1-1 1.0 – Introduction

1.0 INTRODUCTION

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

this final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for public review and comment to assess the 

potential environmental effects that may occur as a result of the construction and operation of the 

proposed liquefied natural gas (LNG) import terminal (LNG terminal) and associated natural gas 

pipeline (sendout pipeline) in Washington County, Maine (collectively referred to as the 

Downeast LNG Project). This final EIS will be used by the FERC in its decision-making 

process to determine whether or not to authorize the project.

The vertical line in the margin identifies text that has been modified in this final EIS 

and differs substantially from the corresponding text in the draft EIS.

On December 22, 2006, Downeast LNG, Inc. (Downeast LNG) filed an application with the 

FERC, in Docket No. CP07-52-000, under Section 3(a) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and 

Part 153 and 380 of the Commission’s regulations. Also on December 22, 2006, Downeast 

Pipeline, LLC (Downeast Pipeline) filed: (1) an application in Docket No. CP07-53-000 for a 

Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (Certificate): (i) authorizing Downeast Pipeline 

to construct, own, and operate the Downeast Pipeline under Section 7 of the NGA and Part 157 

of the Commission’s regulations, (ii) approving the pro forma Tariff submitted as Exhibit P of 

the application, and (iii) approving the proposed initial rates for pipeline transportation services; 

(2) an application in Docket No. CP07-54-000 for a blanket certificate authorizing Downeast 

Pipeline to engage in certain self-implementing routine activities under Part 157 Subpart F of the 

Commission’s regulations; and (3) an application in Docket No. CP07-55-000 for a blanket 

certificate authorizing Downeast Pipeline to transport natural gas, on an open access and selfimplementing basis, under Part 284 Subpart G of the Commission’s regulations. These

applications were noticed in the Federal Register (FR) on December 29, 2006. Downeast 

Pipeline is a wholly owned subsidiary of Downeast LNG (hereafter collectively referred to as 

Downeast).

On January 16, 2008, Downeast filed an amendment to its application in Docket No. CP07-53-

001 to modify the pipeline route filed in Docket No. CP07-53-000 to avoid crossing the 

Moosehorn National Wildlife Refuge (Moosehorn NWR), as well as four route deviations in 

other locations. This application was noticed in the FR on February 13, 2008.

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 to be located on the south side of Mill Cove in the 

Town of Robbinston, near the confluence of Passamaquoddy Bay and the St. Croix River in 

Washington County, Maine. The proposed terminal site is bounded by Mill Cove to the north, 

U.S. Route 1 and rural residential and forested areas to the west, forested land to the south, and

Passamaquoddy Bay to the east. Downeast requests Commission authorization to construct and 

operate a marine LNG terminal, including:

• 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 cubic meters (m3

);

• three 16-inch-diameter unloading arms and one vapor return line on the unloading 

platform, with an unloading capacity rate of 14,000 m3 of LNG per hour;

• one 3,862-foot-long, 36-inch-diameter single-walled stainless steel insulated transfer 

pipeline;
1.0 – Introduction 1-2

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

160,000 m3;

• two fully submerged, low pressure cryogenic transfer pumps, each rated for 4,600 gallons 

per minute (gpm);

• 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 with total 

connected load at approximately 10.8 megawatts;

• 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.

In Docket Nos. CP07-53-000 and CP07-53-001 Downeast requested Commission authorization 

to construct and operate a natural gas sendout pipeline capable of transporting a maximum of 

625 MMcfd, with an expected average throughput of 500 MMcfd. Downeast’s facilities would 

consist of:

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

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

• pigging facilities2; and

• three mainline block valves.

Figure 1-1 shows the general location of the proposed facilities. 

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

an interconnect point with Maritimes and Northeast Pipeline’s L.L.C. (M&NE) existing pipeline 

system near the town of Baileyville, Maine. Downeast’s project would transport between 500 

and 625 MMcfd. M&NE’s existing system is capable of transporting about 800 MMcfd. We3

originally considered an expansion of the M&NE system in our draft EIS (called the M&NE 

Downstream Expansion); however, we have since determined that M&NE’s existing system 

would be capable of transporting the additional gas volume proposed by Downeast, with some 

major changes in gas flow. Market conditions and new gas supplies, principally from shale gas 

sources, 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 Downeast’s proposed facilities, and our analysis of an expansion at this 

time would be presumptive and premature. Additionally, M&NE must file an application with 

the FERC for authorization to construct any expansion facilities. The FERC would conduct a 

full environmental analysis of the proposal, including preparation of an environmental 

assessment or EIS, before the Commission would consider authorizing M&NE to construct any 

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

which was included in the draft EIS, from this final EIS.

 2 A pig is an internal tool that can be used to clean and dry a pipeline and/or to inspect it for damage or corrosion.

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

Energy Projects (OEP).
Proposed Downeast

LNG Import Terminal

Baileyville Compressor

Station

Maritimes & Northeast 

Pipeline

Maine

Figure 1-1

Downeast LNG Project

General Project Location Map

Legend

Existing Powerline Corridor (EMEC)

Baileyville Compressor Station

Proposed Downeast LNG Import Terminal

Sendout Pipeline Right-of-Way

Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline

Moosehorn National Wildlife Refuge

Moosehorn National Wildlife Refuge Wilderness

P:\Downeast-3253\Team Information\GIS\Spatial\MXD\fr_LF_041808\Figure1-1GeneralPrjLocationMap.mxd

0 1 2 3 4 0.5

Miles

P:\Downeast-3253\Team Information\GIS\Spatial\MXD\Sendout_Pipeline_Reroute_Figures_082608\Figure1-1.mxd

1-3
1.0 – Introduction 1-4

1.1 PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED

The purpose for the Downeast LNG Project, as summarized below, is defined by Downeast. 

Need is not an environmental issue to be addressed at length in this document. The Commission 

will more fully consider the need for the project when making its decision on whether the project 

is consistent with the public interest in meeting the projected energy demands of the region. The 

FERC will use the final EIS as an element in its review of Downeast’s application. After the 

final EIS is released, the Commission will determine whether the project should be authorized. 

The EIS and mitigation development discussed herein will be important factors in this final 

determination. This EIS includes a short discussion of the project purpose and need to satisfy the 

requirements of the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations for implementing the

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), which state that an EIS should only 

“briefly specify the underlying purpose and need” for a proposed project (40 Code of Federal 

Regulations [CFR] 1502.13).

We received comments on the draft EIS from Ronald S. Rosenfeld, M.D., the Conservation Law 

Foundation, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE), and the U.S. Department of the Interior, 

Office of Environmental Quality and Compliance, among others, regarding the sufficiency of 

this section and current forecasts of future demand for natural gas. As stated above, need is not 

an environmental issue to be addressed at length in this document. The Commission will more 

fully consider the need for the project when making its decision on whether the project is 

consistent with the public interest. The Commission’s Certificate Policy Statement4 provides 

guidance as to how the Commission evaluates proposals for authorizing new construction, and 

establishes criteria for determining whether there is a need for a proposed project and whether 

the proposed project will serve the public interest.

Downeast stated in its application that the purpose of the project is to establish an LNG marine 

terminal in New England capable of receiving imported LNG from LNG vessels, storing, and 

regasifying the LNG at an average sendout rate of 500 MMcfd. The terminal would provide an 

additional supply source of natural gas in the New England region (Maine, Massachusetts, New 

Hampshire, Vermont, Connecticut, and Rhode Island). The proposed storage tanks at the LNG 

facility would provide an additional 6.6 billion cubic feet (Bcf) of gas storage capacity in the 

region. Downeast conducted a non-binding open season that commenced on November 3, 2008 

and concluded on December 2, 2008. Downeast’s affiliate, Downeast LNG Trading, LLC 

submitted the only bid through the open season process for 500 MMcfd of firm transportation 

service. 

Under section 3 of the NGA, the Commission grants authorization for proposed LNG import 

terminals unless it finds that the proposed facilities will not be consistent with the public interest. 

Under section 7 of the NGA, the Commission determines whether interstate natural gas 

transportation facilities are in the public convenience and necessity and, if so, grants a Certificate 

to construct and operate them. The Commission bases its decision on technical competence, 

financing, rates, market demand, gas supply, environmental impact, long-term feasibility, and 

other issues concerning a proposed project.

 4 Certification of New Interstate Natural Gas Pipeline Facilities, 88 FERC ¶61,227 (1999), order on clarification, 90 

FERC ¶61,128 (2000), order on clarification, 92 FERC ¶61,094 (2000) (Certificate Policy Statement).
1-5 1.0 – Introduction

1.2 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THIS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

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

onshore LNG import and interstate natural gas transmission facilities. The U.S. Department of 

Transportation (DOT) is a cooperating agency to the FERC, serving as a subject matter expert on 

its federal safety standards for siting, construction, operation, and maintenance of onshore LNG 

facilities codified in 49 CFR 193. The DOT does not issue a permit or license but, as a 

cooperating agency, assists FERC staff in evaluating whether an applicant’s proposed design 

would meet the DOT requirements. The U.S. Coast Guard (Coast Guard) is a cooperating 

agency to the FERC, serving as a subject matter expert for, and providing recommendations on 

the maritime safety and security aspects of the project. The Coast Guard does not issue a permit, 

license, or order in this context, and is responsible for assessing the suitability of the waterway 

and issuing a Letter of Recommendation (LOR). That LOR may be considered by FERC (as the 

lead agency) to help assist with their decision concerning approval of the project. The FERC is 

the lead federal agency for the preparation of this EIS in compliance with the requirements of the 

NEPA, the CEQ regulations for implementing the NEPA (40 CFR 1500-1508), and the FERC’s 

regulations for implementing the NEPA (18 CFR 380). The FERC will use this EIS as an 

element in its review of Downeast’s applications to determine whether to authorize the LNG 

project. The Commission will consider the environmental issues, including our recommended 

mitigation measures, as well as non-environmental issues. Final authorization will be granted 

only if the Commission finds that the proposed LNG project is in the public interest. The 

environmental impact assessment and mitigation discussed in this EIS are important factors in 

this final determination.

The Coast Guard; COE; DOT; 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) are the cooperating agencies

for the development of this EIS. A cooperating agency has jurisdiction by law or special 

expertise with respect to environmental impacts involved with the proposal and is involved in the 

NEPA analysis.

This final EIS was prepared to respond to comments received on the draft EIS. Our principal 

purposes in preparing this EIS are to:

• identify and assess potential impacts on the environment that would result from the 

implementation of the proposed action;

• identify and assess reasonable alternatives to the proposed action that would avoid or 

minimize adverse effects on the human environment;

• identify and recommend specific mitigation measures to minimize environmental impacts

and that protect, restore, and enhance the environment;

• fully inform and support decisions by the public agencies responsible for permitting the 

project that are based on understanding environmental consequences; and

• facilitate public involvement in identifying significant environmental impacts.

Our analysis in this EIS focuses on facilities that are under the FERC’s jurisdiction in 

Downeast’s applications (i.e., the proposed LNG terminal and 29.8 miles of sendout pipeline). 
1.0 – Introduction 1-6

One nonjurisdictional electric power supply facility would also be constructed in association 

with the project (see section 2.9 of this EIS).

The topics addressed in this EIS include alternatives; geology; soils and sediments; water use and 

quality; wetlands; vegetation; wildlife; aquatic resources including essential fish habitat (EFH); 

threatened, endangered, and special status species; land use, recreation, and visual resources; 

socioeconomics; transportation and traffic; cultural resources; air quality and noise; reliability 

and safety; and cumulative impacts. This EIS describes the affected environment as it currently 

exists, discusses the environmental consequences of the proposed project, and compares the 

project’s potential impacts to the potential impacts of other alternatives. This EIS also presents 

our conclusions and recommended mitigation measures.

1.3 PERMITS, APPROVALS, AND REGULATORY REVIEWS

As the lead federal agency for the Downeast LNG Project, the FERC is required to comply with 

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation 

and Management Act of 1976, Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, Section 106 of the 

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, and Section 307 of the Coastal Zone Management 

Act of 1972. Each of these statutes has been taken into account in the preparation of this 

document. 

The Coast Guard exercises regulatory authority over LNG facilities that affect the safety and 

security of port areas and navigable waterways under Executive Order 10173; the Magnuson Act 

(50 United States Code [USC] Section 191); the Ports and Waterways Safety Act of 1972, as 

amended (33 USC Section 1221 et seq.); and the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002 

(46 USC Section 701). The Coast Guard is responsible for matters related to navigation safety, 

vessel engineering and safety standards, and all matters pertaining to the safety of the facilities or 

equipment located in or adjacent to navigable waters up to the last valve immediately before the 

receiving LNG tanks. The Coast Guard also has authority for LNG facility security plan review, 

approval, and compliance verification as provided in Title 33 CFR Part 105, and siting as it 

pertains to the management of marine traffic in and around the LNG facility.

As required by its regulations, the Coast Guard is responsible for issuing an LOR as to the 

suitability of the waterway for LNG marine traffic. The LOR was based on the following criteria 

which are discussed further throughout this EIS in the appropriate resource sections:

• implications to maritime and port security;

• density and character of marine traffic;

• locks, bridges, and other man-made obstructions in the waterway; 

• environmental effects of LNG vessels during transit from open water to the facility; and

• the following factors adjacent to the facility:

o depth of water

o tidal range

o protection from high seas

o natural hazards, including reefs, rocks, and sandbars

o underwater obstructions, such as pipes and cables 

o distance of berthed vessels from the channel

o width of the channel
1-7 1.0 – Introduction

On June 14, 2005, the Coast Guard published the Navigation and Vessel Inspection Circular 

(NVIC) 05-05. The purpose of NVIC 05-05 was to provide the Coast Guard Captain of the Ports 

(COTPs)/Federal Maritime Security Coordinators (FMSCs), members of the LNG industry, and 

port stakeholders with guidance on assessing the suitability of a waterway for LNG marine 

traffic. The assessment should take into account conventional navigation safety/waterway 

management issues contemplated by the existing Letter of Intent (LOI)/LOR process, and, in 

addition, should comprehensively treat maritime security. Since the publication of NVIC 05-05 

and NVIC 05-08 the Coast Guard has issued an updated NVIC 01-11, which revised some of the 

previous guidance. Specifically, the Coast Guard revised the format of the LOR to conform to 

its intended effect of being a recommendation to FERC as to the suitability of the waterway. The 

Coast Guard also added guidance on release of the LOR and message management, and provided 

an updated template for the LOR analysis. Furthermore, NVIC 01-11 clarified the timing and 

scoping of the process that is necessary to ensure that full consideration is given to safety and 

security of the port, the facility, and the vessels transporting the LNG. As the Downeast LNG 

proposal originated under NVIC 05-05, the Coast Guard’s assessment for this proposal was 

developed under NVIC 05-05, NVIC 05-08, and NVIC 01-11. In order to avoid confusion, we 

note that the Coast Guard has decided to refer to its final assessment for the Downeast LNG 

proposal as the Downeast LNG Waterway Suitability Report (WSR) although this term has been 

eliminated in the new NVIC and replaced with “Letter of Recommendation Analysis.” In 

addition, the Coast Guard has updated the regulations within 33 CFR Part 127. The Coast Guard 

notes that Downeast should consult these updated regulations when constructing a waterfront 

facility handling LNG. See section 4.12.5 of this EIS for additional discussion of marine safety. 

Downeast submitted its preliminary Waterway Suitability Assessment (WSA) to the Coast Guard 

on December 21, 2005, and the Follow-on WSA was submitted on December 19, 2006. The 

COTP Sector Northern New England reviewed the WSA and completed a WSR that is included 

as Appendix B of this EIS. As part of the WSR dated January 6, 2009, the COTP Sector 

Northern New England assessed that the waterway for LNG marine traffic is suitable for the type 

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

mitigation measures outlined in section 4.6 of the WSR are fully implemented. The WSR and 

risk reduction measures are described further in section 4.12. 

Endangered Species Act (ESA)

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

any federal agency (e.g., FERC) 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 USC Section 1536(a)

(2)(1988)). The FERC, or Downeast as a non-federal party, is required to consult with the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and NOAA Fisheries to determine whether any federally listed 

or proposed endangered or threatened species or their designated critical habitat occur in the 

vicinity of the proposed project. If, upon review of existing data or data provided by the 

applicant, the FERC determines that these species or habitats may be affected by the proposed 

LNG project, the FERC is required to prepare a Biological Assessment (BA) to identify the 

nature and extent of adverse impact, and to recommend measures that would avoid the habitat 

and/or species, or that would reduce potential impacts to acceptable levels or as appropriate 

carrying out conservation programs for the listed species. If, however, the FERC determines that 

no federally listed or proposed endangered or threatened species or their designated critical 
1.0 – Introduction 1-8

habitat would be affected by the proposed project, no further action is necessary under the ESA. 

FERC has prepared a BA, which is included as Appendix C. 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA)

The MSA, as amended by the Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-267), 

established procedures designed to identify, conserve, and enhance essential fish habitat (EFH)

for those species regulated under a federal fisheries management plan. The MSA requires 

federal agencies to consult with NOAA Fisheries on all actions or proposed actions authorized, 

funded, or undertaken by the agency that may adversely affect EFH (MSA Section 305(b)(2)). 

Although absolute criteria have not been established for conducting EFH consultations, NOAA 

Fisheries recommends consolidating EFH consultations with interagency coordination 

procedures required by other statutes such as the NEPA, the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, 

or the ESA (50 CFR 600.920(e)) in order to reduce duplication and improve efficiency. As part 

of the consultation process, the FERC has evaluated potential impacts on EFH in this EIS (see 

section 4.5.3 and Appendix G. 

Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA)

The MMPA of 1972 prohibits, with certain exceptions, the take of marine mammals in 

U.S. waters and by U.S. citizens on the high seas, and the importation of marine mammals and 

marine mammal products into the United States. Congress amended the MMPA in 1994 to 

provide for certain exceptions to the take prohibitions, including a program to authorize and 

control the taking of marine mammals incidental to commercial fishing operations; preparation 

of stock assessments for all marine mammal stocks in waters under U.S. jurisdiction; and studies 

of pinniped-fishery interactions. The Secretary of the NOAA Fisheries, in consultation with any 

other federal agency (e.g., FERC) to the extent that such agency may be affected, prescribes 

regulations as are necessary and appropriate to carry out the purposes of the MMPA (16 USC 

1382 Section 112 (a)). See section 4.5.2 of this EIS for a discussion on marine mammals.

National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA)

Section 106 of the NHPA, as amended, requires the FERC to take into account the effects of its 

undertakings on historic properties, and provide the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

(ACHP) an opportunity to comment. Historic properties include prehistoric or historic sites, and 

districts, buildings, structures, objects, or properties of traditional religious or cultural 

importance that are listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places 

(NRHP). FERC has requested that Downeast, as a non-federal party, assist in meeting FERC’s 

obligation under Section 106 by preparing the necessary information and analyses as required by 

the ACHP procedures in 36 CFR 800. See section 4.10 of this EIS for the status of this review.

Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)

The CZMA calls for the “effective management, beneficial use, protection, and development” of 

the nation’s coastal zone and promotes active state involvement in achieving those goals. As a 

means to reach those goals, the CZMA requires participating states to develop management 

programs that demonstrate how these states will meet their obligations and responsibilities in 

managing their coastal areas. In the state of Maine, the Maine Department of Agriculture is the 

agency responsible for administering its Coastal Zone Management Program (CZMP). Because 
1-9 1.0 – Introduction

Section 307 of the CZMA requires federal agency activities to be consistent to the maximum

extent practicable with the enforceable policies of a management program, the FERC requires

that Downeast seek a determination of consistency with Maine’s CZMP for construction and 

operation of the proposed facility and associated vessel operations. See section 4.7.5 of this EIS 

for additional discussion of the Maine CZMP and the status of the consistency review.

Other Permits, Approvals, and Consultations

In addition to FERC, other federal agencies have responsibilities for issuing permits or approvals

to comply with various federal laws and regulations. For example, the COE would issue permits 

under the Clean Water Act (CWA) and the Rivers and Harbors Act; and the EPA has regulatory 

authority under the CWA and the Clean Air Act (CAA). Several Maine state agencies have 

delegated responsibilities under the CWA, CAA, and CZMA.

The Energy Policy Act (EPAct) of 2005 and Section 3 of the NGA require that FERC consult

with the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) to determine whether or not proposed projects

would affect training or activities on military installations. In letters dated March 24, 2006 to the 

DOD, Army, COE, Navy, and Air Force at the Pentagon, we requested to be informed of any 

defense or military establishments in the project area that may be affected by the project. We did 

not receive a response to those letters. The FERC sent an additional letter to the DOD on 

February 12, 2014 with the Draft EIS and Supplemental Draft EIS.

In addition, the NGA, as modified by the EPAct, requires that the Commission consult with the

state in which an LNG terminal is proposed to be located regarding state and local safety matters. 

On December 7, 2005, the Governor of Maine designated the Maine State Planning Office

(Maine SPO) as the state agency that FERC should consult with on safety and siting matters for 

the Downeast LNG Project. The Maine SPO submitted its Safety Advisory Report to FERC on 

January 19, 2007. In the report, the Maine SPO addressed state and local considerations for the 

project developed in consultation with the Maine Emergency Management Agency, Maine State 

Police, Office of State Fire Marshal, Maine Marine Patrol, and Maine DEP’s Oil and Hazardous 

Materials Division. In 2012, the Maine SPO was eliminated; the Maine DEP now serves as the 

contact for LNG projects for the State of Maine.

The EPAct also stipulates that, before the Commission may issue an order authorizing an LNG

terminal, it must “review and respond specifically” to the safety matters raised by the state 

agency designated as the lead for the state and local safety matters. Appendix D presents

FERC’s response to the Maine SPO Safety Advisory Report for the Downeast LNG Project.

Major permits, approvals, and consultations that Downeast has agreed to obtain for the Downeast 

LNG Project are identified in table 1.3-1. The FERC encourages cooperation between applicants 

and state and local authorities, but this does not mean that state and local agencies, through 

applications of state and local laws, may prohibit or unreasonably delay the construction or 

operation of facilities approved by the FERC. Any state or local permits issued with respect to 

jurisdictional facilities must be consistent with the conditions of any authorization issued by the 
1.0 – Introduction 1-10

FERC.5 Downeast would be responsible for obtaining all permits and approvals to construct and 

operate the proposed project, regardless of whether they appear in this table or not.

TABLE 1.3-1

Major Permits, Approvals, and Consultations for the Downeast LNG Project

Agency Permits/Approvals/Consultations Anticipated Application

Filing/Consultation Date

FEDERAL

Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission 

(FERC)

Authorization under Sections 3a (Approval of 

Place of Import for Natural Gas) and 7c 

(Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity) 

of the Natural Gas Act

Downeast filed applications on December 22, 2006 

and January 16, 2008.

Advisory Council on 

Historic Preservation

(ACHP)

Opportunity to comment on the project under 

Section 106 of the NHPA

Pending completion of surveys and evaluations 

identifying historic properties, and consultations with 

the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and 

Tribal Historic Preservation Office (THPO).

U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers (COE)

Authorization for activities that could affect the 

course, condition, or capacity of navigable waters 

under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 

1899

Preliminary permit application submitted on December 

20, 2006. Will submit revised final permit application

following issuance of final EIS.

Authorization to discharge dredged or fill material 

into waters of the United States under 

Section 404 of the Clean Water Act

Preliminary permit application submitted on December 

20, 2006. Will submit revised final permit application

following issuance of final EIS.

U.S. Department of 

Commerce, National 

Oceanic and 

Atmospheric 

Administration, National 

Marine Fisheries Service

(NOAA Fisheries)

Consultation with NOAA Fisheries Protected 

Resources Division regarding compliance with 

Section 7 of the ESA and the MMPA 

Downeast submitted Consultation Request Letter on 

February 21, 2006; and January 7, 2008 for the 

amended pipeline route. FERC’s BA included as 

Appendix C of this EIS. 

Consultation with NOAA Fisheries Habitat 

Conservation Division on threatened and 

endangered aquatic species, EFH conservation 

recommendations, and compliance with Section 

305 of the MSA

FERC’s EFH Assessment is included in Appendix G of

this EIS.

U.S. Department of 

Homeland Security 

U.S. Coast Guard

(Coast Guard)

33 CFR Part 127 

Issue Letter of Recommendation, Waterfront 

Facilities Handling LNG and Liquefied Hazardous 

Gas, and Operational Plan

Downeast submitted an initial LOI to the Coast Guard

on December 20, 2005 and amendments to the LOI on 

January 6 and February 8, 2006; and filed a 

preliminary WSA on December 21, 2005 with a followon WSA on December 19, 2006. The Coast Guard 

issued its LOR and WSR on January 6, 2009, 

assessing the waterway to be suitable provided risk 

mitigation measures are implemented. Downeast 

conducted an annual review of its WSA and provided 

substantiation to the Coast Guard on September 13, 

2011 and January 3, 2014. On November 10, 2011

and February 24, 2014, the Coast Guard responded 

that the updates did not affect the suitability of the 

waterway.

Permission to Establish Aids to Navigation (33 

CFR Part 66, 14; U.S.C. §§ 84-86)

To be submitted following conclusion of primary state 

and federal permitting (anticipated 2014).

Spill Prevention and Spill Response Plan under 

33 U.S.C. § 1321 

Draft Plan submitted on December 22, 2006.

 5

 See, e.g., Schneidewind v. ANR Pipeline Co., 485 U.S. 293 (1988); National Fuel Gas Supply v. Public Service 

Commission, 894 F.2d 571 (2n Cir. 1990); and Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P., et al., 52 FERC 61,091 

(1990) and 59 FERC 61,094 (1992).
1-11 1.0 – Introduction

TABLE 1.3-1

Major Permits, Approvals, and Consultations for the Downeast LNG Project

Agency Permits/Approvals/Consultations Anticipated Application

Filing/Consultation Date

U.S. Department of 

Defense (DOD)

Consultation as required by Section 311 of the 

Energy Policy Act of 2005 and Section 3 of the 

Natural Gas Act

FERC consultation on March 24, 2006 and February 

12, 2014 with the DOD regarding information on 

project effects to military installations. (Awaiting 

response). 

U.S. Department of the 

Interior, Fish and Wildlife 

Service (FWS)

Section 7 of the ESA

Consultation regarding effects on threatened and 

endangered species

Downeast submitted Consultation Request Letter on

February 21, 2006; and January 7, 2008 for the 

amended pipeline route. FERC’s BA included as 

Appendix C of this EIS. 

Incidental Take Permit under Migratory Bird Act 

and Endangered Species Act

Need for incidental take permit to be determined.

U.S. Department of 

Transportation (DOT)

49 CFR 192

Evaluate compliance with federal safety 

standards; encroachment permits for crossing of 

federal highways

Permit application to be submitted during construction.

STATE

Maine Department of 

Conservation – Bureau of 

Parks and Land; Maine 

Natural Areas Program

Submerged lands lease and easement To be submitted in conjunction with Maine Department 

of Environmental Protection (DEP) Permitting 

anticipated 2014.

Consultation and review on other Maine State 

permits

Consultation Request Letter submitted on 

February 21, 2006.

Maine Forest Service Timber Harvest/Management Plan; Consultation 

on other State permits

To be submitted in conjunction with Maine DEP 

Permitting anticipated 2014.

Maine DEP Maine Mandatory Shoreland Zoning Act Application approved on February 16, 2006.

Bureau of Land & Water 

Quality (Maine DEP)

401 Water Quality Certificate

Natural Resources Protection Act

Site Location of Development Act

Air Emissions License

To be submitted in conjunction with Maine DEP 

Permitting anticipated 2014.

Maine Construction General Permit (construction 

stormwater discharges) and Discharge License 

for Subsurface Waste Water Disposal System 

(septic tank leach field)

To be submitted prior to construction.

Multisector Permit and Waste Discharge (Maine 

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System [Maine 

PDES]) Permit

To be submitted prior to operation.

Department of Marine 

Services (Maine DEP)

Consultation/Review on Other Maine State 

Permits

Consultation Request Letter submitted on 

February 21, 2006.

Maine Department of 

Agriculture, Conservation 

and Forestry

Section 307 of the CZMA 

Determine coastal zone management 

consistency

To be submitted in conjunction with Maine State DEP 

Permitting anticipated 2014.

Maine Historic 

Preservation Office 

(SHPO) 

Section 106 of the NHPA

Consultation regarding NRHP eligibility and 

project effects.

Downeast submitted revised cultural resources survey 

reports to the SHPO in October 2006. SHPO provided 

reviews of reports on January 25, 2007, March 7, 

2007, June 19, 2007, and June 25, 2007. Option 6 

pipeline information submitted January 2008. 

Consultation ongoing.

Maine Atlantic Salmon 

Commission

Consultation/Review on other Maine State 

Permits

Consultation Request Letter submitted on 

February 21, 2006. Mitigation Plan to be reviewed 

coincident with refiling of State permit application 

anticipated 2014.
1.0 – Introduction 1-12

TABLE 1.3-1

Major Permits, Approvals, and Consultations for the Downeast LNG Project

Agency Permits/Approvals/Consultations Anticipated Application

Filing/Consultation Date

Office of State Fire 

Marshal

Blast Permit

Permit for aboveground storage and flammable 

and combustible liquids

Application to be submitted prior to construction.

Maine Department of 

Transportation (Maine 

DOT)

Site access, driveway, traffic movement permit 

and Route 1 improvements

Utility location permit

Application to be submitted prior to construction.

Maine Department of 

Inland Fisheries and 

Wildlife (Maine DIFW)

Maine Endangered Species Act Consultation Request Letter submitted on February

21, 2006. Mitigation Plan to be reviewed coincident 

with refiling of State permit application anticipated 

2014.

LOCAL

Town of Robbinston Conditional Use Permit, Site Plan Approval, and 

Maine Mandatory Shoreland Zoning Act 

(delegated to Town via Town Zoning Regulation 

Adoption)

Conditional Use Permit, Site Plan Approval, and 

Shoreland Zoning Act approved February 16, 2006.

Plumbing Permit, Flood Hazard Development 

Permit, Road Improvement

Application to be submitted prior to construction.

Town of Baring 

Plantation

Town Road access for Sendout Pipeline Right-ofWayTo be submitted prior to construction.

City of Calais Town Road access for Sendout Pipeline Right-ofWayTo be submitted prior to construction.

Maine Mandatory Shoreland Zoning Act Consultation initiated March 2007. To be submitted 

coincident with refiling of State permit application 

anticipated 2014.

Town of Princeton Town Road access for Sendout Pipeline Right-ofWayTo be submitted prior to construction.

Town of Baileyville Town Road access for Sendout Pipeline Right-ofWayTo be submitted prior to construction.

1.4 PUBLIC REVIEW AND COMMENT

On January 5, 2006, Downeast filed a request with FERC to implement the Commission’s 

pre-filing process for the Downeast LNG Project. At that time, Downeast was in the preliminary 

design stage of the project and no formal application had been filed with FERC. The purpose of 

the pre-filing process is to encourage early involvement of interested stakeholders, facilitate 

interagency cooperation, and identify and resolve issues before an application is filed with 

FERC. On January 25, 2006, FERC granted Downeast’s request and established a pre-filing 

Docket No. (PF06-13-000) to place information filed by Downeast and related documents issued 

by FERC into the public record. All of the information Downeast filed with FERC prior to 

December 22, 2006 is in Docket No. PF06-13-000. Downeast’s application and all projectrelated information filed on or after December 22, 2006 by Downeast and others are in 

Docket Nos. CP07-52-000, CP07-53-000, CP07-53-001, CP07-54-000, and CP07-55-000.

On December 20, 2005, Downeast submitted an LOI to the Coast Guard; on January 6, 2006 and 

February 8, 2006, Downeast submitted amendments to its LOI. The first LOI initiated the Coast 

Guard’s review of the safety and security of the proposed project as part of its preparation of an

LOR that would be issued for the project by the local COTP.
1-13 1.0 – Introduction

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

Statement for the Proposed Downeast LNG Project, Request for Comments on Environmental 

Issues, and Notice of a Joint Public Scoping Meeting (NOI). The NOI explained that FERC and 

the Coast Guard would be working together to evaluate the project, with FERC assessing 

potential environmental impacts and the Coast Guard assessing maritime safety and security 

issues. The NOI was sent to 801 interested parties, including federal, state, and local officials; 

agency representatives; tribes; conservation organizations; local libraries and newspapers; and 

property owners within 0.5 mile of the proposed LNG terminal and along the proposed pipeline 

route. Issuance of the NOI opened the public comment period and established a closing date of 

April 17, 2006 for receiving written comments. In total, 75 letters were received in response to 

the NOI.

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 

Downeast LNG Project and to provide comments on environmental issues to be addressed in the 

draft EIS. Eleven people spoke at the meeting and their comments were recorded by a court 

reporter. A transcript of the scoping meeting has been entered into the public record for the 

Downeast LNG Project. On March 28, 2006, the FERC also conducted a site visit, open to the 

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

On September 18, 2006, the FERC issued a Supplemental Notice of Intent to Prepare an

Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Downeast LNG Project and Request for 

Comments on Environmental Issues. This NOI described two additional natural gas sendout 

pipeline routes that had been identified since the NOI dated March 13, 2006. Downeast 

identified one of these routes as its new preferred route. The NOI provided information about 

the new preferred and alternative routes and requested comments on the new preferred route to 

identify issues to address in the EIS. The NOI was sent to 996 interested parties, including 

federal, state, and local officials; agency representatives; tribes; conservation organizations; local 

libraries and newspapers; and property owners. The comment period for the NOI closed on 

October 18, 2006. In total, 47 letters were received in response to the Supplemental NOI.

On December 1, 2006, the FERC issued an additional Supplemental Notice of Intent to Prepare 

an Environmental Impact Statement for the Downeast LNG Project and Request for Comments 

on Environmental Issues Related to the Potential Expansion of the Maritimes & Northeast 

Pipeline System. This Supplemental NOI disclosed the nature of the facilities we believed at that 

time would potentially be required to expand M&NE’s system, based on information provided to 

Downeast by M&NE, and requested comments regarding the possible environmental impact of 

those facilities. The NOI was sent to 669 interested parties, including federal, state, and local 

officials; agency representatives; tribes; conservation organizations; local libraries and 

newspapers; and property owners. In total, 11 letters were received in response to this

Supplemental NOI. As described in section 1.0, we have determined that M&NE’s system 

would be capable of transporting the gas proposed by Downeast with changes in gas flow; 

therefore, potential M&NE facilities are no longer included in this EIS. 

On February 13, 2008, the FERC issued a third Supplemental Notice of Intent to Prepare an 

Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Downeast LNG Project and Request for 

Comments on Environmental Issues Related to the Modification of the Preferred Pipeline Route. 

The Supplemental NOI described the modification of the preferred natural gas sendout pipeline 
1.0 – Introduction 1-14

route, to avoid crossing the Moosehorn NWR, as well as four minor route deviations in other 

locations. The Supplemental NOI provided information about the new pipeline route and 

requested comments to identify issues to be addressed in the draft EIS. The comment period for 

this NOI closed on March 13, 2008. The NOI was sent to 1,571 interested parties, including 

federal, state, and local officials; agency representatives; tribes; conservation organizations; local 

libraries and newspapers; and property owners. In total, ten letters were received in response to 

the Supplemental NOI.

In addition to the public notice and scoping process discussed above, the FERC staff conducted 

agency consultations and participated in interagency meetings to identify issues that should 

be addressed in this EIS. This included interagency meetings on March 27, 2006 in Augusta, 

Maine and on September 19, 2006 in Topsham, Maine to discuss the project and the 

environmental review process with federal and state agencies, and an international commission. 

These agencies included the Coast Guard, COE, NOAA Fisheries, EPA, National Park Service, 

FWS, Moosehorn NWR, Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), Passamaquoddy Tribal Government, 

Acadia National Park, Roosevelt Campobello International Park Commission, Maine 

Department of Conservation, Maine SPO, Maine DEP, Maine State Fire Marshal, Maine 

Department of Emergency Management, Maine Public Utilities Commission, and Maine Atlantic 

Salmon Commission (Maine ASC).

Issues identified during scoping covered a broad range of categories. The greatest number of 

comments received concerned safety, alternatives, purpose, and need. Specifically, these 

comments addressed the physical design and placement of the terminal and pipeline; methods of 

construction; the need for another LNG terminal considering that LNG terminals have already 

been proposed and approved in the nearby provincial region of Canada; and the lack of a 

regional siting approach to determine the best location for the facility.

Potentially adverse effects to fish and wildlife had the next greatest number of comments; 

including concerns of impact to high-quality marine and terrestrial wilderness areas such as the 

Moosehorn NWR and several Canadian nature preserves. Concern for sensitive species was also 

the subject of comments, specifically the bald eagle, Atlantic salmon, New England cottontail, 

and several marine mammals. Socioeconomic concerns were the next highest category of public 

comment, including concerns for the potential adverse effects on tourism, commercial fishing, 

United States-Canadian economic relations, property values in proximity to the project facilities, 

and benefits from increased jobs and tax revenues. Various safety issues were also raised, 

including safeguards against terrorist attacks, accidental explosions (vessel and/or terminal), and 

available emergency response personnel or equipment for such events.

Other categories of comments, listed in order of number of comments received, included

threatened and endangered species; water quality; vessel transit through Canadian waters; 

wetlands; cumulative effects; noise; visual effects; cultural resources; land use; air quality; 

vegetation; recreation; and geology and soils. Table 1.4-1 summarizes the major issues raised 

during the scoping process and the section of this EIS where these concerns are discussed.
1-15 1.0 – Introduction

TABLE 1.4-1

Issues Identified and Comments Received During the

Public Scoping Process for the Downeast LNG Project

Issue Comment

Section Where 

Comment/Issue Addressed 

in EIS:

General Procedural issues, LNG vessel transit through Canadian waters, increased 

industrial activity, applicant/agency attention to local stakeholder input

1.3, 1.4, 1.5

Purpose and Need The EIS should include a discussion of how much LNG is needed in New 

England – now and in the future, and whether or not other proposed projects 

in the United States or Canada could adequately meet that demand

1.1, 3.2

Project Description Siting of project, construction options, design, construction and operation, 

marine navigation, pipeline routes, increased traffic and crime potential

2.0, 2.3, 2.6, 2.7, 4.8, 4.9, 4.12

Alternatives Alternative construction sites and pipeline corridors to reduce environmental 

impact, alternative energy sources to LNG, alternative regasification and 

pollution control techniques

3.2, 3.4, 3.5, 3.6, 3.8

Geology Seismic instability of the region, presence of Oak Bay Fault, regional 

subsidence 

4.1.4.1, 4.1.4.3

Soils Shoreline and submerged lands erosion, ground heaving in winter, 

sedimentation from dredging and operations

4.2.1, 4.2.4, 4.2.8

Water Resources Vernal pools, stream crossings, dredging effects, water uptake for cooling and 

ballast, private and public well water impacts, surface and groundwater 

pollution, discharges/sediment plumes into coastal waters, turbidity, water 

circulation, impacts to marine and aquatic organisms

4.3.1, 4.3.2, 4.5.2, 4.13.1

Wetlands Minimizing impacts on wetlands, identification along pipeline routes, 

preparation of a wetlands assessment, buffer zones to protect wetlands and 

associated animals

2.3.2.2, 4.4.1, 4.13.2

Vegetation Impacts on streamside (riparian) vegetation, deforestation, rare plant species 

near pipeline routes, herbicide application

2.3.2.2, 2.6.2, 4.4.2

Fish and Wildlife Effect on habitat, designated wildlife refuges and managed areas, fish and 

Essential Fish Habitat, birds, deer, lobster and other shellfish, marine 

mammals, acoustic effects, effects on all life stages of organisms

4.5, 4.13.3, 4.13.4, 

Appendix C

Threatened and 

Endangered 

Species

Atlantic Salmon, bald eagles and their nesting sites, whales including the right 

whale, leatherback sea turtles, plant species

4.6, 4.13.3, Appendix C

Land Use Impact of industry in nonindustrial areas, pier location and use, impact on 

Moosehorn National Wildlife Refuge and other protected areas, right-of-way 

on private property

3.5.1, 4.7.2, 4.7.3, 4.13.8

Recreation Boating, access to beaches, whale watching, sea-kayaking, fishing, birding, 

encroachment of ATV use along pipeline corridors

4.7.3, 4.13.8

Visual Impacts Views disrupted by the pier and terminal, Maine Rule for Assessing and 

Mitigating Impacts to Scenic and Aesthetic Uses (Chapter 315 of NRPA), 

lighting (especially at night), treed buffers, disruption to wildlife, 

landscaping/mowing 

4.7.4, 4.13.8

Socioeconomics Property values, impacts on tourism, fisheries and aquaculture industries,

insurance costs

4.8.2, 4.13.7

Cultural 

Resources 

Native American cultural issues, unanticipated discoveries, and potential 

impacts on Saint Croix Island International Historic Site, the Roosevelt 

Campobello International Park, and prehistoric fish weir sites 

4.7.3, 4.10, 4.13.6

Air Quality Emissions from terminal and vessels, health effects of emissions on humans 

and wildlife, air quality at national parks

4.11.1, 4.13.5

Noise Duration of noise and impact on landowners in proximity to facility, noise at 

night, vessel noise and marine mammals

4.11.2, 4.13.5

Reliability and 

Safety

Local emergency response, accident data, terrorism, construction safety, 

navigation hazards

2.7, 4.8.5.2, 4.12
1.0 – Introduction 1-16

TABLE 1.4-1

Issues Identified and Comments Received During the

Public Scoping Process for the Downeast LNG Project

Issue Comment

Section Where 

Comment/Issue Addressed 

in EIS:

Cumulative 

Impacts

Combined impact of Downeast, Quoddy Bay, and other LNG terminals and

pipelines

4.13

M&NE 

Downstream 

Expansion

Additional environmental and other impacts from a pipeline expansion; 

requirement for expansion if Downeast is built

1.0

The draft EIS was issued on May 15, 2009, and mailed to federal, state, and local government 

agencies; elected officials; Native American tribes; local libraries and newspapers; intervenors to 

the FERC’s proceeding; landowners; and other interested parties. The distribution list was 

included as Appendix A of the draft EIS. The draft EIS was also submitted to the EPA for 

issuing its formal public Notice of Availability (NOA) in the FR. The public had 45 days after 

the date of EPA’s notice in the FR to review and comment on the draft EIS, ending on 

July 6, 2009.

The FERC held one public comment meeting during the draft EIS comment period 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 project as described in 

the draft EIS. Additionally, a total of 112 letters were sent in response to the draft EIS. All 

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

the meeting and copies of each comment are part of the public record for this project. The FERC 

staff’s responses to relevant comments on the draft EIS are provided in Appendix S of this final 

EIS. Substantive changes in the final EIS are indicated by vertical bars that appear in the 

margins. The changes were made both in response to comments received on the draft EIS and as 

a result of updated information that became available after the issuance of the draft EIS.

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

mailed to the agencies, individuals, and organizations on the mailing list, and was filed with the 

EPA for issuance of a formal NOA in the FR. 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 in the FR to review and comment on the Supplemental draft EIS, ending on 

May 20, 2013. A total of 84 letters were sent in response to the Supplemental draft EIS in time 

for inclusion in the final EIS; these comments have been addressed in this final EIS and are also 

included in Appendix T as applicable.

This final EIS is being mailed to the agencies, individuals, and organizations on the mailing list 

in Appendix A, and was filed with the EPA for issuance of a formal public NOA in the FR. In 

accordance with CEQ regulations implementing NEPA, no agency decision on the proposed 

action may be made until 30 day after the EPA publishes a Notice of Availability of the final EIS 

in the Federal Register. However, CEQ regulations provide an exception to this rule when an 

agency decision is subject to a formal internal appeal process that allows other agencies or the 

public to make their views known. This is the case at the FERC, where any Commission 
1-17 1.0 – Introduction

decision on the proposed action would be subject to a 30-day rehearing period. Therefore, the 

FERC decision may be made and recorded concurrently with the publication of the final EIS.

1.5 CORRESPONDENCE WITH CANADIAN GOVERNMENT

In a letter dated April 7, 2006 from the Canadian Ambassador, and a letter dated May 2, 2006 

from the Premier of New Brunswick, the following three concerns were stated in opposition to 

the proposed Downeast and the previously proposed Quoddy Bay LNG facilities6 on the Maine 

side of Passamaquoddy Bay: (1) the navigational challenges of the proposed transit route through 

Head Harbour Passage, Passamaquoddy Bay, and its approaches; (2) the impact of safety and 

security zones associated with LNG vessels; and (3) the impact of accidents such as spills from 

the facilities or vessels. These concerns are cited as negatively impacting the health and safety 

of the local residents, the economic viability of fishing and tourism in the region, and the pristine 

environment of the region. In the letter from the Canadian Embassy, the concerns were also the 

basis for the decision by the Canadian government to conduct its own study of the navigational, 

safety, environmental, and other impacts of these projects.

In response to these letters, the Commission sent a letter to the Canadian Coast Guard, Canadian 

Environmental Assessment Agency, Environment Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, 

Foreign Affairs Canada, and Transport Canada on June 19, 2006, requesting input on: (1) the 

impact of LNG vessel traffic on other Passamaquoddy Bay Waterway and St. Croix River users, 

including fishing and recreational boaters near Deer Island, Campobello Island, and Saint 

Andrews; (2) the potential impacts on Canadian tourism, including whale watching tours and 

kayaking excursions, and aquaculture facilities; (3) potential noise and visual impacts on Saint 

Andrews’ residents from the LNG terminals; and (4) the potential impact of LNG vessel traffic 

transiting through Head Harbour Passage and Passamaquoddy Bay into the mouth of the 

St. Croix River on sensitive species (e.g., whales, turtles, etc.), sensitive ecosystems, and 

environmentally sensitive areas. This request effectively covered all concerns outlined by the 

Canadian government to this date.

On October 11, 2006, the Premier of New Brunswick, Shawn Graham, submitted a letter 

requesting the Province of New Brunswick to be a formal intervener in the U.S. regulatory 

process. The request was premature since an application had not been filed with the FERC. The 

letter outlined the same concerns given in the two previous letters as the basis for this decision,

but also stated that Downeast should be held financially responsible for all economic and 

environmental impact studies, all mitigation costs including the cost of increased emergency 

services, any negative impact on existing fishing and tourism industries, and all necessary 

compensation to New Brunswick and its people. The motion also declared that “New Brunswick 

intends to urge the appropriate federal authorities in Canada, including the Canadian Coast 

Guard, to initiate such proceedings to review the proposed transit in order to determine under 

what conditions Canadian waters may be suitable for LNG vessel transit. Such review should 

include the transit up the Western Passage, through the entrance to Passamaquoddy Bay and the 

St. Croix River because the US-Canadian border traverses through the waters.”

 6 In an Order issued October 17, 2008, the FERC dismissed the Quoddy Bay LNG application.
1.0 – Introduction 1-18

On January 22, 2007, the Province of New Brunswick formally filed a Motion for Leave to 

Intervene and Comment. On February 14, 2007, the Canadian Ambassador filed a letter stating 

that the Government of Canada will not permit LNG vessels to pass through Head Harbour 

Passage. The letter stated that this decision was based on the study announced in the letter dated 

April 7, 2006. The letter stated that the study found that the impact of the proposed siting of the 

terminals, and the potential passage of LNG vessels through the environmentally sensitive and 

navigationally challenging marine and coastal areas of the sovereign Canadian waters of Head 

Harbour Passage present risks to the region of southwest New Brunswick and its inhabitants that 

the Government of Canada cannot accept. 

The Province of New Brunswick filed a Motion to Suspend Proceedings for both the Downeast 

and Quoddy Bay LNG Projects on February 26, 2007, stating that because the Government of 

Canada decided to prohibit LNG vessel traffic from passing through the Head Harbour Passage, 

the projects were no longer viable. On June 1, 2007, the Commission issued an Order that

denied this Motion to Suspend Proceedings. The Commission recognizes that such issues of 

international law are beyond its purview. However, the Commission does not agree with New 

Brunswick that the Commission should exercise its discretion to suspend proceedings because 

issues relating to LNG vessel passage through Canadian waters have not yet been resolved. 

Therefore, Commission staff has continued its review of the proposed Downeast LNG Project

and prepared this EIS.

On March 2, 2007, we responded to the Canadian government and requested a copy of the study

prepared by the Canadian government. We also stated that the FERC staff would continue to 

prepare an EIS for both the Quoddy Bay and Downeast LNG Projects, since neither applicant 

had withdrawn its respective application (we note that Quoddy Bay LNG’s application was 

dismissed without prejudice by the Commission in October 2008). The letter also requested the 

appropriate Canadian environmental, coastal, and navigational safety agencies assist the FERC 

staff and the Coast Guard in our analysis. The Government of Canada provided a copy of 

A Study of the Anticipated Impacts from the Development of Liquefied Natural Gas Terminals on 

Passamaquoddy Bay (Canadian Study) (SENES 2007) to the Commission in October 2007. 

On March 9, 2007, the U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Legal Affairs sent a letter to Maine 

Senator Olympia Snowe, stating the “attempts to short-circuit the FERC process are 

inappropriate” and that “all vessels enjoy a non-suspendable right of innocent passage...through 

Head Harbour Passage.” It also emphasized the “appropriateness and potential value of Canada 

and the relevant province participating in the FERC process.” 

In response to the draft EIS, in letters dated July 2, 2009 and December 4, 2012 from the Premier 

of New Brunswick, and letters dated July 7, 2009, and February 3, 2010 from the Canadian 

Ambassador, these representatives reiterated the Government of Canada’s opposition to the 

passage of LNG tankers through Head Harbour Passage in New Brunswick. Reasons cited 

included Canada’s historic title to these waters and the right to control and regulate use, and 

concerns regarding navigation safety and environmental impacts. In a February 26, 2010 

response, the Commission stated that it recognizes the Canadian Government’s concerns and that 

issues relating to LNG tanker passage through Canadian waters have not yet been resolved, but 

noted that it is necessary for the Commission staff to continue processing the application for the 

project so that the project can be put before the Commission for a decision. The position of the 
1-19 1.0 – Introduction

Canadian government will be considered by the Commission when it makes its decision on the 

proposal.

In response to the Supplemental draft EIS, in a letter dated May 17, 2013, the Canadian 

Ambassador reiterated the Government of Canada’s opposition to the passage of LNG tankers 

through Head Harbour Passage in New Brunswick, citing concerns regarding navigation safety

and environmental and economic impacts, as well as Canada’s historic title to these waters and 

the right to control and regulate its use. In a June 18, 2013 response, the Commission stated that 

is has a legal obligation to continue processing the Downcast LNG Project application so that all 

the issues can be properly documented before it makes a decision on the proposal. 

In addition to these letters, there has been other correspondence from Downeast, Quoddy Bay, 

and Maine SPO in response to the motions to suspend proceedings and the rights of passage for 

LNG vessels through Head Harbour Passage.

This EIS addresses environmental, navigation, safety, and security concerns that have been 

identified during the EIS scoping process, including issues and concerns raised in the Canadian 

Study (SENES 2007). It addresses the resources that would be affected by the project and 

analyzes the project’s impacts and compliance with U.S. laws and regulations. It also addresses 

resources on the Canadian side to the extent that they would be affected by the project based on 

information provided by Downeast, our own research, and information provided in the Canadian 

Study (SENES 2007). We have evaluated and provided protective mitigation measures for 

species and resources that may be present along the waterway based on U.S. laws and 

regulations discussed in section 1.3. However, we have not specifically addressed measures that 

may be required by Canadian regulations. The Coast Guard’s WSR recommends that Downeast 

develop standard operating parameters to be approved by the Coast Guard and coordinated with 

the Government of Canada, as well as a Transit Management Plan that outlines the roles and 

responsibilities of federal, state/provincial, and local stakeholders. The WSR also recommends

that Downeast follow the Canadian maritime laws and regulations that comply with customary 

international law, including the right of non-suspendable innocent passage through an 

international strait. 

The following Canadian environmental laws and regulations may apply to aspects of this project. 

Many of them are similar to our laws and regulations discussed in section 1.3.

Federal Species at Risk Act (SARA)

The purposes of SARA are to prevent Canadian indigenous species, subspecies, and distinct 

populations from becoming extirpated or extinct, to provide for the recovery of endangered or 

threatened species, and to encourage the management of other species to prevent them from 

becoming at risk. SARA prohibits killing, harming, harassing, capturing, or taking listed 

species, and destroying their associated habitats. Regulatory agencies overseeing jurisdictional 

enforcement of SARA include Environment Canada, Parks Canada, and Fisheries and Oceans 

Canada. Currently, there are over 400 species afforded protection under this act.

Fisheries Act

The Fisheries Act provides the legislative authority for the management and regulation of 

fisheries (salt and fresh water), including access, control over the conditions of harvesting, and 
1.0 – Introduction 1-20

enforcement regulations. In addition to allocating the right to fish, protecting fish and fish 

habitat is a major focus of the act. The requirements of the Fisheries Act apply to all lands: 

public, private, and aboriginal. Fisheries and Oceans Canada is the primary agency responsible 

for enforcement of the regulations associated with the act, though Environment Canada enforces 

regulations associated with portions of the act under the Pollution Prevention Provisions, 

Section 36(3).

Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA)

The purpose of CEPA is to prevent pollution and protect the environment and human health. 

Legislation under CEPA establishes permitting processes and regulations for the production, 

transport, and release of listed toxic substances, emissions from vehicles, engines, and 

equipment, and the disposal of substances at sea. The law also provides for the gathering of 

information for research, creating inventories of data, risk assessment, and developing 

objectives, guidelines, and codes of practice. Permitting and regulatory enforcement under 

CEPA is administered by Environment Canada.

Canada Water Act

The Canada Water Act enables the federal and provincial governments to make joint 

arrangements for water resources and water quality management in Canadian waters, and 

regulates discharge into water resources. The Canada Water Act is administered by Environment 

Canada.

Navigable Waters Act

The Navigable Waters Act is designed to protect the public right of navigation in Canadian 

waters by prohibiting the building, placing, or maintaining of any work whatsoever in, on, over, 

under, through, or across any such navigable water, without the authorization of the Minister of 

Fisheries and Oceans Canada.

Migratory Birds Convention Act (MBCA)

Under the MBCA, the Canadian government has the authority to pass and enforce regulations to 

protect migratory bird species, which are included in the Migratory Birds Convention of 1916 

between Canada and the United States. In Canada, the MBCA is administered by the Wildlife 

Enforcement Division of Environment Canada. Enforcement of the act and regulations is the 

responsibility of the Canadian Wildlife Service, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and 

provincial or territorial law enforcement authorities.

New Brunswick Endangered Species Act

The New Brunswick Endangered Species Act (Chapter E-9.101) protects two categories of 

species: endangered and regionally endangered. The act prohibits possessing, harming, 

harassing, disturbing, and/or killing individual members of listed species and destroying critical 

habitat for these species. 
1-21 1.0 – Introduction

1.6 NONJURISDICTIONAL FACILITIES

Under Sections 3 and 7 of the NGA, the FERC considers all relevant factors bearing on the 

public convenience and necessity as part of a decision to approve jurisdictional facilities. The 

jurisdictional facilities for the Downeast LNG Project include the proposed LNG terminal 

facilities and proposed new natural gas pipeline and its associated aboveground facilities. 

Occasionally, proposed projects have associated facilities that do not come under the jurisdiction 

of the Commission.

There is one nonjurisdictional facility related to this project, a new electric transmission line with 

a new electric substation. These are discussed in section 2.9 of this EIS.