ES-1 Executive Summary

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

INTRODUCTION

The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) has prepared 

this final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Downeast LNG Project (project) to 

fulfill the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Commission’s 

implementing regulations under Title 18 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 380. The 

purpose of this document is: to inform the public and the permitting agencies about the potential 

environmental impacts of the proposed project, including the use of the marine transit route for 

liquefied natural gas (LNG) vessels; identify and discuss project alternatives; and recommend 

mitigation measures that would avoid or reduce adverse impacts to the maximum extent 

practicable. The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT); U.S. Coast Guard (Coast Guard); 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE); National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries); U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA); and the Maine Department of Environmental Protection (Maine DEP) have acted as 

cooperating agencies in the development of this final EIS.

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

onshore LNG import and interstate natural gas transmission facilities. The DOT is serving as a 

subject matter expert on its federal safety standards in 49 CFR 193, and is assisting FERC staff 

in evaluating whether the proposed project design would meet the DOT requirements. The Coast 

Guard is serving as a subject matter expert for, and providing recommendations on, the maritime 

safety and security aspects of the project. The Coast Guard is responsible for assessing the 

suitability of the waterway and issuing a Letter of Recommendation (LOR). The LOR is 

considered by FERC, as the siting authority, to assist with its decision concerning approval of the 

project.

PROJECT BACKGROUND

On January 5, 2006, we1 approved a request by Downeast LNG, Inc. to use the Commission’s 

pre-filing review process in order to identify and address project-related issues prior to the filing 

of an application with the Commission. On December 22, 2006, Downeast LNG, Inc. and 

Downeast Pipeline, LLC (hereafter collectively referred to as Downeast) filed an application 

with the FERC under Section 3(a) and Section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act to construct, operate, 

and maintain an LNG import facility, associated sendout pipeline, and various ancillary facilities. 

On January 16, 2008, Downeast filed an amendment to its Section 7(c) application to modify the 

proposed pipeline route and avoid crossing the Moosehorn National Wildlife Refuge, owned and 

managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). We have prepared our analysis based on 

Downeast’s application and subsequent filings that included filings to address DOT’s 

clarifications on its safety standards between the draft and final EIS.

 1

 “We,” “us,” and “our” refer to the environmental staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s Office of 

Energy Projects.
Executive Summary ES-2

PROPOSED ACTION

In Docket No. CP07-52-000, Downeast proposes to import, store, and vaporize LNG, and 

sendout natural gas on average about 500 million cubic feet per day (MMcfd) with peak 

deliveries of 625 MMcfd at a terminal facility on the south side of Mill Cove in the Town of 

Robbinston, Washington County, Maine. The LNG terminal would be located on an 80-acre 

parcel, near the confluence of Passamaquoddy Bay and the St. Croix River. Downeast requests 

Commission authorization to construct and operate the following facilities:

• a new marine terminal that would include a 3,862-foot-long pier with a single berth; 

• two full-containment LNG storage tanks, each with a nominal usable storage capacity of 

160,000 cubic meters; 

• LNG vaporization and processing equipment; and

• various ancillary facilities and buildings.

In Docket Nos. CP07-53-000 and CP07-53-001, Downeast requests Commission authorization to 

construct and operate natural gas sendout pipeline facilities that consist of:

• a 29.8-mile-long, 30-inch-diameter natural gas pipeline;

• natural gas metering facilities located at the LNG terminal site; 

• pig launching and receiving facilities; and 

• three mainline block valves.

The proposed sendout pipeline would transport natural gas from the LNG terminal to an 

interconnect point with Maritimes and Northeast Pipeline L.L.C. (M&NE) near the town of 

Baileyville, Maine. 

In our draft EIS, the sections on each resource area contained a discussion of the potential impact 

of an LNG spill, ignited or unignited, occurring along the waterway for LNG marine traffic to 

assist the Coast Guard in fulfilling its NEPA obligations related to the issuance of the LOR. 

Since issuance of the draft EIS, the Coast Guard has determined that the LOR is not a federal 

action and that the agency has no NEPA obligations which need to be addressed by the FERC 

EIS. As a result, we have removed the discussion on environmental resources that may be 

present in the Coast Guard’s Zones of Concern. The discussion regarding the Zones of Concern 

considered by the Coast Guard in its determination on the type and frequency of LNG marine 

traffic associated with this proposed project is in the Safety and Reliability section 4.12.7. 

PUBLIC OUTREACH AND COMMENTS

On March 13, 2006, the FERC issued a Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact 

Statement for the Downeast LNG Project, Request for Comments on Environmental Issues, and 

Notice of a Joint Public Meeting (NOI) that briefly described the project; the EIS process; 

explained the FERC and Coast Guard’s coordinated reviews; and invited public comments on the 

environmental issues to be addressed in the EIS. Subsequent to this initial NOI, FERC issued the 

following Supplemental NOIs:
ES Executive Summary -3

• September 18, 2006, to describe two additional natural gas sendout pipeline routes that 

had been identified since the initial NOI and to request comments on the new preferred 

route; 

• December 1, 2006, to describe potential M&NE downstream expansion facilities; and

• February 13, 2008, to describe the modification of the proposed natural gas sendout

pipeline route to avoid crossing the Moosehorn National Wildlife Refuge, and request 

comments on the amended pipeline route. 

The notices were published in the Federal Register and sent to affected landowners; federal, 

state, and local government agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; 

Native American tribes; local libraries and newspapers; and other interested parties on our 

environmental mailing list. 

On March 28, 2006, the FERC and the Coast Guard conducted a joint public scoping meeting in 

Robbinston, Maine to provide an opportunity for the public to learn more about the proposed 

project and provide comments and concerns. On March 28, 2006, the FERC also conducted a 

public site visit of Downeast’s LNG terminal site and the proposed pipeline route.

In response to our notices and public meetings, we received numerous comments expressing 

concerns for safety; alternatives; purpose and need; wildlife habitat; threatened and endangered 

species; tourism; commercial fishing; United States-Canadian economic relations; and property 

values in proximity to the project facilities. Additional issues were identified through 

communications between Canadian governmental officials and the FERC. The Canadian 

government’s concerns include navigational challenges of the proposed transit route; safety and 

security zones associated with LNG tankers; and the impacts of accidents such as spills from the 

terminal facilities or LNG vessels. The Canadian government’s concerns are addressed in this 

EIS and the Coast Guard’s Waterway Suitability Report (WSR).

On May 15, 2009, the FERC issued a draft EIS for the project that was mailed to all parties on 

our environmental mailing list. The draft EIS was also submitted to the EPA for issuing its 

formal public Notice of Availability (NOA) in the Federal Register. The public had 45 days 

after the date of EPA’s notice to review and comment on the draft EIS, ending on July 6, 2009. 

The FERC held one public comment meeting on the draft EIS on June 16, 2009, in Robbinston, 

Maine. The meeting provided interested parties with an opportunity to present oral comments on 

the analysis of the environmental impacts of the proposed project as described in the draft EIS. 

Additionally, written letters were received by FERC in response to the draft EIS. All 

environmental comments on the draft EIS have been addressed in this final EIS.

On March 28, 2013, the FERC issued a Supplemental draft EIS for the project, which was 

mailed to the agencies, individuals, and organizations on our environmental mailing list, and was 

filed with the EPA for issuance of a formal NOA in the Federal Register. The scope of the 

Supplemental draft EIS was limited to a revised reliability and safety analysis of the LNG 

terminal and carrier transit, to address DOT clarifications on its safety standards in 49 CFR 193. 

The public had 45 days after the EPA’s notice to review and comment on the Supplemental draft 

EIS, ending on May 20, 2013. Written letters were received in response to the Supplemental 

draft EIS, and these comments have been addressed in this final EIS. 
Executive Summary ES-4

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATIONS

We evaluated the impacts of the project, as reduced by Downeast’s proposed mitigation 

measures, on geology, soils, water resources, vegetation, wildlife, fisheries, special status 

species, land use, visual resources, socioeconomics, cultural resources, air quality, noise, and 

safety. We also considered the cumulative impacts of this project with other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable actions in the project area and potential alternatives to the proposed 

action. Where necessary, we have recommended additional mitigation measures to minimize or 

avoid these impacts. Section 5.2 of this EIS contains a compilation of recommendations.

The major issues identified in our analysis are potential impacts on waterbodies and wetlands; 

sensitive wildlife habitats and fisheries; listed endangered and threatened species; residences; 

visual resources; commercial and recreational marine vessel activity; cultural resources; air and 

noise impacts; and safety.

The proposed sendout pipeline would cross 22 surface waterbodies; Downest would cross the 

majority of these waterbodies using conventional backhoe-type equipment and dry-ditch 

techniques. Downeast would use horizontal directional drill (HDD) techniques at selected rivers 

including those with riffle pool habitats, the St. Croix River, and the Magurrewock Stream 

Outlet. These proposed crossing methods would minimize or avoid instream impacts on 

waterbodies.

During terminal operations, water would be routinely withdrawn from Passamaquoddy Bay for 

LNG vessel engine cooling, ballasting, hoteling, and weekly testing of the fire suppression 

system. Water withdrawals would impinge and entrain zooplankton and ichthyoplankton; 

however, based on Downeast’s sampling and modeling analyses, we have determined that 

impacts on overall community populations and associated fish stocks would be insignificant.

The primary impact on wildlife would be clearing of forested habitats, impacts on forested and 

scrub-shrub freshwater wetlands, and disturbance of vernal pools that provide habitat for 

sensitive species. Downeast located the proposed pipeline right-of-way immediately adjacent to 

existing rights-of-way to the greatest extent practical to minimize forest habitat loss and 

fragmentation. Downeast would minimize impacts on vernal pools by implementing the 

measures in its Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation, and Maintenance Plan (Plan), Soil 

Erosion and Sediment Controls Guidelines, and the Maine DEP’s guidance for construction and 

mitigation for vernal pool disturbance. At the terminal site, Downeast would compensate for the 

permanent loss of wetlands through a compensation plan in consultation with the COE and state 

agencies that addresses coastal and freshwater wetlands, areas used by tidal and inland wading 

waterfowl, and significant vernal pools. In addition, Downeast has finalized a Shorebird 

Mitigation Plan to compensate for shorebird impacts and would continue consultations with the 

Maine Division of Inland Fish and Wildlife to develop Deer Wintering Area (DWA) mitigation 

measures. 

Potential impacts on marine mammals may include LNG vessel collisions, acoustic harassment, 

during the pier construction, physical harassment, and exposure to pollutants and marine debris. 

To minimize and/or avoid potential impact on marine mammals, Downeast would apply 

mitigation methods specific to the North Atlantic right whale to all marine mammals. Downeast 

is developing a Prevention and Mitigation Manual in consultation with NOAA Fisheries for 
ES Executive Summary -5

construction and operation that outlines mitigation strategies such as limiting LNG vessel speed, 

use of forward watching whale spotters, and training and education programs. Downeast has 

also proposed measures to minimize or avoid acoustic impacts, and would continue its 

consultations with the FWS and NOAA Fisheries to determine the final approved construction 

and mitigation measures and incorporate those measures into its comprehensive Prevention and 

Mitigation Manual.

Informal consultations and review of published information identified 46 federal and/or state 

special status species that could potentially occur in the project area, and designated critical 

habitat for 3 of these species. We conclude that the project would have no effect on 34 of these 

species or the 3 designated critical habitats. We conclude the project would not likely adversely 

affect the remaining 12 species. Within the project area, we also identified designated essential 

fish habitat (EFH) for 29 species of finfish, 3 species of shellfish, and 4 species of skate. 

A Biological Assessment (BA) is included as Appendix C and an EFH Assessment is included as 

Appendix G of this EIS. We initiated formal consultation with the FWS and NOAA Fisheries on 

May 19, 2009, and provided a revised BA in June 2012. To ensure compliance with the 

Endangered Species Act and Magnuson-Stevenson Act, we are recommending that Downeast not 

begin construction until the FERC staff completes consultation with the FWS and NOAA 

Fisheries. 

In the draft EIS, we identified 19 residences within 50 feet of the permanent right-of-way for the 

sendout pipeline, and included Downeast’s site-specific plans for construction near these 

residences. Since the draft EIS, Downeast identified potential route variations and workspace 

alternatives to minimize impacts on several of these residences. After Downeast incorporated 

these variations into its proposed pipeline route, only two of the residences are still within 50 feet 

of the proposed construction right-of-way. We have included Downeast’s revised site-specific 

plans for construction near these residences in Appendix P of this EIS. The closest residence is 

located 125 feet from the proposed LNG terminal boundary.

There are no public lands or other designated federal, state, or local recreation areas located on or 

within 0.25 mile of the LNG terminal site. Visual impacts associated with the Downeast LNG 

terminal include the proposed pier, LNG storage tanks, and the vapor fences. To mitigate these 

impacts, the storage tanks would be painted a neutral color and equipment specifically designed 

to reduce off-site light spillage would be used. We are also recommending that Downeast file a 

mitigation plan to reduce the potential visual impact of the proposed outer vapor fence.

Operation of the project could result in regular transit of approximately 60 LNG vessels per year 

in the Bay of Fundy, Grand Manan Channel, Head Harbour Passage, Western Passage, and 

Passamaquoddy Bay. A moving security zone imposed around LNG vessels, as recommended 

by the Coast Guard in their WSR, could impact commercial, recreational, and fishing boats 

during the arrival and departure of the LNG vessels. Given the limited amount of LNG vessel 

traffic, implementation of vessel traffic management practices recommended by the Coast 

Guard, advance notice to United States and Canadian authorities from the LNG vessels transiting 

the area, and the limited time that nearby marine traffic could be interrupted, we have determined 

that impacts on commercial and recreational marine activity would not be significant. Downeast 

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

Association, and other sources to develop a comprehensive compensation plan to address any 

potential loss of fishing equipment or income as a result of unavoidable impacts by Downeast 
Executive Summary ES-6

LNG vessels. We are recommending that, prior to operation of the Downeast LNG terminal, 

Downeast file the final Fishermen Communication, Coordination and Compensation Plan.

The Bureau of Indian Affairs and Passamaquoddy Tribe have expressed concern for potential 

project impacts on sites of religious and cultural importance, including archaeological sites, 

burials, historic properties, and aboriginal fishing rights. We are recommending that Downeast 

file documentation of continued consultations with the Passamaquoddy Tribe and other Native 

Americans and seek resolution of identified project-related impacts on cultural and religious 

interests. In addition, we are recommending that Downeast not begin construction and/or use of 

all proposed facilities until it files the remaining survey and evaluation reports, any required 

treatment plans, comments of the State Historic Preservation Officer and appropriate Indian 

Tribes, and the Director of the Office of Energy Projects (OEP) notifies Downeast in writing that 

it may proceed with treatment or construction. These recommended measures would ensure that 

the FERC’s responsibilities under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act are met 

before Downeast begins construction of the project.

We evaluated the air quality impacts from construction and operation of the Downeast LNG 

terminal as well as construction and operation of the sendout pipeline. Construction air impacts 

from the Downeast LNG terminal and the pipeline would be temporary and minor, although 

residents near the construction areas may see an elevated level of fugitive dust during

construction. While there would be no operational emissions from the pipeline, there would be 

emissions from the Downeast LNG terminal. These emissions were evaluated using various 

modeling techniques and we determined that the project would not have significant impact on 

local or regional air quality but could have a significant adverse impact on nearby Class I areas 

due to deposition of sulfur and nitrogen. 

The noise impacts from construction and operation were evaluated for both the Downeast LNG 

terminal and the pipeline. Construction noise impacts on both residents and wildlife species 

from the pipeline would be temporary and minor. Construction impacts of the LNG terminal and 

pier would have the potential for significant impacts on local residents due to pile driving;

however, Downeast would reduce the impact levels below significance through the use of 

vibratory pile drivers. In addition, Downeast would implement the recommendations from 

NOAA Fisheries to ensure that in-water pile driving would not have significant impact on 

aquatic species. We are recommending that Downeast conduct post-construction noise surveys 

for the Downeast LNG terminal and for the pipeline meter station at the LNG terminal to ensure 

noise impacts would not be significant. Therefore, we determined that with Downest’s 

mitigation and our recommendations, the noise impacts from construction and operation of the 

LNG terminal and pipeline would not be significant.

We evaluated the safety of the proposed LNG import terminal facility, the related LNG vessel 

transit through the Passamaquoddy Bay Waterway, and the sendout pipeline. Downeast would 

comply with the DOT safety standards during construction and operation of the sendout pipeline, 

and we conclude that the risk of any incident along the proposed pipeline is low. As part of our 

evaluation of the LNG terminal, we performed technical review of the preliminary engineering 

design. Based on our analysis and recommendations presented in section 4.12, we conclude that 

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

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

methodology Downeast used to determine the design spills based on the flow from various leakage 
ES Executive Summary -7

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

FERC dated January 30, 2014, DOT stated it has no objection to Downeast’s methodology for 

determining the candidate design spills used to establish the required siting for its proposed LNG 

import terminal. Based on the hazard area calculations performed by Downeast, we conclude that 

the Project would not result in significant public safety impacts.

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

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

marine traffic associated with the proposed project, provided that all of the risk mitigation 

measures outlined in section 4.6 of the WSR are implemented by Downeast to the satisfaction of 

the Coast Guard Captain of the Port (COTP). The risk mitigation measures in the WSR also 

provide that Downeast must determine and comply with all applicable Canadian laws and 

regulations applicable to safe and secure navigation of maritime traffic, and customary 

international law. Under the Ports and Waterways Safety Act, the Magnuson Act, the Maritime 

Transportation Security Act of 2002, and the Safety and Accountability For Every Port Act, the 

COTP has the authority to prohibit LNG transfer or LNG vessel movements within his or her 

area of responsibility if he or she determines that such action is necessary to protect the 

waterway, port, or marine environment. If this project is approved and if appropriate resources 

are not in place prior to LNG vessel movement along the waterway, then the COTP would 

consider at that time what, if any, vessel traffic and/or facility control measures would be 

appropriate to adequately address navigational safety and maritime security considerations. As a 

result, we are recommending that Downeast should receive written authorization from the 

Director of OEP before commencement of service at the LNG terminal. Such authorization 

would only be granted following a determination by the Coast Guard that appropriate measures 

to ensure the safety and security of the facility and the waterway have been put into place by 

Downeast or other appropriate parties.

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

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

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

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

as for all agencies involved in implementing security and safety during operations. In addition, 

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

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

state and local agencies.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

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

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

additional measures we are recommending in this EIS. Although many factors were considered 

in this determination, the primary reasons are:

• the Coast Guard’s LOR states that the Passamaquoddy Bay Waterway is suitable for the 

type and frequency of marine traffic associated with the proposed project, provided that 

recommended risk mitigation measures outlined in section 4.6 of the WSR are fully 

implemented;
Executive Summary ES-8

• adverse impacts on sensitive habitats and wildlife species would be avoided or minimized 

with incorporation of our recommendations;

• consultation required by Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, and 

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, would be completed prior to construction;

• Downeast has committed to obtain all federal permits and authorizations and would 

obtain the necessary permits from the State of Maine;

• Downeast is continuing consultation with federal and state agencies to finalize a wetlands 

mitigation plan; develop a Prevention and Mitigation Manual to minimize adverse 

impacts on listed species, develop a final DWA mitigation package, determine seasonal 

or construction timing restrictions, design mitigation strategies to minimize acoustic 

harassment or harm to marine species, and develop a waterbody crossing schedule that 

identifies when trenching and blasting would occur;

• Downeast would implement its Plan; Wetland and Waterbody Construction and 

Mitigation Procedures; and Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Guidelines to minimize 

impacts on soils, wetlands and waterbodies; and

• environmental inspection and monitoring would ensure compliance with the mitigation 

measures that would become conditions if the project is authorized by the Commission.