Appendix C 

Biological Assessment 
DOWNEAST LNG PROJECT

Revised Biological Assessment

June 2012

20120614-0037 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 06/14/2012
TABLE OF CONTENTS. .

LIST OF TABLES.

LIST OF FIGURES .

LIST OF ATTACHMENTS .

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS .. lv

1.0

2.0

INTRODUCTION

1.1 COORDINATION AND COMMUNICATION RELATED TO SECTION 7

CONSULTATION.

1.2 ACTION AREA. .

1.3 SPECIES AND HABITATS CONSIDERED.

Federally Listed Endangered or Threatened Species and Designated Critical

Habitats.

1.4 EVALUATION METHODOLOGY

1.4. 1 Existing Literature and Reference Materials.

1.4.2 Field Site Assessment.

DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION ..

2.1 LNG TERMINAL FACILITIES

2.1.1 Proposed LNG Terminal Facilities

2.1.2 LNG Terminal Facilities Land Requirements . .

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

2.1.4 LNG Terminal Operation and Maintenance Procedures

2.2 LNG VESSELS AND VESSEL TRANSITS ...

2.2. 1 LNG Vessels .......... ........ ........ ................ ................ ........................

2.2.2 Waterway to LNG Terminal.

2.3 SENDOUT PIPELINE.

2.3.1 Proposed Facilities.

2.3.2 Sendout Pipeline Land Requirements

2.3.3 Pipeline Construction Procedures

2.3.4 Pipeline Operation and Maintenance Procedures.

2.4 CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE

2.5 ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE INSPECTION AND MITIGATION

MONITORING. ...

2.6 FUTURE PLANS AND ABANDONMENT

1-2

1-5

1-5

1-6

1-8

1-8

1-9

2-1

2-1

. 2-1

.2-2

. 2-7

2-10

2-12

2-12

2-13

2-14

2-14

2-15

2-17

2-23

2-24

2-24

2 25

3.0 EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS

3.1 WATERWAY FOR LNG MARINE TRAFFIC

3.1.1 Marine Environment.

3.1.2 Western Passage/Passamaquoddy Bay

3.1.3 Vessel Traffic.

3.1.4 Vessel Strikes off the East Coast.

3.2 LNG TERMINAL AND PIPELINE. . ....

3-1

3-1

3-1

3-1

3-2

....3-3

3 4

20120614-0037 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 06/14/2012
4.0

3.2. 1 Terrestrial Areas. . 3-4

3.2.2 Aquatic Areas. . .. .. .3-9

STATUS OF SPECIES AND CRITICAL HABITAT AND PROJECT EFFECTS .......4-1

4.1 ATLANTIC SALMON (ENDANGERED). .

4.1.1 Status of Atlantic Salmon in the Project Area

. 4-1

. 4-1

4.2

4.1.2 Effects on Atlantic Salmon .. .46

ATLANTIC STURGEON (THREATENED —GULF OF MAINE DPS) ..........4-9

4.2. 1 Status of Atlantic Sturgeon in Project Area. 4-9

4.3

4.5

4.2.2 Effects on Atlantic Sturgeon

SHORTNOSE STURGEON (ENDANGERED)

4.3.1 Status of Shortnose Sturgeon in Project Area. ......................

4.3.2 Effects on Shortnose Sturgeon. .

LEATHERBACK SEA TURTLES (ENDANGERED) ...................

4.4. 1 Status of Leatherback Sea Turtles in Project Area ...............

4.4.2 Effects on Leatherback Sea Turtles ........ ........... ...........

CETACEANS.

4.5. 1 Description and Status of Cetaceans in the Project Area. .....

4.5.2 Effects on Cetaceans. .

4-1 I

4-18

..... 4-18

..4-20

.....4-21

.....4-21

.....4-24

..4-27

.....4-27

..4-47

5.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS AND FINDINGS OF EFFECT

5. 1 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS .

5.2 SUMMARY OF EFFECTS DETERMINATIONS. ......

6.0 REFERENCES .

5-1

5-1

..... 5-2

...6-1

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1.2.1-I

Table 2.1.2-1

TABLE 2.3.2.1-1

Table 2.3.2.1-2

Table 2.3.3.2-1

Table 3.1.4-1

Table 4.4.1.1-1

TABLE 4.4.2-1

TABLE 5-1

Species Listed Under the Endangered Species Act .................................

Summary of Land Requirements for the Proposed LNG Terminal

Facilities ..

Summary of Land Requirements for the Proposed Pipeline Facilities ....

Where the Downcast Sendout Pipeline Would Parallel Existing Rightsof-Way

Waterbodies Crossed by the Pipeline Route

Analysis of Whale Mortality and Serious Injury Reports Associated

with Vessel Strikes from the Period 1905 —2008 /a/ & b/ .....................

Identified Ship Strikes of North Atlantic Right Whales in the Bay of

Fundy and Adjacent Areas . .

Types of Sound Categorized Based on the Characteristics ofthe Noise

at the Source

Summary of Effects Determinations for Federally-listed Threatened or

Endangered Species Potentially Occurring near the Downcast LNG

Project.

1-7

.2-2

2-15

2-16

2-21

3-4

4-30

4-50

5-3

20120614-0037 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 06/14/2012
LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2-1

Figure 2-2

Figure 2-3

Figure 2-4

Project Location Map ..

LNG Terminal Location Map

LNG Terminal Plot Plan.

Waterway for LNG Marine Traffic

.2-3

.2-4

.....2-5

. 2-6

LIST OF ATTACHMENTS

Attachment A

Attachment B

Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species Surveys

Summary of Stream Habitat Analyses along the Sendout Pipeline

20120614-0037 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 06/14/2012
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

API

ATBA

BA

BMPs

BOG

BSEE

CFR

COE

Commission or FERC

dB

DMA

DOT

Downcast

DPS

EEZ

EI

EIS

EMEC

EPA

ESA

FR

FWS

GIS

gpm

HDD

IMO

IWC

LNG

LOR

M&NE

Maine ASC

Maine DEP

Maine DIFW

Maine DMR

Maine NAP

Maine PDES

MARPOL

MLLW

MLV

MMscfd

MMPA

Moosehorn NWR

MOU

American Petroleum Institute

area to be avoided

Biological Assessment

Best Management Practices

boil-off gas

Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement

Code ofthe Federal Regulations'

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

decibel

dynamically managed area

U.S. Department of Transportation

Downcast LNG, Inc. and Downcast Pipeline, LLC collectively

Distinct Population Segment

economic exclusion zone

Environmental Inspector

Environmental Impact Statement

Eastern Maine Electric Cooperative

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Endangered Species Act

Federal Register

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Geographic Information Systems

gallons per minute

horizontal directional drill

International Maritime Organization

International Whaling Commission

liquefied natural gas

Letter of Recommendation

Maritimes and Northeast Pipeline L.L.C.

Maine Atlantic Salmon Commission

Maine Department of Environmental Protection

Maine Department ofInland Fisheries and Wildlife

Maine Department of Marine Resources

Maine Natural Areas Program

Maine Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships

mean lower low water

mainline valves

million standard cubic feet per day

Marine Mammal Protection Act

Moosehorn National Wildlife Refuge

Memorandum of Understanding

20120614-0037 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 06/14/2012
MP

mph

MRSA

MSRS

NEPA

NFPA

NGA

NOAA Fisheries

NOI

NRPA

NWI

NWR

OSP

PBR

PEM

PFO

Plan

Procedures

PSS

RTE

SCV

Services

SMA

SOPEP

SPCC Plan

Strategy

SVP

SWPPP

TED

TSS

USC

VGP

USGS

VTS

WSR

IiPa

milepost

miles per hour

Maine Revised Statute Annotated

Mandatory Ship Reporting Systems

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

National Fire Protection Association

Natural Gas Act

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine

Fisheries Service

Notice of Intent

Maine Natural Resources Protection Act

National Wetlands Inventory

National Wildlife Refuge

Optimal Sustainable Population

potential biological removal

palustrine emergent

palustrine forested

Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation and Maintenance Plan

Wetland and Waterbody Construction and Mitigation Procedures

palustrine scrub-shrub

rare, threatened, and endangered

submerged combustion vaporizer

FWS and NOAA Fisheries collectively

seasonal management areas

Shipboard Oil Pollution Emergency Plan

Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure Plan

Strategy for Sea Turtle Conservation and Recovery in Relation to

Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Fisheries

significant vernal pools

Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan

turtle excluder devices

Traffic Separation Schemes

United States Code

Vessel General Permit

United States Geological Survey

Vessel Traffic Scheme

Waterway Suitability Report

micro-Pascal

20120614-0037 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 06/14/2012
1.0 INTRODUCTION

Downcast Pipeline, L.L.C., a wholly owned subsidiary of Downcast LNG, lnc. (hereafter

collectively referred to as Downcast) has filed applications with the Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission (FERC or Commission) under Sections 3(a) and 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act

(NGA). Downcast seeks authorization to site, construct, and operate a liquefied natural gas

(LNG) import terminal and associated natural gas sendout pipeline in Washington County,

Maine (collectively referred to as the Downcast LNG Project). The project would consist of

offshore facilities for unloading LNG vessels (the pier), and onshore facilities for storing up to

320,000 ms of LNG, vaporizing the LNG, and sending out the natural gas at a baseload rate of

500 million standard cubic feet per day (MMscfd), with peaking capacity of approximately 625

MMscfd. The facilities would be constructed on the south side of Mill Cove in the Town of

Robbinston, near the confluence of Passamaquoddy Bay and the St. Croix River. The pipeline

would consist of approximately 29.8 miles of 30-inch-diameter pipeline that would interconnect

with the interstate natural gas transmission system of Maritimes and Northeast Pipeline (M&NE)

near M&NE's existing compressor station at Baileyville, Maine.

We' note that Downcast's project would transport between 500 and 625 MMscfd. M&NE's

existing system is capable of transporting about 800 MMscfd. We originally considered an

M&NE expansion in our biological assessment (BA); however, our new internal engineering

analysis concludes M&NE's existing system would be capable of transporting the additional gas

volume provided by Downcast, with some changes in gas flow. Market conditions and new gas

supplies, principally from shale gas in the northeast, could change the economic landscape for

gas supplies and the direction of gas flows on the M&NE system. Further, M&NE has not

proposed an expansion of its existing system to transport the gas from Downcast's proposed

facilities, and our analysis of an expansion at this time would be presumptive, mostly guesswork

on our part, and premature. Additionally, M&NE must file an application with the FERC for

authorization to construct any expansion facilities that could impact threatened or endangerd

species. The FERC would conduct a full environmental analysis of the proposal, including ESA

consultations, before the Commission would consider authorizing M&NE to construct any

downstream facilities. Therefore, we have eliminated the discussion of M&NE's facilities from

this BA.

The FERC is the primary federal agency responsible for authorizing applications to construct and

operate onshore LNG import and interstate natural gas transmission facilities. Other federal

action agencies with significant authorities over the Downcast LNG Project include the U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers (COE), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,

National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries); the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS),

the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, and the U.S. Coast Guard (Coast Guard). The COE

has authority to issue dredging and wetland permits for the Downcast LNG Project. The Coast

Guard determines the suitability of the waterway for LNG marine traffic by issuing a Letter of

Recommendation (LOR). The FERC has and will continue to work closely with both the COE

'

The pronouns "we,""us,"

and "our" refer to the environmental staff of the FERC's Office of Energy Projects.

1-1

20120614-0037 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 06/14/2012
and the Coast Guard to allow all of the agencies to adopt the results of this ESA consultation

process.

Since issuance of the draft environmental impact statement (EIS) in May of 2009, the U.S.

Department of Transportation (DOT) began addressing issues raised by the public, the National

Fire Protection Association, the Fire Protection Research Foundation, and the National

Association of State Fire Marshalls on the exclusion zone requirements contained in Title 49 of

the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 193 (49 CFR 193). As the proposed Downcast facility

would be subject to these regulations, we were unable to continue further work on this project

until DOT resolved questions relating to dispersion modeling. In October 2011, DOT issued

final decisions approving specific alternative dispersion models for use in complying with these

federal safety standards. Since that time, Downcast has filed compliance information with the

FERC regarding Part 193 of the regulations and we are once again actively reviewing this

project.

Section 7 of the ESA, as amended, states that any project authorized, funded, or conducted by

any federal agency should not ".. .jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species

or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of habitat of

such species which is determined. . .to be critical. ..

"

(16 United States Code [USC]

Section 1536(a)(2)(1988)). The FERC, or Downcast as our non-federal representative, is

required to consult with the FWS and NOAA Fisheries (known collectively as the Services) to

determine whether any federallylisted or proposed endangered or threatened species or their

designated critical habitats could be affected by the Downcast LNG Project. The FERC has

prepared this BAto request formal consultation with the Services for the Downcast LNG Project.

We included the BA as an appendix to the draft EIS issued in May 2009. Both the FWS (letter

dated September 24, 2009 (FWS 2009)) and NOAA Fisheries (letter dated August 31, 2009

(NOAA Fisheries 2009)) provided comments on the 2009 BA. We have revised the appropriate

sections of this BA to address comments from the FWS and NOAA Fisheries, as well as address

changes to listed species and other updates since 2009.

1.1 COORDINATION AND COMMUNICATION RELATED TO SECTION 7

CONSULTATION

Downcast informed the agencies of its plan to file an application with the FERC on Januray 5,

2006 (Woodlot 2006b). Downcast initiated informal coordination with FWS and NOAA

Fisheries in a letter dated February 21, 2006, requesting information on federally listed species

(Woodlot 2006a).

On March 13, 2006, the FERC issued its Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an Environmental

Impact Statement (EIS) for the Downcast LNG Project (FERC 2006a). The FWS and NOAA

Fisheries responded to the NOI in a letter to FERC received on April 27, 2006 (NOAA Fisheries

2006, FWS 2006a).

Coordination and consultation with federal, state, and local agencies, as well as the government

of Canada and groups with special expertise regarding federally listed species, has included:

1-2

20120614-0037 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 06/14/2012
~ March 3, 2006 —The FWS commented to the FERC about endangered Atlantic salmon

habitat in the project area;

~ March 27, 2006 —The FERC held the first NEPA Scoping/Interagency Meeting for both

the Quoddy Bay and the Downcast projects;

~ April 13, 2006 —The Atlantic Salmon Federation commented to the FERC about impacts

on Atlantic salmon;

~ May 4, 2006 —The FWS commented to the FERC to coordinate with federal and

provincial (New Brunswick) fish and wildlife agencies in Canada to obtain information

on fish and wildlife resources in the project area, recommending that the FERC carefully

consider a broad range of alternatives for the proposed project, expressing concern about

additional impacts from stream crossings in habitat used by the endangered Atlantic

salmon in the Dennys River watershed, suggesting that appropriate surveys for rare

species, including the presence of bald eagle nests, be conducted, requesting that the

FERC evaluate potential impacts on Atlantic salmon, shorebird, and seabird resources,

wetlands, lands within or near the Moosehorn NWR, and the islands owned by The

Maine Coastal Islands National Wildlife Refuge; the need for compensation for the loss

of important fish and wildlife habitats; the cumulative environmental impacts of the

Downcast LNG Project and other proposed LNG projects;

~ June 4, 2006 —NOAA Fisheries commented to the FERC regarding impacts on Atlantic

salmon, and requested an evaluation of potential adverse effects on fishery resources

resulting from seawater intakes and construction and operational discharges, expressing

concern about potential impacts on icthyoplankton and zooplankton resources, fishery

resources, marine mammals, endangered salmon, leatherback sea turtles, and endangered

whales from construction and operation activities, and requested an analysis of the

cumulative impacts of the project and other energy infrastructure projects in the area;

~ November 14 and December I, 2006 —The FWS commented that the FERC should only

make a conditional project approval (i.e., one that approves a pipeline route over refuge

lands) if Downcast has filed a right-of-way application with the FWS and evaluated

impacts in the refuge on biological resources including wetlands, rare or listed species,

migratory and non-migratory birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, and fishes, advising

that the only biologically suitable construction window in the refuge would be from

December I through January 31 of any given year, and again expressed concerns about

effects on bald eagles and Atlantic salmon;

~ January 16, 2007 —The Cove Brook Watershed Council commented requesting that the

FERC evaluate impacts on endangered species and their ecosystems within the Cove

Brook Watershed and the Penobscot River;

~ January 16, 2007 —The Maine Atlantic Salmon Commission (ASC) commented about

the potential adverse impacts on listed and non-listed Atlantic salmon populations of the

Downcast sendout pipeline and any MANE pipeline expansion and requested that such

impacts be addressed in the EIS;

~ January 23, 2007 —The FWS requested that the EIS evaluate how the disturbance of

riparian vegetation could impact Atlantic salmon habitat, examine the location of bald

1-3

20120614-0037 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 06/14/2012
eagle nests, and determine the effects of the project on the New England cottontail, a

candidate species for federal listing. The FWS also requested that the FERC prepare a

BA to evaluate the potential effects on listed species in the action area; and pointing out

that a M&NE expansion could impact stream ecology and stream-side vegetation, vernal

pools, state-listed species, wetlands and forested wetlands, and bird nesting habitat;

~ January 23, 2007 —The U.S. Department of the Interior commented about potential

impacts on the Saint Croix Island International Historic Site, the Roosevelt Campobello

International Park, the Moosehorn NWR, the threatened bald eagle (which has since been

delisted) and endangered Gulf of Maine Distinct Population Segment (DPS) of the

Atlantic salmon, and other fish and wildlife resources in the ecologically unique and

productive Cobscook Bay ecosystem, and wildlife resources of the Maine Coastal Islands

NWR off the coast of Maine;

~ January 31, 2007 —The Maine ASC commented that a significant portion of the

Downcast LNG Project would be within the range of the endangered Atlantic salmon

DPS;

~ January 31, 2007 —NOAA Fisheries commented that the EIS should examine the

potential effects of the Downcast LNG Project on each species listed on the ESA,

including the Gulf of Maine DPS of Atlantic salmon, leatherback sea turtles, North

Atlantic right whales, humpback whales, and fin whales and requested that the FERC

prepare a BA;

~ February 20, 2007 —The Maine ASC claimed that low numbers of adult salmon returned

to the St. Croix River in 2005 and 2006, and the Passamaquoddy Bay, the Magaguadavic,

and Digdeguash Rivers have salmon which migrate to the bay;

~ February 20, 2007 —Downcast responded to the Maine ASC's comments stating that

there are no known Atlantic salmon runs north in the Passamaquoddy Bay or the St.

Croix River, and the Downcast LNG Project pier would not occur within any substantial

migration pathway;

~ February 20, 2008 —The Passamaquoddy Tribe at Pleasant Point nansmitted comments

to the FERC relative to the Downcast LNG Project indicating its concern about potential

impacts on Atlantic salmon, water quality, and the tribe's sovereign lands that occur in

the area of the Downcast LNG Project;

~ March 14, 2008 —The Maine Natural Areas Program indicated that no rare plants are

known to occur near the modified sendout pipeline route;

~ June 25, 2009 —NOAA Fisheries submitted its comments on the draft EIS and BA

recommending seasonal work restrictions; requesting that Downcast develop in

consultation with NOAA Fisheries a vessel strike avoidance plan and a compensatory

mitigation plan; that FERC provide more information on Atlantic Salmon sampling

protocols, winter flounder habitat in the project area, and methods to avoid egg and larval

entrainment; and that FERC consider a co-located sendout pipeline, among other

comments;

1-4

20120614-0037 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 06/14/2012
~ July 6, 2009 —The EPA commented on the draft EIS that the geographic study area for

cumulative impacts on marine mammals be extended and that the EIS include a

discussion of acoustic monitoring devices to reduce vessel strike risks on marine

mammals;

~ August 31, 2009 —NOAA Fisheries responded to FERC's letter dated May 19, 2009,

which requested NOAA Fisheries' concurrence with the determinations of effect in the

BA included as an appendix to the draft EIS, indicating that the ship strike avoidance

plan had not yet been received;

~ September 24, 2009 —The FWS commented on the draft EIS that expansion of the

M&NE system to accommodate the gas imported at the Downcast LNG terminal is an

interdependent action that should be considered as part of the Section 7 consultation for

the Downcast LNG Project and requested updates to tables and text of the EIS to reflect

the new, expanded Gulf of Maine DPS and designated critical habitat for Atlantic

salmon, among other comments.

1.2 ACTION AREA

The action area for the purposes of this BA is defined in 50 CFR 402.02 as "all areas to be

affected directly or indirectly by the Federal action and not merely the immediate area involved

in the action. " The action area for the Downcast LNG Project includes the terminal and

surrounding waters that would be ensonified by noise levels exceeding NOAA Fisheries criteria

for acoustic harassment, and the right-of-way and construction work areas for the proposed

sendout pipeline (figure 2-I; EIS appendices E and F) and a nonjurisdictional electric

transmission line and substation. In addition, the action area includes the vessel transit paths for

all vessel traffic associated with the Downcast LNG Project, including the waterway to the LNG

terminal and the approaches to the waterway from the LNG vessels' point of entry into the U.S.

Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) (defined as 200 nautical miles), as well as the route of

construction vessel transits from the Port of Bangor to the terminal (figure 2-4; EIS, appendix FI). All waters between the EEZ and the terminal are included in the discussion of impacts in the

action area. Impacts in the Grand Manan Channel, Western Passage, and Passamaquoddy Bay

would be the same as those in the open water. This area encompasses several agency

jurisdictions including the FWS (all onshore portions of the Downcast LNG Project), NOAA

Fisheries (all surface waters, extending out to the EEZ), and the Coast Guard (from the terminal

out to the limit of the territorial seas [12 nautical miles]).

1.3 SPECIES AND HABITATS CONSIDERED

This BA was prepared in accordance with FWS regulations, found at 50 CFR 402, to address the

construction and operation of the Downcast LNG Project and covers the federally endangered

and threatened species and designated and proposed critical habitat that may occur in the

Downcast LNG Project action area.

1-5

20120614-0037 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 06/14/2012
Federally Listed Endangered or Threatened Species and Designated Critical Habitats

In the general Downcast LNG Project area, 18 species are currently listed as threatened or

endangered under the ESA (table 1.2.1-1). The bald eagle was delisted from federal protection

under the ESA effective August 8, 2007; this species is addressed in the EIS in the context of its

protected state status and as a protected resource under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection

Act and Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Of the federally listed species, three fish species, one reptile

species, and six mammal species potentially occur within the Project area and thus are

considered in detail in this BA. This includes the Atlantic sturgeon for which the status has

changed from candidate to threatened since we issued the initial BA in 2009. The Downcast

LNG Project occurs outside of the known range of the loggerhead and Kemp Ridley's sea turtles

and these species are not considered further here. The roseate tern, prairie white-fringed orchid,

small whorled pogonia, and Furbish's lousewort are not considered further here due to a lack of

suitable habitat in the Downcast LNG Project area. The piping plover and Canada lynx have

designated critical habitat; however, the critical habitat does not occur within the project area.

Moreover, there is no suitable habitat for the piping plover or Canada lynx within the project

area; therefore, these species are not considered further. We conclude that the project would

have no effect on the roseate tern, prairie white-fringed orchid, small whorled pagonia, Furbish's

lousewort, piping plover, or Canada lynx.

Designated critical habitats exist for the North Atlantic right whale and the Atlantic salmon in

the project area, as listed in table 1.2.1-1 and discussed in sections 4.4.1.1 and 4.1.1,

respectively. Critical habitat has also been designated for the leatherback sea turtle; however, as

explained below (section 4.3.1), the critical habitat for this species occurs well outside the

project area.

1-6

20120614-0037 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 06/14/2012
Table 1.2.1-1

Species Listed Under the Endangered Species Act

Fish

Species Status

Designated

Critical

Habitat

Habitat Type in Proximity to

Project

Occurrence in the

Project Area

Atlantic salmon

(Saimo saiar)

Atlantic sturgeon

(Ampenser oxyrinchus)

Shortnose sturgeon

(Ampenser brevirostrum)

Reptiles

Loggerhead sea turtle

(Careita caret ta)

Leatherback sea turtle

(Dermocheiys coriscea)

Atlantic Ridley sea turtle

(Lepidocheiys kempii)

Endangered

Threatened,

(Gulf of Maine

DPS)

Endangered

Threatened

Endangered

Endangered

Yes—

occurs in

action area

No

No

No

Yes —does

not occur in

action area

No

Dennys River (ME) and other

streams within the DPS

Geographic Range

Coastal bays, estuaries, and nvers

Coastal bays, estuaries, and rivers

Project area is beyond known

habitat range for the species.

Manna —offshore

Project area occurs north of typical

range; extremely rare occurrence

within Gulf of Maine.

Waterway;

LNG Terminal,

Sendout pipeline

Waterway;

LNG Terminal

Waterway;

LNG Terminal

None known

Waterway,

LNG 1 erminal

None known

Mammals

North Atlantic right whale

(Eubaiaena giaciaiis)

Sei whale

(Bsiaenoplers borealis)

Blue whale

(Baiaenoptera muscuius)

Fin whale

(Baiaenopters physa/us)

Humpback whale

(Megaptera novaesngiiae)

Sperm whale

(Physeter macrocepheius)

Canada lynx(Lynx

Cansdensis)

Birds

Endangered

Endangered

Endangered

Endangered

Endangered

Endangered

Threatened

Yes —may

occur lii

action area

No

No

No

No

No

Yes —does

not occur in

action area

Coastal

Coastal

Offshore

Coastal

Coastal

Offshore

Suitable habitat not present in

action area.

Waterway;

LNG Terminal

Waterway;

LNG Terminal

Waterway

Waterway,

LNG Terminal

Waterway;

LNG Terminal

Waterway

None known

Piping plover (Charadrius

me/odus)

Roseate tern (Sterna

dougallx dougsllii)

Plants

Threatened Yes —does Suitable habitat not present in None known

not occur in action area.

action area

Endangered No Suitable habitat not present in None known

action area.

Prairie white-fringed orchid

(Piaianlhers iiecuophaes)

Furbish's Lousewort

(Pedicuiaris rurbrshi be)

Small whorled pogonia

(Isolria medeoioides)

Threatened

Threatened

Threatened

No

No

No

Suitable habitat not present in

action area

Suitable habitat not present in

action area.

Suitable habitat not present in

action area

None known

None known

None known

1-7

20120614-0037 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 06/14/2012
1.4 EVALUATION METHODOLOGY

Our analysis of potential effects focuses on facilities that are under the FERC's jurisdiction in

Downcast's application (i.e.,the proposed LNG terminal and 29.8 miles of sendout pipeline) and

the waterway used for LNG marine traffic to reach the LNG terminal under the Coast Guard's

jurisdiction. One nonjurisdictional facility (an electric transmission line and substation) would

also be constructed in association with the project.

This BA describes existing environmental conditions and the current status of listed species in

the action area; discusses direct, indirect, interdependent, and interrelated effects of the proposed

action on the status of each species and any critical habitat; and addresses cumulative effects.

Factors considered in evaluating potential effects include changes to the physical environment

(habitat impacts), alteration of prey species distribution and abundance, exposure to

contaminants, inadvertent spills, vessel strikes and physical harassment, impingement/

entrainment during water intakes, ingestion of marine debris, and acoustic disturbance and

harassment. The potential to avoid, minimize, or mitigate for any adverse effects was also an

important part ofthe determination.

Four levels of impact duration were considered: temporary, short-term, long-term, and

permanent. Temporary impact generally occurs during construction with the resource returning

to preconstruction condition almost immediately afterward. Short-term impact could continue

for up to three years following construction. Impact was considered long-term if the resource

would require more than three years to recover. A permanent impact would be any activity that

modifies a resource to the extent that it would not return to preconstruction conditions during the

life of the project, such as the construction of an LNG terminal.

This BA is based on the best available scientific and commercial data. Data and information

pertaining to the proposed action and its potential effects were collected through a combination

of coordination and communication with interested parties, review of the best available data in

existing literature and reference materials, and field site assessment. Although we used

information provided by Downcast in developing this assessment, mcluding an applicantprepared BA and supplemental information, the information presented has been independently

reviewed and verified. The FERC is responsible for the content of the assessment and for the

findings of effect presented herein.

1.4.1 Existing Literature and Reference Materials

Supporting documents and studies providing specific information about local populations used in

this BA include both general and specific references related to the biological resources in the

action area, listed species status reviews and recovery plans, the Maine Natural Area Program's

(Maine NAP) Natural Landscapes of Maine classification system (Gawler and Cutko 2004), and

surveys and studies prepared by Downcast. The Services provided lists of federally endangered

or threatened species for the action area.

1-8

20120614-0037 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 06/14/2012
In addition to the documents described above, the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and

Wildlife (Maine DIFW), Maine Department of Marine Resources (Maine DMR), Maine NAP,

and Maine ASC were consulted for information about federally listed species that might occur

within the action area. The following databases were searched for records of listed and proposed

species occurrences that could be affected by construction and operation of the LNG terminal

and sendout pipeline: Maine Large Whale Take Reduction Program, Recent Whales Sighting

Map; and Maine NAP.

Downcast's documents, data, and other resource information are on file with the FERC and are

part of the administrative record for the project. Public information included in the FERC's

administrative record can be accessed from our eLibrary site htt://www. fere. ov/docs0~07 lib . 7 by 7 l 0 FERC D 0 7 ~ . CPll7-57-000, CP07-53-000, CP07-54-

000, and CP07-55-000. The most relevant information is summarized and presented and/or

included as an attachment to this BA.

1.4.2 Field Site Assessment

Downcast conducted a pre-construction reconnaissance survey for state and federally listed rare,

threatened, and endangered (RTE) species and critical habitats at the proposed 80-acre import

terminal site and along the proposed sendout pipeline right-of-way. The Maine NAP, Maine

DIFW, Maine ASC, and FWS were initially contacted for information regarding documented

occurrences of RTE species within or near the project area. Prior to performing the survey,

Downcast reviewed existing maps, aerial photos, bedrock geology and soil maps, and National

Wetlands Inventory (NWI) data to identify areas likely to support RTE species and critical

habitats (i.e., wetlands, shoreline outcrops, and intertidal habitat). Downcast conducted a field

survey of the import terminal site between July 12 and July 15, 2005. Downcast's survey for the

presence of RTE plant species along the sendout pipeline right-of-way was conducted

concurrently with the wetland delineation. Documentation regarding the field surveys is

included in attachment A.

If new information regarding threatened or endangered species occurring in the Downcast LNG

Project area becomes available during the course of construction, the FERC would reinitiate

consultation under the ESA, as appropriate.

1-9

20120614-0037 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 06/14/2012
2.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION

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

edge of Washington County, Maine (figure 2-1). Downcast selected this location after an

intensive regional site analysis evaluating 27 potential sites in Maine, Massachusetts, Rhode

Island, and Connecticut. The Downcast 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 Downcast holds an option to purchase (figure 2-2). 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 M&NE near

M&NE's Baileyville, Maine compressor station (figure 2-1). A non-jurisdictional electric

transmission line and substation also would be constructed in association with the Downcast

LNG Project. The following subsections describe the facilities, land requirements, construction,

operations, and maintenance ofthe 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 m;

~ 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.

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 m'1

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

(htt://www fete. ov/docs-filin /elibra .as ) by referencing FERC Docket Nos. CP07-52-000, CP07-53-000,

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

2-1

20120614-0037 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 06/14/2012
~ 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 Downcast'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 l.

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.

Table 2.1.2-1

Summary of Land Requirements for the Proposed LNG Terminal Facilities

LNG Terminal

Facility/use Land Affected During Construction Land Affected During Operation

(acres) (acres)

Terminal land based facilities a/

Pier trestle and unloading plafform b/

Total

47.0—

3.6

50.6

47.0

3.6

50.6

— Includes sendout pipehne 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

2-2

20120614-0037 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 06/14/2012
20120614-0037 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 06/14/2012
Figure 2-2

Downcast LNG Project

LNG Terminal Location Map

2-4

20120614-0037 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 06/14/2012
L

0 m

Ol

0

~4

0

CV 5

gZ e

i J

me E

0

e Cl

c IRe

0

Z

l/l

CV

20120614-0037 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 06/14/2012
2-6

20120614-0037 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 06/14/2012
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 Downcast

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 Downcast

LNG Project and land lease negotiations have been completed.

2.1.3 LNG Terminal Facilities Construction Procedures

Downcast 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 ~f. . TE M&NEGfdff p

fddf pp df B ffd EIS. B

Downcast 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 Downcast's Plan,

Procedures, and Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Guidelines. Prior to construction, Downcast

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.

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

2-7

20120614-0037 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 06/14/2012
prevent erosion in accordance with Downcast'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 [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 and off-shore marine-based equipment. The "over the

top" method uses a temporary (movable) construction steel frame to support the crane in lieu of

the permanent concrete beams and deck system. 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 barge-mounted equipment, resulting in a substantial reduction

of impacts on the seabed from anchoring and from propefler wash.

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

would only require impact driving to embed or "seat" the piles into the top of the bedrock, likely

only a few feet, to seal the bottom of the piles into the rock so that rock sockets can be installed.

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.

Downcast 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, Downcast 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, Downcast would

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

personnel access and operations.

Downcast 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;

2-8

20120614-0037 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 06/14/2012
~ 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. Downcast 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

Downcast would construct the two 160,000 m' 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 the LNG storage

tank would take an additional 20 months to complete.

Construction ofthe 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;

2-9

20120614-0037 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 06/14/2012
~ install tank internal accessories, such as pump columns, bottom and top fill pipework,

instrument wells, purge and cool-down pipework;

~ 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.

Downcast would hydrostatically test the storage tanks in accordance with American Petrolium

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 than270 degrees Fahrenheit ( F) (Techstreet 2008). Downcast 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. Downcast 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. Downcast 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 I —Security and NFPA 59A Annex C —Security.

Downcast 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.

2-10

20120614-0037 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 06/14/2012
Operation of the Downcast 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.

Downcast 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 low low water (MLLW). The arrivaVmooring/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 m'

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-m' 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. The temperature of this water would be elevated by 5

to 10'F in comparison to the receiving waters of Passamaquoddy Bay. However, Downcast's

Cornell Mixing Zone Expert System modeling indicates that the discharge plume associated with

engine cooling would be relatively minor and dissapate to a 33.8'F or less temperature change

from ambient conditions at approximately 49 to 98 feet on a vertical plane from the point of

discharge under ambient current speeds of 1.6 feet per second and 0.16 feet per second,

respectively.

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.

2-1 1

20120614-0037 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 06/14/2012
The SCVs would be used to re-vaporize the LNG to natural gas. ln 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. 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.

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

identified. Downcast 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 Downcast 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 m', with the potential for future vessels ranging up to 220,000 m . Vessels with a

145,000 m 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

2-12

20120614-0037 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 06/14/2012
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

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 an 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 Downcast 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

2-13

20120614-0037 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 06/14/2012
16.6 nautical miles along 13 different legs to the LNG terminal. The longest leg ofthe 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. 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.

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

Downcast 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 I to July 31; near Race Point from March I to April 30; and Cape Cod Bay

from January I 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 receiver, 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 I to another portion of the existing Eastern Maine Electric

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

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

paralells until it's terminus at M&NE's existing Baileyville Compressor Station.

3

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

facility where pigs are inserted or retneved from the pipehne.

2-14

20120614-0037 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 06/14/2012
2.3.2 Sendout Pipeline Land Requirements

Downcast'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 consuqtction 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/temporaty

workspace. Downcast 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. Downcast would narrow its

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-of-way, would be

required at 141 locations, primarily at road crossings, waterbodies, and wetlands.

TABLE 2.3.2.1-1

Summary of Land Requirements for the Proposed Pipeline Facilities

Pipeline

Facility Land Affected During

Construction (acres)

Land Affected During

Operation (acres)

Pipeline Right-of-Way

Additional Temporary Workspaces

HDD Additional Temporary Extra Workspaces

Terminal Construction and Pipeline Off-Site Laydown

and Storage Areas -'

Access Roads

Pipe Storage Area

Subtotal

Aboveground Facilities

Valve Station

Pigging Receiver -"

Subtotal

Total

206.7

'-'-

11.5

7.2

275

10.1

3.4

266.4

034

05

0.8

267.2

1311u

0.0

0.0

0.0

100

00

141.1

04s

0.3

0.7

141.8

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

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

operation of the pipehne.

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

— The total area disturbed during the valve station construction would be 0 5 acre, however, 0.2 acre overlaps the pipeline nghtof-way and is included in the pipehne nght-of-way acreage.

-" This is the acreage outside the permanent pipeline nght-of-way.

" Rounding may result in slight differences in some calculations.

2-15

20120614-0037 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 06/14/2012
Approximately 12 miles of the route for the sendout pipeline would be immediately adjacent to

existing rights-of-way (listed in table 2.3.2.1-2). Downcast 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 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-ofway. 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 Downcast

LNG terminal.

Table 2.3.2.1-2

Where the Downcast Sendout Pipeline Would Parallel Existing Rightsesf-Way

Segment Length Direction from Mileposts lmilesj Existing Easement

17.7-27.2

27 3-29.8

9.5

25

Existing EMEC Powerline Adjacent to the south side of the electric transmission line

Existing M&NE Pipeline Adjacent to the south side of the pipeline

2.3.2.2 Aboveground Facilities

The sendout pipeline aboveground facilities that Downcast 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 aud Contractor Yard

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

pipeline route. Downcast 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

2-16

20120614-0037 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 06/14/2012
compacted earth with a gravel surface and are raised above existing grade for positive drainage

control. Downcast'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 I to 2 acres. Downcast would require

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

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

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

approximately 8 acres during the construction ofthe terminal and sendout pipeline (table 2.3.2.1-

I). All three areas are previously disturbed by logging, construction laydown, clearing, or open

burning. Following construction, Downcast would return these areas would to their preconstruction conditions.

2.3.3 Pipeline Construction Procedures

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

guidelines (e.g., DOT), as well as state and local permit-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 draft EIS. Downcast 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, Downcast would use special construction

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

when constructing across waterbodies, wetlands, Moosehorn NWR, and roads (see

section 2.3.3.2 below).

2-17

20120614-0037 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 06/14/2012
Staking and Flagging

Downcast 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) (Els) would guide the

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

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, Downcast would clear and rough-grade the right-of-way to

specified widths Downcast 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

Downcast 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

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. Downcast would excavate the pipeline ditch with

either a rotary trencher or track-mounted backhoe.

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

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

Pipestrlnglng, 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). Downcast would conduct quality assurance/quality control in accordance with

49 CFR 192.

Lowering-in/Backfill

Downcast would lower coated and inspected pipe lengths into prepared benches 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 backfifled with suitable soil materia!. 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, Downcast would internally

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

compressed air-driven manifolds.

2-18

20120614-0037 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 06/14/2012
Hydrostatic Testing

After cleaning and prior to service, Downcast 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, Downcast 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. Downcast has stated it would test the

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

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

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

through a direct connection to the fire hydrant system. Downcast 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. Downcast must also obtain the appropriate

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

surface waterbodies.

Cleanup and Restoration

Following backfill, Downcast 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.

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

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

Guidelines. Downcast 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. Downcast would restore or repair any private property damage

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

Downcast 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. Downcast would monitor all construction work areas for the

success of revegetation and restoration. Downcast would conduct inspections after; (I) 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.

2-19

20120614-0037 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 06/14/2012
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 Waterbodles

Downcast'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 wetlands . This 4

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

crossings. To minimize impacts on wetlands, Downcast 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, Downcast 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. Downcast would assemble the pipeline in upland staging areas that are outside of the

right-of-way.

In accordance with Downcast'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, Downcast would request a variance from its Procedures and Soil Erosion and

Sediment Control Guidelines.

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. Downcast would maintain vegetative buffers between the work areas and the

wetland during construction.

Downcast 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. Downcast would cross streams and rivers as quickly as possible to minimize

structural or water quality impacts. Table 2.3.3.2-1 indicates Downcast's proposed pipeline

4

These acreage impacts mclude the Downcast LNG termmal, sendout ptpeline, access roads, and aboveground

facihties.

2-20

20120614-0037 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 06/14/2012
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. Downcast 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 Downcast's preferred waterbody crossing technique. Downcast would cross 9 of the

22 waterbodies using the HDD crossing method. 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.

Table 2.3.3.2-1

Waterbodies Crossed by the Pipeline Route

Town MP Waterbody

Waterbody

State Water Width/Crossing

Quality Length

Classification (linear ft)

Crossing

Method

Stream

Type

Fishep

Type '

Robbinston

Robbinston

Robbinston 43 Unnamed stream

(outlet of Keene Lake)

0.8 Eastern Stream

2 0 Unnamed stream

25/25

4/4

9 /1, 165 HDD Perennial Cold-water

Dam and Pump Perennial Cold-water

Dam and Pump Intermittent Warm-water

Calais

Calais 7.7 Unnamed stream (inlet

to Flowed Land Ponds)

6.7 Flowed Land Ponds 12 / 141

7/7

HDD Perennial Cold-water

Dam and Pump Perennial Cold-water

Calais 8.6 Tnbutary of Beaver

Brook (upstream of

Flowed Land Ponds)

10 / 2,629 HDD Perennial Cold-water

Calais

Calais

12 3 Unnamed stream

14.1-14.2 Magurrewock Stream

Outlet

3/3

528 / 792 HDD Perennial Cold-water

Dam and Pump intermittent Warm-water

Calais/

Baring

142-15.3 St Croix River 3,000 / 5,829 HDD Ma/or nver Cold-water

Banng

Banng

Baring

Banng

Banng 17.6 Unnamed stream,

(tributary of St. Croix

River)

15.6 Unnamed stream

15.6 Unnamed stream

16.9 Conic Stream

17.2 Unnamed stream

3/3

3/3

3 / 3

3/3

3/3 Dam and Pump Perennial Warm-water

Dam and Pump Intermittent Warm-water

Dam and Pump Intermittent Warm-water

Dam and Pump Perennial Warm-water

Dam and Pump Intermittent Warm-water

2-21

20120614-0037 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 06/14/2012
Table 2.3.3.2-1

Waterbodies Crossed by the Pipeline Route

Town MP Waterbody

State Water

Quality

Classification

Waterbody

Width/Crossing

Length

(linear ft) "

Crossing

Method

Stream

Type

Fishep

Type

Banng 17 8 Unnamed stream,

(tributary of St. Croix

River)

8 / 1,227 HDD Perennial Warm-water

Baileyvifie 18.1 Unnamed stream,

(tributary of St. Croix

River)

A 4 / 1,227 HDD Perennial Cold-water

Baileyvifie

Baileyvifie 21.3 Wapsaconhagen

Brook

18.4 Stony Brook

A

18/18

37/37

Dam and Pump Perennial Cold-water

Dam and Pump Perennial Cold-water

Baileyvifie 22.5 Unnamed stream

(tributary of

Wapsaconhagen

Brook)

4/4 Dam and Pump Perennial Warm-water

B ail eyville

Baileyvifie

25.2 Anderson Brook

25.8

(3 Unnamed stream

crossings

A

A

15/2, 622 HDD Perennial Cold-water

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

"i

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, industnal 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; agnculture; recreation in and on the water; industrial process and cooling water supply; hydroelectnc 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

C —4'" highest classification. Must be of such quality that they are suitable for the designated uses of drinking water supply after

treatment; fishing; agnculture; 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.

s/ Waterbody width determined from Downcast's field measurements and aerial photograph interpretation.

-" 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 mterpretation and Maine DIFW

fish stocking records.

HDD = horizontal directional drill

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. Downcast

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. Downcast's

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

procedures for different waterbody crossings that may be encountered.

2-22

20120614-0037 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 06/14/2012
Where necessary, Downcast 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, Downcast 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. Downcast would

remove the construction equipment crossings once pipeline installation and construction

restoration are completed.

To facilitate pipeline construction across waterbodies, Downcast 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 Downcast would locate them at least 50 feet from the stream bank where technically

feasible.

Rock Blasting and Rugged Topography

Downcast 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.

Downcast'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

Downcast 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

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

revegetation during pipeline and right-of-way patrols. In addition, Downcast 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

2-23

20120614-0037 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 06/14/2012
environmental management personnel. Downcast 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. Downcast would maintain vegetation in the

50-foot-wide permanent right-of-way on an approximate 3 to 5 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, Downcast 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 Downcast'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, Downcast would conduct regularly scheduled pipeline surveys as part of

the pipeline system maintenance activities and safety programs.

2.4 CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE

Downcast anticipates that construction of the Downcast 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.

Downcast 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 draft EIS.

2.5 ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE INSPECTION AND MITIGATION

MONITORING

Downcast 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. Downcast would also incorporate compliance and

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

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

construction and contractor personnel before construction and periodically during construction.

Downcast 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 Els would ensure construction activities

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

2-24

20120614-0037 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 06/14/2012
local permits. The Els would would report to the Lead Downcast Inspector, but have

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

corrective action.

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

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

design life (25-plus years). If abandonment were to occur, Downcast 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

Downcast-Town of Robbinston Agreement. Downcast 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.

2-25

20120614-0037 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 06/14/2012
3.0 EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS

3.1 WATERWAY FOR LNG MARINE TRAFFIC

3.1.1 Marine Environment

The marine environment surrounding Grand Manan Island, in the Bay of Fundy, is characterized

by tides generally ranging from 19 to 22 feet. This range increases progressively traveling

northeast into the Bay of Fundy. Typical marine fauna include whales, seals, seabirds,

shorebirds, gulls, and sea ducks. Some commercial marine species include a variety of finfish,

lobsters, clams, scallops, sharks and rays.

The tidal action characteristic of the Bay of Fundy and its associated passages also helps to

create a typical northeast maritime climate. Most islands are wooded and possess ledge rockoutcrops. Dominant tree species include red spruce, white spruce, balsam fir, larch, paper birch,

and red maple. Northern cedar bogs are common.

Several areas in New England waters offer foraging and nursery habitat for marine mammals.

For whales, the primary use of habitats as feeding grounds in the Gulf of Maine and Bay of

Fundy typically occurs in spring and summer. Seasonal use areas for North Atlantic right whales

include a summer to early fall nursery and feeding area in Gulf of Maine/Georges Bank in the

Bay of Fundy, as well as a late summer to fall feeding areas in the Roseway Basin south of Nova

Scotia, among others. The Gulf of Maine and Stellwagen basin are used by juvenile humpback

whales and other whale species for feeding. Weinrich et al. (2000), suggest that Jeffreys Ledge,

a 33-mile glacial deposit which stretches from the coast of Rockport, Massachusetts, to just

southeast of Cape Elizabeth, Maine, is very important nursery habitat for mother-calf pairs of the

right whale. The shallowness of Jeffreys Ledge, surrounded by deeper ocean waters, creates an

upwelling, making it a very productive foraging habitat for marine mammals and fishes.

3.1.2 Western Passage/Passamaquoddy Bay

The bayside area adjacent to the terminal is characterized by partially exposed to semi-protected

marine conditions. Owing to its protected location, the site is largely free from oceanic

wind/wave influences. The majority of the intertidal zone is a mosaic of gravelly sand of

varying grade sizes, fucoid-dominated ledge, and fairly homogenous pebbly gravel pavement

that support sparse rooted vegetation. With protection from winds originating from directions

west of true north-south, and because strong winds from the northeast to southeast have only a

moderate fetch with which to build waves, intertidal conditions are moderate to low energy.

This is indicated by the presence of knotted wrack, the dominant algae and only rooted marine

vegetation noted on site, which is most often affiliated with bay-like environs (Woodlot 2006c).

Phytoplankton form the base of the pelagic marine food web by directly and indirectly

supporting communities of zooplankton, nekton (i.e., free swimming organisms), and microbes

(i.e., protists and bacteria). Phytoplankton is composed of photosynthetic plants whose

occurrence is generally limited to areas in which light can penetrate (Thurman and Weber 1984).

3-1

20120614-0037 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 06/14/2012
Phytoplankton abundance is usually lowest in the winter and peaks during the spring bloom

(mid-March to mid-April) (NOAA 1993). A seasonal presence of more than 675 species of

phytoplankton has been documented in coastal waters of the northeastern United States

(Marshall and Cohn 1982).

Primary production within the northeastern waters is built upon phytoplankton communities.

Comparing equal units of producers in the Cobscook Bay, Campbell (2004) has shown that

phytoplankton is the least productive of the several producer groups. Comparatively, benthic

diatoms are the most productive element of the Cobscook Bay Region. It can be inferred that the

primary productivity of upper Passamoquoddy Bay is similar to that found in Cobscook Bay with

some exceptions. Because the area of the bay surrounding the Downcast LNG Project area has

less energy due to its sheltered location adjacent to Mill Cove and because it would be less

affected from direct ocean wave energy, the productivity is likely less.

Subtidal vegetation is primarily comprised of a variety of kelp species (Mann 1973, Sebens

1986). This macroalgae is an important food source for sea urchins and herbivorous gastropods.

Kelp also serves as important habitat for fish and invertebrates. Most of these macroalgae

species are associated with hard structures or substrates that are limited in the Downcast LNG

Project area; hence the sparse rooted marine vegetation community.

Vegetation within intertidal areas of Passamoquoddy Bay is comprised of a variety of brown

algae such as Ascophyllum spp. and Fuscus spp. Other species of commercially important

macroalgae found in protected tide pools or areas with high tidal and wave action such as sea

lettuce, Irish moss, and kelp are not found within intertidal areas at the Downcast LNG Project

area (Woodlot 2006c).

As a habitat of special significance, eelgrass is always a matter of concern involving disturbances

to the bottom. According to Seth Barker, Geographic Information System (GIS) coordinator for

the Maine DMR responsible for identifying and mapping of eelgrass along the entire coast of

Maine, although eelgrass has been seen in the upper portions of the St. Croix River estuary, none

has been seen along the low water edge at Mill Cove; this is likely due to the large tidal

amplitude and strong currents affecting the area, making the site unsuitable for the species.

According to Short and Short (2003), "In northern Maine, with the highest tidal ranges in the

world (more than 8 meters), eelgrass occurs mostly in protected bays and harbors, as well as tidal

rivers. " However, field surveys and aerial photo interpretation confirm the lack of eelgrass in

Mill Cove. Thorough examination of 2006 low tide aerial photography of the site, dive surveys

(Woodlot 2006c), and review of the Maine DMR eelgrass database via Maine GIS showed that

eelgrass does not occur at this location (Barker 2003).

3.1.3 Vessel Traffic

There are no known areas of "Heavy Marine Traffic" along the intended route of the Downcast

LNG Project. The Coast Guard NVIC 05-05 defines "Heavy Marine Traffic" areas to include

areas of the waterway that are congested with commercial, military and/or recreational vessels

3-2

20120614-0037 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 06/14/2012
(marine events and seasonal activities such as regattas, fisheries, etc.). Large commercial vessel

activity that occurs in Western Passage includes bulk vessels calling on the Port of Bayside, New

Brunswick, which receives about 75 vessels per year. Bulk vessels calling on the Port of

Eastport, Estes Head Pier on the southwest side of Eastport, Maine, transit through Head Harbor

Passage and Friars Roads. The Port of Estes receives 50 or more vessels per year.

Other vessels that transit though waters associated with the action area include seasonal cruise

vessels transiting through Western Passage enroute to St. Andrews, New Brunswick. Both the

Ports of Bayside and Easgort are trying to attract commercial cruise vessels, which may increase

the amount of vessel traffic that are received by these ports.

3.1.4 Vessel Strikes off the East Coast

According to Jensen and Silber (2003), Nelson et al. (2007), and Waring et al. (2010), there have

been 198 documented occurrences of vessel collisions with marine mammals in the Western

Atlantic Ocean (including the U.S. East Coast, U.S. Gulf Coast, and Eastern Canada), most of

which occurred off the U.S. East Coast. Table 3.1.4-1 lists the vessel strikes by mammal species

or species group. Of strikes reported from the Western Atlantic Ocean, 82 percent occurred

along the U.S. East Coast. Fin, humpback, and right whale collisions comprised 75 percent of

these documented vessel strikes.

Nelson et al. (2007) examined mortality and serious injury reports involving baleen whale stocks

along the U.S. eastern seaboard between 2001 and 2005. According to this study, 11.5 percent

of events involved vessel strikes, of which 64 percent resulted in mortality. Entanglement with

fishing gear accounted for 32 percent of events, of which 20 percent resulted in mortality.

Waring et al. (2010) reviewed the records of dead, injured, and/or entangled humpbacks (found

either stranded or at sea) for the period 2004 through 2008, as reported for stock assessment

reports for U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico marine mammal stocks. Numbers associated with

injury or mortality due to ship strikes were used to account for incidents between 2005 and 2008.

Data obtained by Downcast from the Ocean Biogeography Information System and the North

Atlantic Right Whale Consortium found that various marine mammal species are known to

aggregate along portions of the proposed marine transit route (see EIS Appendix E, figures 20

through 30). As a result, LNG vessels transiting the route have the potential to encounter and

impact marine mammals.

3-3

20120614-0037 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 06/14/2012
Table 3.1.4-1

Analysis of Whale Mortality and Serious Injury Reports Associated with Vessel Strikes

from the Period 1905—2008 lal & bl

Baleen

Blue

Species Eastern Canada U.S. East Coast U.S. Gulf Coast Total Individuals

Fin

Humpback

Minks

Minke/small sei

North Atlantic Right

Sei

Sperm

Unknown

Total Individuals

Total Percent by Region

7 /b

28

14%

46 /b

40 /b

17

39 /b

6/b

162

82% 4%

54

42

19

52

16

198

a/ Whale mortality and senous injury reports (1905 through 2005) from Jensen and Silber, 2003, and Nelson et al. , 2007. Only

data associated with vessel strikes are reported in this table.

b/ Numbers updated from 2005 through 2006 Wanng et al., 2010, stock assessment reports Only data assooated with vessel

stnkes are reported in this table.

3.2 LNG TERMINAL AND PIPELINE

3.2.1 Terrestrial Areas

3.2.1.1 Import Terminal

The import terminal site is within the Laurentian Mixed Forest Province (Bailey 1995). This

province lies at the transition of the boreal forest and the broadleaf deciduous forest zones. The

province consists of mixed stands of coniferous species (pine) and deciduous species (yellow

birch, sugar maple, and American beech); the rest is a macromosaic of pure deciduous forest in

favorable habitats with good soils and pure coniferous forest in less favorable habitats with poor

soils.

Maine has been divided up into 15 biophysical regions, which are based on climate variables,

topography, and soil characteristics, correlated with vegetation characteristics (McMahon 1990).

The import terminal site lies within the Eastern Lowlands Biophysical Region which includes the

extensive lowlands west of the St. Croix River. The Eastern Lowlands consist of a variety of

peatland ecosystem types, scattered perched wetland communities, and upland forests. The area

has a long history of intensive commercial forestry.

The Downcast import terminal onshore facilities would be on approximately 80 acres between

US Route 1 and Passamaquoddy Bay; the pier would extend into the Passamaquoddy Bay. The

northern portion of the site was a homestead and farmland up until the 1960s. Some of the

3-4

20120614-0037 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 06/14/2012
former agricultural fields remain relatively open, although they are reverting to wooded uplands

and forested/scrub-shrub wetlands. Scattered household trash areas, remnant fencing, and apple

trees are further evidence of the former homestead. The remainder ofthe site consists of wooded

uplands and forested/scrub-shrub wetlands. Both the uplands and wetlands have been

historically harvested, with the most recent harvesting occurring in the mid-1990's (Joseph Krug,

retired forester, personal communication, 2005). Harvesting over much of the site was intensive,

and numerous skidder trails are evident. There are also several large slash piles, particularly on

the southern side of the site, associated with a former log landing. Wooded uplands on the

import terminal site vary in species composition and age across the site.

Based upon the Natural Landscapes of Maine classification system (Gawler and Cutko 2004), the

community in the northwest part of the site can be characterized as an Aspen —Birch

Woodland/Forest Complex. The uplands are generally characterized by species such as apple

and choke cherry. Uplands to the northeast support a canopy dominated by deciduous species,

whereas to the southeast coniferous species are more characteristic. Paper birch dominates the

canopy to the northeast with lesser amounts of red maple, choke cherry, big-toothed aspen, and

balsam fir also present. The shrub layer includes species such as beaked hazelnut, choke cherry,

alternate-leaved dogwood, red spruce, and yellow birch. Bunchberry, wild sarsaparilla, common

speedwell, lowbush blueberry, mayflower, hawkweed, and interrupted fern occur within the

herbaceous layer.

The southeastern part of the site is dominated by red spruce and white spruce. The shrub layer

includes balsam fir, red spruce, paper birch, yellow birch, and green alder, with the birches and

alder occurring at the top of the bank above the coastal wetland edge. The herbaceous layer is

generally sparse, but includes wild sarsaparilla, twinflower, bunchberry, Canada mayflower, and

spruce and balsam fir seedlings. These uplands are in various stages of regeneration with the

more mature woods occurring within approximately 250 feet of the coastal shoreline, and the

younger woods in the center and eastern portions of the site. Based upon the Natural Landscapes

of Maine classification system (Gawler and Cutko 2004), this community can be characterized as

a Spruce-Fir Forest.

Two wetland areas are on the site. The first wetland is a palustrine forested/scrub-shrub

(PFO/PSS) community that bisects the project area from an outlet to Passamaquoddy Bay, near

the northeastern project boundary south and southeast across the site. The second wetland area is

a PFO, needle-leaved evergreen, seasonally flooded/saturated wetland community in the

southwestern corner of the site and extending south beyond the project boundaries. Those

portions of the wetlands that were not recently harvested are characterized by a well established

canopy, relatively sparse shrub layer and a sparse to absent herbaceous layer.

In general, a bryophyte layer composed of peat moss covers much of the ground in these

relatively undisturbed areas. The harvested portions of the wetlands are characterized by either

dense shrub regeneration, or relatively open areas with a well developed herbaceous layer. The

northeastern portion of the first wetland was in agricultural use up until the 1960s. Speckled

alder, choke cherry, meadowsweet, and Virginia rose dominate the dense scrub-shrub. The wet

3-5

20120614-0037 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 06/14/2012
meadow is characterized by herbaceous species such as foxtail, panicled bulrush, awl-fruited

sedge, tussock sedge, soft rush, flat-topped white aster, bristly aster, Canada goldenrod, and

woodland horsetail. Tree species in this community include yellow birch, red maple, balsam fir,

northern white cedar, larch, red spruce, and quaking aspen. Saplings identified include northern

white cedar, balsam fir, and larch.

3.2.1.2 Pipeline

Mature Upland Forest

Spruce-fir

The most prevalent community along the proposed sendout pipeline right-of-way is a lowelevation spruce-fir forest type, which can be further described as a Spruce-Fir-Broom-Moss

community (Gawler and Cutko 2006). These forests are characteristically dominated by red

spruce and balsam fir, and associate species vary depending on the local community. Northern

white cedar often occurs in wetter sites, such as in rocky drainages. Other tree associates include

red maple, gray birch, paper birch, yellow birch, quaking aspen, big-tooth aspen, and American

beech. Eastern white pine and eastern hemlock occur occasionally, and white spruce tends to

replace red spruce from MP I to the import terminal site.

Spruce-fir forests tend to contain large swaths with closed canopy where understory is sparse and

patchy, and often contains only regenerating dominants. These swaths are often devoid of

herbaceous layers. In less dense stands, shrub associates include striped maple, mountain maple,

beaked hazelnut, mountain holly, low-bush blueberry, and red raspberry in openings. Speckled

alder, meadowsweet, and winterberry occur in damp sites in forest gaps.

Due to low sunlight penetration, the upland herbaceous layer tends to be sparse to absent. When

understory vegetation does occur, it often includes species such as mosses, canopy-species

seedlings, wild sarsaparilla, Canada mayflower, bunchberry, wintergreen, starflower, wood fern,

and bracken fern. In poorly drained sites, cinnamon fern or interrupted fern occur densely on the

forest floor.

Spruce-Northern Hardwoods

Spruce-northern hardwood stands occur as infrequent patches along the sendout pipeline route

and are dominated by red spruce, sugar maple, red maple, American beech, and birch. Subdominate species include balsam fir and white. pine. The sapling/shrub layer in this community

is fairly well developed and composed of thick stands of striped maple and canopy species

saplings. Other shrub associates include mountain maple, hobblebush, beaked hazelnut, and

mountain holly. Speckled alder, meadowsweet, and winterberry occur in wetter sites. The

herbaceous layer is typically comprised of wood fern, tree seedlings, wild sarsaparilla, bristly

sarsaparilla, bunchberry, and common wood-sorrel.

3-6

20120614-0037 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 06/14/2012
White Pine-Mixed Hardwoods

White pine-mixed hardwood forests are along the northwestern portion of the sendout pipeline

route. This transition forest type includes white pine, balsam fir, red and sugar maple, white ash,

birch, American beech, black cherry, and eastern hemlock. Common understory shrubs include

tree saplings, low-bush blueberry, striped maple, and beaked hazelnut. Canada mayflower tends

to dominate the herbaceous layer along with starflower, bunchberry, and tree seedlings.

Upland Early-Successional Forest

Aspen-Birch WoodlandlForest Complex

Early successional forests occur throughout the sendout pipeline route wherever woodlands are

actively managed for timber. Structure and botanical composition ofthese forests largely depend

on their age. Initially, these sites are dominated by birch, aspen, and red maple. As succession

progresses, these pioneering species are eventually replaced by the spruce-fir forests

characteristic of the region. Associate species include American mountain ash, cherries, and

goldenrod.

Upland Maintained Openings

Maintained openings include mowed fields and residential areas. The plant communities are

typically comprised of introduced species such as timothy, clovers, and fescues. Exceptions

include fields maintained for wildlife management, such as those within the Moosehorn National

Wildlife Refuge (Moosehorn NWR), where botanical compositions include more naturally

occurring species.

Approximately 12 miles (41 percent) of the sendout pipeline would be installed in or adjacent to

other existing utility or road rights-of-way between MP 17.7 and MP 29.8. These areas are

similar to the upland maintained openings described in this BA.

Wetlands

Wetlands include a variety of transitional areas where land-based and water-based ecosystems

overlap, and the communities are comprised of those species that are tolerant of flooded or

saturated conditions.

Palustrine Forested Wetland

PFO wetland cover-types possess a mature tree canopy; the understory components vary

accordingly. The most frequent PFO wetland is the spruce-fir-cinnamon fern community, which

often occurs along rocky drainages on gentle slopes or in flat areas with pit-and-mound

topography. Characteristically, red spruce, balsam fir, and northern white cedar dominate the

tree layer, and prominent patches of cinnamon fern are abundant in the herbaceous layer. Other

tree species include tamarack and green ash.

The shrub/sapling density varies from sparse to dense, and shrubs include mountain holly, alder,

and red maple. Along with cinnamon fern, the herb layer is diverse with sensitive fern,

3-7

20120614-0037 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 06/14/2012
woodland horsetail, pointed broom sedge, three-seeded sedge, drooping sedge, grass-leaved

goldenrod, and rattlesnake mannagrass.

Palustrine Scrub-Shrub Wetland

PSS wetlands are dominated by woody vegetation less than 20 feet tall (Tiner 1994). Along the

sendout pipeline route, PSS wetlands are often among large mixed graminoid-shrub complexes,

particularly in transitional zones. PSS wetlands within the proposed right-of-way are frequently

flooded or saturated near the surface, and often associated with palustrine emergent (PEM)

wetlands. Common herbaceous species include bluejoint, rattlesnake mannagrass, wool-grass,

black bulrush, soft rush, and Canada St. Johnswort.

Alder thickets are the most common PSS wetland along the pipeline route and are characterized

by impassable stands of speckled alder mixed with dogwood willow, meadowsweet, sweetgale,

arrowwood, and rhodora. Associated tree species can include red maple and larch, and it is

common to find these PSS thickets adjoining a spruce-fir-cinnamon fern community.

Sheep laurel dwarf shrub bogs can be found along the proposed pipeline right-of-way

interspersed with graminoid communities. These communities are comprised of dense

ericaceous shrubs, most often sheep laurel and rhodora, and individual spruce or larch trees occur

intermittently. The ground is dominated by peat mosses.

Palustri ne Emergent Wetland

PEM wetlands are dominated by non-woody hydrophytic vegetation and usually have either

surface water or saturated soils present year-round. PEM wetlands along the pipeline route

include marsh, wet meadow, and beaver flowages.

Cattail marshes vary in size from a few hundred square feet to several acres and are usually

found in impounded or semi-permanently flooded basins or depressions. Cattail stands tend to

be dense and do not permit the occurrence of many other associated species. However, other

occasional species can include sweetgale, meadowsweet, winterberry, pickerelweed, black

bulrush, and wool-grass.

Wet meadows often occur in association with PSS wetlands in the form described for mixed

graminoid —shrub complex. Wet meadows typically flood in spring and soils tend to remain

saturated throughout the growing season. Along the sendout pipeline route, wet meadows are

characterized by rich and diverse sedge communities. Species include pointed broom sedge,

drooping sedge, hop sedge, long sedge, tussock sedge, soft rush, bluejoint, black bulrush, and

grass-leaved goldenrod.

Vernal Pools

A vernal pool, defined by Maine's Natural Resource Protection Act (NRPA), is a natural,

temporary to semi-permanent body of water occurring in a shallow depression that typically fills

during the spring or fall and may dry during the summer; it has no permanent inlet, and lacks

3-8

20120614-0037 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 06/14/2012
viable populations of predatory fish. Potential vernal pools were identified during Downcast's

field surveys in 2006 and 2007 for the sendout pipeline alignment. Downcast performed a field

verification of vernal pools and significant vernal pools (SVPs) in spring of 2007 for vernal

pools identified in 2006, and in spring of 2008 for vernal pools identified in 2007. These surveys

resulted in the identification of nine SVPs based on criteria listed in Maine DEP Rules Chapter

335 Section 9. An additional 22 non-significant vernal pools were also identified. More

information about vernal pools is found in section 4.4 of the EIS.

3.2.2 Aquatic Areas

Surface water resources within the Downcast LNG Project area were initially identified using

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5 minute-series topographic maps. Downcast field verified

surface water resources during wetland surveys where landowners had granted permission to

access properties along the sendout pipeline corridor (about 85 percent). The Maine Water

Classification Program ( 38 Maine Revise Statutes Annotated [MRSA] 465, 467, and 468) was

used to determine the water quality classification of surface waters. Fishery types for the various

surface waterbodies were obtained from fisheries biologists at Maine DIFW and through stream

classifications conducted during wetland surveys.

Downcast classified streams using Maine DEP jurisdictional stream definition as defined in the

NRPA Wetlands and Waterbodies Protection Rules —Chapter 310 (38 MRSA 480-B-9). A

Maine DEP jurisdictional stream is defined as a "channel between defined banks. " A channel is

created by the action of surface water and has two or more of the following characteristics:

~ It is depicted as a solid or broken blue line on the most recent edition of the U.S.

Geological Survey 7.5 minute-series topographic map or, if that is not available, a

15-minute series topographical map.

~ It contains or is known to contain flowing water continuously for a period of at least

6 months of the year in most recent years. The channel bed is primarily composed of

mineral material such as sand and gravel, parent material or bedrock that has been

deposited or scoured by the water.

~ The channel contains aquatic animals such as fish, aquatic insects or mollusks in the

water or, if no surface water is present, within the stream bed.

~ The channel contains aquatic vegetation and is essentially devoid of upland vegetation

(38 MRSA 480-B-9).

Riparian corridors throughout the Downcast LNG Project area are largely forested, with canopy

openings resulting from commercial logging, agricultural land uses, and utility and road

crossings.

3.2.2.1 LNG Terminal Surface Waters

Downcast would construct the onshore portion of its import terminal within the Coastal

Washington and Hancock drainage (previously Eastern Coastal Rivers) as designated by using

I:24,000 scale contours and delineated by USGS staff in Augusta, Maine, in 1989. Within this

3-9

20120614-0037 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 06/14/2012
drainage, the Downcast import terminal is within the St. Croix River at Robbinston Watershed

(HUC Code 0105000010809)(MEGIS 2004).

Surface water resources at the Downcast import terminal include a smafl Maine DEP

jurisdictional stream flowing through a PFO/ PSS wetland from a culvert under U.S. Route 1

northeast, to its outlet at the edge of Passamaquoddy Bay. The stream is between five to seven

feet wide with well-defined banks. The scoured substrate varies from exposed ledge to rockcobble to silt-sand. A drainage swale to Passamaquoddy Bay at the southeastern end of the

wetland shows evidence of scouring, but it does not display any of the additional characteristics

necessary to meet the definition of a Maine DEP jurisdictional stream. This PFO/PSS wetland

also includes a second drainage to Passamaquoddy Bay near the southeastern boundary of the

Downcast property. This drainage is essentially devoid of vegetation, but does show evidence of

scouring from periodically flowing water. Although scouring was evident, this drainage does not

display other stream characteristics.

3.2.2.2 Sendout Pipeline Surface Waters

The sendout pipeline right-of-way would be within the Coastal Washington and Hancock

drainage area and the St. Croix River drainage area. Within these drainages, the sendout pipeline

would be within the St. Croix River at Robbinston Watershed (HUC Code 10500010809),the St.

Croix River at Grand Falls Watershed (HUC Code 10500010702), the Mohannes Stream

(Canada) Watershed (HUC Code 10500010803), the Pocomoonshine Lake Watershed (HUC

Code 10500020401), the Wapsaconhagan Brook Watershed (HUC Code 10500010802), the St.

Croix River at Woodland Watershed (HUC Code 10500010801), the St. Croix River at Devil' s

Head Watershed (HUC Code 10500010806), the Magurrewock Stream Watershed (HUC Code

10500010804), and the Cobscook Bay Watershed (HUC Code 10500020307) (MGIS 2004).

Riparian corridors throughout the Downcast region of Maine are largely forested with canopy

openings resulting primarily from commercial forest practices. Although much of the sendout

pipeline right-of-way would be along existing roadways and utility corridors, waterbody

crossings do include streams with potential fish habitat.

The Downcast sendout pipeline would cross 22 waterbodies. Of the waterbodies crossed by the

proposed sendout pipeline, a total of 13 waterbodies are classified as coldwater fisheries and 9

waterbodies are classified as a warmwater fishery. Table 2.3.3.2-1 illustrates the distribution of

stream crossings by town and milepost. With the exception of the St. Croix River, all streams in

the sendout pipeline area are A and B water quality classes, signifying the second and third

highest water quality conditions based on the Maine Water Classification Program (Title 38

M.R.S.A. Sections 465, 467, and 468). The A and B classes include provisions for the protection

of fish and aquatic life. The streams vary in substrate type, substrate particle size, channel width,

flow regime, and depth. The dominant stream habitat units in the project area are run, glide, and

low-gradient riffle, portions of which contain habitat characteristics of warm- and cold-water

fisheries. Temperatures ranged within several degrees of 68'F. Depths are generally less than

10 feet and stream bottoms are a combination of woody debris and mineral deposits ranging in

3-10

20120614-0037 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 06/14/2012
size from fine to cobble. Canopy closures over the streams ranged from zero to 100 percent and

the average canopy closure was 52 percent.

Downcast coordinated with the Maine ASC and Maine DIFW to develop protocols for stream

habitat evaluations. Downcast completed surveys of streams the sendout pipeline would cross

between July and September of 2006, on lands where access was granted by the landowner. On

lands where access was not granted by the respective landowner, Downcast evaluated stream

crossings through aerial photograph interpretation.

At each stream crossing sampled, discrete habitat units were delineated on the basis of one or

more physical characteristics that separated them from adjacent habitat types. Once a habitat

unit was defined, appropriate attribute data were measured and recorded for the unit.

Based on the parameters measured, the streams intersecting the sendout pipeline were found to

provide habitat conditions for both cold- and warm-water fishery species. Warmer streams are

likely to provide habitat for species such as brown bullhead, sunfish, and minnow species. Coldwater streams are likely to provide habitat for species such as brook trout, brown trout, and

whitefish species. Low-gradient riffles with substrates dominated by cobble and/or gravel (0.2

inch to less than 3 inches), some of which are tributaries of the St. Croix River, are likely to

support brook trout. In general, the majority of low-gradient riffles are west of Conic Stream

(MP 17.4) to Wapsaconhagan Brook (MP 22. 1), including Stoney Brook. Additionally, three

unnamed streams at MP 1.9, 4.2, and 16.1 were observed to have habitat units with fish

spawning habitat along with temperatures ranging from 66.74'F to 70.88'F (attachment B).

3-11

20120614-0037 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 06/14/2012
4.0 STATUS OF SPECIES AND CRITICAL HABITAT AND PROJECT EFFECTS

This section describes the federally listed threatened and endangered species that may occur in

the Downcast LNG Project area and potential effects from construction and operation of the

project.

4.1 ATLANTIC SALMON (ENDANGERED)

4.1.1 Status of Atlantic Salmon in the Project Area

Species Description

The Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) is an anadromous fish that spends its first two to three years

in freshwater. It then migrates to the ocean to spend typically two years before returning to its

natal freshwater river to spawn. There are three recognized groups of Atlantic salmon: North

American, European, and Baltic. The North American Atlantic salmon historically ranged from

northern Quebec to Newfoundland and southwest to Long Island Sound (NOAA Fisheries and

FWS 2005). Historically, nearly every coastal river in the United States north of the Hudson

River supported Atlantic salmon.

Life History

According to Bigelow and Schroeder (1953, 2002) and Baum (1997), mature Atlantic salmon

enter and spawn in freshwater rivers in the Gulf of Maine in mid-October and early November.

Most of the adult salmon return to sea shortly after spawning, although many do not survive the

physically draining journey up-river and spawning. Young salmon, or parr, remain in freshwater

for two to up to six years before transitioning to the sea where they remain as smolts for as few

as two to three years (Baum 1997). In Maine, most parr remain in the rivers for two years. In

the Penobscot River in Maine and the St. John River, New Brunswick, parr remain in freshwater

for two summers and two winters. The time at which parr move downstream toward the sea

varies from late spring to fall, but in Gulf of Maine streams this usually occurs in June and July

(Baum 1997). Maine Atlantic salmon spend varying lengths of time at sea, ranging from one to

several years, before navigating back along their original migration route to spawn in their birth

river. Consequently, the most sensitive periods for the Atlantic salmon are late spring through

early summer during smolt season and early fall when adults are returning to spawn.

Habitat

NOAA Fisheries and the FWS listed the Gulf of Maine DPS of Atlantic salmon as endangered in

2000. The Gulf of Maine DPS includes all naturally reproducing remnant populations of

Atlantic salmon from the Androscoggin River northward along the Maine coast to the Dennys

River (74 FR 29344). This DPS includes both early- and late-run Atlantic salmon (Baum 1997).

The river specific hatchery reared fish are also included as part of the DPS. However, these

hatchery fish would not count toward a delisting until they have spawned naturally in the wild.

The core of the remnant populations is in the Dennys, East Machias, Machias, Pleasant,

Narraguagus, Ducktrap, and Sheepscot Rivers; Kenduskeag Stream; and Cove Brook. The Gulf

4-1

20120614-0037 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 06/14/2012
of Maine DPS was expanded in 2009 to include populations existing in the Androscoggin,

Kennebec, and Penobscot River basins (74 FR 29344).

Habitat conditions and salmon abundance are largely understood for the larger rivers, but less is

known about the smaller rivers (Meister 1962, Baum 1997). For the most part, riverine habitat

can be characterized as free-flowing, medium gradient, cool-water courses with gravel substrates

for spawning. Currently, the identified watersheds within the DPS are sparsely populated with

salmon.

Population Dynamics

Naturally reproducing Atlantic salmon populations of the Gulf of Maine DPS are at extremely

low levels. The results of several population studies in Gulf of Maine DPS streams demonstrate

that: I) spawning Atlantic salmon abundance is less than 10 percent of the number required to

maximize juvenile production; 2) juvenile abundance indices are lower than historical counts;

and 3) freshwater smolt production is less than a third of estimated capacity. In these streams,

fry were stocked to fill available habitat, and parr abundance increased as a result. Despite these

conservation efforts, the number of smolts leaving the river did not increase at the same rate (65

FR 69459).

In general, densities of young-of-the-year salmon and parr remain low relative to potential

carrying capacity. These depressed juvenile abundances are a direct result of low adult returns in

recent years. A total parr population estimate is not available for the entire Gulf of Maine DPS.

The Maine ASC and NOAA Fisheries have conducted a watershed-wide parr population study

on the Narraguagus River. Service biologists also conducted an outmigration study for the

Narraguagus River (Kocik et al. 1998a). Large parr numbers ranged from 11,700 to 27,000. The

corresponding outmigrating smolt numbers ranged from 2,800 to 3,600, well below what was an

estimated production capacity (i.e., 18,000). The Maine ASC and Service biologists derived a

preliminary estimate of 3,607 for the number of emigrant smolts in 1999, which would indicate

spawning production in 1996-1997. The average overwinter survival for 1999 was 14.3 percent,

which is significantly lower than that in 1997 at 24.4 percent. In summary, studies conducted on

juvenile salmon in the Narraguagus River concluded that high overwinter mortality of I+ and

older parr, combined with high mortality of out-migrating parr, are impediments to the recovery

of this species (65 FR 69459).

Threats

Declines in returns of Maine adult salmon became evident by 1985, by which time this species

had been extirpated in southern New England (NOAA Fisheries and FWS 2004). Critically low

adult returns make this species particularly susceptible to threats. Anthropogenic impacts are

implicated as the major cause of significant declines in Atlantic salmon populations.

Historic landuse practices likely had a significant impact on salmon populations and habitat.

Although many of these practices are not implemented today, the extent that historic

disturbances continue to affect freshwater habitat remains a consideration. For example,

4-2

20120614-0037 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 06/14/2012
physical alterations to instream channel geometry increases substrate embeddedness or creates

wide reaches where deep narrow channels once occurred. Streams that have been widened may

exhibit more rapid heating and cooling conditions. Additionally, implementation of historic log

drives necessitated channelization and boulder removal. These two factors alone have seriously

compromised salmon habitat suitability.

Current threats to the salmon have been identified by NOAA Fisheries and the FWS (2004).

Water withdrawal for agriculture purposes has been identified as the most immediate threat to

habitat in the Pleasant, Narraguagus, and Machias River watersheds due to the incidence of

commercial blueberry operations. Several water quality issues have been identified that may

have effects on salmon. Point source and non-point source pollution continue to affect water

quality in salmon-bearing rivers. However, the Maine Technical Advisory Committee, Water

Quality Committee concluded that the most significant water quality threats are acidification

(NOAA Fisheries and FWS 2005) due to acid rain and endocrine disruption from pesticides.

Sedimentation from various sources may be affecting habitat quality in rivers by causing

substrate embeddedness, diminished habitat complexity, and stream channel alteration.

Elevated water temperatures may be a significant threat in salmon rearing habitat, especially in

combination with other compromising factors. Optimal temperatures for salmon in different life

stages is well understood; if temperatures exceed 75'F during juvenile development, adequate

size for overwintering may not be attained. Elevated water temperatures in rivers have been

documented in recent years (NOAA Fisheries and FWS 2004). Factors that may create elevated

temperature conditions include industrial cooling water discharges, low flows, removal of

shading, and climate change.

The Downcast Region of Maine is currently undergoing significant land use pattern changes.

Among these are increased development, population growth, and land conversion, which can

result in a number of significant impacts on salmon habitat. Primarily, land clearing and housing

developments are often followed by a need to add roads and other buildings to a region.

Increased impervious surface often increases sedimentation, erosion, and pollution in streams, all

of which lower water quality and degrade habitat for salmon.

Commercial and recreational fishing have had historical roles in the decline of salmon. Today,

fishery management practices are regulated in the United States and Canada. Commercial

harvesting of salmon in Greenland marine waters is permitted, but it is regulated through

international agreements. NOAA Fisheries and the FWS (2004) recognize the St. Pierre and

Miquelon fishery off the coast of Newfoundland as a continuing potential threat to Atlantic

Salmon.

Fish pathogens may be a significant factor in salmon population recovery, particularly in rivers

influenced by pen facilities or hatcheries. Two salmonid diseases have only recently occurred in

the range of existing salmon populations: infectious salmon anemia and salmon swimbladder

sarcoma.

4-3

20120614-0037 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 06/14/2012
Predation and Competition

Atlantic salmon recovery is hampered by predation and competition. Important predators

include marine mammals (especially seals) and avian predators (cormorants and mergansers, in

particular). There are several other species of fish that are predators and competitors of Atlantic

salmon.

The effects that aquaculture facilities and hatcheries have on Atlantic salmon are not fully

understood. There may be issues associated with those salmon used for aquaculture and

produced in hatcheries that are surrounded with wild Atlantic salmon, such as interactions,

disease, and competition.

Status, Protection, and Management

NOAA Fisheries and the FWS listed the Gulf of Maine DPS of Atlantic salmon as endangered in

2000 (65 FR 69459). In September 2008, the Services determined that naturally spawned and

conservation hatchery populations of Atlantic salmon within the range of the Gulf of Maine

DPS, including those that were already listed in November 2000, constitute a new Gulf of Maine

DPS and hence a "species" for listing as endangered under the ESA. A NOAA Fisheries Status

Review was published in July 2006 (Fay et al. 2006). This reports an estimated extinction risk of

19 to 75 percent within the next 100 years for the Gulf of Maine DPS even when current levels

of hatchery supplementation are considered. In June 2009, the Gulf of Maine DPS was further

deliniated to include all freshwater bodies in the watersheds from the Androscoggin River

northward along the Maine coast to the Dennys River (74 FR 29344). Information presented in

Fay et al. (2006) determined that the best available science suggests that the St. Croix River

groups with other Canadian rivers and Atlantic salmon within the St. Croix River system are

genetically more similar to Canadian salmon populations. Additionally, the Atlantic salmon

Inner Bay of Fundy population is listed by Canada as endangered.

The State of Maine prepared a Conservation Plan for Atlantic salmon and is a key partner in the

recovery efforts for the species. The Maine Conservation Plan contains a number of actions and

measures to reduce potential impacts on Atlantic salmon from recreational fishing, agriculture,

aquaculture, and forestry. The federal Recovery Plan was developed in close cooperation with

Maine, and many of its elements are based on the Maine Conservation Plan. In addition to

efforts to reduce threats to this species, river-specific Atlantic salmon are being stocked. The

final rule to list the DPS as endangered acknowledged the considerable efforts being put forth by

the State of Maine and public and private sector partners to protect Atlantic salmon, but pointed

out that despite these efforts, the DPS is in danger of extinction (Final Recovery Plan for the

Gulf of Maine DPS of Atlantic Salmon [70 FR 75473 ]).

Remnant native populations of Atlantic salmon in the United States now persist only in Maine

(Fay et al. 2006). These populations are functioning but at significantly reduced abundance

levels. Although it is unlikely that any Atlantic salmon populations in the United States

currently exist in a genetically pure native form, it is generally accepted that the DPS individuals

are descendants of original stock. These Atlantic salmon represent the remnant genetic stock of

4-4

20120614-0037 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 06/14/2012
indigenous salmon from a region that included rivers from the Housatonic River in Connecticut

to the headwaters of the Aroostook River in Maine. According to the latest Annual Report of the

U.S. Atlantic Salmon Assessment Committee (2010), all stocks are at very low levels; only the

Penobscot River population has been near 10 percent of its conservation spawning escapement

and only because of an intensive smolt stocking program.

Riverine habitat occupied by the Gulf of Maine DPS is the southern extent ofthe Atlantic salmon

range (Saunders 1981; Baum 1997). The loss of the Gulf of Maine DPS would move the range

of Atlantic salmon further north and beyond the U.S. border. The Services acknowledge that

salmon hatchery processes could potentially have influenced the genetic integrity of the Gulf of

Maine DPS. However, the persistence of native stocks has been documented (Kendall 1935,

Baum 1997), and hatchery fish have not necessarily caused hybridization with the remnant

populations.

The State of Maine Seven Rivers Atlantic Salmon Commission Stocking Program has the

responsibility for all Atlantic salmon stocking in Maine waters. The Maine ASC does this in

cooperation with two FWS salmon hatcheries. These hatcheries receive Atlantic salmon

collected by the Maine ASC from wild populations in Dennys, East Machias, Machias,

Narraguagus, Penobscot, and Sheepscot Rivers and hold or raise them for use as broodstock.

The current salmon stocking program in Maine uses river-specific fish. Each river receives

progeny of fish previously collected from the same river; except restoration efforts in the Saco,

Union, and St. Croix Rivers, which are based on Penobscot River origin fish.

Critical Habitat

On June 19, 2009, the entire occupied range of the Gulf of Maine DPS was listed as critical

habitat in 45 specific areas occupied by Atlantic salmon, comprising approximately 12,160.86

miles of perennial river, stream, and estuary habitat and 308.5 square miles of lake habitat (74

FR 29300 and 29341). These areas comprise three salmon habitat recovery units, including the

Penobscot Bay, Merrymeeting Bay, and Downcast coastal areas.

Species Occurrence in the Downcast LNG Project Area

LNG Waterway for Marine Traffic and LNG Terminal

Eastern Maine is described as the only state where remnant native populations of Atlantic salmon

still persist; all other populations native to western North Atlantic (i.e., New England and

Canadian waters) have been extirpated (Kocik and Sheehan 2006). In its comments on the initial

BA, the FWS indicated that endangered Atlantic salmon could occur near the Downcast LNG

Project area at Mill Cove during their migrations to and from rivers that are within the Gulf of

Maine DPS (FWS 2009). The FWS also indicated that endangered Atlantic salmon could also

occur in marine waters along the coast that might be used as a transit route by LNG carriers

accessing the proposed terminal in Mill Cove. Therefore, the action area that is applicable to

Atlantic salmon includes the offloading pier in Mill Cove and waters of Passamaquoddy Bay.

4-5

20120614-0037 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 06/14/2012
According to the Maine ASC, 15 salmon returned to the St. Croix River in 2003, 14 in 2004, and

42 in 2005 (however, in 2005, 35 individuals were determined to be aquaculture "escapees"

leaving only 7 as either wild or hatchery-origin fish) (Dube 2006).

According to the Atlantic Salmon Federation, the Digdeguash River, a tributary of the St. Croix

River, has a documented population of salmon (Maine ASF 2007). The Services currently do

not designate the St. Croix River and its tributaries as part ofthe Gulf of Maine DPS or as critical

habitat for the Gulf of Maine DPS. Critical habitat for the Gulf of Maine DPS for Atlantic

Salmon is only identified as far east as Lubuc, Maine and the western portions of Cobscook Bay

(NOAA Fisheries 2009).

Sendout Pipeline

Downcast conducted detailed stream evaluations during August 2006 based on survey protocols

established by the Maine ASC and informal consultation with the FWS, Maine DMR, Maine

DIFW and Maine ASC. Based upon this information, there are no potential Atlantic salmon

spawning areas that would be crossed by the sendout pipeline. Ideal physiocochemical

parameters for Atlantic salmon are limited to narrow temperature and dissolved oxygen ranges

along with specialized substrate conditions for spawning. There were few locations where

potential spawning beds were identified (beyond the proposed pipeline comdor), which greatly

limits any habitat potential for Atlantic salmon.

Atlantic salmon migratory habitat was identified within the action area in the St. Croix River and

Magurrewock Stream (Maine DMR 2008). Maine DMR anticipates few individuals to be

present during the migration period in these locations. In September 2008, NOAA Fisheries

proposed new critical habitat for Atlantic salmon in waters in or near Princeton and Baileyville,

Maine.

4.1.2 Effects on Atlantic Salmon

Waterway for LNG Marine Traffic

Adult Atlantic salmon are common in Passamaquoddy Bay from May through November, and

juveniles are common from April through June. Data are scarce concerning the biology of

Atlantic salmon as they enter the marine habitat or the factors that influence their migration as

post-smolts. Dube (2006) of the Maine ASC reports that between 2003 and 2005, a total of 71

returning salmon were sampled from the St. Croix River; however, in 2005, only 7 of the 42

returning individuals were determined to be wild-caught or hatchery reared, while the remaining

35 individuals were aquaculture "escapees. " This relatively low number of documented

returning non-hatchery reared salmon to the St. Croix River indicates that, while this species

does occur in the waterbodies associated with the waterway for LNG marine traffic, its presence

would likely be low. Additionally, mortality is thought to be high in post-smolts during the out

migration, especially during the early stages, but data are lacking (Hansen et al, 2003; Lacroix et

al, 2004). Migratory salmon present in the waterway may be temporarily displaced to adjacent

waters by disturbance caused by LNG vessels; however, this displacement is expected to be

4-6

20120614-0037 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 06/14/2012
short-term and localized. We received a letter from NOAA Fisheries, dated November 16, 2006,

that concurred with this assessment.

The risk of an accidental or intentional release of LNG during transit of the LNG ships is

extremely low and can be managed with appropriate safety and security measures (Sandia

National Laboratories 2004). Because of the marine transit safety and security measures, the

probability of an LNG vessel spill from collisions, allisions, and/or terrorist attacks would be

unlikely. However, if released, unignited LNG would vaporize rapidly upon contact with the

relatively warm air and water. Because LNG is not soluble in water and the LNG would

completely vaporize shortly after being spilled, there would be no liquid left that could mix

and/or contaminate the water. Therefore, potential surface water impacts associated with an

accidental release of LNG are not considered significant due to the low probability of a spill.

Direct contact with spilled LNG would be fatal due to the cryogenic temperature of LNG.

Exposure to lower water temperatures near an LNG spill could cause adverse effects on salmon,

ranging from cold shock to lethal exposure. An LNG spill on water would create a thermocline

in the waterbody surrounding the immediate spill area that would likely be detected and avoided

by any salmon in the affected area. There is a potential of limited significant impacts if a spill

should occur; however, with implementation of the safety and security measures recommended

by the Coast Guard to ensure suitability of the waterway, the likelihood of such an event would

be extremely remote. Atlantic salmon adults may occur within the waterway for LNG marine

traffic, but are unlikely to be adversely affected by the LNG vessel transits to the Downcast LNG

project.

LNG Terminal

Potential impacts on salmon near the terminal site include construction related lighting, noise,

increased sedimentation and turbidity associated with pile driving and hydrostatic testing of

storage tanks, destruction of benthic habitats, as well as operational impacts including

entrainment/impingement of juvenile salmon during LNG vessel ballast water uptake or engine

cooling.

The proposed LNG terminal site is near the migratory corridor for adult salmon and juvenile

salmon smolts moving to and from the St. Croix River. Within the region, Atlantic salmon use

Passamaquoddy Bay and, the St. Croix, Dennys, and Pennamaquen Rivers as migratory

corridors. Within the Dennys River, this species spawns and rears its young. We received

scoping comments expressing concern for migrating smolts near the LNG terminal. However, in

a communication to the FERC on November 16, 2006, the FWS and NOAA Fisheries indicated

that, while transient individuals may occur, Atlantic salmon are not likely to occur near the

proposed LNG terminal. Therefore, no adverse effects on Atlantic salmon are anticipated from

construction or operation of the terminal.

4-7

20120614-0037 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 06/14/2012
Sendout Pipeline

There is known, but unmapped, salmon habitat downstream of Downcast's proposed crossing of

the Wapsaconhagen Brook at MP 21.3. According to the Maine ASC, this location is a

considerable distance from the point of crossing and is not of high quality (Norm Dube, pers.

comm.

, August 26, 2008). Downcast would cross Wapsaconhagen Brook using a dam-andpump technique which would require in-stream excavation of a trench. This type of dry, opencut construction produces less sedimentation and turbidity than traditional wet open-cut methods.

These dry, open-cut crossings are often completed in less than 24 hours. In-stream activities

associated with placing the dams would be expected to temporarily displace fish, both upstream

and downstream, from the dams. In-stream activities associated with both dry and wet crossing

methods could physically damage fish or fish eggs and other aquatic organisms, including prey

and forage species. Vegetation removal at stream crossings could also result in increased water

temperature, decreased presence of large, woody debris and the associated reduction of in-stream

habitat, and increased stream bank failure adjacent to the waterbodies.

Critical habitat for the Downcast Coastal Salmon Habitat Recovery Unit of Atlantic salmon was

revised on June 19, 2009 to include watersheds in Princeton and Baileyville, Maine. The waters

that would be crossed by the sendout pipeline have not been identified as critical habitat for the

Atlantic salmon. Atlantic salmon migratory habitat was identified within the action area in the

St. Croix River and Magurrewock Stream (Maine DMR 2008); however, the Maine DMR

anticipates few individuals to be present during the migration period in these locations. To

minimize any potential impacts on downstream habitats associated with stream crossings,

Downcast has proposed to cross coldwater fisheries between July 16th and September 30th.

Downcast would also implement its pipeline erosion control plan and allow the right-of-way to

fully revegetate following construction.

The FERC typically requires that a riparian buffer at least 25 feet wide be allowed to

permanently revegetate with native plant species across the right-of-way after construction is

completed. As specified in the project's Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Guidelines,

Downcast would extend the maintenance setback from 25 feet to 100 feet at all perennial Class

A, AA, coldwater, and coldwater/warmwater waterbodies, unless the Maine DEP approves a

variance based on site-specific conditions. Trees and shrubs greater than 15 feet in height that

are within 15 feet of the pipeline would be selectively cut to facilitate periodic pipeline surveys

and prevent damage by deep rooted vegetation.

There is also the potential for spills or leaks of fuels or hazardous materials from storage

containers, equipment working in or near streams, and fuel transfers, which could be detrimental

to salmonids if they reach a waterbody. Exposure to chemicals could result directly in death or

alter behavior, physiological processes, or by affect food sources. To minimize the potential for

and impacts of any spills near surface waters, Downcast would implement a state approved

Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that includes spill prevention and response

procedures. Downcast does not propose to use any herbicides for right-of-way maintenance.

4-8

20120614-0037 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 06/14/2012
Determination of Effects to Atlantic Salmon

The Downcast LNG Project has the potential to adversely affect Atlantic salmon; however,

Downcast has agreed to implement a variety of mitigation measures that would avoid or

minimize impacts on this species. These mitigative measures include timing construction to

avoid times of year when migrating salmon smolts or adult salmon could be present; employing

construction methods in stream crossings that minimize damages on the aquatic habitat; and

preserving and restoring riparian buffers. Implementation of these measures would be sufficient

to prevent adverse impacts on Atlantic salmon. Therefore, we believe construction and operation

of the Downcast LNG Project is not likely to adversely affect Atlantic salmon.

The Downcast LNG Project would not impact designated Atlantic salmon critical habitat.

Therefore, construction and operation of the Downcast LNG Project would have no effect on

designated Atlantic salmon critical habitat. The Gulf of Maine DPS of Atlantic salmon, as

currently described in 65 FR 69459, would not be crossed by the Downcast LNG Project.

4.2 ATLANTIC STURGEON (THREATENED —GULF OF MAINE DPS)

4.2.1 Status of Atlantic Sturgeon in Project Area

Species Description

The Atlantic sturgeon has a long, sharply "v"-shaped snout, the presence of bony scutes between

the anal fin base and the lateral scute row, and the presence of pale intestines. It is black-blue

above and pale below, and can grow to 14 feet (NOAA Fisheries 2011; Page and Burr 1991).

Coastal features or shorelines where migratory Atlantic sturgeon commonly aggregate include

the Bay of Fundy, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Delaware, Delaware Bay,

Chesapeake Bay, and North Carolina. Historically, Atlantic sturgeon were present in 38 rivers in

the United States from St. Croix, Maine to the Saint Johns River, Florida, of which 35 rivers

have been confirmed to have had a historical spawning population. Atlantic sturgeon are

currently present in 35 rivers, and spawning occurs in at least 20 of these rivers (Atlantic

Sturgeon Status Review Team 2007).

Life History

The Atlantic sturgeon is a long-lived, late maturing, estuarine dependent, anadromous species. It

spawns in freshwater but spends most of its adult life in the marine environment. Females may

live to over 60 years, while males are thought to live about 30 years. Spawning adults migrate

upriver from April to May in mid-Atlantic waters and May to July in Canadian waters. This

species is highly migratory; mark-recapture studies have documented movements of sturgeon

from the Hudson and Delaware Rivers to as far north as coastal Maine and south to North

Carolina (Shepherd 2006). Atlantic sturgeon spawning is thought to occur in large rivers where

flow rates are between 1.5 to 2.5 feet per second and depths of 36 to 89 feet. Sturgeon eggs

adhere to hard bottom substrates (e.g., cobble), and hatch 4 to 6 days later. Newly hatched larval

fish begin migrating downstream to rearing habitats after 8 to 12 days; as they develop into

juveniles, they continue moving downstream into brackish waters, and eventually become

4-9

20120614-0037 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 06/14/2012
residents in estuarine waters for months or years. Subadults move to coastal waters after

reaching lengths of 30 to 36 inches. Despite its extensive migrations, the adult sturgeon returns

to its natal stream for spawning. Males return first and remain in the natal stream for the entire

spawning period, whereas females leave the spawning grounds soon after eggs are laid (Atlantic

Sturgeon Status Review Team 2007). Spawning intervals are irregular; males are thought to

spawn every I to 5 years, and females every 2 to 5 years.

Habitat

The Atlantic sturgeon spawns in freshwater, but spends most of its adult life in near-shore coastal

waters. Spawning occurs in large flowing rivers between the salt front and the fall line (located

below waterfalls) over hard substrates. Juveniles move into brackish waters and remain there

until reaching subadult size; subadults then migrate into coastal waters. Once the sturgeon

leaves its natal stream, it generally becomes highly migratory (Atlantic Sturgeon Status Review

Team 2007).

Population Dynamics

Comprehensive information on current or historic abundance of Atlantic sturgeon is lacking for

most river systems. A substantial Atlantic sturgeon fishery existed into the late 1800s, with

landings as high as 3,500 metric tons. Stock abundance of Atlantic sturgeon steadily declined

throughout the 20th century, largely due to overfishing and habitat degradation/destruction

(Shepherd 2006). Population estimates of spawning adults are available for only two

subpopulations of Atlantic sturgeon, including the Hudson (about 870 adults per year) and

Altamaha Rivers.

Threats

The growing demand for caviar in the 1870s is largely responsible for the intense pressures on

this fishery, ultimately causing its collapse by 1901. The Atlantic sturgeon fishery was closed by

the Atlantic States Marine Fishery Commission in 1998, when a coastwide fishing moratorium

was imposed for 20-40 years.

Atlantic sturgeon depend on a wide range of estuarine and freshwater habitats for spawning,

early life stage survival, and survival and growth ofjuveniles, making it susceptible to impacts at

each life stage. Poflution, habitat degradation (e.g., dewatering of streams, changes in

physiochemical properties of streams, and physical alteration of in-stream habitats), fishing

exploitation in spawning habitats, and as bycatch in marine fisheries all represent critical threats

to this species. Additionally, individuals are susceptible to vessel strikes (Atlantic Sturgeon

Status Review Team 2007).

Status, Protection, and Management

In response to a petition in 1998 to list Atlantic sturgeon under the ESA, the Services published a

determination that listing the species was not warranted at that time (63 FR 50187). However,

NOAA Fisheries retained this species on its candidate species list in order to continue to monitor

its status (63 FR 50211) and later transferred it to its newly established species of concern list

4-10

20120614-0037 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 06/14/2012
(69 FR 19975). In 2005, NOAA Fisheries initiated a new status review to make a determination

on whether listing the Atlantic sturgeon or DPSs of this species is warranted. Based on the status

review report (Atlantic Sturgeon Status Review Team 2007), and other information available

since completion of the status review, NOAA has determined that the species is comprised of

five DPSs that qualify as species under the ESA: Gulf of Maine; New York Bight; Chesapeake

Bay; Carolina; and South Atlantic (75 FR 61872). On January 31, 2012, NOAA Fisheries issued

a final determination that lists the Atlantic sturgeon as threatened for the Gulf of Maine DPS (77

FR 5880). The remaining four DPSs have been listed as endangered.

Critical Habitat

Critical habitat has not yet been designated for this species.

Species Occurrence in Project Area

The geomorphology of most small coastal rivers in Maine is not sufficient to support Atlantic

sturgeon spawning populations, except for the Penobscot and the estuarial complex of the

Kennebec, Androscoggin, and Sheepscot Rivers. During the summer months, the salt wedge

intrudes almost to the site of impassable falls in the St. Croix River (river mile 9.94), Machias

River (river mile 6.21), and the Saco River (river mile 6.21). Although surveys have not been

conducted to document Atlantic sturgeon presence, subadults may use the estuaries of these

smaller coastal drainages during the summer months.

The historic and current status of the St. Croix Atlantic sturgeon population is largely unknown.

A small population of large sturgeon may be spawning annually below the hydropower dam on

the St. Croix River (Atlantic Sturgeon Status Review Team 2007).

The Gulf of Maine population of Atlantic sturgeon historically supported at least four spawning

subpopulations; however, today it is suspected that only two extant subpopulations exist in the

Penobscot and Kennebec Rivers. Of these two extant subpopulations, the Kennebec was

considered a subpopulation of significant value to the Gulf of Maine population, as this

subpopulation was historically large. Historically, the Kennebec supported about 15,000

spawning adults. It was speculated that the Penobscot subpopulation was extirpated until a

fisherman captured an adult Atlantic sturgeon in 2005, and a gill net survey directed toward

Atlantic sturgeon captured seven in 2006 (Atlantic Sturgeon Status Review Team 2007).

Few Atlantic sturgeon have been captured in the Piscataqua River. Since 1990, the New

Hampshire Fish and Game has not observed or received reports of Atlantic sturgeon of any ageclass being captured in the Great Bay Estuary and its tributaries. This species is thought to be

extirpated from the area.

4.2.2 Effects on Atlantic Sturgeon

Waterway for LNG Marine Traffic

The Atlantic sturgeon may be present in the St. Croix River; however, data about this population

are lacking. Atlantic sturgeon present in the waterway may be temporarily displaced to adjacent

4-11

20120614-0037 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 06/14/2012
waters by disturbance caused by LNG vessels; however, this displacement is expected to be

short-term and localized.

The risk of an accidental or intentional release of LNG during transit of the LNG ships is

extremely low and can be managed with appropriate safety and security measures (Sandia

National Laboratories, 2004). Because of the marine transit safety and security measures, the

probability of an LNG vessel spill from collisions, allisions and/or terrorist attacks would be

unlikely. However, if released, unignited LNG would vaporize rapidly upon contact with the

relatively warm air and water. Because LNG is not soluble in water and the LNG would

completely vaporize shortly after being spilled, there would be no liquid left that could mix

and/or contaminate the water. Therefore, potential surface water impacts associated with and

accidental release of LNG are not considered significant due to the low probability of a spill.

Direct contact with spilled LNG would be fatal due to the cryogenic temperature of LNG.

Exposure to lower water temperatures near an LNG spill could cause adverse effects to Atlantic

sturgeon, ranging from cold shock to lethal exposure. An LNG spill on water would create a

thermocline in the waterbody surrounding the immediate spill area that would likely be detected

and avoided by any sturgeon in the affected area. There is a potential of limited significant

impacts if a spill should occur; however, with implementation of the safety and security

measures recommended by the Coast Guard to ensure suitability of the waterway, the likelihood

of such an event would be extremely remote. Atlantic sturgeon adults may occur within the

waterway for LNG marine traffic, but are unlikely to be adversely affected by LNG vessel

transits to the proposed project.

LNG Terminal

The Atlantic Sturgeon Status Review Team (2007) notes that a small spawning population of

large Atlantic sturgeon may be present in the St. Croix River below the hydroelectric dam;

however, it also notes that spawning habitats are largely lacking because the salt water wedge

intrudes nearly to the impassable falls at river mile 9.94. Few spawning adults are anticipated to

be present in the St. Croix River; however, subadults may use Passamaquoddy Bay in summer

months. Potential impacts on Atlantic sturgeon near the terminal include lighting, noise,

increased sedimentation and turbidity associated with pile driving and hydrostatic testing of

storage tanks, and accidental releases and spills, as well as operational impacts including

entrainment/impingement during LNG vessel ballast water uptake or engine cooling.

Turbidity

Construction of the LNG terminal would involve the installation of the pier and berthing

facilities within Mil! Cove. Specifically, pier construction could contribute to water quality

degradation through increased turbidity. During rock socket drilling activities, drill cuttings

would be produced and released into the water column. The resuspension of sediments during

pier installation activities, including propeller wash from construction vessels and the release of

drill cuttings could cause increased turbidity resulting in reduced light penetration and hence

reduction in primary productivity. Turbidity can also cause an increase in biological oxygen

4-12

20120614-0037 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 06/14/2012
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 prey base. Indirect adverse impacts on phytoplankton production could

result from increased turbidity associated with disturbance of the sea floor. Turbidity would

reduce visibility thus affecting the ability of sight feeders to locate prey. Fishes such as the

Atlantic sturgeon may also experience gill clogging effects caused by excessively turbid water

making contact with gill surfaces.

The effects associated with construction in Mill Cove are anticipated to be short-term and minor.

Given the tidal amplitude and strong currents affecting the area, construction activities are not

likely to produce thick layers of sediment in any one location of the project area, and the water

turnover also would aid in dispersing any suspended drill cuttings. The installation of the pier

would also be conducted using a conventional "over-the-top" method of construction whereby

the pier trestle is constructed from the shore seaward. This method ofinstallation would limit the

use of barge-mounted equipment reducing the amount of impacts on the seabed from anchoring,

as well as reduce the area of habitat disturbance and loss from propeller wash. Downcast has

stated it would use best management practices (BMPs) to minimize/localize turbidity. In

addition, as the pier support structures would be bolted to the bedrock underlying the softer

seafloor surface, foundations would not have to be poured or filled, resulting in a relatively small

footprint of the seafloor. Total permanent habitat loss due to piling structures would be

approximately 0.11 acre.

Noise

Noise generated from tugboats, operation of barge mounted equipment, and pile driving

(vibratory and impact hammering) during LNG terminal construction could affect Atlantic

sturgeon present during construction activities. Sounds of short duration that are produced

intermittently or at regular intervals, such as sounds from pile driving, are classified as "pulsed. "

Sounds produced for extended periods, such as sounds from generators, are classified as

"continuous. " Although continuous noise sources (tugboats, operation of diesel powered

construction equipment) have the potential to elicit certain behavioral effects on marine species,

impact pile driving has the greatest potential to cause harassment or injury through generation of

intense underwater sound pressure waves. Large diameter steel pipe piles are anticipated to be

used to support the trestle and loading platform. These piles would be vibrated through any

surficial soils on the seabed to the top of the underlying rock, where they would be seated into

competent bedrock using an impact hammer. Driving hollow steel piles with impact hammers

produce intense, sharp spikes of sound that can easily reach levels that injure fish. Conversely,

vibratory hammers produce sounds of lower intensity, with a rapid repetition rate.

In discussing the impacts of sound on aquatic resources it is important to note the difference in

sound intensity in air versus water. Sound intensity in air uses a standard of 20 micropascals

(ItPa), while sound intensity measured in water uses a standard level of I Itpa. Sound sources

are typically presented as sound pressure levels at a distance of I meter from an idealized point

source, i.e., decibels (dB) re I micro-Pascal (ItPa) at I meter.

4-13

20120614-0037 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 06/14/2012
The intensity of the sound pressure levels produced during pile driving depends on a variety of

factors including, but not limited to, the type and size of the pile, the firmness of the substrate

into which the pile is being driven, the depth of water, the type and size of the pile-driving

hammer, and the geometry and boundaries of the surrounding underwater environment. In

water, the frequency component of pile driving varies with principal energy found in the 200 to

400 Hz range. Impact pile driving source levels well in excess of 200 dB (re: I IiPa) at I meter

have been documented from similar construction projects.

The degree to which marine species are exposed to and affected by sound waves is dependent

upon variables such as the peak sound pressure level and frequency as well as the species and

size (e.g., small fish appear to be more susceptible to injury by intense sound waves than are

larger fish of the same species). Short-term exposure to peak sound pressure levels above 190

dB (re:I ItPa) is thought to physically harm fish (Hastings 2002).

Although the effects of pile driving are poorly studied and there appears to be substantial

variation in a species' response to sound, intense sound pressure waves can change fish behavior

or injure/kill fish through rupturing swim bladders or causing internal hemorrhaging (NMFS

2005; Hastings and Popper 2005). We would not expect noise impacts on sturgeon within the

project area at the time of construction to be materially different than those impacts on other fish

species. The presence of predators can also influence how marine species might be affected by

pile driving (e.g.,

fish stunned by pile-driving activities may be more susceptible to predators).

If drilling and/or vibropiling were to occur during anadromous fish migrations, the avoidance of

the nearshore areas could restrict migrating fish to deepwater areas that are less suitable for some

species, which could increase the susceptibility of some smaller species to predation.

Underwater noise during construction activities would be temporary, and long-term noise

impacts are not expected to be significant. However, adverse impacts during impact pile driving

can be mitigated. Minimizing the number of pile segments to be driven with an impact hammer

would reduce the noise impact from pile installation. A "noise-alert" procedure would be used to

cause mobile marine species sensitive to the acoustics generated by the pile driving to vacate and

avoid the immediate area before pile driving procedures are continued. Additional potential

mitigation measures include time of year restrictions, bubble curtain systems, caissons, or the

engagement of a NMFS-approved marine spotter to ensure no sensitive species are within the

designated NMFS Acoustic Safety Zone during construction activity.

Downcast has stated it would continue to consult with NOAA Fisheries and other relevant

federal and state agencies to discuss appropriate mitigation measures. To date Downcast has not

proposed any specific mitigation measures to minimize acoustic impacts on marine species.

However, we have recommended in our EIS that Downcast should continue to consult with

NOAA Fisheries and other relevant federal and state agencies to determine appropriate

mitigation strategies to employ during construction of the LNG terminal facility to minimize

acoustic harassment or harm to marine species (fish, sea turtles, pinnipeds, and other marine

mammals). These mitigation measures would address Atlantic Sturgeon.

4-14

20120614-0037 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 06/14/2012
Lighting

Reduced light penetration and reduced visibility due to increased turbidity during construction of

the LNG terminal are discussed above under "Turbidity. " During operation, the presence of the

pier structure could affect marine organisms due to shading and the presence of artificial

lighting. However, the pier is relatively narrow and would be constructed at a sufficient height

above the water resulting in only minor shading effects. Safety lighting of the pier is under the

jurisdiction of the Coast Guard. Downcast would work with the Coast Guard in coordination

with Maine DMR and NOAA Fisheries 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. In addition, while the pier may serve as a detractor to some

species due to either shading or lighting, the pier pilings themselves would provide new

attachment surfaces for various marine prey species for the sturgeon. In the Eastport region,

piers are known for their biological richness.

Timing ofConstruction Activities

To further mitigate for construction related impacts, Downcast is currently consulting with the

appropriate agencies regarding the timing of construction activities to avoid particularly sensitive

periods. Timing may include seasonal considerations to avoid sensitive periods such as during

spawning and migration, including for Atlantic sturgeon if identified as needed by agencies, and

peak fishery activity. 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. Additional mitigation options include specific

measures for impact containment, such as the use of silt retention devices to restrict silt plumes.

We have recommended in our EIS that Downcast continue to consult with NOAA Fisheries,

Maine DMR, and other appropriate agencies to determine any recommended seasonal or

construction timing restrictions to minimize impacts on marine species and habitats during LNG

terminal construction activities, including all proposed in-water work, pile driving, and water

withdrawals and discharges.

Impingement and Entrainment

During construction of the LNG terminal, Downcast would conduct hydrostatic testing of the

LNG storage tanks using approximately 28 million gallons of water, obtained principally from

Passamaquoddy Bay. Entrainment and impingement of fish and other aquatic organisms such as

zooplankton and ichthyoplankton could occur during water withdrawals. Impact on Atlantic

sturgeon would be minimal because few individuals are expected to occur in the Project vicinity

and those indivuals would be primarily juvenile, subadults, or adults and because of their size

impingement or entrainment would be unlikely. Downcast would minimize the potential for

entrainment and impingement of sturgeon by regulating the intake rate and by the use of screens

on intake hoses. Downcast is currently proposing the use of a 1200mesh filter during intake of

hydrostatic test waters. Downcast has also stated it would 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. We recommended that Downcast file

4-15

20120614-0037 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 06/14/2012
the results of its agency consultations and detail any proposed timing restrictions, prior to

construction of the LNG terminal. All water used for testing would be discharged back to the

Bay.

During operation, water would be taken on by LNG vessels while at the pier as ballast and to

cool the engines generating power for the off-loading pumps and other onboard systems. The

majority of water used for onboard systems would be for engine cooling water. A 165,000-m 3

LNG vessel would require a maximum of about 55.5 million gallons of water over a 21-hour

period to support engine cooling while at the pier (a maximum average intake rate of 540 gallons

per second). Entrainment and impingement of fish and other aquatic organisms, including

Atlantic sturgeon, could occur during this water intake. However, because of the size of the

juvenile, subadult, and adults that may be in the project area and few individuals are expected to

occur in the Project vicinity, we believe entrainment would be unlikely.

Accidental Releases and Spills

During construction, the potential for spills and accidental releases of material such as diesel

fuel, lubricants, and hydraulic fluid could affect fishes and other aquatic life through acute or

chronic toxicity; and result in sub-lethal effects which could affect reproduction, growth, and

recruitment. To minimize the likelihood of accidental spills and releases, Downcast has adopted

the measures specified in our Procedures regarding spill prevention and containment near

waterbodies. In addition, we recommended in our EIS (section 4.3.2.2), that Downcast develop a

project-specific Marine SPCC Plan to prevent, respond to, and mitigate any potential spills of oil,

gas, lubricants, or other hazardous materials during construction and operation of the marine

terminal. Given the adoption of the measures in our Procedures and the recommendation to

develop a Marine SPCC Plan, we conclude the risk of accidental spills or the introduction of

other hazardous materials to the marine environment and their effects on aquatic life would be

effectively minimized.

During operation, all commercial vessels calling on the Project must comply with the

International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, as modified by the

Protocol of 1978 (MARPOL 73/78). MARPOL is the international treaty regulating disposal of

wastes generated by normal operation of vessels. In the United States, MARPOL is

implemented by the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships, under the lead of the Coast Guard.

Discharge and disposal of garbage and other solid debris from vessels is prohibited by the

Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) (30 CFR 250.300) and the Coast

Guard (MARPOL Annex V, Public Law 100-220 [Statute 1458]). Fuel on LNG vessels is

protected by their double hull construction. Additionally, each LNG vessel would maintain a

Shipboard Oil Pollution Emergency Plan (SOPEP) as required by international convention and

in compliance with MARPOL 73/78 Consolidated Edition 2002 Annex I Regulation 26, which

requires every oil tanker of 150 tons gross and above, and every vessel of 400 tons gross and

above to carry an approved SOPEP.

4-16

20120614-0037 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 06/14/2012
Non-recreational vessels 79 feet or greater in length must also comply with the EPA's Vessel

General Permit (VGP). On December 18, 2008, the EPA issued a final VGP to reduce releases

of 26 types of discharges from vessels operating in U.S. waters. The new permit incorporates the

Coast Guard's mandatory ballast water management and exchange standards, and provides

technology-based and water-quality-based effluent limits for other types of discharges, including

deck runoff, ballast water, and gray water. It also establishes specific corrective actions,

inspections and monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements.

Compliance with these applicable regulations would effectively minimize potential impacts on

aquatic habitats associated with the discharge of graywater, blackwater, ballast water, or

potential accidental releases from LNG vessels at the berth. As discussed in our EIS (section

4.3.2.2), we recommended that Downcast develop a project-specific Marine SPCC Plan to

prevent, respond to, and mitigate any potential spills of oil, gas, lubricants, or other hazardous

materials during construction and operation of the marine terminal. Downcast would have spill

containment basins in the process, vaporizer, and LNG transfer areas to collect and contain any

LNG spills.

There is a very low probability that an area of the pipelines associated with the LNG transfer

system would fail, or that LNG vessel spill from collisions, allisions, or terrorist attacks would

release LNG into the marine environment. However, if an unignited LNG spill were to occur at

the terminal, given that LNG is lighter than water, the LNG would float on the water until it had

vaporized, possibly reaching shore. Ifthe LNG were to contact any aquatic species, it could be

injured (e.g.,

tissue damage from freeze burns and lung and/or internal organ damage from

ingestion or inhalation) or killed. Further, because the colder water would be denser than the

ambient water, it would sink to the bottom and could affect the benthos in the area of the

incident. Mobile species would be expected to move from the area until water temperatures

return to normal. However, non-mobile species could be subjected to the cold water

temperatures (the further from the spill, the less water temperatures would be affected). If an

associated fire were to occur with the release of LNG, impacts on species would be limited to

those individuals on or near the water surface in the vicinity of the fire. Radiant heat within

Zone 2 may impact some species on the water's surface. Because of the marine transit safety

and security measures, the probability of a LNG vessel spill from collisions, allisions, and

terrorist attacks would be highly unlikely.

Although transient Atlantic sturgeon may be present near the LNG terminal, specific data about

its abundance in and use of the St. Croix River are lacking. Downcast would implement

protective measures that adequately mitigate for impacts to this species, if present, near the

terminal. Because few individuals are expected to occur near the LNG terminal, adverse impacts

to the Atlantic sturgeon are not anticipated.

Sendout Pipeline

Atlantic sturgeon may be present in the St. Croix River, which Downcast has proposed to cross

using HDD methods. If this method is successfully implemented, we would not anticipate any

4-17

20120614-0037 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 06/14/2012
adverse impacts on Atlantic sturgeon from pipeline construction. Additionally, Downcast has

proposed to cross coldwater fisheries between July 16th and September 30th, a time when

migratory sturgeon are thought to be absent. Downcast does not propose to use any herbicides

for right-of-way maintenance.

Determination of Effects

The proposed project has the potential to adversely affect Atlantic sturgeon; however, Downcast

has agreed to implement a variety of mitigation measures that would avoid or minimize impacts

to this species. These mitigative measures include timing construction to avoid times of year

when migrating sturgeon are likely to be present and by implementing construction methods that

preserve habitat (e.g., use of HDD). Construction and operation of the proposed project may

affect, but is nor likely lo adversely affect, Atlantic sturgeon.

4.3 SHORTNOSE STURGEON (ENDANGERED)

4.3.1 Status of Shortnose Sturgeon in Project Area

Species Description

As a member of the sturgeon family, the shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirosrrum) is among

the most primitive bony fishes, inhabiting riverine and estuarine environments. The short-nose

sturgeon shares the same general external morphology of other sturgeon, characterized by a body

surface that lacks scales but contains five rows of bony plates or "scutes. " The shortnose

sturgeon has a long, pointy tail, short shovel-shaped snout, large fleshy barbells projecting from

the chin and mouth to detect food, and a mouth located on the underside of the head for bottom

feeding. It is the smallest of three sturgeon species that inhabit northeastern waters, growing to a

length of 48 inches and a weight of 15 pounds. Its coloring is olive-yellow to gray or bluish on

the back, and white to dark yellow on the belly.

Shortnose sturgeon are benthic feeders, typically feeding on the bottom or off of plant surfaces.

Juveniles eat available benthic crustaceans and insects. Adults in freshwater eat mollusks,

crustaceans, and insect larvae, depending on availability; in estuaries, polychaete worms,

crustaceans, and mollusks are the primary foods.

The shortnose sturgeon is found on the Atlantic Coast of North America where its range extends

from the Saint John River, New Brunswick, to the St. Johns River, Florida, and in Maine

populations inhabit the Sheepscot, Kennebec, Androscoggin, and Penobscot Rivers and

Merrymeeting Bay (NOAA Fisheries 1998b). The federal recovery plan for the species

identifies 19 DPSs, of which the Penobscot and Kennebec System DPSs occur in Maine (NOAA

Fisheries 1998b). Ongoing studies show that at least some population of shortnose sturgeon in

Maine undergo coastal migrations between river systems (Zydlewski et al. unpublished), and

NOAA Fisheries (2012a) suggests that although undocumented, the shortnose sturgeon may also

occur in the same rivers as the Gulf of Maine DPS ofthe Atlantic sturgeon.

4-18

20120614-0037 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 06/14/2012
Life History

Shortnose sturgeon are typically long lived, and exhibit delayed sexual maturity and high

reproductive capacity. The maximum known age for females is 67 years, however males seldom

exceed 30 years. The sex ratio among young adults is I:I but changes to a predominance of

females (4:I) for larger fish (i.e.,

for length longer than 90 cm).

Reproduction and growth characteristics vary with latitude due to the effect of differing

temperature regimes, with northern populations typically exhibiting slower growth and later

maturity. In the north, females typically reach maturity at 12-18 years of age and males at 10 to

11 years of age. The first spawning may occur 1-16 years after maturity, and continues annually

at intervals of a few to several years.

Spawning occurs in the spring at or above the head of the tide. Eggs, which are laid in

freshwater, hatch in approximately 13 days and drift downstream and remain there for 3 to

10 years. Shortnose sturgeon then move to the freshwater/saltwater interface. Adults may occur

in freshwater or tidal areas of rivers during summer and winter, where they concentrate in areas

of decreased flow thought to be associated with conditions suitable for their prey.

Habitat

Shortnose sturgeon inhabit rivers, estuaries, and the sea. This species is anadromous, living

mainly in the slower moving riverine waters or nearshore marine waters, and migrating

periodically into faster moving fresh water areas to spawn. However, unlike other anadromous

species in the region, shortnose sturgeon do not appear to make long distance offshore

migrations. Sturgeon are usually most abundant in estuaries, and are generally found within a

few miles of land when at sea.

Shortnose sturgeon prefer deep pools with soft substrates and vegetated bottoms, but individuals

may vary in preference for various water depths and substrate types (Seibel 1991). Generally,

shortnose sturgeons spawn in sand to boulder sized substrate with low-medium water flow (0.2

to 1.8 m/sec). Larvae and juveniles have been reported from deep river channels above the salt

wedge (Richmond and Kynard 1995).

Population Dynamics

Shortnose sturgeon declined dramatically in Maine rivers by the 1900s and were nearly

extirpated from the Penobscot River, with only one adult found in 1997 (Maine DIFW 2003).

However, the population in the estuarine complex of the Kennebec, Androscoggin, and

Sheepscot Rivers in the Kennebec River System is the largest population in the United States

north of the Hudson River, numbering approximately 7,000 adults. No population estimate

exists for the Penobscot River System.

Threats

Primary threats to the shortnose sturgeon are pollution and overharvesting for commercial

fisheries, including bycatch in the shad fishery. High fish loss resulted from pollution of large

4-19

20120614-0037 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 06/14/2012
tidal rivers during the 19' and early 20'" centuries. During this time, shortnose sturgeon

commonly were taken in a commercial fishery for the closely related, and commercially

valuable, Atlantic sturgeon. Concurrently, the species was in high demand for caviar, which

lasted until the 1950s. Habitat alterations from discharges, dredging or disposal of material into

rivers, or related development activities involving estuarine/riverine mudflats and marshes,

continue to be threats.

Status, Protection, Management

The shortnose sturgeon was listed as endangered throughout its range on March 11, 1967 under

the Endangered Species Preservation Act of 1966 (a predecessor to the ESA of 1973).

A recovery plan was drafted in 1998 (NOAA Fisheries 1998b) outlining actions that need to be

taken in order to recover the species. This species is also listed as a species of concern in

Canada.

The shortnose sturgeon has been the subject of considerable research by the Maine DMR,

including mark-recapture population studies and radio tracking studies to determine movement

patterns and habitat use. Recent local, state, and federal conservation efforts have focused on

Merrymeeting Bay, and the Penobscot, Kennebec, St. George, Medomak, Damariscotta, Union,

and Narraguagus Rivers.

Critical Habitat

No critical habitat has been designated for the shortnose sturgeon.

Species Occurrence in Project Area

The shortnose sturgeon is not documented in the St. Croix River system or coastal waters near

Passamaquoddy Bay. The closest documented population is in the Penobscot River over 100

miles south of the Project area. However, ongoing studies show that at least some population of

shortnose sturgeon in Maine undergo coastal migrations between river systems, and one

individual was detected in 2010 in the Narraguagus River, about 60 miles south of the Project

area (Zydlewski et al. unpublished). NOAA Fisheries (2012) also suggests that although

undocumented, the shortnose sturgeon may occur in the same rivers as the Gulf of Maine DPS of

the Atlantic sturgeon. The historic and current status of the St. Croix Atlantic sturgeon

population is largely unknown, but a small population of large sturgeon may be spawning

annually below the hydropower dam on the St. Croix River (Atlantic Sturgeon Status Review

Team 2007, see also discussion of Atlantic sturgeon above).

4.3.2 Effects on Shortnose Sturgeon

Although undocumented, if the shortnose sturgeon does occur in the Project area potential effects

on this species would be the same as described above for the Atlantic sturgeon.

Determination of Effects

The proposed project has the potential to adversely affect shortnose sturgeon; however,

Downcast has agreed to implement a variety of mitigation measures that would avoid or

4-20

20120614-0037 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 06/14/2012
minimize impacts to this species. These mitigative measures include timing construction to

avoid times of year when migrating sturgeon could be present and by implementing construction

methods that preserve habitat (e.g., use of HDD). Construction and operation of the proposed

project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, shortnose sturgeon.

4.4 LEATHERBACK SEA TURTLES (ENDANGERED)

4.4.1 Status of Leatherback Sea Turtles in Project Area

Species Description

The leatherback sea turtle (Dermochelys coiacea) is the largest living turtle. The adult

leatherback is often 4 to 8 feet long and weighs 500 to 2,000 pounds. The carapace shell is

composed of a mosaic of small bones covered by firm, rubbery skin raised into seven prominent

ridges. The skin is scaleless and predominantly black with varying degrees of pale spotting.

Either side of the upper mandible bears a tooth-like cusp; the lower jaw is hooked anteriorly.

Hatchlings are also mostly black with mottled undersides and have a seven-ridged carapace.

The leatherback's pointed, tooth-like cusps and sharp edged jaws are perfectly adapted for a diet

of soft-bodied pelagic prey. Jellyfish are the main staple of its diet, and secondary prey include

sea urchins, squid, crustaceans, tunicates, fish, blue-green algae, and floating seaweed.

Posteriorly-pointed spines located in the mouth and throat help retain the turtle's gelatinous prey

during feeding.

The leatherback turtle is distributed worldwide in tropical and temperate waters of the Atlantic,

Pacific, and Indian Oceans. Adult leatherbacks are capable of tolerating a wide range of water

temperatures; small numbers of individuals occur as far north as British Columbia,

Newfoundland, and the British Isles, and as far south as Australia, Cape of Good Hope, and

Argentina. In the United States, leatherbacks have been sighted along the U.S. Atlantic coast as

far north as the Gulf of Maine and south to Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and into the

Gulf of Mexico.

Nesting grounds are located around the world; the largest assemblages are on the northern South

American and west African coasts. Significant sites in the U.S, are much smaller nesting

colonies and are in the U.S. Caribbean, primarily Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, and

southeast Florida. Nesting north of Florida is rare (Eckert 1995).

Life History

It is estimated that leatherbacks reach sexual maturity between 6 and 10 years of age. The

estimated average lifespan for leatherbacks is about 45 years. Leatherbacks have been observed

mating in the waters adjacent to nesting beaches, but there is also strong evidence that mating

occurs before or during the nesting migration (Eckert 1995).

In the United States, leatherbacks nest on sandy tropical beaches in the Caribbean and southern

Florida. Nesting generally occurs at night, roughly from March to July. Females lay

approximately 100 eggs at each of 5 to 7 nests (up to 11 nests have been documented) within a

4-21

20120614-0037 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 06/14/2012
single nesting season. After nesting, female leatherbacks migrate from tropical waters to more

temperate latitudes where there are high densities of jellyfish prey in the summer. Most

leatherbacks exhibit remigration intervals of two to three years.

On average, the eggs incubate for approximately two months (55 to 75 days). Sex of hatchlings

is dependent on incubation temperature. Leatherback hatchlings emerge from the nest in early

evening and apparently orient toward the ocean using the brightness of the horizon (Eckert

1995). On average, hatchlings are 2 to 3 inches in length, with fore flippers as long as their

bodies, and weigh 1.4 to 1.8 ounces.

Atlantic Canada supports one of the largest seasonal foraging populations of leatherbacks in the

Atlantic. Leatherbacks tagged with satellite transmitters at sea off the coast of Nova Scotia were

tracked to waters adjacent to nesting beaches along the northeast coast of South and Central

America (James et al. 2005).

Habitat

The leatherback sea turtle is the most pelagic of the sea turtles, but also forages in coastal waters.

Thermoregulatory adaptations allow this sea turtle to maintain a core body temperature higher

than that of the surrounding water, thereby allowing it to tolerate colder waters.

Juvenile leatherback dispersal and developmental habitats are poorly understood. Based on

reported sightings (Eckert 2002), researchers found that leatherback turtles smaller than

39 inches were observed in waters 79'F or warmer, while adults were found in waters off

Newfoundland (Goff and Lien 1988) where water temperatures ranged from 32 to 59'F.

Leatherback females nest on sandy beaches backed with vegetation. The preferred beaches are

proximal to deep water and often associated with rough seas.

Population Dynamics

Because adult female leatherbacks frequently change nesting beaches, numbers and trends are

especiafly difficult to estimate. Recent estimates of global nesting populations indicate 26,000 to

43,000 nesting females annually, which is a significant decline from 115,000 estimated in 1980.

This is largely related to the dramatic decline in nesting leatherbacks in the Pacific over the last

two decades. The Mexico population, once considered to be the largest leatherback nesting

population (65 percent of worldwide population), is now less than one percent of its estimated

size in 1980. The largest populations now occur in French Guiana and Colombia (estimated

several thousand nests annually).

In the United States, small nesting populations occur on the Florida east coast (35 nesting

females/year), Sandy Point, U.S. Virgin Islands (50 to 100 nesting females/year), and Puerto

Rico (30 to 90 nesting females/year). In the Atlantic, observed declines in nesting populations

are not as severe as in the Pacific Ocean (estimated decline is 80 percent), and some population

trends are increasing or stable. Nesting trends on U.S. beaches have been increasing in recent

years; however, these populations are very small.

4-22

20120614-0037 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 06/14/2012
Threats

Leatherback turtles face threats on both the nesting and feeding grounds. Dramatic declines

worldwide have been largely attributed to long-term harvest and incidental capture in fishing

gear. Harvest of eggs and adults occurs on nesting beaches, and harvest ofjuveniles and adults

occurs on feeding grounds. Incidental capture primarily occurs in gillnets, but this also happens

in trawls, traps and pots, longlines, and dredges.

Nesting habitat loss and degradation from coastal development is another factor threatening

leatherbacks globally. Secondary threats include disorientation of emerging hatchlings by

beachfront lighting; excessive nest predation by native and non-native predators; degradation of

foraging habitat; marine pollution and debris; and watercraft strikes.

Status, Protection, and Management

On June 2, 1970, NOAA Fisheries and the FWS listed the leatherback sea turtle as an

endangered species throughout its range. The Services have joint jurisdiction for leatherbacks,

with NOAA Fisheries having the lead in the marine environment and the FWS having the lead

on the nesting beaches. Both federal agencies, and a number of state agencies, have promulgated

regulations to eliminate or reduce threats on sea turtles.

Due to the long migratory movements of sea turtles between nesting beaches and foraging areas,

long-term international cooperation is required for recovery and stability of nesting populations.

In the United States and the Caribbean, nest and beach habitat protection efforts have been in

progress for most of the significant nesting areas since adoption of the Recovery Plan for

Leatherback Turtles (NOAA Fisheries and FWS 1992). In addition, research is ongoing to

continue to develop technologies to minimize leatherback mortality associated with the longline

fishery. Many coastal counties and communities have developed lighting ordinances to abate

hatchling disorientation upon nest emergence. Important U.S. nesting beaches have been

acquired for long-term protection.

NOAA Fisheries implements measures to reduce sea turtle interactions in fisheries by regulations

and permits under the ESA and Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Management and Conservation Act.

In the Atlantic, NOAA Fisheries has required measures (e.g., gear modifications, changes to

fishing practices, and time/area closures) to reduce sea turtle bycatch in pelagic longline, midAtlantic gillnet, Chesapeake Bay pound net, and southeast shrimp and flounder trawl fisheries.

In 1992, NOAA Fisheries finalized regulations to require turtle excluder devices (TEDs) in

shrimp trawl fisheries to reduce turtle interactions with trawl gear (50 CFR 223.206, 50 CFR

223.207). NOAA Fisheries has modified these regulations as TED technology has evolved; for

example, larger TEDs are now required to exclude larger turtles. NOAA Fisheries has provided

extensive TED training throughout the world.

In 2003, NOAA Fisheries developed the Strategy for Sea Turtle Conservation and Recovery in

Relation to Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Fisheries (Strategy). The Strategy is used to evaluate

4-23

20120614-0037 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 06/14/2012
and address turtle bycatch across jurisdictional boundaries for commercial and recreational

fisheries in the Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico.

Because of their long-range migratory movements between nesting beaches and foraging areas,

leatherbacks are subject to varied conservation efforts across several countries. International

cooperation is absolutely essential for recovery and stability of nesting and migrant populations.

Leatherback turtles are protected by several international treaties and agreements as well as

national laws:

I) Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna (i.e.,

international trade is prohibited);

2) Convention on Migratory Species, including the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)

on the Conservation and Management of Marine Turtles and their Habitats of the Indian

Ocean and South-East Asia and the MOU Concerning Conservation Measures for Marine

Turtles of the Atlantic Coast of Africa;

3) Specially Protected Areas and Wildlife (SPAW) Protocol of the Cartagena Convention;

and

4) Inter-American Convention for the Protection and Conservation of Sea Turtles, an

international treaty dedicated exclusively to marine turtles.

Critical Habitat

In September 1978, the FWS designated the nesting beach on Sandy Point, St. Croix, as critical

habitat (50 CFR 17.95); in March 1979, NOAA Fisheries determined the surrounding waters as

critical habitat (50 CFR 226.207). No critical habitat for leatherback sea turtles would be

impacted by construction or operation ofthe Downcast LNG Project.

Species Occurrence in the Downcast LNG Project Area

The distribution of the leatherback sea turtle includes the Gulf of Maine, along the coast of

Maine and northward to Nova Scotia and the Labrador coast during the summer and late summer

months (Stellwagen Bank 2006, Maine DIFW 2003b). Leatherbacks are commonly observed in

the Gulf of Maine, and are considered to be the sea turtle most frequently encountered in these

waters (Maine DIFW 2003b). The turtles move southward again as winter approaches, heading

toward nesting and breeding grounds. Leatherbacks are generally a pelagic species, occurring

within deeper waters greater than 200 feet, often west of the Gulf Stream, unless nesting (Maine

DIFW 2003b). The leatherback has some potential to occur in waters surrounding the import

terminal site. Although the turtle may or may not occur within Passamaquoddy Bay, it is likely

to be present in areas that would be transited by LNG vessels serving the import terminal.

4.4.2 Effects on Leatherback Sea Turtles

Waterway for LNG Marine Traffic

Leatherback sea turtles are most likely to be present along the waterway for LNG marine traffic

during the summer months, when the greatest potential impacts are acoustic harassment and

4-24

20120614-0037 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 06/14/2012
vessel strikes. Engine noise produced by LNG vessels would result in temporary increases in

underwater noise levels near the transiting vessels. However, because sea turtles are mobile, we

anticipate that turtles would avoid areas with high noise levels during operation of the Downcast

LNG Project.

Sea turtles are difficult to spot from transiting vessels and are especially prone to propeller

strikes. Downcast has indicated that it would provide environmental training to vessel crews to

identify threatened and endangered species. During inclement weather and periods of low

visibility, LNG vessels would reduce speeds to the extent possible while allowing for safe

operation of the vessel and crew. If a vessel strike was observed, the vessel would notify the

Coast Guard. In addition, the mitigation measures that Downcast would implement to protect

North Atlantic right whales would also minimize potential impacts on sea turtles. Downcast's

implementation of a reduced vessel speed to 10 knots during night and periods of reduced

visibility would act to reduce both the noise emitted from the vessel as well as the potential for

turtle-vessel encounters.

Sea turtles are also vulnerable to ingestion of marine debris and contaminated prey and exposure

to contaminants from accidental spills and other vessel discharge. Discharge and disposal of

garbage and other solid debris from vessels is prohibited under 30 CFR 250.300 and the Coast

Guard (MARPOL). In addition, each LNG vessel would maintain a SOPEP. With these

mitigation measures in place, normal operations in the waterway for LNG marine traffic is not

likely to adversely affect leatherback sea turtles.

An LNG spill or fire could significantly affect leatherback sea turtles present at the ocean surface

at the time of the spill; however, the likelihood of an accidental or intentional release of LNG

during transit of the LNG vessels is extremely remote. Primary impacts would be thermal stress

associated with coming into contact with the cryogenic liquid (before the LNG vaporizes) or the

fire associated with a pool fire or ignited vapors. Extreme temperature changes, which would

likely be fatal for leatherback sea turtles, would only occur in the immediate vicinity of the spill

and then dissipate, allowing nearby turtles to avoid the area. To minimize this risk, the

containment system for each vessel would be equipped with cargo monitoring and control and

safety systems. These systems would automatically monitor key cargo parameters while the

vessel is at sea and during the remote-control phase of cargo operations at the marine terminal.

The systems include provisions for pressure monitoring and control, temperature monitoring of

the cargo tanks and surrounding ballast tanks, emergency shutdown of cargo pumps and closing

of critical valves, monitoring of tank cargo levels, and gas and fire detection. In addition, the

Coast Guard would identify the necessary procedures to ensure the safe and secure transit of

LNG vessels from open waters to the Downcast LNG Project.

LNG Terminal

Leatherback sea turtles may occur in the Western Passage and therefore may transit in the

vicinity of the LNG terminal. Although they are unlikely to spend a large amount of time

foraging or resting at the terminal berth itself, leatherback sea turtles may be susceptible to

4-25

20120614-0037 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 06/14/2012
impacts associated with construction and operational activities should they happen to be in the

area at the time. Construction related effects include acoustic harassment and temporary water

quality impacts such as increased turbidity and suspended sediments in the water column.

Operational effects include water quality impacts related to stormwater runoff and accidental

spills.

During construction of the LNG terminal facility, sea turtles would be susceptible to acoustic

harassment. Downcast would be required to "ramp up" acute noise-producing activities,

allowing sea turtles time to leave the project area before maximum noise levels are produced.

Downcast would also be required to employ at least one full-time EI during construction. This

individual would be experienced with offshore and onshore construction and would have

experience with marine mammal and sea turtle mitigation measures. Prior to commencing

construction activities, the EI would search the work area for the presence of sea turtles; if a sea

turtle were sighted, work would be delayed until the EI provided procedures to the work crew to

avoid harassment of the animal. Given the rarity of sea turtle sightings within the immediate

vicinity of the LNG terminal, it is unlikely that acoustic harassment caused by construction and

operation of the LNG terminal would adversely affect leatherback sea turtles.

Construction and operation of the terminal would temporarily impact water quality in various

ways, including increased turbidity during pier construction, discharge of water used for

hydrostatic testing of the storage tanks, stormwater runoff, and accidental spills. Any water

quality impacts associated with pier construction would be temporary. If chemicals or biocides

are used in the hydrostatic testing process, the chemical composition of hydrostatic test waters

would be tested and water would be treated or neutralized prior to discharge into Passamaquoddy

Bay. During construction, individual crew members would be responsible for ensuring that

debris is not discharged into the marine environment. Additionally, training of construction

crews would include proper waste disposal and spill prevention, containment, and response

procedures. Therefore, construction activities are not likely to result in long-term reductions in

water quality that would displace leatherback sea turtles from using the area.

Prior to operation, Downcast would prepare a SWPPP to comply with Maine DEP and EPA

requirements concerning stormwater runoff due to the impervious surfaces at the LNG facility.

Stormwater discharges would be directed to Maine PDES permitted discharge points. We have

also recommended in the draft EIS that Downcast prepare a Marine Spill Prevention,

Countermeasure, and Containment Plan (SPCC Plan) to address prevention and response

procedures in the event of an accidental spill of oil, gas, lubricants, or other hazardous materials.

Additionally, Downcast would design its LNG terminal to account for an accidental spill of LNG

during operation of the facility, and prevent the LNG from entering Passamaquoddy Bay. The

LNG facilities would include safety and hazard detection systems, LNG containment and process

sumps, and associated LNG spill collection system. By implementing these measures, we do not

anticipate leatherback sea turtles to be affected by reductions in water quality.

4-26

20120614-0037 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 06/14/2012
Sendout Pipeline

The leatherback sea turtle does not occur near the proposed sendout pipeline.

Determination of Effects

The proposed Downcast LNG Project has the potential to adversely affect leatherback sea turtles,

either by acoustic harassment or vessel strikes. Due to the measures Downcast would implement

to mitigate these impacts, particularly those associated with right whale detection and monitoring

(which also apply to leatherback sea turtles), we believe the Downcast LNG Project may affect

but is not likely to adversely affect leatherback sea turtles. Federally designated critical habitat

does not occur within the proposed Downcast LNG Project area, and thus the proposed action

would have no effect on leatherback sea turtle critical habitat.

4.5 CETACEANS

4.5.1 Description and Status of Cetaceans in the Project Area

4.5.1.1 North Atlantic Right Whale (Endangered)

Species Description

Right whales (Eubalaena glacialis) are more robust in size and have a very large girth relative to

their length, compared to other mysticetes, especially the rorqual whales (i.e., blue, minke, sei,

fin, and humpback whales). The maximum length of an adult is 56 feet with an average weight

of 60 tons but it can weigh up to 100 tons. Like other whale species, sexual dimorphism does

exist in this species as female right whales are larger than males. The overall coloration of right

whales is dark and predominately black, with possibly some white patches on the ventral side.

Its flippers are quite broad and spatulate, the fluke is notched, and there is no dorsal fin. The

large head makes up about one quarter of the body length. The rostrum is narrow and arching,

and is enfolded by the bowed lower lips. Along the rostrum, lower lip, and around the eyes,

callosities (wart-like growths) form. These growths often harbor crustaceans called whale lice.

Callosities change little after a whale's first year of life, and are therefore used for identification

purposes of the individual. Baleen plates of the right whale are large in relation to other baleen

species, and may measure up to 10 feet long with a maximum length of 16 feet. There are

approximately 250 to 300 plates per side.

Life History

Males and females reach sexual maturity around 10 years of age, when males are at an average

length of 48 feet and females at 50 feet. Breeding most likely occurs in the winter, and gestation

is about 12 months. A single calf is born with a birth length of about 15 to 20 feet. An updated

analysis of calving intervals through the 1997/1998 season suggests that the mean calving

interval increased since 1992 from 3.67 years to more than 5 years, a significant trend (Waring et

al. 2010). Low calf production heightens concerns for the survival of this population. Females

are most frequently sighted during years in which they are lactating and have a calf in tow, but

4-27

20120614-0037 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 06/14/2012
tend to be seen significantly less often than other segments of the population (Singer and

Ludwig, 2005).

A population average of only about 11.2 births per year has been recorded (1982 to 1992),

although those numbers dropped in subsequent years to 6, 7, and 8 for 1993, 1994, and 1995

respectively, and only 1 calf was reported for the 2000/2001 season. Recent years have seen an

increase in reported calf production, peaking at 39 reported calves in 2009 with only a single calf

mortality (NOAA Fisheries 2010, Waring et al. 2010). Additionally, age structure may play an

important role in the survival of this population. The number of claves that reach juvenile age is

less than expected, which may reflect population dynamics or high juvenile mortality (Waring et

al. 2006).

The limited data available on the hearing sensitivity of the northern right whales indicate that

they produce moans of less than 400 Hz in frequency (Watkins and Schevill, 1972; Thompson et

al. 1979; Spero 1981). Apparently, while summering in the Bay of Fundy, right whales use low

frequency sounds as contact calls (Spero 1981).

Right whales can travel long distances and exhibit extensive movements (which may include

searching for available food sources). However, they are extremely slow swimmers, swimming

at an average of 2 knots and rarely exceeding 5 knots. Based on photographically identified

individuals and sighting histories, it has been reported that one-third of all females with calves

use the feeding and nursery grounds in the Bay of Fundy (Waring et al. 2006). Based on

telemetry, some whales make lengthy and somewhat distant excursions (Waring et al. 2006).

The feeding of northern right whales is associated with copepods including the genera Calanus

spp. and Pseudocalanus spp. (Waring et al. 2006). Calanus finmarchicus copepodite stage 5, a

favorite prey item of the right whale, is abundant in the deep basins of the lower Bay of Fundy

critical habitat and northern right whale feeding ground (Hanson 2001, Baumgartner et al. 2003,

Pelczarski 2003, Singer and Ludwig 2005). Calanus spp. dominates the biomass in the Gulf of

Maine region during late spring and early summer, and a non-linear association between the right

whale and Calanus spp. has been suggested (NOAA Fisheries 2005). Whales generally feed at

depth in the Bay of Fundy, and have been observed feeding at the surface in other feeding areas

such as Cape Cod Bay (PCCS 2008).

Habitat

The location of some age classes of whales and females without calves during the winter is

virtually unknown. Satellite tagged right whales from the Bay of Fundy were tracked within

Jeffreys Ledge, Roseway Basin, and the Great South Channel. Whales were observed more

often going to areas with cold bottom water and low surface salinity, such as Jeffreys Ledge and

the Roseway Basin, in a non-random fashion, as opposed to deep basins (Baumgartner and

Mate 2003). Juveniles tend to be sighted inshore more frequently than other age classes.

Five to six major use areas of the North Atlantic right whale or seasonal high-use areas have

been identified: a winter calving area along eastern Florida and Georgia (southeastern calving

4-28

20120614-0037 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 06/14/2012
and wintering grounds); a late-winter feeding and nursery area in Cape Cod Bay, Massachusetts;

a spring feeding area in the Great South Channel east of Cape Cod; a summer-to-early-fall

nursery and feeding area in the Gulf of Maine/Georges Bank, Bay of Fundy just north of the

United States-Canada border; and a late-summer-to-fall feeding area in the Roseway Basin south

of Nova Scotia (Scotian Shelf area) (MMC 1996, Waring et al. 2006).

Population Dynamics

The western North Atlantic population of right whale is considered to be the most critically

endangered species of cetacean in the world. As a result of serious hunting efforts (with a known

total take of 7,000 whales by 1910), the northern right whale was considered seriously depleted

in much of the region by the early 1920s (Stevick et al. 2003). Despite initial protection of the

northern right whale starting in 1935, commercial hunting continued until the species was

protected in the North Atlantic by the International Whaling Commission in 1955 (Stevick et al.

2003, Pelczarski 2003, Waring et al 2006). Minimal recovery has occurred in the population

occupying the eastern coast of the United States and Canada (Pelczarski 2003, Waring

et al. 2006).

The western North Atlantic population size was estimated to be at least 361 individuals in 2005

(Waring et al. 2010) based on a census of individual whales identified using photo-identification

techniques. The small population size and low annual reproductive rate of right whales suggest

that human sources of mortality may have a greater effect relative to population growth rates

than for other whales.

Threats

Vessel collisions and fishing gear entanglements are the most common human-caused mortality

in North Atlantic right whales. Since 1970, more than 73 North Atlantic right whale deaths have

been confirmed. Nearly 50 percent of these deaths were attributed to ship collisions (n=29) or

entanglements (n=7), and 71 percent of these deaths occurred since 1990 (NOAA Fisheries

2008z). More recent evidence suggests that right whale mortality is increasing. For the period

2004-2008, average human-caused mortality was 2.8 individuals per year', where vessel strikes

averaged 2.0 deaths per year and entanglement with fishing gear averaged 0.8 deaths per year

(Waring et al. 2010). Other threats include acoustic harassment.

Vessel Collisions

In areas that are likely to be transited by LNG vessels associated with the Downcast LNG Project

(e.g.,

the Bay of Fundy, Gulf of Maine, and Scotian Shelf), there were 25 reported North Atlantic

right whale strikes between 1972 and 2008. Of these incidences, 18 resulted in death or

Note that whale deaths caused by vessel strike, entanglement, or other means is likely under-represented m

published data (e.g, because carcasses may sink instead of float; lack of reportmg; etc.). Also, the observed

increase in whale deaths since 1990 is hkely influenced by increased awareness about reporting and increased

survey efforts.

Average mortality is reported for the entire population, rather than only those occurrences near the proposed

Downcast LNG Project

4-29

20120614-0037 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 06/14/2012
presumed death of the whale (Glass et al. 2008, Jensen and Silber 2003, Nelson et al. 2007,

Waring et al. 2008, and Waring et al. 2010). The speed at which large vessels transit is a

contributing factor in whale injuries and mortality. In a study of ship strikes with whales, Laist

et al. (2001) concluded that vessel speeds greater than 14 knots often resulted in whale mortality

or serious injury, while strikes that occurred at 10 knots or less rarely caused death. Given the

low abundance of North Atlantic right whales relative to other species, the frequency of

occurrence of ship strikes to right whales suggests that the threat of ship strikes is proportionally

greater to this species (Jensen and Silber 2003). Table 4.4.1.1-1 summarizes right whale vessel

strikes in the Bay of Fundy and adjacent areas.

Table 4.4.1.1-1

Identified Ship Strikes of North Atlantic Right Whales in the Bay of Fundy and Adjacent Areas

Date Sex Age

08/07/1986

08/14/1986

1 year

07/09/1987 M Juvenile

08/28/1 987

09/05/1992 F A(lult

08/04/1994

08/13/1995 F Adult

09/16/1995

10/19/1995

03/09/1996 M

03/25/1 996

08/19/1997

04/20/1999

07/08/2000 M

4 years

09/27/2000

10/02/2003 F Adult

04/28/2005 F Adult

07/24/2006

08/24/2006

09/03/2006

9 years

1972 a/

04/15/1976 M Calf

11/05/1976

05/25/1980

08/Dsn 984

Location where struck or found

97 km East of Boston, Massachusetts

Massachusetts

Maine

Great South Channel, Massachusetts

Browne Bank, Canada

Massachusetts

Bay of Fundy, Canada

Nova Scotia, Canada

Browne Bank, Canada

Bay of Fundy, Canada

Gulf of Maine

Gulf of Maine

Bay of Fundy, Canada

Bay of Fundy, Canada

Massachusetts

Wellfleet, Massachusetts

Bay of Fundy, Canada

Near Wellfleet, Massachusetts

Bay of Fundy, Canada

Bay of Fundy, Canada

Digby, Nova Scotia

Monomoy Island, Massachusetts

Campobello Island, New Brunswick

Roseway Basin, Nova Scotia

Nova Scotia, Canada

Mortality/Injury

Mortality

Mortality

Mortality

Injury

Mortality

Mortality

Presumed Mortakty

Mortality

Inlury

Mortality

Unknown

Unknown

Inlury

Mortality

Mortality

Mortality, Stranded

Mortality

Mortality

Unknown

Injury

Mortality

Mortality

Mortality

Mortality

Mortality

Sources: Glass et al. 2008, Jensen and Silber 2003, Nelson et al. 2007, Wanng et al. 2008, Wanng et al. 2010.

a/ Presumed North Atlantic right whale

The Bay of Fundy is an important transit route with traffic lanes for vessels passing to and from

Canadian and U.S. ports, resulting in significant vessel traffic across the Canadian Grand Manan

Basin Whale Sanctuary. These ports, including St. John and Bayside in New Brunswick;

4-30

20120614-0037 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 06/14/2012
Hantsport in Nova Scotia; and Eastport, Maine, service more than 800 vessels annually (IMO

2002). Over two-thirds of the known population of North Atlantic right whales is found in the

Bay of Fundy area during summer and fall months (June through November) (IMO 2002). A

change in the mandatory shipping lanes in the Bay of Fundy was proposed and adopted by

Canada's Maritime Safety Committee in 2002 (IMO 2002; 2007). This measure was designed to

relocate vessel traffic using the Traffic Separation Schemes (TSS) from an area with a high

density of right whales to an area with a lower density (3.9 miles to the east), thus reducing the

relative probability of a vessel strike by approximately 80 percent. On June I, 2008, Transport

Canada adopted the "Roseway Basin Area to be Avoided (ATBA), South of Nova Scotia,"

originally proposed by the International Maritime Organization (IMO) on April 20, 2007 (IMO

2007). The Roseway Basin ATBA would have only a seasonally limited effective period of

seven months (June through December) each year when the largest percentage of the right

whales is known to be in the area and consequently, when the risk of vessel strikes is greatest.

The voluntary implementation by mariners of the ATBA is expected to reduce the relative

probability of vessel-whale encounters.

Acoustic Harassment

Marine ocean noise has increased in recent years, due in large part to anthropogenic sources such

as shipping, seismic profiling for oil/gas exploration and seismic/geologic hazard exploration,

and drilling and pile driving among others. Some of these sounds are loud enough to cause

physical injury or elicit behavioral changes in the marine organisms that perceive those sounds,

particularly marine mammals. The Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (MMPA) prohibits,

with limited exceptions, the take of marine mammals in waters or on lands under V.S.

jurisdiction. It also regulates the takes of marine mammals on the high seas by vessels or

persons under U.S.jurisdiction, A "take" is defined as "harass, hunt, capture, or kill, or attempt

to harass, hunt, capture, or kiB" any marine mammal. The MMPA defines "harassment" as any

act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which either has the potential to injure a marine mammal or

marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment, generally assumed to occur at 180

decibel [dB] re I micro-Pascal [ItPA] for cetaceans and 190 dB re I ItPA for pinnipeds), or has

the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing

disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing,

breeding, feeding, or sheltering (Level B harassment, generally assumed to occur at 160 dB re I

ItPA for pulsed noise, or 120 dB re I ItPA for continuous noise).

Status, Protection, and Management

In 2008, NOAA Fisheries listed the northern right whale as two separate, endangered species

under the ESA: the North Pacific right whale (E.japonica) and North Atlantic right whale (E.

giaciaiis) (73 FR 12024). As one of the most critically endangered whale species in the world,

the North Atlantic right whale population is regarded as a strategic stock, based on the stock's

status of endangered under the ESA and on fishery-related mortality in exceedance of the

4-31

20120614-0037 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 06/14/2012
calculated potential biological removal (PBR) level', which has been determined to be zero for

this population (MMC 2002, Waring et al. 2006). Relative to its Optimal Sustainable Populadon

(OSP), the estimated size of this stock is extremely low (Waring et al. 2006). Minimal recovery

has occurred in the North Atlantic right whale population, thus with the combination of the

impacts and threats listed above, the population may be pushed to extinction.

Given the very small size of the population and very low birth rate of this species, NOAA

Fisheries has determined that ship-related mortality and injury are significant obstacles to the

species' recovery (NOAA Fisheries 2005). In collaboration with other agencies, NOAA

Fisheries has taken measures to reduce the potential for ship collisions with large whales,

particularly the North Atlantic right whale. These measures are largely based on avoidance (e.g.,

limiting vessel approach to whales, altering vessel transitways, prohibiting entry into critical

habitats when whales are abundant), minimization methods (e.g., Mandatory Ship Reporting

Systems [MSRS], reducing vessel speed where whales aggregate), and increasing mariner and

boater awareness about whales and best management practices.

On February 13, 1997, NOAA Fisheries published a regulation (62 FR 6729) that prohibits

approaching within 500 yards of any right whale, whether by vessel, aircraft, or other means.

The same year, NOAA Fisheries either participated in or supported an extensive program of

aircraft surveys for right whales off the coast of New England as part of the Right Whale

Sighting Network .

NOAA Fisheries and the Coast Guard developed and implemented the MSRS to reduce the

number of vessel strikes on large whales (66 FR 58066, Final Rule), which were endorsed by the

IMO. These systems, one off the northeastern coast, the other off the southeastern coast, have

been in effect since 1999 and describe geographical boundaries and times of year when vessel

reporting requirements are to be used. The northeast U.S. system (WHALESNORTH) is

required year-round and affects waters of Cape Cod Bay, Massachusetts Bay, and the Great

South Channel east and southeast of Massachusetts. When a vessel greater than 300 gross tons

enters key right whale habitat, it is required to report to a shore-based station. In return, the

vessel receives a message about right whales, their vulnerability to ship strikes, precautionary

measures the vessel can take to avoid a collision with whales, and locations of recent sightings

(NOAA Fisheries 2008y).

Between 1999 and 2001, NOAA Fisheries developed its Ship Strike Reduction Strategy, which

consists of five elements for reducing the threat of ship strikes. Most of these elements are nonregulatory and are structured to increase mariner and boater awareness; however, the last element

establishes new operational measures for commercial and recreational mariners. These measures

include establishing a restricted vessel speed, avoiding areas where whales aggregate, and

avoiding specific habitats.

7

The PBR is defined as the maximum number of animals that may be removed from a manne mammal stock, not

mcluding natural mortalities, while allowing that stock to reach or maintain its OSP.

"More information is available online at htip://rwhalesightings. nefsc. noaa. gov/.

4-32

20120614-0037 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 06/14/2012
On June 26, 2006, NOAA Fisheries announced its proposed rule to restrict vessel speed to

10 knots or less. The final ruling was issued in October 2008 (73 FR 60173) and implemented

on December 8, 2008. Speed restrictions apply to all vessels subject to the jurisdiction of the

United States greater than or equal to 65 ft. in overall length. This final ruling establishes

seasonal management areas (SMA) along the eastern seaboard when speed restrictions apply,

including Cape Cod Bay (January I to May 15), off Race Point at the northern end of Cape Cod

(March I to April 30), and Great South Channel of New England (April I to July 31), among

other areas listed for the mid-Atlantic and southern Atlantic states. Additionally, the rule

implemented temporary dynamic management areas (DMAs) that allow NOAA Fisheries to

implement seasonal management measures that are substantially smaller in size and of shorter

duration than the SMAs. These DMAs allow mariners the option of either reducing vessel

speeds to 10 knots or less, or routing around the area.

On July I, 2007, NOAA Fisheries and the Coast Guard implemented a shift in the Traffic

Separation Scheme servicing Boston to reduce the threat of vessel collisions with right whales

and other whale species. The realignment is expected to result in a 58 percent reduction in the

risk of vessel strikes to right whales and an 81 percent risk reduction in vessel snikes of other

large whale species occurring in the area. The U.S. government submitted a proposal to the IMO

to modify the shipping lanes in April 2006, which was approved in December 2006 (NOAA

Fisheries 2008x).

Critical Habitat

Three areas in the U.S. Atlantic waters were designated in 1994 as critical habitat for the North

Atlantic right whale. These are coastal Florida and Georgia, Massachusetts Bay and Cape Cod

Bay, and the Great South Channel off of Massachusetts (NOAA Fisheries 2005). These critical

habitats are essential feeding, breeding, and nursery areas for right whales. Although peak whale

seasons are from January to April in Cape Cod Bay and from April to June in the Great South

Channel, whales are present within these areas nearly year-round with increasing frequency.

In addition to designated critical habitat, other areas in Atlantic waters are recognized as

significant to the survival and recovery of the North Atlantic right whale. The Gulf of Maine and

Bay of Fundy areas are important feeding grounds (NAMMCO 2006; Pelczarski, 2003) and are

also used as a nursery for calves and in some cases may be used as mating grounds (Hain 1992;

Waring et al. 2006). Two North Atlantic right whale conservation areas have been established

by the Canadian government along the east coast in Canadian waters; the Grand Manan Basin in

the mouth of the Bay of Fundy (between New Brunswick and Nova Scotia) and the Roseway

Basin off the southern coast of Nova Scotia (Canadian Whale Institute 2008). In Canadian

waters, especially in the Grand Manan Basin Whale Sanctuary, it has been estimated that more

than two-thirds of all North Atlantic right whales are found in this area during the summer and

fall (June-November) each year.

4-33

20120614-0037 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 06/14/2012
Species Occurrence in the Downcast LNG Project Area

North Atlantic right whales are known to occur within the waters of the Gulf of Maine and the

Bay of Fundy, including sightings in Head Harbor. Sightings of right whales based on season

are provided in appendix F, figures 25 through 29 of the draft EIS. The VTS route alternative

(transiting east of Grand Manan Island) would cross a portion of right whale feeding grounds in

the Grand Manan Basin Whale Sanctuary. Because the water depth at the LNG terminal is

approximately 45 to 50 feet MLLW, and prey is available near the terminal, it is possible that a

North Atlantic right whale could be present in the immediate vicinity of the terminal. However,

because of the rarity of documented sightings of North Atlantic right whales near the terminal,

the presence of this species in the immediate area of the terminal is not expected. However, this

species could be encountered throughout the LNG transit route(s).

4.5.1.2 Sei Whale (Endangered)

Species Description

Sei whales (Balaenoptera borealis) are very similar in appearance to the fin whale, but smaller in

overall body size. Adult male sei whales average 46 feet in length, and weigh approximately

14 tons. Females are slightly larger in size, averaging 49 feet in length and weighing

approximately 17 tons. The sei whale has a long and slender body shape, with a more uniformly

dark coloration with a light ventral side. The rostrum is a V-shape that narrows to a blunted

point and holds up to 400 baleen plates on each side. This species has 32 to 60 throat grooves

that are shorter than some of the other listed whales. Its flippers are slender and pointed, and its

fluke is large and notched.

No studies have been published on the vocal behavior of sei whales and no studies have directly

measured the sound sensitivity of sei whales (Croli et al. 1999).

Life History

Sei whales are considered the fastest swimming baleen whale with speeds up to at least 20 knots.

They are shallow divers that seldom have a visible fluke when diving, with the average dive

lasting between 15 and 30 minutes. Sei whales rarely congregate; they are most frequently seen

alone or in groups of 2 to 5 whales.

Sei whales are generalists that feed primarily on small fish, squid, amphipods, euphausiids, and

copepods (Waring et al. 2010). They tend to skim through schools of prey and can consume a

massive quantity of food, as much as I ton per day.

Both males and females reach sexual maturity at approximately 10 years of age. Breeding

occurs mostly during the winter months. Following a gestation period of 11.5 to 12 months, a

single calf is born. The calf at birth is approximately 15 feet, may weigh I ton, and nurse for up

to 9 months (lactation ranges from between 6 and 9 months). Sei whales may live to be 60 years

of age.

4-34

20120614-0037 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 06/14/2012
Habitat

Sei whales are generally a pelagic species, and concentrations of sei whales tend to be found in

deeper waters and in regions off the continental shelf edge. However, this offshore pattern also

includes travel into more shallow and inshore waters. The range of the North Atlantic sei whale

may actually include two stocks, identified as the Nova Scotia stock and a Labrador Sea stock.

The Nova Scotia stock occurs in waters off the Scotian Shelf during the feeding season, and

movements extend southward into the Gulf of Maine and the Georges Bank during spring and

summer (Waring et al. 2010).

Population Dynamics

The total number of sei whales in the U.S. Atlantic EEZ is unknown. An estimate of 207

(CV=0.62) sei whales was obtained from an aerial survey conducted in August 2006 which

covered 6,633,76 miles of trackline in the region from the 6,561.66 foot depth contour on the

southern edge of Georges Bank to the upper Bay of Fundy and to the entrance of the Gulf of St.

Lawrence. Recent population estimates have confirmed the 2006 survey and estimate the sei

whale population at 208 individuals (Waring et al. 2010).

Threats

Data of human-caused mortality and serious injury are limited. No incidents of adverse fisheryrelated interactions were reported with sei whales between 1999 and 2008 (Waring et al. 2006;

2007; 2010). During this same time, however, two ship strikes were reported as mortalities, one

in 2001 and one in 2003.

Status, Protection, and Management

The Nova Scotia stock of sei whales is federally listed as endangered under the ESA and is

considered a depleted stock under the MMPA. Currently, there are too few data available on this

species to determine the status of the population as it relates to OSP, but human-caused mortality

and serious injury appear to be minimal. A Recovery Plan for sei whales has been developed,

and was approved in December 2011. The purpose of the Recovery Plan is to provide a research

strategy to obtain data necessary to estimate population abundance, trends, and structure and to

identify factors that may be limiting sei whale recovery (NOAA Fisheries 2011).

Critical Habitat

No critical habitat has been designated for the sei whale.

Species Occurrence in Downcast LING Project Area

Because there are confirmed sightings of sei whales along the Georges Bank and within the Gulf

of Maine, whales may be encountered by LNG vessels when on route to the Downcast import

terminal. Sei whale sightings have been reported in areas proximal to the transit route (see draft

EIS appendix F, figure 30). Because the water depth at the LNG terminal is approximately 45 to

50 feet MLLW, and its prey is available near the terminal, it is conceivable that a sei whale could

occur in the immediate vicinity of the terminal. However, because of the rarity of documented

4 35

20120614-0037 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 06/14/2012
sightings of sei whales near the terminal, the presence of this species in the immediate area of the

terminal is not expected. Therefore, this species could be encountered throughout the LNG

transit route(s) but is not expected to occur near the terminal itself.

4.5.L3 Blue Whale (Endangered)

Species Description

The blue whale (Balaenoptera musculus) is one of the rorqual whales, a family that includes the

humpback, fin, sei, and minke whales. The western Atlantic stock of blue whale is considered

the standard blue whale, as there are three additional blue whale subspecies recognized

throughout the world's oceans. Blue whales are mottled bluish-grey and appear dappled or

uniformly light blue when viewed through the water surface. The blue whale is the largest extant

mammal and is thought to be the largest mammal that has ever inhabited the earth. Adult blue

whales average about 85 feet in length, but can reach lengths of 90 to 100 feet. The average

weight of an adult blue whale is about 100 tons, with a range of 80 to 150 tons. Female whales

tend to be larger and weigh more than males of the same age.

The body of a blue whale is long, somewhat tapered, and streamlined with the head making up

less than one-fourth of its total body length. The upper part of its head, or rostrum, is broad, flat,

and U-shaped, with a single ridge that extends from the front of the splashguard around the

blowholes to the tip of the snout. Its body is smooth, with the exception of a few barnacles that

occasionally attach themselves to the edge of the fluke, the tips of the flippers, and to the dorsal

fin. The whales have approximately 270 to 395 baleen plates per side, and the plates measure

about 3 feet in length.

Life History

Blue whales feed within about 330 feet of the ocean surface, and thus are considered shallow

feeders. The blue whale is thought to feed almost exclusively on euphausiids or krill (small,

shrimp-like creatures). During the peak of the summer feeding season the blue whale can

consume 4 tons or more each day, equaling up to 40 million krill per day.

Blue whales reach sexual maturity around 10 years of age, or when males average about 74 feet

and females are about 79 feet. The whales breed in the fall and winter, and give birth

approximately 12 months later to a single calf at intervals of two to three years. Calves are 23 to

27 feet long at birth and can weigh 3 tons. During the nursing period, calves can consume up to

100 gallons of the fat-rich mother's milk each day, resulting in gains up to 200 pounds and

1.5 inches in length per day. A calf nurses for approximately 7 to 8 months and is weaned when

it reaches approximately 52 feet in length and weighs about 23 tons.

Blue whales tend to travel alone or in pairs, although they may be found in small groups.

Occasionally they are seen in larger groups, and concentrations of 50 to 60 have been observed.

Blue whales are known to be fast swimmers, with swim speed bursts of up to 20 knots. The life

span ofthe blue whale may extend past 80 years.

4-36

20120614-0037 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 06/14/2012
Habitat

Blue whales are found in all oceans of the world. This species migrates to waters ranging from

temperate to tropical during winter months to mate and give birth. It can feed throughout its

range, including polar, temperate, and tropical waters. The stock identified as the western

Atlantic blue whales occurs in the western North Atlantic, with a distribution that extends from

the arctic waters southward throughout waters ofthe mid-latitude (Waring et al. 2010). The blue

whale is considered to be pelagic, but may be seen along the ice edge while migrating.

Blue whales are present along the north shore of the Gulf of St. Lawrence and eastern Nova

Scotia during the spring, summer, and fall (Reeves et al. 2005; Waring et al. 2010). The north

shore of the Gulf of St. Lawrence has been the most intensely studied area for blue whales, and

includes the majority of recent sightings (Reeves et al. 2005). In the winter, this stock is found

off the coast of southern Newfoundland (Waring et al. 2010). Although the distribution of the

blue whale is reported to be somewhat north of the Gulf of Maine, it is considered to be an

occasional visitor along the U.S. Atlantic coast as far south as Florida with the extent of its

southern range unknown (Waring et al. 2010). Movements and distribution in other areas of the

North Atlantic Ocean are poorly understood. Also, there have been rare documented sightings in

the Bay of Fundy. Therefore, transient individuals are possible in waters of the Gulf of Maine

and the Bay of Fundy, where this species may venture as opportunistic feeders.

Population Dynamics

Very little is known about the current size of the blue whale population, and there is no current

abundance estimate available. Pre-whaling population estimates of blue whales were over

350,000. It is estimated that up to 99 percent of blue whales were killed during whaling efforts,

and recovery has been extremely slow. The only post-whaling population estimate was thought

to be about 12,000 worldwide, but the data are not recent and are deemed unusable for

abundance documentation (Waring et al. 2010). The population estimate for blue whales

occupying the Northern Hemisphere is considered to be less than 3,500, and approximately 8,000

in the Southern Hemisphere. However, from 1979 to 2009, 440 individuals in the Gulf of St.

Lawrence area were catalogued by R. Sears (as reported in Waring et al. 2010). Only in the last

few years have there been indications that their numbers may be increasing.

Threats

Because oftheir massive size and swiftness, blue whales were safe from early whalers who could

not pursue them from open boats and traditional hand harpoons. But in the mid-1800s the

whaling industry was revolutionized by the use of steam and diesel powered factory ships and

catcher boats, as well as the Norwegian invention of the exploding harpoon gun. A single 90-

foot blue whale could yield up to 120 barrels of oil, and the blue whales were killed by the

thousands in the early 20'" century. The whaling industry peaked in 1931 when over 29,000 blue

whales were killed in one season. After that time, blue whales became so scarce that the whalers

turned their focus to other species.

4-37

20120614-0037 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 06/14/2012
Today, the primary threat to blue whales is mortality and serious injury caused by ship strikes.

In the western North Atlantic, at least nine percent of the whales in the Gulf of St. Lawrence

have injuries or scars attributed to contact with ships. This area has a relatively high risk of

vessel strikes because the St. Lawrence Seaway has heavy ship traffic during the time of year

when blue whales are relatively abundant (NOAA Fisheries [no date]). However, only one

documented mortality as a result of a vessel strike, from 1998, is known from the western North

Atlantic stock, where a blue whale was brought into Rhode Island waters on the bow of a tanker

(Jensen and Silber 2003; Waring et al. 2010). The extent of human-caused mortalities or serious

injury is virtually unknown.

Status, Protection, and Management

Within the United States the blue whale is listed as endangered throughout its range under the

ESA and is listed as depleted throughout its range under the MMPA. Following significant

depletion by past commercial whaling practices, the International Whaling Commission (IWC)

banned all hunting of blue whales in 1966 and gave them worldwide protection. The blue whale

was listed as endangered in 1978, and a Recovery Plan was developed and implemented in 1998

(NOAA Fisheries 1998). Blue whales are still rare in important former habitats, especially in the

northern and northeastern North Atlantic (Waring et al. 2010).

Critical Habitat

No critical habitat has been designated for the blue whale.

Species Occurrence in the Downcast LNG Project Area

The blue whale is considered as an occasional visitor in waters of the EEZ and is most frequently

observed in waters off eastern Canada, with the majority of recent records from the Gulf of St.

Lawrence (Waring et al. 2010). Based on information provided above, transient individuals

would be considered possible in waters of the Gulf of Maine and the Bay of Fundy where blue

whales may venture as opportunistic feeders. Therefore, blue whales may occur in the offshore

waters that LNG vessels would transit. However, no blue whales are expected at the proposed

terminal site.

4.5.1.4 Fin Whale (Endangered)

Species Description

Fin whales (Balaenoptera physalus), sometimes referred to as finback whales, represent one of

the most common cetacean species in the western North Atlantic Ocean, particularly in the

region north from Cape Hatteras throughout the Gulf of Maine and into the Bay of Fundy

(Waring et al. 2010).

The fin whale has a large sleek body, with a distinct ridge that runs along the back from the

dorsal fin to the broad triangular fluke. Its rostrum is V-shaped and flat, and it has 55 to 100

ventral throat grooves. The fin whale has a unique asymmetrical lower jaw coloration pattern,

where the right side of the jaw is white but the left side is dark. The average length of an adult

4-38

20120614-0037 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 06/14/2012
male is about 70 feet and it may weigh 45 tons. An adult female is slightly longer than the male,

averaging about 73 feet, and also weighs an average of 45 tons.

The fin whale is one of the most studied whales in terms of underwater sounds. A variety of

low-frequency sounds within the 10 to 200 Hz band are produced by fin whales (Watkins 1981;

Watkins et al. 1987; Edds 1988; Thompson et al. 1992). Long, patterned sequences of short

duration (0.5 to 2 seconds) infrasonic pulses in the 18 to 35 Hz range are the most typical signals

produced (Patterson and Hamilton, 1964), and source levels are estimated to be as high as 190

dB (Patterson and Hamilton, 1964; Watkins et al. 1987; Thompson et al. 1992; McDonald et al.

1995).

Whales in social groups tend to produce short sequences of rapid pulses in the 20-70 Hz band

(McDonald et al. 1995) with each pulse lasting approximately 1 second and containing

approximately 20 cycles (Tyack 1999). A series of pulses in a regular repetitious pattern tends to

be associated with ftn whales during the breeding season, in which bouts of pulsing may last for

longer than 1 day (Tyack 1999). Some authors believe there are geographic differences in the

frequency, duration, and repetition of the pulses (Thompson et al. 1992).

Life History

Males and females reach sexual maturity between 6 and 10 years of age. Whales breed in the

winter months, and following an 11 to 12 month gestation, produce a single calf. Calves are

approximately 21 feet in length at birth, and may weigh 3,600 pounds. Calves nurse for

approximately 6 months. Fin whale females may give birth every 2-plus years. Fin whales may

live to be over 100 years old.

Fin whales can be seen in groups of 6 to 10 individuals, or in pairs, or even alone. The fin whale

is considered a fast swimmer, with swim burst speeds up to 20 mph. When a fin whale dives, the

fluke is rarely shown, and a dive may last for 5 to 15 minutes. The maximum depth that finbacks

can dive to is thought to be about 1,000 feet.

The fin whale feeds on small schooling fish and invertebrates. Fin whales have incorporated a

feeding technique that includes swimming on their side, gulping large schools of fishes to be

captured and large quantities of water to be filtered through the whale's baleen. Fin whales

primarily feed during the summer months.

Habitat

Finbacks are common in the North Atlantic, including the U.S. Atlantic EEZ. The waters off

New England represent a major feeding ground for fin whales, and evidence indicates that

female whales show site fidelity for feeding areas. Additionally, fin whales in the Gulf of Maine

have demonstrated maternally directed site fidelity, by showing patterns of seasonal occurrence

and annual returns (Waring et al. 2010). Based on neonate stranding information, it has been

suggested that calving grounds for some fin whales may be in the U.S. mid-Atlantic region from

October to January; but breeding, calving, and wintering habits and movements are generally

unknown.

4-39

20120614-0037 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 06/14/2012
Population Dynamics

The best abundance estimate available for the fin whale (western North Atlantic stock) is 3,985

(CV= 0.24); however, this is a conservative estimate given the incomplete coverage of the

known habitat of the stock and the uncertainties regarding population structure and whale

movements between surveyed and unsurveyed areas (Waring et al. 2010). There may be local,

year-round populations with little migratory movements, and/or sub-populations that may make

distinct annual migrations to the open ocean, indicating a substantial deep-ocean component to

fin whale distribution. Evidence of large-scale migrations (based on an acoustic analysis from

the Navy's Sound Survalence System program of year-round fin whale vocalizations) was not

identified (Waring et al. 2010).

Threats

Human-caused mortality was lower for fin whales than for other large whale species, such as

humpback whales. However, there are documented reports of fishery-related and ship strike

mortalities. From data reviewed for 1999 to 2008, there were five mortalities due to fishery

interactions with substantial evidence to support the cause of death; these data provide a

minimum estimate of the frequency of entanglements for this species (Waring et al. 2006; 2010).

However, between 1996 and 2001 there were 10 entanglements reported for finback whales with

significant evidence to demonstrate and confirm the primary cause of death as being fisheryrelated (NOAA Fisheries 2001). Additionally, there were five other cases of fishery interactions

that lacked sufficient evidence or details to determine the degree of injury from entanglement

and whether entanglement did in fact cause mortality (Waring et al. 2006). During this same

time period, fifteen mortalities in which the primary cause of death was due to vessel collision

were confirmed and two collisions were not confirmed as fatal (NOAA Fisheries 2001; Waring

et al. 2006). From 2002 through 2008, an additional six strikes were reported that resulted in

mortalities (Waring et al. 2010). These encounters do not necessarily indicate the total level or

degree of human-induced mortality and serious injury to fin whales. Fin whales were

commercially harvested in some oceans until 1976.

Status, Protection, and Management

The fin whale is federally listed under the ESA as an endangered species, and is considered

depleted under the MMPA (MMC 1996). The total fishery-related mortality and serious injury

was higher than the allowable 10 percent of the calculated PBR for this species, and therefore is

considered to be significant (Waring et al. 2010). Due to these data, the fin whale is a strategic

stock, and a revised Recovery Plan has been been published (NOAA Fisheries 2006).

Critical Habitat

No critical habitat has been designated for the fin whale.

Species Occurrence in Downcast LNG Project Area

Although the fin whale tends to be relatively pelagic, it is known to use deep coastal waters.

Therefore, fin whales have the potential of occurring in waters traversed by LNG vessels. Fin

4-40

20120614-0037 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 06/14/2012
whale sightings have been reported in areas proximal to the transit route (see draft LIS appendix

F, figure 21). Because the water depth at the LNG terminal is approximately 45 to 50 feet

MLLW, and its prey is available near the terminal, it is conceivable that a fin whale could occur

in the immediate vicinity of the terminal. However, because of the rarity of documented

sightings of fin whales near the terminal, the presence of this species in the immediate area of the

terminal is not expected. Therefore, this species could be encountered throughout the LNG

transit route(s) but is not expected to occur near the terminal itself.

4.5.1.5 Humpback Whale (Endangered)

Species Description

Humpback whales (Megaprera novaeangliae) are found throughout the oceans of the northern

hemisphere. Their body is stocky, with a generally black coloration and possibly some white on

the ventral side and throat. Humpbacks possess a flat broad head and a rostrum and lower lip

that have fleshy nodules. There are approximately 400 baleen plates per right and left sides of

the mouth, and the whales have 12 to 36 ventral throat grooves. Humpbacks have elongated

flippers that can measure up to one third of the body length. The dorsal fin is relatively small

with distinguished, individual shapes which can be used for identification. This species also

displays sexual dimorphism. An adult male averages 46 feet in length and may weigh 25 tons.

An average adult female reaches the length of about 50 feet and may weigh 35 tons.

Life History

Humpbacks tend to be quite gregarious and social, and usually congregate in groups.

Humpbacks are very acrobatic and engage in behaviors such as breaching, spy-hopping, and lobtailing. An additional distinguishing characteristic of the humpback is their complexity of

vocalizations and songs.

Humpback whales produce at least three kinds of sounds; I) complex songs with components

ranging from at least 20Hz to 4 kHz with estimated source levels from 144 to 174 dB which are

mostly sung by males on the breeding grounds (Payne 1970; Winn et al. 1970; Richardson et al.

1995); 2) social sounds in the breeding areas that extend from 50Hz to more than 10 kHz with

most energy below 3kHz (Tyack and Whitehead 1983; Richardson et al. 1995), and 3) feeding

area vocalizations that are less frequent, but tend to be 20Hz to 2 kHz with estimated sources

levels in excess of 175 dB re I ItPa (Thompson et al. 1986; Richardson et al. 1995). These

various vocalizations have a range from about 5 to 12 miles.

Males and females reach sexually maturity between four and seven years of age, and breed in the

winter. Following an 11.5 month gestation period, the cow gives birth to a single calf. At birth

the calf is approximately 16 feet in length, and may weigh as much as 2 tons. The lactation

period of the cow lasts between 6 and 10 months, and the calf grows quickly during this nursing

period. The estimated life span of the humpback is thought to be about 50 years.

Humpbacks generally prey on euphausids and small schooling fish such as herring, sand lance,

and other small fishes (Wynne and Schwartz 1999, Cupka and Murphy 2005; Waring et al.

2010). The cold, nutrient-rich waters of the Gulf of Maine provide abundant prey items, and the

4-41

20120614-0037 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 06/14/2012
abundance and species of prey is correlated with the movements of the whales. Humpbacks

frequently use a feeding technique known as bubble-netting, which is encircling and stunning

their prey for capture. There appears to be competition with commercial fisheries for common

prey species (herring and mackerel), resulting in a strong correlation between depleted prey

populations and decreased abundance of humpbacks in specific areas (Waring et al. 2010).

Habitat

The humpback is a species that is pelagic as well as coastal, and although it tends to feed and

breed over shallow banks, during migration the humpback may traverse the deep, open ocean.

Nearshore or coastal areas (i.e., shallow banks and shelf waters) are intensively used for feeding

(Reeves et al. 2005; Cupka and Murphy 2005). Feeding grounds occupied in the spring,

summer, and fall have been identified as the Gulf of Maine and the Bay of Fundy, northward to

Iceland (Waring et al. 2010; Cupka and Murphy 2005).

For all sub-populations of humpback whales, the breeding and calving grounds occupied during

winter months is primarily the West Indies, with the majority of the whale congregation found in

the waters of the Dominican Republic (Waring et al. 2010). There has been an increase in the

number of humpbacks occupying waters off the U.S. mid-Atlantic coast during winter, most

prominently in January to March. These sightings may suggest distributional changes, an

increase in whale abundance, or simply an increase in awareness and sighting of the whales

(Waring et al. 2010; Cupka and Murphy 2005). These areas may in fact be recognized as

increasingly important habitat for juvenile humpbacks (Waring et al. 2010).

Population Dynamics

Six sub-populations, or stocks, of humpback whales have been identified within their designated

feeding range. These stocks appear to demonstrate site fidelity to feeding grounds. This

showing of strong site fidelity includes calves returning to the same feeding ground as their

mother (Waring et al. 2010, Cupka and Murphy 2005).

Abundance estimates for the Gulf of Maine humpback whale sub-population has proved to be

challenging due to the overlap in range of some of the stocks. The best abundance estimate for

the Gulf of Maine stock is 847 (CV = 0.55), with a minimum estimation of 359 animals (Waring

et al. 2010). This estimate may actually be below its OSP level (Cupka and Murphy 2005;

Waring et al. 2010). It has been suggested that the Gulf of Maine stock is actually increasing,

estimated annual population growth rate of 3.1 percent (Waring et al. 2010).

Threats

Humpback populations are sensitive to a variety of anthropogenic stressors, including

disturbance and/or displacement due to noise (associated with shipping, mining, and underwater

explosions in relation to marine construction and exploration), habitat destruction, competition

with fisheries for prey species, and pollutants from various marine and coastal sources. The

greatest cause of humpback whale mortality is caused by ship collisions and fishing gear

entanglement (Wynne and Schwartz, 1999; Cupka and Murphy, 2005; NAMMCO 2006; Waring

et al. 2010).

4-42

20120614-0037 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 06/14/2012
Fishery-related mortality and serious injury reports indicate that gillnets and gear were the most

common source of entanglements leading to serious injury and mortality in the Gulf of Maine

between 1975 and 1990. In a 5 year period, the Gulf of Maine stock suffered 14 fishery-related

incidents, of which 5 resulted in the death of the animal, and 9 were recorded as serious injury

attainable from fishery interactions (Waring et al. 2006). For the years 2004-2008, the estimated

human-caused mortality and serious injury to the Gulf of Maine population from incidental

fishery interactions was 3.0 per year (Waring et al. 2010). Between 1990 and 2000, there were

52 known humpback whale mortalities in the waters of the U.S. mid-Atlantic states.

Occurrences of ship strikes are greater than occurrences of entanglement for humpbacks.

Records from the NOAA Fisheries for 1999 through 2003 indicate 15 cases of verified vessel

collisions that caused mortality or serious injury. Of the 15 known mortalities, 6 were the direct

result of the ship strike (3 animals identified from the Gulf of Maine stock), but 8 could not be

determined if the strike was primary or caused serious injury leading to the eventual death of the

animal (Waring et al. 2006). From 2004 to 2008, 8 humback whale mortalities have been

attributed to ship strike (Waring et al. 2010)

An increase in humpback whale strandings has been reported, especially along the U.S. midAtlantic coast. Based on the investigation of individuals stranded, in particular along the

Virginia and North Carolina coasts, most animals were sexually immature individuals and many

recently separated from their mothers (Waring et al. 2006).

Status, Protection, and Management

The humpback whale is federally listed as endangered under the ESA. The Gulf of Maine stock,

identified as part of the overall U.S. Atlantic stock, has been listed by the MMPA as a strategic

stock. The strategic classification of this stock was determined based on the average humancaused mortality and serious injury exceeding its calculated PBR level, as well as its listing as an

endangered species (Cupka and Murphy, 2005; Waring et al. 2010). Human-caused mortalities

exceed the maximum allowable number of animal removal from the stock, prohibiting it from

reaching or maintaining a sustainable population (Cupka and Murphy, 2005).

A Recovery Plan was developed in 1991 and is currently in affect for the western North Atlantic

humpback whale (Waring et al. 2010). Additionally, collaborative efforts of numerous groups

and agencies have been directed toward utilizing protective measures to reduce the incidence of

ship strikes and collision-induced injury and mortality, as well as impacts related to fisheries

(Cupka and Murphy, 2005; NAMMCO 2006).

Critical Habitat

No critical habitat has been designated for the humpback whale.

Species Occurrence in the Downcast LNG Project Area

Humpback whales are typically observed offshore in the northern Gulf of Maine, and also occur

in the Bay of Fundy (Waring et al. 2010). This would indicate a potential occurrence proximal

4-43

20120614-0037 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 06/14/2012
to vessel travel lanes. Humpback whale sightings have been reported in areas proximal to the

transit route (see draft EIS appendix F, figure 23). Humpback whales are not predicted to occur

in Passamaquoddy Bay. Because the water depth at the LNG terminal is approximately 45 to 50

feet MLLW, and its prey is available near the terminal, it is conceivable that a humpback whale

could occur in the immediate vicinity of the terminal. However, because of the rarity of

documented sightings of humpback whales near the terminal, the presence of this species in the

immediate area of the terminal is not expected. Therefore, this species could be encountered

throughout the LNG transit route(s) but is not expected to occur near the terminal itself.

4.5.1.6 Sperm Whale (Endangered)

Species Description

The sperm whale (Physeter macrocephalus) is the largest of the odontocete, or toothed, whales.

The head of the sperm whale is large, blunt and squared off, with a small and inferior jaw. The

head makes up to one third the total body length and more than one third of its mass. The lower

jaw contains approximately 50 conical teeth that are 3 to 8 inches in length. The upper jaw

contains a series of sockets into which the lower teeth fit. A single blowhole is located forward

on the left side of the head, which projects its breath forward rather than straight up, as is the

case with other whales. The sperm whale is usually a dark, brownish gray, and the body appears

wrinkled, except for the head. The ventral side of the body may be a lighter gray and may have

white patches. The skin around its mouth is white, particularly near the corners.

Adult males reach lengths of 49 to 59 feet and weigh approximately 40 tons. Adult females are

much smaller, averaging about 36 feet in length, and weigh up to 22 tons. The sperm whale has

a single smooth dorsal fin, followed by a series of knuckles along the spine. Its flippers are small

and slightly tapered, while its flukes are broad, measuring as much as 16 feet from tip to tip.

Life History

Sperm whales are considered to be the deepest and longest diving cetacean, possibly descending

to depths of 10,000 feet for up to 90 minutes. Average dives occur at depths of 980 to 1,970 feet

and last 20 to 50 minutes. There is little or no solar light at such great depths; some organisms

produce biochemical light (bioluminescence) which may aid the sperm whale in navigations and

prey capture. Sperm whales also use their highly developed echolocation ability to locate food

and to navigate, making nearly constant clicking sounds or patterns called codas that pulse

through the water. There is also a theory that sperm whales may stun their prey with a burst of

sound.

Sperm whales are considered to be squid-specialists, as their main source of food is mediumsized deep water squid. They prefer giant squid, but they also eat smaller squid and fish.

A sperm whale can consume about 1 ton of food (e.g., squid) each day (NatureServe 2011).

Males reach sexual maturity at approximately 33 to 39 feet and 10 years or more of age but do

not appear to actively breed until their late 20s. Females reach sexual maturity around 9 years of

age and 29 feet. Females and their young travel in permanent units, or family groups, whereas

4-44

20120614-0037 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 06/14/2012
the much larger males rove between breeding and feeding grounds as well as among groups of

females when breeding. Large males join female family groups typically consisting of 10 to 20

animals during the mating season, and within these groups there appears to be communal care for

the young (NOAA Fisheries 2012b, NatureServe 2011). The gestation period for a sperm whale

is 14 to 16 months, followed by the birth of a single calf at intervals of 3 to 15 years. Newborn

calves weigh approximately I ton and are 11 to 16 feet long. Calves may nurse up to two years

(NOAA Fisheries 2012b, NatureServe 2011).

Studies have reported a stable social structure for sperm whales. Low reproductive rates and

social structure are two important factors that give distinction to specific social groupings, e.g.,

nursery schools and bachelor schools to name only two (Waring et al. 2006).

Habitat

Sperm whales are considered to be deep, open-ocean inhabitants, with their distribution

occurring over the continental slope, on the continental shelf edge, and into mid-ocean regions

(Waring et al. 2007). However, movements have been documented in nearshore areas.

Studies have reported site fidelity among sperm whales, as well as a stable social structure

(Waring et al. 2007). The males, alone or in groups, are found in higher latitudes although they

occasionally migrate toward lower latitudes (NOAA 2006c). Only the largest mature males

appear to enter the breeding grounds close to the equator. Females, calves, and juveniles remain

in the warmer tropical and sub-tropical waters of the Pacific, Atlantic, and Indian Oceans year

round. In waters of the U.S. Atlantic Ocean, whales concentrate northeast of Cape Hatteras in

the winter, and move out to the southern portion of Georges Bank and the continental shelf south

of New England as spring approaches and through summer (Waring et al. 2007). The

continental shelf south of New England is occupied in the fall by concentrations of sperm whales

(Waring et al. 2007).

Population Dynamics

The abundance estimate for sperm whales of the North Atlantic stock is 2,607 (CV = 0.57), and

for the combined northern and southern U.S. Atlantic stocks is 4,804 (CV = 0.38), although this

estimate was not corrected for dive time and may underestimate actual abundance (Waring et al.

2007). The current minimum estimate provided for the combined northern and southern U.S.

Atlantic sperm whale stocks is 3,539. Additionally, this estimate was based on a small portion of

the known stock range (Waring et al. 2007).

Prior to the onset of whaling, the global population of sperm whales was estimated to be over

1,000,000. The majority of sperm whale hunting occurred during two periods in history when

massive numbers of whales were killed; whalers hunted the sperm whale mainly through 1740 to

1880, and modern whaling of sperm whales peaked in 1964 when 29,255 were killed.

Currently, sperm whales are relatively numerous, with the world-wide population estimated at

about 360,000 whales. However, selective killing of the larger breeding-age males over many

years has disrupted the male-to-female ratio, and as a result the birth rate has seriously declined

4-45

20120614-0037 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 06/14/2012
in some populations. The average size of sperm whales killed noticeably decreased during the

last 40 years of hunting.

Threats

Sperm whales were the primary targets of whalers based out of the northeastern United States in

the 18' and 19'" centuries. The sperm whale's head houses a large reservoir containing

spermaceti, a clear liquid oil that hardens to a wax-like consistency when cold, which was prized

by whalers for its use in candles in the 18'" century. Whaling has continued until recent decades

and some populations have been depleted, although not to the extent that many of the baleen

whales have been effected. Ambergris, a substance found in large lumps in the lower intestine of

sperm whales was used in the making of perfume, and continues to be valuable in spite of its

widespread replacement by synthetics.

Human-caused mortality and serious injury have also been attributed to fishery-related

interaction and/or entanglement, as well as ship strikes (Waring et al. 2006; 2007). Between the

years 1999 and 2003, two whales with known causes of death were attributed to human-related

activities (Waring et al. 2006; 2007).

Status, Protection, and Management

This species is federally listed as endangered under the ESA, and the sperm whale is considered

to be a strategic stock based on this listing (Waring et al. 2007). Status of the sperm whale

population within the EEZ is unknown. The average mortality due to fishery-related activities is

below the 10 percent of the calculated PBR level.

In 1988, the International Whaling Commission banned the hunting of sperm whales. Some

sperm whales may still be taken by aboriginal whalers in the Caribbean and in some eastern

islands of Indonesia. Japan also hunts some sperm whales under its scientific whaling program.

Critical Habitat

No critical habitat has been designated for the sperm whale.

Species Occurrence in the Downcast LNG Project Area

Sperm whales have been observed regularly in shallow New England waters at depths of 59 feet

and less, from late May through June and in October. Because sperm whales have been observed

in nearshore areas, as well as documented sightings in the Bay of Fundy and waters of the

northern Gulf of Maine (Waring et al. 2007), there is the potential of sperm whales occurring

and/or traversing waters near or within the waters adjacent to the proposed transit route of the

LNG vessels. Therefore, this species could be encountered throughout the LNG transit route(s)

but is not expected to occur near the terminal itself.

4-46

20120614-0037 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 06/14/2012
4.5.2 Effects on Cetaceans

Waterway for LNG Marine Traffic

Whales have been observed across the mouth of Passamaquoddy Bay from Head Harbor Passage

up to Blacks Harbor on the coast of New Brunswick in July and August (Schom 2006). Whale

species have also been observed in Friar Roads, Western Passage, and Grand Manan Channel

(MacKay 2006). Whales may be affected by vessel collisions, physical and acoustic harassment,

and to a lesser extent by the introduction of pollution and artificial lighting. Of the six whale

species that could occur in the Project area, critical habitat has been designated for one species,

the North Atlantic right whale. However, designated critical habitat is south of the Project area

and would not be affected. Potential impacts on whales and proposed mitigation measures are

discussed in further detail below.

Vessel Strikes

Jensen and Silber (2003) report that of 292 documented large whale vessel strikes, 48 resulted in

injury to the animal, while 198 resulted in whale mortality; these values together account for 84

percent of vessel strikes resulting in injury or death to large whales. Vulnerability to vessel

collisions may result from the whale's limited ability to detect or maneuver around on-coming

vessels, or because the species is at the surface feeding, resting, mating, and/or nursing. As

discussed in section 4.4.1, vessel strikes with whales often resulted in death or serious injury

when the vessel speed was 14 knots or greater (Laist et al. 2001).

Fin, humpback, North Atlantic right, sei, sperm, and blue whales have experienced both injury

and mortality as the result of vessel strikes. Between 1999 and 2008, 13 fin whales of the

western North Atlantic stock were killed by vessel strikes; 14 vessel strikes resulted in humpback

whale mortalities; 2 sei whales were struck by transiting vessels; and I sperm whale was killed

after colliding with a vessel (Waring et al. 2006; 2010; Cole et al. 2006). These occurrences are

summarized in table 3.1.4-14 Within the Bay of Fundy alone, nine known vessel strikes with

North Atlantic right whales occurred between 1972 and 2006 (see table 4.4.1.1-1).

The proposed Downcast LNG Project would result in increased marine traffic through the Bay of

Fundy to the project site in the Western Passage by as many as 60 vessels per year. Currently,

nearby commercial ports (Port of Estes Head, Maine; and Port of Bayside in Canada, near Calais,

Maine) typically receive 125 vessels each year, including ferries, small- to mid-size cruise ships,

and cargo vessels. This project would result in a permanent increase in large vessel traffic (49

percent) and a temporary incremental increase associated with construction vessels over existing

vessel activity associated with fishing, commercial transportation, recreational boating, and

ferries.

In the Downcast LNG Project area, the primary issue of concern is the protection of the North

Atlantic right whale, as the Bay of Fundy and Passamaquoddy Bay represent important habitats

for this species. The major apparent threat to the North Atlantic right whale and the most

probable factor preventing recovery of this species is human-caused mortality and serious injury

4-47

20120614-0037 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 06/14/2012
due to vessel strikes and entanglement in fishing gear. The current strategy to minimize impacts

on the North Atlantic right whale as well as the general conservative approach to protect other

marine mammals builds upon the mitigation measures developed to protect this species.

As described in section 4.4.1, NOAA Fisheries and participating agencies have implemented

several measures to ensure the continued survival of the North Atlantic right whale. These

measures include maintaining a minimum 500 yard distance from protected whales; mandatory

ship reporting of any whale sightings (MSRS) in areas transited by right whales; recommended

reduction of vessel speed to 10 knots or less when vessels transit through areas and where whales

aggregate; implementing a TSS that avoids critical or high-use whale habitats; and increasing

mariner and boater awareness about the potential human-caused impacts and ways to minimize

whale-human conflicts through production of educational materials.

Downcast has indicated its commitment to take the necessary precautions to reduce the risk of

injury to right whales and other marine mammals and sea turtles. To minimize the risk of ship

strike, Downcast would require the LNG vessels to comply with the required speed restriction of

10 knots or less, beginning from Grand Manan Island to the LNG terminal. In times of

inclement weather and low visibility (including nighttime), speeds would be kept as low as

reasonable for the safe operation of the vessel and its crew. Downcast would incorporate within

its Import Terminal Regulations Manual a section devoted to the North Atlantic right whale, its

protection, and implementing regulations.

Because LNG vessels associated with the Downcast LNG Project could transit waters designated

by the IMO and NOAA Fisheries as natural habitat of the North Atlantic right whale, the LNG

vessels would follow the IMO regulations to report any sightings of right whales and to

undertake precautionary measures to avoid any contact with the species. Specifically, vessels

would remain 500 yards from North Atlantic right whales and 100 yards from all other whales

when navigational limits permit. LNG vessels are required by NOAA Fisheries to implement

speed restrictions of 10 knots or less in seasonal management areas. Furthermore, if right whales

are known to be in the area, LNG vessels would avoid the Canadian designated Grand Manan

Basin Whale Sanctuary by transiting along the western side of Grand Manan Island. Downcast

LNG vessel crews and terminal construction and operation crews would also receive

environmental training that stresses individual responsibility for marine mammal awareness and

reporting. All on-board crew members would receive training on marine mammal sighting and

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

associated with the Downcast LNG Project would be responsible for monitoring communications

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

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

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

regulations, and attempt to avoid contact and reduce the risk of ship strikes on whales. In the

event of a vessel strike, the captain would notify the Coast Guard and follow the Coast Guard's

procedural guidance for detailed information about the strike.

4-48

20120614-0037 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 06/14/2012
To further minimize potential vessel strikes, Downcast has identified the following mitigation

measures that it would implement during all stages of the Downcast LNG Project, maximizing

protection of the listed species by either avoiding adverse impacts, or minimizing the potential

for adverse impacts:

~ maintaining an LNG vessel transit speed of less than 10 knots, as described above.

~ using "forward-watching" whale spotters that would be ahead of the LNG vessel

transitway and on the LNG vessel. The spotters would warn of North Atlantic right

whale presence, especially in Head Harbor, as well as other observed special species.

This practice is used for protected species at the EcoElectrica LNG Import Terminal in

Puerto Rico and has reportedly been very successful. The intent of the forward watching

whale spotters is to notify an LNG vessel in advance of the vessel entering an area of the

presence of a North Atlantic right whale and to defer entry. A similar practice is already

in place in the area relative to the Pilots and their advance ship radio communication.

The Downcast plan would implement a dedicated team of whale spotters and a vessel that

would be resident to the area (e.g., personnel and equipment/vessel located in EastportPerry and/or Canada). This team could also be used in coordination with local whale

observation recorders to regularly monitor and record whale sightings.

~ developing and implementing a project-wide training and education program, wherein all

employees of the project and LNG vessel crews are provided detailed information

regarding the potential presence of special species and methods and procedures to avoid

problematic encounters.

~ providing specialized equipment that would enhance the identification and location of

protected species, especially the presence of North Atlantic right whales. Investigations

are being conducted regarding this type of equipment which may include instrumentation

that uses infrared methods for identification.

~ funding of enhanced visual observation equipment for placement on whale watching tour

vessels that would promote customer observation of encountered whales from a greater

distance than might be practiced at present.

These measures that Downcast would employ to minimize impacts on North Atlantic right

whales would minimize impacts on all listed cetatean species. Downcast has committed to

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

agencies to discuss appropriate mitigation measures. Upon completion of ESA consultation and

federal and state permitting processes, Downcast would incorporate the final approved

construction and mitigation measures into a comprehensive Prevention and Mitigation Manual

for use in training of Downcast's construction and operational personnel, which would be filed

with FERC.

Acoustic Harassment and Take

Underwater sounds, if they are intense enough, may cause injury (acoustic trauma, hearing loss

or discomfort) to the ears of whales, or even death from concussion. In addition, many marine

4-49

20120614-0037 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 06/14/2012
mammals rely on sound for navigation, communication, and detection of prey (by echolocation).

Thus, the generation of project-related noise may affect a mammal's ability to perform some or

all of these important functions. Specifically, noise created by LNG vessels in transit may cause

temporary changes in marine mammal behavior. In the presence of vessels, whales may exhibit

no response; they may exhibit avoidance response; or they may exhibit behaviors that increase

their susceptibility to collision, such as startle responses, erratic surface movements, reduced

surface time, fewer blows per surfacing, shorter intervals between successive blows, and

increased frequency of dives without raised flukes (Whitehead et al. 1990; Cawthorn 1992;

Gordon et al. 1992). Of the whale species that could occur in the project area, the fin whale is

known to react strongly to low-frequency vessel sounds that are near the frequency of its own

vocalizations, between 15 to 100 Hz (EPA 1993). Fin whales have been reported to actively

avoid approaching vessels within this sound range, especially those that approached quickly or

changed direction or speed abruptly (Edds and Macfarlane 1987; Macfarlane 1981 as reported in

Richardson et al. 1995).

Table 4.4.2-1 describes the four types of sound categories based on the characteristics of the

noise at the source. These categories are intended to address how mammal ears react to sounds

of different types. These are the finest gradations that are now possible, given the current state

of the research.

TABLE 4.4.2-1

Types of Sound Categorized Based on the Characteristics of the Noise at the Source

Sound Type

Single Pulse

Source Characteristic

Single sound: short duration, fast rise time

Selected Example

Single explosion, pile strike, or airgun, watergun or

sparker pulse, single ping of certain sonars/depth finders

Single Non-Pulse Single sound: long duration, slow rise time Single vessel pass, drilling event, aircraft overflight,

single ping of certain sonars

Multiple Pulse Multiple sounds: each short duration, fast nse time Airguns, some sonar/depth sounder systems, waterguns,

sparkers, pile driving, senal explosions

Multiple Non-Pulse Multiple sounds Each long duration, slow nse time Multiple vessel/aircraft passes, cerlain sonar systems,

tomography sources

Directional hearing and source localization are important factors affecting marine animal hearing

and that influence the impacts of sound. The ability to localize sound sources is important for

two primary reasons including social interaction and the ability to detect prey by echolocation or

normal listening. It is also important in order to detect a signal of interest amongst a man-made

or other noise (Kryter 1985). Most marine animals can perceive underwater sounds over a broad

range of frequencies spanning from about 10 Hz to more than 10,000 Hz (10 kHz). Marine

mammals have shown a response to constant low-frequency received sounds with broadband

intensities of more than about 120 dB re I ItPS (Richardson et al. 1995). However, actual

thresholds for behavioral responses to sounds in the natural environment depend largely on the

level of natural ambient noise, with whales apparently capable of distinguishing sounds in their

optimum frequency range that are 10 to 20 dB re I I/Pa above ambient noise at the same

frequency (Richardson et al. 1991).

4-50

20120614-0037 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 06/14/2012
To estimate the effects of underwater sound propagation produced during construction and

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

underwater acoustic modeling analysis (Gaboury et al. 2007). Results of this study are discussed

in detail in section 4.11.2 of the draft EIS. Vessels and tugs used to transit the waterway for

LNG marine traffic would likely generate sound source levels in the range of 120-160 dB re I

ItPA at I meter proportionate to vessel size, depth of propeller, speed, engine load and

revolutions per minute with broadband source levels driven primarily by propeller cavitations,

hydrodynamic flow over the hull and hull appendages, and operation of machinery onboard.

Therefore, sounds generated by project vessel transit could potentially elicit a short term

avoidance response by marine mammals in the transit area. While Level A acoustic harassment

is possible, marine mammals are unlikely to remain close enough to the transiting vessel or

associated tugs to be affected in that manner; it is widely assumed that most marine mammals

would flee the immediate area adjacent to a vessel. However, Level B acoustic harassment

caused by transiting vessels and tugs is expected to affect marine mammals present in the

waterway for LNG marine traffic. Mitigation measures listed in the discussion of vessel strikes

would help to reduce the affect of acoustic harassment of marine mammals.

Physical Harassment

To date, the overall impacts on marine mammals associated with exposure to toxins are not well

understood; however, accidental spills and releases of oils, lubricants, or other pollutants could

harm those species that come into contact with the released product. For example,

biomagnifications of environmental toxins (e.g.,

ingestion of phytoplankton toxins like

saxitoxin) have been known to pose threats to humpback and sperm whales. To minimize the

potential for accidental spills and/or releases, as well as the associated impacts on marine

mammals, Downcast would adopt marine spill prevention and control measures to expedite

containment and clean-up in the event of a spill; additionally, each LNG vessel is required to

comply with the EPA's VGP and maintain a SOPEP. As such, marine mammals are not

expected to be adversely affected by accidental spills.

Certain types of anthropogenic debris and refuse have also been documented to cause harm to

marine species, such as plastic bags swallowed by feeding whales. Discharge and disposal of

garbage and other solid debris from vessels is prohibited by the BSEE(30 CFR 250.300) and the

Coast Guard (MARPOL Annex V, Public Law 100-220 [Statute 1458]).

Lights on LNG vessels and support vessels would be necessary to ensure safe operation at all

times, and could attract potential whale prey species to the area. Light shining into the water

would be focused in the area around the vessels, except for navigational purposes. Lighting is

not expected to significantly alter the behaviors of marine mammals in the waterway for LNG

marine traffic.

Habitats used by marine mammals are susceptible to impacts from an LNG spill over water,

although adverse impacts are anticipated to be minimal to minor and very localized. There is a

low probability of a spill due to the precautionary and mitigation measures that would be

4-51

20120614-0037 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 06/14/2012
implemented throughout the various phases of operation. However, if a nominal breach did

occur, minimal adverse impacts of short duration would be expected on the marine mammal

habitat in the transit route area, resulting in possible indirect effects on these species. The most

significant indirect impact could be the localized loss of prey base (copepods, fishes, and

invertebrates) present in the impact area, causing feeding habitats to be lost within the immediate

area for variable durations. In the event that a marine mammal surfaced during an ignited LNG

spill, or if it came into contact with waters cooled to dangerous temperatures from the spill of

cryogenically cooled LNG, an injury or mortality would be expected. An unignited LNG spill

on water would create a thermocline in the waterbody surrounding the immediate spill area that

would likely be detected and avoided by marine mammals in the affected area. There is a

potential of limited significant impacts if a spill should occur; however, with implementation of

the safety and security measures recommended by the Coast Guard to ensure suitability of the

waterway, the likelihood of such an event would be extremely remote.

In summary, LNG vessels transiting the proposed waterway for LNG marine traffic have the

potential to affect each federally-listed whale species, either through vessel strike or physical or

acoustic harassment. Downcast LNG has agreed to implement the mitigation measures of the

North Atlantic Right Whale Ship Strike Reduction Strategy, which among other measures would

restrict LNG vessels to transit speeds that reduce the potential for whale-vessel strikes.

Underwater noise generated by LNG vessels and support and construction vessels transiting the

area would result in an overall increased exposure to anthropogenic noise. Because the project

would be in an area with ongoing shipping activity, exposure to noise is expected to be

somewhat consistent with existing conditions. Downcast notes that the noise of marine vessels

in the transit area is not uncommon; motorized vessel traffic and recreational boating have

occurred in this area throughout the last 100 years. Underwater noise produced by vessels that

transit the waterway for LNG marine traffic is not likely to have an adverse impact on federally

listed whales.

LNG Terminal

Whale species with the potential to occur in the immediate vicinity of the terminal include North

Atlantic right, sei, fin, and humpback; however, documented sightings of these species are low

near the LNG terminal site. Construction of the LNG terminal would increase the potential for

whale-vessel strikes, acoustic harassment, and physical harassment; however, such impacts

would be short-term.

Vessel strikes

During construction of the pier, there would be multiple vessels, tugs, barges, and lay vessels

present in the Downcast terminal area. These vessels would be required to operate in accordance

with NOAA Fisheries regulations and requirements described above.

4-52

20120614-0037 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 06/14/2012
Acoustic Harassment and Take

Underwater sounds expected during the construction and operation of the Downcast LNG Project

can be classified into three categories. Sounds of short duration that are produced intermittently

or at regular intervals (e.g., pile driving noise) are classified as "pulsed. "

Sounds produced for an

extended period, such as sounds from LNG vessels during offloading, are classified as

"continuous. "Sounds from moving sources, such as vessels, can be continuous, but for an

animal at a given location, these sounds are "transient" (i.e.,

increasing in level as the vessel

approaches and then diminishing as it moves away). In general, baleen whales tend to react to

lower received levels of continuous sound than a pulsed sound at the same level. When sounds

are pulsed or transient, masking effects are expected to be less severe than when they are

continuous. Effects of pulsed and continuous sounds associated with construction are described

below. Effects oftransient sound are described above.

Acoustic harassment from this type of industrial noise has been shown to affect dolphin behavior

and communication, which may ultimately affect health and reproductive success, although longterm implications of exposure to pulsed sound are not known (David 2006, Schlundt 2000).

Behavioral reactions of baleen whales to pulsed sounds vary depending on the sound source

level, type of whale exposed to the sounds, and the whale's activity when the sounds are heard.

Baleen whales near the LNG terminal would be expected to exhibit some temporary

displacement from strong pulsed sounds. Exposure limits set forth by NOAA Fisheries (2000)

state that baleen whales should not be exposed to received levels of pulsive sounds over 180 dB

re I pPa. Adverse acoustic impacts during impact pile driving, while unavoidable, would be

mitigated through Downcast's engagement of a NOAA Fisheries approved mammal and marine

spotter to ensure no listed species are within the designated NOAA Fisheries Acoustic Safety

Zone during this activity.

During construction of the LNG terminal pier, there would be multiple vessels, tugs, barges, and

lay vessels present in the Downcast terminal area that would produce continuous in-air and

underwater noise. The barges, which should be the largest vessel used during construction,

would not produce engine noise because they would be towed by tugs, though the machines

(cranes, compressors, winches, and stringers), construction activities (welding, vibropile driving,

and sand blasting), and living activities (lights and cooking) on the barge, would require

generators that can result in elevated, continuous in-air noise levels. However, sounds generated

by construction activity occurring above water, including impact noise, are subject to a large

transmission loss when moving across the water-air interface from the in-air source to the

underwater receiver due to the impedance mismatch between these two mediums. The tugs

themselves would also increase the amount of continuous underwater noise when they are

towing the barges and positioning anchors. The intensity of noise tends to increase as the load

that the tug pulls increases (Richardson et al. 1995).

Vessel noises caused by the turning of the screws, engine noises, and noises of operating

machinery on board, generally fall in the frequency (pitch) range of 5 to 2,000 Hz, with highest

intensities below 100 Hz (Scrimger and Heitmeyer 1991). Construction activities have been

4-53

20120614-0037 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 06/14/2012
recorded in the past to create broadband sounds; the strongest was below 10 Hz and reaching

frequencies as high as 500 Hz (Richardson et al., 1995). Vessels the size of tugs and their

onboard machinery usually generate sound intensities of 160 dB re I Itpa at I m or less. The

noises from these construction activities are above harassment levels as established by the

MMPA and would impact whales in the vicinity (NOAA Fisheries 2005d). While the intensity

of these sounds is well below the intensity associated with injury to the ears of cetaceans, it is

sufficient to cause temporary behavior modification. Most marine mammals habituate rapidly to

low-level underwater sounds and are able to distinguish the sounds they generate for

communication from those of human activities (Richardson et al. 1995). In addition, recent

studies have documented a change in the distribution of whales in areas with increased vessel

activities (Jelinski et al. 2002; Erbe 2002).

Downcast proposes to use drilled rock socket pile installation to eliminate the need for blasting,

therefore reducing noise impacts on local fauna. Downcast's analysis of acoustic impacts

describes noise that ranges from 120 dB to 170 dB re I ItPa for this type of continuous sound

emission. Impact pile driving, if necessary to seat the pilings, would result in pulsed sound

source levels in excess of 200 dB re I ItPa at I meter. It should be noted that impact pile driving

would be limited to a small window in time during pier and trestle construction, and only during

the final stage of seating the pilings into bedrock. Adverse acoustic impacts during impact pile

driving while unavoidable, are brief and can be mitigated through Downcast's engagement of a

NOAA Fisheries-approved marine mammal spotter to ensure no listed species are within the

designated NOAA Fisheries Acoustic Safety Zone during this activity. Only transient

individuals of North Atlantic right, fin, sei, or humpback whales are expected to occur near the

LNG terminal site; therefore, we believe it is unlikely that these species would be adversely

affected by vessel strikes, acoustic take, and harassment or physical harassment near the

terminal.

Downcast would continue to consult with the FWS, NOAA Fisheries, and other relevant federal

and state agencies to discuss appropriate mitigation measures. Upon completion of ESA

consultation, and federal and state permitting processes, Downcast would incorporate the final

approved construction and mitigation measures into a comprehensive Prevention and Mitigation

Manual for use in training of Downcast's construction and operational personnel.

Sendout Pipeline

Construction and operation of the sendout pipeline would be limited to onshore portions of the

action area and therefore would have no effect on whales.

Determination of Effects

The proposed Downcast LNG Project has the potential to adversely affect each of the six whale

species identified within the project area, either by acoustic harassment and/or vessel strikes.

Downcast LNG has agreed to implement the following measures to avoid or minimize the

potential for adverse effect on these whale species:

4-54

20120614-0037 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 06/14/2012
~ Measures of the Right Whales Ship Strike Reduction Strategy, which includes LNG

vessel transit speed reduction of less than 10 knots and minimum distance requirements.

~ The use of "forward-watching" whale spotters that would be ahead of the LNG vessel

transitway and on the LNG vessel. The spotters would warn of northern right whale

presence, especially in Head Harbor, as well as other observed special species.

~ Development and implementation of a project-wide training and education program,

wherein all employees of the project and LNG vessel crews are provided detailed

information regarding the potential presence of special species and methods and

procedures to avoid problematic encounters.

~ Providing specialized equipment that would enhance the identification and location of

protected species, especially the presence of North Atlantic right whales. Investigations

are being conducted regarding this type of equipment which may include instrumentation

that uses infrared methods for identification.

~ Funding of enhanced visual observation equipment for placement on whale watching tour

vessels that would promote customer observation of encountered whales from a greater

distance than might be practiced at present.

~ Downcast LNG has committed to continue its consultation with the FWS, NOAA

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

measures, and to incorporate the final approved construction and mitigation measures

into a comprehensive Prevention and Mitigation Manual for use in training of Downcast

LNG's construction and operational personnel.

With implementation of these measures, we believe the Downcast LNG Project is not likely to

adversely affect the six whale species that may occur in the project area; i.e.,

the North Atlantic

right, sei, blue, fin, humpback, and sperm whales.

Of the six whale species that could occur in the Project area, critical habitat has been designated

for one species, the North Atlantic right whale. However, designated critical habitat for the

North Atlantic right whale occurs south of the Project area and would not be impacted by the

project. Therefore, construction and operation of the Downcast LNG Project would have no

effect on designated critical habitat for North Atlantic right whale.

4-55

20120614-0037 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 06/14/2012
5.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS AND FINDINGS OF EFFECT

5.1 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

Activities that occur in the LNG waterway for marine traffic, near the LNG terminal, or adjacent

to the proposed sendout pipeline right-of-way have the potential to affect the overall context

within which effects of the Downcast LNG Project are considered. Cumulative effects are

defined as the "impacts on the environment which result from the incremental impact of the

action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions" (40 CFR

1508.7). For the purposes of this analysis, it is important to note that under the ESA, cumulative

effects include effects of future state or private activities, not involving federal activities, which

are reasonably certain to occur within the action area of the federal action subject to consultation.

Future federal actions that are unrelated to the proposed action are not considered in this section

because they would require separate consultation pursuant to Section 7 of the ESA.

In the context of the Downcast LNG Project, such ongoing and reasonably foreseeable activities

in the marine environment include state-regulated fishing activities and recreational and

commercial vessel transit, vessel collisions, ingestion of debris, and exposure to pollution and/or

reduced water quality, all of which could result in incidental take. Human-induced mortality or

harassment resulting from the combination of these activities may affect populations of ESAlisted species, preventing or slowing species recovery. Commercial fishing, which has the

potential to take protected species such as Atlantic salmon and Atlantic sturgeon is expected to

continue in the future. Commercial fisheries are also responsible for serious injury and mortality

to large whales. However it is unknown how future fishing activities would differ in the extent

to which they may affect listed species. Two programs have been implemented that provide

information on takes of protected species in state fisheries. The Atlantic Coastal Cooperative

Statistics Program and the The Strategy for Sea Turtle Conservation and Recovery in Relation to

Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Fisheries systematically collect fishing effort data for use in

monitoring effects to the fisheries.

As noted above, private and commercial vessel activities in the action area may adversely affect

listed species in a number of ways, including entanglement, vessel strike, or harassment. Vessel

activity is likely to increase over existing levels in the Bay of Fundy over the short term due to

construction-related vessel traffic and over the long term due to large vessel traffic associated

with LNG terminal operations. This would result in an increased potential for vessel strikes with

whales or sea turtles. Increasing vessel traffic in the action area also raises concerns about the

potential effects of noise pollution on marine mammals and sea turtles which may result in

auditory trauma, temporary or permanent loss of hearing sensitivity, habitat exclusion,

habituation, and disruption of other normal behavior patterns such as feeding, migration, and

communication. Construction-related impacts, however, would be localized and short term,

occurring only in the immediate vicinity of the terminal and pipeline facilities and only during

construction, and therefore would be insignificant. Passage of LNG vessels along the waterway

to the Downcast terminal while in operation would have longer-term effects.

The Calais LNG Project Company submitted an application before the FERC on December 18,

2009 to construct and operate an LNG import terminal and sendout pipeline; it would be

approximately 6 miles north of the Downcast terminal in the town of Calais, Maine. If both

Downcast and the Calais projects become operational, impacts associated with construction and

operation of these facilities would be expected to increase. LNG vessel traffic could increase

5-1

20120614-0037 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 06/14/2012
from 60 vessels per year to 164 vessels per year. The exposure to noise and risk of potential

vessel strikes also commensurately increases with increased vessel traffic.

It is important to note that NOAA Fisheries has implemented several strategies to reduce the

impacts on whales and sea turtles caused by fisheries entanglement and vessel strikes. To reduce

the incidental capture of sea turtles in commercial fisheries, NOAA Fisheries has enacted

regulations to restrict certain U.S. commercial fishing gears (gillnets, longlines, pound nets, and

trawls) that have known, significant bycatch of sea turtles . As described in section 4.4. 1 of this

BA, NOAA Fisheries and other international organizations have designated critical habitats for

the North Atlantic right whale, removed vessel traffic from key whale habitats (traffic separation

schemes near the port of Boston and near Grand Manan), and implemented vessel speed

restrictions in seasonally managed areas. Together, these regulations act to reduce the

occurrence of fishery entanglements and whale-vessel or turtle-vessel interactions.

Sea turtles are susceptible to entanglement by and may ingest marine debris. In general, marine

debris generated from oceanic vessel activities is anticipated to continue to pose a threat to sea

turtles. However, there are measures required by international convention and in compliance

with MARPOL 73/78 to prohibit the disposal of garbage and other debris from vessels.

Exposure to pollutants and reductions of water quality may result from stormwater runoff

associated with construction of the onshore terminal facilities, ground disturbance associated

with construction of the pier, and contaminant spills/leaks from vessels transiting through the

action area. Construction of the marine terminal would result in temporary cumulative effects on

water quality primarily from turbidity. However, this impact would be localized and short term,

occurring only in the immediate vicinity of the terminal facilities, but may be additive to impacts

on water quality resulting from runoff from other onshore developments. During operation, the

increase in vessel activity in the waterway could have cumulative effects on water quality.

In the terrestrial environment, cumulative impacts may result from clearing, grading, and other

construction activities associated with the project, along with other area construction projects,

that could result in the removal of vegetation, alteration of wildlife habitat, displacement of

wildlife, and other secondary effects such as increased population stress, disruption of predatorprey relationships, forest fragmentation, and establishment of invasive plant species. The

construction of utility lines, transmission lines, roads, and residential and industrial sites, in

addition to past resource management activities (e.g.,

timber harvest) in the action area, has

already resulted in habitat fragmentation and is expected to remain constant or increase in the

foreseeable future.

Cumulative impacts such as noise and disturbance associated with pipeline construction would

depend on the timing of construction of other projects in the action area. However, because

pipeline construction progresses along the right-of-way, the chance that activities would overlap

with ongoing and future projects in the action area, and therefore result in cumulative impacts on

terrestrial resources, would be minimal.

5.2 SUMMARY OF EFFECTS DETERMINATIONS

The following findings of effect for federally listed species and their critical habitat are based on

information provided in sections 4.1, 4.2. 4.3, and 4.4 of this assessment, including the existing

'

Regulations implemented by htOAA Fisheries between 2002 and 2008 to protect sea turtles are listed at

htt://www nmfs noaa. ov/ r/s ecies/turtles/re ulaiions. htm.

5-2

20120614-0037 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 06/14/2012
conditions in the action area and species presence and habitat nse obtained from a literature

review and federal and state agencies and an analysis of the proposed action including avoidance

and minimization measures. Table 5-1 provides onr determinations of effect for listed species

and their designated critical habitat.

TABLE 5-1

Summary of Effects Determinations for Federally-listed Threatened or Endangered Species

Potentially Occurring near the Downcast LNG Project

Determination of Effects ai

Common Name

Atlantic Salmon

Atlantic sturgeon

Shortnose sturgeon

Leatherback sea turtle

North Atlantic right whale

Sei whale

Blue whale

Fin whale

Humpback whale

Sperm whale

Species

NLAA

NLAA

NLAA

NLAA

NLAA

NLAA

NLAA

NLAA

NLAA

NLAA

Critical

Habitat

NE

NE

NE

Justification

~ Low kkelihood of occurrence in waterway or near terminal.

~ Terminal design would include light reduction techniques to avoid

unnecessary light.

~ Downcast would prepare and implement its Plan, Procedures, and

Soil Erosion and Sediment Confro( Guidelines and SWPPP plans to

minimize water quality impacts.

No Critical Habitat would be crossed or affected b the Pro'ect.

~ Low anticipated abundance near the waterway and terminal

~ Lack of suitable s awnin habitat

~ Low anticipated abundance near the waterway and terminal

~ Lack of suitable s awnin habitat

~ Downcast would provide environmental training to crews to spot and

avoid sea turtles in the waterway and would implement Northern Right

whale detection and avoidance procedures that would also apply to

sea turtles

~ LNG vessels and construction vessels would be required to comply

with speed restrictions to avoid strikes

~ All vessels would keep SOPEP on board in case of spills; LNG

vessels would be equipped with cargo monitoring and safety/control

systems.

~ Downcast would employ an El dunng construction.

~ Downcast would train crews in waste disposal; implement an SWPPP

for operation of the terminal; and would design the terminal to include

safety and hazard detection systems to minimize water quality

impacts.

~ No Critical Habitat in the Pro'ect area.

~ The proposed project would result in increased noise, lighting, and

vessel traffic that may result in adverse impacts on these spence,

particularly sei, fin, North Atlantic, and humpback whales that may

occur near the LNG terminal and nearshore waters of the LNG

waterway for manna traffic.

~ Downcast would implement the mitigation measures of the Right

Whales Ship Stnke Reduction Strategy, which includes speed

reductions and minimum distance requirements, Downcast would

comply with IMO regulations to avoid whale stnkes.

~ All construction and operation crews would receive environmental

training regarding manna mammal sighting and reporting

~ Downcast is consulting with FWS and NCAA Fishenes to develop a

comprehensive Prevention and Mitigation Plan.

~ Downcast would train facility personnel in proper waste disposal

requirements.

~ Downcast would adopt a marine SPPC plan, all vessels would use

SOPEPs to minimize water quality impacts from acodental spills.

~ No Cntical Habitat for the North Atlantic right whale occurs in the

Pro'ect area.

ai Likely to Adversely Affect (LAA); Not Likely to Adversely Affect (NLAA), No Effect (NE)

5-3

20120614-0037 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 06/14/2012
6.0 REFERENCES

Andrew, J. M.

, and J. A. Mosher. 1982. Bald eagle nest site selection and nesting habitat in

Maryland. Journal of Wildlife Management 46: 382—390.

Atlantic Salmon Federation. 2007. Letter to FERC Secretary regarding the Motion to Leave to

Answer and Answer of the Downcast LNG, Inc. and Downcast pipeline, LLC.

15 February.

Atlantic Sturgeon Status Review Team. 2007. Status Review of Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser

oxyrinchus oxyrinchus). Report to National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Regional

Office. February 23, 2007. 174 pp.

Bailey, Robert. 1995.Description of the Ecoregions of the United States. 2nd ed. rev, and

Barbour, M.S. and J.A. Litvaitis. 1993.Niche dimensions of New England cottontails in relation

to habitat patch size. Oecologia 95: 321-327.

Barker, S. 2003. MEGRASS. POLYGON coverage that represents Maine's eelgrass meadows,

which form an important aquatic habitat for the state, suitable for mapping at I:24,000

scale. Maine Department of Marine Resources. & http: //megis. maine. gov/catalog/. Last

accessed 20 September 2008.

Baum, Ed. 1997. Maine Atlantic Salmon A National Treasure. Atlantic Salmon Unlimited.

Hermon, ME.

Baumgartner M. and B. Mate. 2003. Summer and fall habitat of North Atlantic right whales

(Eubalaena glacialis) inferred from satellite telemetry. Marine Ecology Progress Series,

264:155-166.

Baumgartner, M.F., T.V.N. Cole, P.J. Clapham, and B.R. Mate. 2003. North Atlantic right whale

habitat in the lower Bay of Fundy and on the SW Scotian Shelf during 1999-2001.

Marine Ecology Progress Series, 264:137-154.

Bednarz, J. C., D. Klem, Jr., L. J. Goodrich, and S. E. Senner. 1990.Migration counts of raptors

at Hawk Mountain, Pennsylvania, as indicators of population trends, 1934—1986. Auk

107: 96-109.

Brooks, D.A. 1992. Tides and Tidal Power in Passamaquoddy Bay: A Numerical Simulation.

Continental Shelf Research, 12:675-716.

Buehler, D. A. 2000. Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) in A. Poole and F. Gill, editors. The

Birds of North America, No. 506. The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA.

Buehler, D. A. , S. K. Chandler, T. J. Mersmann, J. D. Fraser, and J. K. D. Seegar. 1992a. Nonbreeding Bald Eagle perch habitat on the northern Chesapeake Bay. Wilson Bulletin 104:

540-545.

Buehler, D. A., T. J. Mersmann, J. D. Fraser, and J. K. D. Seegar. 1991a. Differences in

distribution of breeding, nonbreeding, and migrant Bald Eagles on the northern

Chesapeake Bay. Condor 93: 399-408.

6-1

20120614-0037 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 06/14/2012
Campbell, D,E. 2004. Evaluation and emergy analysis of the Cobscook Bay ecosystem.

Northeastern Naturalist I (Special Issue 2): 355-424.

Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans (CDFO). 1997. Canadian Commitment to right

whale protection increases. www. graysreef. noaa. gov/rtwh/rwfeb97. html. [Accessed

Online 22 April, 2007].

Canadian Whale Institute. 2008. Conservation Areas. Available online at [url] http: //

www. rightwhale. ca/conservationarea-zoneconservation e.php. Last accessed 20

September 2008.

Canton, E. L., B. R. McClelland, D. A. Patterson, and R. E. Yates. 1992. Characteristics of

foraging perches used by breeding Bald Eagles in Montana. Wilson Bulletin 104:

136-142.

Chandler, S. K., J. D. Fraser, D. A. Buehler, and J. K. D. Seegar. 1995.Perch trees and shoreline

development as predictors of Bald Eagle distribution on Chesapeake Bay. Journal of

Wildlife Management 59: 325—332.

Chang, S., P.L. Berrien, D.L. Johnson, and C.A. Zetlin. 1999b. Essential Fish Habitat Source

Document: Offshore Hake, Merluccius albidus, Life History and Habitat Characteristics.

NOAA Technical Memorandum NOAA Fisheries-NE Series, NOAA Technical

Memorandum NOAA Fisheries-NE-130. National Marine Fisheries Service, MA.

Chang, S., W.W. Morse, and P.L. Berrien. 1999a. Essential Fish Habitat Source Document:

White Hake, Urophycis tenuis, Life History and Habitat Characteristics. NOAA

Technical Memorandum NOAA Fisheries-NE Series. National Marine Fisheries Service,

MA.

Chester, D. N. , D. F. Stauffer, T. J. Smith, D. R. Luukkonen, and J. D. Fraser. 1990. Habitat use

by non-breeding bald eagles in North Carolina. Journal of Wildlife Management 54:

223-234.

Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and

Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service Publication

Number FWS/OBS-79/31.

Croll, D. A., B. R. Tershy, A. Acevedo, and P. Levin. 1999. Marine vertebrates and low

frequency sound. Technical Report for LFA EIS. Marine Mammal and Seabird Ecology

Group, Institute of Marine Sciences, University of California, Santa Cruz. CA.

Cupka, D. and M. Murphy. 2005. Humpback Whale (Megaptera novaeangliae). In: South

Carolina Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy 2005-2010 (Final). South

Carolina Department of Natural Resources, Columbia, South Carolina.

&http: //www. dnr. sc.gov/wcp/pdf/HumpbackWhale. pdf. Accessed June 29, 2006.

David, J.A. 2006. Likely sensitivity of bottlenose dolphins to pile-driving noise. Water and

Environment Journal, 20:(2006) 48—54. Print ISSN 1747-6585. Available online at [url]

http;//www. marineconnection. org/docs/Dolphins'lo20at'/o20Risk5o20-

'/o20pile'lo20driving. pdf. Last accessed on 20 September 2008.

6-2

20120614-0037 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 06/14/2012
Dube, N. 2006. Personal Communication. Phone conversation between Norman Dube, Maine

Atlantic Salmon Commission, and Chris Heinig, MER, Inc. June 2006.

Eckert, K.L. 1995. Leatherback sea turtle (Dermochelys coriacea). Pages 37-75 in Plotkin, P.T.

(editor). Status Reviews of Sea Turtles Listed under the U.S. Endangered Species Act of

1973. National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, Maryland. 139 pages.

Eckert, K.L. 2002. Distribution of juvenile leatherback sea turtle Dermochelys coriacea

sightings. Marine Ecology Progress Series 230:289-293.

Edds, P. L. 1988. Characteristics of finback Balaenoptera physa/us vocalizations in the

St. Lawrence Estuary. Bioacoustics, I:131-149.

Edds-Walton, P.L. 1997. Acoustic communication signals of mysticete whales. Bioacoustics,

8:47-60.

EMC (Earth Measurement Corporation). 2006. Downcast LNG Geophysical Investigation

Survey: Proposed Downcast LNG Facility, Robbinston, Maine —Bathymetric Map

(Water Depths), August 2005. Katy, TX.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1975. DDT, A Review of Scientific and Economic

Aspects of the Decision to Ban its Use as a Pesticide. Prepared for the Committee on

Appropriations of the U.S. House of Representatives. EPA-540/1-75-022. expanded

(1st ed. 1980). Miscellaneous Publication Number 1391 (rev. ), Washington, DC; USDA

Forest Service. 108 pp, with map.

Fay, C., M. Bartron, S. Craig, A. Hecht, J. Pruden, R. Saunders, T. Sheehan, and J. Trial. 2006.

Status Review for Anadromous Atlantic Salmon (Salmo salar) in the United States.

Report to the National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 294

pages.

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). 2006a. Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Downcast LNG project. Federal Energy

Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC. 13 March.

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). 2006b. Supplemental Notice of Intent to

prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for the Downcast LNG project and to

address would address Maritimes & Northeast pipeline LLC downstream expansion.

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC. December I,

Federal Register. 2000. Endangered and Threatened Species; Final Endangered Status for a

Distinct Population Segment of Anadromous Atlantic Salmon (Sa/mo sa/ar) in the Gulf

of Maine. Volume 65, Number 223, pages 69459-69483. November 17.

Federal Register. 2006. Endangered Fish and Wildlife; Proposed Rule to Implement Speed

Restrictions to Reduce the Threat of Ship Collisions with North Atlantic Right Whales.

Federal Register; 26 June, 2006a (Volume 71, Number 122). 50 CFR Part 224;

Department of Commerce: NOAA, pages 36299-36313.

Federal Register. 1997. Vol. 62, No. 244, December 19, 1997. Magnuson-Stevens Fishery

Conservation and Management Act (MSFCMA).

6-3

20120614-0037 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 06/14/2012
FERC (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission) 2005. Final Environmental Impact Statement

on the Liquefied Natural Gas Facility Upgrade & Natural Gas Pipeline Facilities

Proposed by KeySpan LNG, LP re KeySpan LNG Facility Upgrade Project (supercedes

20050520-4002) under CP04-223 et al. Issuance 20050520-4008, May 20, 2005.

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 Resource Report 3).

Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, Maryland. 104 pages.

Frankel, A.S., J. Mobley, and L. Herman. 1995. Estimation of auditory response thresholds in

humpback whales using biologically meaningful sounds. In: Sensory Systems of Aquatic

Mammals, Kastelein, R.A., J.A. Thomas, and P.E. Nachtigall (eds). De Spil Publ. ,

Woerden, The Netherlands.

Fraser, J. D., L. D. Frenzel, and J. E. Mathisen. 1985. The impact of human activities on

breeding Bald Eagles in north-central Minnesota. Journal of Wildlife Management 49:

585-592.

FWS. 2006c. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service species assessment and listing priority assignment

form. http: //ecos. fws. gov/docs/candforms~df/r5/A09B VO I.pdf

Gaboury, I., R. Gaboury, and S. Carr. 2007. Downcast LNG Import Terminal: Assessment of

Underwater Noise Impacts. Final Report to Downcast LNG (version 4.0). Jasco

Research, Ltd. , Halifax, NS. 46 pp.

Garrett, C. 1972. Tidal resonance in the Bay of Fundy and Gulf of Maine. Nature, 238:441-443.

Gawler, S.C. and A.R. Cutko. 2004. Natural Landscapes of Maine: A Classification of Vegetated

Natural Communities and Ecosystems. Maine Natural Areas Program, Department of

Conservation, Augusta, Maine. 349 pp

Glass AH, Cole TVN, Garron M, Merrick RL, Pace RM III. 2008. Mortality and serious injury

determinations for baleen whale stocks along the United States eastern seaboard and

adjacent Canadian Maritimes, 2002-2006. United States Department of Commerce,

Northeast Fisheries Science Center Reference Document 08-04; 18 p. Available online at

[url] http: //www. nefsc. noaa. gov/nefsc/publications/.

Goff, G.P, and J. Lien. 1988. Atlantic leatherback turtles, Dermochelys coriacea, in cold water

off Newfoundland and Labrador. Canadian Field Naturalist 102(1):1-5.

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.(As cited in Resource Report 3).

Gotceitas, V., S. Fraser, and J.A. Brown. 1997.Use of eelgrass beds (Zostera marina) by juvenile

Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences,

54:1306-1319.

6-4

20120614-0037 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 06/14/2012
Hain, J.H.W. (Ed.). 1992. North Atlantic Right Whale in The right whale in the western North

Atlantic: A science and management workshop, 14-15 April 1992, Silver Spring,

Maryland, Pages 5-7. National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA, Northeast Fisheries

Science Center, Woods Hole, Massachusetts. (http;//biology. usgs. gov/s+t/SNT/noframe/

mr183.htm. Accessed July 2, 2006.

Hansen, L., Holm, M., Hoist, J. and Jacobsen, J. 2003. The Ecology of Post-Smolts of Atlantic

Salmon, in Salmon at the Edge (ed D. Mills), Blackwell Science Ltd. , Oxford, UK. doi:

10.1002/9780470995495. ch4.

Hanson, K. 2001. Whale ship strike report. International right whale experts try to cover all

bases. In: Gulf of Maine Times, Vol 5, No 3.

Hastings, M.C. and A.N. Popper. 2005. Effects of Sound on Fish. California Department of

Transportation.

Herrick, F. H. 1924. Daily life ofthe American eagle: late phase. Auk 41: 389&22, 517—541.

IMO [International Maritime Organization]. 2002. Routing of Ships, Ship Reporting and Related

Matters: Amendment of the Traffic Separation Scheme in the Bay of Fundy and

Approaches. Prepared by the Sub-Committee on Safety of Navigation. NAV 48/3/5.

Available online at [url] http: //www. peer. org/docs/noaa/07 12 9 canadian navigation

plan. pdf. Last accessed on 20 September 2008.

IMO [International Maritime Organization]. 2007. Routing of Ships, Ship Reporting and Related

Matters: Area to be avoided "In Roseway Basin, South of Nova Scotia". Prepared by the

Sub-Committee on Safety of Navigation. NAV 53/3/13. Available online at [url]

http: //www. peer. org/docs/noaa/07 12 9 canadian navigation~lan. pdf. Last accessed

20 September 2008.

James, M.C., C.A. Ottensmeyer and R.A. Myers. 2005. Identification of high-use habitat and

threats to leatherback sea turtles in northern waters: new directions for conservation.

Ecology Letters 2005(8):195-201.

Jensen, A.S. and G.K. Silber. 2003. Large Whale Ship Strike Database. U.S. Department of

Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum. NMFS-OPR-, 37 pp.

Keith, C. 2006. Status of Fishery Resources off the Northeastern US: Atlantic wolffish. NEFSC

— Resource Evaluation and Assessment Division, National Marine Fisheries Service.

Available at URL http: //www. nefsc. noaa. gov/sos/spsyn/og/wolf'/. Last accessed March

18, 2009.

Kendall, W. C. 1935. The fishes of New England: the salmon family. Part 2 — the salmons.

Memoirs of the Boston Society of Natural History: monographs on the natural history of

New England. Vol. 9.(I). Boston, Massachusetts.

Ketten, D.R. 1997. Structure and function in whale ears. Bioacoustics, 8:103-135.

King, T. L., W. B. Schill, B. A. Lubinski, M. C. Smith, M. S. Eackles, and R. Coleman. 1999.

Microsatellite and mitochondrial DNA diversity in Atlantic salmon with emphasis on

small coastal drainages of the Downcast and Midcoast of Maine. USGS-BRD-Leetown

Science Center, Kearneysville, West Virginia.

6-5

20120614-0037 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 06/14/2012
Kocik, J. and T.F. Sheehan. 2002. tatus of Fishery Resources off the Northeastern US: Atlantic

Salmon. Resource Evaluation and Assessment Division, NOAA Fisheries Northeast

Fisheries Science Center. Available online at [url] hei://nefsc. noaa. gov/sos/spsyn/

af/salmon/. Last accessed 20 September 2008.

Kocik, J. F., K. F. Beland, and T. F. Sheehan. 1998. Atlantic salmon overwinter survival and

smolt production in the Narraguagus River. 0-99-NEC-1. Woods Hole, Massachusetts.

Kryter, K.D. 1985. The Effects of Noise on Man. Academic Press, Inc., Orlando, FL. 688 p.

Lacroix, G.L., Knox, D., and Stokesbury, M. J. W. 2004. Survival and behavior of post-smolt

Atlantic salmon in coastal habitat with extreme tides. Journal of Fish Biology (2005) 66,

485-498.

Laist, D.W., A.R. Knowlton, J.G. Mead, A.S. Collet and M. Podesta. 2001. Collisions between

ships and whales. Marine Mammal Science, 17(1):35-75.

Larsen, P.F. 2004. Introduction to ecosystem modeling in Cobscook Bay, Maine: a boreal

macrotidal; estuary. Northeastern naturalist 11:1-12.

Litvaitis, J.A. and B. Johnson. 2002. Distribution, status, and monitoring of New England

cottontails in Maine. Final report to Maine Dept. of Inland Fish. And Wildlife,

Department of Natural Resources, University of New Hampshire, Durham. 69pp.

Litvaitis, J.A., D.L.Verbyla and M.K. Litvaitis. 1991. A field method to differentiate New

England and eastern cottontails. Trans. Northeast. Sect. Wildl. Soc. 48: 11-14.

Loring, D.H., T.G. Milligan, D.E. Willis, and K.S. Saunders. 1998. Metallic and organic

contaminants in sediments of the St. Croix Estuary and Passamaquoddy Bay: Canadian

Technical Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 2245, Department of Fisheries and

Oceans, Dartmouth, NS.

Lotze, H, and I. Milewski. 2002. Two-hundred years of ecosystem and food web changes in the

Quoddy Region, outer Bay of Fundy. Conservation Council of New Brunswick.

Frederickton, New Brunswick, Canada.

Lough, R.G. 2004. Essential Fish Habitat Source Document: Atlantic Cod, Gadus morhua, Life

History and Habitat Characteristics. National Marine Fisheries Service, New Jersey.

Mahaney, W. 2006. Fish and Wildlife Biologist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Old Town,

Maine in email correspondence with S. Dunn, Environmental Project Manager, Federal

Energy Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. November 11.

Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (Maine DIFW). 2003. Shortnose sturgeon

(Acipenser brevirostrum). Maine's Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. http: //www.

maine. gov/ifw/wildlife/species/endangered species/shortnose sturgeon/index. htm.

Accessed June 2012.

Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (Maine DIFW). 2003a. Endangered Species

Program and Species Series. Leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea).

www. mefishwildlife. corn. Accessed July 22, 2006.

6-6

20120614-0037 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 06/14/2012
Malme, C.I., P.R. Miles, P. Tyack, C.W. Clark, and J.E. Bird. 1985. Investigation of the potential

effects of underwater noise from petroleum industry activities on feeding humpback

whale behavior. Report No. 5851, prepared by Bolt, Beranek and Newman Inc.,

Cambridge, USA, for U. S. Minerals Management Service, Alaska OCS Office,

Anchorage, AK.

Mann, K.H. 1973. Seaweeds: their productivity and strategy for growth. Science 182: 975-981.

Marine Mammal Commission (MMC). 1996. Annual Report of the Marine Mammal

Commission, calendar year 1996. Annual Report to Congress. NTIS PB96-157482.

Bethesda, Maryland. 235 pp.

Marine Mammal Commission (MMC). 2002. Annual Report for 2002: North Atlantic right

whale (Eubalaena glacialis). &http;//www. mmc. gov/species/pd/ar2002

northatlrightwhale. pdf. Accessed July 11, 2006.

Marine Mammal Commission (MMC). 2006. Annual Report of the Marine Mammal

Commission, calendar year 1996. Annual Report to Congress. NTIS PB96-157482.

Bethesda, Maryland. 235 pp

Marshall, H.G. and M.S. Cohn. 1982. Seasonal Phytoplankton Assemblages in Northeastern

Coastal Waters of the United States. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic

and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Fisheries

Center, Woods Hole, Massachusetts. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOAA FisheriesF/NEC-15.

McCollough, M. A. 1986. The post-fledging ecology and population dynamics of bald eagles in

Maine. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Maine, Orono, ME.

McCollough, M. A., C. S. Todd, and R. B. Owen, Jr. 1994. Supplemental feeding program for

wintering bald eagles in Maine. Wildlife Society Bulletin 22: 147—154.

McDonald, M.A. , J.A. Hildebrand, and S.C. Webb. 1995. Blue and fin whales observed on a

seafloor array in the northeast Pacific. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 98:712-721.

McGarigal, K., R. G. Anthony, and F. B. Isaacs. 1991.Interactions of humans and Bald Eagles

on the Columbia River estuary. Wildlife Monographs 115.

McMahon, J. S. 1990. The biophysical regions of Maine; patterns in the landscape and

vegetation. M.S. Thesis, University of Maine, Orono. 120 pp.

Meister, A. L. 1962. Atlantic salmon production in Cove Brook, Maine. Transactions of the

American Fisheries Society 91(2):208-212.

MDMR (Maine Department of Marine Resources). 2006. Landing statistics for 2004

MER. 2001a. Application for Net Pen Aquaculture in the State of Maine, Section C. Application

Information Requirements, 5. Baseline Field Survey, for Proposed Aquaculture Site,

Vicinity of Loring Cove, Saint Croix River, North Perry, Washington County, Maine.

Report prepared for NorWest Fish, '/o Jtirn Vad, 14 September 2001.

6-7

20120614-0037 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 06/14/2012
Millsap, B. A. 1986. Status of wintering bald eagles in the conterminous 48 states. Wildlife

Society Bulletin 14: 433—440.

National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS).

2005. Final Recovery Plan for the Gulf of Maine Distinct Population Segment (DPS) of

Atlantic salmon. National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, Maryland. November

2005.

National Marine Fisheries Service. 1998. Recovery Plan for the Shortnose Sturgeon (Acipenser

brevirostrum). Prepared by the Shortnose Sturgeon Recovery Team for the National

Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, Maryland. 104 pages.

National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries). 2001. Stock assessments of loggerhead

and leatherback sea turtles and an assessment of the impact ofthe pelagic longline fishery

on the loggerhead and leatherback sea turtles of the Western North Atlantic. U.S.

Department of Commerce NOAA Technical Memorandum NOAA FisheriesSEFSC-455,

343 pp. (Thompson, N.B., J.R. Schmid, S.P. Epperly, M.L. Snover, J. Braun-McNeill,

W.N. Witzell, W.G. Teas, L.A. Csuzdi, and R.A. Myers). &http: //www. sefsc.noaa. gov/

PDFdocs/4551eatherback2assessment. pdf. Accessed July 24, 2006.

National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries). 2005. Proactive Conservation ProgramAtlantic Salmon (Salmo salar). &htt://www. NOAA Fisheries. noaa. ov/ r/ dfs/s ecies/

atlantic salmon. df. Accessed June 25, 2006.

National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries). 2006. Response to the Federal Energy

Regulatory Commission's Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an Environmental Impact

Statement (EIS) for the Downcast LNG project. National Marine Fisheries Service,

Northeast Region, Gloucester, Massachusetts. 27 April.

National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries). 2006. Response to the Federal Energy

Regulatory Commission's Supplemental Notice of Intent to prepare an Environmental

Impact Statement for the Downcast LNG project. National Marine Fisheries Service,

Northeast Region, Gloucester, Massachusetts. 23 January.

National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries). 2009. Letter dated August 31, 2009 from

Mary Colligan, Assistant Regional Administrator for Protected Species, to Kimberly

Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries). 2011. Final Recovery Plan for the Sei

Whale (Balaenoprera borea/is). National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Protected

Resources, Silver Spring, MD.

National Marine Fisheries Service. 2012a. Maine Section 7 Guidance Map, available at

Shortnose sturgeon recovery program, available online. http: //www. nero. noaa. gov/

prot res/ sturgeon/. Accessed June 2012.

National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries). 2012b. Sperm Whale Species Profile.

National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Protected Resources, Silver Spring, MD.

6-8

20120614-0037 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 06/14/2012
NatureServe. 2011. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application].

Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http: //www. natureserve. org/

explorer. (Accessed: April 25, 2012).

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 1993. Stellwagen Bank

Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement —1993.

&http: //stellwagen. noaa. gov/management/1993plan/toc. html. Accessed October 10, 2005.

NAV/INF. 1998. Ship strikes of endangered northern right whales submitted by the United

States. Sub-Committee on Safety of Navigation, 44th Session, &www. NOAA

Fisheries. noaa. gov/pr/pdfs/shipstrike/imo shipstrikes. pdf7. Accessed June 27, 2006.

Nedwell, J., A. Turnpenny, J. Langworthy, and B. Edwards. 2003. Measurements of underwater

noise during piling at the Red Funnel Terminal, Southampton, and observations of its

effect on caged fish. Subacoustech Ltd. , Tech. Rep. 558 R0207.

Nelson M, Garron M, Merrick RL, Pace RM III, Cole TVN. 2007. Mortality and Serious Injury

determinations for baleen whale stocks along the United States eastern seaboard and

adjacent Canadian Maritimes, 2001-2005. United States Department of Commerce,

Northeast Fisheries Science Center Reference Document 07-05; 18 p. Available online at

[url] http: //www. nefsc. noaa. gov/nefsc/publications/.

Neptune LNG Deepwater Port. 2006. Draft Environmental Impact Statement.

NOAA Fisheries (National Marine Fisheries Service) and USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service). 2005a. Final Recovery Plan for the Gulf of Maine Distinct Population Segment

(DPS) of Atlantic salmon. National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, Maryland.

November 2005.

NOAA Fisheries (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2000. Taking and importing marine

mammals; Taking marine mammals incidental to Naval activities/Proposed rule. Fed.

Regist. 65(239 12 December): 77546-77553.

NOAA Fisheries (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2005b. Proactive Conservation ProgramAtlantic Salmon (Salmo salar). (htt://www. NOAA Fisheries. noaa. ov/ r/ dfs/s ecies/

tl t'

1 dfl. Accessed 24 March 2007.

NOAA Fisheries (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2007. Essential Fish Habitat designations

web page for the Passamaquoddy Bay 10 x 10 minute grid cell

(http: //www. nero. noaa. gov/bed/me9. htmlhttp://www. nero. noaa. gov/hcd/me 9.html).

Accessed 14 August 2007.

NOAA Fisheries [National Marine Fisheries Service] and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005.

Final Recovery Plan for the Gulf of Maine Distinct Population Segment of Atlantic

Salmon (Sa/mo salar). National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD.

NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2007a. Fisheries Service web page

www. nero. noaa. gov/ro/doc/salmon. pdf. Accessed 28 march 2007.

NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2007b. Fisheries Service web page

(Essential Fish Habitat Designations for New England Skate Complex).

(http: //www. nero. noaa. gov/hcd/skateefhmaps. htm). Accessed 24 March 2007.

6-9

20120614-0037 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 06/14/2012
NOAA Fisheries. 2007c. Species of Concern Factsheet: Atlantic Wolffish. Available at URL

htt://www. nmfs. noaa ov/ r/ dfs/s ecies/atlanticwolffish detailed df. Last accessed

March 18, 2009.

NOAA Fisheries. 2005. Recovery Plan for the North Atlantic Right Whale (Eubalaena

glacialis). National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD.

NOAA Fisheries. 2008x. Strategy to Reduce Ship Strikes to North Atlantic Right Whales.

Available online at [url] http: //www. nmfs. noaa. gov/pr/shipstrike/. Last accessed 20

September 2008.

NOAA Fisheries. 2008y. Mandatory Ship Reporting System for North Atlantic Right Whales.

Available online at [url] http: //www. nmfs. noaa. gov/pr/shipstrike/msr/. Last accessed 20

September 2008.

NOAA Fisheries. 2008z. Final Environmental Impact Statement To Implement Vessel

Operational Measures to Reduce Ship Strikes to North Atlantic Right Whales. National

Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Protected Resources. Silver Spring, Maryland.

Available online at [url] http: //www. nmfs. noaa. gov/pr/shipstrike/eis. htm. Last accessed

20 September, 2008.

NOAA Fisheries. 2011. Species Information: Atlantic Sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus).

Available at URL http: //www. nmfs. noaa. gov/pr/species/fish/atlanticsturgeon. htm. Last

accessed February 6, 2012.

NOAA Fisheries. [no date]. Office of Protected Resources, Informational Pages for Protected

Species. Available online at [url] http: //www. nmfs. noaa. gov/pr/species/. Last accessed

20 March, 2009.

NOAA Fisheries. 2010. Office of Protected Resources, Marine Mammal Stock Assessment

Reports (SARs) by Species/Stock. Available online at http: //www. nmfs. noaa. gov/pr/sars/

species. htm1largewhales. Last accessed 31 January, 2012.

North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission. 2006. Scientific Committee Report of the

Thirteenth Meeting, Reine Norway 25-27 October, 2005. In North Atlantic Marine

Mammal Commission Annual Report of the Fifteenth Meeting of the Council, Selfoss,

Iceland.

Northeast Data Poor Stocks Working Group. 2009. The Northeast Data Poor Stocks Working

Group Report, December 8-12, 2008 Meeting. Part A. Skate species complex, Deep sea

red crab, Atlantic wolfish, Scup, and Black sea bass. US Dept Commer, Northeast Fish

Sci Cent Ref Doc. 09-02; 496 p. Available at URL http: //www. nefsc. noaa. gov/nefsc/

publications/crd/crd0902/. Last accessed March 18, 2009.

OMG (Ocean Mapping Group). 2005. Passamaquoddy Bay Pockmarks. University of New

Brunswick, Canada website. http: //www. omg. unb. ca/Projects/PassamaquoddyBay/

Passamaquoddy Bay Pockmarks. html. Accessed 17 July 2006.

Patterson, B. and G.R. Hamilton. 1964. Repetitive 20 cycle per second biological hydroacoustic

signals at Bermuda. In: Marine bioacoustics, Tavolga, W.N. (ed). Pergamon Oxford, UK,

413 p.

6-10

20120614-0037 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 06/14/2012
Payne, R. and D. Webb. 1971. Orientation by means of long range acoustic signaling in baleen

whales. Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 188:0110-141.

Payne, R.S. 1970. Songs of the humpback whale. Catalog No. ST-620. Capital Records,

Hollywood, CA.

Pelczarski, J. 2003. Fatal interactions: right whales and ships. &http: //www. mass. gov/czm/

coastlines/2003. Accessed July I, 2006.

Pikanowski, R.A., W.W. Morse, P.L. Berrien, D.L. Johnson, and D.G. McMillan. 1999.

Essential Fish Habitat Source Document: Redfish, Sebastes spp. , Life History and Habitat

Characteristics. National Marine Fisheries Service, MA.

Probert, B.P. and J.A. Litvaitis. 1996. Behavioral interactions between invading and endemic

lagomorphs: implications for conserving a declining species. Biol. Cons. 76: 289-295

Provincetown Center for Coastal Studies (PCCS). 2006. Right Whales. &http: //www.

coastalstudies. org/what-we-do/right-whales/. Accessed July I, 2006.

Reeves, R.R., T.D. Smith, E.A. Josephson, P.J. Clapham, and G. Woolmer. 2005. Historical

observations of humpback and blue whales in the North Atlantic Ocean: clues to

migratory routes and possibly additional feeding grounds. Marine Mammal Science,

20(4):774-786.

Richardson, W. J., B. Wursig and C.R. Greene Jr. 1991.Reactions of bowhead whales, Balaena

mysticetus, to drilling and dredging noise in the Canadian Beaufort Sea. Mar. Envir. Res.

29(2):135-160.

Richardson, W.J., C.R. Greene Jr, C.I. Malme, and D.H. Thomson. 1995. Marine Mammals and

Noise. Academic Press, San Diego, USA. 576pp.

Richmond, A. M.

, and B. Kynard. 1995. Ontogenetic behavior of shortnose sturgeon. Copeia

1995:172-182.

Robinson, S.M.C., J.D. Martin, F.H. Page, and R. Losier. 1996. Temperature and Salinity

Characteristics of Passamaquoddy Bay and Approaches Between 1990 and 1995.

Canadian Technical Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 2139. Department of

Fisheries and Oceans, St. Andrews, NB.

Roman, C.T., N. Jaworski, F.T. Short, S. Findlay, and S. Warren. 2000. Estuaries of the

Northeastern United States: Habitat and Land Use Signatures. Estuaries, 23:743-764.

Saunders, R. L. 1981.Atlantic salmon (Salmo sa/ar) stocks and management implications in the

Canadian Atlantic Provinces and New England, USA. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and

Aquatic Sciences 38(12): 1612-1625.

Schempf, P. E. 1997. Bald Eagle longevity record from southeastern Alaska. Journal of Field

Ornithology 68: 150—151.

Schlundt, C.E., J.J. Finneran, D.A. Carder and S.H. Ridgway. 2000. Temporary shift in masked

hearing thresholds of bottlenose dolphins, Tursiops truncatus, and white whales,

6-11

20120614-0037 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 06/14/2012
Delphinapterus leucas, after exposure to intense tones. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 107:3496-

3508.

Sears, R., F. Wenzel and J. M. Williamson. 1987. The blue whale: a catalog of individuals from

the western North Atlantic (Gulf of St. Lawrence). Mingan Island Cetacean Study, St.

Lambert, Quebec, Canada, 27 pp.

Sebens, K.P. 1986. Community ecology of vertical walls in the Gulf of Maine, USA: small scale

processes and alternative community states. Pages 346-371 in P.G. Moore and R. Seed

(eds.). The Ecology of Rocky Coasts. Columbia University Press, New York

Seibel, D. 1991.Habitat selection, movement, and response to illumination of shortnose sturgeon

in the Connecticut River. M. A. thesis, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

Short, F.T. and C.A. Short. 2003. Chapter 20: The Seagrasses of the Western North Atlantic. In

World Atlas of Seagrasses. Univ. of Calif. Press, Berkley. 298pp. [Eds.] E.P Green and

F.T. Short.

Silber, G. K. 1986. The relationship of social vocalizations to surface behavior and aggression in

the Hawaiian humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae). Can. J. Zool. 64:2075-2080.

Singer, L.T. and L. Ludwig. 2005. Right whale foraging in the nearshore waters of the northern

Gulf of Maine. Final Report, Maine Foraging Workshop Proceedings Saco, Maine 15

April, 2005; Gulf of Maine Research Institute on behalf of the Maine Department of

Marine Resources.

Shepherd, G. 2006. Status of Fishery Resources off the Northeastern US: Atlantic and Shortnose

Sturgeon. NEFSC — Resource Evaluation and Assessment Division, National Marine

Fisheries Service. Available at URL http: //www. nefsc. noaa. gov/sos/spsyn/af/sturgeon/.

Last accessed March 18, 2009.

Smith, G. J. D., C. L. Jovellanos, and D. E. Gaskin. 1984. Near-surface bio-oceanographic

phenomena in the Quoddy Region, Bay of Fundy. Canadian Technical Report in

Fisheries and Aquatic Science, 1280: 1-124.

Spero, D. 1981. Vocalizations and associated behavior of northern right whales Eubalaena

glacialis. Abstracts of the Fourth Biennial Conference on the Biology of Marine

Mammals, San Francisco, CA, December 1981.

Steenhof, K., L. Bond, K. K. Bates, and L. L. Leppert. 2002. Trends in midwinter counts of bald

eagles in the contiguous United States, 1986-2000. Bird Populations 6: 21-32.

Stellwagen Bank (Gerry E. Studds-Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary). 2006.

Stellwagen Bank Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement-1993:

Part 2, Sec. 2B2e, Sanctuary Resources-Natural Resources-Sea Turtles. (http: //

stellwagen. noaa. gov/management/1993plan/toc. html. Accessed July 24, 2006.

Stevick, P.T., J. Allen, P.J. Clapham, N. Friday, S.K. Katona, F. Larsen, J. Lien, D.K. Mattila,

P.J. Palsboll, J. Sigurjonsson, T.D. Smith, N. Oien, and P.S. Hammond. 2003. North

Atlantic humpback whale abundance and rate of increase four decades after protection

from whaling. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 258:263-273.

6-12

20120614-0037 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 06/14/2012
Swenson, J. E., K. L. Alt, and R. L. Eng. 1986. Ecology of bald eagles in the greater

Yellowstone ecosystem. Wildlife Monographs 95.

Thompson T.J., H.E. Winn, and P.J. Perkins. 1979. Mysticete sounds. In: Behavior of Marine

Animals, Winn, H.E. and B.L. Olla (eds.), Vol. 3: Cetaceans. Plenum, NY. 438 p.

Thompson, P.O., L.T. Findley, and O. Vidal. 1992. 20-Hz pulses and other vocalizations of fin

whales, Balaenoptera physalus, in the Gulf of California, Mexico. J. Acoust. Soc. Am.

92:3051-3057.

Thompson, P.O., W.C. Cummings, and S.J. Ha. 1986. Sounds, source levels, and associated

behavior of humpback whales, southeast Alaska. Journal of the Acoustic Society of

America 80:735-740.

Thurman, H.V and H.H. Weber. 1984. Marine Biology. Charles E. Merrill Publishing Company,

A Bell & Howell Company, Columbus, Ohio. pp. 101-121.

Pentcheff, D. 2007. WWW Tide/Current Predictor. (2007). Biological Sciences, University of

South Carolina, Columbia SC 29208 USA. Available at URL http: //tbone. biol.sc.edu/

tide/tideshow. cgi. Accessed 20 March, 2007.

Tiner, R. W. 1994. Maine Wetlands and their Boundaries: a Guide for Code Enforcement

Officers. Maine Department of Economic and Community Development, Augusta,

Maine.

Todd, C. and A. Meehan. 2007. The Comeback of Bald Eagles in Maine. Website

&http: //www. maine. gov/ifw/wildlife/etweb/baldeagles/recovery. htm. Accessed April 17.

Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, Augusta, ME. April 17.

Tyack, P. and H. Whitehead. 1983. Male competition in large groups of wintering humpback

whales. Behaviour 83:132-154.

Tyack, P.L. 1999. Functional aspects of cetacean communication. In: Cetacean Societies: Field

Studies of Dolphins and Whales, Mann, J., R.C. Conner, P.L. Tyack, and H. Whitehead

(eds.). University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.

Tyler, A.V. 1971. Periodic and Resident Components in Communities of Atlantic Fishes. J Fish

Res Board Can, 28:935-946.

U.S. Atlantic Salmon Assessment Committee. 2010. Annual Report of the .S. Atlantic Salmon

Assessment Committee Report No. 23 —2010 Activities. http: //www. nefsc. noaa. gov/

USASAC/Reports/USASAC2011-Report'jo2323-2010-Activities. pdf.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2004. Bald Eagle Recovery Website &http: //www. fws.

gov/midwest/eagle/recovery/qandas. htm. Accessed 16 April 2007. February.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2006b. Draft Environmental Assessment Definition of

"Disturb" as applied under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management, Washington, D.C. December.

6-13

20120614-0037 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 06/14/2012
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2006a. Moosehorn National Wildlife Refuge, Refuge

profile page Website — http: //www. fws. gov/refuges/profiles/index. cfm?id=53530.

Accessed September 22, 2006. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2009. Letter dated September 24, 2009 from Lori

Nordstom, Field Supervisor, Maine Field Office, to Kimberly Bose, Secretary, Federal

Energy Regultory Commission.

U.S. Geological Survey. 2005. Midwinter bald eagle surveys Website &http: //srfs. wr. usgs. gov/

research/indivproj. asp? SRFSProj ID=2 Accessed 17 April 2007. November 4.

Villafuerte, R., J.A. Litvaitis and D.F. Smith. 1997. Physiological responses by lagomorphs to

resource limitations imposed by habitat fragmentation: implications for conditionsensitive predation. Can. J. Zool. 75: 148-151.

Ward, A.E. 1999.Maine's Coastal Wetlands. Vol. I and II. Maine Department of Environmental

Protection. Augusta, ME.

Ward, A.E. 1999. Maine's Coastal Wetlands: I. Types, distribution, Rankings, Functions, and

Values. DEPLW1999-13, Maine Department of Marine Resources. http: //www. maine.

gov/dep/blwq/vol 1pt4.pdf. Accessed 08 April, 2007.

Waring, G.T., E. Josephson, C.P Fairfield, and K. Maze-Foley (Eds). 2006. U.S. Atlantic and

Gulf of Mexico Marine Mammal Stock Assessments -2005. National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration Technical Memorandum NOAA Fisheries-NE-194. U.S.

Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National

Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Fisheries Science Center, Woods Hole,

Massachusetts. 334pp

Waring G.T, E. Josephson, C.P. Fairfield-Walsh, and K. Maze-Foley, (Eds). 2007. U.S. Atlantic

and Gulf of Mexico Marine Mammal Stock Assessments —2007. NOAA Technical

Memorandum NMFS NE 205; 415 p. Available online at [url] http: //www. nefsc. noaa.

gov/nefsc/publications/tm/tm205/12006. Last accessed 20 September, 2008.

Waring GT, Josephson E, Fairfield-Walsh CP, Maze-Foley K, (Eds). 2008. U.S. Atlantic and

Gulf of Mexico Marine Mammal Stock Assessments —2008 DRAFT. NOAA Tech

Memo NMFS NE. Available online at [url] http: //www. nmfs. noaa. gov/pr/

pdfs/sars/ao2008 draft-all. pdf. Last accessed March 20, 2009.

Waring GT, Josephson E, Maze-Foley K, and Rosel PE, editors. 2010. U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of

Mexico Marine Mammal Stock Assessments —2009. NOAA Tech Memo NOAA

Fisheries NE 213; 528 p.

Watkins, W.A. 1981.Activities and underwater sounds of fin whales. Sci Rep Whales Res Inst,

33:83-117.

Watkins, W.A. and W.E. Schevill. 1972. Sound source location by arrival-times on a non-rigid

three dimensional hydrophone array. Deep-Sea Res, 19:691-706.

Watkins, W.A., P. Tyack, K.E. Moore, and J.E. Bird. 1987. The 20 Hz signals of finback whales

(Balaenoptera physalus). J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 82(6);1901-1912.

6-14

20120614-0037 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 06/14/2012
Weinrich, M.T., R.D. Kenney, and P.K. Hamilton. 2000. Right whales (Eubalaena glacialis) on

Jeffreys Ledge: A habitat of unrecognized importance? Marine Mammal Science 16(2):

326-337.

Werth, A.J. 2004. Models of hydrodynamic flow in the bowhead whale filter feeding apparatus. J

Exp Biol, 207:3569-3580.

Winn, H.E, P.J. Perkins, and L. Winn. 1970. Sounds and behavior of the northern bottlenosed

whale. In: Proc. 7th Ann. Conf. Biol. Sonar & Diving Mamm. , Stanford Res. Inst. Menlo

Park, CA.

Wippelhauser, G.S. 1996. Ecology and Management of Maine's Eelgrass, Rockweed, and Kelps.

Maine Natural Areas Program, Dept. of Conservation, Augusta, ME. 73 pp.

Wood, P.B, T. C. Edwards, and M. W. Collopy. 1989. Characteristics of Bald Eagle nesting

habitat in Florida. Journal of Wildlife Management 53: 441—449.

Woodlot Alternatives, Inc. 2006a. Letter to National Marine Fisheries Service requesting

information Essential Fish Habitat on behalf of Downcast LNG, Inc. Woodlot

Alternative, Inc., Topsham, Maine. February 21.

Woodlot Alternatives, Inc. 2006b. Letter to US Fish and Wildlife Service to inform of the plan to

file an application with Federal Energy Regulatory Commission on behalf of Downcast

LNG, Inc. Woodlot Alternative, Inc. January 5.

Woodlot Alternatives, Inc. 2006c. Reconnaissance Level Marine Characterization for the

Downcast Liquid Natural Gas Facility Project, Robbinston, Maine. Prepared for

Downcast LNG, Inc. by Woodlot Alternatives, Inc., Topsham, Maine.

Woodlot Alternatives, Inc. 2006d. Downcast LNG Liquefied Natural Gas Send-Out pipeline in

Robbinston, Calais, Baring, Baileyville, and Princeton, Maine, Wetland Delineation and

Other Natural Resources Report. Prepared for Downcast LNG by Woodlot Alternatives,

Inc., Topsham, Maine. October.

Wynne, K.M. and M. Schwartz. 1999. Marine Mammals and Turtles of the U.S. Atlantic and

Gulf of Mexico. Rhode Island Sea Grant, Narragansett, Rhode Island. 114 pp.

Zydlewski, G.B., P. Dionne, and M. T. Kinnison. Unpublished. Investigation into the

distribution and abundance of shortnose sturgeon in the Penobscot River, Maine.

6-15

20120614-0037 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 06/14/2012
Attachment A

Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species Surveys

20120614-0037 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 06/14/2012
Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species

And Critical Habitat Survey

Robbinston, Maine

July 2005

Prepared for

Downcast LNG

PO Box 865

Calais, ME 04619

Prepared by

Woodlot Alternatives, Inc.

30 Park Drive

Topsharn, ME 04086

20120614-0037 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 06/14/2012
20120614-0037 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 06/14/2012
Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species and Critical Habitat Survey

Robbinston, Maine

Page i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 PROJECT BACKGROUND. .

2.0 METHODOLOGY

2. 1 Landscape Analysis ....

2.2 Field Survey. .

3.0 RESULTS

3.1 Landscape Analysis ..................................... .

3.2 Field Survey. .

4.0 RARE, THREATENED, AND ENDANGERED SPECIES ASSESSMENT. ....

5.0 SUMMARY.

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure l. Approximate Locations of Wetlands on the Downcast LNG ParceL South Robbinstion, Maine.

LIST OF PHOTOS

Photo 1. Shoreline outcrops

Photo 2. Upland soil vs. hydric soil

Photo 3. Northern White Cedar Swamp

Photo 4. Clearcut upland Spruce-Fir Forest

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A: Species List for Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species Survey

Appendix B: Site soil survey map

105111.01

20120614-0037 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 06/14/2012
20120614-0037 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 06/14/2012
Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species and Critical Habitat Survey

Robbinston, Maine

Page I

1.0 PROJECT BACKGROUND

Downcast LNG contracted Woodlot Alternatives, Inc. (Woodlot) to conduct an on-site reconnaissance for

state and federally listed rare, threatened, and endangered (RTE) species and critical habitats in advance

of the construction of a liquid natural gas (LNG) facility. The project site of approximately 80 acres is

located adjacent to U.S. Route I and Mill Cove at the mouth of the St. Croix River in Robbinston, ME.

The parcel was the site of an old farm and pastures until the 1960s. The parcel has since been managed

for timber harvesting with the last harvest occurring approximately 10 years ago (Joseph Krug, retired

forester, personal communication). The parcel is bisected by numerous skidder trails through

regenerating timber stands. Correspondence with Downcast LNG indicates that they are proposing to

clear approximately 30 acres in the southern half of the parcel for the installation of a LNG facility and

pipeline.

2.0 METHODOLOGY

Determining the likelihood of the presence of RTE species and critical habitat employed gathering

information from regulatory agencies, performing a landscape analysis, and conducting a field survey for

the presence of ecological conditions with the likelihood to support these species (i.e., existence of proper

ecological conditions and proper conductivity to areas that would support populations of RTE species or

their habitats). Some specific sampling measures were also conducted during the site visit to target

specific RTE species.

2.1 Landscape Analysis

Woodlot performed a landscape analysis by reviewing existing maps, aerial photos, bedrock geology and

soil maps, and National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) data to identify areas likely to support RTE species

and critical habitats (i.e., wetlands, shoreline outcrops, and intertidal habitat).

2.2 Field Survey

The field survey was conducted July 12 through July 15, 2005. The survey focused on identifying

particular natural communities and ecological conditions in which RTE species would likely occur and,

when possible, to conduct specific field investigations for target species that could be observed. These

targeted searches included observations of individual species, signs of RTE wildlife, and observations of

ecological conditions known to perpetuate communities of these species. Species known to occur in

similar ecological settings as those found at the project site include Wiegand's sedge (Carex wiegandir),

blinks (Montia fontana), bird' s-eye primrose (Primula laurentiana), marsh-felwort (Lomatogonium

rotatum), and bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus).

3.0 RESULTS

3.1 Landscape Analysis

The landscape analysis indicated a moderate likelihood for state and federally listed RTE species to occur

at the site. While most of the upland portions of the parcel have been harvested in the past, the wetland

mapped by the NWI in the northern portion of the parcel and the shoreline appeared to be relatively

undisturbed and intact. A palustrine scrub-shrub wetland is located in the northern portion ofthe property.

Based upon initial analysis of aerial photography, this wetland likely extends to the northern shoreline as

well as to the south for 500 to 1,000 feet. Wiegand's sedge occurs in similar wetland habitats throughout

northern and eastern Maine. It was determined that the shoreline was likely steep and rocky and could

support RTE plant species, including blinks, bird's —eye primrose, and marsh-felwort if proper conditions

20120614-0037 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 06/14/2012
Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species and Critical Habitat Survey

Robbinston, Maine

Page 2

(i.e., seepy ledges) are present. Bald eagles are known to nest in large trees along major rivers in coastal

Maine. The aerial photos did not indicate the presence of emergent marshes (i.e., salt marshes) in the

project area. The portions of the parcel that have been harvested appeared to be primarily Spruce-FirBmom-moss Forest or possibly Maritime Spruce-Fir Forest. These community types are not known to

harbor RTE plant or animal species in eastern Maine.

The surficial geology of the project area is composed of unstratified and unconsolidated glacial till. The

bedrock is Devonian metasedimentary overlain by glacial till. Soils consist primarily of two types: the

Creasey-Abram complex (363XC) and the Lamoine-Creasey-Scantic complex (330XB). The LamoineCreasey-Scantic complex is somewhat poorly drained to poorly drained soil composed of glaciomarine

deposits and glacial till parent materials. This soil complex is typically associated with terraces, basins,

and plains in Maine. Scantic soils are hydric. The Creasey-Abram complex is somewhat excessively

drained to excessively drained soil composed of glacial till parent material. This soil complex is

associated with ridges and knolls.

Based on the landscape analysis, it was determined that the field survey would focus primarily on the

wetland complex and the shoreline. In addition to surveying these areas, a walkthrough of the entire

project area would be performed to ensure that small-microhabitats for RTE species were not overlooked.

3.2 Field Survey

The shoreline and previously identified scrub-shrub wetland was surveyed for RTE species. The shoreline

is composed of sparsely vegetated, steep outcrops. The rock is soft and brittle with conglomerates of

small stones. The tops of the cliffs are densely vegetated with speckled alder (Ainus incana ssp. rugosa),

paper birch (Betula papyrifera), balsam fir (Abies balsamea), orange hawkweed (Hieractum

aurantiacum), and fescue grass (Pestuca sp.). Halophytes such as black grass (Juncus gerardii) and

American dunegrass (Leymus mollis) were sparsely scattered along the base of the outcrops in small

coves. Several seepy and shaded areas were found along the shoreline; however, no RTE plant species

were found in these areas. Vegetation found on these outcrops was sparse and included narrow false oats

(Trisetum spicatum), fescue grass, fragile fern (Cystopteris tenuis), and rock polypody (Polypodium

virgi nianum).

Photograph I:Shoreline outcrops

20120614-0037 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 06/14/2012
Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species and Critical Habitat Survey

Robbinston, Maine

Page 3

The previously mapped NWI wetland is classified as an Alder Shrub Thicket. Speckled alder is dense

throughout the wetland, covering approximately 80% of the wetland. Red maple (Acer rubrum) is also

common throughout the wetland. The herbaceous stratum is dense with tall meadow-rue (Thalictrum

pubescens), purple avens (Geum rivals), fowl mannagrass (Glyceria striata), dwarf raspberry (Rubus

pubescens), and meadowsweet (Spiraea alba var. latifolia). A small stream, fed by a culvert from under

U.S. Route I, meanders northerly through the wetland and drains into Mill Cove at the northern edge of

the project area.

The wetland transitions to the south into a Northern White Cedar Swamp (ca. 10 to 12 acres larger than

the wetland mapped by NWI). This wetland had not been mapped by NWI and had been heavily

harvested in the past. The wetland is bisected by numerous skidder trails, which have subsequently

become emergent wetlands. Hydrophytic vegetation is abundant in the skidder trails and includes sedges

such as Carex stipata, C. crinita, C. proj ecta, C. lurida, C. lupulina, C. echinata, C. canescens, and C.

flava. Other hydrophytes include fowl mannagrass, bluejoint (Calamagrostis canadensis), sensitive fern

(Onoclea sensibilis), black-girdled wool-tpuss (Scirpus atrocintus), woodland horsetail (Equisetum

sylvaticum), dwarf raspberry, Clayton's bedstraw (Galium tinctorium), New England Aster

(Symphyotrtchum novae-angliae), crested wood fern (Dryopteris cristata), evergreen wood fern

(Dryopteris intermedia), the hybrid wood fern (Dryopteris x bootii), and peat moss (Sphagnum sp.). The

wooded portion ofthe wetland is dominated by northern white cedar (Thuj a occidentalis) and balsam fir.

Understory plants in the wooded portion consist of three-seeded sedge (Carer trisperma), woodland

horsetail (Equisetum sylvaticum), fowl mannagrass, crested wood fern, and evergreen wood fern. Many

saturated depressions are found throughout the wetland. The wetland continues southeasterly in a narrow

depression (approximately 200 feet wide on average) to the southern portion of the parcel. Soils

throughout the wetland are somewhat poorly drained hydric soils with abundant redoximorphic (i.e.,

mottling) features within the upper 16 inches of soil. Soil color in the upper 8 inches of soil is 7.5YR 5/I

with a few deletions of 7/10B/1. The B-horizon (8 to 16")is gleyed with a color of 8/5B/I and with

concentrations of 2.5YR 6/3. Upland forest surrounds the wetland on the east, west, southeast, and

southwest edges. The approximate location ofthe wetlands on the site are represented in Figure l.

20120614-0037 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 06/14/2012
20120614-0037 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 06/14/2012
Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species and Critical Habitat Survey

Robbinston, Maine

Page 5

Photograph 2: Upland soil (left) vs. hydric soil (right)t note mottling in hydric soil

Two other small wetlands were identified in the southwest portion ofthe parcel. One wetland consists of a

small stream apparently fed by a culvert running under U.S. Rt. 1. The other is a small depression

adjacent to the road with abundant amounts of sensitive fern and speckled alder.

Upland habitats had been heavily harvested within the past 15 years. Remnants of Spruce-Fir-Broommoss and Maritime Spruce-Fir forests were found in the parcel. Tree regeneration in these areas is dense

with balsam fir, red spruce (Picea rubens), white spruce (Picea glauca), quaking aspen (Populus

tremuloides), and gray birch (Betula populifolia). Shrubs include red raspberry (Rubus idaeus),

meadowsweet, and Virginia rose (Rosa virginiana). Herbaceous plants include bunchberry (Comus

canadensis), poverty oatgrass (Danthonia spicata), velvet-leaf blueberry (Vaccinium myrtilloides), and

flat-topped white aster (Doellingeria umbellata). Tree heights range from 45 to 65 feet with diameters of

12 to 18 inches for the largest trees. Soils ar well-drained, sandy-loams. The upper 10 inches of soil have

a color of 2.5YR 6/2 without redoximorphic features. The B-horizon (10 to 18")have a color of 7.5YR

5/4 without redoximorphic features. No RTE species or ecological conditions likely to support RTE

species were observed during field observations in these areas.

20120614-0037 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 06/14/2012
Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species and Critical Habitat Survey

Robbinston, Maine

Page 6

Photograph 3:Northern Iphite Cedar Swamp

Photo 4: Clearcut upland Spruce-Fir Forest

Past agricultural use is evident in the northern half of the parcel. Evidence includes apple trees (Malus

sp.), clearings, an old fencerow, trash middens, two abandoned cars, and old chicken wire fencing. It is

estimated that approximately 90% of the project area has been disturbed in the past by forestry and

agricultuial activities.

4.0 RARE, THREATENED, AND ENDANGERED SPECIES ASSESSMENT

No RTE species were found in the project area. The project area has been heavily disturbed in the past. It

is unknown if RTE species once existed prior to the disturbance at the project area. Wiegand's sedge is

20120614-0037 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 06/14/2012
Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species and Critical Habitat Survey

Robbinston, Maine

Page 7

known to occur along old, saturated skidder trails; however, no plants were found and it is unlikely this

species occurs at the project site. RTE plant species are oiten associated with Northern White Cedar

Swamps in Maine due to higher pH levels. However, the high degree of disturbance and the lack of

indicator plant species suggest that RTE plant species likely do not occur in this wetland complex.

Significant wildlife habitat (e.g., deer wintering areas, vernal pools, eelgrass beds, or shore bird nesting

habitat such as sand dunes and salt marshes) were not found to occur at the project site. Two wood fmgs

(Rana sylvarica), which are typically associated with vernal pool for breeding, were observed at the

project site. However, there was no other evidence to suggest that vernal pools exist at the project site.

Bald eagles are associated with large water bodies. They utilize tall trees in close proximity to water for

nesting and roosting. Eagle nests were not observed at the project site. It is unlikely that RTE species

exist at the pmject site due to the high degree of disturbance and the lack offield observations.

5.0 SUMMARY

Woodlot has determined that RTE species and critical habitat do not occur on the parcel of land that

Downcast LNG has allotted for the establishment of a LNG facility in Robbinston, ME. Wetland habitats

were found to be greater in extent than what was previously known from NWI data. The majority of the

land has been disturbed thmugh agricultural use and timber harvesting operations.

20120614-0037 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 06/14/2012
Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species and Critical Habitat Survey

Robbinston, Maine

Appendix A

Species Observed During Field Visits

20120614-0037 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 06/14/2012
Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species and Critical Habitat Survey

Robbinston, Maine

Table 1. Species Observed During Field Visits

Species

Vascular Plants

bias balsamea

cer rubtum

lnus incana ss . ru osa

etula alle haniensis

etula a ri era

elula o uli olia

Calama ostis canadensis

Carex canescens

Carer crini ta

Carex debilis

Carex echinala

Carer ava

Carex intumescens

Carex le talea

Carex lurido

Carex merri tl- ernaldii

Carex ro'cela

Carexsco aria var. sco aria

Carexsti ata

Carex tenera

Carer tris erma

Comus canadensis

C sto teris tenuis

anthonia s icata

oellin eria umbellata

o teris crislata

o teris intermedio

o teris x bootii

leocharis s . immature

uisetum sylvattcum

esntca s .

Fraxinus americana

Galium tinctorium

Geum rivale

Gl ceria canadensis

Gl ceria striata

ieracium aurantiacum

ieracium caes itosum

lex verticillata

uncus e sus

uncus erardii

uncus reenei

uncus tenuis

Common Name

balsam fir

red ma le

s eckled alder

ellow birch

white birch

a birch

blue oint

silve sed e

droo in sed e

white-ed edsed e

star sed e

ased e

a sad e

ristle-stalked sed e

sallow sed e

Fernald's sed e

necklace sed e

ointed broom sed e

awl-Suited sed e

ased e

three-seeded sed e

bunchbe

slender tra ile fern

ve oat ss

flat-to white aster

crested wood fern

ever een wood fern

a h brid wood fern

A s ikerush

woodland horsetail

unidentified fescue ress

American ash

Cla on's bedstraw

le avens

rattlesnake manna ass

fowl manna ress

oran e hawkweed

ellow kin devil

winterbe

sofl rush

black rush

Greene's rush

ath rush

20120614-0037 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 06/14/2012
Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species and Critical Habitat Survey

Robbinston, Maine

Species

almia an sti alia

arix laricina

mus mollis

Maianthemum canadense

Malus s .

Onoclea sensibilis

Osmunda cl toniana

Picea lauca

icea rubens

i d~i

Po ulus tremuloides

Potentilla~sim lex

Prunus serotina

Prunus vi iniana

Ranunculus re ens

Rosa vir iniana

Rubus idaeus

Rubus ubescens

Salix bebbiana

Salix discolor

Sci s atrocinctus

Solida o cf i antea

S iraea alba var. lati olia

S iraea tomentosa

S m h otrichum novae-an liae

S m h otrichum s ve etative)

Thalictrum ubescens

Thu'a occidentalis

Trientalis borealis

Trisetum s icatum

Vaccinium m rtilloides

Veronica o icinalis

Viburnum nudum

Viburnum trilobum

Common Name

she laurel

tamarack

American dune s

Canada ma flower

a le

sensitive fern

interru ted fern

white s ruce

black s ruce

rock 1 od

uakin as en

old-field cin uefoil

black che

choke ch

cree in buttercu

Vir inia rose

red ras be

dwarf ras be

Bebb's willow

uss willow

black- irdled wool- ress

smooth oldenrod

meadowsweet

stee lebush

New En land aster

unidentified aster

tall meadow-rue

northern white cedar

starflower

narrow false oats

velvet-leaf bluebe

common s eedwell

wild raisin

cranbe bush viburnum

Birds

Catharus scescens

Catharus ttatus

Corvus brach rh nchos

Corvus corax

endroica sca

endroica ens Ivanica

endroica virens

Geothl is trichas

arus ar entatus

Mni otilta vari a

vee

hermit thrush

American crow

common raven

Blackburnian warbler

chestnut-sided warbler

black throated een warbler

common ellowthroat

herrin 11

black-and-white warbler

20120614-0037 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 06/14/2012
Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species and Critical Habitat Survey

Robbinston, Maine

Species

Phalacrocorax auri tus

Sitta caroli nensis

Turdus mi atorius

Zonotnchia albicollis

Common Name

cormorant

white-breasted nuthatch

American robin

hite-throated s arrow

Am hibians

u o americanus

Rang s Ivatica

American toad

wood fro

Mammals

lees alces

Odocoileus vir inianus

S Ivila s oridanus

Tamiasciurus hudsonicus

oose

white-tailed deer

eastern cottontail

red s uirrel

20120614-0037 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 06/14/2012
Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species and Critical Habitat Survey

Robbinston, Maine

Appendix B

Site Soil Survey Map

20120614-0037 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 06/14/2012
Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species and Critical Habitat Survey

Robbinston, Maine

20120614-0037 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 06/14/2012
Attachment B

Summary of Stream Habitat Analyses along the Sendout Pipeline

20120614-0037 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 06/14/2012
SCD

Vl

o I

N

N

o o

CI 8

Cn C

N

N

C

$8 Cl

NCV

O Ct o o Cl

e 8

L

OO 7 N

CO DV

D aCV

Cl

Oeic'. C

IO

o o N CV

Ol

C

Ol a

K

0

D

C

Ol

EO

Ol

Ol

Z

0

IO

IAI

Ol

IO

IO

Sl

IOZ

E

N

Ol

E

E

0)

C

N

C4'

Cl

a o

o. E

E .8

ZO I

COO VI)O

o.

CV o

a o

CV C

Z Z Z

D a O

O D CV N

a D

C

Z Z ) Z

8 8

a D Io o

D to Fl 8

O

I I

) ) ) Z Z

Z Z

) Z

o c

a R. O

'oCl

LO

o c

8 E

4l6 Cl

o ESo

C

Io Io

4l 'o 4

E

Z o' c 'o

CC

I I IL' CL O

4l 'E 4I 4

C Cl IL C

o o

I

a

I

Cl N

Cl

C

E CC' E

E

c

CO COZ

g

'o

E I-OI C o

C C Q

E

E

CO

E

C

K

g

IL

I

C

I

oo

E

c

E E

CO CO

FC I

E E

C C

C )

E

E

CO

OI

D

E E

CO CO

E

44 'o

E E

tt Cl LC

E

I E

CO Cl

E o

Zo0

OI

E E

E I

4 ttC

L )

20120614-0037 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 06/14/2012
20120614-0037 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 06/14/2012