction 

staging areas adjacent to the waterbody to assemble and fabricate the length of pipe necessary to 

complete the crossing. These staging areas are in addition to the standard construction right-ofway and Downeast would locate them at least 50 feet from the stream bank where technically 

feasible. 

Rock Blasting and Rugged Topography 

Downeast would use one of the following techniques to remove rock encountered during 

construction based on rock hardness, fracture susceptibility, and expected volume of the 

material: conventional backhoe excavation, dozer ripping and backhoe excavation, use of a 

backhoe hammer and backhoe excavation, or blasting and backhoe excavation. Blasting would 

be performed by licensed professionals according to strict guidelines designed to control energy 

release. 

Downeast’s sendout pipeline would not cross any areas of steep side slopes requiring special 

construction techniques; however, construction along moderate side slopes would be necessary. 

Permanent trench breakers (e.g., sandbags) would be installed in trenches over and around the 

pipe in areas with potential slope erosion. 

2.3.3.3 Aboveground Facilities 

Downeast would install three MLVs and two pigging facilities for the sendout pipeline. The 

LNG terminal site would contain the MLV and pig launching facility at the start of the sendout 

pipeline. The MLV at MP 17.17 would affect 0.3 acre of forested land outside the construction 

right-of-way and 0.4 acre outside the permanent right-of-way during operation. The pig 

receiving and gas metering facility would be at MP 29.8 in Baileyville and would affect 0.5 acre 

of developed land outside of the pipeline construction right-of-way and 0.3 acre of developed 

land outside the permanent right-of-way during operation. 

2.3.4 Pipeline Operation and Maintenance Procedures 

Downeast would inspect all aboveground equipment, permanent erosion controls, and 

revegetation during pipeline and right-of-way patrols. In addition, Downeast would address any 

conditions that could prohibit the safe operation of the pipeline with respect to right-of-way 

maintenance (fallen trees, excess vegetation, trespasser obstructions or damage, etc.). Any soil 

erosion or excess sedimentation along the pipeline right-of-way would be reported to appropriate 
26

environmental management personnel. Downeast would identify corrective measures 

concurrently with the inspection and implement these measures, as needed, in a timely manner. 

Maintenance would include periodic seasonal mowing of the permanent right-of-way, and 

vegetation control around aboveground facilities. Downeast would maintain vegetation in the 

50-foot-wide permanent right-of-way on an approximate three to five year basis in uplands. 

Vegetation control would be limited in wetland and riparian areas to the selective clearing of 

trees and shrubs greater than 15 feet in height within 15 feet of the pipeline. In addition, 

Downeast would maintain a 10-foot-wide corridor centered on the pipeline in an herbaceous 

state on an annual basis. Permanent rights-of-way associated with the pipeline system would be 

maintained in accordance with Downeast’s Plan, Procedures, and Soil Erosion and Sediment 

Control Guidelines, as well as any additional requirements (e.g., COE, local towns, Maine DEP, 

etc.). The use of herbicides is not proposed for vegetation maintenance. 

As stated previously, Downeast would conduct regularly scheduled pipeline surveys as part of 

the pipeline system maintenance activities and safety programs. 

2.4 CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE 

Downeast anticipates that construction of the Downeast LNG Project would take about 35 

months, starting with terminal site work and foundation preparation for the LNG storage tanks. 

Once the tank foundations are in place, work would begin on tank construction, terminal 

buildings, and the marine terminal. The LNG storage tank construction would take 

approximately 30 months from the start of site work. Construction of the other terminal facilities 

would take about 18 months with marine construction taking approximately 16 months. 

Downeast would construct the sendout pipeline construction in 9 to 12 months. 

The construction contractors would observe and comply with all applicable federal, state and 

local laws, ordinances, and regulations that apply to the conduct of the work. A list of 

environmental permits and approvals that have been received to date, as well as those that are 

anticipated by the project is found in table 1.3-1 of the EIS. 

2.5 ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE INSPECTION AND MITIGATION 

MONITORING 

Downeast would implement environmental compliance and monitoring requirements from its 

Plan, Procedures, and Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Guidelines during construction of the 

LNG terminal and sendout pipeline. Downeast would also incorporate compliance and 

monitoring requirements from federal, state, and local permits obtained for its project. 

In accordance with its Plan and Procedures, Downeast would conduct environmental training for 

construction and contractor personnel before construction and periodically during construction. 

Downeast would employ at least one EI for construction of the LNG terminal, and at least one EI 

for construction of the sendout pipeline and MLVs. The EIs would ensure construction activities 

comply with the conditions of the FERC Certificate, and all other applicable federal, state, and 

local permits. The EIs would report to the Lead Downeast Inspector, but have independent 

status and stop-work authority in the event of a noncompliance issue that requires corrective 

action. 
27

In addition, the FERC would conduct independent inspections of the project throughout 

construction and restoration, to ensure compliance with the Commission’s environmental 

conditions. 

2.6 FUTURE PLANS AND ABANDONMENT 

Downeast does not foresee abandonment of the proposed facilities prior to the expiration of its 

design life (25-plus years). If abandonment were to occur, Downeast has committed to the Town 

of Robbinston to restore the property parcel to a non-industrial condition by the removal of 

terminal components and land restoration actions. This commitment would be evidenced by a 

reclamation bond or similar financial guarantee and has been stipulated in the executed 

Downeast-Town of Robbinston Agreement. Downeast would also have to file an application 

with the FERC to abandon the LNG facility and sendout pipeline. A determination would then 

be made as to the best method of abandonment (e.g., removal or abandon in-place of the 

pipeline) along with the restoration of the right-of-way, in consideration of landowner 

preferences. 
28

3.0 IDENTIFICATION OF EFH IN THE ACTION AREA 

The Downeast LNG Project would be within the management jurisdiction of the NEFMC. The 

EFH designations within the Northeast Region (Maine to Virginia) include EFH for a number of 

species in various life stages. EFH potentially affected by the proposed project were identified 

through the use of NOAA Fisheries maps consisting of 10-minute by 10-minute square 

coordinate grids or quadrants. The available data for species likely to occur within 

Passamaquoddy Bay included a 10-minute square with the following coordinates: North 45° 

50.0’ N; East 66° 50.0’ W; South 44° 40.0’ N; West 67° 00.0’ W (NEMFC 1998; NOAA 

Fisheries 1998). This area is also shown on figure 3-1. Additional 10-minute by 10-minute 

squares were used for comparison and area correlation in this EFH assessment, including the 

coordinates of North 45° 00.0’ N; East 67° 00.0’ W; South 44° 50.0’ N; West 67° 00.0’ W, and 

North 44° 50.0’ N; East 67° 00.0’ W; South 44° 40.0’ N; and West 67° 10.0’ W. These 

additional areas, as well as specific habitats available in or near the project area were crossreferenced with known habitat requisites of EFH species and life stages to help predict the 

likelihood of those species using the Downeast LNG Project area. 

Our review of the aforementioned maps and appropriate literature indicates that the waters of 

Passamaquoddy Bay contain designated EFH for various species and life stages of managed 

species under the MSA, including 29 species of finfish, 3 species of shellfish, and 4 species of 

skate. HAPC for Atlantic salmon has also been designated within watersheds around the 

Passamaquoddy Bay area (NOAA Fisheries 2005). 

Based on the review of available literature, we believe that the project would have no effect on 

22 of these species because the project would not be within the known range of the species, the 

project would not impact habitat for the species, or EFH has not been designated for the species 

in question (see table 3-1). These 22 species are not addressed further in this assessment. 

The remaining 14 species, and their associated life history stages, with designated EFH that are 

identified as occurring or having the potential of occurring within the Downeast LNG Project 

area are listed in table 3-2 and discussed below. 

The EFH for each identified managed species, as well as the specific habitat requirements for 

each life stage are identified and discussed below. Project-related changes that could result in 

potential adverse effects on these species at various life stages as a result of the construction and 

operation of the proposed Downeast LNG Project are also presented. 

. 
29

 

Figure 3-1 

Downeast LNG Project 

Essential Fish Habitat Areas 
30

Table 3-1 

 Essential Fish Habitat Designated by NEFMC for Species Identified as Occurring in the Waters of Passamaquoddy 

Bay, Maine, Eliminated from Further Consideration for the Downeast LNG Project

Species Reason for Elimination from Further 

Consideration 

Determination 

of Effect 

Barndoor skate (Dipturus laevis) EFH not designated for this species within the 

project area No Effect 

Black sea bass (Centropristus striata) Relative abundance is rare within the project area No Effect 

Bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix) Relative abundance is rare within the project area No Effect 

Butterfish (Peprilus triacanthus); also called Atlantic 

butterfish Relative abundance is rare within the project area No Effect 

Haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus) Relative abundance is rare within the project area No Effect 

Little skate (Leucoraja erinacea) EFH not designated for this species within the 

project area No Effect 

Long finned squid (Loligo pealei) Relative abundance is rare within the project area No Effect 

Monkfish (Lophius americanus) Relative abundance is rare within the project area No Effect 

Ocean quahog (Artica islandica) Relative abundance is rare within the project area No Effect 

Offshore hake (Merluccius albidus) Relative abundance is rare within the project area No Effect 

Redfish (Sebastes fasciatus) Relative abundance is rare within the project area No Effect 

Scup (Stenotomus chrysops) Relative abundance is rare within the project area No Effect 

Short finned squid (Illex illecebrosus) Relative abundance is rare within the project area No Effect 

Smooth skate (Malacoraia senta) EFH not designated for this species within the 

project area No Effect 

Spiny dogfish (Squalus acanthias) Relative abundance is rare within the project area No Effect 

Summer flounder (Paralicthys dentatus) Relative abundance is rare within the project area No Effect 

Surf clam (Spisula solidissima) Relative abundance is rare within the project area No Effect 

Thorny skate (Amblyraja radiata) EFH not designated for this species within the 

project area No Effect 

Tilefish (Lopholatilus chamaeleonticeps) Relative abundance is rare within the project area No Effect 

Winter skate (Leucoraja ocellata) EFH not designated for this species within the 

project area No Effect 

Witch flounder (Glyptocephalus cynoglossus) Relative abundance is rare within the project area No Effect 

Yellowtail flounder (Pleuronectes ferruginea) Relative abundance is rare within the project area No Effect 

Sources: Jury et al.1994; David K. Stevenson, Ph.D. (personal communication) 

3.1 EFH SPECIES PROFILES 

The principal information for species accounts presented herein are primarily derived from 

species synopses presented by NEFMC (1998), which include descriptions of essential fish 

habitat and conditions, as well as maps of the distribution of each life history stage. A brief 

summary of the individual managed species and life stage requirements, sediment preference, 

and comments on behavior, and previously recorded observance in the general region is provided 

below. A complete description of the geographic distribution and biological requirements of the 

various life stages of each species are presented in NOAA Fisheries Technical Memoranda,

Essential Fish Habitat Source Document: Life History and Habitat Characteristics series. 

American plaice (Hippoglossoides platessoides) 

The four life stages of the American plaice have been identified as potentially occurring within 

the project area. Eggs are laid between March and May within waters where the range of water 

temperature is 34°F to 54°F, in depths between 100 and 300 feet, and a wide range of salinities. 
31

Table 3-2 

 Essential Fish Habitat Designated by NEFMC for Species Identified as Occurring or Having the 

Potential of Occurring Within the Downeast LNG Project Area 

Species Eggs Larvae Juveniles Adults Spawning 

Adults 

American plaice (Hippoglossoides platessoides) C C C C C 

Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua) C C C 

Atlantic halibut (Hippoglossus hippoglossus) ND ND ND ND ND 

Atlantic herring (Clupea harengus) A H e/ H 

Atlantic mackerel (Scomber scombrus) C C 

Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) C C 

Atlantic sea scallop (Placopecten magellanicus) A A A A A 

Ocean pout (Macrozoarces americanus) A A A A A 

Pollock (Pollachius virens) C A C 

Red hake (Urophycis chuss) C C 

Silver hake (Merluccius bilinearis) also called Whiting A A 

White hake (Urophycis tenuis) A A 

Windowpane flounder (Scopthalmus aquosus) C C C C C 

Winter flounder (Pleuronectes americanus) H H H H H 

 

Sources: NOAA Fisheries 2013, NEFMC 1998, Jury et al. 1994 

A = abundant. H = highly abundant. C = common. 

ND = no relative abundance data reported, but life history stage is known to occur. 

Blank Field = the particular life history stage is not known to occur based on Jury et al. 1994. 

Larvae emerge between April and June when water temperatures range from 39°F to 57°F and 

water depths between 100 and 427 feet and a wide range of salinities. Juveniles can be found 

between March and November in waters ranging between 39°F and 61°F at depths between 148 

and 492 feet, and in waters having a salinity of 31 to 35 ppt. 

Adults are normally found within waters that range in temperatures from 37°F to 59°F, depths 

between 148 and 574 feet and a wide range of salinities (but generally between 31 to 35 ppt). 

Mature adults spawn in March through May at temperature ranges of 37°F to 43°F. This species 

prefers soft substrates, fine sand and/or gravel. Short seasonal migrations are due to temperature 

changes (Johnson 2004). All life stages for this species (see table 3-2) are considered common 

within the Downeast LNG Project Area. 

Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua) 

Four life stages of Atlantic cod are expected to occur within Passamaquoddy Bay and 

surrounding areas. Habitat preference for cod eggs include sea surface temperatures below 54°F, 

water depths less than 361 feet, and a salinity average between 32 and 33 ppt. 

Larvae are found in bottom habitats with a substrate of cobble or gravel from January through 

June. Juveniles are found in pelagic waters at temperature ranges of 39°F to 52°F, but may 

tolerate broader temperatures in the range of approximately 37°F to 64°F. Depths ranging from 

98 to 230 feet and a salinity range of 31 to 35 ppt are preferred by cod larvae. Generally, 

juvenile Atlantic cod are typically found inhabiting waters with temperatures below 68°F, depths 

from 82 to 246 feet, and a salinity range between 30 to 35 ppt. Juveniles are more abundant in 

areas with macroalgal canopies (Lough 2004). 
32

Adults occur in bottom habitats with a substrate of rocks, pebbles, or gravel during late autumn 

through winter, although their temperature tolerance range is between 34°F and 63°F (preferably 

below 50°F), at depths from 33 to 492 feet, and a wide range of oceanic salinities with a 

tolerance range of 30 to 35 ppt. The majority of spawning occurs offshore, although there is 

evidence that spawning can also take place inshore. 

Eelgrass (Zostera marina) beds are also an important habitat for the juvenile life stages of the 

Atlantic cod. Eelgrass beds are considered Significant Wildlife Habitat by the Maine 

Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (Maine DIFW), with beds greater than 25 acres 

providing high value (Maine Department of Marine Resources [Maine DMR] webpage). 

Although no specified or protected eelgrass beds were identified by the EFH as occurring 

specifically in the Passamaquoddy Bay area, based on site-specific surveys, eelgrass beds have 

been identified along the Maine coastline, including areas within the Downeast LNG carrier 

transit route (figure 3-2). In addition, eelgrass mapping completed by Maine DMR in 2010 

identified eelgrass within Mill Cove that was not present during previous mapping efforts in the 

1990s (http://www.maine.gov/dmr/rm/eelgrass/changemaps/11.pdf) (figure 3-3). 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. However, the proposed pier would cross about 350 feet of mapped eelgrass. 

Atlantic halibut (Hippoglossus hippoglossus) 

Atlantic halibut spawn offshore and it is unlikely that eggs or larvae would be found within the 

Downeast LNG Project area. Juvenile and adult life stages for this species have the potential to 

be found within the Downeast LNG Project area; however, while these life stages are known to 

occur, data on relative abundance of this species within the Downeast LNG Project area is 

lacking (see table 3-2). Atlantic halibut eggs are generally observed between late fall and early 

spring, in waters with temperatures between 39°F and 45°F, depths less than 2,296 feet, and 

salinities less than 35 ppt. Juveniles tend to emigrate from nursery areas between three and four 

years of age. They prefer sand and coarse sediment (Cargnelli et. al. 1999a). Adult Atlantic 

halibut tend to occupy waters with temperatures below 56°F, depths from 328 to 2,296 feet, and 

salinities between 30 and 35 ppt. Potential seasonal and spatial variability of conditions that may 

be associated with this species have been acknowledged by NEFMC. 

Atlantic herring (Clupea harengus) 

Larvae and juvenile Atlantic herring likely occur year round within the waters of the 

Passamaquoddy Bay as they are generally very abundant. Atlantic herring eggs are demersal and 

primarily dispersed on rock, pebbly or gravelly bottoms, and on shell substrates and clay to some 

extent. Spawning occurs from late August through November in coastal waters and shoals from 

13 to 300 feet and is known to occur in the western Passamaquoddy Bay (Bigelow and Schroeder 

1953, 2002). Atlantic herring larvae are generally found in pelagic waters in the Gulf of Maine 

between August and April, with sea surface temperatures below 60.8°F, depths from 164 to 295 

feet, and salinities around 32 ppt. Larvae and juveniles can tolerate a wide range of temperatures 

(below 50°F), depths (from 49 to 443 feet), and salinities (from 26 to 32 ppt). Atlantic herring 
33

Figure 3-2 

Downeast LNG Project 

Maine Eelgrass Beds 
34

larvae have been reported to be the most common ichthyoplankton species in Passamaquoddy 

Bay (Fife 2006) and represent almost 90 percent of the fish larvae collected during the Maine 

DMR’s Fall 2001 monitoring within the region. On-site sampling for ichthyoplankton was 

conducted by Downeast LNG from October, 2006 through February, 2008. Analysis of this data 

indicates that in the Downeast LNG Project area Atlantic herring was the dominant fish larvae in 

October 2006 and October 2007, coinciding with autumn spawning occurrences in the Gulf of 

Maine (Bigelow and Schroeder 1953, 2002). 

Atlantic herring juveniles are generally found in bottom habitats of pelagic waters. Adults are 

also found in waters with temperatures below 50°F depths ranging from 65 to 427 feet, and 

salinities above 28 ppt. Adult Atlantic herring spawn on offshore ledges and shoal areas. Adults 

are considered to be more of a pelagic fish. Therefore, this life stage of the species is unlikely to 

occur within the Downeast LNG Project area (Stevenson and Scott 2005). 

Atlantic mackerel (Scomber scombrus) 

Atlantic mackerel are primarily offshore pelagic fishes, but schools of young fish occasionally 

enter bays and harbors in search of food between April and October, but primarily in the 

summer, after which they go offshore. Their importance as a recreational fishery is greater than 

that as a commercial fishery (Bigelow and Schroeder 1953, 2002). 

Figure 3-3 

Downeast LNG Project 

Project Site Eelgrass 
35

Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar)

Egg and larval lifestages tend to prefer bottom habitats with a gravel or cobble riffle, with water 

temperatures below 50°F, and clean, fresh water. Juvenile, or parr, prefer similar clean fresh 

water habitats, with water depths of 4 to 24 inches, and substrate types interspersed with deeper 

riffles or pools. Parr can tolerate water temperatures below 77°F, and water velocities between 

12 and 36 inches per second. Parr develop into smolts and this lifestage requires downstream 

access to the ocean, where they enter a pelagic lifestage. Adult salmon require access to their 

natal streams, as well as access to spawning grounds in clean fresh water, with temperatures 

below 50°F, depths 12 to 24 inches, and velocities around 24 inches per second. Non-spawning 

adults are also pelagic, ranging throughout the Gulf of Maine and areas along the continental 

shelf off New England with temperatures below 73 °F. Juvenile and adult Atlantic salmon are 

considered common within Passamaquoddy Bay (see table 3-2), and transient individuals of 

these life stages are likely to occur in the Downeast LNG Project area. 

According to the Report to Congress, EFH for Atlantic salmon is described as all waters 

currently or historically accessible to Atlantic salmon within the streams, rivers, lakes, ponds, 

wetlands, and other waterbodies in Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode 

Island, and Connecticut identified as EFH, (NEFMC 1998; NOAA Fisheries 2005; NOAA 

Fisheries 2007a). Habitats currently being used by the species should be considered essential, 

including estuaries and embayment areas that support “abundant,” “common,” or “rare” levels of 

Atlantic salmon adults. However, the NEFMC also states that, “The rivers from which Atlantic 

salmon have been extirpated were not selected as EFH on the presumption that it would be 

extremely unlikely that these rivers will again support Atlantic salmon without artificial 

supplementation or stocking” (NOAA Fisheries 2005). In the Downeast LNG Project area, the 

Passamaquoddy Bay and the St. Croix River contain suitable EFH habitat for the Atlantic 

salmon. The St. Croix River is also designated as a Habitat Area of Particular Concern for 

Atlantic salmon. Downeast conducted detailed stream evaluations during August 2006, using 

survey protocols established by the Maine Atlantic Salmon Commission [Maine ASC]. Its 

stream survey results are summarized in attachment B of the Biological Assessment. Based 

upon this information, Downeast did not identify any potential Atlantic salmon spawning areas 

that would be crossed by the proposed sendout pipeline. Additionally, the proposed crossings of 

stream reaches were not identified as having suitable habitat conditions for Atlantic salmon 

adults, parr, or smolts. 

The Gulf of Maine also contains Distinct Population Segments (DPS) for Atlantic salmon. DPS 

for this species within the Gulf of Maine encompasses all remnant populations of naturally 

reproducing Atlantic salmon, from downstream Kennebec River to the mouth of the St. Croix 

River. There are eight known watersheds that are utilized by the DPS Atlantic salmon, either 

currently and/or historically, located in the Downeast and mid-coast sections of Maine. These 

rivers include the Dennys River, East Machais River, Machais River, Pleasant River, 

Narraguagus River, Ducktrap River, Sheepscot River, and Cove Brook (FWS 2006). The 

Dennys River watershed is crossed by the Downeast LNG Project. These distinct habitats 

support the only naturally spawning populations of Atlantic salmon, and additionally are highly 

susceptible to numerous anthropogenic impacts; therefore, they are considered HAPC. 
36

Atlantic sea scallops (Placopecten magellanicus) 

Atlantic sea scallops tend to be abundant in the region throughout their life cycle. Sea scallop 

eggs are found in bottom habitats and are thought to occur where water temperatures are below 

63°F. Spawning occurs from May through October, and is probably more tidally related than 

temperature related (Hart and Chute 2004). Scallop larvae tend to be found in pelagic waters and 

bottom habitats with a substrate of gravelly sand, shell fragments, and pebbles, or on various red 

algae, hydroids, amphipod tubes, and bryozoans. Sea scallop larvae are found where sea surface 

temperatures are below 64°F and salinities are between 16.9 ppt and 30 ppt. Sea scallop 

juveniles are found in bottom habitats with a substrate of cobble, shells, and silt where 

temperatures are below 59°F, and water depths range from 59 to 360 feet. Adult sea scallops are 

also found in bottom habitats with a substrate of cobble, shells, coarse/gravelly sand, and sand, 

with water temperatures below 70°F, water depths from 59 to 360 feet, and salinities above 16.5 

ppt. Atlantic sea scallops are recognized as an important commercial species. 

Ocean pout (Macrozoarces americanus) 

Ocean pout eggs are laid in gelatinous masses, and can be found on hard bottom habitats 

sheltered nests, holes, or crevices within bay areas. Due to low fecundity, egg masses are 

guarded by either the female or both parents. Relatively few eggs (< 4,200) are laid, and egg 

development can take two to three months during late fall and winter. Water conditions in which 

ocean pout eggs can be found include temperatures below 50o

F, depths less than 164 feet, and 

salinities that range from 32 to 34 ppt. Larval ocean pout are found in waters with sea surface 

temperatures below 50oF, depths less than 164 feet, and salinities greater than 25 ppt, generally 

during late fall through spring. Juvenile ocean pout prefer smooth bottom near rocks or algae, 

and water conditions with temperatures below 57oF and depths less than 263 feet. Conditions 

that are preferred by adult ocean pout include water temperatures below 59oF and depths less 

than 360 feet. Juveniles are found at salinities greater than 25 ppt, while adults prefer 32 to 34 

ppt (Steimle et al. 1999b). Spawning generally occurs between September and October at 

temperatures between 43°F to 48°F, and a salinity range of 32 to 34 ppt. The juvenile and adult 

life stages of this species have the potential of occurring within waters of the Downeast LNG 

Project area. 

Pollock (Pollachius virens) 

Pollock eggs and larvae are found in pelagic waters with sea surface temperatures less than 63o

F, 

and salinities between 32 and 32.8 ppt. Pollock eggs are found in water depths of 98 and 

885 feet, whereas larvae are found in water depths between 33 and 820 feet. Pollock eggs are 

often observed from October through June, and larvae are often observed from September to 

July. Juvenile Pollock tend to prefer bottom habitats with aquatic vegetation or a substrate of 

sand, mud or rocks, and water conditions such as temperatures below 64o

F, depths from 0 to 

820 feet, and salinities between 29 and 32 ppt. Adult pollock can also be found on hard bottom 

habitats, and tolerate a temperature range of 32°F to 57 °F, depths from 49 to 1,197 feet, and 

salinities between 31 and 34 ppt. Adults are migratory and spawn offshore, and are not as 

selective to bottom type (Cargnelli et al. 1999b). The juvenile and adult life stages of this 

species have the potential of occurring within waters of the Downeast LNG Project area. 
37

Red hake (Urophycia chuss) 

Red hake eggs are found in surface waters of the Gulf of Maine, and are most frequently seen 

during the months from May to November. Preferred conditions for red hake eggs include sea 

surface temperatures below 50o

F along the inner continental shelf with a salinity less than 25 ppt. 

Red hake larvae are also found in surface waters from May through December, at temperatures 

generally below 66o

F, in depths less than 656 feet, with a salinity greater than 0.5 ppt. Red hake 

juveniles are found in bottom habitats with a substrate of shell fragments, including areas with an 

abundance of live scallops. Water temperatures below 61o

F, depths less than 328 feet and a 

salinity range from 31 to 33 ppt are preferred by red hake juveniles. Adult red hake are generally 

found in bottom habitats in depressions with a substrate of sand and mud; water temperatures 

below 54o

F are preferred, as well as depths from 33 to 427 feet, and salinity within the range of 

33 to 34 ppt. Juveniles and adults are migratory, and spawning occurs offshore (Steimle et al. 

1999a). It is possible that juvenile and adults of this species may occur in the Downeast LNG 

Project area. 

White hake (Urophycis tenuis) 

White hake eggs are most often observed in August and September in surface waters, whereas 

the larval stage tends to be found in pelagic waters also during August and September. Larvae 

emerge between May and September when temperatures are between 50°F to 64°F. There are 

two stages of juvenile white hake: the pelagic stage and the demersal stage. White hake 

juveniles in the pelagic stage are most often observed from May through September within 

pelagic waters. Demersal stage juveniles tend to occupy bottom habitats with seagrass beds or a 

substrate of mud or fine-grained sand. These juvenile stages are found in waters with 

temperatures between 46°F and 66oF and depths from 16 to 738 feet. White hake adults are 

found in bottom habitats with a substrate of mud or fine-grained sand, as well as water 

temperatures of 41°F to 57oF and depths from 16 to 1,066 feet. White hake adults lay their eggs 

in August-September at temperatures between 44°F to 68°F. The species prefers fine grained 

sediments and migrates seasonally (Packer et al. 1999). As shown in table 3-2, juvenile and 

adult life stages of this species have the potential to occur in the Downeast LNG Project area. 

Eelgrass beds are also an important habitat for the larval stages of the White hake. Eelgrass beds 

are considered Significant Wildlife Habitat by the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and 

Wildlife, with beds greater than 25 acres providing high value (Maine DMR webpage). 

Although no specified or protected eelgrass beds were identified by the EFH as occurring 

specifically in the Passamaquoddy Bay area, based on site-specific surveys, eelgrass beds have 

been identified along the Maine coastline, including areas within the Downeast LNG carrier 

transit route (figure 3-2). In addition, eelgrass mapping completed by Maine DMR in 2010 

identified eelgrass within Mill Cove that was not present during previous mapping efforts in the 

1990s. 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. However, the proposed pier would cross about 

350 feet of mapped eelgrass. 
38

Silver hake, or whiting (Merluccius bilinearis) 

Silver hake are also referred to as whiting. Whiting eggs and larvae are found in surface waters 

with temperatures below 68oF and water depths between approximately 164 and 492 feet. 

Whiting eggs can be observed all year, although peaks are seen June through October, and peaks 

of whiting larvae can be observed from July through September, although they are present year 

round. Whiting juveniles occupy all substrate types in bottom habitats, and are found where 

water temperatures are below 70oF, depths between 65 and 885 feet, and salinities greater than 

20 ppt. Adult whiting also occupy bottom habitats composed of all substrate types, where water 

temperatures are below 72o

F and at depths between 98 and 1,066 feet. It is possible that 

juveniles and adults of this species may occur in the Downeast LNG Project area. 

Windowpane flounder (Scophthalmus aquosus) 

Windowpane flounder eggs are found in surface waters with temperatures ranging between 43°F 

and 68°F and water depths less than 230 feet. Windowpane flounder larvae generally occupy 

pelagic waters with sea surface temperatures less than 68°F and water depths less than 230 feet. 

Juvenile windowpane flounder inhabit bottom habitats with substrates consisting of mud or finegrained sand. Juveniles are common from June through October at temperatures ranging 

between 39°F to 61°F (below 77°F), depths from 3 to 328 feet, and salinities between 5.5 to 36 

ppt. Windowpane flounder adults are found in bottom habitats with a substrate of mud or finegrained sand, water temperatures below 80°F, depths from 3 to 246 feet, and salinities between 

5.5 to 36 ppt. It is possible that all life stages of this species occur in the Downeast LNG Project 

area. 

Winter flounder (Pseudopleuronectes americanus) 

Winter flounder is the most common shoalwater flounder in the Gulf of Maine. Winter flounder 

eggs are found in bottom habitats with a substrate of sand, muddy sand, mud, and gravel on 

Georges Bank, as well as the inshore areas of the Gulf of Maine. Flounder eggs tend to occur in 

waters with temperatures less than 50°F, water depths less than 16 feet, and salinities between 10 

and 30 ppt; eggs are often observed from February to June. Winter flounder larvae are found in 

pelagic and bottom waters of Georges Bank and the inshore areas of the Gulf of Maine, where 

sea surface temperatures are less than 59°F, depths less than 20 feet, and salinities between 4 and 

30 ppt. Winter flounder larvae are often observed from March to July. Two stages of Winter 

flounder juveniles have been identified. Winter flounder young-of-the-year occupy bottom 

habitats with a substrate of mud or fine grained sand, within waters where the temperature is 

below 82°F, depths from 0.3 to 33 feet, and salinities ranging between 5 and 33 ppt. The second 

juvenile stage of winter flounder is the Age 1-plus juvenile found in inshore areas in waters with 

temperatures below 77°F, depths from 3 to 164 feet, and salinities between 10 to 30 ppt. Adult 

winter flounder occur in bottom habitats including estuaries with a substrate of mud, sand, and 

gravel, with water temperatures below 77°F, depths from 3 to 330 feet, and salinities between 15 

and 33 ppt. Spawning winter flounder adults are found in waters with temperatures below 59°F, 

depths less than 20 feet (except on Georges Bank where they spawn as deep as 262 feet), and 

salinities between 5.5 and 36 ppt. Spawning occurs in January through May, the optimal 

temperature being 38°F to 42. °F and optimal salinity 11 to 33 ppt. Temperature dependent 

migration occurs, although food availability may also be a factor (Pereira et al. 1999). It is 

possible that all life stages of this species may occur in the Downeast LNG Project area. 
39

4.0 POTENTIAL ADVERSE EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION 

Any probable or potential effect that reduces the quality and/or quantity of EFH is considered to 

be an “adverse impact” as defined by NOAA Fisheries (50 CFR 600.910[a]). An adverse impact 

may include direct (e.g., contamination or physical disruption), indirect (e.g., loss of prey, or 

reduction in species fecundity), and site-specific or habitat-wide impacts, including individual, 

cumulative, or synergistic consequences of actions. 

The construction and operation of the Downeast import terminal would have direct and indirect 

environmental consequences on the various life stages of finfish and invertebrate species with 

designated EFH along the marine traffic route, as well as in the area of the proposed LNG import 

terminal and pier during construction and operation. Construction impacts would include the 

potential for benthic and marine vegetation disturbance (e.g., habitat alteration, sedimentation, 

turbidity) in the pier footprint, impacts on water quality, noise disturbances, and entrainment of 

fish eggs and larvae during hydrostatic testing. Operational impacts would include entrainment 

of fish eggs and larvae during water withdrawals for vessel cooling, hoteling, ballast water 

intakes, and fire suppression pump testing, as well as alteration of hydrodynamic processes in the 

Downeast LNG Project area. Each species that would potentially be affected by anticipated 

construction and operation impacts is discussed below. 

4.1 CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS 

Construction of the LNG terminal would involve the installation of the pier and berthing 

facilities within Mill Cove. Construction activities would affect organisms with designated EFH 

in various life stages near the proposed project area. Construction activities may alter Mill 

Cove’s benthic habitat and communities including EFH and associated species. Installation of 

the pier would disturb and occupy 4,885.5 square feet (0.1 acre) of bay floor removing a selected 

portion of the benthic community immediately underlying and/or adjacent to each pile. In this 

area of impact, sedentary and less mobile species may be permanently affected and those with 

little or no mobility would suffer some mortality. However, it is assumed that adjacent benthic 

species would repopulate the disturbed areas as well as the pile structure itself following these 

activities, resulting in a temporary effect with little long-term impact on the overall population 

level. Pier shading is addressed below under operation impacts. 

Downeast’s installation of the pier and berthing facilities may alter flow in Mill Cove and result 

in the scouring or accumulation of bottom sediments immediately adjacent to the pier. In an 

extreme case, if flow is sufficiently deflected, scouring may also occur some distance from the 

pier. However, we do not expect this impact to create noticeable changes in the physical 

bathymetry of the Cove or the greater Passamaquoddy Bay area. 

Pier construction would also contribute to water quality degradation through increased turbidity 

which could result in impacts on EFH and designated species. The resuspension of sediments 

during pier installation activities, including propeller wash from construction vessels and pile 

driving, could have negative impacts on benthos, fishes, and EFH. Specifically, increased 

turbidity could result in reduced light penetration with some reduction in primary productivity as 

well as affect the ability of sight feeders to locate prey. Turbidity can also cause an increase in 

biological oxygen demand resulting in decreased dissolved oxygen concentrations available to 

fish in and around the affected area. Low dissolved oxygen concentrations can also negatively 

affect organisms that are an important resource base in fish habitat. In addition, filter feeding 
40

organisms may experience clogging from construction-related suspended sediment. Finfish may 

also experience similar gill clogging effects. Shellfish larvae are particularly sensitive to the 

increase of suspended material in the water column. Downeast would employ specific 

construction methods (e.g., vibropiling and “over the top” pier construction) and best 

management practices (BMPs) for minimizing/localizing turbidity (e.g., limiting need for 

construction vessels that may suspend shallow sediments with propeller wash by utilizing “over 

the top” construction methods), for this project to minimize the disruption of sediments. Further, 

Downeast does not propose any dredging to deepen the berth. As such, it is anticipated that the 

amount of material that is mobilized during construction would be localized and significantly 

less than other activities routinely conducted in the Bay, such as scallop dredging. In addition, 

due to the significant amount of mixing in the area, we do not anticipate that sediments would be 

disturbed in a manner significantly different than that resulting from normal storm conditions in 

the area and typical of the Mill Cove shallows. Specific impacts on shellfish populations are also 

expected to be minor as these organisms inhabit an extensive range and are known to recolonize 

disturbed areas quickly. Impacts on finfish are also expected to be minor and temporary as those 

displaced by construction activities are anticipated to return once construction is complete. 

Furthermore, while Passamaquoddy Bay is considered EFH for lifestages of American plaice, 

Atlantic cod, Atlantic halibut, Atlantic herring, Atlantic mackerel, and Atlantic salmon, the pier 

would be within the mixing zone of the estuary with salinities between 0.5 and 25.0 ppt (NOAA, 

Fisheries 1985) and at depths less than 60 ft (18 m). Impacts on EFH for these species and 

lifestages is unlikely in the vicinity of the terminal site. The area offshore of the proposed pier is 

not EFH for adult and spawning adult American plaice, juvenile and adult Atlantic cod, and all 

lifestages of Atlantic halibut due to the relatively shallow depth of the Pier (<60 ft [<18 m]), and 

relatively fresh water near the terminal site. 

Based upon investigations conducted by Downeast, there are several areas of contaminated 

sediments within the proposed footprint of the facilities that could also adversely impact 

surrounding water quality. These contaminants include arsenic and nickel which exceeded the 

Threshold Effect Levels benchmarks (it could not be determined if the biologically available 

form of arsenic was present); one dioxin and one furan compound with reported results lower 

than the analysis calibration limit; and fluoranthene which occurred in concentrations that 

exceeded the screening benchmark provided in the Screening Quick Reference Tables 

(SQuiRTS) published by NOAA (Buchman 1999). Despite the presence of contaminated 

sediments, we believe impacts on water quality resulting from the disturbance of these sediments 

during construction would be temporary and minor. Downeast would employ a vibropiling 

technique for pier installation. No dredging or in-water blasting is proposed. It is expected that 

the mobilization of these sediments would not be substantially different from normal bottom 

disruption caused by storm events. 

The construction and installation of the pier and berthing facilities would also generate 

underwater noise, which may temporarily reduce fish usage in and around the site. Impacts on 

demersal and pelagic EFH species may occur during the construction of the pier, primarily due to 

noise associated with any use of a vibratory hammer or rock socket drilling. The type and 

intensity of sounds produced depends on a number of factors including the type and size of the 

pile, substrate firmness, water depth, and the type and size of the vibratory hammer (NOAA 

Fisheries 2005). During typical-impact type pile driving, the sound frequency generated upon 

impact is within the range of 9kHz. Injury to fish as a result of pile driving can include internal 
41

hemorrhaging, swim bladder ruptures, physical injury, auditory tissue damage, and behavioral 

changes (NOAA Fisheries 2005; Hastings and Popper 2005). Construction noise at very high 

decibel levels could also result in tissue damage in benthos and in some instances mortality. In 

addition, sound pressure waves passing through the water or sediments may create a localized 

avoidance response in those benthos that are sensitive to disturbance or may result in periodic 

alteration/cessation of feeding activity. Also if drilling and/or vibropiling were to occur during 

anadromous fish migrations (Atlantic salmon, Atlantic herring, etc.), the avoidance of the 

nearshore areas could restrict migrating fish to deepwater areas that are less suitable for some 

species, which could in turn increase the susceptibility of some smaller species to predation. In a 

filing with the Commission on May 3, 2013 Downeast stated that based on current design and 

engineering the project could be constructed using only vibratory hammering for pile driving, 

and committed to the singular use of vibratory hammering for the installation of piles. Use of 

vibratory hammering, rather than impact hammering, would reduce underwater noise. Estimates 

for use of the vibratory hammer at the terminal indicate that the maximum noise would be 

190 dB re 1 μPa or below within 5 meters of the hammer, 180 dB dB re 1 μPa between 5 meters 

and 11 meters, and 170 dB re 1 μPa between 11 meters and 60 meters. Given the use of 

vibratory hammering, we believe impacts on aquatic organisms near the project area construction 

activities would be temporary and minor. Mobile organisms are likely to avoid using the area 

during construction, causing temporary displacement; however, suitable habitat for displaced 

organisms is not lacking in Passamaquoddy Bay. Unlike fish with swim bladders, most benthic 

invertebrates are unlikely to be susceptible to tissue damage from most common construction 

noise levels as the energy would pass through their bodies. To further minimize impacts, 

Downeast LNG has agreed to the following conditions, required by NOAA Fisheries: 

 All LNG vessels, or vessels involved with the terminal construction, navigating Grand 

Manan Channel would establish communications with Marine Communications Traffic 

Services Center “Fundy Traffic” upon entering the channel, or when crossing a line 

drawn between Cutler, Maine and the southwestern tip of Grand Manan Island, or 

approximately 44.6o

 north latitude. Vessels departing the Downeast LNG terminal via 

the Grand Manan Channel would establish communications prior to getting underway 

and maintain communications until south of southwestern tip of Grand Manan Island. 

 All vessels over 65 feet (19.8 meters) involved with construction, or future operations of 

the Downeast LNG terminal would comply with ship strike rules (50 CFR Part 224.105 ) 

in US waters. In addition, from July through October, vessels would slow to 10 knots 

upon entering Grand Manan Channel, on a line drawn between Cutler, Maine and the 

southwestern tip of Grand Manan Island, or approximately 44.6o

 north latitude. Vessels 

departing the Downeast LNG terminal from July through October, via the Grand Manan 

Channel, would not exceed 10 knots until south the previously specified latitude. 

 All vessels over 65 feet (19.8 meters) navigating the Bay of Fundy Traffic Separation 

Scheme (BOF TSS) that are involved with construction, or future operations of the 

Downeast LNG terminal would slow to 10 knots upon northwesterly course adjustment 

near 44.5o north latitude from July through October. Vessels bound for the Downeast 

LNG terminal would remain at 10 knots or slower until their arrival at the terminal, or 

until control is relinquished to a tug. Vessels departing the Downeast LNG terminal from 

July through October, via the BOF TSS, would not exceed 10 knots until after making the 

southwesterly course adjustment near 44.5o

 north latitude. 
42

 Downeast stated that based on current design and engineering the project could be 

constructed using only vibratory hammering for pile driving, and committed to the 

singular use of vibratory hammering for the installation of piles. The effectiveness of this 

mitigation would be determined as described below. 

 Underwater noise levels would be mitigated for to ensure that the extent of the 150 dB re 

1μPa Root Mean Squared isopleth (i.e., the level of underwater noise believed to cause 

behavioral modification in sturgeon and other diadromous species) does not prevent 

passage of species within the affected body of water. While individuals may be displaced 

from, or avoid, the ensonified area, there must always be a zone of passage where noise 

levels remain below 150 dB re 1μPa Root Mean Squared. 

 Downeast would determine the effectiveness of mitigated pile driving by modeling sound 

levels throughout the ensonified area and provide an updated isopleth map to NOAA 

Fisheries prior to the issuance of a concurrence letter. 

 During construction, Downeast LNG would record PEAK sound pressure level and 

calculate Cumulative Sound Exposure Level (CSEL) and Root Mean Squared (RMS) 

from the sound pressure level waveform and report results to NOAA Fisheries staff on a 

daily basis. 

 During rock socket drilling and pile driving, Downeast LNG would monitor sound 

pressure level with hydrophones and a digital recorder capable of operating at a minimum 

of 600,000 samples per second for a minimum of one second, with an adjustable trigger 

level, and a range of at least 30 psi. Based on protocol for measuring in-water acoustic 

fields and natural noise attenuation of 3-6 dB per doubling of distance, a minimum of 

three locations will be monitored, located approximately 10, 20, and 40 meters from the 

sound source. 

 A post-project report, confirming completion of construction and the successful 

application of all terms and conditions of this permit, must be submitted within four (4) 

weeks of project completion. Submit post-project reports to NOAA Fisheries and to 

FERC. 

 Due to the water depth and vessel draft, the use of ship’s bow thrusters are prohibited, 

subject to conflicting Coast Guard or Pilot requirements necessarily imposed for 

navigational safety and/or security, during low tide when approaching/departing the pier 

or while docked. 

 Downeast would conduct preconstruction geotechnical evaluations to ensure that HDD 

drilling operations as proposed are feasible. Downeast has also stated that it would 

prepare and submit site-specific HDD crossing and contingency plans prior to 

construction. 

 Downeast should conduct project-specific 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 should be incorporated into 

compensatory mitigation planning, as needed. Downeast should 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 
43

mitigation, with the Secretary for review and written approval by the Director of OEP, 

prior to construction. 

Hydrostatic testing of the two proposed LNG storage tanks would be conducted using a total of 

approximately 28 million gallons of water. Testing of the LNG storage tanks would consist of 

water primarily from Passamaquoddy Bay; however, some portion of the water used could come 

from other sources, including water from on-site groundwater wells and storage or water trucked 

in from a municipal or industrial supply. Entrainment and impingement of fish and other aquatic 

organisms, as well as fish eggs and larvae could occur during withdrawals of hydrostatic test 

water from the bay. Downeast would minimize entrainment and impingement by regulating the 

intake rate and by the use of screens on intake hoses. Downeast is currently proposing the use of 

a #200 mesh filter during intake of hydrostatic test waters. Downeast would also coordinate with 

federal and state agency personnel regarding the scheduling of testing to minimize potential 

conflicts with seasonal/life-cycle periods of important aquatic resources including EFH species. 

FERC staff would review all supplemental information when filed, and would finalize 

consultation with resource agencies regarding the scheduling of testing. 

The use of mechanized equipment during construction has the potential to result in releases of 

petroleum and other chemicals into the environment. A spill of oil and hazardous materials into 

Passamaquoddy Bay could be toxic to fish. To reduce the potential for direct spills, Downeast 

would develop and follow a site-specific, agency approved Spill Prevention, Control and 

Countermeasure Plan (SPCC Plan) that incorporates BMPs to prevent and/or minimize 

accidental material release into the environment. This plan would provide Downeast’s measures 

for controlling, cleaning up, and reporting chemical releases. 

4.2 OPERATION IMPACTS 

Operation of the import terminal would affect EFH and designated EFH species as a result of 

vessel operation within the area. The hydraulic conditions created by vessels transiting in a 

waterway may result in hydraulic disturbances primarily due to propeller wash, varying water 

depths, vessel draft, and other factors (e.g., propeller speeds). Marine vegetation, specifically eel 

grass, is particularly sensitive to degradation in water quality from activities such as 

development, sediment loading, and boating activity which can shade, smother, or remove 

eelgrass and its habitat. Benthic community habitats may also be adversely affected by 

sediments and/or turbidity generated by transiting and docking LNG vessels. Loss of these 

habitats could result in impacts on EFH species which rely on them to support various life stages 

along the transit route. Mapped eelgrass near the LNG terminal 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 at the terminal would not impact mapped eelgrass. Because of the substantial depths of 

water associated with the transit route that would be used by LNG vessels to and from the 

terminal, and the extreme tidal fluctuations in the region, whereby local organisms are expected 

to be acclimated to high-flow, turbid waters, the potential for increased sediment suspension or 

turbidity is not expected as vessels travel back and forth in the navigation zone. Reduced vessel 

speeds during approach and departure to the Downeast LNG terminal are also expected to reduce 

potential for sediment suspension or erosion due to reduced wave action and propeller wash. 

Due to the water depth and vessel draft, the use of ship’s bow thrusters would be prohibited 

during low tide when approaching/departing the pier or while docked. Additionally, docking 
44

operations for the LNG vessels would be assisted by tugs, which have drafts that place their 

propellers considerably above the seafloor at the end of the pier, thereby minimizing propeller 

wash effects on bottom sediments. 

Modeling was conducted for the Boston Harbor Navigation Improvement Project to assess the 

effect of ship passage on the resuspension of surficial sediments in federal ship channels (COE 

1995). The modeling assumed a channel depth of 45 feet and varying vessel drafts from 12 to 42 

feet. The study concluded that silt, the predominant grain size of the surficial sediments assessed 

in the model, can be resuspended by currents as slow as 0.65 feet/second. The study also found 

that bottom velocities generated by cargo vessels passing at slow speeds through the harbor can 

exceed this value up to 1,312 feet astern of the vessel and that tugs can generate bottom 

velocities above this value up to 656 feet astern of the vessel. Turning areas were found to be 

particularly susceptible to resuspension of sediments as the result of ship passage. The results 

indicated that the surficial sediments in the federal ship channels and berth areas are subject to 

resuspension during virtually every ship passage. However, the results also indicated that ship 

induced bottom velocities dissipate rapidly following the passage of the ship and that sediments 

resuspended by these currents settle back to the substrate after being transported relatively short 

distances (COE 1995). 

Following completion of the Boston Harbor Navigation Improvement Project, the COE 

conducted additional studies to monitor the effect of deep-draft vessel movement on the 

resuspension of bottom sediments (SAIC 2000, 2001). These studies used static and mobile 

monitoring techniques to evaluate the impact of the passage of an LNG vessel (Matthew) on 

bottom sediment resuspension from the confined aquatic disposal cells along a portion of the 

Mystic River downstream of the Distrigas LNG facility as well as material resuspended from 

other parts of the channel. 

These studies demonstrate that sediment resuspension due to passage of deep-draft vessels can 

mobilize bottom sediments, but the volume of sediment resuspended is relatively small and the 

sediments are not transported far from their original locations. Vessel movements within a 

navigation channel result in short-term water quality effects that generally dissipate within 1 

hour of the vessel passing any particular point along the channel. 

The potential for resuspended sediment to impact fish eggs and larvae depends upon the species, 

the concentration of particles, and the duration of exposure. Demersal eggs, such as those of 

winter flounder, may be partially or completely covered by fine-grained sediments as they settle 

back to the bottom. This may slow the exchange of oxygen between the water and egg and, 

therefore, slow development or cause eggs to experience higher mortality rates (Wilbur and 

Clarke 2001). Exposure to high levels of suspended solids (between 200 and 500 mg/L) for 

durations of less than 24 hours has been shown to reduce feeding rates in some fish larvae 

(Breitburg 1988). In general, however, exposure to increased turbidity for periods of less than 

one day appears to have little measurable effect on pelagic fish eggs and larvae (Kiorboe et al. 

1981; Wilbur and Clarke 2001). 

Based on the results of the Boston Harbor studies, the increased suspended solids levels resulting 

from the proposed LNG vessel passage could result in reduced feeding rates for some fish larvae 

in the immediate vicinity of the pier. However, we expect there would be minimal impact from 

elevated suspended solids levels on most pelagic fish eggs and larvae because suspended solids 
45

concentrations should return to background conditions within one hour or less of ship passage. 

Additionally, propeller wash due to normal operation of tugs, escort vessels, and LNG vessels 

would not be expected to increase turbidity in the vicinity of the pier because the sediments in 

this area appear to be cohesive, soft marine clays. Based on the initial monitoring in the Mystic 

River, the sediment plume did not rise above mid-water elevations (i.e., the plume was not 

observed at the water surface, and monitoring equipment indicated a maximum water column 

elevation of about 20 feet above the channel bottom). The dimensions of the monitored plumes 

in Boston Harbor suggest that impacts on demersal fish eggs and larvae by remobilized 

sediments would likely be limited. 

Once completed, the bottom of the pier deck and unloading platform would be approximately 

3,862-feet-long by 37-feet-wide, and stand about 38.1 feet above the surface of the water at 

MLLW. These facilities could shade approximately 6.6 acres of intertidal, subtidal, and openwater habitat. Included in the area impacted by shading would be about 0.6 acre of eelgrass as 

mapped by Maine DMR. We have recommended that Downeast conduct project specific 

mapping to determine potential presence and extent of eelgrass and need for mitigation for 

potential impacts, including from shading during operation (see section 4.4.2.2 of the final EIS). 

Shading may result in the alterations of species in the immediate project area by providing 

enhanced habitat for predatory species or other species that avoid intense direct sunlight during 

the day and seek seclusion. Increased shading may also have negative impacts on marine 

vegetation whose growth is limited by light availability. However, despite these potential 

impacts the pier is relatively narrow and would be constructed a sufficient height above the water 

as to have minor shading affects. In addition, while the pier may serve as a detractor to various 

species due to shading, the pier pilings themselves would provide new attachment surfaces for 

various marine species. We expect Fucus and Ascphyllum to colonize an area of the pilings from 

approximately 2 feet above MLLW to zero feet MLLW. Rhodymenia, Laminaria, and Alaria

would be expected to colonize a zone from zero to 20 feet below MLLW. Agarum would be 

expected to colonize the pilings below 20 feet MLLW (Hanic 1974). While the pier may reduce 

biological productivity of marine vegetation due to either shading or lighting, the pier pilings 

themselves would provide new attachment surfaces for various marine species. 

Artificial lighting would also be used along the pier that could result in effects on marine 

organisms. To ensure safety, lighting of the pier is under the jurisdiction of the Coast Guard. 

Downeast would work with the Coast Guard to establish a lighting plan that would both meet 

Coast Guard safety standards and minimize the impacts associated with artificial lighting on 

marine organisms to the extent practicable. 

Once constructed the pier would constitute a physical intrusion, in terms of distance, into 

Passamaquoddy Bay. Placement of support structures in areas of flow could result in altered 

hydrodynamic processes (Harbeneau and Holley 2001; Dyhouse et al. 2003). For instance, local 

current patterns could be influenced by the effect of the pier pilings/supports deflecting flow or 

lowering its velocity which could result in the alteration of localized normal sediment deposition 

patterns. Pilings/supports associated with the pier could also result in increased localized 

turbulence as flow passing through the structure is disturbed (Dyhouse et al. 2003). In the most 

extreme case, this turbulence may lead to a localized mixing of the water column that was 

formerly temperature and salinity stratified. Other potential direct consequences could include 

shifts in the distributions of benthic fauna requiring specific grain-size classes immediately 
46

adjacent to the pier. In addition, organisms with a planktonic larval stage that are dependent on 

transport processes facilitated by currents could be subject to localized shifts in recruitment 

patterns (Gaines and Bertness 1992). However, given the extreme tidal fluctuations of the area, 

we do not expect installation of pilings/supports to create noticeable changes in hydrodynamics 

of the Cove or the greater Passamaquoddy Bay area. Additionally, careful design of the pier and 

attendant structures would ensure that on- and off-site bathymetric changes and associated 

impacts are minimized. As such, we believe changes to hydrodynamic processes in the Cove 

and Bay are not likely to result in functional community shifts. 

No seawater would be used in the regasification of the LNG. Water withdrawals and discharges 

would only occur for vessel engine cooling, ballasting, hoteling, and fire suppression pump 

testing while at the berth, and weekly testing of the Emergency Firewater System pumps. Water 

withdrawals to support these systems would result in impacts on designated EFH species. It is 

anticipated that the size of vessels servicing the terminal would range from 125,000 m3

 up to 

165,000 m3

. To maintain a constant draft while berthed at the pier, LNG vessels would require 

between 53,683 m3 (small capacity 125,000 m3 vessel) and 64,759 m3 (large capacity 165,000 m3

vessel, including 165,000 m3 diesel vessel) of seawater ballast. This ballast water would be 

withdrawn from the surrounding area for a duration of approximately 12 hours per 21-hour cargo 

unloading period. Vessels would also require between 10,500 m3 (large capacity 165,000 m3

diesel vessel) and 168,000 m3 (steam-driven large capacity 165,000 m3 vessel) of water to 

support engine cooling and between an estimated 10,500 m3

 (large capacity 165,000 m3 diesel 

vessel) and 27,000 m3 (125,000 to 165,000 m3 steam-driven vessels) of water to support hoteling 

needs during the 21-hour period. Diesel powered vessels use a different propulsion system, 

which requires less water. A breakdown of water intake estimates for the range and type of LNG 

vessels that are anticipated to service the port are summarized in table 4.2-1. Ballast, engine 

cooling, and hoteling water would be drawn through intake openings (sea chests) on the side of 

the vessel. These openings would be covered with a strainer plate with slots designed to prevent 

intake of large objects. Aquatic organisms including zooplankton, icthyoplankton, and mysid 

shrimp in the immediate vicinity of the LNG vessel could therefore be subject to impingement 

and/or entrainment during water intake. Ballast, engine cooling, and hoteling intakes on the 

LNG vessels are located near the bottom of the vessel, and therefore, impingement and/or 

entrainment would be limited to organisms in the deeper water column (30 to 35 feet below the 

surface). 

 
47

Table 4.2-1 

 Vessel Seawater Usage Impacts to Fish Eggs, Fish Larvae, and Zooplankton per Visit Based on Worst Case Densities 

Ship class

a/ 

Cooling 

flow rate

b/ 

(m3/hr) 

Time in 

port c/ 

(hrs) 

Ballast volume 

d/ (m3) 

Total seawater 

usage/visit e/ 

(m3) 

% of Total 

area flow f/ 

% of Total 

regional flow 

g/ 

Mean 

Fish 

eggs h/ 

(#/m3) 

Total fish 

egg 

loss/visit i/

Mean 

Ichthy. j/ 

(#/m3) 

Total 

ichthyo 

loss/visit k/ 

Mean 

Zooplanton 

l/ (#/m3) 

Total 

zooplankton 

loss/visit m/ 

Full load ballast

125K 

MT 

6,341 21 53,683 186,835 0.058% 0.013% 0.541 101,078 0.177 33,070 3733 697,455,704

138K 

MT 

7,000 21 53,107 200,107 0.062% 0.014% 0.541 108,258 0.177 35,419 3733 746,999,431

145K 

MT 

7,355 21 56,964 211,421 0.066% 0.015% 0.541 114,379 0.177 37,421 3733 789,232,808

165K 

MTS 

8,000 21 64,759 232,759 0.072% 0.016% 0.541 125,923 0.177 41,198 3733 868,889,347

165K 

MTD 

500 21 64,759 75,259 0.023% 0.005% 0.541 40,715 0.177 13,321 3733 280,941,847

Light load ballast (80.8% of full load ballast)

125K 

MT 

6,341 21 43,372 176,524 0.055% 0.012% 0.541 37,776 0.177 31,245 3733 658,964,741

138K 

MT 

7,000 21 42,910 189,910 0.059% 0.013% 0.541 40,641 0.177 33,614 3733 708,935,732

145K 

MT 

7,355 21 46,027 200,483 0.062% 0.014% 0.541 42,903 0.177 35,486 3733 748,404,658

165K 

MTS 

8,000 21 52,325 220,325 0.068% 0.015% 0.541 47,150 0.177 38,998 3733 822,473,225

165K 

MTD 

500 21 52,325 62,825 0.020% 0.004% 0.541 13,445 0.177 11,120 3733 234,526,740

 

a/ Ship size class in thousands of metric tons 

b/ Flow rate source: John Egan, Marine Master, personal communication 2006 

c/ Estimated time in port/at dock: John Egan, Marine Master, personal communication 2006 

d/ Ballast volume source: John Egan, Marine Master, personal communication 2006 

e/ Total seawater usage per visit = cooling flow rate x time in port + ballast volume 

f/ Mean tidal flow (322x106 m3) across line from St. Andrews, New Brunswick and Lewis Cove, Robbinston, Maine - W.F. Baird & Associates, 

July 6, 2006, Table 6.1, p. 27 

g/ Mean ebb and flood tidal flow((1452x106 m3) in and out of Passamaquoddy Bay through Western Passage - W.F. Baird & Associates, July 

6, 2006, Table 6.1, p. 27 

h/ Based on maximum October 2006- November 2008 fish egg sampling in Mill Cove (July 2009) 

i/ Mill Cove annual maximum total fish egg count multiplied by total visit seawater usage 

j/ Based on maximum October 2006- November 2008 ichthyoplankton sampling in Mill Cove (July 2009) 

k/ Mill Cove annual maximum ichthyoplankton count multiplied by Total visit seawater usage 

l/ Based on maximum October 2006- November 2008 zooplankton sampling in Mill Cove (July 2009) 

m/ Mill Cove annual maximum total zooplankton count multiplied by total visit seawater usage 

MT=Motor Tanker ; MTD=Motor Tanker Diesel; MTS=Motor Tanker Steam 

Given the water requirements of the LNG vessels while berthed at the pier, it is likely that 

vessels servicing the Downeast LNG import terminal would have some impact on fish eggs and 

larvae. In general, the pier would be within the mixing zone of the estuary with salinities 

between 0.5 and 25.0 ppt (NOAA, 1985) and at depths less than 60 ft (18 m). Depth and salinity 

indicate that the LNG vessels are unlikely to impact eggs and larvae of ocean pout. In addition, 

pollock larvae are found in deeper, higher salinity waters and are likewise not likely to be 
48

entrained by LNG vessels at the port. American plaice eggs, sea scallop larvae, Atlantic herring 

larvae, and windowpane flounder eggs and larvae, other aquatic organisms including 

zooplankton, other icthyoplankton, and mysid shrimp in the immediate vicinity of the LNG 

vessel could be subject to impingement and/or entrainment during water intake. Winter flounder 

eggs and larvae are demersal and therefore are unlikely to be subject to impingement and/or 

entrainment during water intake. 

Ballast, engine cooling, and hoteling intakes on the LNG vessels are near the bottom of the 

vessel, and therefore, impingement and/or entrainment would be limited to organisms in the 

deeper water column (30 to 35 feet below the surface). The impacts on ichthyoplankton, 

zooplankton, and mysid shrimp related to the water used by vessels servicing the Downeast LNG 

terminal would vary based on a number of conditions including time of year, vessel type, vessel 

size, and duration at port. Loss estimations of ichthyoplankton and zooplankton from intakes 

associated with engine cooling and ballasting for each vessel class, species densities (worst 

case), and 100 percent mortality are included in appendix O of the EIS. Hoteling water intakes 

were not included within the context of this impact assessment; however, intake for this purpose 

would be relatively minor compared to those associated with engine cooling and ballasting. As 

indicated in table 4.2-1, the total ichthyoplankton loss per visit for a full load ballast, based on 

plankton sampling to date, ranges from a low of about 13,300 for a 165,000 m3

 diesel vessel to a 

high of 41,000 for a 165,000 m3 steam-driven vessel. 

Downeast LNG would not build, own, or operate the LNG vessels bringing LNG to the terminal 

and would not have contractual control over the LNG vessel operations related to water intake 

while at the terminal. As a practical matter ballast water is a requirement to maintain vessel 

stability while at the berth. Because proper ballasting is a safety issue, Downeast LNG would 

not be in a position to second guess the LNG vessels’ officers in using their judgment as to the 

timing, amount, or velocity of ballast water to take, which can vary due to certain factors (e.g., 

existing weather and sea conditions). The Emergency Fire Suppression system along the pier 

would also require the use of seawater during periodic system testing with the potential to 

adversely impact ichthyoplankton and zooplankton near the Downeast LNG Project area (see 

table 4.2-2). Species composition would be the same as that described for LNG vessel water 

intake. Downeast’s fire suppression system would consist of seven pumps that would draw 

water from a minimum of 30 feet, at a total capacity of 3,000 gpm and a total test flow rate of 

4,769 m3

/hr. Downeast would test the pumps weekly and require a total of 681.37 m3 of 

seawater for a test period of at least one hour per system test. Annual ichthyoplankton losses 

resulting from the emergency fire suppression testing are estimated to be 43,895 and egg losses 

resulting from the emergency fire suppression testing are estimated to be 134,164. The total 

annual zooplankton loss from emergency fire suppression system testing is estimated to be 926 

million. 

 
49

Table 4.2-2 

 Fire Suppression Seawater Usage Impacts to Fish Eggs, Fish Larvae, and Zooplankton per Visit Based on Worst Case Densities

Number Fire 

pumps 

Pump flow

rate (gpm)

Total test 

flow rate a/ 

(m3/hr) 

Test 

period 

(hrs) 

Total test 

volume b/ 

(m3) 

Max. 

Fish 

eggs c/ 

(#/m3) 

Total fish 

egg 

loss/test d/

Total fish 

egg 

loss/year 

e/ 

Max. 

Ichthy.f/ 

(#/m3) 

Total 

ichthy. 

loss/

test g/ 

Total 

ichthy. 

loss/year h/

Max. 

Zooplan

kton i/ 

(#/m3) 

Total zooplankton

loss j/ 

Total Annual 

zooplankton loss k/

7 3,000 4,769 1 4,769 0.541 2,580 134,164 0.177 844 43,895 3733 17,803,050 925,758,616 

a/ Total test flow rate (m3/hr) = (Pump flow rate (gpm) * 7) * 60min)*3.785 l/gal)/1000 l/m3

b/ Total test volume = Total test flow rate * Test period 

c/ Based on maximum October 2006- November 2008 fish egg sampling in Mill Cove (July 2009) 

d/ Mill Cove annual worst case total fish egg count multiplied by total test volume 

e/ Total fish egg loss/test * 52 tests/year 

f/ Based on maximum October 2006- November 2008 ichthyoplankton sampling in Mill Cove (July 2009)

g/ Mill Cove annual worst case total ichthyoplankton count multiplied by total test volume 

h/ Total ichthyoplankton loss/test * 52 tests/year 

i/ Based on maximum October 2006- November 2008 zooplankton sampling in Mill Cove (July 2009)

j/ Mill Cove annual worst case zooplankton count multiplied by Total test volume 

k/ Total zooplankton loss/test * 52 tests/year 

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

also likely occur during transit to and from the terminal as a result of water withdrawals to 

support vessel operational requirements. Such species would include, but are not limited to, 

American plaice and pollock larvae, and ocean pout eggs and larvae. However, because vessels 

would be drawing water as they transit across deep open waters, the potential impact would be 

transient and therefore not a significant impact to any particular localized aggregation of aquatic 

organisms. 

Loss of fish eggs and fish larvae has implications to the individual species populations, but the 

magnitude and significance of those implications is currently unclear given the very high 

mortality of fish eggs and larvae, with very few larvae surviving through the first year. The high 

mortality of larvae is due to natural attrition as well as predation, therefore there may be some 

implication to predator species, but again the significance of the potential LNG vessel-associated 

loss may be small relative to natural, non-predator mortality and the availability of other areawide or region-wide prey. Similarly, zooplankton is at the base of the oceans food web 

providing prey to higher trophic levels, including fish and filter-feeding whales. Werth (2004), 

working on hydrodynamic flow models of bowhead filter feeding apparatus, calculated a flow 

rate of 5.65 m3/sec for a 15m whale moving at a foraging speed of 4 km/hr. This feeding rate, if 

sustained over an hour, would result in a feeding flow volume of 20,340 m3

/hr, more than 2.76 

times the flow rate through a 145,000 metric ton LNG vessel in port with a flow rate of 7,355 

m3

/hr. Goldbogen et al. (2006) studying foraging dives and lunge feeding in fin whales 

estimated filtering rates at 1m3/sec, equivalent to 3,600 m3/hr if sustained for an hour. 

Additionally, as with fish larvae, the significance of the potential LNG vessel-associated loss 

may be small relative to natural, non-predator mortality and the availability of other area-wide or 

region-wide prey. Despite these estimated losses, we believe the significant tidal fluctuations 

and water exchange that occurs in the Downeast LNG Project area; the high densities of 

ichthyoplankton; and the comparatively small amount of water withdrawn suggest that the 

overall impacts on fish eggs and larvae of EFH designated species in the Downeast LNG Project 

area would have an inconsequential effect on overall community populations and associated fish 

stocks. 
50

The proposed LNG terminal pier would be in Mill Cove slightly south of the confluence of 

Passamaquoddy Bay and St. Croix River. The outlet of Passamaquoddy Bay exchanges water 

with the Bay of Fundy (see figure 2-4). This general area is known for its extreme tidal range 

and swift currents. Downeast states that, although the LNG terminal berth and offloading facility 

would have the potential to handle future vessels of 220,000 m3

, the largest vessel that would be 

accommodated at the import facility would be a 165,000 m3 LNG vessel. Such a vessel would 

require about 64,759 m3

 of water, which would be obtained in Passamaquoddy Bay and 

transported out of the waterway. This quantity is estimated to be about 0.0003 percent of the 

quantity of water that flows in and out of Passamaquoddy Bay during one tidal cycle. However, 

NOAA Fisheries staff has expressed concern for plankton losses due to water withdrawals from 

LNG vessel visits to the Downeast LNG terminal. NOAA Fisheries has recommended 

monitoring activities to confirm our conclusions. NOAA Fisheries has suggested that such 

monitoring activities would provide baseline information to assist in adaptive mitigation, should 

the need arise, for managing potential impacts on these species. NOAA Fisheries has 

encouraged continued consultation to develop a monitoring plan and/or compensatory mitigation 

program, if necessary, to offset ‘life cycle’ impacts that may result from the Downeast LNG 

Project. While we understand NOAA Fisheries’ request for ichthyoplankton and zooplankton 

field survey data during water withdrawals by the LNG carrier, we believe that Downeast’s use 

of best available scientific data for plankton impacts are adequate to determine impacts. Further, 

we note that Downeast would have no control over the LNG vessels calling on the Project, and 

would not be able to conduct adaptive management to minimize impacts on the plankton during 

operation of the vessels. 

During operation, engine cooling water discharged from LNG Vessels servicing the Downeast 

LNG import terminal is expected to create temperature changes at and around the vessel’s 

outflow. We expect thermal impacts associated with vessel engine cooling discharge waters 

would also be minor and insignificant. Downeast’s CORMIX modeling indicates that vessel 

engine cooling discharges would result in a maximum 26-square meter plume of water that 

would dissipate to a change of temperature of approximately 1.8°F (1°C) or less warmer than 

ambient conditions 15 to 30 meters from the discharge source (see EIS appendix O). The water 

temperature in the vicinity of the terminal site rarely rises above 57°F (14°C). Tolerable 

temperature ranges per species with EFH designation in and adjacent to Passamaquoddy Bay are 

presented in table 4.2-3. Given the limited extent of temperature change and the rapid mixing 

due to currents and tidal flow, numbers of individual eggs and larvae exposed to temperatures 

exceeding their maximum tolerances is expected to be minor and insignificant. In addition, 

because the facility would accommodate only one vessel at a time, and tidal velocities would 

rapidly disperse any created thermal plumes, any engine cooling impacts would be significantly 

less in extent and scope than those associated with existing harbors with multiple vessel 

operations. 

Facility operation would also increase the risk of unintentional releases of fuel and other 

contaminants. Such an event could have adverse effects on EFH and fish species. Mitigation 

and remedial measures have been addressed in the developmental phases of the project, and 

preventative and response plans would be required (e.g., SPCC Plan, Shipboard Oil Pollution 

Emergency Plan, Vessel General Permit) to minimize/eliminate the potential impacts due to such 

events (i.e., fuel spill, surface water fire, or disabled vessels, for example). If such an event does 
51

occur, incidental adverse impacts on fish and designated EFH may be likely; however, it is 

anticipated that these effects would be temporary in duration and scope. 

There is a very low probability that an area of the pipelines associated with the LNG transfer 

system would fail, or that an LNG vessel spill from collisions, allisions, or terrorist attacks would 

release LNG into the marine environment. 

Table 4.2-3 

 Temperature Ranges for Fish Species with EFH Designation in the Passamaquoddy Bay Area 

Temperatures are Expressed in Degrees Fahrenheit (°F)

Species Eggs Larvae Juveniles Adults Spawning 

Adults 

American plaice (Hippoglossoides platessoides) 33.8-53.6 39.2-57.2 39.2-60.8 37.4-59 37.4-42.8 

Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua) < 53.6 39.2-51.8 < 68 33.8-62.6 < 50 

Atlantic halibut (Hippoglossus hippoglossus) 39.2-44.6 35.6 < 56.48 < 44.6 

Atlantic herring (Clupea harengus < 59 < 50 < 50 < 50 < 59 

Atlantic mackerel (Scomber scombrus) 41-73.4 42.8-71.6 39.2-71.6 39.2-60.8 

Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) < 50 < 50 < 77 73.04 < 68 

Atlantic sea scallop (Placopecten magellanicus) < 62.6 < 64.4 < 59 < 69.8 < 60.8 

Ocean pout (Macrozoarces americanus) < 50 < 50 < 57.2 < 59 42.8-48.2 

Pollock (Pollachius virens) < 62.6 < 62.6 < 64.4 32-57.2 < 46.4 

Red hake (Urophycis chuss) < 50 < 66.2 < 60.8 < 53.6 < 50 

White hake (Urophycis tenuis) 44.6-68 50-64.4 46.4-66.2 41-57.2 < 57.2 

Whiting (Merluccius bilinearis) also called Silver hake < 68 < 68 < 69.8 < 71.6 < 55.4 

Windowpane flounder (Scopthalmus aquosus) 42.8-68 < 68 39.2-60.8 < 80.24 < 69.8 

Winter flounder (Pleuronectes americanus) < 50 < 59 < 77 < 59 37.94-42.08 

Sources: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries Service web page - EFH Designations for New 

England Skate Complex (http://www.nero.noaa.gov/hcd/skateefhmaps.htm). All other species: NOAA Fisheries EFH designations 

web page for Passamaquoddy Bay, Maine 10 x 10 minute grid cell (http://www.nero.noaa.gov/hcd/STATES4/nmaine.htm). 

Accessed 22 March, 2007. 

Note: This table provides available information on tolerable temperature ranges in regard to EFH designated species; this does not 

suggest that all noted species and/or life-stages are known to be present within the project area of Passamaquoddy Bay. 
52

5.0 MITIGATION 

Downeast would implement mitigation measures during all stages of the Downeast LNG Project, 

as applicable, maximizing protection of the EFH and designated species by either avoiding 

adverse impacts, or minimizing the potential for adverse impacts. Downeast has identified a 

number of mitigation measures to avoid, minimize, or compensate for impacts on EFH due to 

construction and operation of its Downeast LNG Project. The FERC staff also intends to include 

recommendations in the EIS that will provide additional mitigation measures for impacts on 

aquatic resources, including EFH. Some of the primary EFH mitigation measures include: 

 The installation of the pier using a conventional “over-the-top” method of construction 

whereby the pier trestle is constructed from the shore seaward. This method of 

installation would limit the use of barge-mounted equipment reducing the amount of 

impacts to the Cove seabed from anchoring, as well as reduce the area of habitat 

disturbance and loss from propeller wash. 

 All vessels over 65 feet (19.8 meters) involved with construction, or future operations of 

the Downeast LNG terminal would comply with ship strike rules (50 CFR Part 224.105 ) 

in US waters. In addition, from July through October, vessels would slow to 10 knots 

upon entering Grand Manan Channel, on a line drawn between Cutler, Maine and the 

southwestern tip of Grand Manan Island, or approximately 44.6o north latitude. Vessels 

departing the Downeast LNG terminal from July through October, via the Grand Manan 

Channel, would not exceed 10 knots until south the previously specified latitude. 

 All vessels over 65 feet (19.8 meters) navigating the BOF TSS that are involved with 

construction, or future operations of the Downeast LNG terminal would slow to 10 knots 

upon northwesterly course adjustment near 44.5o north latitude from July through 

October. Vessels bound for the Downeast LNG terminal would remain at 10 knots or 

slower until their arrival at the terminal, or until control is relinquished to a tug. Vessels 

departing the Downeast LNG terminal from July through October, via the BOF TSS, 

would not exceed 10 knots until after making the southwesterly course adjustment near 

44.5o north latitude. 

 Downeast stated that based on current design and engineering the project could be 

constructed using only vibratory hammering for pile driving, and committed to the 

singular use of vibratory hammering for the installation of piles 

 Underwater noise levels would be mitigated for to ensure that the extent of the 150 dB re 

1μPa Root Mean Squared isopleth (i.e., the level of underwater noise believed to cause 

behavioral modification in sturgeon and other diadromous species) does not prevent 

passage of species within the affected body of water, particularly between March 15 and 

July 30. While individuals may be displaced from, or avoid, the ensonified area, there 

must always be a zone of passage where noise levels remain below 150 dB re 1μPa Root 

Mean Squared. 

 Downeast would determine the effectiveness of the mitigated pile driving by modeling 

sound levels throughout the ensonified area and provide an updated isopleth map to 

NOAA Fisheries prior to the issuance of a concurrence letter. 
53

 During construction, Downeast LNG would record PEAK sound pressure level and 

calculate Cumulative Sound Exposure Level (CSEL) and Root Mean Squared from the 

sound pressure level waveform and report results to NOAA Fisheries staff on a daily 

basis. 

 During rock socket drilling and pile driving, Downeast LNG would monitor sound 

pressure level with hydrophones and a digital recorder capable of operating at a minimum 

of 600,000 samples per second for a minimum of one second, with an adjustable trigger 

level, and a range of at least 30 psi. Based on protocol for measuring in-water acoustic 

fields and natural noise attenuation of 3-6 dB per doubling of distance, a minimum of 

three locations will be monitored, located approximately 10, 20, and 40 meters from the 

sound source. 

 A post-project report, confirming completion of construction and the successful 

application of all terms and conditions of this permit, must be submitted within four (4) 

weeks of project completion. Submit post-project reports to NOAA Fisheries and to 

FERC. 

 Due to the water depth and vessel draft, the use of ship’s bow thrusters are prohibited, 

subject to conflicting Coast Guard or Pilot requirements necessarily imposed for 

navigational safety and/or security, during low tide when approaching/departing the pier 

or while docked. 

 The use of construction timing windows to avoid sensitive periods such as spawning, 

migration, and peak fishery activity is a viable mitigation method. Timing may also 

include avoiding equipment relocation activity during specific periods of the diurnal tide 

to avoid excessive disturbance to the bottom and reduce sediment resuspension by 

construction vessels. We recommended in the EIS that FERC staff will review all 

supplemental information when filed, and will consult with resource agencies regarding 

recommended seasonal or construction timing restrictions to minimize impacts on marine 

species and habitats during all proposed in-water work and pile driving activities at the 

LNG terminal. On July 10, 2009 Downeast filed with the Secretary its response to the 

condition including a June 3, 2009 memorandum to NOAA Fisheries, Maine DMR, 

Maine DEP, and Maine DIFW. Downeast concluded, “While Downeast LNG will 

continue to consult with the appropriate agencies to determine any recommended 

construction timing restrictions to minimize habitat impacts (and will file such 

information with the Commission upon receipt), the state permitting process in Maine 

will include a detailed review of these issues, including any required mitigation measures. 

Until such time as the state permitting process is concluded and all relevant state resource 

agencies have provided their input through that process, Downeast LNG likely will not 

have all state agency recommendations concerning seasonal or construction timing 

restrictions.” 

 The use of intake screens to minimize entrainment and the control of intake rates during 

hydrostatic testing and fire system testing to minimize entrainment and impingement of 

aquatic organisms. 

We believe that we have addressed in this EFH Assessment all of NOAA Fisheries concerns. 

Additionally, the FERC staff welcomes any additional comments that NOAA Fisheries may 

have. 
54

6.0 REFERENCES 

Bigelow, H.B. and W.C. Schroeder. 1953. Fishes of the Gulf of Maine. Fishery Bulletin of the 

Fish and Wildlife Service. Vol. 53. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. 

Bigelow, H.B. and W.C. Schroeder. 2002. Fishes of the Gulf of Maine. Third edition, B.B. 

Collette and G. Klein-Macphee (Eds.). Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC, 

748 pp. 

Breitburg, L. 1988. Effects on turbidity on prey consumption by striped bass larvae. Transactions 

of the American Fisheries Society 117:72-77. 

Buchman, M.F. 1999. NOAA Screening Quick Reference Tables, NOAA HAZMAT Report 

99-1. Coastal Protection and Restoration Division, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration. Seattle, Washington. 

Cargnelli, L.M., S.J. Griesbach, D.B. Packer, P.L. Berrien, D.L. Johnson, and W.W. Morse. 

1999a. Essential Fish Habitat Source Document: Atlantic Halibut, Hippoglossus 

hippoglossus, Life History and Habitat Characteristics. National Marine Fisheries 

Service, MA. 

Cargnelli, L.M., S.J. Griesbach, D.B. Packer, P.L. Berrien, D.L. Johnson, and W.W. Morse. 

1999b. Essential Fish Habitat Source Document: Pollock, Pollachius virens, Life History 

and Habitat Characteristics. National Marine Fisheries Service, MA. 

COE. (U.S. Amy Corps of Engineers, New England Division and Massachusetts Port Authority, 

Maritime Department). 1995. Final Environmental Impact Report (EOEA File Number 

8695) and Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 1 of 3. Boston Harbor, 

Massachusetts Navigation Improvement Project and Berth Dredging Project. 

Dyhouse, G., J.R. Benn, and J. Hatchett. 2003. Floodplain modeling using HEC-RAS. Haestad 

Press, Waterbury, CT. 

Fife, F.J. 2006. Personal communication with Chris Heinig regarding Atlantic herring 

ichthyoplankton abundance in Passamaquoddy Bay. Canada Department of Fisheries and 

Oceans (DFO), St. Andrews Biological Station, St. Andrews, New Brunswick. (As cited 

in Downeast LNG’s Resource Report 3). 

FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2006. Letter to FERC in response to the NOI in a letter 

to FERC. Received on April 27, 2006 

Gaines, M.D. and S.D. Bertness. 1992. Dispersal of juveniles and variable recruitment in sessile 

marine species. Nature, 360:579-580. 

Goldbogen, J.A., J.Calambokidis, R.E. Shadwick, E.M. Oleson, M.A. McDonald, and J.A. 

Hildebrand (2006). Kinematics of foraging dives and lunge-feeding in fin whales. J. Exp. 

Biol. 209, 1231-1244. 

Hanic, L.A. 1974. Guide to the Common Seaweeds of Prince Edward Island, Action Press, 

Charlottetown, P.E.I. 65pp. 
55

Harbeneau, R.J. and E.R. Holley. 2001. Backwater effects of bridge piers in subcritical flow. 

Project summary report 1805-S. Center for Transportation Research, the University of 

Texas at Austin. 

Hart, D.R. and A.S. Chute. 2004. Essential Fish Habitat Source Document: Sea Scallop, 

Placopecten magellanicus, Life History and Habitat Characteristics Second Edition. 

National Marine Fisheries Service. Massachusetts. 

Hastings, M.C. and A.N. Popper. 2005. Effects of Sound on Fish. California Department of 

Transportation. 

Johnson, D.L. 2004. Essential Fish Habitat Source Document: American Plaice, 

Hippoglossoides platessoides, Life History and Habitat Characteristics, 2nd Edition. 

National Marine Fisheries Service, New Jersey. 

Johnson, D.L., W.W. Morse, P.L. Berrien, and J.J. Vitaliano. 1999. Essential Fish Habitat 

Source Document: Yellowtail Flounder, Limanda ferruginea, Life History and Habitat 

Characteristics. National Marine Fisheries Service, New Jersey. 

Lough, R.G. 2004. Essential Fish Habitat Source Document: Atlantic Cod, Gadus morhua, Life 

History and Habitat Characteristics. National Marine Fisheries Service, New Jersey. 

NEFMC (New England Fishery Management Council). 1998. Final Amendments for Essential 

Fish Habitat Incorporating the Environmental Assessment, Volume I. Prepared by the 

New England Fishery Management Council in consultation with National Marine 

Fisheries Council. Submitted 07 October, 1998. 

NOAA. 1985. National Estuarine Inventory: Data Atlas, Volume 1: Physical and Hydrologic 

Characteristics. Rockville, MD.: Strategic Assessment Branch, Ocean Assessments 

Division. 104 pp 

NOAA Fisheries (National Marine Fisheries Service). 1998. Essential Fish Habitat: New Marine 

Fish Habitat Conservation Mandate for Federal Agencies. National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service. Habitat Conservation 

Division. Gloucester, MA. 

NOAA Fisheries (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2005. Proactive Conservation Program - 

Atlantic Salmon (Salmo salar). (http://www.NOAA Fisheries.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/species/ 

atlantic_salmon.pdf). Accessed 24 March 2007. 

NOAA Fisheries. 2013. Summary of Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Designations. Available at: 

http://www.nero.noaa.gov/hcd/index2a.htm.Packer, D.B., C.A. Zetlin, and J. J. Vitaliano. 

1999. Essential Fish Habitat Source Document: White hake (Urophycis tenuis), Life 

History and Habitat Characteristics. National Marine Fisheries Service, MA. 

Packer, D.B., C.A. Zetlin, and J.J. Vitaliano. 2003a. Essential Fish Habitat Source Document: 

Barndoor Skate, Dipturus laevis, Life History and Habitat Characteristics. National 

Marine Fisheries Service, Massachusetts. 

Packer, D.B., C.A. Zetlin, and J.J. Vitaliano. 2003b. Essential Fish Habitat Source Document: 

Little Skate, Leucoraja erinacea, Life History and Habitat Characteristics. National 
56

Marine Fisheries Service, James J. Howard Marine Sciences Lab., Highlands, New 

Jersey. 

Packer, D.B., C.A. Zetlin, and J.J. Vitaliano. 2003c. Essential Fish Habitat Source Document: 

Smooth Skate, Malacoraja senta, Life History and Habitat Characteristics. National 

Marine Fisheries Service, Massachusetts. 

Packer, D.B., C.A. Zetlin, and J. J. Vitaliano. 2003d. Essential Fish Habitat Source Document: 

Thorny Skate, Amblyraja radiata, Life History and Habitat Characteristics. National 

Marine Fisheries Service, MA. 

Packer, D.B., C.A. Zetlin, and J. J. Vitaliano. 2003e. Essential Fish Habitat Source Document: 

Winter Skate, Leucoraja ocellata, Life History and Habitat Characteristics. National 

Marine Fisheries Service, MA. 

Pereira, J.J., R. Goldberg, J.J. Ziskowski, P.L. Berrien, W.W. Morse, and D.L. Johnson. 1999. 

Essential Fish Habitat Source Document: Winter Flounder, Pseudopleuronectes 

americanus, Life History and Habitat Characteristics. National Marine Fisheries Service, 

MA. 

SAIC (Science Applications International Corporation). 2000. Boston Harbor Water Quality 

Monitoring - Vessel Passage over Confined Aquatic Disposal Cells, Monitoring in Wake 

of LNG Carrier Matthew on March 31, 2000. SAIC Report No. 491. Submitted to U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers, New England District, Concord, Massachusetts. 

SAIC. 2001. Science Applications International Corporation. 2001. Monitoring Sediment 

Resuspension Processes Within a Boston Harbor CAD Cell During Passage of a DeepDraft Vessel. SAIC Report No. 492, Submitted to U.S. Army Engineer Research and 

Development Center, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi (Delivery 

Order DACW39-99-F-0172). 

Steimle, F.W., W.W. Morse, P.L. Berrien, and D.L. Johnson. 1999a. Essential Fish Habitat 

Source Document: Red Hake, Urophycis chuss, Life History and Habitat Characteristics. 

National Marine Fisheries Service, MA. 

Steimle, F.W., W.W. Morse, P.L. Berrien, D.L. Johnson, and C.A. Zetlin. 1999b. Essential Fish 

Habitat Source Document: Ocean Pout, Macrozoarces americanus, Life History and 

Habitat Characteristics. National Marine Fisheries Service, Massachusetts. 

Stevenson, D.K. and M.L. Scott. 2005. Essential Fish Habitat Source Document: Atlantic 

Herring, Clupea harengus, Life History and Habitat Characteristics. Second Edition. 

National Marine Fisheries Service, MA. 

Werth, A. J. (2004). Models of hydrodynamic flow in the bowhead whale filter feeding 

apparatus. J. Exp. Biol. 207, 3569-3580. 

Wilbur, D.H. and D.G. Clarke. 2001. Biological effects of suspended sediments: A review of 

suspended sediment impacts on fish and shellfish with relation to dredging activities in 

estuaries. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 21:855-875.